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 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 6680
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/02/13 3:23 pm    ::: Should the Redskins change their name? Reply Reply with quote

Accorging to an AP Poll 79% say no.

Quote:
A new Associated Press-GfK poll shows that nationally, "Redskins" still enjoys widespread support.

Nearly four in five Americans don't think the team should change its name, the survey found. Only 11 percent think it should be changed, while 8 percent weren't sure and 2 percent didn't answer.


Personally, I don't understand the point of this poll. Why ask the majority if they find the word offensive. What non-Native Americans think is irrelevant. This would be like polling the Antebellum South and asking white folks if they found the n-word offensive. Poll Native Americans and ask them if they find the word offensive, and if they do, fucking change it.

Even if every Native American in the country found it offensive that would only factor into 1% of a national sample. Great job with your statistics AP. Rolling Eyes



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
Hawkeye



Joined: 10 Aug 2010
Posts: 501
Location: Houston, TX


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/02/13 3:56 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

The Redskins have had their name for 80 years. Get your panties out of a wad, the name is fine. And 'Redtails'? Yeah--because that has SO much to do with Washington DC.


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 55568
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/02/13 4:11 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Most of the complaints about Native American team names are nonsensical. However, Redskins is over the line and should be changed.



_________________
Is the relinquishment of the trial by jury and the liberty of the press necessary for your liberty? Will the abandonment of your most sacred rights tend to the security of your liberty? Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings—give us that precious jewel, and you may take every thing else!… Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel.
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 6680
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/02/13 4:12 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Hawkeye wrote:
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

The Redskins have had their name for 80 years. Get your panties out of a wad, the name is fine. And 'Redtails'? Yeah--because that has SO much to do with Washington DC.


Wait, so it's okay to use an offensive term because they've had their name for so many years?

If, as the guy from the Pawnee said, Native Americans see the word "redskin" the same way an African-American sees the n-word, you think the name is "fine"? There is not a single group in the US which was treated worse than them--and that includes an entire race we enslaved.

We committed genocide. It would be like the Germans naming their national soccer team a name the Jews found offensive.



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 6680
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/02/13 4:15 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
Most of the complaints about Native American team names are nonsensical. However, Redskins is over the line and should be changed.


Yeah, I agree. Though I think those that name themselves after Native Americans should do what Florida State did and work with the local tribe to use their team to promote the culture of their namesake. It makes for an enriching experience and keeps away from the dumb cliches and stereotypes.



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
beknighted



Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11025
Location: Lost in D.C.


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/02/13 4:23 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

"Redtails" is a nonsensical name, and I think that suggesting it actually hurts the cause.

Were it up to me, I would change the name, but I don't get to decide.


mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 17836



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/02/13 5:07 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

If Native Americans find the name offensive, and find redskins to be a slur (which I expect they do.) Than change the damn name.

We can forget tradition for the sake of being decent human beings.



_________________
TALENT

What it takes to play a gay pirate, a gay candymaker, and a gay mad hatter, and still land a role as John Dilinger.
norwester



Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 6348
Location: Seattle


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/03/13 9:38 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I'm of the opinion that "Redskin" is over the line, since I understand it as a pejorative term in every other usage. Using specific tribe/nation names I don't ncecessarily have a problem with.



_________________
Don't you know the plural of "anecdote" is "data"?
Martini Man



Joined: 31 Aug 2011
Posts: 4399
Location: Canada


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/03/13 11:38 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

What's their logo?

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

If I were a Native American I honestly wouldn't care about the name. It wouldn't offend me. Nothing really offends me. Somebody calls me a fag and I yell back to them "Yup and I wouldn't have it any other way!!"



_________________
Cheers Mate!!
Linzin



Joined: 19 May 2007
Posts: 3012



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/03/13 5:41 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Part of the problem is that even a lot of Native Americans don't really seem to mind, although that may have changed recently, I don't know. I know that the figures I saw when we discussed this in one of my classes showed a substantial majority of NAs saying the name is acceptable. Obviously whether those figures are reliable is another thing. (There's a short bit on those polls on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Redskins_mascot_controversy#Controversy ) And what if a majority of NAs don't mind, but say, 30% do? Does that warrant changing the name?

Personally, I don't see why they couldn't change the name. It really is the equivalent of having, say, the Washington Niggers or Wetbacks. There is no context in which the word is anything but an ethnic slur. But eh... public opinion's a funny thing. I don't expect it to change in the near future.



_________________
"This is serious. You gotta look at me like, you know, Nancy Lieberman."
-Sue Bird
Admiral_Needa



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 9479
Location: Tiburon, CA


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/03/13 5:58 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Jim Rome had a funny rant about it some time ago... Razz Arrow

Quote:
Congratulations to ole miss for courageously doing away with its mascot, colonel rebel. Why be so hasty, I mean it's only 2003. What school wouldn't be proud to have a plantation owner lead its team onto the field every Saturday afternoon? While you're at it, why don't you bust the Cleveland Indians and Washington redskins a call and see if you can get them to get rid of their equally offensive mascots and nicknames. Redskins?! I don't think we have to worry about the New York Blackskins or L.A. Jews do we?

http://espn.go.com/eoe/rome6252003.html



_________________
2002 WNBA Virtual GM Overall Winner
2006 WNBA Triple Threat Overall Winner
2007 NBA ESPN Fast Break Overall Winner
jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19431



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/03/13 6:15 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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


Youth Coach



Joined: 23 Mar 2008
Posts: 4304



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/03/13 6:42 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Admiral_Needa wrote:
Jim Rome had a funny rant about it some time ago... Razz Arrow

Quote:
Congratulations to ole miss for courageously doing away with its mascot, colonel rebel. Why be so hasty, I mean it's only 2003. What school wouldn't be proud to have a plantation owner lead its team onto the field every Saturday afternoon? While you're at it, why don't you bust the Cleveland Indians and Washington redskins a call and see if you can get them to get rid of their equally offensive mascots and nicknames. Redskins?! I don't think we have to worry about the New York Blackskins or L.A. Jews do we?

http://espn.go.com/eoe/rome6252003.html


You can change the Redskins name when you ban Jim Rome from any form of media in perpetuity. Until then, no.
Admiral_Needa



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 9479
Location: Tiburon, CA


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/03/13 9:47 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Jim Rome also had a great segment on "The Fighting Whites". Idea Arrow

The Fightin' Whities were an intramural college basketball team who named themselves as such to make a satirical protest about stereotypes of Native Americans being used as sports mascots.. Especially after their local High School named themselves the "Fightin' Reds". And the HS didn't decide to name themselves the "Fightin' Reds" a long time ago... it was in the 2000s! In fact, the school is still named the "Fightin' Reds" and is still using the same mascot!

As Jim Rome said in the segment: "My new favorite team is now the Fightin' Whities!" Laughing





_________________
2002 WNBA Virtual GM Overall Winner
2006 WNBA Triple Threat Overall Winner
2007 NBA ESPN Fast Break Overall Winner
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 10870
Location: Oklahoma (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/03/13 9:54 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The name has all the appeal and sensibility of a team name such as the "Blackskins" or "Whiteskins". Rolling Eyes



_________________
Oklahoma: Go Sooners!

<--Maddie Manning, Sooner Extraordinaire
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 6680
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/03/13 10:04 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

What do you think the outcry would be if New Orleans decided to forgo the name Pelicans and instead call themselves the "New Orleans Blackies", and for a mascot used a racial stereotype?



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
beknighted



Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11025
Location: Lost in D.C.


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/03/13 10:53 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Admiral_Needa wrote:
Jim Rome had a funny rant about it some time ago... Razz Arrow

Quote:
While you're at it, why don't you bust the Cleveland Indians and Washington redskins a call and see if you can get them to get rid of their equally offensive mascots and nicknames. Redskins?! I don't think we have to worry about the New York Blackskins or L.A. Jews do we?

http://espn.go.com/eoe/rome6252003.html


For what it's worth, I see Indians and Braves differently than I see Redskins. Redskins is a pejorative name, while the others are descriptive. It's like the Boston Celtics.

On the "Fighting Reds," it's kind of clunky and probably doesn't work in the long run. St. John's tried once upon a time to keep the name "Redmen" by getting rid of the Indian mascot and using a guy in a red tuxedo. (I kid you not.) It was widely ridiculed for obvious reasons. If you want to keep the color, you kind of have to do what St. John's eventually did and use it as an adjective for something that doesn't have bad associations.


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 55568
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/03/13 10:56 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

beknighted wrote:
Admiral_Needa wrote:
Jim Rome had a funny rant about it some time ago... Razz Arrow

Quote:
While you're at it, why don't you bust the Cleveland Indians and Washington redskins a call and see if you can get them to get rid of their equally offensive mascots and nicknames. Redskins?! I don't think we have to worry about the New York Blackskins or L.A. Jews do we?

http://espn.go.com/eoe/rome6252003.html


For what it's worth, I see Indians and Braves differently than I see Redskins. Redskins is a pejorative name, while the others are descriptive. It's like the Boston Celtics.


Indians might be considered questionable.

Braves is the same as Knights or Crusaders or Warriors or other names of that ilk.



_________________
Is the relinquishment of the trial by jury and the liberty of the press necessary for your liberty? Will the abandonment of your most sacred rights tend to the security of your liberty? Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings—give us that precious jewel, and you may take every thing else!… Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel.
TonyL222



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


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/04/13 11:29 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
beknighted wrote:
Admiral_Needa wrote:
Jim Rome had a funny rant about it some time ago... Razz Arrow

Quote:
While you're at it, why don't you bust the Cleveland Indians and Washington redskins a call and see if you can get them to get rid of their equally offensive mascots and nicknames. Redskins?! I don't think we have to worry about the New York Blackskins or L.A. Jews do we?

http://espn.go.com/eoe/rome6252003.html


For what it's worth, I see Indians and Braves differently than I see Redskins. Redskins is a pejorative name, while the others are descriptive. It's like the Boston Celtics.


Indians might be considered questionable.

Braves is the same as Knights or Crusaders or Warriors or other names of that ilk.


Yet some want to do away with those as well - something I don't get. "Redskins" is completely understandable for reasons many have listed. But I don't understand the PC push to get rid of team names like Seminoles, Chiefs, Braves, Fighting Irish, Vikings, etc. I don't think any of those names have a history of derogatory use and are meant to convey strength, a warrior attitude (which is respected by most people), and resolve to prevail IMO.

Ditch the "Redskins", however.


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 55568
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/11/14 12:50 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

<embed src="//www.youtube.com/v/mR-tbOxlhvE?hl=en_US&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mR-tbOxlhvE



_________________
Is the relinquishment of the trial by jury and the liberty of the press necessary for your liberty? Will the abandonment of your most sacred rights tend to the security of your liberty? Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings—give us that precious jewel, and you may take every thing else!… Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel.
Mysticwiz



Joined: 17 Nov 2004
Posts: 696



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/11/14 4:13 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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....


TonyL222



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


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/12/14 3:12 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Wiz, that's like a southerner whose always referred to black folks as "darkies." Don't really mean it as an insult, and might even say it with affection. Its just the term they've have always used and don't see a problem with it.


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 55568
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/18/14 9:07 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/us-patent-office-cancels-redskins-trademark-registration-says-name-is-disparaging/2014/06/18/e7737bb8-f6ee-11e3-8aa9-dad2ec039789_story.html

Quote:
The United States Patent and Trademark Office has canceled the Washington Redskins trademark registration, calling the football teams name disparaging to Native Americans.



_________________
Is the relinquishment of the trial by jury and the liberty of the press necessary for your liberty? Will the abandonment of your most sacred rights tend to the security of your liberty? Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings—give us that precious jewel, and you may take every thing else!… Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel.
beknighted



Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11025
Location: Lost in D.C.


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/18/14 9:37 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The trademark attack is very interesting. Losing (and this is only one step along the way to actually, finally losing) wouldn't prevent them from using the name, but it would make it a lot less profitable to have the name, since they couldn't restrict sales of merchandise that used the name.

This has been going on a long time. Wikipedia tells me that this actually is the second case; the first one was filed in 1992 and wasn't resolved completely until 2009, when it was dismissed because all of the parties who were complaining waited too long to file. This one was filed by younger people. (The reason that might work was that the court decided that whether a complaint was too late depended on how long ago the complaining person turned 18.)


Mysticwiz



Joined: 17 Nov 2004
Posts: 696



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/18/14 10:09 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

beknighted wrote:
The trademark attack is very interesting. Losing (and this is only one step along the way to actually, finally losing) wouldn't prevent them from using the name, but it would make it a lot less profitable to have the name, since they couldn't restrict sales of merchandise that used the name.

This has been going on a long time. Wikipedia tells me that this actually is the second case; the first one was filed in 1992 and wasn't resolved completely until 2009, when it was dismissed because all of the parties who were complaining waited too long to file. This one was filed by younger people. (The reason that might work was that the court decided that whether a complaint was too late depended on how long ago the complaining person turned 18.)


Yeah,we have been here before.I was joking the other day that the league will get the name change when the skins get Superbowl 5?.If that is "in place" he would be happy to change the name. He has "Washington warriors TM" waiting in the wings.


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: 1648
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 2004-2010 Champions
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 6680
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.



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
Mysticwiz



Joined: 17 Nov 2004
Posts: 696



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: 6680
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.



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 55568
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.



_________________
Is the relinquishment of the trial by jury and the liberty of the press necessary for your liberty? Will the abandonment of your most sacred rights tend to the security of your liberty? Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings—give us that precious jewel, and you may take every thing else!… Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel.
Force10rulz



Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Posts: 1648
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 2004-2010 Champions


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



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 6680
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.



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
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: 4304



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: 6680
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.



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 6680
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.



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
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: 5065
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: 10870
Location: Oklahoma (in my heart)


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!

<--Maddie Manning, Sooner Extraordinaire
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: 11025
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: 1421
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 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
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