OT: What if the Redskins change their name?

[Mulli]

BIM used wiki. Selective wiki.

 

[Brian in Mesa]

BIM used wiki. Selective wiki.

I have used it before. No big deal. I am one of those nerds that actually follows the links they offer as cited sources though and reads those too.

 

[Mulli]

I have used it before. No big deal. I am one of those nerds that actually follows the links they offer as cited sources though and reads those too.

 

[Brian in Mesa]

Actually, if you read this document, the NCAI agrees with you. It is very extenstive in detailing the history of the word, and tears apart Snyder's argument for not changing the name.

http://www.ncai.org/resources/ncai-publications/Ending_the_Legacy_of_Racism.pdf

Most alarming info to come out of this report is the public racism exhibited by the former owner of the team, George Marshall.

Dan Snyder should want to separate himself from anything George Marshall touched, including the name of the team.

This guy was scum of the earth:

The Racist Redskins

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/01/the-racist-redskins.html

When George Preston Marshall died in 1969, he left some money to his children but directed that the bulk of his estate be used to set up a foundation in his name. He attached, however, one firm condition: that the foundation, operating out of Washington, D.C., should not direct a single dollar toward “any purpose which supports or employs the principle of racial integration in any form.” Think about that. This was not 1929 or 1949. Even in 1960 such a diktat might have been, well, “understandable” in a Southern city such as Washington then was. But 1969; “in any form.”

This is the man who gave the Washington Redskins their name. He was one of the most despicable racists in the American sporting arena of the entire 20th century. He thought Redskins was funny, just as he thought the war paint and feather headdress he made the head coach wear were funny. And this is the legacy that current Redskins owner Dan Snyder wants to uphold?

 

[Mulli]

random:

You must be registered for see images

 

[Mulli]

You must be registered for see images

 

[MrYeahBut]

Do I have to post in the Official Name Change thread to have my screen name changed to Kemo Sabe?... which is, I believe, a term of endearment for Caucasians.

 

[Brian in Mesa]

Do I have to post in the Official Name Change thread to have my screen name changed to Kemo Sabe?... which is, I believe, a term of endearment for Caucasians.

Kemo sabe: an invented word meaning 'faithful friend'

Etymology: 1933; fr The Lone Ranger

 

[Russ Smith]

Most alarming info to come out of this report is the public racism exhibited by the former owner of the team, George Marshall.

Dan Snyder should want to separate himself from anything George Marshall touched, including the name of the team.

This guy was scum of the earth:

The Racist Redskins

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/01/the-racist-redskins.html

When George Preston Marshall died in 1969, he left some money to his children but directed that the bulk of his estate be used to set up a foundation in his name. He attached, however, one firm condition: that the foundation, operating out of Washington, D.C., should not direct a single dollar toward “any purpose which supports or employs the principle of racial integration in any form.” Think about that. This was not 1929 or 1949. Even in 1960 such a diktat might have been, well, “understandable” in a Southern city such as Washington then was. But 1969; “in any form.”

This is the man who gave the Washington Redskins their name. He was one of the most despicable racists in the American sporting arena of the entire 20th century. He thought Redskins was funny, just as he thought the war paint and feather headdress he made the head coach wear were funny. And this is the legacy that current Redskins owner Dan Snyder wants to uphold?

Some of us have been pointing that out for years now.

There isn't a franchise in the NFL with a more clear history of racism so for Snyder to pretend he doesn't think anything is offensive knowing the history of how the team was named, who named it, and to what lengths he and then Jack Kent Cooke went to lie about the purpose of the name is silly.

He just doesn't want to be told what to do.

I wish some Native American billionaire with say Larry Ellison's money would go out, buy an NFL franchise, name them the Jews, and then when Dan Snyder complained say "I don't think it's offensive and neither do those who took this poll. Oh by the way I polled people in Alaska and Hawaii only."

If it's not personally offending Snyder, he doesn't care.

 

[BigRedRage]

random:

You must be registered for see images

LMAO

 

[Redcoyote]

I do not know of a more derogatory racial slur towards Native Americans than Redskins.

I feel that Braves, Chiefs, Indians, etc are not slurs and some team names that name specific tribes etc honor the tribes.

I understand Washington D.C. fans that want to hold on to the pride and tradition of their franchise. I understand that the majority of them do not view or intend the word Redskin to be an insult. It does, however, bother me that some want to say that it is not a slur or that that it is no more offensive than any other term referring to Native Americans.

 

[ajcardfan]

I don't believe in their history of the word and their source - Phips Proclamation of 1755 (http://abbemuseum.org/research/wabanaki/timeline/proclamation.html) - never mentions the word, just scalps.

Historic use

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_(slang)#Historic_use

Some claim the term is a particularly egregious racial epithet that represents a bloody era in American history in which Indigenous Americans were hunted, killed, and forcibly removed from their lands by European settlers.[13] The claim often centers around a proclamation against Penobscot Indians in 1755 issued by King George II of Great Britain, known commonly as the Phips Proclamation.[14][15] The proclamation orders, “His Majesty’s subjects to Embrace all opportunities of pursuing, captivating, killing and Destroying all and every of the aforesaid Indians.” The colonial government paid 50 pounds for scalps of males over 12 years, 25 pounds for scalps of women over 12, and 20 pounds for scalps of boys and girls under 12. Twenty-five British pounds sterling in 1755, worth around $9,000 today —a small fortune in those days when an English teacher earned 60 pounds a year.[14] However, since the proclamation itself does not use the word redskin, citing it as the origin of "redskin = scalp" has also been called "revisionist history".[16]

------------------------

Here is an Indian source on the origin of the word:

Redskins Not So Black and White

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/opinion/redskins-not-so-black-and-white-145172

The person that tied "Redskins" in with "scalps" is Suzan Harjo, the same woman that incorrectly linked "squaw" with "vagina." She is an activist that was on Oprah several times.

------------------------

Here is where the word really came from:

Historic use

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_(slang)#Historic_use

The first use of red-skin or red Indian may have been limited to specific groups that used red pigments to decorate their bodies, such as the Beothuk people of Newfoundland who painted their bodies with red ochre.[10] 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.[11]

A Linguist's Alternative History of 'Redskin'

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/02/AR2005100201139.html

Smithsonian Institution senior linguist Ives Goddard spent seven months researching its history and concluded that "redskin" was first used by Native Americans in the 18th century to distinguish themselves from the white "other" encroaching on their lands and culture.

When it first appeared as an English expression in the early 1800s, "it came in the most respectful context and at the highest level," Goddard said in an interview. "These are white people and Indians talking together, with the white people trying to ingratiate themselves."

------------------------

Be against the word, that is fine. but know the true etymology. Trying to tie it in to scalping without proof is disingenuous and weakens their argument, IMHO. Just call it offensive because they feel it is offensive.

Does it really matter how a word originates? Meanings change over time. Read Shakespeare and you can find hundreds of words we still use that have a different meaning than how we use it now.

Does that mean our interpetation of those words are nonsense? Of course not! Language evolves.

Besides, this is straight from the biggest intergovernmental group among the tribes.

 

[Brian in Mesa]

Does it really matter how a word originates? Meanings change over time. Read Shakespeare and you can find hundreds of words we still use that have a different meaning than how we use it now.

Does that mean our interpretation of those words are nonsense? Of course not! Language evolves.

Besides, this is straight from the biggest intergovernmental group among the tribes.

It matters when you are laying out a legal argument and you revise history to suit your needs. It makes it seem as if your argument wouldn't stand on its own merit so you needed to rewrite the origin of the term in question.

I already said before - say : "This word started out innocently enough but now it is demeaning." No need to fabricate the etymology.

 

[Redheart]

OK, I am ready for this thread to be moved to ... someplace else.

 

[schutd]

BOOM!

http://www.theonion.com/articles/redskins-****-owner-refuses-to-change-teams-offens,34292/

 

[AzStevenCal]

BOOM!

http://www.theonion.com/articles/redskins-****-owner-refuses-to-change-teams-offens,34292/

Are we allowed to laugh at that? If so, I laughed. If not, someone hacked my account - please help me find them.

Steve

 

[Russ Smith]

ESPN in hot water now because in their pregame set they had their "talent"dress up in Indian gear(before the FSU game) and the Seminole nation was not amused.

So far ESPN hasn't apologized.

 

[BigRedRage]

BOOM!

http://www.theonion.com/articles/redskins-****-owner-refuses-to-change-teams-offens,34292/

I expected something more clever from them.

ESPN in hot water now because in their pregame set they had their "talent"dress up in Indian gear(before the FSU game) and the Seminole nation was not amused.

So far ESPN hasn't apologized.

Whats wrong with wearing indian gear to rep the seminoles?

Hopefully they never name a team white people as we may have to get upset at everyone for wearing pants and a shirt.

 

[Mulli]

I expected something more clever from them.



Whats wrong with wearing indian gear to rep the seminoles?

Hopefully they never name a team white people as we may have to get upset at everyone for wearing pants and a shirt.

That is the point really isn't it? No one will name a team white people.

 

[BigRedRage]

That is the point really isn't it? No one will name a team white people.

Why not? are white people not scary enough? Does it not put fear into the opponents mind that the white people are coming?

 

[TruColor]

Old joke, but:

You must be registered for see images attach

 

[Russ Smith]

I expected something more clever from them.



Whats wrong with wearing indian gear to rep the seminoles?

Hopefully they never name a team white people as we may have to get upset at everyone for wearing pants and a shirt.

It was Lee Corso, he even had his face painted, and it was supposed to be a funny skit but the Seminole Nation didn't find it amusing. http://www.sportsgrid.com/ncaa-foot...-garbed-lee-corso-on-the-college-gameday-set/

Bill Murray tried to make it funny but Corso was clearly mocking the way he was dancing around.

Note, ESPN had to issue a formal apology not all that long ago when someone on air referred to crying fans at an Oklahoma game as "trail of tears" which is a reference to a time when Native americans were forcibly removed from their homes in Georgia and forced to march all the way to Oklahoma, which resulted in lots of deaths.

 

[Russ Smith]

Why not? are white people not scary enough? Does it not put fear into the opponents mind that the white people are coming?

The irony is that Corso was wearing jeans and a shirt when he put on the Indian garb for the ESPN sketch.

ESPN is hiding behind the he does that all the time it's a joke it's not meant to be offensive stuff.

I'd say the countdown is on before ESPN publicly apologizes it took awhile with the trail of tears comments too. The guy who said that on air actually said with a straight face he wasn't aware of what Trail of Tears referred to, so apparently someone wrote that line for him.

 

[CardLogic]

And now for some entertainment...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVN_0qvuhhw

 

[Southpaw]

Then there is that grossly irritating "war chant" that the FSU band incessantly drones throughout the pre game, game and post game. That is some crapass music made up for the "movies" when the "redskins" went on the warpath in those old Western reels. I am fairly certain the Amerinds did not have a brass band and played that song during battle.