Redskins

[Town Heretic]

Interestingly we had an Indian in our platoon in the Army. We used to call him red and he used to call us pale. It was something to say because it was a commentary on who we were as opposed to a pejorative about our character.

Hey, there are a lot of people who don't care or find offense in it who are of Native American descent. I'm not suggesting they have to or should. But there are a number who agree with Webster's historic view and don't care to see America's sport, in our nation's capitol, promote them using an at best checkered symbol. I sympathize with them and so do a growing segment of the American public.

 

[rexlunae]

Oh my word - what would happen if they realized they do not want their warrior past to be forgotten and replaced??

And really, who doesn't want to be remembered only as a single stereotype chosen by other people based on what you were to them? We should all be so lucky, right? It's like if the only thing anyone ever remembered about white people was their colonial prowess, and the art, the literature, and everything else was completely forgotten and overlooked.

 

[rexlunae]

So it isn't that "Redskin" was considered by some in the past to be a pejorative, it's that it was a worse pejorative than "Yankee." BTW, there are many incidents claimed of British soldiers raping and torturing "Yankees", so be sure to include that in your scale of "how bad a pejorative needs to be before it's really bad."

No, that isn't it at all. Yankee was supposed to be an insult, and there's very little evidence that it was effective, and our culture rehabilitated it and integrated it into our national identity. No such process has ever occurred with "Redskins", and frankly, you have no right to demand it.

So how does one judge how bad the pejorative had been (but no longer is) to be before one can't use it in the present?

One rule: Ask them. If they don't all pretty much agree that something is fair game, try to steer clear of it.

 

[rexlunae]

Interestingly we had an Indian in our platoon in the Army. We used to call him red and he used to call us pale. It was something to say because it was a commentary on who we were as opposed to a pejorative about our character.

What happens on a personal level is a lot different from how cultures treat each other. There are many things that I would say to people I know of other races that I wouldn't broadcast undirected into the world, because there's a basis of trust with close friends that doesn't otherwise exist.

 

[resurrected]

No, that isn't it at all. Yankee was supposed to be an insult, and there's very little evidence that it was effective, and our culture rehabilitated it and integrated it into our national identity. No such process has ever occurred with "Redskins"

:duh:

Spoiler

 

[rainee]

No, that isn't it at all. Yankee was supposed to be an insult, and there's very little evidence that it was effective, and our culture rehabilitated it and integrated it into our national identity. No such process has ever occurred with "Redskins", and frankly, you have no right to demand it.



One rule: Ask them. If they don't all pretty much agree that something is fair game, try to steer clear of it.

This seems to be getting into the history of the Beeatch word.
Publicly the word is thrown a round a lot, like to "b" slap someone.
And now many tough guys call other guys the "b" word.

But it wasn't always like that. It used to be reserved for women only and it was usually used to put one down for being out of line. Lol.

I'm trying to write sorry.

Ok, anyway, then the '60's came along and in that 'sexual revolution' of those times necklaces and tee shirts came out with #1 B**** on them and things were going to start changing.

But on a personal level - you know - maybe not so much.

Either you are joking in a rough way and it is simply part of your vocabulary -

or you are looking to insult or hurt -

or you are in an argument or fight - if you call a woman a "b".

And she may call herself one but that is not an invitation for any one else to do so.

At least that is how I see it, I may be wrong about the latest crop of young women since I'm kinda outa touch. And this may be just an American phenomenon.

Does anyone else see this differently?


Because now you have a problem with a football team running out with your "B" word on their helmet.

It would be showing an attitude, wouldn't it. A bad attitude. A kick your butt attitude.

Is that what 'Redskins' was communicating? "I'm gonna kick your a**"?

 

[Granite]

So far no one here has said they'd ever call an American Indian a "redskin" to their face--even though many of these same people have said the word is intended as a compliment. Which makes it the strangest "compliment" I've ever heard of.

"Yankee" as a pejorative didn't last very long. Now--as a Red Sox fan, if, say, a European were to casually refer to me as a "Yank," would I take offense? Absolutely not (if anything I'd get a real kick out of that). Is it imaginable that anyone anywhere would ever be able to effectively use the word "Yankee" as an insult? Not really.

Is it feasible you could use the word "redskin" exactly as the slur it really is? You bet.

 

[rainee]

Granite what about the "B" word, how would you use it and what if it was the name of a team of some kind?

 

[Granite]

Granite what about the "B" word, how would you use it and what if it was the name of a team of some kind?

Not sure what word you have in mind, did you mention it in an earlier post?

 

[rainee]

Not sure what word you have in mind, did you mention it in an earlier post?

If you have to ask then your writing is better than your reading I hope

(That is what I mean by "B" word)

 

[99lamb]

so these images are offensive:?

 

[99lamb]

I wonder if the images would be less offensive if the Native America were paid a user fee for these images?
So if the Redskins football team can have their copyright revoked, could the Native American tribes copyright their image? And receive monetary compensation, to ease the humiliation they have suffered at the expense of professional sports teams?

 

[Granite]

If you have to ask then your writing is better than your reading I hope

(That is what I mean by "B" word)

Either that or I don't have a dirty word in mind. Excuse me.

 

[rainee]

And really, who doesn't want to be remembered only as a single stereotype chosen by other people based on what you were to them? We should all be so lucky, right? It's like if the only thing anyone ever remembered about white people was their colonial prowess, and the art, the literature, and everything else was completely forgotten and overlooked.

Now that I brought women being called names into this, let's add your idea about stereotyping. Women are born and raised with stereotyping.

Let's rename the Red Skins The Blonde Bombshells.

 

[rainee]

Either that or I don't have a dirty word in mind. Excuse me.

Ok that was witty and gentlemanly

...

I hope

 

[Yorzhik]

So far no one here has said they'd ever call an American Indian a "redskin" to their face

I did. And come to think if it, he called himself a red man.

 

[Yorzhik]

Hey, there are a lot of people who don't care or find offense in it who are of Native American descent. I'm not suggesting they have to or should.

In fact, when poles are taken, most are apathetic. To the tune of 90%.

And, no offense is intended. That's the point of naming a team.

So you are all worked up about a name when no offense is taken or given, but you still want to control thought... why? Let's see:

But there are a number

It's not a popularity contest. The Indians don't mind being remembered as the mighty warriors the team wants to represent and the team wished to refer to them that way.

who agree with Webster's historic view and don't care to see America's sport, in our nation's capitol, promote them using an at best checkered symbol. I sympathize with them and so do a growing segment of the American public.

That's only because you think thought control is possible. In the end, it never works and only leads to certain people groups being oppressed and/or killed.

The bottom line is that people that use the word redskin to refer to Indians aren't always thinking of anything like whatever Webster's historic view is. They are thinking that the name reminds them of the mighty warrior pictured on the side of the helmet. Stop trying to tell them what they are thinking or what they are allowed to think.

BTW, you haven't provided the level of pejorative something needs to be before it's "too bad" to be allowed to be a team name. Remember, Yankee and Redskin are identical except they refer to different people groups. Come to think of it, Yankee is worse because it was supposed to be bad, whereas redskin is frequently just descriptive.

 

[Yorzhik]

No, that isn't it at all. Yankee was supposed to be an insult, and there's very little evidence that it was effective, and our culture rehabilitated it and integrated it into our national identity.

We put it into our national identity because it was effective. Duh.

No such process has ever occurred with "Redskins", and frankly, you have no right to demand it.

Yes it did. Every one knows who a red skinned person is and no one takes it as a pejorative if it ever was one.

And if you want to say that it wasn't effective in terms of shaming the Yankees (the original ones) which lead to the lack of shaming today... then it is identical to redskin as a pejorative.

One rule: Ask them. If they don't all pretty much agree that something is fair game, try to steer clear of it.

They've been asked. And they pretty much agree that they don't care. To them it's just a description. Same as pale face and yellowed skinned people.

 

[Town Heretic]

In fact, when poles are taken, most are apathetic. To the tune of 90%.

Depends on which polling you look at and its been moving steadily toward taking offense for a while now.

And, no offense is intended. That's the point of naming a team.

Like I said to Knight, I doubt offense had anything to do with it. The image and association of the name is fierce and easy to turn into a marketing bit.

So you are all worked up about a name when no offense is taken or given, but you still want to control thought... why?

I'm not "all worked up" because I sympathize with people who have reason to find a term Webster's defines as usually offensive in application and do. I'm not attempting to "control thought" because I happen to think that the team that represents our capital in the actual national pastime could do better with its naming.

It's not a popularity contest. The Indians don't mind being remembered as the mighty warriors the team wants to represent and the team wished to refer to them that way.

Actually, I've noted a number of groups, from the Seminole nation on who happen to be Native American and do mind the particular naming of the Washington team.

...The bottom line is that people that use the word redskin to refer to Indians aren't always thinking of anything like whatever Webster's historic view is.

Again, I firmly believe most people don't have a negative in their minds at all when using it. But this isn't about them. It's about the people who are offended and not without reason. And if we don't mean to harm and offend, proceeding to do that very thing needlessly seems more than a bit peculiar.

They are thinking that the name reminds them of the mighty warrior pictured on the side of the helmet.

You don't know that. You know that many are offended and that most aren't. That's really all you know. So your next line is one you should listen to:

Stop trying to tell them what they are thinking or what they are allowed to think.

Said the fellow doing just that to the one whose words won't support the charge.

BTW, you haven't provided the level of pejorative something needs to be before it's "too bad" to be allowed to be a team name.

There's no litmus. We have an authority (Websters) recognizing the reasonable nature of the offense taken by a growing number of people we say were never meant to be offended. So let's stop doing that.

I omit the Yankee bit because it's as thin as listening to someone trying to equate cracker with the N-word.

 

[resurrected]

That's because it doesn't bother you. I doubt the people it does feel that way about it and they're the ones actually being impacted by it

How are they "being impacted by it"?