- Joined
- Feb 20, 2012
- Messages
- 104,071
- Reaction score
- 84,041
- Location
- Biden's 'Murica
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Indians, Braves, Blue Devils(are we attacking smurfs here?), are all fine because they are not racial descriptors.
White crackers? seriously? That doesn't even make sense... we're talking about racial epithets. If Kraft had a picture of a white slave owner on their Saltine boxes then sure but... wtf?
Clearly, you don't know how that name came about. Despite the fact that twice now in this thread Perotista has provided the history of the name of the team.Clearly you don't know how that name came about.
Redskins is a nick name too.
I'm curious what percentage of people think Redskin is a slur separate from whether or not the team's name should be changed.
I think a lot of people are so used to the Redskin name they don't even think of it as a slur because they see it simply as a descriptor of Native Americans or of its heritage and never thought of it as an insult.
I do not think it is possible to separate the two, this whole brouhaha was caused by a federal government agency trying to dictate to a football team to change their name by revoking their patent. If this didn't happen we would not be talking about this and you would not have started your thread. But if it pleases you, I will vacate the thread.
Wow, you read that totally wrong. Being a life long Redskins fan, I know how the name came about. I was talking about the Fighting Irish.Clearly, you don't know how that name came about. Despite the fact that twice now in this thread Perotista has provided the history of the name of the team.
So here it is a third time, courtesy Perotista and Wikipedia.
The Washington Redskins were originally known as the Boston Braves. In 1933, co-owner George Preston Marshall changed the name to the Redskins, possibly in recognition of the then–head coach William Henry "Lone Star" Dietz, who claimed to be part Sioux. On July 6, 1933, the Boston Herald reported that "the change was made to avoid confusion with the Braves baseball team and the team that is to be coached by an Indian (Dietz)... with several Indian players."[6] Dietz's ancestry has been questioned by some scholars, as a birth certificate and census records recorded his parents as white. This does not preclude his having had Sioux ancestry as well.[7] In 1933, the Boston Braves moved from Braves Field, which they shared with baseball's Boston Braves, to Fenway Park, already occupied by the Boston Red Sox. John F. Banzhaf III, Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University Law School, cites a newspaper article from 1933 in which Marshall is quoted as saying the name was selected only to save money by not having to change the logo of the Braves, and not to honor Dietz or the Indian players.[8] There was however, no logo on the Braves football uniform of 1932. The Washington Redskins current logo, which was inspired by Native American, Walter Wetzel, former president of the National Congress of American Indians, was introduced in 1972.[9]
The arguments in this thread have been rather well sourced but ignored by virtually every posters screaming racial slur. I just posted the actual history of how the teams name came to be two posts up, the third time it has been brought forward in the thread. I also posted earlier the fact that there has only ever been one poll asking the tribal nations if they found the term "red skin" offensive and and 90% said no. Then of course there is the fact that within tribal languages the nations frequently call each other red skins. So essentially the forces for PC "good" just don't care at all about all those inconvenient facts, preferring instead to chant a mantra that the term is offensive. Because they say so.For those of you who dont think Redskins is a slur, what if you had a team known as the Chinks?
Apparently, the PC era began in 1981, when they were forced to change the name to the Dragons.
And the arguments against it sounded EXACTLY like the arguments I'm hearing above. "its not offensive!", "its a tribute to Peking, China!", "Its a tradition!" "Chinks isnt derogatory - I just think of HS basketball when I think of Chinks!".
View attachment 67168503View attachment 67168504
Clearly you don't know how that name came about.
Redskins is a nick name too.
Yes I did. My bad. However as threegoofs demonstrates, a re-supplication of the actual history of the naming of the Red Skins is in order. Not that such matter a whit to posters of that ilk.Wow, you read that totally wrong. Being a life long Redskins fan, I know how the name came about. I was talking about the Fighting Irish.
The arguments in this thread have been rather well sourced but ignored by virtually every posters screaming racial slur. I just posted the actual history of how the teams name came to be two posts up, the third time it has been brought forward in the thread. I also posted earlier the fact that there has only ever been one poll asking the tribal nations if they found the term "red skin" offensive and and 90% said no. Then of course there is the fact that within tribal languages the nations frequently call each other red skins. So essentially the forces for PC "good" just don't care at all about all those inconvenient facts, preferring instead to chant a mantra that the term is offensive. Because they say so.
So how do you know that the Redskins are intending to "slur" Native Americans?
I did feel the need. Yes. Now I'm done. I feel better, and sadly, I don't give a rat's ass how you feel. Sorry. It's just all about me today for me. I have those days.
Of course redskins is a slur. I dont see any teams with the name whiteskins or blackskins. I think that all native american names used in sports needed to be changed. Marquette did it. Its not that hard.
The name "Chicago" is derived from a French rendering of the Native American word shikaakwa
But there are products called:
The majority of Native Americans says no. So my answer is no.
If you insist that something is OK, based upon this wall of gibberish and nonsensical non applicable detour of yours, well that is OK with me. Clearly actually knowing the history of the name in question was crowded out of your mind by your command of the etymology of the word chink. Of course the word we are talking about here is Red Skins. Do try to keep up.OK. Well, the Chinks were named because the town of Pekin was named for Peking, which supposedly is its antipode. And the name Chinks were given in honor of the people in China at the other end of the earth. It was a tribute. So I guess its OK then.
So it's offensive to acknowledge the color of one's skin?
Does this mean that going forward we can expect to never hear Obama described as a "black man" again, since apparently it's a slur?
Thats a ten year old poll.
So if they repeat the poll and the majority of Native Americans say it is, that means you'll change your mind??
If you insist that something is OK, based upon this wall of gibberish and nonsensical non applicable detour of yours, well that is OK with me. Clearly actually knowing the history of the name in question was crowded out of your mind by your command of the etymology of the word chink. Of course the word we are talking about here is Red Skins. Do try to keep up.
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?