-
Feb 19th, 2014, 11:30 PM
#1
Redskins
This morning I read an article on the NFL team, the Washington Redskins. The article was about the off and on, on-going, debate on whether or not the Redskins should change their name. The article was done by The Week, The Best of the U.S. and International Media Magazine. It appeared in the November 1st magazine of 2013.
Personally my thoughts on the matter is that the Redskins name was chosen because it represented how strong and diligent the Native American's are, which is what you want your football team to represent; I know I wouldn't ever be a fan of the Washington Pansies. Also, there never was nor ever will be any acts that disrespect the Native American's from the Redskins. In fact, the Redskins have a song titled Hail to the Redskins and "The original lyrics were written to reflect the native American warrior imagery of the team as the Redskins."
In the article I mentioned earlier, it quotes Charles Krauthammer as saying: "words don't stand still. They evolve. 50 years ago, 'Negro' was a respectful term for African-American." ... "These words fell out of favor and are today seen as unmistakably patronizing and demeaning." This statement is what actually prompted me to ask the question I'll ask at the end of this post. The NAACP stands for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, yet I don't hear cries from those who are sensitive to blacks being called coloreds. In fact, a woman that I work with(who is black) was completely offended by a customer of ours(who is in her 80s) whenever she was asking to see "the colored lady in the back." Whenever I brought up the point that she's a supporter of the NAACP(and stated what the acronym stood for), she could only say "well that's different!" So you can see how I view the matter as a double standard.
The whole reason I started this thread was to ask y'all what y'all think about it, as well as to stir up the CC pot a bit. We haven't had a heated debate in a while(oooooh Witis....).
PS - My maternal grandmother is 1/2 Native American(Indian) and she could care less if a football team is called Redskins.
-
Feb 20th, 2014, 12:16 AM
#2
Re: Redskins
I can only go by what I see in the media but it's my impression that a lot of Americans enjoy being hypersensitive about racism. I'm not for a moment suggesting that racism doesn't exist and that it's effects can't be significant but if anyone seriously believes that any native American is going to be disadvantaged or discriminated against because a football team is named the Redskins then they're crazy. There may be some Native Americans who are offended by the term but do they really believe that there was ever any intention to denigrate their people in the choice of that name? There's probably a whole bunch of white apologists who want to voice their concerns as well to show how not racist they are. They all need to get over themselves.
White Europeans have done some terrible things to Native Americans and Africans in the US and to Aborigines here in Australia, taking their land and killing or enslaving their people. Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't those Native Americans killing each other and taking each other's land before that? Does anyone know how many times England has been invaded over history? Bad things happen people. People who identify themselves as part of a group will do bad things to people who they identify as part of another group. It happens everywhere with everyone. The human race is all as bad and good as each other. Get over it.
-
Feb 20th, 2014, 12:41 AM
#3
Re: Redskins
Very well put. I'm quick to jump on somebody if they use a racist term to hurt someone, but I just do not think that is the case here.
-
Feb 20th, 2014, 04:27 AM
#4
Re: Redskins
Racism is a two way street... To end it - both sides need to cut each other some slack...
Personally my thoughts on the matter is that the Redskins name was chosen because it represented how strong and diligent the Native American's are, which is what you want your football team to represent.
That's what I always thought too. It's kind of hard to think bad things about that.
-
Feb 20th, 2014, 06:29 AM
#5
Re: Redskins
Does anyone know how many times England has been invaded over history?
Actually not many. Since the concept of England as an identifiable nation really only came into exisetence as a function of the resistance to the Viking Incursions it's only really Vikings and the Normans that you can count. Mostly we've been the ones doing the invading. That's not really the point, though, I just can't help getting historical.
I think I probably agree with the sentiments in this thread but I'm going to play devils advocate for a bit becasue I think it's an interesting debate. Would you argue against a name change for a team called the New Orleans Ni**ers on the basis that the name was chosen to reflect the athletic supremacy of black men? I don't think you would because you recognise that the N word is so emotionally charged that it's mere usage is racist regardless of the intent behind it. (I know there is a whole argument to be had about it's use by blacks in Rap music, comedy etc but since it's not Native Americans predominantly running the NFL the parallel is to white people using the N word which I think most people would regard as intrinsically racist).
So the question becomes, is the term Redskins emotionally charged in the same way as the N word. Not just in terms scale, but also in terms of the history of it's inception. In terms of scale I don't get the impression it is. I don't get the impression that Native American's on the whole are likely to be as offended by the term as Blacks are by the N word. However, in terms of it's inception it's in a very similar bracket. It was most definitely coined as a term to meant denigrate Native Americans. So while Native Americans might not get offended by it, they probably do have a right to get offended by it. They would not have a right to be offended if the team were called the Washington Native Americans (although that's really not very catchy).
So I guess where I come down is this. I don't get the impression that there is a significant movement within the Native American Community to change the name so I wouldn't advocate doing so (and I agree that we should utterly disregard the opinions of desparately conerned hand wringing white folks in this). However, if the day ever came when there was such a movement, then I would take that movement seriously.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter - Winston Churchill
Hadoop actually sounds more like the way they greet each other in Yorkshire - Inferrd
-
Feb 20th, 2014, 06:45 AM
#6
Re: Redskins
FD - very nice thoughts....
Here's a fresh off the press article:
Lawmakers step into Washington Redskins name fray
The owner of the Redskins, Daniel Snyder, has defended the name and vowed to keep it. Tony Wyllie, a senior vice president with the team, had the following response to the lawmakers:
"With all the important issues Congress has to deal with such as a war in Afghanistan to deficits to health care, don't they have more important issues to worry about than a football team's name?"
And in an apparent dig at Cole, he added, "given the fact that the name of Oklahoma means "Red People" in Choctaw, this request is a little ironic."
-
Feb 20th, 2014, 07:36 AM
#7
Frenzied Member
Re: Redskins
A lot of this comes down to the self imposed leader of the Central New York tribe the Oneidas, Ray Halbriter. As a life long resident of the city of Oneida,(only city in Madison county, upstate NY) we have watched this go on for almost 40 years. Our High School athletic teams have been named the Oneida Indians for as long as it has existed. When the Oneidas started coming into power because of the monies brought in by their casino(Turning Stone) and gas and tobacco sales they pressed all local sports teams to remove any name that was deemed derogatory to the native american, (Indians, Redskins, Warriors, Raiders and a few more that I can't recall). The only team name that still exists in the area as it was, is the Oneida Indian athletics.
When our youth football league (Oneida Pop Warner) began back in 1968 or 69, they were called the Oneida Savages, that lasted about 3 or 4 years and was changed when the Womens Council of the local Oneidas (the TRUE leaders of the Oneida Indian Nation), came to the association and asked that out of deference to the tribe it be named the Indians instead, that way it was more in honoring to the tribe. What it boils down to is the bogus leader of the Oneidas trying to get what he wants. Where in the past this would have been achieved by threats and violence, they now do it with money and political power.
-
Feb 20th, 2014, 11:01 AM
#8
Fanatic Member
Re: Redskins
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
Actually not many. Since the concept of England as an identifiable nation really only came into exisetence as a function of the resistance to the Viking Incursions it's only really Vikings and the Normans that you can count. Mostly we've been the ones doing the invading. That's not really the point, though, I just can't help getting historical.
I think you were invaded by the Scots once or twice.
There are some people who get offended for a living, generally on behalf of someone else who is utterly unconcerned by the issue. I think this is probably the case here - Dex's description of "desperately concerned hand-wringing white folks" is spot on. I think we all have a duty to ignore these people and hope they go away.
If the local native Americans were concerned about it - and by that, I mean a reasonably large proportion of the population rather than a self-appointed "community leader" who is probably completely unrepresentative of the community - then it's something that should be looked at. Until then, leave it as it is.
-
Feb 20th, 2014, 01:44 PM
#9
Re: Redskins
@FD - It's important to play devil's advocate in these types of cases as it gets people thinking.
-
Feb 21st, 2014, 03:48 AM
#10
Re: Redskins
I think you were invaded by the Scots once or twice.
Ooh, I forget that. The Welsh made a couple of spirited efforts too. And I guess you could arguably include the Dutch although we invite them so I'm not sure that really counts.
I mean a reasonably large proportion of the population rather than a self-appointed "community leader" who is probably completely unrepresentative of the community
Yeah, I think that's the hard bit. When do a few crackpots become a large proportion? It can be a tough call. I really don't get the impression it has in this case, though.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter - Winston Churchill
Hadoop actually sounds more like the way they greet each other in Yorkshire - Inferrd
-
Feb 21st, 2014, 11:28 AM
#11
Re: Redskins
Didn't the Romans, French and Germans have turns too?
Please remember next time...elections matter!
-
Feb 21st, 2014, 01:23 PM
#12
Re: Redskins
Yes, yes, no.
(Probably you mean Saxons - Germany is quite a recent concept)
-
Feb 21st, 2014, 06:43 PM
#13
Re: Redskins
Originally Posted by Merrion
Yes, yes, no.
(Probably you mean Saxons - Germany is quite a recent concept)
Really? I got this:
As the Roman Empire declined, its hold on Britain loosened. By AD 410, Roman forces had been withdrawn, and small, isolated bands of migrating Germans began to invade Britain. There seems to have been no large "invasion" with a combined army or fleet,[5] but the tribes, notably the Jutes, Angles, and Saxons, quickly established control over modern-day England.
From here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasio..._British_Isles
And it seems to contradict that.
And I guess relative is, well, relative but it looks like Germany has been around awhile based on:
The concept of Germany as a distinct region in central Europe can be traced to Roman commander Julius Caesar, who referred to the unconquered area east of the Rhine as Germania, thus distinguishing it from Gaul (France), which he had conquered. The victory of the Germanic tribes in the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest (AD 9) prevented annexation by the Roman Empire. Following the fall of the Roman Empire, the Franks conquered the other West Germanic tribes. When the Frankish Empire was divided among Charlemagne's heirs in 843, the eastern part became East Francia. In 962, Otto I became the first emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, the medieval German state.
From here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Germany
Please remember next time...elections matter!
-
Feb 23rd, 2014, 02:07 AM
#14
Lively Member
Re: Redskins
Originally Posted by jmcilhinney
I can only go by what I see in the media but it's my impression that a lot of Americans enjoy being hypersensitive about racism.
I have a Jamaican friend who loves to mess with politically correct types who make the mistake of referring to him as "African-American" solely based on the color of his skin. More often than not he leaves them stammering and thoroughly apologetic. Fun to watch.
Notice how nobody ever complains about this guy?
Why is this mascot not considered just as racist and unacceptable?
"Bones heal. Chicks dig scars. Pain is temporary. Glory is forever." - Robert Craig "Evel" Knievel
“Leave me alone, I know what I’m doing.” - Kimi Raikkonen
-
Feb 23rd, 2014, 09:47 AM
#15
Re: Redskins
"Without stereotypes, we have no humor. Without humor, we have no life."
"Ok, my response to that is pending a Google search" - Bucky Katt.
"There are two types of people in the world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data sets." - Unk.
"Before you can 'think outside the box' you need to understand where the box is."
-
Feb 24th, 2014, 07:28 AM
#16
Re: Redskins
Didn't the Romans, French and Germans have turns too?
I would say No, Sort of and No. England as a concept didn't exist when the romans were kicking around. England as a concept formed around the resistance of the Anglo-Saxons to the Danish Viking invasions in the 9th century onwards. Basicaly Alfred burned some cakes and then everyone decided they wanted to be English. Our cuisine hasn't improved since.
You could include the French if you were describing the Normans but I'd argue they were distinct. In fact the Normans were of viking descent themselves and were culturally much more Scandinavian than Gallic.
Similarly the Germans (by which I'm guessing you mean the Angles, Saxons and Jutes) didn't invade England, they invaded Brittania. Unless you're referring to eth German occupation of the Channel Islands in WW2 but I figured that dodn't really count as "England" either.
LOTS of nations have successfully invaded "Britain", very few have invaded "England".
Notice how nobody ever complains about this guy?
What's he the mascot from ?!
The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter - Winston Churchill
Hadoop actually sounds more like the way they greet each other in Yorkshire - Inferrd
-
Feb 24th, 2014, 07:37 AM
#17
Re: Redskins
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
LOTS of nations have successfully invaded "Britain", very few have invaded "England".
That's true but splitting hairs. The point is that the people who have "invaded" a number of other lands in recent history were themselves invaded many times in earlier history and it's therefore not a new phenomenon restricted to "the white man" opressing those with skin of other colours.
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
What's he the mascot from ?!
Notre Dame University are the Fighting Irish so I'm guessing it's their emblem. Quite appropriate, given that "Notre Dame" is such an archetypal Irish name.
-
Feb 24th, 2014, 08:01 AM
#18
Re: Redskins
That's true but splitting hairs.
Yeah I know but I can't help getting pedantic about history. It's a weakness of mine. You know how you feel when someone mistakes a DataGrid for a DataGridView? Well that's me with history
it's therefore not a new phenomenon restricted to "the white man" opressing those with skin of other colours.
Agreed. It's restricted only to those who have lots of power opressing those who have less. It's not a White thing, it's a human thing. The fact that it's been White Europeans who had the power throughout most of our recorded history is just down to coincidences of climate and the dispositions of readily accessible resources.
"Notre Dame" is such an archetypal Irish name.
Really? I'd have thought French, surely.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter - Winston Churchill
Hadoop actually sounds more like the way they greet each other in Yorkshire - Inferrd
-
Feb 24th, 2014, 08:04 AM
#19
Re: Redskins
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
Really? I'd have thought French, surely.
Yeah, I should have put a after that.
-
Feb 24th, 2014, 08:12 AM
#20
Re: Redskins
Ah, I thought you were probably being sarcastic but wasn't sure. I do wish it was possible to type with "tone".
Thinking about it, given that homo sapiens came out of Africa and displaced the Neanderthals you could say that it was the Africans who started it. Arguably the Europeans have just spent a few millenia getting their own back.
Last edited by FunkyDexter; Feb 24th, 2014 at 08:21 AM.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter - Winston Churchill
Hadoop actually sounds more like the way they greet each other in Yorkshire - Inferrd
-
Feb 24th, 2014, 11:06 AM
#21
Re: Redskins
Isn't the Fighting Irish guy supposed to be a leprachaun? If so, that would make him a mythical being. It's going to be a bit difficult finding the minority that would be offended by that, though a person might try looking at the ends of rainbows.
My usual boring signature: Nothing
-
Feb 24th, 2014, 11:10 AM
#22
Re: Redskins
I could see General Mills getting upset Shaggy.
-
Feb 24th, 2014, 11:39 AM
#23
Re: Redskins
Originally Posted by jmcilhinney
Quite appropriate, given that "Notre Dame" is such an archetypal Irish name.
I know people who went to Notre Dame - it's a famous Catholic school that many Irish people go to - thus the fighting irish (would be my guess anyway). Wiki doesn't back me up though...
-
Feb 24th, 2014, 11:40 AM
#24
Fanatic Member
Re: Redskins
Originally Posted by jmcilhinney
That's true but splitting hairs.
As someone who comes from Britain but not from England, I would disagree. There's a massive difference.
-
Feb 24th, 2014, 05:52 PM
#25
Re: Redskins
Originally Posted by dday9
I could see General Mills getting upset Shaggy.
Tell the General to have a meeting with Captain Morgan. That ought to settle his hash. He can even bring in Colonel Sanders if he needs reinforcements (though, that may be too low brow, so he might prefer General Tso's chicken).
My usual boring signature: Nothing
-
Feb 24th, 2014, 05:55 PM
#26
Re: Redskins
Originally Posted by InvisibleDuncan
As someone who comes from Britain but not from England, I would disagree. There's a massive difference.
I was born in Northern Ireland of an Irish father and English mother. I know the difference but, in the context, it's splitting hairs. It was the English who claimed America and Australia and many other lands besides (not that they were America and Australia at the time either) so I was referring to the fact that the land that those people came from had also been claimed by many other peoples over the course of history. I meant the land that is now England has been invaded many times over the course of history.
-
Feb 25th, 2014, 08:44 AM
#27
Re: Redskins
It was the English who claimed America and Australia and many other lands besides (not that they were America and Australia at the time either)
That doesn't seem right. I though the French claimed around Louisiana and Canada and the Spanish Florida. Although I guess I can see the English "claiming it" without actually being there.
I thought they just dumped their criminals in Australia
Please remember next time...elections matter!
-
Feb 25th, 2014, 09:39 AM
#28
Re: Redskins
Louisiana was claimed by Spain first, then France, then Spain, and then France right before the LA Purchase. As much French heritage we have, we have just as much Spanish too.
-
Feb 25th, 2014, 10:30 AM
#29
Re: Redskins
They dumped a fair number of their criminals in the southern US, too. Some of the colonies were really just dumping ground for the unwelcome of England.
My usual boring signature: Nothing
-
Feb 25th, 2014, 03:38 PM
#30
Re: Redskins
Yeah, I've always been mystified as to why we gave you lot the warm bits. You'd have thought it would have made more sense to jump on the boat ourselves and leave you lot at the dock.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter - Winston Churchill
Hadoop actually sounds more like the way they greet each other in Yorkshire - Inferrd
-
Feb 25th, 2014, 04:05 PM
#31
Re: Redskins
There isn't enough rain over here, or in Australia, to make a Brit feel quite at home.
My usual boring signature: Nothing
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
Click Here to Expand Forum to Full Width
|