shagster01
New member
So its colors and the word skin that are offensive. Got it.
Posted from the TOL App!
Posted from the TOL App!
Redskins
- Thread starter The 5 solas
- Start date
Because unlike you, I don't let the tail wag me.
Well, how about the White House? If it hasn't happened already, which I would not be surprised, it probably will at some point in time that blacks will say it symbolizes white rule.
And we will be sitting here having this same discussion.
Well that name is just blatantly racist. It's not even ideal.
Redskins, however, represents masculine attitude in a form of a mascot and brand. That's what it has always meant.
I mean come on, when did the team form, in the 30s? There's a reason why they wouldn't have 'blackskins'. That would be friendly towards people that most others were racist against.
The point is that the name is meant to be precisely the opposite of racism. They are holding Native Americans as being warriors.
I don't really think it's that large a number. I think that specialty groups sort of just lead others into finding something offending to their culture.
No you don't got it Shag, It was a term used when killing Native Americans was a bounty sport.
Do you understand that?
Daedalean's_Sun
New member
Nothing is intrinsically offensive, it's all a matter of perception. To say the word 'skin' is in and of itself offensive, is to misapprehend the controversy. To describe American Indians as 'Redskins' is at the very least in poor taste. I'm not personally offended, but I can certainly see why others are. I have Celtic ancestry, I would not be a fan of renaming the Boston Celtics the Boston "whiteskins".
Do you understand that there was a bounty on "Redskins"?
As in money for each one you killed?
These are people we're talking about.
A bounty on people.
Does that bother you?
Do people who want to stop useing the term bother you?
Daedalean's_Sun
New member
That's immaterial (if not irrational), if the justification for doing so is sound.
Lon
Well-known member
There are activists in the Indian community and about 10% to 30% of Native Americans find the term offensive BUT, as with any group, there are victim mentalities. We are only victims if we choose to be.
I think Paula Deen learned her lesson. We don't need to be dragging up that again. Probably too soon for her as well.
When is the last time you heard someone called "Redskin" as an offense? As I said, I'm close enough, I think to Indian, to be able to have at least a pulse on the goings on. Some African Americans just want to be called Americans. Anything that singles a person out 'can' become offensive but this doesn't mean it is or ever will be. It is an identification. I have no problem with my red skin.
Well, now that you mention it, the Oneida nation has won their suit. Instead of indian dressed cheerleaders, they should have invited members of the Nation to do half-time shows and gave them respected seats as well as residule checks, all along, but that's about sharing the wealth, not about it being a slur. I like seeing people reminded of part of my heritage. Again, there is no bad press, just bad intentions. This was not a bad intention. The Oneida Nation has been working against this team for some years, so perhaps the team can be partly faulted for not including them and giving profit shares. This lawsuit is partly about that fact, the $.
If you call ANY black person a derogatory name, they will be offended. Redskin is not offensive to nearly that many, but only 10% and again, such is a problem of a victim mentality. Not long ago, a few nations got together and tried to sue the US for more $. The problem was this: Neither they or the current US were part of that and some restitution had already been made according to the courts. However, if this nation could show there is yet inequity, such would burden children's children to ensure that our wealth is not at another's expense.
It is rather that the offense isn't that great in this case. Indians do need to be strong and state their cases but this one isn't it. This is either about $ or trying to win a cause (power). The classic reasons are still the same ones. The Washington Redskins have been known as such since 1932. It took 30 years for offense to get into Websters and another 10 for some Indian Activists to decide to do something about it. There are more important matters for Indians, however. Originally, there were between 50 and 100 Million native Americans. Today, that number is less than 3 Million. That's a good sign in that the population is growing but the lands are shrinking. We have a vested interest as North American people to preserve as best as we can, North American Native heritage. There are ways such can be done more effectively. As I said, anything that has or uses Native names should be encouraged to foster good relationships with those tribes. The Washington Redskins could use half-time shows that utilize and foster the growth of Indian Nations. The lady suing the Washington D.C. Redskins is Cherokee. There are a number of 'Cherokee' brands. Redskin belongs to all 500+ Indian tribes and so this particular should be inclusive and representative of all of these tribes, not just a couple of tribes (Oneida/Cherokee) who are bringing this lawsuit.
Lon
Well-known member
This is one of many citations in history. It is from King George and we ousted him a LONG time ago for his problems. Wanting "Indian scalps" is not derogatory against Indians. Even "Redskins" were collecting other "Redskin" scalps! :doh:
And a term for "Redskins" collecting other "Redskin" scalps!
Daedalean's_Sun
New member
Excellent point and then someone will come up with some 125 or more year old writing and say its so, we must change the name because of course all intent is based on whatever someone offended by something says it means for everyone else.
Minority rules after all and everyone is a victim except of course white males - its their fault for everything.
You missed the point.
Yeah, this seems totally lost on most people here. For me, it was the bounty article that just clinched it. The use of this word is simply indefensible.
The Berean
Well-known member
That's true, Knight. The Washington Redskins originally played in Boston starting in 1932 and were called the "Boston Braves" after the major league baseball team (now the Atlanta Braves). The team owner, George Preston Marshall, apparently changed it to avoid confusion with the baseball team. Maybe they should have changed the name to the Boston Red Sox but then they would have gone 80+ years without winning a title, probably. :chuckle:
Lon
Well-known member
Because it was necessary at the time. It was needful at the time. The young native son had to protect his home, family, and tribe. It was not an 'attrocity' as it would be today. Absolutely we would not do this today but some of these, my forefathers, were not shameful wicked savages, they were proud and fierce ones and needed to be. Taking scalps is horrific. It did not used to be.
If a tribe called one of their teams "Navajo Whitescalps" would you be offended? I doubt you'd even think about it. If some Indian called you a "whitescalp," would you punch him in the nose? Paleface?
Forktongue is more offensive than "White" anything, specifically because it is derogatory about your character rather than a passing comment about your skin color.
Daedalean's_Sun
New member
No, I didn't.
There is no "they", Native Americans were not a homogenous group. Members of one tribe would collect scalps of another to cash in on a bounty, because they were paid to do so. This does not vindicate the term in the slightest.
Lon
Well-known member
This palefaced whiteskin has me on ignore
lain:
They did it for other reasons too, you missed the point.