RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

Should the Redskins change their name?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
giraffespots



Joined: 14 Apr 2005
Posts: 766
Location: Okla/NM


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/18/14 12:22 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

jammerbirdi wrote:
Martini Man wrote:
What's their logo?

Should they also change the slang name for footballs? Pigskin might be offensive to certain swines.


Let's see. Native American humans and the porky barnyard animal. Hmmm.



What's wrong with this comparison?

Wink



EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!! ARRRRGGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Speaking as a Native American, I am offended by it.

Folks can try to justify it all day long, I am still offended.

"Braves" is NOT like Knights or Crusaders or Warriors. It is a word that is used only in reference to Native Americans...a RACE....not a nationality. I am Native American, but I am NOT Seminole.

As for FSU, again....ARGGGGGGHHHHH!!!!! "Its ok...the Seminoles here in Florida don't mind"........sounds like "I'm not a racist, I have black friends"

It doesn't matter whether or not ANYONE is offended....me included. IRRELEVANT!!!! It is what it is.

How you "see it" is also IRRELEVANT. Intent does not justify anything. If you accidentally hit someone with your car, they are still DEAD. Whether or not white people "see it as pejorative" or not...no matter your "intentions", it is what it is.

Calling someone the N-word IS offensive whether or not you are offended and whether or not you, personally, think it is offensive. (AND, calling Martini Man a fag IS offensive whether or not he is offended. It is an offensive word.)

You can NOT logically justify saying using a stereotypical word is not offensive. Just because a black person, or a gay person, uses the N-word or the G-word, it does not lessen the offensiveness of that word, it is only a human being using that word with justification for its use.

It.is.what.it.is.

The reason I am against the use of these words is this, (please listen carefully):

The use of these words perpetuates a stereotypical image of Native Americans as "savage", "not human", "red-skinned", etc. The images of the cartoonish caricatures of Native Americans is demeaning and makes fun of us and our culture. To dismiss the feelings and views of Native Americans, is an extension of the demeaning nature of these words and images.

Even the image of the Washington "Redskin", while not cartoonish, still perpetuates the stereotype that "redskins" are mean, tough, savage and not human. Yes, to use a race as a MASCOT puts us on the same level as Lions, Tigers and Bears. Its stereotypical because it pigeonholes us all into a single negative characteristic while ignoring all other characteristics and completely ignores the history of WHY.

I have always held to the belief that "Perception is 90% of reality". Well, as long as these images, mascots, words are used and justified as acceptable, the perception of Native Americans will be a stereotypical and incorrect one.

I am stepping down from this box, because my pressure is now up. But I am still sitting at the front of this damn bus.


PS. The Irish is not a race, it is a nationality, filled with many races. The Celtics is not a race, it is a linguistic group from a particular region.



_________________
"I am an evil herbivore. I will eat all the leaves so that others may die. Mwahahahaha!!!"
Force10rulz



Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Posts: 1848
Location: Puget Sound


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/18/14 12:38 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Yes, only one name as offensive as redskin.



_________________
Seattle Storm 3 times Champions
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7073
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/18/14 1:01 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

giraffespots wrote:

PS. The Irish is not a race, it is a nationality, filled with many races. The Celtics is not a race, it is a linguistic group from a particular region.

This is one of the major reasons I don't have an issue with FSU using "Seminoles" as their moniker as it too is a nation rather than a race. And they work hand in hand with that nation to make sure they are being respectful to that culture while also making it an amazing opportunity for the students to learn and understand the culture of that nation.

For instance, FSU doesn't allow white guys to dress up in a head dress and prance around doing some "rain dance". They work with actual members of the Seminole Nation and make sure everything is culturally accurate. In fact, FSU's mascot is an actual historical figure (Osceola, riding atop Renegade), rather than some caricature. The mascot's outfit was designed and approved by the leaders of the Seminole Nation, specifically detailed for historical accuracy. They also don't use Osceola as a traditional mascot, but rather as a symbol, and have some very specific requirements set aside for the person chosen to portray him (including never leaving character, high moral standards, high GPA, and only having one person at a time--not to mention significant amounts of training).

With all this said, if they ever lost the support of the Seminole Tribe of Florida, I would say they need to change it.

As for groups like the Fighting Irish, it is important to recognize that they are actually of the group themselves. Notre Dame is an Irish Catholic institution, created by Irish immigrants. This would be like an actual Native American high school calling themselves the "Braves", giving it an entirely different context.

And as far as if the name "Redskins" is offensive or not, there is always the best test. Would you go to a reservation and tell a couple of parents that their child is such a "cute little Redskin"? If you would hesitate at that, logic would dictate that the name is very probably offensive.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
Mysticwiz



Joined: 17 Nov 2004
Posts: 697



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/18/14 1:03 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

giraffespots wrote:
jammerbirdi wrote:
Martini Man wrote:
What's their logo?

Should they also change the slang name for footballs? Pigskin might be offensive to certain swines.


Let's see. Native American humans and the porky barnyard animal. Hmmm.



What's wrong with this comparison?

Wink



EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!! ARRRRGGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Speaking as a Native American, I am offended by it.

Folks can try to justify it all day long, I am still offended.

"Braves" is NOT like Knights or Crusaders or Warriors. It is a word that is used only in reference to Native Americans...a RACE....not a nationality. I am Native American, but I am NOT Seminole.

As for FSU, again....ARGGGGGGHHHHH!!!!! "Its ok...the Seminoles here in Florida don't mind"........sounds like "I'm not a racist, I have black friends"

It doesn't matter whether or not ANYONE is offended....me included. IRRELEVANT!!!! It is what it is.

How you "see it" is also IRRELEVANT. Intent does not justify anything. If you accidentally hit someone with your car, they are still DEAD. Whether or not white people "see it as pejorative" or not...no matter your "intentions", it is what it is.

Calling someone the N-word IS offensive whether or not you are offended and whether or not you, personally, think it is offensive. (AND, calling Martini Man a fag IS offensive whether or not he is offended. It is an offensive word.)

You can NOT logically justify saying using a stereotypical word is not offensive. Just because a black person, or a gay person, uses the N-word or the G-word, it does not lessen the offensiveness of that word, it is only a human being using that word with justification for its use.

It.is.what.it.is.

The reason I am against the use of these words is this, (please listen carefully):

The use of these words perpetuates a stereotypical image of Native Americans as "savage", "not human", "red-skinned", etc. The images of the cartoonish caricatures of Native Americans is demeaning and makes fun of us and our culture. To dismiss the feelings and views of Native Americans, is an extension of the demeaning nature of these words and images.

Even the image of the Washington "Redskin", while not cartoonish, still perpetuates the stereotype that "redskins" are mean, tough, savage and not human. Yes, to use a race as a MASCOT puts us on the same level as Lions, Tigers and Bears. Its stereotypical because it pigeonholes us all into a single negative characteristic while ignoring all other characteristics and completely ignores the history of WHY.

I have always held to the belief that "Perception is 90% of reality". Well, as long as these images, mascots, words are used and justified as acceptable, the perception of Native Americans will be a stereotypical and incorrect one.

I am stepping down from this box, because my pressure is now up. But I am still sitting at the front of this damn bus.


PS. The Irish is not a race, it is a nationality, filled with many races. The Celtics is not a race, it is a linguistic group from a particular region.



Thanks for your perspective giraffespots.So, if the team adopted something like this would you still be offended?





TonyL222



Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 5140
Location: Reston, VA


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/18/14 1:14 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

giraffespots wrote:


"Braves" is NOT like Knights or Crusaders or Warriors. It is a word that is used only in reference to Native Americans...a RACE....not a nationality. I am Native American, but I am NOT Seminole.

...
The use of these words perpetuates a stereotypical image of Native Americans as "savage", "not human", "red-skinned", etc.


You said this before and I STILL don't get it. I don't recall the word "brave" ever being used as a pejorative. To me it paints a mental picture of a proud warrior, fierce in battle. I don't link it to "savage" or something not human - but something I would not mind being personally seen as - a brave. That's a compliment.


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7073
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/18/14 1:28 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

TonyL222 wrote:
giraffespots wrote:


"Braves" is NOT like Knights or Crusaders or Warriors. It is a word that is used only in reference to Native Americans...a RACE....not a nationality. I am Native American, but I am NOT Seminole.

...
The use of these words perpetuates a stereotypical image of Native Americans as "savage", "not human", "red-skinned", etc.


You said this before and I STILL don't get it. I don't recall the word "brave" ever being used as a pejorative. To me it paints a mental picture of a proud warrior, fierce in battle. I don't link it to "savage" or something not human - but something I would not mind being personally seen as - a brave. That's a compliment.

I don't think it's an issue of being seen as a specific pejorative (unlike Redskins), but rather the fact that it is clearly referencing Native Americans as a group. Only Native American warriors have been referred to as "Braves".

This means that all of the cartoony antics that become associated with the team are then associated with Native Americans in general (think Tomahawk Chop or the *shudder* "war cries"). To equate it to other racial issues, think of it like a team being named "African Warriors" and having entire stadiums filled with white people in black face acting out stereotypical behaviors.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 57524
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/18/14 1:36 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
TonyL222 wrote:
giraffespots wrote:


"Braves" is NOT like Knights or Crusaders or Warriors. It is a word that is used only in reference to Native Americans...a RACE....not a nationality. I am Native American, but I am NOT Seminole.

...
The use of these words perpetuates a stereotypical image of Native Americans as "savage", "not human", "red-skinned", etc.


You said this before and I STILL don't get it. I don't recall the word "brave" ever being used as a pejorative. To me it paints a mental picture of a proud warrior, fierce in battle. I don't link it to "savage" or something not human - but something I would not mind being personally seen as - a brave. That's a compliment.

I don't think it's an issue of being seen as a specific pejorative (unlike Redskins), but rather the fact that it is clearly referencing Native Americans as a group. Only Native American warriors have been referred to as "Braves".


Yeah, and only white Europeans are Knights and Crusaders. They are equivalent terms.



_________________
Don't take no rhythm,
Don't take no style
Gotta thirst for killin',
Grab your vial
Force10rulz



Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Posts: 1848
Location: Puget Sound


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/18/14 1:39 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Warriors would be a fine name, not sure why they think they can't change tradition, it's time for Redskins to go!



_________________
Seattle Storm 3 times Champions


Last edited by Force10rulz on 06/18/14 3:00 pm; edited 1 time in total
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7073
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/18/14 1:54 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
justintyme wrote:
TonyL222 wrote:
giraffespots wrote:


"Braves" is NOT like Knights or Crusaders or Warriors. It is a word that is used only in reference to Native Americans...a RACE....not a nationality. I am Native American, but I am NOT Seminole.

...
The use of these words perpetuates a stereotypical image of Native Americans as "savage", "not human", "red-skinned", etc.


You said this before and I STILL don't get it. I don't recall the word "brave" ever being used as a pejorative. To me it paints a mental picture of a proud warrior, fierce in battle. I don't link it to "savage" or something not human - but something I would not mind being personally seen as - a brave. That's a compliment.

I don't think it's an issue of being seen as a specific pejorative (unlike Redskins), but rather the fact that it is clearly referencing Native Americans as a group. Only Native American warriors have been referred to as "Braves".


Yeah, and only white Europeans are Knights and Crusaders. They are equivalent terms.

Yes, they are. I don't think anyone is arguing that. As I said, there is nothing wrong with the word in and of itself, other than it's association to Native Americans, which then gets treated as a stereotype or caricature by the team and the fans, rather than being treated respectfully in a historically accurate manner.

And this equivalency ignores the whole genocide bit. It would be like the German national team taking on the moniker "Maccabees" and then doing some stereotypical "Jewish" things in the stands with a cartoon Jew as a mascot.

It's not just the name, it's the context.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
TonyL222



Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 5140
Location: Reston, VA


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/18/14 2:28 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
TonyL222 wrote:
giraffespots wrote:


"Braves" is NOT like Knights or Crusaders or Warriors. It is a word that is used only in reference to Native Americans...a RACE....not a nationality. I am Native American, but I am NOT Seminole.

...
The use of these words perpetuates a stereotypical image of Native Americans as "savage", "not human", "red-skinned", etc.


You said this before and I STILL don't get it. I don't recall the word "brave" ever being used as a pejorative. To me it paints a mental picture of a proud warrior, fierce in battle. I don't link it to "savage" or something not human - but something I would not mind being personally seen as - a brave. That's a compliment.

I don't think it's an issue of being seen as a specific pejorative (unlike Redskins), but rather the fact that it is clearly referencing Native Americans as a group. Only Native American warriors have been referred to as "Braves".

This means that all of the cartoony antics that become associated with the team are then associated with Native Americans in general (think Tomahawk Chop or the *shudder* "war cries"). To equate it to other racial issues, think of it like a team being named "African Warriors" and having entire stadiums filled with white people in black face acting out stereotypical behaviors.


I don't buy your connection of the word. Let's accept that it "clearly references Native Americans as a group." The problem with that is what? Doesn't "Vikings" reference Scandinavian seafaring warriors as a group?

Many, many , many years ago I participated in a Playmaker Football (simulation) league with a team name of the "ZULU WARRIORS". My top RB was Chaka. Now "black face" is linked with the shukin' and jivin', shufflin' Negro in minstrel shows, so no that would not be acceptable, so I don't agree with your analogy.

Sorry, but this is an unhealthy hyper sensitivity to me.




Last edited by TonyL222 on 06/20/14 4:36 am; edited 1 time in total
Youth Coach



Joined: 23 Mar 2008
Posts: 4386



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/18/14 2:53 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Does anyone wonder how much influence people like Harry Reid exerted on the commission to make this ruling?

Because in all honesty, I don't believe they acted of their own accord. Not when all the varied groups, both legitimate and those trying to score easy political points, are out there raging day after day, they had to know if they ruled in favor of the Redskins, they'd become targets themselves.
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7073
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/18/14 3:04 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

TonyL222 wrote:
I don't buy your connection of the word. Let's accept that it "clearly references Native Americans as a group." The problem with that is what? Doesn't "Vikings" reference Scandinavian seafaring warriors as a group?


Yes, Vikings would represent that group. But it also represents the heritage of the people from the area (Minnesota has roots that are deeply Scandinavian). But other than horns on the helmets, which are historically inaccurate, the Vikings team and fans don't participate in actions that are considered offensive by Scandinavian people. Not to mention the lack of a genocide against the Scandinavians by the people now co-opting their heritage.

Use my German analogy to understand. There is nothing at all inherently offensive or insensitive about the term "Maccabees". Yet if the German national team took on that name without working with the Jewish people to do it right, and they included caricatures of Jewish culture, song, and dance, would it not be offensive?

That is what Americans calling their teams the "Braves" and having non Native American people dressed up in stereotypical outfits doing the "woo woo woo" chant and "Tomahawk Chops" are like to people of that heritage.

Quote:
Now "black face" is linked with the shukin' and jivin', shufflin' Negro in minstrel shows, so not that would not be acceptable, so I don't agree with your analogy.

How is that any different than the offensiveness of the stereotypical/racist "Indian" that was portrayed by early Hollywood, which is what is emulated in the stands and by the team? Native Americans were treated just as poorly in this country as African Americans were (perhaps even worse, since Africans were at least valued as property where Native Americans held no value whatsoever and were systematically eliminated through genocide and ethnic cleansing), so the analogy seems quite fitting. To Native Americans, seeing their oppressors acting out their culture in a stereotypical and racist way has to feel similar to what it would feel like for an African American seeing a stadium full of black face.

In other words, it's not the name (Braves or Zulu Warriors or what have you) but rather who is using it and how they are representing it. As I noted earlier with the FSU Seminoles, I think it is possible to to use Native American names without being offensive, but it has to be done right and treated with the utmost respect and dignity. The way most of these teams have done it, that is not the case.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7073
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/18/14 3:08 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Youth Coach wrote:
Does anyone wonder how much influence people like Harry Reid exerted on the commission to make this ruling?

Because in all honesty, I don't believe they acted of their own accord. Not when all the varied groups, both legitimate and those trying to score easy political points, are out there raging day after day, they had to know if they ruled in favor of the Redskins, they'd become targets themselves.

If he did, Kudos to him.

The biggest problem here is the lack of a cohesive voice from amongst the Native American population. So few of that population (and even fewer who hold to their culture) still exist. It is easy for their voices to be drowned out by the rest of society. So it helps when others work to amplify them.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
giraffespots



Joined: 14 Apr 2005
Posts: 766
Location: Okla/NM


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/18/14 4:59 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

TonyL222 wrote:
justintyme wrote:
TonyL222 wrote:
giraffespots wrote:


"Braves" is NOT like Knights or Crusaders or Warriors. It is a word that is used only in reference to Native Americans...a RACE....not a nationality. I am Native American, but I am NOT Seminole.

...
The use of these words perpetuates a stereotypical image of Native Americans as "savage", "not human", "red-skinned", etc.


You said this before and I STILL don't get it. I don't recall the word "brave" ever being used as a pejorative. To me it paints a mental picture of a proud warrior, fierce in battle. I don't link it to "savage" or something not human - but something I would not mind being personally seen as - a brave. That's a compliment.

I don't think it's an issue of being seen as a specific pejorative (unlike Redskins), but rather the fact that it is clearly referencing Native Americans as a group. Only Native American warriors have been referred to as "Braves".

This means that all of the cartoony antics that become associated with the team are then associated with Native Americans in general (think Tomahawk Chop or the *shudder* "war cries"). To equate it to other racial issues, think of it like a team being named "African Warriors" and having entire stadiums filled with white people in black face acting out stereotypical behaviors.


I don't buy your connection of the word. Let's accept that it "clearly references Native Americans as a group." The problem with that is what? Doesn't "Vikings" reference Scandinavian seafaring warriors as a group?

Many, many , many years ago I participated in a Playmaker Football (simulation) league with a team name of the "ZULU WARRIORS". My top RB was Chaka. Now "black face" is linked with the shukin' and jivin', shufflin' Negro in minstrel shows, so not that would not be acceptable, so I don't agree with your analogy.

Sorry, but this is an unhealthy hyper sensitivity to me.


They are not equal terms. The question here is: Are all Scandinavians Vikings? Because using the term "Braves" as a mascot infers Native American hence all Native Americans are "Braves". Its not that the word "Braves" is pejorative, its that it reduces Native Americans to a single characteristic. In the case of sports teams, the use of "Braves" is not intended to evoke images of a proud, brave Native American sitting on a pony with a single tear running down his face (ok, thats a little snarky) but it is to evoke an image of a Native American who is a fighter, mean etc. The purpose of assigning a mascot to a sports teams is to make that sports team fierce or formidable. Even though "Braves" is not pejorative, it is demeaning because it reduces us.


Justintyme...seriously dude? LOL FSU does that infernal tomahawk chop incessantly and that infernal drumming!!! ugh. (that said, I DO appreciate your comments...they are quite spot on...except the FSU one Smile )

Mysticwiz...uhh yeah the artwork brings the images of "Indians". Warriors without that artwork would be fine.



_________________
"I am an evil herbivore. I will eat all the leaves so that others may die. Mwahahahaha!!!"
TonyL222



Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 5140
Location: Reston, VA


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/18/14 5:30 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I'm with you on "redskins". It is an insult. But your objection and reasoning on "Braves" is over the top to the point of being ridiculous imo.

justintyme wrote:

How is that any different than the offensiveness of the stereotypical/racist "Indian" that was portrayed by early Hollywood, which is what is emulated in the stands and by the team? Native Americans were treated just as poorly in this country as African Americans were (perhaps even worse, since Africans were at least valued as property where Native Americans held no value whatsoever and were systematically eliminated through genocide and ethnic cleansing), so the analogy seems quite fitting. To Native Americans, seeing their oppressors acting out their culture in a stereotypical and racist way has to feel similar to what it would feel like for an African American seeing a stadium full of black face.


You are relating words and negative images that don't even fit together. WHAT does ANY of that have to do with a team that might be named Zulu Warriors which I would hope would celebrate the courage and fierce nature of the Zulu nation? If fans saw fit to wear native Zulu garb to games, all the better.





Last edited by TonyL222 on 06/18/14 8:31 pm; edited 2 times in total
hyperetic



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 5121
Location: Fayetteville


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/18/14 8:17 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Mysticwiz wrote:
This is a yearly topic around these parts.My take is different from most now days.I am a proud redskins fan,have been since birth.I understand how some may want the name changed,they see it as a pejorative.But, its a personal thing to me,you say the word redskins (in respect to sports,) and it's not a pejorative to me.If someone wants to use it in an offense manner, i could see the outrage and would be right there with them.You say the word redskins around me and i remember the history of the franchise,championships and parades and rocking RFK. Now i'm not in my 80s+ and can't go back to original intent of the name,all i can speak for is myself.

As for snyder(the owner) i can't say i blame him for not changing the name (he was also a FAN before he owned the team).As for the foundation he started nice try.But he's in a lose lose,you have a $2 billion product and people tell you to change your brand ID?

agree or disagree i understand....


That's the same type of argument lovers of all things Confederate use. "Its historical. Its not meant to hurt you blacks. We're just celebrating our heritage." Well guess what it is offensive and it does hurt. As with African Americans, Native Americans are offended by callous use of symbols, words, props, etc that dismiss the pain and suffering those things represent.
giraffespots



Joined: 14 Apr 2005
Posts: 766
Location: Okla/NM


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/18/14 8:30 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

TonyL222 wrote:
I'm with you on "redskins". It is an insult. But your objection and reasoning on "Braves" is over the top to the point of being ridiculous imo.


Yeah. I get that. And i dont really disagree. I only include "braves" on principle. I dont really believe in picking and choosing when there is a principle involved. My objection is the use of Native American mascots. For me its gotta be all or none.



_________________
"I am an evil herbivore. I will eat all the leaves so that others may die. Mwahahahaha!!!"
giraffespots



Joined: 14 Apr 2005
Posts: 766
Location: Okla/NM


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/18/14 8:46 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

So my son who is half black and identifies as such has never been referred to by me or his father as "Boy". Even as a small child we called him man or little man. Not because boy is a bad word but because of the history of that Word with black males. If there was any chance of that negative connotation causing him to feel less than anyone, well i wasn't having it. It was the principle of it. That's how i feel about braves. In the context of a sports team mascot it offends the principle.



_________________
"I am an evil herbivore. I will eat all the leaves so that others may die. Mwahahahaha!!!"


Last edited by giraffespots on 06/19/14 10:00 am; edited 1 time in total
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 11196
Location: Oklahoma (in my heart), whilst on my way to Oregon!


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/18/14 9:26 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Tony, I must say....I'm duly impressed by your musculature, as displayed below--killer abs!



I'm curious--those of you who have seen New Zealand's Haka ritual....is it something you would consider derogatory? It's a native (Maori) tradition, used by Maori and whites alike, for sports events. Clearly, a minority ritual happily claimed by an entire country.

I personally see it as just....well....*hot*. Laughing



_________________
Oklahoma: Go Sooners! Oregon: Go Ducks!
TonyL222



Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 5140
Location: Reston, VA


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/19/14 6:14 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

giraffespots wrote:
So my son who is half black and identifies as such has never been referred to ny me or s father as "Boy".


Funny, that's what my father used to call me (either that or "son"). as I think about it, it may be because I had three older sisters (actually a 4th that died as an infant), and my father finally got his "boy" when I was born. I have two girls, but likely would have referred to my own "son" as "boy" just as my father did me.

But to your example, the word "boy" has a distinct history of being used as a pejorative when referring to a grown man (especially an African American). I can't think of ANY context where "Brave" has been used as an insult.

Howee wrote:

I personally see it as just....well....*hot*. Laughing


Well, I don't know about "hot", but it is super freakin' cool. It also illustrates a good point about sports in general. In our modern society, many sports are a substitute/surrogate for armed conflict on a battlefield. The team names and even mascots are meant to convey 1) a sense of identity, and b) maybe even strike fear and reverence into the hearts of the opponents.

mascot - noun, A person or thing that is supposed to bring good luck or that is used to symbolize a particular event or organization

Quote:
Many, many , many years ago I participated in a Playmaker Football (simulation) league with a team name of the "ZULU WARRIORS". My top RB was Chaka.


Ooops!! That would be Shaka. Chaka would be this person:



beknighted



Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11040
Location: Lost in D.C.


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/19/14 9:47 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
Youth Coach wrote:
Does anyone wonder how much influence people like Harry Reid exerted on the commission to make this ruling?

Because in all honesty, I don't believe they acted of their own accord. Not when all the varied groups, both legitimate and those trying to score easy political points, are out there raging day after day, they had to know if they ruled in favor of the Redskins, they'd become targets themselves.

If he did, Kudos to him.

The biggest problem here is the lack of a cohesive voice from amongst the Native American population. So few of that population (and even fewer who hold to their culture) still exist. It is easy for their voices to be drowned out by the rest of society. So it helps when others work to amplify them.


I work with a federal agency all the time, and I think it's unlikely that anything Reid & co. said had much impact. My understanding was that this was a decision by a board within the PTO, none of whom were chosen by the Administration. (Some things I've read say they all were chosen by the Bush Administration, but I don't know if that's right.) These kinds of folks often are civil servants, and don't care much what the current President or his appointees want. (My favorite example of this is an administrative law judge at the FCC who was told he had to decide something by a certain date - largely because the then-Chairman wanted it decided before he left - and who decided that nobody had the power to tell him when to decide.)


giraffespots



Joined: 14 Apr 2005
Posts: 766
Location: Okla/NM


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/19/14 10:28 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Here's my final contribution on the issue of the word "braves".

From: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=brave

brave (adj.) late 15c., from Middle French brave, "splendid, valiant," from Italian bravo "brave, bold," originally "wild, savage," possibly from Medieval Latin bravus "cutthroat, villain," from Latin pravus "crooked, depraved;" a less likely etymology being from Latin barbarus (see barbarous). A Celtic origin (Irish breagh, Cornish bray) also has been suggested.
Old English words for this, some with overtones of "rashness," included modig (now "moody"), beald ("bold"), cene ("keen"), dyrstig ("daring"). Brave new world is from the title of Aldous Huxley's 1932 satirical utopian novel; he lifted the phrase from Shakespeare ("Tempest" v.i.183).
brave (v.) "to face with bravery," 1776, from French braver, from brave (see brave (adj.)). Related: Braved; braving.
brave (n.) "North American Indian warrior," c.1600, from brave (adj.), and compare bravo.

From: http://www.authentichistory.com/diversity/index.html

The Indian Princess is the female counterpart to The Brave caricature. In the late 19th Century the nostalgic romanticizing of nature, and of the Indians that had once been found in nature, recreated Indians in all of their "natural" glory, as noble savages, mythical icons of America's wilderness past. This phenomenon allowed Americans to largely forget the ugly consequences of their expansionist past. Additionally, even though the Noble Savage is defended as being a "positive" stereotype, the result is historical amnesia and the dehumanization of real people who still exist. By cementing the Indian as an "other" from the past, it allows modern society to largely ignore the existence and plight of Native Americans today. The Indian Princess caricature is rooted in the legend of Pocahontas, who is most often cast in American popular culture as a supporter of European interests. She is strong, beautiful, and possesses an exotic sexuality that both emphasizes her "otherness," and yet serves as a forbidden fantasy for the dominating White male. She is Mother Nature, American-style, in all her primitive glory.

The male version of the noble savage is The Brave. He is peaceful, kills only to eat or to defend his family, and is not wasteful. The Brave is a spiritual, mystic guardian of the land who exists in harmony with, and as icon of America's wilderness past, as if he were an eagle or a buffalo rather than human. He is often represented in picturesque nature, showcasing some "natural" skill admired for its primitive purity, like hunting buffalo or riding a horse. The Brave imagery usually includes excessive traditional dress (especially a splendid headdress), thereby reinforcing his flawless naturalness. As a mythic icon of the past, the Brave lacks humanity. Consequentially, the Brave is always shown as stoic, lacking any real emotion, especially humor. This section also includes imagery that romanticizes the traditional Native lifestyle since it is often a key part of Brave depictions.



Indians could be depicted in all of their "natural" glory, as noble savages, mythical icons of America's wilderness past. This phenomenon allowed Americans to largely forget the ugly consequences of their expansionist past. Additionally, even though the Noble Savage is defended as being a "positive" stereotype, the result is historical amnesia and the dehumanization of real people who still exist. By cementing the Indian as an "other" from the past, it allows modern society to largely ignore the existence and plight of Native Americans today.



9. This is a positive stereotype--what's wrong with that?
Some stereotypes could be qualified as "positive" ones, like some of the team mascots that are so common in the US. These are commonly justified as being okay because they "honor" their subjects. The team mascot debate will be covered in detail in the Native American section, but it's important to remember that even so-called positive stereotypes do harm because they depict real human beings as being unreal. Additionally, when the subject involves Native Americans, these "positive" images consistently characterize Indians as a people of the past, not of the present (or future), further confirming their "other" status and drawing attention away from contemporary Native American issues.



_________________
"I am an evil herbivore. I will eat all the leaves so that others may die. Mwahahahaha!!!"
TonyL222



Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 5140
Location: Reston, VA


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/19/14 10:37 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

From the online Oxford dictionary (and also my final contribution):

NOUN


1 (as plural noun the brave) People who are ready to face and endure danger or pain.
2 An American Indian warrior.

2.1A young man who shows courage or a fighting spirit.


giraffespots



Joined: 14 Apr 2005
Posts: 766
Location: Okla/NM


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/19/14 10:40 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Here's my final contribution on the Redskins issue.

From the Pro Football Hall of Fame: http://www.profootballhof.com/hof/member.aspx?PLAYER_ID=142
At his funeral in 1969, then-NFL Commissioner Pete Rozelle summed up the master showman's unusual gift to the NFL. "Mr. Marshall was an outspoken foe of the status quo when most were content with it, he said. We are all beneficiaries of what his dynamic personality helped shape over more than three decades."

From the Daily Beast: 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.

From Pro Football Hall of Fame: http://www.profootballhof.com/hof/member.aspx?PLAYER_ID=142
But as successful as Marshall's teams were, the flamboyant owner left his biggest mark in areas not directly associated with the team on the field. In the nations capital, Marshall organized the Redskins marching band and spectacular halftime shows, introduced cheerleaders, began a radio network that carried games throughout the South, and led thousands of supporters on pilgrimages to rival cities.

From red-face.us: http://red-face.us/indian-stereotypes-sports.htm
Hail to the Redskins is the second oldest fight song for a professional American football team. During the 1938 season the Redskins played their new fight song for fans in attendance at the games. The Redskin band was dressed in buckskins and headdresses, and featured a chorus line of prancing Indian princesses.

The Washington Redskins' original (1938-1980s) fight song:
Hail to the Redskins!
Hail, victory!
Braves on the warpath!
Fight for Old D.C.!
Scalp 'em, swamp 'um
We will take 'um big score
Read 'um, Weep 'um, touchdown
We want heap more
Fight on, fight on, till you have won
Sons of Washington
Rah! Rah! Rah!


Sign at a Sonic drive-thru in Belton, Missouri December 2013



_________________
"I am an evil herbivore. I will eat all the leaves so that others may die. Mwahahahaha!!!"
HistoryWomensBasketball



Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 1425
Location: CT


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/19/14 12:17 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Have been watching this thread with interest. I admit while growing up I never knew all the different terms that offended others. .. And still probably do not. I lived in Idaho only about a mile from the Nezperce reservation. Worked with, had quite a few friends from the tribe. I never used the term but remember being joked around as being pale face or white man. Didnt bother me then but probably offend me now a bit.

Same with my heritage. I'm Italian. Classified on paper as caucasian or european descent. I'm a tone darker on the skin in winter and in summer get a dark tan in 2 days it takes some of my friends a month. because of that there is the G- word. Called that because we didn't belong. Many do not realize it. Go up to some and call them a dumb g.. and you may end up on the ground

I try to become educated on all of this and educate others when opporunities arise.

Washington should change it's name.

One thing I am tired of is the government sticking its nose in every aspect of our lives. .

Educate not legislate.



_________________
Author of: "Barnstorming America, Stories from the Pioneers of Women's Basketball"

www.barnstormingamerica.net
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51 All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 2 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin