Redskins | Page 7 | The Boneyard
.-.

Redskins

Status
Not open for further replies.
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....
I knew in the back of my head "India" can't be an "Indian" name because I know their language does not function that way. May be an Arab name, as well. The suffix "-ia" is a tradition that originates from the Middle East, to my knowledge. Doesn't hurt to correct stupid human errors if possible, does it?
 
Bring back the Bullets (but keep the burgundy and gold)!!!
How about the "Washington Generals", keep the same color scheme, just change the Logo. Or is that name already locked up?
 
Irish Loop said:
I was explaining why some Native Americans find the term "Indian" offensive. You know. Because they're not Indian.

America is a made up term also. One that they didn't create. Calling them Native Americans is equally as arbitrary. So other than their tribe names why wouldn't any other name be offensive?

I think they should change the name, but to equate Redskin with the N word like some people do just doesn't fly with me.

I have never heard anyone use the term Redskin in any other way than referring to the football team. The word Indian is used more often as a derogatory term than Redskin.
 
How about the "Washington Generals", keep the same color scheme, just change the Logo. Or is that name already locked up?

The organization that plays the Globetrotters may have a problem with that.
 
Washington Idiots might be possible. However, would it be reasonable to align a gridiron team with both parties' incompetent, self-serving, wallet-lining imbeciles (mis)leading the US further in the sh!tter? I jest, surely they mean well. ;)
 
.-.
Sorry to bump this thread back up, but going nuts in learning colonial history, I found out the use of "Redmen" was a result of red paint the natives loved to use. Given that, I guess it's up to the ones subjected to the nickname to decide if it's offensive or not. The reason they'd trade land for beads is they believed glass to be valuable and supernatural. Quite a trade for the European settlers.
 
I don't get the argument by the majority on the board. The name is clearly a slur. I can kinda see not wanting to waste too much time worring about it. But to actually defend it...
 
America is a made up term also. One that they didn't create. Calling them Native Americans is equally as arbitrary. So other than their tribe names why wouldn't any other name be offensive?

I think they should change the name, but to equate Redskin with the N word like some people do just doesn't fly with me.

I have never heard anyone use the term Redskin in any other way than referring to the football team. The word Indian is used more often as a derogatory term than Redskin.

Um, America is not a made up name/term.
 
.-.
Um, America is not a made up name/term.

Of course it is. Someone decided to call this continent America, and then to call them Native Americans. They called themselves by their tribe names. Anything else is arbitrary.
 
Of course it is. Someone decided to call this continent America, and then to call them Native Americans. They called themselves by their tribe names. Anything else is arbitrary.
America comes from the feminine latin translation of the name of the guy who discovered South "America." Columbus first landed in the Bahamas.
 
America comes from the feminine latin translation of the name of the guy who discovered South "America." Columbus first landed in the Bahamas.

You mean "discovered"...since there were already people here.
 
You mean "discovered"...since there were already people here.
I mean you're losing the forest for the trees. It's not my turn to be offended. I'm just pointing out how The Americas got their name.
 
I hear you - just pointing out that people say "don't call them this, call them that" - its all arbitrary.
 
.-.
you mean before man, there were places called Italy, Britain, France, China, etc.? By that logic, every name/every place is arbitrary. Heck, every word in the english language is arbitrary
 
gioff23 said:
you mean before man, there were places called Italy, Britain, France, China, etc.? By that logic, every name/every place is arbitrary. Heck, every word in the english language is arbitrary

Yes. That was my point.

My guess is that a Sioux would rather be called a Sioux than a Native American. But I'm not one so my opinion is pretty much irrelevant.
 
J187Money said:
You mean "discovered"...since there were already people here.

OT: guess it doesn't matter Amerigo Vespucci wasn't among the northern Europeans who found (or lost) their way to the Americas long before Colombo and company lost their way, or purported native Americans also found (or lost) their way to the current Americas from afar. Regardless, a name change will still occur at some future point.
 
Here's the reality. The name will be changed. And just like in so many prior instances, what seems so important now to some will look ludicrous someday to all. A few years from now, after all the tumult is over, it will seem incomprehensible that the name Redskins was ever defended. And once the new name takes hold and becomes commonplace in print and during telecasts, the term Redskins will, in retrospect, look and sound so weird and defamatory that even those who wanted to preserve it will shake their heads in disbelief. We've seen this movie before.
 
Here's the reality. The name will be changed. And just like in so many prior instances, what seems so important now to some will look ludicrous someday to all. A few years from now, after all the tumult is over, it will seem incomprehensible that the name Redskins was ever defended. And once the new name takes hold and becomes commonplace in print and during telecasts, the term Redskins will, in retrospect, look and sound so weird and defamatory that even those who wanted to preserve it will shake their heads in disbelief. We've seen this movie before.

I can see this happening. Kinda like gay marriage and giving women the right to vote.

The equivalent would be if, hundreds of years from now, long after the N word was eradicated, some team decided to call themselves the New York N!&&#@s.
 
.-.
ZooCougar said:
They should change their name to the Washington Bullets.
Or, Red Storm considering it's worked out so well for StJ's in bucolic Jamaica.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
290
Guests online
12,989
Total visitors
13,279

Forum statistics

Threads
165,394
Messages
4,435,359
Members
10,291
Latest member
RelentlessD


p
p
Top Bottom