Smithsonian Museum

Talk about the Washington Redskins here. Do you bleed burgundy and gold?
Hog
User avatar
Posts: 346
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: Grand Forks, ND

Postby DaveD1420 » Fri Feb 08, 2013 5:44 pm

How are these people cowards? They are in an open forum expressing their views. That sounds like the opposite of cowardice. Should they revert to such open confines as an Internet message board?

I've mentioned this before, but we just went through all of this here at the Univ. of North Dakota with the name Fighting Sioux, a nickname since 1933 and home to more national championships that the Redskins. There's no more Fighting Sioux nickname, and we survived. Fans of the name Redskins will too. I, for one, hope they do change it and be done with the name and the arguments forever. Years from now people will be in disbelief that the name was even used as long as it was, the way we are looking back on such names as the Pekin Chinks and the Eastern Washington Savages. Time to move on and be on the right side of history.

And no, I'm not offended by the name Redskins, just as I wasn't offended by Fighting Sioux.

Hog
User avatar
Posts: 1925
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 2:36 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Postby emoses14 » Fri Feb 08, 2013 6:23 pm

Countertrey wrote:I'm offended by the name Cowboys... do you think they will change it?


I certainly hope so. I'm offended by it, too.

Also:

Fighting Irish
BlueDevils
Yankees
Heat
Ravens
and
Crimson (that's a damn color Harvard, come on)
I know he got a pretty good zip on the ball. He has a quick release. . . once I seen a coupla' throws, I was just like 'Yeah, he's that dude.'"

-Santana Moss on Our QB

Hog
User avatar
Posts: 1925
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 2:36 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Postby emoses14 » Fri Feb 08, 2013 6:27 pm

HTTRRG3ALMO wrote:
Chris Luva Luva wrote:
HTTRRG3ALMO wrote:If you're so offended by the name and can't move forward from the past, I advise you leave the country.


Well... I mean, they were kinda here first. I'm just saying. :lol: Your post made me think of the video below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsTHuY2b0bg


No dude not the Natives, the liberals acting all butt hurt. So tired of referencing the old survey that demonstrated most Natives had no issue with the name and that schools on reservations use the word Redskins.


:moon:
I know he got a pretty good zip on the ball. He has a quick release. . . once I seen a coupla' throws, I was just like 'Yeah, he's that dude.'"

-Santana Moss on Our QB

JSPB22
User avatar
Posts: 15881
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 9:03 am
Location: Location, LOCATION!

Postby Deadskins » Fri Feb 08, 2013 7:05 pm

HTTRRG3ALMO wrote:Ah so the Smithsonian is the real authority in the US? Man did I miss that one

What's interesting is that it was a historian for the Smithsonian, who discovered that the origin of the term "Redskins" is Native American. It was the name of an Illinois tribe. It is not a racist label made up by Europeans as so many of these offended parties seem to think. It is simply not a racist term. And the Indian head logo was created at the request of Native Americans as well. People go out of their way to be offended by things, when they really should educate themselves first.
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.


Hog Bowl IV Champion (2012)

Hail to the Redskins!

Hog
User avatar
Posts: 760
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 5:29 pm
Location: Washington, DC

Postby HTTRRG3ALMO » Fri Feb 08, 2013 8:14 pm

Deadskins wrote:
HTTRRG3ALMO wrote:Ah so the Smithsonian is the real authority in the US? Man did I miss that one

What's interesting is that it was a historian for the Smithsonian, who discovered that the origin of the term "Redskins" is Native American. It was the name of an Illinois tribe. It is not a racist label made up by Europeans as so many of these offended parties seem to think. It is simply not a racist term. And the Indian head logo was created at the request of Native Americans as well. People go out of their way to be offended by things, when they really should educate themselves first.


Couldn't agree with you more, and I also did not know that about the Illinois tribe...good grab!!

Perhaps boredom is what we're really dealing with here...people just trying to find ways to get themselves offended.

DarthMonk
Posts: 4222
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 4:58 pm

Postby DarthMonk » Fri Feb 08, 2013 9:18 pm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Redskin" is a racial descriptor for the indigenous peoples of the Americas and one of the color metaphors for race used in North America and Europe since European colonization of the Western Hemisphere. The term is controversial as it is considered to be the equivalent to "nigger" by some, but equivalent to "black" by others. The current consensus falls somewhere between these two extremes as having "usually negative" connotations.

Historic use

The term was used throughout the English-speaking world (and in equivalent transliterations in Europe) throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries as a common term of reference for indigenous Americans.

The term was once in common use, as evidenced in Western movies, but is now largely considered a pejorative and is seldom used publicly (aside from the football team - see below). As with any term perceived to be discriminatory, different individuals may hold differing opinions of the term's appropriateness. However, common wisdom appears to have settled on the notion that the term is a particularly egregious racial epithet that represents a bloody era in American history in which Indigenous Americans were hunted, killed, and forcibly displaced removed from their lands by European settlers.

The terms "Red People" and "Red Skinned" have also been used to refer to the people of the Indian sub-continent.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), the term "redskin" came from the reddish skin color of some Native Americans, as in the terms red Indian and red man. The OED cites instances of its usage in English dating back to the 17th century and cites a use of red in reference to skin color from 1587.

Multiple theories fight for prominence as to the true historical origin of the word. One theory, mentioned above, is that the term was meant as merely a physical indicator, similar to the words "white" and "black" for Caucasians and Africans, respectively.

Another theory holds that it was first used by Native Americans during the 1800s as a way of distinguishing themselves from the ever-growing white population. <----- Deadskins' Tribe from Illinois?



DarthMonk:

It is clear what red refers to - skin tone. The "first use" card is a tough one to play. I'd say no one cornered the market on first use. It really doesn't matter. All these tribes had their own languages and everything since then is, at best, a good translation which cannot provide us with current usage.

The actual citation form the Ives Goddard study is:

The French account from 1725 says
explicitly of the Taensa that “they call
themselves in their language ‘Red
Men’”

So this tribe called themselves something that a French man translated which comes out as "Red Men" in English now.

The same study goes on to say:

"Similarly, the Chickasaws in 1725 were probably already using the expression with the same basic meaning."

Furthermore,


"Creek (which, like Chickasaw, is a Muskogean language) was using the expression istichaáti (‘person’ + ‘red’) for ‘Indian’ as
early as 1738, when it appeared in a
vocabulary beside isti-lásti (‘person’ + ‘black’) for ‘Negro’
and isti-hátki (‘person’ + ‘white’) for ‘white person’.

Duh. Translations of translations of non-shockers.

I'd say "Redskin" based on skin color is a natural. I'm sure after meeting "palefaces" red men were talking and referring to "reds" and "whites" while white men were doing the same thing - basically as Goddard goes on to argue.

The question is this: Is "Redskin" pejorative now and if so, to what degree? We can all think of certain names which simply would not be allowed and it doesn't matter who said 'em first.

"Redskin" is clearly pejorative in a large swath of western movies - a dominant genre for more than a generation. Does that mean it is pejorative now in our culture? I'd say it was when I grew up. I'm not sure any more.

From roughly 1800 to say 1910 we (the US) were actively pursuing the destruction of a people. The generations of whites connected to that directly or through the continuity of recent culture are either dead or getting older. My son is not nearly as in touch with or sensitive to what I'd call a holocaust. Americans Indians (for lack of a better term) and a cultural consciousness of them barely exist now. They are a forgotten people.

As one who maintains a tribal affiliation I can really see both sides of this.
Hog Bowl III, V Champion (2011, 2013)

Hognostication Champion (2011, 2013)


Scalp 'em, Swamp 'em,
We will take 'em big score!
Read 'em, Weep 'em Touchdown,
We want heap more!

08 Champ
Online
Posts: 13052
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 9:23 pm
Location: on the bandwagon

Postby SkinsJock » Fri Feb 08, 2013 9:46 pm

I can agree that calling an American Indian a Redskin is not a good thing ..

no worries

I really cannot see myself being insensitive enough to use that term

however, calling or using the term Redskins in relation to the NFL is a huge honor and is in no way used or taken as a derogatory statement

Nobody should take offense at a group of players being termed giants or eagles or cowboys for that matter either even though they VERY obviously are not


this will all go away again soon ...
Minds are like parachutes, they only work when they are open

RG3 will benefit from having a full off season to prepare and a better 'fit' at both HC and OC

JSPB22
User avatar
Posts: 15881
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 9:03 am
Location: Location, LOCATION!

Postby Deadskins » Sat Feb 09, 2013 5:52 am

Ives Goddard is Senior Linguist in the Department of Anthropology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution. His research has focused on the Algonquian languages, especially Munsee, Unami, Massachusett, and Meskwaki.


I found the Goddard paper on the subject, here. One small excerpt:

The French texts were described as “an Exact Copy” of what the chiefs’ French interpreter had written. The first has “si quelques peaux Rouges” translated as “if any redskins,” and the second has “tout les peaux rouges” translated as “all the redskins.” The first appearances of redskin in English are thus as literal translations of what would be in standard French Peau-Rouge (in both cases the plural Peaux-Rouges), which is itself in a translation from a dialect of the Miami-Illinois language.


So I was incorrect in my remembering that it was the name of the actual tribe, but in fact, that is what the Illinois chief called his people.
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.


Hog Bowl IV Champion (2012)

Hail to the Redskins!

piggie
User avatar
Posts: 189
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 10:26 pm
Location: Frisco, Tejas

Postby fetus » Sat Feb 09, 2013 9:19 pm

emoses14 wrote:
fetus wrote:So retarded... let's really focus on this as the biggest world issue


Yes. Until all "big" world issues are resolved we should not spend any time on any other issue. Never mind that the Smithsonian isn't really handling any of those other issues, so talking about the Redskins name isn't slowing down the search for a cure for cancer.

Lookit, I love my Redskins, but I can also understand that if IFIFIFIFIFIFIFIF it is in fact offensive to many that my team is named "Redskins", then it is at some point going to end up with a change of their name. It won't be the end of the world.


Excuse my sarcasm, but this is a yearly pointless offseason argument, on par with Brett Favre retirement plans of the past.

The team uses this name to HONOR Native Americans, not in a derogatory sense.

If every person who got offended by anything got their way we would all have bleached skin, wear nothing, eat the same food everyday at the same time, have our voice boxes cut out and have shaved heads. Everyone would be a thoughtless clone, a zombie, taught to never think for themselves and not able to formulate an opinion.
RGIII and the terrible D

---
User avatar
Posts: 18570
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 12:55 pm
Location: AJT

Postby Chris Luva Luva » Sun Feb 10, 2013 11:39 am

fetus wrote:
The team uses this name to HONOR Native Americans, not in a derogatory sense.
.


If Native Americans find this name to be derogatory, there is no honor in it. And I don't buy for one second that this team honors them, it's a brand. A lucrative brand at this point. If at one point it's intention was to honor them, fine. But if by increased knowledge and sensitivity it's been revealed to be derogatory, it needs to be paid attention to.
Fios - Arbiter of All Positive Knowledge

Kaz - "Was kinda obvious since we all know you're not a moron"

piggie
User avatar
Posts: 189
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 10:26 pm
Location: Frisco, Tejas

Postby fetus » Sun Feb 10, 2013 12:40 pm

Well it was meant to honor them.... You can't change the way people feel about something, some feel like you and some feel like me.
I don't feel that the organization has done anything to market the name as derogatory, and this argument that seems to come up every offseason is nothing more than a poor attempt at pushing all of us toward political correctness that the government so desperately reaches for.
RGIII and the terrible D

08 Champ
Online
Posts: 13052
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 9:23 pm
Location: on the bandwagon

Postby SkinsJock » Sun Feb 10, 2013 1:11 pm

When the term Redskins is used in the context and marketing of the Washington DC franchise, I very much doubt that most Native Americans take it to be abusive towards them

I certainly agree that the term could be derogatory when used in describing a Native American but that's not what is happening here

AND

why do some of the comparisons come up - why would any franchise want to use a derogatory term in marketing their product
Minds are like parachutes, they only work when they are open

RG3 will benefit from having a full off season to prepare and a better 'fit' at both HC and OC

JSPB22
User avatar
Posts: 15881
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 9:03 am
Location: Location, LOCATION!

Postby Deadskins » Sun Feb 10, 2013 2:45 pm

SkinsJock wrote:I certainly agree that the term could be derogatory when used in describing a Native American

Why is that more derogatory than describing a Caucasian person as white?
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.


Hog Bowl IV Champion (2012)

Hail to the Redskins!

---
User avatar
Posts: 18570
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 12:55 pm
Location: AJT

Postby Chris Luva Luva » Sun Feb 10, 2013 2:50 pm

Deadskins wrote:
SkinsJock wrote:I certainly agree that the term could be derogatory when used in describing a Native American

Why is that more derogatory than describing a Caucasian person as white?


I'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume that you're Caucasian... Am I right?
Fios - Arbiter of All Positive Knowledge

Kaz - "Was kinda obvious since we all know you're not a moron"

Hog
User avatar
Posts: 346
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: Grand Forks, ND

Postby DaveD1420 » Sun Feb 10, 2013 4:40 pm

I don't think we can look at the historical use of the term to justify its use today. Just because the American Indians themselves used the term hundreds of years ago doesn't mean it's OK to use today. You can't view today through a lens developed that long ago. With all of the stupid things I said and did as a kid (all of which were deemed acceptable at the time, or at least viewed differently than today), I wouldn't even want my own childhood viewed through today's lens.

Return to Hog Wash - Washington Redskins Football