Redskins

[Granite]

I see from news reports that this was changed this very month.

Maybe in one particular dictionary (no idea which one you have in mind; hopefully you realize there's more than one) but the definition's been changing, or at the least considered distasteful, for quite a while:

http://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2013/12/01/why-is-the-word-redskin-so-offensive/

"In fact, it was not until the 1983 editions of Webster’s Third International Dictionary and Collegiate Dictionary, 9th Edition that the Miriam Webster Company, the country’s leading publisher of 'serious' dictionaries, added the cautionary phrase 'usually taken to be offensive,' to its previous definition of 'redskin...'"

Let's also remember the word was used to refer to the harvested scalp or genitalia of dead natives. Hardly a warm compliment.

How happy that must make you to know that your very words are now controlled by the Politically Correct Speech Nazis instead of being protected by the First Amendment.

I see someone stopped by the Hyperbole Store this morning.:yawn:

 

[genuineoriginal]

Let's also remember the word was used to refer to the harvested scalp or genitalia of dead natives. Hardly a warm compliment.

Or not.

Redskin is first recorded in the late 17th century and was applied to the Algonquian peoples generally, but specifically to the Delaware (who lived in what is now southern New York State and New York City, New Jersey, and eastern Pennsylvania). Redskin referred not to the natural skin color of the Delaware, but to their use of vermilion face paint and body paint.​

 

[Granite]

Or not.

Or yes.

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/news/redskin-name-update

The word didn't just have one meaning. But this was indeed one of them.

 

[IMJerusha]

Yes, it is. It's literally dictionary-defined at this point.

At this point? Granite, I'm holding a 1964 dictionary in my hand and redskin is defined as a noun for North American Indian...not derogatorily. It would appear that greed is not a sin confined solely to the paleface! Wasichu

And while it may state in some dictionaries that it is a pejorative, it does not change the historical fact that Indians once painted their skin red and Indians referred to themselves as red skinned. If the NFL team wants to shut down the suit, all they have to do is put a space in the team name.

The only thing these Wasichu are serving to do is cast the tribes into further obscurity and shame. My husband is ashamed of this behavior. Indians do not seek to become Wasichu.

 

[Granite]

At this point? Granite, I'm holding a 1964 dictionary in my hand and redskin is defined as a North American Indian...not derogatorily.

Wow, weird. It's 2014 last I checked.

 

[Town Heretic]

Leftwing snivelers are the ones who need to be informed, not do the informing. The only thing you can inform us about is how to cry like a little girl over any perceived slight. Excusing whining and dismissing being a mature adult. That's the sort of stupid idiot response I's expect from a lawyer or a leftwinger. Oh, wait a minute.........Translation: You like to cry and snivel instead of acting like a man.

I've never met a king who had to call himself one, to borrow.

Typical leftist. I get it. Luckily the red man is more of a man than you.

You know who tends to lump whole peoples into one stereotypical lump sum? Yeah, your sort.

 

[IMJerusha]

Wow, weird. It's 2014 last I checked.

Yup, so does that make it okay to remake history?

Just a little information:
http://www.warpaths2peacepipes.com/native-american-symbols/color-meanings-symbolism.htm

Here's an even stranger thought for the team...have them all DNA tested to determine how many of them have Indian blood. Trade off the ones that don't and keep the name Redskins. Have only players with American Indian heritage on the team. I think that would be awesome! Of course there are some who believe that just having Indian blood doesn't make them an Indian and I suppose that would be true. Are you getting the sense here that I think the whole thing is stupid greed? :think:

 

[Granite]

Yup, so does that make it okay to remake history?

Just a little information:
http://www.warpaths2peacepipes.com/native-american-symbols/color-meanings-symbolism.htm

Here's an even stranger thought for the team...have them all DNA tested to determine how many of them have Indian blood. Trade off the ones that don't and keep the name Redskins. Have only players with American Indian heritage on the team. I think that would be awesome! Of course there are some who believe that just having Indian blood doesn't make them an Indian and I suppose that would be true. Are you getting the sense here that I think the whole thing is stupid greed? :think:

No one's remaking history--if anything I'm all for reminding people what "redskin" used to refer to, namely, body parts. Nobody here seems real interested in revisiting that history lesson. Can't imagine why.

Not sure where the "greed" factors in here, as Snyder as team owner stands to lose nothing but face when/if the name is finally changed. No one I know of is suing the team for money; they're suing for a name change.

 

[IMJerusha]

No one's remaking history--if anything I'm all for reminding people what "redskin" used to refer to, namely, body parts. Nobody here seems real interested in revisiting that history lesson. Can't imagine why.

Body parts! No. It's about spiritual representation.

Not sure where the "greed" factors in here, as Snyder as team owner stands to lose nothing but face when/if the name is finally changed. No one I know of is suing the team for money; they're suing for a name change.

I was told they're pushing for damages in addition to the group suing the Cleveland Indians baseball team.

 

[Granite]

Body parts! No. It's about spiritual representation.

Then you don't know what you're talking about. I've posted the link several times now: the word "redskin" was used among other things to refer to the body parts taken from dead natives, specifically their scalps and or genitals.

I was told they're pushing for damages.

I believe you're misinformed. I haven't seen or heard any indication that any group or individual is pursuing damages.

 

[IMJerusha]

Then you don't know what you're talking about. I've posted the link several times now: the word "redskin" was used among other things to refer to the body parts taken from dead natives, specifically their scalps and or genitals.

Yeah, I missed that part because I would have told you that's hooey. Indian Chiefs would not have referred to their people en toto as Red Skins if that had been the case because it would have been shameful to do so.

I believe you're misinformed. I haven't seen or heard any indication that any group or individual is pursuing damages.

I don't think so. I can't find an article regarding the Skins but I have a friend who is on the staff of the team. He's indicated that there is a push for damages. Here is an article regarding the Cleveland Indians.

http://blog.syracuse.com/sports/201...it_against_cleveland_indians_chief_wahoo.html

 

[Granite]

Yeah, I missed that part because I would have told you that's hooey. Indian Chiefs would not have referred to their people en toto as Red Skins if that had been the case because it would have been shameful to do so.

Well again, you have no idea what you're talking about. And at this rate you're being willfully, deliberately ignorant. Check the link.

I don't think so. I can't find an article regarding the Skins but I have a friend who is on the staff of the team. He's indicated that there is a push for damages.

Ah, so a buddy's passing on a rumor...despite the fact that there's no indication anywhere that this is the case. Top notch.

 

[genuineoriginal]

the word "redskin" was used among other things to refer to the body parts taken from dead natives, specifically their scalps and or genitals.

Neither is depicted on the logo.
Look again:

For Soros: Red, White, and Black

Blacks love the Redskins. Why? They get to own the image, not their image, but the mighty image of the American Indian warrior. The American Negro is greedy. White America seems happy to let him do, have, or be anything he wants. A most spoiled, unruly child the Negro has become, learning well to play on white pity for his black skin.

In modern times the black man learned to play Indian, not by watching Indians, but by watching whites. He realized that the whites really value the Indian image, in some deep psychological capacity, and so he took up the white tradition.

The logo of the NFL’s Washington Redskins. Note the exceptionally dark “Indian” skin, almost black, like the Negro, not Indian. In this case, of the roster of 53 starting players, 41 are black. That’s, say, 80%. Why don’t they just call them the Washington Blackskins? Would that carry less “honor”?

These days, however, with casino money so readily available, many blacks actually claim to be Indian, by blood. Thus they hope to obtain federal status, get land, and great gain. BadEagle.com has monitored this movement for some time. It’s all perfectly infuriating–the vainity, overt greed, and denigration to American Indian people.

Whites, of course, seem humbly delighted to see the Negro claim to be Indian. In truth, some whites are happy to see the Indian denigrated. Some whites still hold profound fear and aversion to the American Indian. It isn’t just the liberal notion of race mixing, the sexual perversion, or the intentional obliteration of racial, ethnic distinction. It is actual fear of the Indian, and a special joy in destroying him. This is the kind of deep-seated contradiction found in the white liberal.​

 

[Skybringr]

So some idiot edited a dictionary and you blindly follow like a dupe.

It's blatantly obvious that 'redskin' is used to imply Native Americans who had ~red skin~.

Whatever the term became coined as when people were collecting bounties on them is completely beside the point.
The Redskins did not name themselves after bloody scalps :chuckle:, I see a Native American dude as their logo, not a bloody mess of hair and skin.

It's sensationalized nonsense.
Again, I say the one's to be shamed ARE NOT the one's who carry the team name, but those who want to change an 80 year old tradition, sub-culture, and invested enterprise because one wants to make an issue out of nothing.

At this point, I'm surprised the Wildlife Foundation hasn't tried to shut them down for the feathers.

Also
'Cowboys' is a derogatory term. It was never used in a good way, it was used to denote western criminals, and stated to generalize those who authorities would drive out of the West.

But lo and behold, it is used as a word of toughness and rebellion, just like 'Redskin'.
Don't see anyone complaining about that at all.

 

[Town Heretic]

It's blatantly obvious that 'redskin' is used to imply Native Americans who had ~red skin~.

So some idiot edited a dictionary and you blindly follow like a dupe.

"In the Washington Redskins trademark litigation, the main issue was the meaning of the term during the period when the trademark registrations were issued, 1967-1990. The linguistic expert for the petitioners, Dr. Geoffrey Nunberg, successfully argued that whatever its origins, "redskins" was a slur at that time based upon the passages from books and newspapers and the movie clips in which the word is inevitably associated with contempt, derision, condescension, or sentimental paeans to the noble savage."​

The Redskins did not name themselves after bloody scalps :chuckle:, I see a Native American dude as their logo, not a bloody mess of hair and skin.

You're just wrong, supra.

Again, I say the one's to be shamed ARE NOT the one's who carry the team name, but those who want to change an 80 year old tradition,

That's been opposed for most of its existence. And women not being able to own property was a tradition once upon a time.

sub-culture, and invested enterprise because one wants to make an issue out of nothing.

It's never anything to people who aren't being insulted. But then, they aren't the issue, except that they tend to make themselves the issue, which is a curious thing.

At this point, I'm surprised the Wildlife Foundation hasn't tried to shut them down for the feathers.

At this point I'm surprised you're using anything but adjectives.

Don't see anyone complaining about that at all.

Likely because in living memory it's only been used to romanticize a west that never really existed and elevate nomadic herders into legendary figures of bravery, valor and sacrifice.

Or maybe it's all just about John Wayne, one way or another.

 

[Skybringr]

I'm a good third Cherokee.

I'm not offended at all. I thought it was cool to name a team Redskins, it's awesome.

See, I don't have an agenda like those bleeding hearts out there who really aren't bleeding at all. You actually think that they are wounded by it and they are not. It's just a political escapade, like the NAACP suing police departments for using black sillouettes.

 

[Town Heretic]

I'm a good third Cherokee.

I'm not offended at all. I thought it was cool to name a team Redskins, it's awesome.

I thought it was cool growing up. But it isn't about me. Or you, apparently. It might be about your grandkids, if the trend continues because the numbers against have been growing.

See, I don't have an agenda like those bleeding hearts out there who really aren't bleeding at all.

I think the minute you try to make it about anything but what it is you expose as much agenda as any "bleeding heart liberal" ever could.

And it doesn't matter who supports or opposes outside of the group who is offended by that which most on the oppose side say was never meant to. Okay, then if you didn't mean to step on a toe, take your foot away.

You actually think that they are wounded by it and they are not.

What I think/project isn't the issue. I take ten percent of the Native Americans at their word. It's an unpopular stand catching enormous backlash.

 

[Skybringr]

What I think/project isn't the issue. I take ten percent of the Native Americans at their word. It's an unpopular stand catching enormous backlash.

Have you ever considered that 1 in 10 is probably a reasonable number of those who pretty much hate European Americans for ever stepping into the land to begin with and this is just their way of stirring us up?

I'm sure you can look up videos and blogs or whatever about people who step into reservations and are basically shunned out with threats and hubris.

 

[Yorzhik]

No, that's just you trying to make it about me instead of the issue I've presented. That's telling. No one on your side has taken on my points, so far. Instead I get PC nonsense or let's talk about the unoffended or it's a compliment or kill the messenger horsefeathers.

Correct me if I'm wrong. The issue you are presenting is that 10% of a group is enough when offended to act on their claim.

That's wrong. The percentage should be closer to your example as follows:

So far you guys would call a woman madam to flatter and when she slapped you instead you'd continue to call her madam while insisting you mean no offense. It's bad manners and worse reason.

100%

No, I have a point because you can't address it though you obviously and strongly desire to counter it.

So far your point is vague. Is the percentage 10% for any offense? Is it a different percentage for some groups than others?

 

[Yorzhik]

If you think your insinuations about "left's leaders, with enough 'education'" and "useful idiots like yourself" are any more deserving of response than a string of deadhorse icons, then you are seriously delusional. The fact is, I don't care to engage baseless name-calling, and while I normally just ignore it, because it flies around this place like mud in a pigpen, in this case, I wanted to specifically note that I wasn't engaging it, because you don't seem to pick up on the fact very easily. And it's apparently taken you this long, and you still haven't figured it out.

I gotta tell you. Using 2 spaces after a period is poor form. You should fix that. I could even be convinced it is offensive to me.

The comment about the leaders using idiots is merely an explanation of why someone as intelligent as yourself would make a mistake like calling for a name change when none is warranted. Or, an even deeper point, one can say it isn't the name change but the acceptance of a form of thought control.