Redskins
- Thread starter The 5 solas
- Start date
Answer the question. What's the problem with walking up to an American Indian and addressing him or her as "redskin"? You claim Native heritage. Are you comfortable with being called "redskin" from now on? Why or why not?
Like Town already pointed out, the N-word is used casually by some. Is the word "redskin" equivalent to it? If not, why not? If so, why persist in using it?
IMJerusha
New member
No and yes, I realize that blacks have called each other that at times but there is no comparison and the reason why is that Indians did not consider the description to be a pejorative. It meant something to them and it wasn't bad.
"The Red Nation shall rise again and it shall be a blessing for a sick world; a world filled with broken promises, selfishness and separations; a world longing for light again." -- Crazy Horse
"Is it wrong for me to love my own? Is it wicked for me because my skin is red? Because I am Sioux? Because I was born where my father lived? Because I would die for my people and my country? God made me an Indian." -- Sitting Bull
"I know the manners of the whites and the red skins." -- No Ears
"I turn to all, red skins and white skins, and challenge an accusation against me." -- Black Thunder
"I am a red man. If the Great Spirit had desired me to be a white man he would have made me so in the first place." -- Sitting Bull
It would be good business in an era when Westerns are hugely popular and project Native Americans as scalping, terrifying barbarians that brave pioneers had to "tame", to slap that on a team you mean to be seen as fierce. They even had white people doing Hollywood versions of war dances for a while.
Can't get more respectful that that, can you.
It doesn't mean scalping so your point is moot.
It absolutely has been used distastefully. I've linked and provided authority, from the examination during the patent years that convinced the court to Merriam Webster's recognition of its historical usage.
But that doesn't really control the point, which remains one in ten Native American being offended needlessly and some people who claim never to have meant to offend in the first place supporting that continuing.
Do the good you can do, even if you aren't offended.
Think of those who are offended first, because losing the New Jersey Spooks name and symbol isn't going to deprive anyone of anything of real value, won't work an economic harm (should actually work a benefit for the holders and supporting industries cranking out the new materials) and will end the needless offense no one appears to have wanted.
:e4e:
Lots of words have been used distastefully. Redskin has not been being used by the team in that manner, for that purpose.
Last edited:
IMJerusha
New member
I am not Native American so I can't answer your question. I've already posted my husband's response...enrolled Wyandot.
There is no good connotation to the N-word. No, the word Redskin is not equivalent. It's positively silly to think that a football team would want to call themselves by the N-word equivalent.
Sure there is, in principle, which is how I used it. That some people within a group call themselves a thing many in that group would consider offensive isn't and shouldn't be what determines how we respond to the offended group.
Sorry, IMJ, but you're going to have to be fairer than this. Most Indians had bigger worries on their plate. Some Indians, so far as we know, have always been offended by the usage, at least when whites used it. And that number has grown.
To some, absolutely. To most? All we really know is that most weren't offended, which isn't the same thing as supporting the proposition/usage. And a growing minority are offended.
I enjoyed the quotes, but I've never held that there hasn't been a different usage at different times by some Native Americans.
I actually haven't gotten into the scalping meaning bit. I used it to demonstrate (and I think I amended that but you were drafting) that you could use the popular image of Native Americans during the time when Washington chose to, without being complimentary at all. That you could market the "fierce savage" bit to good effect. Villains sell too. And make no mistake, Native Americans were the villains overwhelmingly in the cultural landscape of the popularized West of that day.
True. I've noted some: Kike, Spook, Spic, etc. Do you use them? Would you object to them or is it okay because there are a lot of them?
And maybe New Jersey thought calling their team the Spear Chuckers would promote the athletic strength and prowess of African Americans as warriors once upon a time, but it's still a bad idea.
Do the good you can do. Take one more offensive term out of an apologetic light. If Washington want's to honor the Native American there are ways to do that and retain the association. This isn't one of them.
IMJerusha
New member
No, you go back and read.
Or you could just clarify. I have no idea how far back I'd need to look in the thread. This won't take you long.
IMJerusha
New member
I've already answered to this and provided proof that redskin is a term that identifies these people. It's a core aspect of their culture.
The number of offended Indians has grown or the number of complainers has grown regardless of their race?
Yeah, I don't think so.
I'm glad you enjoyed them. It's sad that some have forgotten them in favor of acting more like, dare I say it, white men.
It would appear that the scalping aspect some have attached to the word is a primary reason for their jumping on this pathetic bandwagon. Make no mistake, Town? Americans are such a fickle lot. They were out in Nevada not all that long ago supporting a man who took his land from the American Indian. We're all living on land that was taken from the Red Nation. It doesn't have much to do with the "popularized West."
No but again the term redskin is not an equivalent.
I'm going to sue bread companies for calling their product "white bread". Want to serve as my attorney? We can open a class action suit. Just think of the good we can do!
That is your opinion and you have a right to it and it's very noble. It is just not every noble Indian's opinion, nor is it mine.
Last edited:
IMJerusha
New member
I did clarify. This is the third time, yah dee yah... You're bordering on trolling. KWIM? Because I made my clarification in direct response to you. (Post #609)
"This family is of American Indian heritage. Don't I have a right to post my opinion and the facts of the American Indian culture as regards the OP?"
That makes it sound like you've got Native heritage, IMJ, and I could've sworn you've actually said you do indeed have heritage previously in the thread (or elsewhere on TOL). If you don't, I appreciate the clarification, but this post left the exact opposite impression.
Someone here, I'm pretty sure, remarked in passing that whites shouldn't even comment on this issue. Question for everybody: did I imagine this?
IMJerusha
New member
No, it doesn't. This family means my family, my husband and my son. I could enroll as wife to my husband if I wanted. And, as I have stated, I am representing my husband's POV on this issue. My son wouldn't have anything to do with it. I don't believe I have posted anywhere that I am of Indian descent but we do tend to think of our family as Wyandot. Are you done attacking me personally?
There's no "attack" here at all. I thought you'd said you have American Indian heritage. You don't. You've clarified as much. How is any of this an "attack"?
Now, was it your husband's opinion that white folks shouldn't opine on the Washington football team issue? Again, I'm pretty sure someone made this remark somewhere in the thread.
IMJerusha
New member
Because there's no point to your line of questioning to me as pertains to the OP.
Please refer to my previous post.
This subject is exhausted....obviously.
IMJerusha
New member
More of the same.
lain:You're getting lazy. Read. And tag my posts appropriately. Not doing so is the mark of deception...on your part.
More of the same.
You're getting lazy. Read. And tag my posts appropriately. Not doing so is the mark of deception.
Read what? I asked two simple questions. You've screwed around, stalled, and decided to play games. Normally you don't play dumb. This thread's brought out the worst in you.
Ignore list. I'm interested in worthwhile opinions, not people so bored they decided to waste my time.
IMJerusha
New member
Thank you! :wave:
I never argued that some people within that culture identify themselves that way. So you never had to prove that to me. It doesn't affect my argument.
If you mean to do one thing and find yourself accomplishing an end contrary to that the reasonable response, the charitable response, is to stop doing it.
Native Americans. From around seven to now ten percent. It's also growing outside of that among the general populace as more people become aware of the conflict.
Then you're arguing against objective fact. The same facts those who want to make it about numbers in opposition are using without dispute. It's just verifiably true. Google it.
Re: quotes
I hope you don't mean that to take offense is to do that, because that would be a no true Scott fallacy of the worst sort.
I can't speak for the majority, but I"m not aware of any polling that would sustain that notion, either that it's a bandwagon or that that's the motivation...The growth in opposition has been slow and steady. At any rate, it certainly played no role in my consideration. Calling it a pathetic is uncalled for and as pointless as would be my assigning a mean spirited and ideologically driven irrationality on the part of those who differ with me.
I'm not supporting the motion for any reason other than it seems right and necessary in response and in the spirit of accepting that those who heretofore caused the offense didn't, in fact, mean to. If I didn't think that I'd be wasting time talking to them. I have no other dog in the fight. A
My argument is premised without regard for hostility, works as well when everyone involved is above board and well intended.
My point did. It was confirmed in the examination of the period where the patent ran, which found the use as I described it.
You've never heard minorities use those terms among themselves? I have. No match is precise, but I wanted to avoid the "N" word, which is so much stronger I thought using it in that way would be patently unfair, so to speak.
Go ahead, though it's not a parallel for a number of reasons. To touch upon a few, minorities don't have the social power to empower insults to begin with, being subject to the will of the majority and requiring mobility in any meaningful sense by virtue of their agreement. Also, there's no patent on the term to object to that I know of. Lastly, white bread in other usage meant boring, wasn't a racial epithet.
Why would you belittle an honest impulse for the good, agree or not?
That doesn't really feel like a compliment given what preceded it, but it's also not the point. You're arguing something that has no impact on my advance as though I had contested it, which you know I haven't, or it has moment, which you can't possibly assert by an operation of reason...though I'm game to listen if you want to.