To rojo from a real American Indian who is fluent in Choctaw and many other languages.
Oklahoma is not an offensive word to us. It does not mean the same thing as the other word that is racist.
The Red***** word is a racist slur against us. It's so bad that I never say it or spell it and never want to see it when it refers to us people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJKfs4ZnbNE
Which tribe do think paid for these ads? Probably none of them because they don't have any money or agency because they were the victims of the most successful genocide in human history. Native Americans in general don't give a shit about sports team names. I worked on a Reservation for a year after college. Trust me, they have more important stuff to worry about. Like their kids getting addicted to meth and the fact that they don't have jobs.
Both sides of this argument can wheel out some red-skinned gentlemen to say what they want them to say but it's all bullshit. Just white guilt from liberal, modern Americans who don't actually care about the people they claim to represent and protect. This culture where it's the end of the world to use certain words but we don't actually do anything to help the people we're talking about has got to end.
And when you morons turn this into an issue of democrats vs. republicans you're playing right into the hands of these people. Once it's just another part of the culture wars then it's just another news segment and it doesn't have to be about the real people involved (Native Americans). As a democrat who grew up in D.C. I'm personally offended by this name change. And that's probably one more than the number of Native Americans who were actually worried about it.
In conclusion, f**k the Cowboys.
That Ultra Guy wrote:
If I was the Redskins owner right now, I'd change the team name to Small Pox and put a middle finger on their helmets
Oh my, so scandalous. Gasp!
This country is too sensitive. Call them the Washington Spics for all I care. Doesn't mean anything to me. Other countries don't have this problem. They say white and black and nobody cares. Why in this country is race a big deal? Get a life and worry about things that matter in the world. This thread is a prime example how we freak out about everything.
I didn't read all seven pages of this thread, so forgive me if I'm repeating.
This is a classic straw man argument - a dandy of the visceral right. Nice! Lump the anti-Redskin movement in with all the other sissy, over-socialized, protect-peoples-feelings type of PC activism. Because it's all the same, right? These are the same people that want losers to get consolation trophies, right?
my goodness wrote:
This country is too sensitive. Call them the Washington Spics for all I care. Doesn't mean anything to me. Other countries don't have this problem. They say white and black and nobody cares. Why in this country is race a big deal? Get a life and worry about things that matter in the world. This thread is a prime example how we freak out about everything.
Calm down dude - sheeesh.
I'm 1/8 and I just call myself white. In fact, I have an Indian friend and once he called himself white accidentally.tadahh wrote:
Proves a point wrote:Let me guess, you're retarded?! I mean really are you like 1/16 native american? I've known a few and they live up their injun blood for all it is worth. Kind of like Elizabeth Warren claiming to be native...it is a disgusting practice. Like I said even the real natives don't care. Now go and do something useful with your life rather than claiming that something that happened to your great-great grandpa has made you incapable of becoming anything worthwhile.
So edgy. Don't let anyone tell you you're not going places.
When did we become Canada? Up there they don't have a first amendment or freedom of speech. In Canada you can sue someone for hurting your feelings.
Let's change it to a name so we can offend those other Indians.
Have the team called the Gandhis with Mahatma's face on the helmet.
For the PC crowd in DC they are only going to make things worse, try to ban the name and the guy will sell millions in merchandise.
You want to be offended?
Isn't there a hockey club called the Whalers?
Should we be honoring paid killers?
They went out and slaughtered marine mammals for profit.
Dennis Miller suggested shortening the name to Reds...
probably to honor all the Commies in DC.
I would prefer the name changed to the ThinSkins.
Or how about the ForeSkins? With a big old picture of
an erect penis on the helmet.
Michael L. Robinson wrote:
Tao of Steve wrote:Classic white boy ignorance, belittling just how offensive the name Redskins is.
And the owner is a member of The Tribe. His arrogance and tone deafness thus explained
...said the guy throwing out 'white boy' as a racial slur toward Caucasians. Keep making it really easy to see what a moron you are, and we'll keep laughing at your stupid ass!
Try again genius. Go back and read the comments. Who used the term white boy?
But let's be honest. You really are objecting to bringing up the topic of Israel being a racist, colonial, settler state intent on stealing more land and lives from the natives
rojo wrote:
L L wrote:The other sports teams really aren't getting any complaints.
The examples are pretty dumb.
The Braves and Chiefs are pretty positive terms.
You prove my point. Nobody names a mascot to offend. A mascot is something the LOVE. People idolize the mascot.
It makes zero sense that someone would pick a mascot they view as inferior or anything close to that.
1) it's a compliment.
2) it's a private company.
3) Look up what oklahoma means.
Get over it for all 3 reasons.
Sir, that's horribly childish thinking. There is complexity in social systems that can not be easily reduced to just three factors.
Ponder this, would you refer to Native Americans as "redskins" in public discourse? If not....why not?
Washington Lobbyist wrote:
Isn't there a hockey club called the Whalers?
Nope.
The other examples you give are ridiculous and most assuredly represent your bias in wanting to defend your position.
Most mascots that I can think of are in no conceivable way disparaging towards a specific way a person was born like "redskin."
Some silly example can be given for almost any name, so we need a somewhat stable standard to go by.
I'll present the dictionary. An item universally used to tell us what a word means.
The dictionary says this about "redskin":
Slang, Often Disparaging and Offensive. A North American Indian.
That's not a survey, focus group, statistic, or press release. It doesn't matter the history or intention. If we ruled our society based on things like, "Well it's been that way for a while and we had a good reason to start it," we'd still have slavery.
Other Indian related mascots do not directly address the color of their skin.
Here are the dictionary definitions for related mascots:
Chiefs: the head or ruler of a tribe or clan: an Indian chief.
Braves: a warrior, especially among North American Indian tribes.
Indians: any of the indigenous languages of the American Indians.
I do not understand how this is even an arguable issue. We would never entertain calling a team the "N*gg**s" or "Crackers" or "Slanteyes" because it is a derogatory term related to a way someone was born in which they cannot control.
His about Chief Wahoo? You don't think that's disparaging?
whonamestheirkidgerman? wrote:
The other examples you give are ridiculous and most assuredly represent your bias in wanting to defend your position.
Most mascots that I can think of are in no conceivable way disparaging towards a specific way a person was born like "redskin."
Some silly example can be given for almost any name, so we need a somewhat stable standard to go by.
I'll present the dictionary. An item universally used to tell us what a word means.
The dictionary says this about "redskin":
Slang, Often Disparaging and Offensive. A North American Indian.
That's not a survey, focus group, statistic, or press release. It doesn't matter the history or intention. If we ruled our society based on things like, "Well it's been that way for a while and we had a good reason to start it," we'd still have slavery.
Other Indian related mascots do not directly address the color of their skin.
Here are the dictionary definitions for related mascots:
Chiefs: the head or ruler of a tribe or clan: an Indian chief.
Braves: a warrior, especially among North American Indian tribes.
Indians: any of the indigenous languages of the American Indians.
I do not understand how this is even an arguable issue. We would never entertain calling a team the "N*gg**s" or "Crackers" or "Slanteyes" because it is a derogatory term related to a way someone was born in which they cannot control.
The definitions ought to settle it as you say. But why can't those who argue against changing the name understand this?
Perhaps the anti-name change crowd see this as a property rights issue or a free speech issue? In either case, they ought to be able the see that a word defined in a standard dictionary as offensive ought not to be used as a sports team mascot?
Tito wrote:
His about Chief Wahoo? You don't think that's disparaging?
I don't think the term "Indians" as a sports mascot is a problem. It is in no way disparaging and can easily be viewed as honoring.
I can see how Chief Wahoo would be an issue as it clearly depicts a person's race.
Even the Indian's management seems to agree:
The Cleveland Indians' Vice President of Public Relations has defended the use of Chief Wahoo, while framing the team's decision to no longer "animate or humanize the logo" in terms of their "acknowledgement to the sensitivities involved".
Also, there has been a well known reduction in Wahoo's use over the last 5 years. He is no longer the primary mascot, isn't anywhere in the ballpark, and is rarely used elsewhere. They seem to be acknowledging the issue. Something the Redskins have failed to do.
Yet they continue to defend the use of Chief Wahoo.
Vikings, raiders, buccaners, titans, and giants aren't derogatory terms meant to slander a race. Cheifs, Braves, Indians, all non offensive names. Naming a team the redskins would be like naming a team the Sanfrancisco H!llb!llys, Dallas Honk€ys, New England Cr@ck€rs, Cleveland Ni¶¶ers, Kansas City K!kes, Arizona C@m€l Jock€ys, Miami W€tb@cks, etc. Those are all dergatory terms created to offend a race like for instance "REDSKINS"! Quit being so naive and admit it's offensive and is time to be renamed, like they did once already when they changed there name from the unoffensive term Braves to an offensive one!
whodey wrote:
Vikings, raiders, buccaners, titans, and giants aren't derogatory terms meant to slander a race. Cheifs, Braves, Indians, all non offensive names. Naming a team the redskins would be like naming a team the Sanfrancisco H!llb!llys, Dallas Honk€ys, New England Cr@ck€rs, Cleveland Ni¶¶ers, Kansas City K!kes, Arizona C@m€l Jock€ys, Miami W€tb@cks, etc. Those are all dergatory terms created to offend a race like for instance "REDSKINS"! Quit being so naive and admit it's offensive and is time to be renamed, like they did once already when they changed there name from the unoffensive term Braves to an offensive one!
Well, consider, some people are not smart ... in some ways. This is one of them. The name is a racial slur in the minds of many citizens and it should not be that difficult to understand why it ought not be a team name. None of the other pro mascot names are in the same category.
The least thoughtful folks typically use the anti-PC argument to defend their belief.
whodey wrote:
Vikings... aren't derogatory terms meant to slander a race.
It is when they have cartoon horns on their helmets.
The difference is that Nordic-Americans have never agitated about that kind of thing. But I find it annoying.
I'm offended by the name "Eskimo Pie" but I just can't stop eating mine.