This again

[MTK]

Originally Posted by cpayne5

Actually, [for me] pacifism is a very very small part of this wimpy trend. For me, it revolves around the way the american citizen lives and they way they *believe* they should live.

What exactly do you mean?

We're too PC?

[memphisskin]

If it's continuing to be an issue, just change the name. What's the big deal? I'm used to calling the team the Redskins, but I could just as easily call them the Parrots or the Hucksters or the Insert Name Here (if Snyder sells the naming rights as I'm sure he'll want to do).

And to say that this is the work of a few Native Americans, well its not like there are millions of NAs walking the streets. I happen to be good friends with a Native American, and he's none too pleased with the Redskins name. To try and sugarcoat it by saying that its a reference to war paint, well that's just insulting. Look up redskin in the dictionary, according to Websters its a noun and its "usually offensive".

That's good enough for me, but then again I'm not one to dictate how someone else should feel. All my memories are of the team, not the nickname. Changing it hurts us how?

[cpayne5]

Originally Posted by memphisskin

To try and sugarcoat it by saying that its a reference to war paint, well that's just insulting. Look up redskin in the dictionary, according to Websters its a noun and its "usually offensive".

It's not sugar coating it to say that the name came from the red war paint. That is absolute fact. The Redskins name is derived from that, so take it or leave it. As your websters reference implies, the term is not used 100% of the time in an offensive way.

[memphisskin]

Originally Posted by cpayne5

It's not sugar coating it to say that the name came from the red war paint. That is absolute fact. The Redskins name is derived from that, so take it or leave it. As your websters reference implies, the term is not used 100% of the time in an offensive way.

My bad, 99% of the time it's offensive. The other 1% is where we come in. Why are we so attached to this label?

[cpayne5]

Originally Posted by memphisskin

My bad, 99% of the time it's offensive. The other 1% is where we come in. Why are we so attached to this label?

No, I would say that 99% of the word's usage is not derogatory, while 1% is. In fact, I've never, ever heard someone use the term in a derogatory way.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by memphisskin

If it's continuing to be an issue, just change the name. What's the big deal? I'm used to calling the team the Redskins, but I could just as easily call them the Parrots or the Hucksters or the Insert Name Here (if Snyder sells the naming rights as I'm sure he'll want to do).

And to say that this is the work of a few Native Americans, well its not like there are millions of NAs walking the streets. I happen to be good friends with a Native American, and he's none too pleased with the Redskins name. To try and sugarcoat it by saying that its a reference to war paint, well that's just insulting. Look up redskin in the dictionary, according to Websters its a noun and its "usually offensive".

That's good enough for me, but then again I'm not one to dictate how someone else should feel. All my memories are of the team, not the nickname. Changing it hurts us how?

The big deal is the millions of dollars that it would cost to change the name. If this was such a big issue that concerned so many Native Americans we would hear more about it . In the show I saw last year on this issue when they held a protest at the stadium ony one person showed up.To me that is not a stong show of support for all these so called millions it offends.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by memphisskin

If it's continuing to be an issue, just change the name. What's the big deal? I'm used to calling the team the Redskins, but I could just as easily call them the Parrots or the Hucksters or the Insert Name Here (if Snyder sells the naming rights as I'm sure he'll want to do).

And to say that this is the work of a few Native Americans, well its not like there are millions of NAs walking the streets. I happen to be good friends with a Native American, and he's none too pleased with the Redskins name. To try and sugarcoat it by saying that its a reference to war paint, well that's just insulting. Look up redskin in the dictionary, according to Websters its a noun and its "usually offensive".

That's good enough for me, but then again I'm not one to dictate how someone else should feel. All my memories are of the team, not the nickname. Changing it hurts us how?

Well, it costs the team millions of dollars for one thing...even if the only thing you have to change is the name and not the symbols or colors. Personally, after thinking about this, I could live with a name change as long as it was related...maybe something like the Warriors, Seminoles, or change it back to the Braves. I could live with the team changing the symbol back to the spear and feather.

Wewhite2: When I say more important issues in this world, I'm talking about American jobs leaving our country, the high cost of gas and oil, fighting diseases. If you're going to pull the racial card out, you'd better accept the fact that racism isn't completely spawn from white people. I have been a near victim of a racial crime in my lifetime through no fault of my own. Racism is an ignorant thing, no doubt...but it's just as ignorant to assume that only one race is guilty of it.

[SmootSmack]

It admittedly does get increasingly difficult to pretend that the team's name does not have some other connotation. And the really cold fact is that, because Native Americans have been so marginalized in our society (once their society), that the offensiveness passes unnoticed because there is really no one around to hear the tree fall in the forest. Naturally, a name that gave that kind of depiction to Blacks or Puerto Ricans like me would get shouted down because there are enough people in that constituency with enough of a relevant voice sure to tell society that that is unacceptable.

Couple of ironies though. One is that the fact is that when you say the word "Redskins" in so-called mainstream U.S. society, what people think of first IS the football team, and NOT the ethnic group. Another is that research that an area law firm has done on behalf of the Danster reveals that Native Americans themselves throughout the years at all levels of sport have themselves named their teams Redskins. Plus there were the results of that Sports Illustrated poll I had posted earlier.

When people talked about "niggers" that word was laced with hatred and a misguided superiority at the time it was being said, with violence, lynchings, separate restrooms, back of the bus, you name it. But when we say the word Redskins today, there is no associated hatred or sense of supremacy vis a vis Native Americans; the word comes out of the mouth without any associated negative baggage. Sure, it is the same "word," but the substance is not the same at all. The prevailing argument is that we should dispense with the word because it is offensive and does not represent our society today. But since we know that it does not represent today's society, then the alleged offensive substance of the word has already been rendered meaningless ! Even on the team itself, I don't remember anyone thinking Mark Rypien was dumb or reviled as the quarterback because he was Native American; of course not. So, where is the real offensiveness? What was that we learned in school, "sticks and stones may break my bones..."

During the first Joe Gibbs era, and hopefully this one, as far as the Washington Redskins were concerned specifically to be called a "true Redskin" was a badge of honor in the sports world and in the local community, as it stood for humble guys who worked hard on the field with great teamwork and gave to the community off of it. It was hardly disparaging at all and really had nothing to do with offending Native Americans b/c again, Redskin conjured up the image of Darrell Green, not Sitting Bull.

As minority, I sometimes feel a bit perplexed that minorities in the U.S. would look so quickly to self-identify as hyphenated, and to marginalize themselves by choosing to direct their collective energy to take up the cause of being offended by labels and semantics.

There is oppression; there is discrimination; there is racism, yes yes yes, these are sad facts for which work still remains to be done. But for all the truly disadvantaged, it's guys like me, that through some dumb luck did happen to land at a good university, with all the same opportunities and advantages as those that are considered the not disadvantaged. And with that in front of us, placed on a level playing field, it just seems like the biggest disservice to the people that we claim to be outraged on behalf of, if what we did then is run ourselves off the road by grieving about offensive names, when we actually were being given the opportunity, not to protest outside the system or even grieve within it trying to advocate for our allotted "portion," but to truly become part of it, be the system itself, sit at the head of the table and reform and redefine it.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Originally Posted by TAFKAS

It admittedly does get increasingly difficult to pretend that the team's name does not have some other connotation. And the really cold fact is that, because Native Americans have been so marginalized in our society (once their society), that the offensiveness passes unnoticed because there is really no one around to hear the tree fall in the forest. Naturally, a name that gave that kind of depiction to Blacks or Puerto Ricans like me would get shouted down because there are enough people in that constituency with enough of a relevant voice sure to tell society that that is unacceptable.

Couple of ironies though. One is that the fact is that when you say the word "Redskins" in so-called mainstream U.S. society, what people think of first IS the football team, and NOT the ethnic group. Another is that research that an area law firm has done on behalf of the Danster reveals that Native Americans themselves throughout the years at all levels of sport have themselves named their teams Redskins. Plus there were the results of that Sports Illustrated poll I had posted earlier.

When people talked about "niggers" that word was laced with hatred and a misguided superiority at the time it was being said, with violence, lynchings, separate restrooms, back of the bus, you name it. But when we say the word Redskins today, there is no associated hatred or sense of supremacy vis a vis Native Americans; the word comes out of the mouth without any associated negative baggage. Sure, it is the same "word," but the substance is not the same at all. The prevailing argument is that we should dispense with the word because it is offensive and does not represent our society today. But since we know that it does not represent today's society, then the alleged offensive substance of the word has already been rendered meaningless ! Even on the team itself, I don't remember anyone thinking Mark Rypien was dumb or reviled as the quarterback because he was Native American; of course not. So, where is the real offensiveness? What was that we learned in school, "sticks and stones may break my bones..."

During the first Joe Gibbs era, and hopefully this one, as far as the Washington Redskins were concerned specifically to be called a "true Redskin" was a badge of honor in the sports world and in the local community, as it stood for humble guys who worked hard on the field with great teamwork and gave to the community off of it. It was hardly disparaging at all and really had nothing to do with offending Native Americans b/c again, Redskin conjured up the image of Darrell Green, not Sitting Bull.

As minority, I sometimes feel a bit perplexed that minorities in the U.S. would look so quickly to self-identify as hyphenated, and to marginalize themselves by choosing to direct their collective energy to take up the cause of being offended by labels and semantics.

There is oppression; there is discrimination; there is racism, yes yes yes, these are sad facts for which work still remains to be done. But for all the truly disadvantaged, it's guys like me, that through some dumb luck did happen to land at a good university, with all the same opportunities and advantages as those that are considered the not disadvantaged. And with that in front of us, placed on a level playing field, it just seems like the biggest disservice to the people that we claim to be outraged on behalf of, if what we did then is run ourselves off the road by grieving about offensive names, when we actually were being given the opportunity, not to protest outside the system or even grieve within it trying to advocate for our allotted "portion," but to truly become part of it, be the system itself, sit at the head of the table and reform and redefine it.

I've tried to not touch this subject with a 10-foot pole, but you said it exactly how I was brewing it up in my mind. Even though I'm not a minority in the racial sense, I still know what you're talking about because everyone is a minority in some way, shape or form.

Indeed, there are more pressing issues that need to be resolved in the world without having to concetrate what TAFKAS very well stated "Sticks and Stones"

[memphisskin]

Originally Posted by TAFKAS

When people talked about "niggers" that word was laced with hatred and a misguided superiority at the time it was being said, with violence, lynchings, separate restrooms, back of the bus, you name it. But when we say the word Redskins today, there is no associated hatred or sense of supremacy vis a vis Native Americans; the word comes out of the mouth without any associated negative baggage. Sure, it is the same "word," but the substance is not the same at all. The prevailing argument is that we should dispense with the word because it is offensive and does not represent our society today. But since we know that it does not represent today's society, then the alleged offensive substance of the word has already been rendered meaningless ! Even on the team itself, I don't remember anyone thinking Mark Rypien was dumb or reviled as the quarterback because he was Native American; of course not. So, where is the real offensiveness? What was that we learned in school, "sticks and stones may break my bones..."

Wait, and I'm a minority myself, because Native Americans have been marginalized and are not a powerful political force then it's ok to continue to use the word Redskins because when we say it we don't mean it to demean Native Americans its more of a tribute?

I can't say what Redskins means to Native Americans, because I'm not a Native American. However, the fact that the word was used to describe the scalps of dead Indians, well that's enough for me. The bottom line is that money talks and everything else runs the marathon, so in the end I expect no change at all. But since everything is relative, lets change the name to the Washington Coons. Its no longer offensive, I think the expiration date on it was 1984.

As for sticks and stones breaking bones, nice one TAFKAS.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by memphisskin

I can't say what Redskins means to Native Americans, because I'm not a Native American.

What country were you born in?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

Well, it costs the team millions of dollars for one thing...even if the only thing you have to change is the name and not the symbols or colors. Personally, after thinking about this, I could live with a name change as long as it was related...maybe something like the Warriors, Seminoles, or change it back to the Braves. I could live with the team changing the symbol back to the spear and feather.

Wewhite2: When I say more important issues in this world, I'm talking about American jobs leaving our country, the high cost of gas and oil, fighting diseases. If you're going to pull the racial card out, you'd better accept the fact that racism isn't completely spawn from white people. I have been a near victim of a racial crime in my lifetime through no fault of my own. Racism is an ignorant thing, no doubt...but it's just as ignorant to assume that only one race is guilty of it.

The word Warriors is also offensive to this group. Any term our phrase reffering to Native Americans is offensive to them. They want to make it illegal to do the warrior chop at sporting events. If the name was truly offensive I would agee 100% to have it changed. I can not speak for Native Americans but I do not see Redskins as an offensive word. They had a demonstration at rfk years back and only one person showed up and if thats any indication then it must not be a big issue with Native Americans.

[ST21]

Cpayne....Nobodys playing the race card.....that quote came from the Washington post that I copied, those are not my words.....

[cpayne5]

Originally Posted by wewhite3

Cpayne....Nobodys playing the race card.....that quote came from the Washington post that I copied, those are not my words.....

It was clear that you didn't write it. But, by posting it (and from your other posts), you seem to be trying to relate the term 'redskins' as used in context of the Washington Redskins to the use of the terms "blackies" or "spics". That comparison just does not apply here.

I smell a nice big helping of question 3 cooking in the oven ...

[cpayne5]

Originally Posted by wewhite3

First I don't have to play the race card because I am a minority, and second that quote that you so easily read came from your news paper, the Post...anything that offends a group of people is offensive, If you don't get that then your part of the problem now, why native americans are offended...

For one thing, when you quote something or someone, you should properly cite them, but that doesn't have anything to do with what I originally said.

You are playing the race card because you tried to compare the Washington Redskins with 'blackies' and 'spics'. You can play the race card no matter if you are a minority/ majority or even what side of the fence you are on in this matter.

Anything can be offensive under your definition.