Smithsonian Museum - yet another thread on team name

[SirLK26]

Without looking at a lot of the other discussion, I will put my two cents in. The name Redskins is not a racial slur. It's just what people used to call Native Americans. In the mid 1800's people called Negroes "darkies." That's not a racial slur, people just called them that. Indians supposedly called white people palefaces; that's not a racial slur;again that's just a name. Now, if the name of the team was the Savages, i can see that being called a racial slur, but the name is the Redskins. People who are so sensitive just need to back off and shut up.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by SirLK26

..........In the mid 1800's people called Negroes "darkies." That's not a racial slur <SNIP>

Dafuq?

Still beating the help, are you?

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by SirLK26

Without looking at a lot of the other discussion, I will put my two cents in. The name Redskins is not a racial slur. It's just what people used to call Native Americans. In the mid 1800's people called Negroes "darkies.".

........ok, anyone, anyone,"Bueller? Bueller?"

[Mayor]

Originally Posted by Giantone

........ok, anyone, anyone,"Bueller? Bueller?"

It's a terrible argument, but it doesn't undo the good arguments already made.

If, as the Linguistic professor's essay already showed, "Redskin" was a direct translation of what American Indians called themselves (which would also account for why, when Indians learned English, they referred to Europeans as "White Man") AND the story of "redskin" origin being for bloody scalps is a lie, then there is actually no grounds to take offense to the name other than that you are just a miserable person looking to dump on other people's fun. To which I would suggest finding some other hobby.

[Leader In Sports]

Originally Posted by Mayor

It's a terrible argument, but it doesn't undo the good arguments already made.

If, as the Linguistic professor's essay already showed, "Redskin" was a direct translation of what American Indians called themselves (which would also account for why, when Indians learned English, they referred to Europeans as "White Man") AND the story of "redskin" origin being for bloody scalps is a lie, then there is actually no grounds to take offense to the name other than that you are just a miserable person looking to dump on other people's fun. To which I would suggest finding some other hobby.

The origin of the word is not necessarily where it is now. The N word was originally a neutral word that originated because of the area around the river in the Africa.

As I said earlier, both sides of the argument have their points with the word "Redskin"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_(slang)

"Redskin" is a racial descriptor for the indigenous peoples of the Americas and one of the color metaphors for race used in North America and Europe since European colonization of the Western Hemisphere.

"Red" as a color metaphor for indigenous people in the Americas is also without being compounded with "skins", as in the "Red Power" movement in the US in the 1960s and 70s or the 1970 "Red Paper" on Indian policy published by the Indian Chiefs of Alberta in Canada their leader Harold Cardinal.

The term is controversial as it is considered by some to be extremely offensive (an r-word for Native Americans equivalent to the n-word for African-Americans)[1], but neutral by others.[2] The consensus based upon a comparison of current dictionary definitions is that the term has negative or disparaging connotations.[3]

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by Leader In Sports

The origin of the word is not necessarily where it is now. The N word was originally a neutral word that originated because of the area around the river in the Africa.

As I said earlier, both sides of the argument have their points with the word "Redskin"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_(slang)

When you have one side backed by history, logic, and usage of the name today... and the other side backed by nothing but their own little group's beliefs today (not even a significant number of NA's)... then only one side has a point.

In a way, it's like the "evolution/creationism" debate. One side has history, logic, and usage of correct scientific methods today.... and the other side has nothing but their own little group's beliefs today (sure more Christians believe in creationism, but not a majority.)

So by the "logic" of the Redskins naming debate, I guess we should do away with evolutionary theory, because it offends a lot more people than the name "Redskins"?

[Leader In Sports]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

When you have one side backed by history, logic, and usage of the name today... and the other side backed by nothing but their own little group's beliefs today (not even a significant number of NA's)... then only one side has a point.

In a way, it's like the "evolution/creationism" debate. One side has history, logic, and usage of correct scientific methods today.... and the other side has nothing but their own little group's beliefs today (sure more Christians believe in creationism, but not a majority.)

So by the "logic" of the Redskins naming debate, I guess we should do away with evolutionary theory, because it offends a lot more people than the name "Redskins"?

Honestly, I started reading your statement about one side backed by history, logic etc and thought you were arguing the other point.

Like I said, both sides have really good arguments and strong feelings. On a Redskin fan forum, you will see a strong slant to that side. Just like on other forums, you could see a strong slant the other way.

This discussion really has no where left to go on here.

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by Leader In Sports

Honestly, I started reading your statement about one side backed by history, logic etc and thought you were arguing the other point.

Like I said, both sides have really good arguments and strong feelings. On a Redskin fan forum, you will see a strong slant to that side. Just like on other forums, you could see a strong slant the other way.

This discussion really has no where left to go on here.

What history or logic backs the idea of the name "Redskins" being offensive? Other than already refuted theories and a small number of people (almost all not NA's) just saying it is?

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Mayor

It's a terrible argument, but it doesn't undo the good arguments already made.

If, as the Linguistic professor's essay already showed, "Redskin" was a direct translation of what American Indians called themselves (which would also account for why, when Indians learned English, they referred to Europeans as "White Man") AND the story of "redskin" origin being for bloody scalps is a lie, then there is actually no grounds to take offense to the name other than that you are just a miserable person looking to dump on other people's fun. To which I would suggest finding some other hobby.

First I think the Redskins should keep everything as is !!What proof do you have this is a lie?Ok,you don't like his opinion but like it or not there is some fact to this story and to try and accuse others of lying when in fact your argument has gone south is wrong.

" However a wide range of civil rights[15], and professional organizations [16] [17] and over 500 American Indian groups [18] have called for the end of the use of all Native American references by sports teams."