Where are you at on this whole team name change thing?

Talk about the Washington Redskins here. Do you bleed burgundy and gold?
---
User avatar
Posts: 18553
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 12:55 pm
Location: AJT

Postby Chris Luva Luva » Fri May 10, 2013 10:00 am

SkinsJock wrote:
Chris Luva Luva wrote:Dan... You're not helping.


:lol: - good luck with that - at least he's staying away from the things that really matter ..

He just cannot seem to stay away from things ... the team name is NOT changing but NOT because of anything that Dan does or feels - he just has to flame the issue and grab some attention


Dan has an innate ability to make people hate him. LOL That was the least tactful thing he could have done. Dan both you and RGIII need to STFU. Let Bruce talk, he's the face, not you.
Fios - Arbiter of All Positive Knowledge

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

Hog
Online
User avatar
Posts: 4189
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 4:29 pm
Location: Montclair, Virginia

Postby riggofan » Fri May 10, 2013 10:08 am

Deadskins wrote:
riggofan wrote:And white is not an ethnic slur no matter how much you want to stretch it. Its an adjective.

And Red isn't? So, it's the attachment of the word "skins" that makes "Redskins" a slur, but "white" not one? Isn't the "skin" implied when using "white" to refer to a person's race? Is it just that having "white" skin is preferable to having "red" skin? That sounds inherantly racist to me. :-k


Redskin is an ethnic slur because of how it was historically used. But don't let that get in the way of your incredibly awesome argument, Rush.

---
User avatar
Posts: 18553
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 12:55 pm
Location: AJT

Postby Chris Luva Luva » Fri May 10, 2013 10:25 am

After doing some reading of my own. It seems as though the term started off as a term of endearment amongst other native folk. However, it is not known if they used the word "redskin" in their native tongue. However, it appears that this is what it translated to for us. Moving forward, the term transformed into as all do into something different. It than begin to be used by the "white skins" in the 1700's during a time of great blood shed. As we all know, the natives were killed off and bounties were put on their heads. Hunters have to provide scalps to prove that they accomplished their task, thus the term "redskin" was used.


So yes, it is a derogatory term. And yes, it is a term of endearment. As I stated in my first post, it is my opinion that the offenders (you and I) do not get to tell the offended (natives) how to feel. If they are truly offended and the name is changed, so be it. As a black man, I've been told by offenders that I should not be offended by a certain thing or two and honestly IMO, they don't have the right to. So, I don't have the right to tell anyone else how to feel. I respect it.


When people say, well... Why aren't they speaking up? They have, supporting both ends of the argument. But realize native Americans are 1% of our population. There are black people who feel like their voices aren't heard. There are whites, some of whom work within arms reach of me who feel their voices are being drowned out. Our Latino population feels the same way. We all represent a vastly larger percentage of the population, so what do you truly expect from 1%?

The people ringing the bell on this are being offended for the offended... I'd much rather have an open dialogue with those who are offended. Give them a platform from which to speak so that their voices can be heard.
Fios - Arbiter of All Positive Knowledge

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

JSPB22
Online
User avatar
Posts: 15738
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 9:03 am
Location: Location, LOCATION!

Postby Deadskins » Fri May 10, 2013 10:37 am

riggofan wrote:
Deadskins wrote:
riggofan wrote:And white is not an ethnic slur no matter how much you want to stretch it. Its an adjective.

And Red isn't? So, it's the attachment of the word "skins" that makes "Redskins" a slur, but "white" not one? Isn't the "skin" implied when using "white" to refer to a person's race? Is it just that having "white" skin is preferable to having "red" skin? That sounds inherantly racist to me. :-k


Redskin is an ethnic slur because of how it was historically used. But don't let that get in the way of your incredibly awesome argument, Rush.

Yeah, me and Rush are two peas in a pod. Can you site this historical use of "Redskin" as a slur for me? I can site examples of it being used by Native Americans as a term of self-reference. I've also heard the term "white" used as a slur. You've never heard the term "white devil" or "whitey" used in a derogatory manner? Just because a word has been used as a slur by some in the past, does not make its use as the name for our favorite team a slur. :idea:
Last edited by Deadskins on Sat May 11, 2013 7:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.


Hog Bowl IV Champion (2012)

Hail to the Redskins!

FanFromAnnapolis
Posts: 10962
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 6:01 pm
Location: on the bandwagon

Postby Irn-Bru » Sat May 11, 2013 6:16 am

Chris Luva Luva wrote:Dan... You're not helping.


I think it was great that he gave that answer. He was asked a question ad answered it, giving a straightforward, emphatic answer that reassures us fans. No squirming or anything like that.
"Last year I thought we'd win it all. This year I know we will." - Rex Ryan, on what would become the 8-8 2011 Jets

"Dream team." - Vince Young, on what would become the 8-8 2011 Eagles

Hog
Online
User avatar
Posts: 4189
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 4:29 pm
Location: Montclair, Virginia

Postby riggofan » Sat May 11, 2013 7:17 am

Deadskins wrote:Can you site this historical use of "Redskin" as a slur for me?


Dude, look in the dictionary.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/redskins?s=t

And no, I'm not going to go dig up historical citations where people used Redskins as a slur. I'll trust THE DICTIONARY that it was historically so.

Deadskins wrote:You've never heard the term "white devil" or "whitey" used in a derogatory manner?


Sure I have heard both. And yes, I agree that they are both slurs. They are also both nouns, right? Someone calling you "white" is most likely different from somebody calling you a "white devil". Someone calling another person "black" is different from calling someone a "black sonofa*****".

Deadskins wrote:Just because a word has been used as a slur by some in the past, does not make its use as the name for our favorite team a slur. :idea:


I COMPLETELY AGREE. But if your statement is true, then the CONVERSE IS TRUE TOO. The fact that our favorite team is not using the name as a slur, does NOT MEAN THAT THE WORD WAS NOT USED AS A SLUR IN THE PAST. :idea:

Hog
Online
User avatar
Posts: 4189
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 4:29 pm
Location: Montclair, Virginia

Postby riggofan » Sat May 11, 2013 7:18 am

Irn-Bru wrote:
Chris Luva Luva wrote:Dan... You're not helping.


I think it was great that he gave that answer. He was asked a question ad answered it, giving a straightforward, emphatic answer that reassures us fans. No squirming or anything like that.


I'm with you man.

cappster
Posts: 2955
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 10:25 am
Location: Humanist, at your service.

Postby Cappster » Sat May 11, 2013 7:57 am

riggofan wrote:
Irn-Bru wrote:
Chris Luva Luva wrote:Dan... You're not helping.


I think it was great that he gave that answer. He was asked a question ad answered it, giving a straightforward, emphatic answer that reassures us fans. No squirming or anything like that.


I'm with you man.


I agree with CLL on this issue. We shouldn't be so strident as to think that just, because the natives make up a small percentage of the population that the rest of us can tell them what they should think. Yeah, the name to us is tradition; however, if it is viewed as racist to the those who the name is modeled after, then I think we need to respect the culture who we claim to be respecting.
Sapphire AMD Radeon 6870, FTW!

Hog Bowl II Champion (2010)

Hog
Online
User avatar
Posts: 1882
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 2:36 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Postby emoses14 » Sat May 11, 2013 8:10 am

Irn-Bru wrote:
Chris Luva Luva wrote:Dan... You're not helping.


I think it was great that he gave that answer. He was asked a question ad answered it, giving a straightforward, emphatic answer that reassures us fans. No squirming or anything like that.


Other than thinking it was " great" I agree with what you said. Definitive short answer with not an ounce of interpretable wiggle. I thought it was appropriate for the owner of the team. Felt like what JKC woulda done.
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

#33
Posts: 4081
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 8:44 am

Postby skinsfan#33 » Sat May 11, 2013 8:45 am

Chris Luva Luva wrote:After doing some reading of my own. It seems as though the term started off as a term of endearment amongst other native folk. However, it is not known if they used the word "redskin" in their native tongue. However, it appears that this is what it translated to for us. Moving forward, the term transformed into as all do into something different. It than begin to be used by the "white skins" in the 1700's during a time of great blood shed. As we all know, the natives were killed off and bounties were put on their heads. Hunters have to provide scalps to prove that they accomplished their task, thus the term "redskin" was used.


So yes, it is a derogatory term. And yes, it is a term of endearment. As I stated in my first post, it is my opinion that the offenders (you and I) do not get to tell the offended (natives) how to feel. If they are truly offended and the name is changed, so be it. As a black man, I've been told by offenders that I should not be offended by a certain thing or two and honestly IMO, they don't have the right to. So, I don't have the right to tell anyone else how to feel. I respect it.


When people say, well... Why aren't they speaking up? They have, supporting both ends of the argument. But realize native Americans are 1% of our population. There are black people who feel like their voices aren't heard. There are whites, some of whom work within arms reach of me who feel their voices are being drowned out. Our Latino population feels the same way. We all represent a vastly larger percentage of the population, so what do you truly expect from 1%?

The people ringing the bell on this are being offended for the offended... I'd much rather have an open dialogue with those who are offended. Give them a platform from which to speak so that their voices can be heard.


There is nothing in your post that shows that Redskins was ever used as a derogatory phase. Sure it was used in an insensitive way to describe scalps, but that is obviously not how the Washington Redskins use it.

The term is now only associated with the Washington Redskins and is no longer used in an offensive manner. The only reason that people now think of it as a racist term is because of the media that has come from the law suits.

The plain simple fact is no one calls Native Americans Redskins any more unless they think they played for the Washington Redskins.

Meanings of words change and this one is no longer associated with a racial slur.
"Dovie'andi se tovya sagain"
(It is time to roll the dice) Tai'shar Manetheren

"Duty is heavier than a Mountain, Death is lighter than a feather" Tai'shar Malkier

RIP James Oliver Rigney, Jr. 1948-2007

DarthMonk
Posts: 4120
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 4:58 pm

Postby DarthMonk » Sat May 11, 2013 9:11 am

No need to change the name. Just change the logo. :lol:

Image
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!

newbie
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 3:23 pm
Location: Stafford, Va

Postby Clark4HOF » Sat May 11, 2013 9:41 am

riggofan wrote:
Deadskins wrote:Can you site this historical use of "Redskin" as a slur for me?


Dude, look in the dictionary.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/redskins?s=t

And no, I'm not going to go dig up historical citations where people used Redskins as a slur. I'll trust THE DICTIONARY that it was historically so.

Deadskins wrote:You've never heard the term "white devil" or "whitey" used in a derogatory manner?


Sure I have heard both. And yes, I agree that they are both slurs. They are also both nouns, right? Someone calling you "white" is most likely different from somebody calling you a "white devil". Someone calling another person "black" is different from calling someone a "black sonofa*****".

Deadskins wrote:Just because a word has been used as a slur by some in the past, does not make its use as the name for our favorite team a slur. :idea:


I COMPLETELY AGREE. But if your statement is true, then the CONVERSE IS TRUE TOO. The fact that our favorite team is not using the name as a slur, does NOT MEAN THAT THE WORD WAS NOT USED AS A SLUR IN THE PAST. :idea:


Touchy subject to make my first post on, but here goes:

The whole dictionary defense is pretty worthless. None I have ever read, including the one you site, has listed midget as a perjorative to a Dwarf/Little Person. Yet if you ask them, they will tell you that it is definitely a perjorative. So someone, who has absolutely no clue what a perjorative is, is claiming something is a perjorative? Im confused as to why I should believe them.

One of the other problems with this whole issue is most people screaming against the name Redskins tend to call Indians "Native Americans" which, to a lot of Indians, is blatantly racist. You might want to actually talk TO them before you speak FOR them.

During the 1995 US Gov't Census, a questionnaire was sent out to the Indian Tribes. 50% of all Indian respondents said they preferred to be called either Indians or American Indians. Only 37% had a favorable view of the term Native American, which was primarily the young population. Older ones were much more against it. There reasoning is simple. When their ancestors owned the land, it wasnt called America. And when it became America, their land was stolen.

Of course, none of this even talks about Susan Harjo. When someone says to her something about the term Redskins that she does not like, her typical response is "Well thats mighty white of you". I would love for someone to tell me that isnt racist. Great... I have racists calling me racist because I dont believe in their racist ideals... Awesome.

Lets also not forget, unless you consider Cheifs, Braves, ect to be racist, then you are doing a disservice to every Indian that you are claiming to defend. They are against them all, they claim every last one is racist. Amanda Blackhorse, the younger female Indian who is slowly taking over for Susan Harjo, was asked a question about if she believes that all Indians usage is racist and she answered with an emphatic "Yes". When she was asked why they were only suing for the name Redskins to be done away with and not all of them. Her response was basically (im paraphrasing as I dont remember it word for word) that the Redskins would be the easiest to fall due to the perceived racial component, but that once that first name falls, it opens the doors for all of them to fall. She did say that she considers Redskins to be "more" racist, but that all of them were, in fact, racist.

Do the dictionaries list Indian, Brave, Chief, ect as racist? If not, then stop using that stupid dictionary defense when the Indians that you are defending flat out call the usage of those words... Racist.

Hog
Posts: 2355
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 10:56 am

Postby RayNAustin » Sat May 11, 2013 10:09 am

riggofan wrote:
jmooney wrote:I dont see where Redskins is any more offensive to Native Americans than the name Giants is to fat people.


This is EXACTLY what irritates about this stupid debate. That people on the pro-Redskins side play stupid about and refuse to acknowledge that the word "Redskins" is a slur and offensive to some people. I'm not expressing an opinion here I'm giving you a FACT. Look it up in the freaking dictionary.

red·skin
[red-skin]
noun Slang: Often Disparaging and Offensive.
a North American Indian.
— n an old-fashioned informal name, now considered taboo, for a Native American


I don't think we should change the name. But I'd love to see fans quit playing dumb about it and arguing that this small minority of people is crazy for being offended. They're not.

They're also not getting the name changed ever and need to get over it. This is just a way for people to get their names in the papers periodically.


The error in this entire debate is in the false politically correct assumption that actions can and should be taken to avoid offending people, when the goal itself is a fools errand. People WILL ALWAYS find a reason to be offended by something, and no effort or action will ever change that reality. In fact, efforts and actions intended to facilitate this Utopian ideal of universal inoffensiveness only feeds this gluttonous beast whose appetite can never be satisfied, ensuring that the fight rages on indefinitely, and with no possible satisfactory conclusion.

By entertaining this type of foolishness only gives the debate legitimacy and life it doesn't deserve, because no one has ever been guaranteed an existence free of being offended. The Constitution makes no promise that you have a right to live without being offended, nor can I even find a scriptural reference to such. Even the Declaration of Independence declares that we all have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, with the obvious insinuation that the happiness part is a "pursuit", with no guarantee or right of successful outcome of that pursuit. Some people don't want to be happy ... or at least their behavior suggests that is the case, and no one else can do anything to make someone else happy, when they choose not to be.

But for you to suggest that Redskin fans are "playing dumb", is just another gross distortion of reality. That is YOUR opinion that the term "Redskin" is offensive, and that anyone who disagrees is wrong, or playing "dumb". The term Redskin as used in the team name cannot possibly be intended as a slur or an offense for the BLOODY OBVIOUS REASON that no one would name themselves a disparaging name. Would you expect to see "Detroit Dummies" as a potential name for a sports team? The Pittsburgh Punks? The Indianapolis Idiots? Nebraska Nitwits? The argument that Redskin is an inherently racist and offensive name fails immediately given that disparaging names are issued to others to whom the issuer wishes to offend, and not adopted for themselves. Of course, this logical conclusion requires at least two brain cells, and 5 seconds of careful thought, which seems to be too much to expect from some people.

While no one can control what may offend some people today, or what might offend them tomorrow should they run out of reasons to moan and groan, the message should be GROW UP and quit acting like 5 year olds. With all of the legitimate issues and problems facing the Native American community, this woman's quest to force a name change is a disgraceful waste of time, effort and expense, all of which would better serve the community she claims to be "defending" should they be directed in more needed and productive areas. This is classic liberal lunacy in action, and mental illness should not be humored and appeased, but instead, called out.

Furthermore, there has been some serious research performed regarding the etiology of the term "Redskin" which seems to show that the term was first adopted and used as a self reference by Native Americans as an inoffensive term to distinguish themselves from the "White Man" or "White-Skin" , as discussed in this article:

A Linguist's Alternative History of 'Redskin'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01139.html

This debate is not unlike so many other modern manifestations of people demonstrating their childishness, and distorted priorities which are consuming time and resources that would be better directed in so many other needed and more relevant areas. The fact is, the history of how Native Americans were and still are treated by the US Government is an outrage that has never received even the appropriate level of lip service, let alone measurable action. Every treaty and agreement made with Native tribes were summarily broken, with the obvious conclusion that there was never an honorable intension to keep those promises. That's what needs to be addressed ... not this absurd quest to change the name of a football team.

In my opinion, Suzan Shown Harjo is just another of the liberal loon activist carnival barkers who have way too much time on their hands, of which we already have far too many, and whose actions are divisive and counterproductive, and disingenuous. If she wanted to do something beneficial, she'd be focussing on solutions to the raging poverty and deplorable conditions affecting so many Native Americans living on "reservations", which could use, and more greatly deserve a US government "Bail Out" way more than the group of financial banker gangsters who have received TRILLIONS over the past few years. Why doesn't she direct her efforts to affect real benefits to the Native American communities that are suffering greatly, by demanding just compensation for REAL DEBTS OWED Native Americans? The answer is, she's a political hack who is suffering the mental disorder called "Progressive Liberalism", and should be told to go find something useful to do with her time, starting with professional counseling to uncover the true source of her unhappiness, which could not possibly involve the name of a football team.

CKRGiii
Posts: 4025
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 2:56 pm
Location: 505 New Mexico repn

Postby cowboykillerzRGiii » Sat May 11, 2013 10:59 am

Clark4HOF wrote:
riggofan wrote:
Deadskins wrote:Can you site this historical use of "Redskin" as a slur for me?


Dude, look in the dictionary.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/redskins?s=t

And no, I'm not going to go dig up historical citations where people used Redskins as a slur. I'll trust THE DICTIONARY that it was historically so.

Deadskins wrote:You've never heard the term "white devil" or "whitey" used in a derogatory manner?


Sure I have heard both. And yes, I agree that they are both slurs. They are also both nouns, right? Someone calling you "white" is most likely different from somebody calling you a "white devil". Someone calling another person "black" is different from calling someone a "black sonofa*****".

Deadskins wrote:Just because a word has been used as a slur by some in the past, does not make its use as the name for our favorite team a slur. :idea:


I COMPLETELY AGREE. But if your statement is true, then the CONVERSE IS TRUE TOO. The fact that our favorite team is not using the name as a slur, does NOT MEAN THAT THE WORD WAS NOT USED AS A SLUR IN THE PAST. :idea:


Touchy subject to make my first post on, but here goes:

The whole dictionary defense is pretty worthless. None I have ever read, including the one you site, has listed midget as a perjorative to a Dwarf/Little Person. Yet if you ask them, they will tell you that it is definitely a perjorative. So someone, who has absolutely no clue what a perjorative is, is claiming something is a perjorative? Im confused as to why I should believe them.

One of the other problems with this whole issue is most people screaming against the name Redskins tend to call Indians "Native Americans" which, to a lot of Indians, is blatantly racist. You might want to actually talk TO them before you speak FOR them.

During the 1995 US Gov't Census, a questionnaire was sent out to the Indian Tribes. 50% of all Indian respondents said they preferred to be called either Indians or American Indians. Only 37% had a favorable view of the term Native American, which was primarily the young population. Older ones were much more against it. There reasoning is simple. When their ancestors owned the land, it wasnt called America. And when it became America, their land was stolen.

Of course, none of this even talks about Susan Harjo. When someone says to her something about the term Redskins that she does not like, her typical response is "Well thats mighty white of you". I would love for someone to tell me that isnt racist. Great... I have racists calling me racist because I dont believe in their racist ideals... Awesome.

Lets also not forget, unless you consider Cheifs, Braves, ect to be racist, then you are doing a disservice to every Indian that you are claiming to defend. They are against them all, they claim every last one is racist. Amanda Blackhorse, the younger female Indian who is slowly taking over for Susan Harjo, was asked a question about if she believes that all Indians usage is racist and she answered with an emphatic "Yes". When she was asked why they were only suing for the name Redskins to be done away with and not all of them. Her response was basically (im paraphrasing as I dont remember it word for word) that the Redskins would be the easiest to fall due to the perceived racial component, but that once that first name falls, it opens the doors for all of them to fall. She did say that she considers Redskins to be "more" racist, but that all of them were, in fact, racist.

Do the dictionaries list Indian, Brave, Chief, ect as racist? If not, then stop using that stupid dictionary defense when the Indians that you are defending flat out call the usage of those words... Racist.


Great first post!
Much more thought out then mine I'm sure...
Welcome to the site first of all! Sounds like you'll fit right in lmmfao

Anyway... Good points for both sides, but ultimately the sensitivity of Americans has gotten out of hand. I'd venture to say most that oppose the name, do more so as a political standpoint over any personal offenses. I think its an old tired subject that was equally lame 20 years ago. If they change it one day, I forsee all team names other then animals under the gun too- which is ludicrous. Oakland raiders couldn't even be the Oakland pirates with out some one with "pirate" blood, be it hundreds of years removed, getting bent out of shape.
I feel most of the people against it are searching for that spotlight and just want attention. I know if I didn't agree with a teams name I'd just not support them... Wouldn't even write a crybaby blog about it, what waste of time. You don't like chic fila's owners stance on gay marriage? Don't enjoy a delicious sangwich with impeccable service then!

On a side note, those in opposition NEVER even dawned the fabled "red" war paint, so how then are they even worthy enough to call it disrespectful?! In fact its disrespectful that they don't respect those that faught and died in battle and EARNED the Redskins name. Smfh
#21 forever in our hearts
...and yet ANOTHER record setting performance by "RG3 the third"!!!!
“I wanted to just… put his lights out ….because, you know, …Dallas sucks…” - Dexter Manley

CKRGiii
Posts: 4025
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 2:56 pm
Location: 505 New Mexico repn

Postby cowboykillerzRGiii » Sat May 11, 2013 11:04 am

Great post Ray!

... One day ill take the time to articulate something that well on here.. one day lol
#21 forever in our hearts
...and yet ANOTHER record setting performance by "RG3 the third"!!!!
“I wanted to just… put his lights out ….because, you know, …Dallas sucks…” - Dexter Manley

Return to Hog Wash - Washington Redskins Football