Redskins name Banned?

[rocket surgeon]

These are the same dumb arguments that have been brought up repeatedly.  So it is OK to use a slur as long as it is in the context of sport?  It is OK to use a slur as long as most people aren't offended?  Neither of those arguments make much of sense.

when did it become a slur-honest question? 

if a team wanted to become known as the blank city "N" words and they ran a poll, i'm pretty sure about 9.9 out of 10 would agree that would not be cool, me included-just to make myself clear.

8 out of 10 don't want the "redskin" name changed.


"These are the same dumb arguments that have been brought up repeatedly"
       
        this is your argument?  so what needs to be done?  change the argument?  some might say that the same  dumb responses have been thrown back at them trying to debate why the term isn't racist.  who is the gate keeper?  who decides what is right/wrong?  i've heard and read a number of different interpretations for the term "redskin" and it's origins.  those who are against the name will tell you it's origins are from scalping.  those for the name will say it's from war paint or a specific region from which the "redskins" came from, etc etc

   i highly doubt that the owners, et.al of the washington team are saying, let's keep this name because it's racist and keep p!ssing people off.  let's be purposefully provocative.  if the public pressure was truly on them and people stopped going to games, buying memorabilia, hit them in the pocketbook-then i'm sure they would take notice and probably change the name. 
       my point is, many are getting sick and tired of the not so silent "minority"  the squeaky wheel syndrome.  this is why many people are still upset with marquette for their name change.  there was no outcry.

just because a few people think it's "politically incorrect" doesn't make it wrong.  for the powers that be to force change upon a private business is just wrong-let the people decide

and context does still matter-many examples, but i'm sure you know what i mean 
   

[reinko]

when did it become a slur-honest question? 

if a team wanted to become known as the blank city "N" words and they ran a poll, i'm pretty sure about 9.9 out of 10 would agree that would not be cool, me included-just to make myself clear.

8 out of 10 don't want the "redskin" name changed.


"These are the same dumb arguments that have been brought up repeatedly"
       
        this is your argument?  so what needs to be done?  change the argument?  some might say that the same  dumb responses have been thrown back at them trying to debate why the term isn't racist.  who is the gate keeper?  who decides what is right/wrong?  i've heard and read a number of different interpretations for the term "redskin" and it's origins.  those who are against the name will tell you it's origins are from scalping.  those for the name will say it's from war paint or a specific region from which the "redskins" came from, etc etc

   i highly doubt that the owners, et.al of the washington team are saying, let's keep this name because it's racist and keep p!ssing people off.  let's be purposefully provocative.  if the public pressure was truly on them and people stopped going to games, buying memorabilia, hit them in the pocketbook-then i'm sure they would take notice and probably change the name. 
       my point is, many are getting sick and tired of the not so silent "minority"  the squeaky wheel syndrome.  this is why many people are still upset with marquette for their name change.  there was no outcry.

just because a few people think it's "politically incorrect" doesn't make it wrong.  for the powers that be to force change upon a private business is just wrong-let the people decide

and context does still matter-many examples, but i'm sure you know what i mean 
 

Honestly,  the term redskins,  as Bronson said,  and is confirmed came from white people literally skinning (by skinning, in case I need to make it perfectly clear,  is removing the skin from a human being,  thus they are covered in blood)  Native Americans,  thus redskin.  This is a family site,  but feel to Google Image the atrocities Native Americans faced.

How do you not see this as something that most Native Americans see as terribly offensive.   

[ChicosBailBonds]

Honestly,  the term redskins,  as Bronson said,  and is confirmed came from white people literally skinning (by skinning, in case I need to make it perfectly clear,  is removing the skin from a human being,  thus they are covered in blood)  Native Americans,  thus redskin.  This is a family site,  but feel to Google Image the atrocities Native Americans faced.

How do you not see this as something that most Native Americans see as terribly offensive.   

Not confirmed....in fact an expert at the Smithsonian Institute says that isn't the case at all.

http://anthropology.si.edu/goddard/redskin.pdf


At any rate, so glad this was a done deal and the change was coming.   Hail to the Redskins....

[rocket surgeon]

Not confirmed....in fact an expert at the Smithsonian Institute says that isn't the case at all.

http://anthropology.si.edu/goddard/redskin.pdf


At any rate, so glad this was a done deal and the change was coming.   Hail to the Redskins....

absolutely!  all my research seemed to show, it depended on who you axked   in all seriousness-ahem, for those of you from rio linda, that was a joke...but different historians had different versions of where the term came from.  and we all know how that works..  here comes the faux vitriol in 3...2...1...

[WellsstreetWanderer]

Honestly,  the term redskins,  as Bronson said,  and is confirmed came from white people literally skinning (by skinning, in case I need to make it perfectly clear,  is removing the skin from a human being,  thus they are covered in blood)  Native Americans,  thus redskin.  This is a family site,  but feel to Google Image the atrocities Native Americans faced.

How do you not see this as something that most Native Americans see as terribly offensive.   

  Love how people ignore what the Native Americans did to each other long before the white privileged European land stealer started coming here. oh and slavery was an accepted practice among the tribes as well.Still acceptable  to call me honkey, cracker , snowflake etc...as well

[GGGG]

  Love how people ignore what the Native Americans did to each other long before the white privileged European land stealer started coming here. oh and slavery was an accepted practice among the tribes as well.Still acceptable  to call me honkey, cracker , snowflake etc...as well

Uh no one is ignoring anything.  And I'm not sure what Natives did back then has any relevance anyway.

And it isn't acceptable to call you anything like that, so you can put your victim card away.

[GGGG]

when did it become a slur-honest question? 

if a team wanted to become known as the blank city "N" words and they ran a poll, i'm pretty sure about 9.9 out of 10 would agree that would not be cool, me included-just to make myself clear.

8 out of 10 don't want the "redskin" name changed.


"These are the same dumb arguments that have been brought up repeatedly"
       
        this is your argument?  so what needs to be done?  change the argument?  some might say that the same  dumb responses have been thrown back at them trying to debate why the term isn't racist.  who is the gate keeper?  who decides what is right/wrong?  i've heard and read a number of different interpretations for the term "redskin" and it's origins.  those who are against the name will tell you it's origins are from scalping.  those for the name will say it's from war paint or a specific region from which the "redskins" came from, etc etc

   i highly doubt that the owners, et.al of the washington team are saying, let's keep this name because it's racist and keep p!ssing people off.  let's be purposefully provocative.  if the public pressure was truly on them and people stopped going to games, buying memorabilia, hit them in the pocketbook-then i'm sure they would take notice and probably change the name. 
       my point is, many are getting sick and tired of the not so silent "minority"  the squeaky wheel syndrome.  this is why many people are still upset with marquette for their name change.  there was no outcry.

just because a few people think it's "politically incorrect" doesn't make it wrong.  for the powers that be to force change upon a private business is just wrong-let the people decide

and context does still matter-many examples, but i'm sure you know what i mean 
   

Here is my argument.  It should be changed because it offends a significant number of people.  30% of Native Americans find it offensive.  That's good enough for me.

And I have no idea when it became a slur, or why that is even relevant. 

[Pakuni]

Still acceptable  to call me honkey, cracker , snowflake etc...as well

Just the other day I saw a great game between the Naperville Crackers and the Schaumburg Honkeys.

Though, I've got to ask, if you have no problem referring to Native Americans as "Redskins," why would being called "cracker" bother you?
Seriously, dude, it's term of respect. They're honoring your heritage.

[MU82]

I still miss the old nickname for Pekin High (outside of Peoria).

The Chinks.

Chicos must be so bummed that was dropped. Chinks honors Orientals and Chinamen!

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

Bring it to the politics board boys.

[GGGG]

Bring it to the politics board boys.

Contact the mods son.

[keefe]

Not confirmed....in fact an expert at the Smithsonian Institute says that isn't the case at all.

http://anthropology.si.edu/goddard/redskin.pdf


At any rate, so glad this was a done deal and the change was coming.   Hail to the Redskins....

I have colleagues from Indian Country. Because of this thread I asked one, a Tulalip, what she thought of "Redskins."

Her reply was interesting: "It only confirms that, in the minds of most, we don't even exist."

This is a very sophisticated, discerning woman. Her answer could not have been more true. Or better said.
 

[ChicosBailBonds]

I still miss the old nickname for Pekin High (outside of Peoria).

The Chinks.

Chicos must be so bummed that was dropped. Chinks honors Orientals and Chinamen!

I side with the Native American community whom OVERWHELMINGLY want to keep the name.

I....am a Native American...born here in America....I side with my Native American brothers and sisters.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I have colleagues from Indian Country. Because of this thread I asked one, a Tulalip, what she thought of "Redskins."

Her reply was interesting: "It only confirms that, in the minds of most, we don't even exist."

This is a very sophisticated, discerning woman. Her answer could not have been more true. Or better said.
 

Interesting response, completely opposite of what some other Native Americans have said (I've posted the videos here many times).  I'd be curious if you were to show her those videos, what her stance would be.  Their argument, as Native Americans, that the continue removal of various Indian names, etc, will do exactly that....REMOVE FROM THE MINDS THEIR VERY EXISTENCE. 

Here are some of the videos...I truly would love to hear her response.  For the record, I think these folks speaking are sophisticated, well intentioned people as well.  They do not speak for all Native Americans.  There is disagreement on the issue, no one denies this.


<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/EA7wv7cmp8U" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/EA7wv7cmp8U</a>

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/LT2b5kXFv-4" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/LT2b5kXFv-4</a>

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/LaX6pUnI-hQ" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/LaX6pUnI-hQ</a>

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/M-c-RmrUBUg" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/M-c-RmrUBUg</a>

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/2cleG4hLuuc" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/2cleG4hLuuc</a>

[ChicosBailBonds]

I still miss the old nickname for Pekin High (outside of Peoria).

The Chinks.

Chicos must be so bummed that was dropped. Chinks honors Orientals and Chinamen!

A bit of history since you brought it up....personally, I like the CornJerkers (a real name) as a mascot.

[MU82]

I side with the Native American community whom OVERWHELMINGLY want to keep the name.

I....am a Native American...born here in America....I side with my Native American brothers and sisters.

What percentage of a group has to legitimately be offended for action to be taken on this kind of thing?

If 51% of Indians were offended, would you advocate banning Redskins? Or does it have to be 75%? How about 25%?

25% of the Indian population means more than a million Americans. It's OK to offend them?

Also, what is the most recent polling on this? Who conducted the polls? Are they scientific?

And just to make sure I have it straight, if the majority favors anything in polling, that means you're for it, right?

[GGGG]

It is absolutely hilarious that Chicos is citing information and posting videos from a site that a PR firm created for the Redskins.  And that site has inaccurate/incomplete information on the history of the Redskins name.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2014/07/31/fact-checking-the-new-web-site-redskinsfacts-com/

It really is embarrassing that someone with a degree from my undergraduate institution is so easily swayed by corporate propaganda. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

What percentage of a group has to legitimately be offended for action to be taken on this kind of thing?

If 51% of Indians were offended, would you advocate banning Redskins? Or does it have to be 75%? How about 25%?

25% of the Indian population means more than a million Americans. It's OK to offend them?

Also, what is the most recent polling on this? Who conducted the polls? Are they scientific?

And just to make sure I have it straight, if the majority favors anything in polling, that means you're for it, right?

Someone, somewhere is always offended by something. 

I'm just so surprised that the prediction that this would be resolved by now......

[rocket surgeon]

  "25% of the Indian population means more than a million Americans. It's OK to offend them?"

so by heeding to their concerns, the 25% or so, would it not then offend the 75% or so that do not want the name changed? 

[MU82]

  "25% of the Indian population means more than a million Americans. It's OK to offend them?"

so by heeding to their concerns, the 25% or so, would it not then offend the 75% or so that do not want the name changed?

So if the majority of people from Pekin -- in other words, all the white people -- were "offended" that the name was about to be changed from Chinks, that means changing it was the wrong thing to do?

If the majority of Americans were "offended" that blacks got the right to vote, that means they shouldn't have been given the vote?

Come on, rocket.

[MU82]

Someone, somewhere is always offended by something. 

I'm just so surprised that the prediction that this would be resolved by now......

I'm not talking about "someone somewhere." I'm talking about well over 1 million people from the aggrieved group.

And nice job avoiding Sultan's point.

[brandx]

It really is embarrassing that someone with a degree from my undergraduate institution is so easily swayed by corporate propaganda.

But so predictable.

[rocket surgeon]

I'm not talking about "someone somewhere." I'm talking about well over 1 million people from the aggrieved group.

And nice job avoiding Sultan's point.

not sure what you meant about sultans post, or what point of his i avoided, but i was addressing your scenario.  if 25% of any group is offended by something.  let's say out of 100 in a group, 25 were offended by the color of the classrooms, but 75 weren't.  but the 25 were listened to and the classroom color was changed.  my question is, what about the other 75?  don't they count?  they weren't offended, but now they are.  so you placate 25 but piss off 75. 

  with the indian example, it's going to come down to, as most everything does-money.  well, that and the gubmint, who has no business poking it's face into.  the more prominent the person who raises his/her voice, the more oil poured on the squeaky wheel, not the number of people raising their voice. note the use of prominent($$$) people with indian ancestry voicing their displeasure.  suddenly it's game on, even though, a majority still wants to keep the indian name as they see the remnants of their history being diminished.   

[GGGG]

not sure what you meant about sultans post, or what point of his i avoided, but i was addressing your scenario.  if 25% of any group is offended by something.  let's say out of 100 in a group, 25 were offended by the color of the classrooms, but 75 weren't.  but the 25 were listened to and the classroom color was changed.  my question is, what about the other 75?  don't they count?  they weren't offended, but now they are.  so you placate 25 but piss off 75. 

You aren't "offending" anyone by changing the name.  You might be pissing them off, but my guess is that most just don't care.  The fact is it is a slur word.  Period.  You would never go up to a Native person and call them "Redskin."

  with the indian example, it's going to come down to, as most everything does-money.  well, that and the gubmint, who has no business poking it's face into.  the more prominent the person who raises his/her voice, the more oil poured on the squeaky wheel, not the number of people raising their voice. note the use of prominent($$$) people with indian ancestry voicing their displeasure.  suddenly it's game on, even though, a majority still wants to keep the indian name as they see the remnants of their history being diminished.   

Ooookaaayyyy... 

[ChicosBailBonds]

It is absolutely hilarious that Chicos is citing information and posting videos from a site that a PR firm created for the Redskins.  And that site has inaccurate/incomplete information on the history of the Redskins name.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2014/07/31/fact-checking-the-new-web-site-redskinsfacts-com/

It really is embarrassing that someone with a degree from my undergraduate institution is so easily swayed by corporate propaganda.

I did post them, because it is equally hilarious that when the mainstream press pushes stuff out, they somehow aren't able to find Native Americans that are just fine with the name.  That's awesome journalism on their part...don't you think?

Just providing a balanced approach.  Not that hard to figure out.  Why is it do you think an "impartial" and "fair" media wouldn't do their job?  Hmmmm