Redskins Off Season things.

[Hog1]

Nice!
It would seem more consistent with the city.....of late

[Ruhskins]

I still think Snyder should just have a team with no name, just call it Washington.

[irish]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

I still think Snyder should just have a team with no name, just call it Washington.

I agree. Drop the name Redskins and call them Washington or Washington Football and keep the logo and uniforms the same.

[That Guy]

Redskin | Define Redskin at Dictionary.com
redskin: definition of redskin in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

MW and oxford dictionaries both define it as racist/taboo/derogatory, for what it's worth.

and the only context is definitely not as an NFL team name. we're not the the washington borknoggers. again you may think it's silly and I'm not pushing for a name change, but it is what it is.

[Hog1]

Redskins: The debate over the Washington football team's name incorrectly invokes history.



In 2005, the Indian language scholar Ives Goddard of the Smithsonian Institution published a remarkable and consequential study of redskin's early history. His findings shifted the dates for the word's first appearance in print by more than a century and shed an awkward light on the contemporary debate. Goddard found, in summary, that "the actual origin of the word is entirely benign."

Redskin, he learned, had not emerged first in English or any European language. The English term, in fact, derived from Native American phrases involving the color red in combination with terms for flesh, skin, and man. These phrases were part of a racial vocabulary that Indians often used to designate themselves in opposition to others whom they (like the Europeans) called black, white, and so on.

But the language into which those terms for Indians were first translated was French. The tribes among whom the proto forms of redskin first appeared lived in the area of the upper Mississippi River called Illinois country. Their extensive contact with French-speaking colonists, before the French pulled out of North America, led to these phrases being translated, in the 1760s, more or less literally as peau-rouge and only then into English as redskin. It bears mentioning that many such translators were mixed-blood Indians.

Ives Goddard / Home Page

Worth spending a few minutes reading.......both
Has....actual educational worth rather than the media driven nonsense, and he addresses some of that.

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by Hog1

Redskins: The debate over the Washington football team's name incorrectly invokes history.



In 2005, the Indian language scholar Ives Goddard of the Smithsonian Institution published a remarkable and consequential study of redskin's early history. His findings shifted the dates for the word's first appearance in print by more than a century and shed an awkward light on the contemporary debate. Goddard found, in summary, that "the actual origin of the word is entirely benign."

Redskin, he learned, had not emerged first in English or any European language. The English term, in fact, derived from Native American phrases involving the color red in combination with terms for flesh, skin, and man. These phrases were part of a racial vocabulary that Indians often used to designate themselves in opposition to others whom they (like the Europeans) called black, white, and so on.

But the language into which those terms for Indians were first translated was French. The tribes among whom the proto forms of redskin first appeared lived in the area of the upper Mississippi River called Illinois country. Their extensive contact with French-speaking colonists, before the French pulled out of North America, led to these phrases being translated, in the 1760s, more or less literally as peau-rouge and only then into English as redskin. It bears mentioning that many such translators were mixed-blood Indians.

Ives Goddard / Home Page

Worth spending a few minutes reading.......both
Has....actual educational worth rather than the media driven nonsense, and he addresses some of that.

Yep. Good read. It's been around, and largely ignored in the debate, because it doesn't back the narrative of the name being "racist".

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

Yep. Good read. It's been around, and largely ignored in the debate, because it doesn't back the narrative of the name being "racist".

.......and then you have things like this .



Update: Yes, A 'Redskin' Does, In Fact, Mean the Scalped Head of a Native American, Sold, Like a Pelt, for Cash

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by Giantone

.......and then you have things like this .



Update: Yes, A 'Redskin' Does, In Fact, Mean the Scalped Head of a Native American, Sold, Like a Pelt, for Cash

This argument is...benign. It was already debunked by Goddard. This dude is just looking for his day in the sun....15 minutes of fame.....etc.
He refers to a term that may (and according to Goddard...Not used) been last used 150 years ago? 200?
Get serious....Gay used to mean.....Happy
Maybe we want to be more current than a century or 2?. You have a gross minority of individuals making the decisions as always for the rest of us.
No thanx.......

[mooby]

Originally Posted by Giantone

.......and then you have things like this .



Update: Yes, A 'Redskin' Does, In Fact, Mean the Scalped Head of a Native American, Sold, Like a Pelt, for Cash

Just a theory, but is it at all possible that in some areas of this country, the term Redskin can evoke harsh feelings, but that in some other areas the term Redskin can be used as one of pride? Why does it have to be as black and white as "everybody hates it" or "nobody hates it?" Why do reservations still use the name for their high school team? Clearly they must be self-hating American Indians /sarcasm.

The modus operandi these days seems to be "get outraged over something insignificant, like a flag, or a name, or even a road (see the Jefferson Davis Highway outrage) instead of focusing on the bigger issue at hand, which is "how does racism still survive in today's society." None of those things are creating racists. Racist parents passing on their beliefs to their children are, and racial incidents where someone attacks someone else because of the color of their skin are. But we can't fix those problems as easily as we can chant "remove the <offending inanimate object>." I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the majority of Americans always opt for the easy route. The descent into a mediocre nation continues.

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by Giantone

.......and then you have things like this .



Update: Yes, A 'Redskin' Does, In Fact, Mean the Scalped Head of a Native American, Sold, Like a Pelt, for Cash

Yes, another article titled that "redskins" has to do with scalps or skins, when the actual historical document cited doesn't refer to the name "redskins" in that way at all. I think you posted another article a while back that also claimed redskins referred to scalps, when the actual historical document cited in the same article did not. Lol.

Thank you, giantone, for providing yet another example of just how stupid the anti-"redskin" people are.

I mean, what is the deal with these people? How do you take a phrase "The State reward for dead Indians has been increased to $200 for every red-skin sent to Purgatory. This sum is more than the dead bodies of all the Indians east of the Red River are worth.", and think that it refers to scalps rather than Indians?

Just in case you didn't get it, giantone, here's an example of reading comprehension. Which phrase makes the most sense to you?

"$200 for every scalp sent to purgatory"

or

"$200 for every Indian sent to purgatory"

I hope to heaven you realized how the word "redskin"was used, giantone. I would think any middle-schooler could do so. I mean, I'm not catholic, but I think people get sent to purgatory, not just their hair.

As to the writers of the article, their error has been posted in the comments below on that webpage. And at the point where one side of a debate has to lie and twist words around so much, isn't it fair to say the anti-redskin side has lost the debate conclusively? At least as far as history and logic go.

Thanks again for another example of anti-redskin people failing reading comprehension, giantone.

[over the mountain]

i really dont have much say either way in this debate. i see both sides points.

Has anyone ever been wearing redskins gear and had someone ask you about the name?

Wearing skins gear in the DMV is done without any second thought.

assume you are on a cross country road trip - would you have second thoughts about wearing skins gear in oklahoma or a reserve along the highway where they sell stuff?

i think i would take my hat off. which makes me kinda think if i wouldnt wear skins gear in front of a NA, why would i wear it period?

Im punting on the issue personally.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

i really dont have much say either way in this debate. i see both sides points.



Has anyone ever been wearing redskins gear and had someone ask you about the name?



Wearing skins gear in the DMV is done without any second thought.



assume you are on a cross country road trip - would you have second thoughts about wearing skins gear in oklahoma or a reserve along the highway where they sell stuff?



i think i would take my hat off. which makes me kinda think if i wouldnt wear skins gear in front of a NA, why would i wear it period?



Im punting on the issue personally.

The only feedback I've experienced personally is in support of the name.

[Defensewins]

I have always been very much against changing the name, I grew up loving almost everything about the team. When the name issue started I hated the idea of a name change.
The team, the game, the player uniforms and helmets, and especially the players and coaches all representing the Washington area. The area I was born and raised in is what it is about for me. They could have had any other reasonable name and I still would have been a fan.
I, as probably most of you, did not become a fan because of the name.
There is portion of society that dislike the team name and dislike Dan Snyder. Lord knows DS has given all of us reason to not like him at times. There will come a day DS will not be the owner anymore. Nothing is forever .......and maybe the name should not be treated as some kind of sacred object. It is just a game.

[CRedskinsRule]

I would be more upset about loosing HTTR and singing after TDs. Which brings me to the question of when your main motto is Hail to the ________ (fill in the blank with any word -even perjuratives like the n word) how does that show any intention of being disparaging.

I am ok if the name changes but it will just be a reflection of a US culture that has lost the ability to view the world with varied and disparate perspectives. That is a sad thing .

Sent from my S6 Edge

[Kope]

Wonder if the name "Nation" would fly. Would work on several levels.

Dan should limit all the distractions he can to get this thing turned around. Owners set the conditions.

If the times change, change with them