Go Ditka

[Jauronimo]

Fresh fish.

[B-Man]

 

i like how it turned from questioning the PC nature of the country to calling ditka and anyone who agrees with him a bigot. i'm thinking the point got lost on people there.

 

 

 

Amen.

 

There will be NO derivation from the narrative.

 

 

 

.

[BigPappy]

Not sure what your point is by showing this. It's a school, on a Reservation made up of Native American students.

 

His point is that if Native Americans in a school predominately made up of Native Americans are using the name Redskins in their team name, what right do non Native Americans have being offended by an NFL team using Redskin in their own name.

 

As many previous posters have stated, this country has so many other problems to worry about, yet the name of a football team and an action to try and change that name gets a congressional hearing is ridiculous! DO NOT misunderstand me...I am not say it's right or wrong to use the name.....I simply just don't care what the name of the team is. They could change the name to the "Washington Crackers" and I wouldn't care. LOL, although it would be wildly ironic seeing as Football is now a sport predominately of African Americans.

Flame away

 

BigPappy

[BringBackFergy]

I find it degrading and offensive to ducks and other birds that our team is named after a long hard snout on a bird which is used to kill and ingest fish. We need a name change...The Buffalo Peguales has a nice ring to it.

[Keukasmallies]

Sigh....no more Apache helicopters and St. Bonaventure Brown Indians; will we go so far as to do away with the tomahawk chop; are Navajo blankets safe?

[IDBillzFan]

I think we're all missing probably the worst part of this story: Ditka will never get a retweet from Tim Graham.

[3rdnlng]

Why were the "Redskins" named as such? What is the origin of the name "Redskins"?

 

http://itre.cis.upen...ves/002961.html

 

I think that it is well established that redskin is taken by most people today to be disparaging. What is more interesting is whether it has always been so, as Harjo et al., as well as various others, claim. One interesting piece of evidence is the origin of the name Washington Redskins. In 1933, George Preston Marshall, the owner of the team, which was then located in Boston, renamed it the Boston Redskins in honor of the head coach, William "Lone Star" Dietz, an American Indian.³ When the team moved to Washington in 1937 it was renamed the Washington Redskins. George Marshall clearly did not consider the name disparaging.

The term redskin of course goes much farther back than 1933. The details of this history have recently been explored by Ives Goddard of the Smithsonian Institution, in a paper conveniently available on-line. Some of the evidence is available in greater detail on Goddard's web site. You can read speeches by the Meskwaki chief Black Thunder and the Omaha chief Big Elk in which the exp<b></b>ression redskin is used, and early nineteenth century examples of the Meskwaki usage of terms meaning redskin and whiteskin.

I won't review the evidence in detail because Goddard's paper is short enough and accessible enough that if you are interested you should read it yourself. I'll just summarize it. Goddard shows that the term redskin is a translation from native American languages of a term used by native Americans for themselves. Harjo's claim that it "had its origins in the practice of presenting bloody red skins and scalps as proof of Indian kill for bounty payments" is unsupported by any evidence.⁴ The term entered popular usage via the novels of James Fenimore Cooper. In the early- to mid-nineteenth century the term was neutral, not pejorative, and indeed was often used in contexts in which whites spoke of Indians in positive terms. Goddard concludes:

Cooper's use of

redskin

as a Native American in-group term was entirely authentic, reflecting both the accurate perception of the Indian self-image and the evolving respect among whites for the Indians' distinct cultural perspective, whatever its prospects. The descent of this word into obloquy is a phenomenon of more recent times.

Edited August 21, 2014 by 3rdnlng

[Philly McButterpants]

I find it astounding that so many people get their panties in an uproar over this . . . Does this issue, on either side, affect the quality of life for me or for my family? Or anyone else for that matter?

 

Not. One. Iota...

[dave mcbride]

Why were the "Redskins named as such?" What is the origin of the name "Redskins"?

 

http://itre.cis.upen...ves/002961.html

 

I think that it is well established that redskin is taken by most people today to be disparaging. What is more interesting is whether it has always been so, as Harjo et al., as well as various others, claim. One interesting piece of evidence is the origin of the name Washington Redskins. In 1933, George Preston Marshall, the owner of the team, which was then located in Boston, renamed it the Boston Redskins in honor of the head coach, William "Lone Star" Dietz, an American Indian.³ When the team moved to Washington in 1937 it was renamed the Washington Redskins. George Marshall clearly did not consider the name disparaging.

The term redskin of course goes much farther back than 1933. The details of this history have recently been explored by Ives Goddard of the Smithsonian Institution, in a paper conveniently available on-line. Some of the evidence is available in greater detail on Goddard's web site. You can read speeches by the Meskwaki chief Black Thunder and the Omaha chief Big Elk in which the expression redskin is used, and early nineteenth century examples of the Meskwaki usage of terms meaning redskin and whiteskin.

I won't review the evidence in detail because Goddard's paper is short enough and accessible enough that if you are interested you should read it yourself. I'll just summarize it. Goddard shows that the term redskin is a translation from native American languages of a term used by native Americans for themselves. Harjo's claim that it "had its origins in the practice of presenting bloody red skins and scalps as proof of Indian kill for bounty payments" is unsupported by any evidence.⁴ The term entered popular usage via the novels of James Fenimore Cooper. In the early- to mid-nineteenth century the term was neutral, not pejorative, and indeed was often used in contexts in which whites spoke of Indians in positive terms. Goddard concludes:

Cooper's use of

redskin

as a Native American in-group term was entirely authentic, reflecting both the accurate perception of the Indian self-image and the evolving respect among whites for the Indians' distinct cultural perspective, whatever its prospects. The descent of this word into obloquy is a phenomenon of more recent times.

 

This is inaccurate. The characterization of James Fenimore Cooper is accurate, but he was one voice, and most Americans of that era used it as a pejorative. For the authoritative account, this is where to go: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1857900 .

 

It was never "neutral," by the way. It was either positive or negative (mostly negative), and the positive was associated with the idea of the noble savage. And of course noble savages, for all of their heroic traits, were still inferior (by their very definition) to civilized Europeans.

 

As for the origins of the term, here it is (also, Mods, I'm fairly certain that this is fair use because it's a small excerpt of a much larger piece and it's being used for textual analysis):

 

“War-bred animosities did not require a difference in color perception, but the unconscious temptation to tar the Indian with the brush of physical inferiority—to differentiate and denigrate the enemy—appears to have been irresistible. Wartime epithets have often invoked outward appearance, however irrelevant (witness the ‘yellow Japs’ of World War II), and British Americans frequently resorted to pejorative color labels. In the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, as war raged along the northern New England frontier, Cotton Mather castigate ‘those tawny Pagans, than which there not worse Divels Incarnate upon Earth,’ and ‘a swarthy generation of Philistines here; the Indian Natives, I mean, whom alone we are like to have any Warrs withal.’ Nearly a century later, when the bulk of the Indians sided with Great Britain during the American Revolution, Henry Dwight complained of ‘copper Colour’d Vermine’ and hoped that the American army would ‘Massacre those Infernal Savages to such a degree that [there] may’nt be a pair of them left, to continue the Breed upon the Earth.’ Logically enough, ‘redskins’ eventually emerged as the epithet for enemies who usually used red paint on the warpath. Not coincidentally, perhaps, the first reported use of that term appears in a passage about Indian assaults on frontier settlements. In a sentence that suggests the impact of war on changing English attitudes, Samuel Smith of Hadley, Massachusetts, recalled in 1699 that several decade earlier his father had endured Indian raids in the Connecticut Valley. ‘My father declardt,’ Smith remembered, there would be not so much to feare iff ye Red Skins was treated with suche mixture of Justice & Authority as they cld understand, but iff he was living now he must see that we can do nought but fight em & that right heavily.’”

Edited August 20, 2014 by dave mcbride

[DirtDart]

His point is that if Native Americans in a school predominately made up of Native Americans are using the name Redskins in their team name, what right do non Native Americans have being offended by an NFL team using Redskin in their own name.

 

As many previous posters have stated, this country has so many other problems to worry about, yet the name of a football team and an action to try and change that name gets a congressional hearing is ridiculous! DO NOT misunderstand me...I am not say it's right or wrong to use the name.....I simply just don't care what the name of the team is. They could change the name to the "Washington Crackers" and I wouldn't care. LOL, although it would be wildly ironic seeing as Football is now a sport predominately of African Americans.

Flame away

 

BigPappy

I love how this whole thread has made a turn for the worse. Ditka, was trying to make a point as to how the Federal Gov is getting way too involved. That is MY interpretation.

Edited August 20, 2014 by DirtDart

[Greg F]

Not sure what your point is by showing this. It's a school, on a Reservation made up of Native American students.

 

There have already been quite a few good responses. I will just add that context is important. A word can be offensive in one context but not in another.

 

3rd point: 2nd point: Every major group representing Native Americans has spoken out strongly against the name.

 

You are assuming that those groups that claim to represent Native Americans do in fact represent them. The National Congress of American Indians have been arguing for decades that the name is offensive. This is at odds with the Annenberg survey.

 

Most American Indians say that calling Washington’s professional football team the “Redskins” does not bother them, the University of Pennsylvania’s National Annenberg Election Survey shows.

Ninety percent of Indians took that position, while 9 percent said they found the name “offensive.” One percent had no answer. The margin of sampling error for those findings was plus or minus two percentage points.

 

In my experience more often than not when an organization takes a position on an issue that position is the view of those in control of the organization. It is not necessarily representative of the members views. In effect they are using the membership to add credibility to what is their personal position on the issue.

[3rdnlng]

This is inaccurate. The characterization of James Fenimore Cooper is accurate, but he was one voice, and most Americans of that era used it as a pejorative. For the authoritative account, this is where to go: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1857900 .

 

It was never "neutral," by the way. It was either positive or negative (mostly negative), and the positive was associated with the idea of the noble savage. And of course noble savages, for all of their heroic traits, were still inferior (by their very definition) to civilized Europeans.

 

As for the origins of the term, here it is (also, Mods, I'm fairly certain that this is fair use because it's a small excerpt of a much larger piece and it's being used for textual analysis):

 

“War-bred animosities did not require a difference in color perception, but the unconscious temptation to tar the Indian with the brush of physical inferiority—to differentiate and denigrate the enemy—appears to have been irresistible. Wartime epithets have often invoked outward appearance, however irrelevant (witness the ‘yellow Japs’ of World War II), and British Americans frequently resorted to pejorative color labels. In the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, as war raged along the northern New England frontier, Cotton Mather castigate ‘those tawny Pagans, than which there not worse Divels Incarnate upon Earth,’ and ‘a swarthy generation of Philistines here; the Indian Natives, I mean, whom alone we are like to have any Warrs withal.’ Nearly a century later, when the bulk of the Indians sided with Great Britain during the American Revolution, Henry Dwight complained of ‘copper Colour’d Vermine’ and hoped that the American army would ‘Massacre those Infernal Savages to such a degree that [there] may’nt be a pair of them left, to continue the Breed upon the Earth.’ Logically enough, ‘redskins’ eventually emerged as the epithet for enemies who usually used red paint on the warpath. Not coincidentally, perhaps, the first reported use of that term appears in a passage about Indian assaults on frontier settlements. In a sentence that suggests the impact of war on changing English attitudes, Samuel Smith of Hadley, Massachusetts, recalled in 1699 that several decade earlier his father had endured Indian raids in the Connecticut Valley. ‘My father declardt,’ Smith remembered, there would be not so much to feare iff ye Red Skins was treated with suche mixture of Justice & Authority as they cld understand, but iff he was living now he must see that we can do nought but fight em & that right heavily.’”

 

Who today calls a Native American a "Redskin"? Better yet, who today calls a Native American a "Redskin" in a derogatory way? This thread is one hardly worth arguing in. The vast majority of Native Americans have no problem with the name "Redskin". Didn't some group awhile back get their panties all in a wad over hurricanes only being named after women? This issue pales in comparison to that one.

[dave mcbride]

Who today calls a Native American a "Redskin"? Better yet, who today calls a Native American a "Redskin" in a derogatory way? This thread is one hardly worth arguing in. The vast majority of Native Americans have no problem with the name "Redskin". Didn't some group awhile back get their panties all in a wad over hurricanes only being named after women? This issue pales in comparison to that one.

 

Who calls the Chinese "coolies" or the Vietnamese "gooks" today? What's your point? "Redskin" is a historically pejorative term (the evidence is overwhelming, by the way) directed at a truly oppressed population that suffered greatly at the hands of white Americans for centuries. That, at least, is inarguable. It shouldn't be used. The response evades the point established in the article in any case.

Edited August 21, 2014 by dave mcbride

[Philly McButterpants]

Who calls the Chinese "coolies" or the Vietnamese "gooks" today? What's your point? "Redskin" is a historically pejorative term (the evidence is overwhelming, by the way) directed at a truly oppressed population that suffered greatly at the hands of white Americans for centuries. That, at least, is inarguable. It shouldn't be used. The response evades the point established in the article in any case.

 

How can you stand upright with all that guilt on your back?

 

I wonder if Spaniards are thinking about how they decimated native american populations through disease and conquest . . .and are they wracked with guilt over it like this?

[dave mcbride]

How can you stand upright with all that guilt on your back?

 

I wonder if Spaniards are thinking about how they decimated native american populations through disease and conquest . . .and are they wracked with guilt over it like this?

Are you denying that this in fact happened because you associate the statement with political correctness?

[Philly McButterpants]

Are you denying that this in fact happened because you associate the statement with political correctness?

 

No, I'm not denying that it happened at all. I'm simply wondering why you feel personally responsible for the tragedy. As if your actions now in some way lessen the impact of events that occurred centuries ago . . .

[dave mcbride]

No, I'm not denying that it happened at all. I'm simply wondering why you feel personally responsible for the tragedy. As if your actions now in some way lessen the impact of events that occurred centuries ago . . .

I don't feel personally responsible for it all, and I never indicated that I felt that way. I used the general term "white Americans" (which is true) but I could just as easily have said "the US government," which remains responsible because it has been in existence continuously since 1789. Moreover, the US government was the primary driver of these policies, albeit not the exclusive one.

[Philly McButterpants]

If you don't feel personally responsible for the actions of the government, or "white americans," why does this bother you? There are plenty of other ways for you to support Native Americans... What makes this single, meaningless gesture the point where you make your stand?

 

And of course, i have no way of knowing whether you support Native American causes in any way shape or form . . .

[DC Tom]

Sigh....no more Apache helicopters

 

Actually, the Army tried to move away from naming helicopters after the tribes - the AH-1 Cobra, derived from the UH-1 Iroquois, which they didn't name after an Indian tribe because they didn't want to insult them by naming an attack helo after them.

 

The Native American nations threw a fit. Turned out, they considered it an honor having helos named after them. They themselves suggested the warlike tribal names for attack helos, and peaceful tribes for utility helos. Thus, the Apache, Commanche, Chinook, Lakota, Cayuse, Kiowa...

[B-Man]

Actually, the Army tried to move away from naming helicopters after the tribes - the AH-1 Cobra, derived from the UH-1 Iroquois, which they didn't name after an Indian tribe because they didn't want to insult them by naming an attack helo after them.

 

The Native American nations threw a fit. Turned out, they considered it an honor having helos named after them. They themselves suggested the warlike tribal names for attack helos, and peaceful tribes for utility helos.

 

Thus, the Apache, Commanche, Chinook, Lakota, Cayuse, Kiowa...

 

 

Tom, you mean the "A" word, the "C" word, the "Ch" word, the "L" word, the "Other C" word and the "K" word.

 

from the Washington Post approved list.