Redskins

[Jimmy Serrano]

You have the freedom to say whatever you want. If I was your mother, I'd advise you not to use any particularly racist language, no matter what any rap artist is doing. Perhaps you should hold yourself to a higher standard than Ludacris?

You grossly misunderstood what I meant. For instance, when reporters wrote about Riley Cooper's rant last summer, they didn't use the word "n!&&er". They referred to it as the N word. Nobody on air will use the word even when they're quoting another person. As if saying "the N word" isn't as offensive as using the actual word? It's silly.

 

[phillionaire]

Why don't you change your name to ... Sidney or Irving [Manzarek]? It's just a word. - Jim Morrison, The Doors, 1991

As an American, I don't mind if the Redskins change their nickname, but it should be because they want to, not forced to by Congress or an agent of the State (I.e. the Patent Office). The fact that the Patent office is acting as the Moral arbiter of the country is all the proof you should need regarding how screwed up the country is. Have you seen some of the ridiculous things under patent?

As a fan of the team, I would really prefer they keep to a similar theme, if they do change the name.

They're not being forced to do anything. The patent office took away the protection of their trademark because it's a slur. The first amendment protects your freedom to use a slur, not to make a profit from it.

 

[Carl Spackler]

They were actually very religious as a whole. The main point of contention was denominational control and the operative presumption was Christianity was the moral framework for a just and society of laws. There is no "separation of church and state" in the Constitutional concept. It is a prohibition against endorsement and a restriction against the restraint of free practice of one's religion. The notion that the public square should be sanitized of religion is simply not a concept that the framers endorsed. It is precisely the opposite. In fact in many states, the ability to qualify to hold office was statutorily defined to require a Christian faith. This seems crazy today, but not then. The idea was focused on the fact that any endorsement of a Christian denomination would result in oppressive government by the denomination in control. For example, Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists was an assurance that they would not be persecuted in Connecticut which was predominately controlled by Congregationalists. More generally, and I would have to find it, there is a reference to Mohammedism in the early writings that goes to the point being that each person is free to practice his or her religion, but the nation's laws and people are that of Christian nation and the Christianity is an essential aspect of public discourse and intercourse. It is not until the mid-1900s do you begin to see a re-interpretation of Constitutional underpinnings based on a (liberal) theory of positivism (which means you interpret the Constitution in accordance with the times). This concept was also expressly rejected by the framers in numerous writings notwithstanding the revisionist law professors at Harvard and Yale, etc.. What you see is actually a paradoxical erosion of our constitution rights under liberal interpretation due to several phenomena. But, I could write a book on that and bore you to death. Anyway, back to the main point, the modern liberal sentiments about the Constitution on the current subject are just vastly out of step with the reality of what was intended and was practiced for nearly 150 years. Sadly, most of what is taught even in college level classes is pure modern myth that was invented by "progressives" .

I put the writings and teachings of Frank Zappa up against most anything taught in college these days.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Yeah that totally makes up for the genocide and loss of sovereignty.

None of us committed the genocide. It's over. It's done. No, it was not nice. There are hundreds of other such examples throughout history, from every corner of the globe. It is not for later generations to "make up for" the errors of their ancestors, that concept is ridiculous. I also reject the concept of race and creed, it is meaningless nonsense. We are each people, answerable only for our own actions and for no others. Hopefully we judge others the same way, based on who they are what they do.

As for the name, I consider it somewhat tasteless. But I also think that everyone who fancies himself or herself as a part of some arbitrary and non-existent "group" to get over this "I'm offended" crap. Being offended or not, is up to you. Meanwhile the trademark office has pulled this stunt once before with the Redskins and it was overturned. This isn't new.

 

[Husky25]

Yeah that totally makes up for the genocide and loss of sovereignty.

And Manhattan. Don't forget Manhattan.

 

[UConnDan97]

The Redskins started in Boston. They played at Braves Field and were originally called the Boston Braves. When they moved to Fenway Park, they changed their name to the Redskins, presumably to endear themselves to the Red Sox and keep the Indian moniker, but who knows for sure. George Preston Marshall was a bigot. It's documented history and maybe he choose Redskins as a racial taunt, but is that really what it means now? The only other owner of the Franchise besides Marshall and Snyder was Jack Kent Cooke and the only color he saw was green. He made and lost a ton of it.

That's some good information there. I had made the assumption that the team's roots were in the DC area, but clearly not. I assume that they could theoretically use any Northeastern tribal name or MidAtlantic tribal name and have it make just as much sense. Plus, like you added, I don't see anything wrong with a name like "Tomahawk", except for it might make them change their helmets (and many of you know how well I do with helmet changes)...

 

[EdgewoodNHV]

This is exactly what I just wrote about. What the hell is this attitude.

Genocide and loss of sovereignty - HUGE problems. What to do about it? Get the Washington Redskins to change their logo.

Something doesn't seem proportional here - to me.

There's nothing to be done to change the past. But the total continued disrespect towards the culture which we embrace by pretending "Redskins" and "Indians" are totally fine things to call people who would prefer not to be called that -- especially after everything else -- I mean. I don't know. I'd be pretty pissed off about it.

 

[EdgewoodNHV]

None of us committed the genocide. It's over. It's done. No, it was not nice.

Sure, none of us committed genocide. I don't disagree. But it did happen, and it forever altered the future of Native Americans. So pretending that we're all even now because we let them build a few casinos on the extremely tiny tracts of land we've given back is comical, especially if we pretend like it somehow makes it okay to use the term "Redskin."

"I let you build a casino, I can call you whatever you want." Not exactly the highest form of ethos.

 

[EdgewoodNHV]

You grossly misunderstood what I meant. For instance, when reporters wrote about Riley Cooper's rant last summer, they didn't use the word "n!&&er". They referred to it as the N word. Nobody on air will use the word even when they're quoting another person. As if saying "the N word" isn't as offensive as using the actual word? It's silly.

Well, it isn't. Like how on TV it might be okay to say "F word" instead of the actual word. It's hardly the only word for which this is done.

 

[Sky ball]

Well, it isn't. Like how on TV it might be okay to say "F word" instead of the actual word. It's hardly the only word for which this is done.

Forget You!

 

[EdgewoodNHV]

This is exactly what I just wrote about. What the hell is this attitude.

Genocide and loss of sovereignty - HUGE problems. What to do about it? Get the Washington Redskins to change their logo.

Something doesn't seem proportional here - to me.

See, this is such a straw man. Nobody made the argument that changing the name will somehow undo the crimes against Native Americans. But the crimes cannot be undone. We can, however, say, "Okay, we respect your culture enough to at least stop using a racist, derogatory term as a team name." The lack of respect/total disregard for the culture, I think, is systemic -- the term "Redskins" is just part of it.

 

[Carl Spackler]

There's nothing to be done to change the past. But the total continued disrespect towards the culture which we embrace by pretending "Redskins" and "Indians" are totally fine things to call people who would prefer not to be called that -- especially after everything else -- I mean. I don't know. I'd be pretty pissed off about it.

Fair enough.

There's an old saying about picking and choosing battles though that comes to my mind, and I think that it's a poor choice of battle to take on a professional sports logo that is many decades old when the purpose of the battle is to overcome racial bigotry.

What would I do? If I was a native American that felt oppressed? Well, I already alluded to something like that here in CT. Personally, if I felt that way, and I have - believe it or not - I'd find a way to make myself the most successful and influential I could be, so that whatever label was making me feel a certain way, turned into something that was undeniably NOT negative and something to be worn proudly.

The Pequots have done really well for themselves in CT. I absolutely have no idea what their motivations were to become as powerful as they have become financially, and economically with regards to our state government - but if the feeling of oppression and racial injustice and bigotry were actually motivation for them? IIF - and it's just a guess if it may have been - It would seem they took a much better path to changing things, than attacking a sports logo.

 

[Husky25]

They're not being forced to do anything. The patent office took away the protection of their trademark because it's a slur. The first amendment protects your freedom to use a slur, not to make a profit from it.

Semantics...That's like saying the Federal government did not institute a nationwide minimal drinking age law of 21. The Department of Transportation merely informed the state legislatures that they were going to lose out on highway repair funding if they didn't. Congress, by way of the patent office, is not technically "forcing" the Washington Redskin Football Club to change their name, but they unlocked the door, turned off the alarm, and allowed newspapers to accumulate on the front porch.

This is not a first amendment issue but since you brought it up, you may be interested in this.

I guess at the root of the argument for me is to determine if "Redskin" is really a slur. I am not about to take Merriam-Webster's word for it either. These are the same people who felt the need to define OMG, mankini, bromance, muggle, and riffage (what? Did it really get too hard to look up guitar and riff separately), among other plays on actual words.

I guess, for me personally, I don't consider it a slur because 1) it is far removed from any other potential meaning (for me) and 2) more importantly, there is reasonable doubt in the populous. According to a sample of 1 (which is as scientific as what the Patent Office sites), I have not really heard the term Redskins outside the context of the Football team (it's use in Thunder Heart as a play of words notwithstanding, which I thought was kind of clever.).

Now that said, if they choose to change the name, then fine. I don't think it should be government enabled, especially by members of the current (most historically inefficient) session of Congress.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Sure, none of us committed genocide. I don't disagree. But it did happen, and it forever altered the future of Native Americans. So pretending that we're all even now because we let them build a few casinos on the extremely tiny tracts of land we've given back is comical, especially if we pretend like it somehow makes it okay to use the term "Redskin."

"I let you build a casino, I can call you whatever you want." Not exactly the highest form of ethos.

Somebody "let" the Pequots build a casino? I bet that there some Pequots that would find that statement quite offensive.

What I think the big issue here is, is people taking on a course of action because of how they think others should behave and feel about things. What gives a person a right to do that?

Wahtever - I'm out on this - no where for a discussion like this to go - everyone is responsible for their own actions. That's a fundamental concept that gets lost sometimes in free thinking societies.

 

[EdgewoodNHV]

Somebody "let" the Pequots build a casino? I bet that there some Pequots that would find that statement quite offensive.

What I think the big issue here is, is people taking on a course of action because of how they think others should behave and feel about things. What gives a person a right to do that?

Wahtever - I'm out on this - no where for a discussion like this to go - everyone is responsible for their own actions. That's a fundamental concept that gets lost sometimes in free thinking societies.

Why would they be offended? It's the facts. The Tribal Nations are sovereign only in the sense that they can do what the US Federal Government allows them to do. If you are not recognized by the US Federal Government (and many are not), then you can't build a casino. For instance, if your tribe happens to be too close to another tribe who makes significant contributions to your local US Senator... well... too bad for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unrecognized_tribes_in_the_United_States

 

[Adios]

The Catholics were in the Baltimore, Maryland area. They came from Jesuit settlers settling from England (later they were persecuted and extradited back to England, but the Catholics in Maryland remained active and were tolerated) . Each state/area has its own its Christian flavor. Most of these groups came and took up various areas as the colonies were settled. In the earliest times, those reaching settling were under charter from one European power or another. Spain, a Catholic country, was a major world power and had influence on the founding of America with the colonies it ha set up as well. These were primarily in the deep south (Florida, Georgia) which they claimed as possessions. The French as well were Catholic and Catholics were present in America through their Canadian possessions (a large population was in present day Michigan). These were obviously contested by the British (I.e, French Indian War, The British wresting control of Florida from Spain, etc.). Catholics were just another flavor in a stew of Christian settlers many of whom were predominantly from protestant denominations which were under persecution by other dominant protestant denominations in Europe.

I am aware of Baltimore. Different denominations still hated each other, which is still evident today.

 

[MilliniumPrince]

I guess, for me personally, I don't consider it a slur because 1) it is far removed from any other potential meaning (for me) and 2) more importantly, there is reasonable doubt in the populous. According to a sample of 1 (which is as scientific as what the Patent Office sites), I have not really heard the term Redskins outside the context of the Football team (it's use in Thunder Heart as a play of words notwithstanding, which I thought was kind of clever.).

Now that said, if they choose to change the name, then fine. I don't think it should be government enabled, especially by members of the current (most historically inefficient) session of Congress.[/QUOTE]

Serious question, are you Native American? If so, your break down of why you feel the term isn't a slur carries some weight. Some would agree. Others would disagree, but your perspective is valuable (to me).

If you are not, who cares if you consider it a slur? If a guy walked up to you and you wife and said "she is a fat bitch" and I said, "I don't consider that an insult because I don't think she is very fat." Would that matter to you?

Not picking a fight, seriously curious if you are Native.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

Well, it isn't. Like how on TV it might be okay to say "F word" instead of the actual word. It's hardly the only word for which this is done.

You've used the term "Redskin" freely in this thread after rightfully acknowledging how racist and offensive the term is. I wonder if you'd use the "N word" as freely in a thread about racism against blacks?

I knew we'd eventually argue in this thread.

 

[Husky25]

Yes. I was born in North America...

The answer you are looking for is that I am of Italian and eastern European decent, so I am a White man (is that a slur? Why/Why not?), which is actually how I would actually be referred to.

For what it's worth though, my wife grew up on a dairy farm within the boundaries of an Indian reservation in northern Minnesota. As she is also of European decent, she and her family were "minorities" who actually almost lost their farm to the Ojibwe via the Bureau of Indian Affairs on a few occasions. The tribe was proud of the Mahnomen High School Indians.

I understand your point but my wife is fully capable of taking care of herself. She would probably tell the guy, "I can lose weight, you're old, bald, and will still suck at life in the morning," and wish a hex on them (Can't do anything about the B1tch part). Kidding aside, my opinion is like any other opinion. Take it for what you think it's worth. I don't care. That's what this board is for. No skin off my nose, but the fact remains that "Redskin" is not like the N-Word, the K-word, the two 5 letter S-words, etc. in that there is no consensus on it's derogatory nature among the "offended."

My real problem in this whole situation is the Patent Office, acting on behalf of Congress, assuming the role of moral arbiter. My wife actually makes a good point. If the Patent Office pulled the Redskin patent due to it being disparaging, they should also pull the patent on the Playboy Bunny. They can surely find a woman or two offended by The Heff. Guess there's no money for the lawyers in that.

 

[EdgewoodNHV]

You've used the term "Redskin" freely in this thread after rightfully acknowledging how racist and offensive the term is. I wonder if you'd use the "N word" as freely in a thread about racism against blacks?

I knew we'd eventually argue in this thread.

I have no idea what your point is. Yes, some words are considered more offensive than others. With any luck, once the Washington team changes their name, I'll never say that R word again.

Unfortunately, we are still at a place in our culture where that word, among others, is used to refer to the Native Americans tribes.

 

[ZooCougar]

I have no idea what your point is. Yes, some words are considered more offensive than others. With any luck, once the Washington team changes their name, I'll never say that R word again.

Unfortunately, we are still at a place in our culture where that word, among others, is used to refer to the Native Americans tribes.

Not that i dispute that it's offensive, but I never heard that word used outside of the context of the professional football team in DC.

 

[billybud]

The PC stuff has come full circle....

Back in the day when the NAACP was formed...black people were called "colored". Then it went to "negro" and then, with black pride, to "black".

Kunte Kinte and Roots brought it around to "African Americans"....and now? It's back to "People of color".....which means anybody but white.

My birth certificate says that I am "caucasian". I was 12 before I discovered where the caucasus mountains were. I then became "Anglo-Saxon" regardless of my celtic ancestors being pushed out by the invading Angles and Saxons. I am now just "white".

I reckon that I am "european american"? That, with a little Cherokee added in by 5th gg, is my genetic makeup.

There is a not so subtle cultural war going on as we speak...The European settlement of this country has been so dominant that there are movements to counter that influence.

Majority influence populations can not be inclusive...that would be racist...But a minority influence population may be inclusive and have Hispanic Entertainment awards, Black Chambers of Commerce, and Historically Black Colleges and Universities, etc. That is supportive of their population's aspirations.

Here in North Carolina, the Cherokee advertise tribal jobs with an "indian preference"...and their health organizations are "Indian Health", etc..For the Cherokee, the moniker "indian" seems to have been embraced.

 

[Adios]

For the Cherokee, the moniker "indian" seems to have been embraced.

They are not the only people who adopted what they were referenced to as by Europeans. But again, India is not here...

If you ask me, that's also a slight against actual Indians. Showed how much respect they had for India apart from the spices and silk.

 

[junglehusky]

Things I learned on the internet: when a dominant culture all but wipes out the indigenous population of the continent they colonized, after a few hundred years their descendents get to define what is and isn't offensive to the descendents of the indigenous population.

 

[Nostical]

My choice would be "The Washington Monuments". Just think of all the logo merchandizing possibilities.

 

[billybud]

Things I learned on the internet: when a dominant culture all but wipes out the indigenous population of the continent they colonized, after a few hundred years their descendents get to define what is and isn't offensive to the descendents of the indigenous population.

Oh well...the common cry of "oppressor". I get it.

But beyond "indian" sensibilities (and we have the Miss Indian North Carolina visiting here tomorrow for the Cherokee County Valley Indian festival sponsored by the tribe) we now have a national right...everybody has the right to not be offended.

We now have a minority right to veto if offended...to veto such customs as reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in schools, to veto christmas trees in public buildings, halloween decorations in public facilities, and on and on.

 

[MilliniumPrince]

Oh well...the common cry of "oppressor". I get it.

But beyond "indian" sensibilities (and we have the Miss Indian North Carolina visiting here tomorrow for the Cherokee County Valley Indian festival sponsored by the tribe) we now have a national right...everybody has the right to not be offended.

We now have a minority right to veto if offended...to veto such customs as reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in schools, to veto christmas trees in public buildings, halloween decorations in public facilities, and on and on.

...........................wow

 

[phillionaire]

Oh well...the common cry of "oppressor". I get it.

But beyond "indian" sensibilities (and we have the Miss Indian North Carolina visiting here tomorrow for the Cherokee County Valley Indian festival sponsored by the tribe) we now have a national right...everybody has the right to not be offended.

We now have a minority right to veto if offended...to veto such customs as reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in schools, to veto christmas trees in public buildings, halloween decorations in public facilities, and on and on.

yes the privileged white class has the authority to tell other races/ethnicities what is and isn't offensive

 

[Adios]

Oh well...the common cry of "oppressor". I get it.

But beyond "indian" sensibilities (and we have the Miss Indian North Carolina visiting here tomorrow for the Cherokee County Valley Indian festival sponsored by the tribe) we now have a national right...everybody has the right to not be offended.

We now have a minority right to veto if offended...to veto such customs as reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in schools, to veto christmas trees in public buildings, halloween decorations in public facilities, and on and on.

So....ever been to India? I am pretty sure Tallahassee was never part of it. As well as Hispaniola.

 

[billybud]

So....ever been to India? I am pretty sure Tallahassee was never part of it. As well as Hispaniola.

What's your point? Names are names...."America" is named after a guy who mapped another continent and had nothing to do with the continent that the USA is located on.

There are the East Indies and the West Indies.....(You can blame that on Amerigo Vespucci)

My birth cerificate says "Caucasian" and I have never been on the same continent as the Caucasus area.

I have been called "Anglo-Saxon" along with all others of european descent, although I am not an Angle nor a Saxon...(those oppressors of Celts).

My second home, here in western NC, is minutes from tribal land...and I have no problem if the Cherokee want to refer to themselves as "indian".

India's official name (in their constitution) is "bharat".....I have no problem with Bharatians calling themselves "Indians"...although I have never heard a person from India refer to themselve so....