Poll: Should the "Redskins" name be changed?

[26CornerBlitz]

It just goes to show how little regard and sensitivity people in this country have for native americans. Racial epitaphs against all other ethnic groups, including blacks who constantly complain about being belittled, are considered inappropriate but for native americans it's of no importance and in fact offensive garbage if it gets in the way of a good sports team logo. Can't call asians "slopes" or Germans "krouts" or Blacks "ni$$ers" (can't even write that one) or Italians "guineas" or Latino's "spics" but "Redskin" is all good for native americans.

 

 

It's just because they have no political power in this country. Without power you're at other people's mercy and there is very little mercy in this world.

 

Very salient points made by you. Certainly wouldn't be acceptable against those other groups you mentioned. Casual racism is okay against NA however and the NFL should be ashamed. Hope this latest lawsuit ends the crap once and for all.

[Rob's House]

It just goes to show how little regard and sensitivity people in this country have for native americans. Racial epitaphs against all other ethnic groups, including blacks who constantly complain about being belittled, are considered inappropriate but for native americans it's of no importance and in fact offensive garbage if it gets in the way of a good sports team logo. Can't call asians "slopes" or Germans "krouts" or Blacks "ni$$ers" (can't even write that one) or Italians "guineas" or Latino's "spics" but "Redskin" is all good for native americans.

 

 

It's just because they have no political power in this country. Without power you're at other people's mercy and there is very little mercy in this world.

 

Your conclusion is based upon the assumption that "Redskin" is inherently derogatory, which has not been established. Our obsession with race is a fairly modern phenomenon. Plus, an underlying current that goes ignored is that despite what may have happened in centuries past, there is no real racial animosity towards American Indians, nor has there been for generations. Most of us have some Indian blood. I'm part Indian (granted, not by much, maybe 1/32, but enough to claim Indian status and talk about "my people" if I run for Congress), my wife is 1/3 Indian, her dayd is 2/3 Indian, their family..., you get the point. They don't face or obsess over the racial discrimination claimed by most of the groups listed.

 

Also, people who want to draw an equivalence between "Redskin" and "Ni@@er" are simple at best. It's comparing apples to bricks.

[NoSaint]

Definition of redskin

noun

dated offensive

an American Indian.

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. In time, however, through a process that in linguistics is called pejoration, by which a neutral term acquires an unfavorable connotation or denotation, redskin lost its neutral, accurate descriptive sense and became a term of disparagement. Red man is first recorded in the early 17th century and was originally neutral in tone. Red Indian is first recorded in the early 19th century and was used by the British, far more than by Americans, to distinguish the Indians of the subcontinent from the Indians of the Americas. All three terms are dated or offensive. American Indian and Native American are now the standard umbrella terms. Of course, if it is possible or appropriate, one can also use specific tribal names (Cheyenne, Nez Percé, etc.).

 

 

That's from Oxford dictionary

[Rob's House]

Definition of redskin

noun

dated offensive

an American Indian.

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. In time, however, through a process that in linguistics is called pejoration, by which a neutral term acquires an unfavorable connotation or denotation, redskin lost its neutral, accurate descriptive sense and became a term of disparagement. Red man is first recorded in the early 17th century and was originally neutral in tone. Red Indian is first recorded in the early 19th century and was used by the British, far more than by Americans, to distinguish the Indians of the subcontinent from the Indians of the Americas. All three terms are dated or offensive. American Indian and Native American are now the standard umbrella terms. Of course, if it is possible or appropriate, one can also use specific tribal names (Cheyenne, Nez Percé, etc.).

 

 

That's from Oxford dictionary

I'm curious to know when the Oxford dictionary assigned negative connotations to the terms. Plus, we're not in England. By its own admission these were traditionally neutral terms. Does anyone think Red Man tobacco is intended to belittle Indians?

Edited March 10, 2013 by Rob's House

[NoSaint]

This ones a copy paste from Webster:

Pronunciation: \ˈred-ˌskin\

Function: noun

Date: 1699

usually offensive : american indian

 

Macmillan also includes "offensive" in its first three words of the definition....

 

 

[Rob's House]

This ones a copy paste from Webster:

Pronunciation: \ˈred-ˌskin\

Function: noun

Date: 1699

usually offensive : american indian

 

Macmillan also includes "offensive" in its first three words of the definition....

I'd say given the contrived controversy that we have here it's a given that a dictionary would deem the term offensive. I'm curious if they were assigning such labels 75 years ago.

[NoSaint]

Poking around some.... I knew it was named after their coach at the time. I did not know the owner made the coach put on paint and feathers for home games. Odd bit of trivia.

 

Has a bit of a circus "come out and see the native people" feel to it.

 

 

I'd say given the contrived controversy that we have here it's a given that a dictionary would deem the term offensive. I'm curious if they were assigning such labels 75 years ago.

 

The closest I could find quickly was a site claiming the 1900 definitions which was simply "appellation for North American Indians" or something extremely close to that if not verbatim

[bisonbrigade]

Indains should change there name becase it is offensive to potatos.

[EasternOHBillsFan]

It just goes to show how little regard and sensitivity people in this country have for native americans. Racial epitaphs against all other ethnic groups, including blacks who constantly complain about being belittled, are considered inappropriate but for native americans it's of no importance and in fact offensive garbage if it gets in the way of a good sports team logo. Can't call asians "slopes" or Germans "krouts" or Blacks "ni$$ers" (can't even write that one) or Italians "guineas" or Latino's "spics" but "Redskin" is all good for native americans.

 

 

It's just because they have no political power in this country. Without power you're at other people's mercy and there is very little mercy in this world.

 

An epitaph is a gravestone statement of rememberance... an EPHITET is what you meant.

 

No political power? Now that is laughable... hmmm... President Obama, Attorney General Holder... sounds as if you are misinformed. The poll results here say it all.. a majority even here say it is not an issue or a PC maneuver. America should NEVER be railroaded into accepting every cockamamie minority opinion out there. When I say minority opnion, it is a numerical minority as a definition.

Edited March 10, 2013 by BmoreBills

[Fezmid]

That's from Oxford dictionary

Is that the same dictionary that has "D'oh" as an official word?

[vincec]

An epitaph is a gravestone statement of rememberance... an EPHITET is what you meant.

 

No political power? Now that is laughable... hmmm... President Obama, Attorney General Holder... sounds as if you are misinformed. The poll results here say it all.. a majority even here say it is not an issue or a PC maneuver. America should NEVER be railroaded into accepting every cockamamie minority opinion out there. When I say minority opnion, it is a numerical minority as a definition.

You are correct. The idea that native americans should be treated with respect IS a minority opinion. That is my point. And they have no political power. I'm not sure what your reference to laughable refers to. They are overwhelmingly poor and uneducated, they don't have any influence in congress or other levels of government and they are a massive minority. They are easy to push around. That is why teams like the Redskins or individuals like yourself don't care if you offend them or not. If lucrative corporate sponsorships started drying up then I'll bet the Redskins would change their tune, but that won't happen. It's all about power in the end, and native americans don't have any.

Edited March 11, 2013 by vincec

[papazoid]

Three former FCC Commissioners claim Redskins name is indecent

 

 

The attack on the Redskins; name continues in Washington.

 

According to Politico.com, three former FCC Commissioners (along with others) have sent a letter to Redskins owner Daniel Snyder explaining that a case could be made that the teams name is indecent.

 

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/04/05/three-former-fcc-commissioners-claim-redskins-is-indecent/

Edited April 5, 2013 by papazoid

[Nanker]

Washington reveals it's new team logo:

Second place to:

[Kellyto83TD]

No, everyone needs to put on big boy pants and quit being offended by everything that comes along. Take some midol, change the pad and get over it.

[26CornerBlitz]

No, everyone needs to put on big boy pants and quit being offended by everything that comes along. Take some midol, change the pad and get over it.

 

Your stance is no surprise.

[kentonexile]

Would a new team be able to call themselves "Redskins"? No. Sorry about tradition, but it's offensive. The Colts left, the Ravens came in, the Browns left, the Browns were born. Tradition can have hiccups and the sun rises the next day. You know the Washington Whatevers will sell out for years to come.

[EasternOHBillsFan]

Only 11% think the name should be changed, and Daniel Snyder says HELL NO... looks like a vast majority of Americans agree!

 

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9259866/daniel-snyder-says-washington-redskins-never-change-team-name

[KD in CA]

The team's nickname has faced a new barrage of criticism for being offensive to Native Americans. Local leaders and pundits have called for a name change.

 

I didn't realize Washington DC had such a significant American Indian population.

[26CornerBlitz]

New generation of American Indians challenges Redskins: http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/redskins/2013/05/09/native-americans-washington-mascot-fight/2148877/

 

Amanda Blackhorse has never met Daniel Snyder, but she's thought about what she might say to him if she ever does.

"I'd ask him, 'Would you dare call me a redskin, right here, to my face?' " she says. "And I suspect that, no, he would not do that."

[Dorkington]

Only 11% think the name should be changed, and Daniel Snyder says HELL NO... looks like a vast majority of Americans agree!

 

http://espn.go.com/n...hange-team-name

 

89% of Americans are bigots, then.