"Redskins" are history!

[Peej7245]

No, but it is the same as calling them the Brownskins, Blackskins or even Negroes and do you think either of them would fly?

No because those other versions of the name would be clear cases of perjorative terms. Everyone would know why the name was coined.

The term Redskins, however, was coined in the 19th century by Easterners who never bothered to understand that there is no Native American anywhere who is a "redskin": but are members of a tribe, and that is the identity they were proud of.

People who populated the west had a far different attitude. While they fought the warriors, hated what those warriors did in battle, and felt that they were an obstruction to be overcome, one feeling that was prevalant about the "redskin" from all the journals I ever read was that of respect for a proud people who fought for a way of life.

In the one book that had been written about the Buffalo Soldiers, the Native American warrior was called many things: strong, proud, tactically brilliant, fierce, courageous, cunning, innovative, etc. See any racist terms there?

General Crook and General Sheridan both called the warriors of the Plains tribes "... the finest light cavalry in the world...". See any racism there?

The name has racist connotations...

Technically, since there is no such person as a "redskin", the name is meaningless. The outrage is self-induced, totally motivated by the need of some for their "15 minutes of fame" and not even supported by the vast majority of full- and partial- Native Americans.

if I were a fan I wouldn't worry too much about it, and it would be frustrating when it's brought up time and after time..

Then why keep posting about it...and with different rationalizations each time?

[/QUOTE]It probably is about as tiring as the Ray Lewis debate that never seems to die for Ravens fans.[/QUOTE]

Yes, but this is not tiring, just infuriating - the Ray Lewis debate is swirling despite the fact that there is a publically-available transcript and other documentation about that tragedy. Yet, the haters ignore that and what he has done with his life since then. The fans jump down the haters' throats.

Can you say endless circle?

[weird-O]

Do you know why the name was first adopted by the team? It was because "The Washington National League Football Club" was a bit too wordy and would have been difficult to market. Not to mention, it would have been difficult to design a logo.

that's why a team name was was adopted, but it doesn't add any clarity as to why this specific name was adopted. previously you mentioned something to the effect of, you've studied sports names. did you run across any info on why this name was chosen?

I could google the question, but that wouldn't give the same rich detail as someone who has done his own research (if you happened to ever look into this team name).

[Rael]

No you are not wrong, but the "N" word was coined and evolved solely as a perjorative term and always has had no other use.

What is the other use of "Redskin" (and no fair saying "as a team name" )

As to your standing as a White Man, remember you do have a right to your opinion, but not your own facts. Define "significant minority" for me if you will? How does a one in ten ratio acquire significance when in many disciplines, it can be considered a rounding error?

Sorry, I don't buy this argument. Context is everything. Sure, one in ten is a rounding error in some context. One in ten, in a different context, could be 700 million people. In the case of the number of Native Americans then if Native Americans are 1.2 % of 311 million (2011 figures) then any significant percentage of that number is still a whole lotta people.

[weird-O]

The term Redskins, however, was coined in the 19th century by Easterners who never bothered to understand that there is no Native American anywhere who is a "redskin": but are members of a tribe, and that is the identity they were proud of.

People who populated the west had a far different attitude. While they fought the warriors, hated what those warriors did in battle, and felt that they were an obstruction to be overcome, one feeling that was prevalant about the "redskin" from all the journals I ever read was that of respect for a proud people who fought for a way of life.

I want to run this by you to be sure I am understanding your point.

a region of people coin a phrase, through their own ignorance, to refer to another group of people. and since this second group of people are proud of their heritage, this name is not offensive.

I don't care at all about the name of the football team. it doesn't offend me, and I've never known anyone who was offended by the name. but the more you justify the phrase "redskin", the more I think I should start using it.

you've dedicated a few posts to pointing out how the term redskin is actually a compliment. so in a scenario where I am about to greet a small group of indians from different tribes, should I address the group as redskins?
if I walked up to them with a smile and a friendly "Hi Redskins", would they smile and shake my hand? would that open the door to a polite and friendly discussion?

[Marchetti]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peej7245
So now you can read his mind too?

No at all, I can only read his petulant posts.
(for example: his soon to follow incoming reply to this....)

Originally Posted by HAIL2BNG
"Too bad you can't prove that Redskins is remotely like the nword. Just more b.s. from a hater. Bleed heart, bleed."

“‘r-word (my edit)’ is the most derogatory name our people can be called” – tantamount to calling an African American a n-word (my edit), a Latino a spic or a Caucasian a honkie – says Suzan Harjo, who heads the Morning Star Institute, a national Indian rights organization. Most people believe that the term “r-word (my edit)” relates to the color of Native Americans’ skin, which is derogatory enough, but the moniker has a far more nefarious connotation Harjo says.

She points to government-sanctioned bounties that White men put on Indians that could be collected by producing the dead bodies of her ancestors. As it became increasingly difficult to store and transport heaps of putrid, rotting corpses, colonial governors, and subsequently U.S. officials, agreed to pay for Indians’ scalps and skins, which were crammed into sacks. Colonists often scalped Indians and stripped the corpses of skin, says Dartmouth College historian Colin Calloway.

http://www.operationmorningstar.org/...Disrespect.htm

[HAIL2BNG]

Susan Harjo is to this subject what Al Sharpton is to black racial issues.

[Marchetti]

You don't disappoint! lol
Comparing anyone with her sterling resume to racist Al (Tawanna Brawley) Sharpton is apples and oranges and another addition to your long, ever-growing list of failures here.
I'll take her word on Native American issues and concerns over yours or any other white football fan.

Suzan Shown Harjo is a well-known Cheyenne and Hodulgee Muscogee
advocate for American Indian rights. She is a poet, writer, lecturer,
curator, and policy advocate, who has helped Native peoples recover
over a million acres of land. She serves as President of the Morning
Star Institute, a national Native American rights organization based
in Washington, D.C. Harjo lived on her Muscogee family's allotment
near Beggs, Oklahoma. Her great-grandfather was the Cheyenne Chief
Bull Bear. She produced "Seeing Red," a bi-weekly radio program on New
York's WBAI FM station which was the first Indian news show in the
United States. Harjo moved to Washington D.C. in 1974. In 1978
President Jimmy Carter appointed her a congressional liaison for
Indian Affairs.
A president of the Morning Star Institute, founded in 1984, Harjo
promotes traditional cultural rights, artistic expression, and
research. The organization sponsors Just Good Sports, devoted to
ending stereotypes.

[Marchetti]

There is no reason to dismiss such an accomplished, credible person with an impressive track record who speaks for thousands of Native American's other than she represents the opposition to retaining a racist, offensive nickname.

[Peej7245]

I want to run this by you to be sure I am understanding your point...

...if I walked up to them with a smile and a friendly "Hi Redskins", would they smile and shake my hand? would that open the door to a polite and friendly discussion?

Why would you do that anyway? Would you make an assumption or would you just address the group politely (as I hope you would normally)?

If you saw a bunch of large, athletic men who you recognized as members of the Washington Redskins, you might be OK greeting them with their team nickname. However, why not greet them as individuals or say "Hi guys, how 'bout them Ravens huh?"

[Peej7245]

that's why a team name was was adopted, but it doesn't add any clarity as to why this specific name was adopted. previously you mentioned something to the effect of, you've studied sports names. did you run across any info on why this name was chosen?

I could google the question, but that wouldn't give the same rich detail as someone who has done his own research (if you happened to ever look into this team name).

In the early 1930s, the Boston National League Football Club was origionally named the Boston Bees, then the Boston Braves. At the beginning of the NFL's life, the football teams tried to adopt the same name as the local MLB team - Chicago Cardinals, New York Giants, etc.) if a local team existed.

When George Preston Marshall bought the franchise in 1932 and moved it to Washington, he wanted to change the name from the Braves (Boston Braves, remember?) but wanted to keep the Native American theme and the Washington "Senators" did not do so.

I read one bio of Marshall and learned that he was an avid reader of Western novels...and, if I had to guess, admired the grit and determination of the "Indians". That might be the reason he wanted to stay with the theme, but named the team "The Redskins".

[Peej7245]

There is no reason to dismiss such an accomplished, credible person with an impressive track record who speaks for thousands of Native American's other than she represents the opposition to retaining a racist, offensive nickname.

Sorry, but I did not read a "dismissal".

What I read was an opinion that our fellow poster objected to your trying to compare "...an accomplished, credible person with an impressive track record who speaks for thousands of Native American's ..." with a "...race-monger with a track record of doing anything to further his own self-interest...".

[HAIL2BNG]

There is no reason to dismiss such an accomplished, credible person with an impressive track record who speaks for thousands of Native American's other than she represents the opposition to retaining a racist, offensive nickname.

She isn't credible when she makes up lies about the name Redskins because everything in the world offends her.

[HAIL2BNG]

In the early 1930s, the Boston National League Football Club was origionally named the Boston Bees, then the Boston Braves. At the beginning of the NFL's life, the football teams tried to adopt the same name as the local MLB team - Chicago Cardinals, New York Giants, etc.) if a local team existed.

When George Preston Marshall bought the franchise in 1932 and moved it to Washington, he wanted to change the name from the Braves (Boston Braves, remember?) but wanted to keep the Native American theme and the Washington "Senators" did not do so.

I read one bio of Marshall and learned that he was an avid reader of Western novels...and, if I had to guess, admired the grit and determination of the "Indians". That might be the reason he wanted to stay with the theme, but named the team "The Redskins".

They changed from Braves to Redskins she the team moved to play in Fenway and they wanted to try and connect with Red Sox fans.

[HAIL2BNG]

The origin of the name itself was not born of bigotry or disparaging application or intent:



Source

Algonquin tribes of the Chesapeake watershed:



Source

[HAIL2BNG]

A friend of mine wrote an excellent piece a few years ago:

http://www.hailredskins.com/?p=699

[Marchetti]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peej7245
What I read was an opinion that our fellow poster objected to your trying to compare "...an accomplished, credible person with an impressive track record who speaks for thousands of Native American's ..." with a "...race-monger with a track record of doing anything to further his own self-interest...".

reading comprehension can be your friend peej7245...that comparison was his not mine. I clearly objected to it.

Today 03:21 PM
Originally Posted by HAIL2BNG
Susan Harjo is to this subject what Al Sharpton is to black racial issues.

Today 03:46 PM
Originally Posted by Marchetti
Comparing anyone with her sterling resume to racist Al (Tawanna Brawley) Sharpton is apples and oranges and another addition to your long, ever-growing list of failures here.

[Marchetti]

Originally Posted by HAIL2BNG
A friend of mine wrote an excellent piece a few years ago:
http://www.hailredskins.com/?p=699

(yawn)
another white r-word fan with no credibility waxing poetic on how Native American's shouldn't be hurt and offended by the racist, offensive r-word name despite their continued decades long objections.

Where have I read that silly act before?
Oh wait.

[weird-O]

Why would you do that anyway? Would you make an assumption or would you just address the group politely (as I hope you would normally)?

If you saw a bunch of large, athletic men who you recognized as members of the Washington Redskins, you might be OK greeting them with their team nickname. However, why not greet them as individuals or say "Hi guys, how 'bout them Ravens huh?"

The reason I would greet them with a "Hi Redskins" is because your posts have given me the strong impression that this is a flattering term, and one that would appeal to their pride of heritage. so why wouldn't I want to greet them in a flattering way that is more personal that "Hi guys and gals" of "Hi folks".

so I'll ask the question again, would they smile and shake my hand? would that open the door to a polite and friendly discussion?

[HAIL2BNG]

As expected marchetti, you know nothing on the subject and are just dismissing everything without any comment. You have nothing. Hell, you don't even know anything other than what you've googled on Harjo.

[HAIL2BNG]

The reason I would greet them with a "Hi Redskins" is because your posts have given me the strong impression that this is a flattering term, and one that would appeal to their pride of heritage. so why wouldn't I want to greet them in a flattering way that is more personal that "Hi guys and gals" of "Hi folks".

so I'll ask the question again, would they smile and shake my hand? would that open the door to a polite and friendly discussion?

Would you greet a group of white people by saying "hi white guys!" No and no white people are offended by being called white.