Redskins -- Offensive word or just a football team -- discuss
Quote: Sabretom2Like we needed another reason not to frequent redskin casinos.
This is a very offensive post. "Redskin" is akin to using the N-word to refer to black people, which I doubt you would use in common speech here.
Quote: AcesAndEightsThis is a very offensive post. "Redskin" is akin to using the N-word to refer to black people, which I doubt you would use in common speech here.
Tell the people at nflshop.com where I can buy plenty of clothes with the word on it. I must have missed the ones with the N word on them.
When will The PC crowd ever be happy?
Quote: BozTell the people at nflshop.com where I can buy plenty of clothes with the word on it. I must have missed the ones with the N word on them.
The N word was widely accepted years ago as perfectly acceptable. Now its not. The same is happening with the word Redskin. The Washington Football Team have recently had several Patents removed as the word is offensive. There is massive pressure on them right now to change their name. Times are changing.
Quote: BozWhen will The PC crowd ever be happy?
When everyone is treated equally regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation.
I'm sure you've all heard the rejoinder by now: The team dropped the word "Washington" because it was offensive to everyone.
Political Correctness /endtag.
Quote: AcesAndEightsThis is a very offensive post. "Redskin" is akin to using the N-word to refer to black people, which I doubt you would use in common speech here.
Being in the casino manufacturing business I deal with a lot of Native Americans. Something I find interesting is that I had never heard the term Redskin used in a negative connotation until this controversy in D.C. started. BTW, most of the Native Americans I have worked with also do not find the term Indian offensive.
Quote: BozTell the people at nflshop.com where I can buy plenty of clothes with the word on it. I must have missed the ones with the N word on them.
When will The PC crowd ever be happy?
This isn't the NFL.
Despite its use as an NFL team name, it is an offensive term. Whether or not you agree with the gov's ruling on the NFL team is immaterial. Every definition of redskin denotes "slang, derogatory, offensive".
Referring to "the Redskins" is fine. Using it in context is fine. Using it as Sabretom did is not.
Perhaps Sabretom is using it to push back on the PC police. I don't know, but I'll give him benefit of the doubt. However, further use of this term or any other known racial slurs in an offensive manner will meet with a suspension.
Quote: FaceThis isn't the NFL.
Perhaps Sabretom is using it to push back on the PC police. I don't know, but I'll give him benefit of the doubt. However, further use of this term or any other known racial slurs in an offensive manner will meet with a suspension.
I used it to make fun of the correctness knuckleheads.
What's wrong with letting the marketplace decide this issue. Stop buying "Redskin" stuff.
BTW, the N word was never widely accepted as suggested here.
And really, would true Cowboys ever want to be associated with Tony Romo?? Its an insult.
And the Steelers, how offensive is that to people on welfare who don't have a job in a steel plant?
Where does it stop?
Whatever is done in life will offend someone.
Quote: FleaStiffYeah, I heard something about that recently. They officially dropped "Redskins" because it was offensive to some.
I'm sure you've all heard the rejoinder by now: The team dropped the word "Washington" because it was offensive to everyone.
Political Correctness /endtag.
post of the day +1000
Quote: sodawaterWizard, I am late to this thread, but you should have called the police or sheriff or whoever is in charge of local law enforcement where you were.
Taking photographs in a public place on public property is not only not a crime, it's a constitutional right.
Where were you when I needed you? At the time I didn't know what my rights were on Indian land.
Regarding the discussion of word Redskins, it is my understanding that it is offensive except if used to refer to the football team. Some are evidently offended even at that usage, but I'm not. Much like I'm not offended by the mention of Nigger Jim in Huckleberry Finn.
I'll split off the posts about that topic if it goes on much further.
Quote: WizardWhere were you when I needed you? At the time I didn't know what my rights were on Indian land.
Regarding the discussion of word Redskins, it is my understanding that it is offensive except if used to refer to the football team. Some are evidently offended even at that usage, but I'm not. Much like I'm not offended by the mention of Nigger Jim in Huckleberry Finn.
I'll split off the posts about that topic if it goes on much further.
Well, if I start referring to many of the conservatives here as Obama lovers, or Obama voters, or Obama supporters, according to the current logic, they needn't be offended.
Who cares if it's true. Most flattery, (and I consider it such) is often less than true, and most people react in a version of "aw shucks, thanks for the compliment"
So, I guess if I consider it a compliment, that should be good enough for them. Who cares if they think it is like "redskins" in offensiveness to other people.
Quote: Sabretom2BTW, the N word was never widely accepted as suggested here.
I am not sure how old you are Sabretom2 but when I was a kid in the 50's it was used all the time and not as a derogatory term. That was in Canada and not the southern US.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mwNbTL3pOs
LOSERS ( exempting Aceofspades ).
Quote: BuzzardAmazed at all the BULLSHIT excuses people, post to keep the, name REDSKINS. Get a life and shut up. Just change the name.
LOSERS ( exempting Aceofspades ).
Buzz, I love the way you just get to the point.
Correct me if I'm wrong:
It is OK to speak of "ragheads" when the US army goes slaughtering hordes of Iraqi or Afghan civilians.
It is not OK to speak of "niggers" or "redskins" when they have the American nationality.
What about Amazonians or Africans?
Tosday, nobody would dare speak of black people as "nègres". But previously it was a common term. There was a colonialist semi-racist view of Africans, but it was not the word, it was the world view.
Somehow, the word has been burdened with the charge.
But there is a pop group called "Les négresses vertes" and no one is stirred.
We still speak of "art nègre" and "musique nègre". Senghor, Senegal writer, wrote of his "négritude", in a proud way.
But now, we never had such a large part of the population as in the US. This may explain why "nigger art" sounds much much more offensive than "art nègre".
Quote: kubikulannIt's hard to understand the issue, from this side of the Atlantic.
Correct me if I'm wrong:
It is OK to speak of "ragheads" when the US army goes slaughtering hordes of Iraqi or Afghan civilians.
It is not OK to speak of "niggers" or "redskins" when they have the American nationality.
What about Amazonians or Africans?
Believe me, it's hard from this side as well. Should I be offended if someone calls me paleface?
Exactly where is that line between descriptor and slur?
Quote: kubikulannIt's hard to understand the issue, from this side of the Atlantic.
Correct me if I'm wrong:
It is OK to speak of "ragheads" when the US army goes slaughtering hordes of Iraqi or Afghan civilians.
It is not OK to speak of "niggers" or "redskins" when they have the American nationality.
What about Amazonians or Africans?
Actually, if I read the news correctly, it's ragheads that are slaughtering hordes of Iraqi civilians.
But back in 2003 I read about US pilots saying how fun it was. "It's just like a video game". 300,000 civilians, IIRC.
And today is just the result of American a-diplomacy and blindness.
(Not that the EU did better in Lybia or Ukraine !!!)
[political rant off]
Quote: kubikulannIt's hard to understand the issue, from this side of the Atlantic.
Correct me if I'm wrong:
It is OK to speak of "ragheads" when the US army goes slaughtering hordes of Iraqi or Afghan civilians.
It is not OK to speak of "niggers" or "redskins" when they have the American nationality.
What about Amazonians or Africans?
Don't know. Personally, I could give a shit less what people call each other.
We talk about "colored people" to refer to anyone who isn't white but more so (as far as I've noticed) refers to black people. DAFUQ? Black isn't even a damn color....so much for political correctness. If anything, WHITE people are the most "colored" because white is ALL COLORS mixed/blended together. Not that it matters, just found it kinda odd.
If it were solely up to me, words like "cracker", "nigger", "camel-jockey", "feather-head", etc. would be fine to use. (Not sure if I'm supposed to put quotation marks around those words.....included the quotations just to be safe in case the PC police are out to get me. ;) )
Quote: kubikulannThe French equivalent is "nègre" (fem. "négresse").
Today, nobody would dare speak of black people as "nègres". But previously it was a common term. There was a colonialist semi-racist view of Africans, but it was not the word, it was the world view.
Somehow, the word has been burdened with the charge.
That's the damn problem -- shit keeps changing and I assume it's because person A feels sorry about person B. It used to be that some people were labeled as "retarded". Then it became "mentally handicapped" then "special needs" (wtf?) and I'm sure "special needs" is now an offensive term and the proper term is "regular person who has a special trained golden retriever" or some stupid shit.
I mean, come on people! You can't even describe someone as being "black" anymore or "Mexican". You have to refer to them as "African American"....even if he's not American, he's still an "African American", or "Immigrant" (actually now it's either "illegal alien" or "undocumented citizen" [seriously?]).
The easiest way to describe someone is by their skin color or nationality. We seriously can't use the easiest way to describe someone? What's next, we can't say someone is tall or short? Fat or skinny? Why can I say "he has black hair" but I can't say "he has black skin"?
Not any more. Your neighborhood PCs have changed to "people of color"Quote: RS"colored people" to refer to anyone who isn't white
Big diff, huh?
What a total f*^&%$g waste of time from our politicians. When they could actually figure out how to do something important or just get the hell out of the way and let the country move forward again, they're weighing in on an issue that has little or nothing to do with the stuff that needs taken care of by them.
The whole "N" word thing drives me bat shit crazy--I know it is a nasty and derogatory term and never, in my lifetime, has it been anything close to really acceptable for public use anywhere that I lived. If it is so freaking bad, why does anyone get a pass to use it? It is that bad and no one should use it--period.
Should they change the name of the Washington Redskins? Probably so. It just isn't anywhere in the top 100 issues that need to be dealt with. It is more of a distraction and wedge issue to keep folks away from asking that the right things be worked on that anything else. Keep it in perspective, deal with it, and move on.
Its so easy.
A local team allready changed their name, its no big deal.
Bullets to Wizards.
The fan base remained the same.
If the local basketball did it easily, why is it so hard for a football team to do it.
As Nike says"Just do it"
Its offensive.
Just change the name. sheesh.
In Tampa we were the Devil Rays.
Now simply the Rays.
Its so easy to change the name of a team. All it takes is a decision by the owner and its an easily done deal.
Just do it
His property, his right.
We're done here.
Quote: NostronMaybe this is overly simplistic but I always thought naming something after someone was an honor not an insult.
I have never seen "Redskins" used derogatorily when referring to the Washington team. And I've never understood it to be a derogatory term, though I grew up in the Plains among many tribes, where there were other words that WERE considered offensive, and we supported the Minnesota Vikings, which is an ethnic reference as well, though apparently not one that's considered derogatory. But it's not up to me what offends someone else, either.
How about the Florida State Seminoles who have been protested before despite the fact they have the full support of the Seminole tribe of Florida. why not make them change also?
Quote: terapinedChange the name.
Its so easy.
I agree. They have a very offensive name. Without delay they should call the team the Virginia-Maryland Redskins.
What I do believe is that tomahawk chop thing that the Atlanta Braves fans do is offensive! When you think about it, the tomahawk chop represents one of the more savage aspects of the Indians....scalping. And even more important, as a Braves rival.....Philadelphia Phillies fan, that chop thing is just soooo damn annoying. Lol.
That is precisely the problem.Quote: beachbumbabsBut it's not up to me what offends someone else, either.
You can't define an offense based on what one person feels: anybody could claim they are offensed by anyone.
In my school, I have been reported for calling a student "son of a banker". I laughed it out by saying, "So he admits it is an insult?" but they didn't bite it.
Quote: IbeatyouracesI think its more offensive to be called a Detroit Lion.
It's more offensive to be called the New YORK Giants or the New YORK Jets.
Both teams are in NEW JERSEY!!!!!!!!!
Quote: kewljI don't know if the name redskin is offensive. I am not American Indian, so I can't make that call. It seems strange that no one complained for all so many years and now all of the sudden it is a problem.
There have been national protests for at least 25 years when Washington won its Super Bowl in 1988. The first trademark suit was filed in 1992 and resolved against the name in 1999, but reversed on appeal due to a legal technicality. This did not just come up last month.
Quote: IbeatyouracesI was about to quite Nareeds post and use that. But then again, being called anything "New Jersey" is an insult.
Not as bad as being named after a malarial swamp which has gotten even more unsalubrious over the last 200 years ;)
Edited: the owners might also consider moving the team to Cleveland. I hear the people there would love to have a football team.
Quote: beachbumbabsI have never seen "Redskins" used derogatorily when referring to the Washington team. And I've never understood it to be a derogatory term, though I grew up in the Plains among many tribes, where there were other words that WERE considered offensive, and we supported the Minnesota Vikings, which is an ethnic reference as well, though apparently not one that's considered derogatory. But it's not up to me what offends someone else, either.
Vikings were what they called themselves I believe. American Indians did not call themselves redskins.
However, the problem may be simply the power of the image the word conjures. When I hear Vikings, I imagine a strong people with horned helmets and axes disembarking from dragon-ships in an attempt at conquering uncharted lands.
When I hear Redskins I think of guys with feathered headdress popping their cupped hands to their mouths as they dance around a campfire (yes, stereotypical thoughts but that is what I always saw on tv when a redskin was mentioned.)
Perhaps in keeping with the ethnicity of the team, they can change it to something with a stronger ethnic image.
How about calling themselves The Tomahawks?
Quote: darkozWhen I hear Redskins I think of guys with feathered headdress popping their cupped hands to their mouths as they dance around a campfire.
It depends on one's point of view.
When I see the word "redskins" I think of:
Uh oh, we better let Harry Reid know about this. I am sure he will want the states name changed.
Quote: VCUSkyhawkUh oh, we better let Harry Reid know about this. I am sure he will want the states name changed.
How about "Cabaret"? Or maybe "Cats"? No? How about "Nine," then? "Stomp"? "Rent"?
There just aren't that many musicals with one-word titles.
Quote: kewljI don't know if the name redskin is offensive. I am not American Indian, so I can't make that call. It seems strange that no one complained for all so many years and now all of the sudden it is a problem.
What I do believe is that tomahawk chop thing that the Atlanta Braves fans do is offensive! When you think about it, the tomahawk chop represents one of the more savage aspects of the Indians....scalping. And even more important, as a Braves rival.....Philadelphia Phillies fan, that chop thing is just soooo damn annoying. Lol.
What is so annoying is watching this Phillies team get shut out again. It is going to be a long rebuilding process for this team.
No doubt right after he gets around to having the name of the UNLV sports teams changed. From the current name "Rebels" which used to also include a Confederate flag on their uniforms and a wolf named Beauregard dressed in a Confederate army uniform as a mascot.*Quote: VCUSkyhawkUh oh, we better let Harry Reid know about this. I am sure he will want the states name changed.
*And I can't believe I'm posting in this $@&% thread.
Quote: kewljWhat I do believe is that tomahawk chop thing that the Atlanta Braves fans do is offensive! When you think about it, the tomahawk chop represents one of the more savage aspects of the Indians....scalping. And even more important, as a Braves rival.....Philadelphia Phillies fan, that chop thing is just soooo damn annoying. Lol.
Well, I think is a little historical trivia that the Indians learned about scalping when the white man put out rewards on killing Indians. The scalp was proof of the killing and one collected his reward.
Quote: mickeycrimmWell, I think is a little historical trivia that the Indians learned about scalping when the white man put out rewards on killing Indians. The scalp was proof of the killing and one collected his reward.
The ancient Egyptians used to do something similar. In order to count the enemy dead in battle, soldiers collected the right hand of each body and dumped a pile of them in front of a scribe. The scribe counted the hands and added them up. A soldier seeing a body without a right hand already knew it had been counted.
It's gruesome, but it makes a macabre sort of sense. It also makes one grateful for the use of dog tags or the equivalent in modern armies.
I do know that at the very bottom, this thing related to survival. As far as we know we've never really been in the thick of it. We started after the extinctions. Life as I know it has been around longer than the human race. Even with 10,000 years under our belts, we started off pretty easy. I don't live in fear for my life at every breath. It's a subconscious response that was created through an overload of the conscious mind. If the ones yelling the most are native Americans, then I see their point. They've been in the thick of it if only by a few generations.
Personally I don't care what anyone calls their team. It's not the name that's causing all the problems.
