- Joined
- May 19, 2005
- Messages
- 30,534
- Reaction score
- 10,717
- Location
- Louisiana
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
I have actually never heard that term in my life here. It could be something that his family came up with, or something that part of Louisiana says but I'm not familiar with it, we do have a lot of odd terms though.Went to high school with a "Bayou Ni&&er". His family's term not mine. It was the first time I had heard that. But they were from the swamps of Louisiana.
I do believe that depends on which generation you ask, I know a lot of the older black folks I have talked to hate that aspect of the genre.
You really think that this is anything more than the PC police just making **** up? It's simple man, predominantly Indian schools are using the same mascot, for every one of the five people the Dems trotted out to complain, hundreds are saying it's not an issue. If the people supposedly affected don't care, why should I?The race's perception of the word is irrelevant as to whether or not it perpetuates a stereotype. The majority of the black population is bellow the age of 40. I'm not saying all are rap listeners but a pretty good percentage are. Does their opinion on the subject change whether or not a word perpetuates a stereotype? Using what the majority of Native Americans think about a word is the old "I have a black friend who disagrees!" argument. It's irrelevant in the grand scope of the discussion. Like arguing that women should serve men because we've had female members on this forum who enjoy being subservient or because the FLDS endorses such nonsense.
Doesn't matter, we are taking the concept of expanded offense to it's logical conclusion. Political correctness is the most ridiculous abuse of language and socializing ever come up with, so if we are going to play by the "offense" rules, where everything that might be an offense to someone is taboo, then everything must be removed because let's face it, someone of the Saginaw tribe may not want to be associated with a non-tribal area of Michigan and it just might offend them.
That doesn't make etymological sense. Why would one race be referred to as "<color> <man>" and the other "<color> <skin>". That's inherently degrading to the race not called man.
I think you're the one lying or mistaken.
People need to grow up and stop concerning themselves with what teams are named.
You really think that this is anything more than the PC police just making **** up?
If the people supposedly affected don't care, why should I?
Really?
So if they changed the name to the 'Child Molesters'...you would say the same thing?
Wikipedia is not the be all end all for definitions. Seeing as anyone can edit it.Redskin (slang) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Redskin as a derogatory term is nothing made up or new.
No one has asked you to care. It doesn't deter from the fact that it's still pushing for racial stereotypes. :shrug:
I have a very good friend that is native American Indian. Its true.The "I have a black friend" argument is attempting to excuse ones action towards the whole because of treatment of a single.
The argument that women should be subservient because a few individual women on this forum have expressed they felt that way is attempting to suggest the majority should act in the way a minority wants.
The argument that the vast MAJORITY of native americans don't believe the name needs to change is not "like" either of those. In both of those you're referencing a small minority as justification for action towards the majority.
If anything, pointing at a random individual native american saying it should change and using that as justification that it needs to change because it's offensive "to native americans" is closer to "I have a black friend" then the other way around.
The words origin is not that of a slur. The words history is not singularly that of a slur. The words use as the name of a team is not meant as a slur. The majority of native americans don't view the name as something that needs to change. The majority of americans don't view the name as something that needs to change. But SIMPLY because a small minority claim they're offended by it then we're told it must change becuase it's "racism" and damaging society.
And pointing that out is the thing that's supposed to be like saying "I've got a black friend"? :roll:
Exactly right. Out of respect...we should completely eliminate all references to Indians. No more exploiting them.At that point, Illinois should change it's name too, it is after all named for the Illinois Indian tribe, Montauk New York must change, Baton Rouge on a technicality because the French named it so after seeing a red stick which the natives used to denote a territorial marker(Baton(stick) Rouge(red)). In fact, Saginaw Michigan and the steering parts they manufacture would have to go, as would Milwuakee Wisconsin. Hell, I like this idea, take it to the absolute extreme to show just how silly this crap really is.
That's not the same thing. The Redskins aren't named that because they want their team to have a denigrating, offensive name. They're named that to honor Native American heritage. A team wouldn't call themselves something that they hate and that people hate.
Redskin as a derogatory term is nothing made up or new.
That's not the same thing. The Redskins aren't named that because they want their team to have a denigrating, offensive name. They're named that to honor Native American heritage. A team wouldn't call themselves something that they hate and that people hate.
Snyder also states that the name was chosen in 1933 to honor Native Americans in general and the coach and four players at that time who were Native American; and that in 1971 the then coach George Allen consulted with the Red Cloud Indian Fund on the Pine Ridge reservation when designing the logo.[34] However the Red Cloud Athletic Fund sent a letter to the Washington Post stating that "As an organization, Red Cloud Indian School has never—and will never—endorse the use of the name “Redskins.” Like many Native American organizations across the country, members of our staff and extended community find the name offensive."[
Some accounts state that the name "Redskins" was chosen to honor William "Lone Star" Dietz, who began coaching in 1933, because his mother was Sioux. Dietz's true heritage has been questioned by some scholars, citing a birth certificate and census records that his parents were white.[50] There were four Native Americans on the original Redskins team of 1933.[51]
He typed:
'People need to grow up and stop concerning themselves with what teams are named.'
So, I wanted to see whether he meant it or not.
.... How do you honor something by calling it a derogatory name? ... Wait.. let's just look at the BS story by the Washington organization:
Washington Redskins name controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Redskin (slang) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In short: The people who supposedly came up with the name, have distanced themselves from it. The guy it was named after wasn't even Native. The name picked was derogatory as far back as the 1900s.
You went ridiculous. He knows, you know and all of us know that a team would never call themselves that.
Well duh.
He made a ridiculous statement and I called him on it.
Still waiting for his answer.
Your opinion on this means nothing to me as I was not talking to you.
Good day.
Anyone who suggests that Redskins can't BE a derogatory term is being ridiculous in my mind.
HOWEVER...
Anyone suggesting it simply IS a derogatory word is also being ridiculous. In some instances it is, in some instances it's not.
It's origins are not derogatory in nature. It's use at predominantly native american high schools is not derogatory in nature. Native Americans who refer to native americans by that term is not derogatory in nature. It's use as a sports franchise is not derogatory in nature.
When it's being used as a perjorative term for native americans it's being used as a derogatory term. That's not the only method in which the word is used however.
But I don't think that the poster was suggesting it's "made up" that Redskins CAN be derogatory. I believe he's suggesting that it's made up that the Washington Redskins use of the word is derogatory in nature.
So if the team owner changes the name, who compensates him the hundreds of millions of dollars that the brand name is worth? Perhaps the people who think it should be changed should come up with the cash?
Redskin (slang) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Redskin as a derogatory term is nothing made up or new.
So yeah, that ad is a lie, Suzan Harjo is a liar, and the name should be aloud to stay.
There are some who claim that the "scalp evidence" has nothing to do with Indian or bloody skin, because they cannot find the words "skin" or "red" in bounty documents. They do not allow that scalp is skin, and that the skin of the head, with or without hair, is insufficient evidence of gender or age. (They also claim that native people introduced themselves as "Red Skin", because that's how Europeans translated to English what native men said in their tribal languages, when they likely said they were a Red, Blood, or Related Person or Man
(Source)
Really?
So if they changed the name to the 'Child Molesters'...you would say the same thing?
That's not how losing money works. Teams don't lose money when they change names. If anything, the old jerseys become expensive memorabilia.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?