Show of HandsShow of Hands

trepidhickory October 14th, 2013 2:05am

Is Redskin an offensive term when related to Native Americans?

8 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

megomez712 Vagabond
10/16/13 7:17 pm

I prefer feather head thank u very much!

arctostaphylos Ankh Morpork, New York
10/15/13 10:00 am

The should change the name to Washington Niggers, Spics, and Kykes.

pinkyusuck The Carribean. I wish.
10/14/13 9:50 pm

Is cracker offensive to whites? No, because we choose not to be offended. Most of us anyway.
Same should go for every other race.

Arya8
10/14/13 5:01 am

Meh, I'm Cherokee (only a small amount) and it doesn't bother me at all.

They tend to have more red times in their skin. It's a fact, why is it so offensive? Many Caucasians have pinkish hues, Italians more olive undertones, blacks have brown skin.

Arya8
10/14/13 5:02 am

Red tones, sorry.

People are way too easily offended, and to me there's a lot of more important things to worry about.

skinner Wisconsin
10/14/13 4:47 am

Not according to most Native Americans.

Reply
rebelfury76 No Justice, No Peace
10/13/13 8:21 pm

Like every other manufactured crisis americans didn't give two shîts about this until they were told to on the news, vomiting up the same justifications and "facts", parroting talking points, trying to sound noble and informed. You're not fooling me.

Reply
Octopus
10/13/13 8:25 pm

Hm, strange. I used to not consider it as much of a big deal until I decided to look into it more on my own, and then I changed my mind. No one told me to.

trepidhickory Ayy Lmao
10/13/13 8:26 pm

I've thought the name was wrong since I was a kid people have dislike the name for a couple of decades now

rebelfury76 No Justice, No Peace
10/13/13 8:31 pm

Of course not a 100% application but it seems like Americans don't care until their told to on a societal level. This wasn't news last week or month, so why are so many people so suddenly concerned? Interesting isn't it?

trepidhickory Ayy Lmao
10/13/13 8:34 pm

There were protests in 1992 this isn't an overnight thing

Octopus
10/13/13 8:41 pm

Some people simply aren't aware of something until the information is in front of them. No one can be 100% informed all the time. I actually find it quite admirable to be able to change your opinion and admit you're wrong based on new knowledge.

rebelfury76 No Justice, No Peace
10/13/13 9:27 pm

...protests 20 yrs ago is your rebuttal?

Octopus
10/13/13 9:31 pm

The point is that it happened that long ago AND has been consistent all this time. That should have been a given. The news telling people what to do has nothing to do with the issue because it exists aside from that.

trepidhickory Ayy Lmao
10/13/13 9:31 pm

You said people are suddenly concerned you said it wasn't a concern last week or last month I'm saying its been a concern for 20 years

rebelfury76 No Justice, No Peace
10/13/13 10:03 pm

The scale of the concern and it's visibility is more what I meant. You're saying I claim NO ONE ANYWHERE EVER was concerned, not what I said.

More like your average American is suddenly "informed" and concerned.

rebelfury76 No Justice, No Peace
10/13/13 10:04 pm

Another example is the gun debate. Everyone clamoring for "high capacity" magazine bans, people who have never held a firearm in their life are suddenly throwing around jargon they have no clue about but Pelosi said it so "Polly wanna cracker"

Octopus
10/13/13 10:06 pm

I don't know if I agree that it's more prevalent now. In the 90s there were protests, documentaries, etc. -- that's far more involvement than what we are seeing currently. Either way, it's beside the point.

rebelfury76 No Justice, No Peace
10/13/13 10:09 pm

I don't think so because in two weeks no one will be talking about it and the world will keep spinning.

Octopus
10/13/13 10:11 pm

Except for the people who are genuinely troubled and affected, but you don't hear as much about them because they are underrepresented. If you had a Native American friend who personally told you a term you used bothered them and explained to you...

Octopus
10/13/13 10:13 pm

why, would you try to be a decent friend and see from their point of view and be more respectful and sensitive toward their feelings, or would you just tell them to get over it because you're so invested in using whatever words you want at all costs?

rebelfury76 No Justice, No Peace
10/13/13 10:14 pm

I'd tell them that words are just sounds used to elicit a response, that people give and take away the power of words, that it is the intent that matters and not the sounds themselves.

Of course, I just don't care what people say to me.

rebelfury76 No Justice, No Peace
10/13/13 10:15 pm

Because at the end of it if I allow a person to control me using nothing but words, well that would make me a weak individual. I don't intend to be manipulated so easily.

Octopus
10/13/13 10:17 pm

That would just come across as condescending because I am fairly sure all your friends know how language works and don't need you to teach them that. The point is, no one is trying to control what words you can use. You can make that choice for...

Octopus
10/13/13 10:18 pm

yourself. If you chose to avoid certain words for the sake of not hurting someone you care about, that is still YOUR choice. It doesn't make you weak or take away of your power; it's still a decision you're making based on YOUR awareness.

rebelfury76 No Justice, No Peace
10/13/13 11:11 pm

It's not condescending at all do you even know what that means. I'm explaining a philosophy not definitions. Words only hold the power you give them. End of story. If you let someone's use of words anger you then you give them control over you.

Octopus
10/13/13 11:43 pm

Yes, I know what the word "condescending" means. Suggesting to your friends that their feelings are trivial and wrong because "words are just sounds" (as if they can help how they feel & should just be like you instead) seems to fit the definition.

Octopus
10/13/13 11:44 pm

I'm not even disagreeing with you on principle, you just cannot expect people to not have a majority of the feelings they have and blame them for it. & when they do, it's best to be supportive and helpful if you want to make any progress with them.

rebelfury76 No Justice, No Peace
10/14/13 3:11 am

I believe that people can control most of their emotions most of the time because I have learned to do so. I believe the BEST way I can be a friend to them is to share that philosophy because it truly empowers them and takes power away from the jerk.

rebelfury76 No Justice, No Peace
10/14/13 3:12 am

By coddling them and saying "yeah the big meanie shouldn't have said that" doesn't do anyone any good. It's better to be able to let words run off of you like water on a turtle's back. They're just sounds, forget about it.

rebelfury76 No Justice, No Peace
10/13/13 7:46 pm

The only people making a fuss about this are white people

Reply
trepidhickory Ayy Lmao
10/13/13 8:01 pm

My grandparents came from Mexico and my family and I think it's bad class

It's the equivilant of calling a team the Washington Slant eyes or washington Crackers

rebelfury76 No Justice, No Peace
10/13/13 8:19 pm

What about Wellpinit HS in Washington that is 91% native and their mascot is the "redskins"?

trepidhickory Ayy Lmao
10/13/13 8:23 pm

I just don't think it's appropriate for a pro football team that does nothing to promote the native american culture

FSU Seminoles require classes about seminole history
The Kansas City Chiefs sponsor a native american museum
The Atlanta Braves give a portion of merch sales to reservations

trepidhickory Ayy Lmao
10/13/13 8:24 pm

The Redskins do nothing to promote the culture thats one of my major problems

citethesource Socialist and Atheist
10/13/13 8:25 pm

And none of those terms are racial epithets used to dehumanize the Native Americans to make it easier to kill them and take their land.

citethesource Socialist and Atheist
10/13/13 8:29 pm

First, I apologize. I need to make a point and to do so I need to use a racial epithet.

The US having a team called the Washington Redskins is like Germany having a sports team called the Berlin Kikes.

No amount of rationalizing or semantical...

citethesource Socialist and Atheist
10/13/13 8:30 pm

...games can get around that very basic fact.

Change the name.

trepidhickory Ayy Lmao
10/13/13 8:35 pm

My point was other teams celebrate the culture the high school probably celebrates the culture too the washington redskins do nothing to celebrate or promote the culture

rebelfury76 No Justice, No Peace
10/13/13 10:05 pm

There's a high school team near me called the "irish" with a typical fighting man symbol, with two raised fists.

OH MY GOOOODDDDDDDDD!!!!!

trepidhickory Ayy Lmao
10/13/13 10:07 pm

Irish isn't a derogatory term! that's the point

rebelfury76 No Justice, No Peace
10/13/13 10:08 pm

Oh come on. You still haven't said why the high school in Washington can use THE EXACT SAME WORD and it isn't derogatory. If THAT'S your only argument then that Native American dominant high school is racist against itself.

rebelfury76 No Justice, No Peace
10/13/13 10:10 pm

So I can make a team called "The Jew Rats" as long as I sponsor a holocaust memorial? Sweet.

trepidhickory Ayy Lmao
10/13/13 8:03 pm

Braves, Seminoles, Chiefs those are honorable the organizations celebrate their culture its ni different than the Cowboys ir Patriots or Sooners

Redskin is a duragratory term it celebrstes nothing

commonsense JobLoss Joe Biden
10/13/13 8:08 pm

It honors Indian warriors. Unless you take it out of context

trepidhickory Ayy Lmao
10/13/13 8:15 pm

It has nothing to do with warriors

its 2 uses are as a term for native american
and as a term for the scalps collected by the colonists as part of the Phips proclamation where natives were hunted and killers were paid a bounty

commonsense JobLoss Joe Biden
10/13/13 8:29 pm

Ok. I disagree. Read the history of the redskins

trepidhickory Ayy Lmao
10/13/13 8:32 pm

I have read up on it it was used as a term to describe native americans and when King George laid a bounty on indian scalps it was used to describe said scalps

citethesource Socialist and Atheist
10/13/13 8:32 pm

It's only inoffensive if you take it completely out of context and think of it only as a football team and not in it's historical context.

Don't lecture me on history.

citethesource Socialist and Atheist
10/13/13 7:21 pm

It's an offensive term. Period.

Reply
rebelfury76 No Justice, No Peace
10/13/13 7:45 pm

Wellpinit WA High School -- where the student body is 91.2 percent Native American -- have the "Redskins" name they wear proudly across their chests.

rebelfury76 No Justice, No Peace
10/13/13 7:45 pm

"I've talked to our students, our parents and our community about this and nobody finds any offense at all in it," says Tim Ames, the superintendent of Wellpinit schools. "

citethesource Socialist and Atheist
10/13/13 7:46 pm

Yes, I know that user is currently on ignore. Thanks for the remind.

rebelfury76 No Justice, No Peace
10/13/13 7:46 pm

I know the curiosity will get the better of you. Enjoy the knowledge.

citethesource Socialist and Atheist
10/13/13 7:49 pm

I think the system is broken. It keeps spamming the same thing.

It obviously wouldn't be Rebel trying to carry on a conversation when that user knows I cannot read their posts. That'd be crazy.

Octopus
10/13/13 7:49 pm

Even if it DIDN'T offend people -- don't you think basing a team name around a particular race is kind of weird (and no, I'm not suggesting we force anyone to change it, just wondering because it seems strange)?

rebelfury76 No Justice, No Peace
10/13/13 7:50 pm

Personally? I think it's all about intent. If no offense was intended then I see zero problem with it. Same reason why black people seem to be able to say words I can't.

rebelfury76 No Justice, No Peace
10/13/13 7:51 pm

And tell cite I put up some good info for him/her.

rebelfury76 No Justice, No Peace
10/13/13 7:52 pm

I don't see saying "redskin" as any different than "white" or "black" which are commonly used in daily language with no major controversy

trepidhickory Ayy Lmao
10/13/13 8:16 pm

But we don't have the Pittsburgh Whites or the Chicago blacks just Washington Redskins

Octopus
10/13/13 8:23 pm

So it's objectifying only one group of people -- a group that already isn't as well-off as anyone else in this country. That's problematic.

trepidhickory Ayy Lmao
10/13/13 8:30 pm

No other team in pro sports and no D1 college has a racial term as a mascot

rebelfury76 No Justice, No Peace
10/13/13 8:33 pm

And the 91% native high school with the SAME name?

Maybe the MN team shouldn't be "Vikings", not all Scandinavians are brutal plunderers after all.

trepidhickory Ayy Lmao
10/13/13 8:36 pm

Viking isn't a duragratory term

trepidhickory Ayy Lmao
10/13/13 8:37 pm

No one to my knowledge has been called a dirty viking or a dumb patriot or a Dirty Cowboy

citethesource Socialist and Atheist
10/13/13 8:37 pm

Did she/he seriously go the "Viking" route? LOL

rebelfury76 No Justice, No Peace
10/13/13 10:06 pm

I knew you'd take me off ignore. ;)

I just don't think it's a big deal and neither did you before last week.

trepidhickory Ayy Lmao
10/13/13 10:08 pm

I've thought it was a big deal for years now

rebelfury76 No Justice, No Peace
10/13/13 10:11 pm

You being very general as we've already established and I of course have to just take your word for it even though I hope you get my point. This is typical "talking point controversy of the week". It'll be something new next week.

Octopus
10/13/13 10:15 pm

I saw this exact same poll a month or two ago and another time between then and now. I don't see why we are still revolving around this being an issue of the week.

rebelfury76 No Justice, No Peace
10/13/13 10:16 pm

Because it is and I think you're splitting hairs around what I think we both know to be true. Season after season goes by without this being a MAJOR issue.

MrMilkdud jackass whisperer
10/13/13 7:16 pm

Ok, what's the major issue around this? I see this line of questions come up around the start of football season.
Are there actual Native American groups who are upset about the team name?

Reply
MrMilkdud jackass whisperer
10/13/13 7:19 pm

Because my understanding is that the vast majority of native Americans don't care, and that this issue is primarily driven by white liberals.

rebelfury76 No Justice, No Peace
10/13/13 11:12 pm

You'd be correct milk

NateE Moderate Republican
10/13/13 7:06 pm

Is it different than calling a dark person "black"

Octopus
10/13/13 7:07 pm

Yes, because the term "redskin" has other implications.

NateE Moderate Republican
10/13/13 7:09 pm

You may be right, what implications though

political Georgia
10/13/13 7:12 pm

Is calling someone black offensive?

Octopus
10/13/13 7:12 pm

While we aren't entirely sure when or how the term originated, at some point it has been believed to be used to describe the scalps taken from Natives. Aside from that and more recently, it's often used negatively rather than as a descriptor, e.g.

Octopus
10/13/13 7:13 pm

"dirty redskin" as an insult or "noble redskin" as an attempt to be condescending. So it's really quite different than describing someone as being "black".

political Georgia
10/13/13 7:16 pm

The only time someone can insult you is if you let them.

political Georgia
10/13/13 7:06 pm

Ask Native Americans! The majority will answer no!

Reply
Octopus
10/13/13 7:08 pm

Just curious, but how many have you asked?

political Georgia
10/13/13 7:11 pm

A very appropriate question. I was referring to poll results. 90% do not find the term offensive.

Octopus
10/13/13 7:13 pm

10% that do is still a significant number of people, though. I wouldn't want to insult or hurt the feelings of that many, regardless.

political Georgia
10/13/13 7:15 pm

10% is a small number, but frankly I am just tired of political correctness.

Octopus
10/13/13 7:18 pm

10% of 5.2 million is still 520,000 people.

political Georgia
10/13/13 7:20 pm

The only reason why this is an issue is because the President spoke about this. I am speculating, but it seemed like an attempt to get the nation side-tracked from the economy.

Octopus
10/13/13 7:23 pm

It's been an issue for quite a while. See the documentary "In Whose Honor?", which I believe came out a little over 15 years ago.

rebelfury76 No Justice, No Peace
10/13/13 7:48 pm

Even though it's a minority the PC crowd stand by their stance. Crazy.

Octopus
10/13/13 7:51 pm

I don't form my opinions based on being politically correct, I form them based on what I personally believe makes sense. Sometimes those two align, and I won't fight it just to "avoid being PC." People get too worked up about being PC or not anymore.

citethesource Socialist and Atheist
10/13/13 8:00 pm

I care about empathy, compassion, and treating people with respect and dignity. "Political correctness" is about all of those things. Do I try to be politically correct? Yes. Because, again, I care about those ideals.

When someone adds...

citethesource Socialist and Atheist
10/13/13 8:02 pm

..., "Just sayin'," after uttering an derogatory statement, it doesn't ameliorate the offense. Stating that something is just "political correctness" doesn't mean the statement is racist. The person is an ass and the statement is racist. Covering...

citethesource Socialist and Atheist
10/13/13 8:03 pm

...with, "Oh, I'm just tired of political correctness," isn't an excuse for being an asshole or a racist.

Octopus
10/13/13 8:10 pm

So do I. I would just hope people can be aware of such things on their own without the rest of society telling them they need to be. But maybe that's a high expectation. It does frustrate me when people use the term PC negatively to invalidate an

Octopus
10/13/13 8:11 pm

argument, because logically, it doesn't invalidate it at all -- it just expresses their disdain for others recommending what they should or shouldn't do. Things aren't considered or not PC just because -- it's for a reason.