Oxford Dictionary: Redskin
Redskin is first recorded in the late 17th century and was applied to the Algonquian peoples generally, but specifically to the Delaware (who lived in what is now southern New York State and New York City, New Jersey, and eastern Pennsylvania). Redskin referred not to the natural skin color of the Delaware, but to their use of vermilion face paint and body paint. In time, however, through a process that in linguistics is called pejoration, by which a neutral term acquires an unfavorable connotation or denotation, redskin lost its neutral, accurate descriptive sense and became a term of disparagement. Red man is first recorded in the early 17th century and was originally neutral in tone. Red Indian is first recorded in the early 19th century and was used by the British, far more than by Americans, to distinguish the Indians of the subcontinent from the Indians of the Americas. All three terms are dated or offensive. American Indian and Native American are now the standard umbrella terms. Of course, if it is possible or appropriate, one can also use specific tribal names (Cheyenne, Nez Percé, etc.).
Nope ... nothing about Redskin = scalping
Oklahoma means ... Choctaw words “okla” and “humma,” meaning “red people.”
What do Redskins have to say about it?
Whitman says the color carries a different meaning.
“It’s a symbolic color of life, the color red, in my tribe.”
But for several Oklahoma high schools, Capitol Hill, Tulsa Union, Rush Springs, Kingston and McLoud, their Redskins mascot name is a source of pride.
“I’m very proud to be a Redskin,” Joseph Wood, a member of the Kickapoo tribe, said Thursday.
Wood recently graduated from McLoud High School, proudly played quarterback for the McLoud Redskins, and says he wouldn’t want the state’s name changed either.
“It’s very ridiculous because then you’d have to change other states,” he said. “Indiana, land of the Indians.”
He says his tribal leaders, and many others, very much appreciate being represented by the NFL.
“If you ask them, it is an honor to have a mascot portraying them,” he said, “to represent them.”
.....
Baaaaahhhh
Comments
-
I usually like to be represented by a 14-18 year old. I like to do that.
-
For the record, I don't give a shit if it's offensive or not. It's no ones business but the owner of the team, and the government shouldn't be restricting free speech by refusing the patent on the grounds that it is "disparaging Native Americans". What a load of horse shit. If people don't like his team they can boycott the fucking team. The market would have decided by now if it was that big of an issue. This is nothing but a power move by the libs to give credence to their bullshit about caring about diversity. Give me a break.
-
Since when is the market the most important power in the land?
-
I get it.Mad_Son said:I usually like to be represented by a 14-18 year old. I like to do that.
What the point is:
But for several Oklahoma high schools, Capitol Hill, Tulsa Union, Rush Springs, Kingston and McLoud,
Those are high schools with Redskin as a mascot in the heart of a state that has the largest Native American population in the Union. -
When did I say it was? All I was saying is that the market would have made it obvious by now if the name was that offensive.Mad_Son said:Since when is the market the most important power in the land?
The point is that they could name the team the Washington Niggers if the NFL would allow it. The government has no say here. 1st Amendment.
-
Yeah, I dunno, I just don't find it compelling. Lots of people have done it for a long time and inertia keeps it in place. I recognize that not every "native american" finds it offensive and some do. This is such a low priority on my list of issues and while do I think the Redskins should change their name, I don't really care to advocate one way or another. I do advocate against basing anything on the opinion of a high schooler though.
-
(don't worry, once the booze has worn off I won't care anymore)
-
Do you advocate on the fact numerous high schools, in Indian country, still have that mascot?Mad_Son said:Yeah, I dunno, I just don't find it compelling. Lots of people have done it for a long time and inertia keeps it in place. I recognize that not every "native american" finds it offensive and some do. This is such a low priority on my list of issues and while do I think the Redskins should change their name, I don't really care to advocate one way or another. I do advocate against basing anything on the opinion of a high schooler though.
Help me understand why we are not boycotting those schools? -
forbes.com/nfl-valuations/list/
I think the market loves the name, by the way. 3rd most valuable team in the league. -
So if there are enough racists to support an NFL team then it isn't racist?PurpleJ said:
When did I say it was? All I was saying is that the market would have made it obvious by now if the name was that offensive.Mad_Son said:Since when is the market the most important power in the land?
The point is that they could name the team the Washington Niggers if the NFL would allow it. The government has no say here. 1st Amendment.
I am not a legal scholar but there may be provisions in various laws against disparaging ethnic groups. Regardless, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something. -
I suppose I am effectively boycotting them since other than Oklahoma being a net receiver of federal funding I don't support them in any way.topdawgnc said:
Do you advocate on the fact numerous high schools, in Indian country, still have that mascot?Mad_Son said:Yeah, I dunno, I just don't find it compelling. Lots of people have done it for a long time and inertia keeps it in place. I recognize that not every "native american" finds it offensive and some do. This is such a low priority on my list of issues and while do I think the Redskins should change their name, I don't really care to advocate one way or another. I do advocate against basing anything on the opinion of a high schooler though.
Help me understand why we are not boycotting those schools?
If the name was selected by various tribesfolk I would consider that meaningful. Just having the name means that there isn't enough pushback to change it. I recognize there is not a complete uproar against it. -
Yeah. They're called hate speech laws or something. I'm not really sure if they apply here, but I am sure that if they did we wouldn't need to be going through the Patent Office to change the name based on those laws.Mad_Son said:
So if there are enough racists to support an NFL team then it isn't racist?PurpleJ said:
When did I say it was? All I was saying is that the market would have made it obvious by now if the name was that offensive.Mad_Son said:Since when is the market the most important power in the land?
The point is that they could name the team the Washington Niggers if the NFL would allow it. The government has no say here. 1st Amendment.
I am not a legal scholar but there may be provisions in various laws against disparaging ethnic groups. Regardless, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something.
There used to be a time in this country where we would protect neo Nazis (!!!!) with police escorts while they held rallies, because we were THAT serious about protecting the 1st Amendment. I think you may be missing the point.
There's also a common sense argument here. The owner paid for his team with his money and he can do what he damn well pleases with it. If the name is offensive, his business will suffer. Obviously it's not. Since when can the government tell someone what to do with their own assets? -
I don't know intellectual property law so I don't know if it is legal to trademark "offensive" names.PurpleJ said:
Yeah. They're called hate speech laws or something. I'm not really sure if they apply here, but I am sure that if they did we wouldn't need to be going through the Patent Office to change the name based on those laws.Mad_Son said:
So if there are enough racists to support an NFL team then it isn't racist?PurpleJ said:
When did I say it was? All I was saying is that the market would have made it obvious by now if the name was that offensive.Mad_Son said:Since when is the market the most important power in the land?
The point is that they could name the team the Washington Niggers if the NFL would allow it. The government has no say here. 1st Amendment.
I am not a legal scholar but there may be provisions in various laws against disparaging ethnic groups. Regardless, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something.
There used to be a time in this country where we would protect neo Nazis (!!!!) with police escorts while they held rallies, because we were THAT serious about protecting the 1st Amendment. I think you may be missing the point here.
There's also the common sense argument here. The owner paid for his team with his money and he can do what he damn well pleases with it. If the name is offensive, his business will suffer. Obviously it's not.
Just because the government protects a right to be racist through the first amendment doesn't mean you should be racist. Again you are falling back on these market-based arguments. The market may be racist. There are a lot of racists in America. If you are one of them that is fine. I am not telling you that you can't be and I am not telling you that you don't have a right to be racist. I am not sure that the existence of other racists justifies racism though. -
This is where we digress into the absurdity of the government forcing the citizenry to use their assets to obtain health insurance...PurpleJ said:
Yeah. They're called hate speech laws or something. I'm not really sure if they apply here, but I am sure that if they did we wouldn't need to be going through the Patent Office to change the name based on those laws.Mad_Son said:
So if there are enough racists to support an NFL team then it isn't racist?PurpleJ said:
When did I say it was? All I was saying is that the market would have made it obvious by now if the name was that offensive.Mad_Son said:Since when is the market the most important power in the land?
The point is that they could name the team the Washington Niggers if the NFL would allow it. The government has no say here. 1st Amendment.
I am not a legal scholar but there may be provisions in various laws against disparaging ethnic groups. Regardless, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something.
There used to be a time in this country where we would protect neo Nazis (!!!!) with police escorts while they held rallies, because we were THAT serious about protecting the 1st Amendment. I think you may be missing the point.
There's also a common sense argument here. The owner paid for his team with his money and he can do what he damn well pleases with it. If the name is offensive, his business will suffer. Obviously it's not. Since when can the government tell someone what to do with their own assets? -
Well I guess that answers the question "Since when can the government tell someone what to do with their own assets?".....or maybe not. I'm too baked to remember right now.Blackie said:
This is where we digress into the absurdity of the government forcing the citizenry to use their assets to obtain health insurance...PurpleJ said:
Yeah. They're called hate speech laws or something. I'm not really sure if they apply here, but I am sure that if they did we wouldn't need to be going through the Patent Office to change the name based on those laws.Mad_Son said:
So if there are enough racists to support an NFL team then it isn't racist?PurpleJ said:
When did I say it was? All I was saying is that the market would have made it obvious by now if the name was that offensive.Mad_Son said:Since when is the market the most important power in the land?
The point is that they could name the team the Washington Niggers if the NFL would allow it. The government has no say here. 1st Amendment.
I am not a legal scholar but there may be provisions in various laws against disparaging ethnic groups. Regardless, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something.
There used to be a time in this country where we would protect neo Nazis (!!!!) with police escorts while they held rallies, because we were THAT serious about protecting the 1st Amendment. I think you may be missing the point.
There's also a common sense argument here. The owner paid for his team with his money and he can do what he damn well pleases with it. If the name is offensive, his business will suffer. Obviously it's not. Since when can the government tell someone what to do with their own assets? -
So people who attend Redskin games are racist now?Mad_Son said:
I don't know intellectual property law so I don't know if it is legal to trademark "offensive" names.PurpleJ said:
Yeah. They're called hate speech laws or something. I'm not really sure if they apply here, but I am sure that if they did we wouldn't need to be going through the Patent Office to change the name based on those laws.Mad_Son said:
So if there are enough racists to support an NFL team then it isn't racist?PurpleJ said:
When did I say it was? All I was saying is that the market would have made it obvious by now if the name was that offensive.Mad_Son said:Since when is the market the most important power in the land?
The point is that they could name the team the Washington Niggers if the NFL would allow it. The government has no say here. 1st Amendment.
I am not a legal scholar but there may be provisions in various laws against disparaging ethnic groups. Regardless, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something.
There used to be a time in this country where we would protect neo Nazis (!!!!) with police escorts while they held rallies, because we were THAT serious about protecting the 1st Amendment. I think you may be missing the point here.
There's also the common sense argument here. The owner paid for his team with his money and he can do what he damn well pleases with it. If the name is offensive, his business will suffer. Obviously it's not.
Just because the government protects a right to be racist through the first amendment doesn't mean you should be racist. Again you are falling back on these market-based arguments. The market may be racist. There are a lot of racists in America. If you are one of them that is fine. I am not telling you that you can't be and I am not telling you that you don't have a right to be racist. I am not sure that the existence of other racists justifies racism though.
-
Only the Redskin fans.PurpleJ said:
So people who attend Redskin games are racist now?Mad_Son said:
I don't know intellectual property law so I don't know if it is legal to trademark "offensive" names.PurpleJ said:
Yeah. They're called hate speech laws or something. I'm not really sure if they apply here, but I am sure that if they did we wouldn't need to be going through the Patent Office to change the name based on those laws.Mad_Son said:
So if there are enough racists to support an NFL team then it isn't racist?PurpleJ said:
When did I say it was? All I was saying is that the market would have made it obvious by now if the name was that offensive.Mad_Son said:Since when is the market the most important power in the land?
The point is that they could name the team the Washington Niggers if the NFL would allow it. The government has no say here. 1st Amendment.
I am not a legal scholar but there may be provisions in various laws against disparaging ethnic groups. Regardless, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something.
There used to be a time in this country where we would protect neo Nazis (!!!!) with police escorts while they held rallies, because we were THAT serious about protecting the 1st Amendment. I think you may be missing the point here.
There's also the common sense argument here. The owner paid for his team with his money and he can do what he damn well pleases with it. If the name is offensive, his business will suffer. Obviously it's not.
Just because the government protects a right to be racist through the first amendment doesn't mean you should be racist. Again you are falling back on these market-based arguments. The market may be racist. There are a lot of racists in America. If you are one of them that is fine. I am not telling you that you can't be and I am not telling you that you don't have a right to be racist. I am not sure that the existence of other racists justifies racism though.
-
Go on....Blackie said:
This is where we digress into the absurdity of the government forcing the citizenry to use their assets to obtain health insurance...PurpleJ said:
Yeah. They're called hate speech laws or something. I'm not really sure if they apply here, but I am sure that if they did we wouldn't need to be going through the Patent Office to change the name based on those laws.Mad_Son said:
So if there are enough racists to support an NFL team then it isn't racist?PurpleJ said:
When did I say it was? All I was saying is that the market would have made it obvious by now if the name was that offensive.Mad_Son said:Since when is the market the most important power in the land?
The point is that they could name the team the Washington Niggers if the NFL would allow it. The government has no say here. 1st Amendment.
I am not a legal scholar but there may be provisions in various laws against disparaging ethnic groups. Regardless, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something.
There used to be a time in this country where we would protect neo Nazis (!!!!) with police escorts while they held rallies, because we were THAT serious about protecting the 1st Amendment. I think you may be missing the point.
There's also a common sense argument here. The owner paid for his team with his money and he can do what he damn well pleases with it. If the name is offensive, his business will suffer. Obviously it's not. Since when can the government tell someone what to do with their own assets?
I'm listening
-
It's not really something that would be protected under the fist amendment as far as the trademark goes. I don't think most of you know what that right entails....that said, the government telling a private business what it can call itself is fucked up and should scare the fuck out of you, should that ever happen.PurpleJ said:For the record, I don't give a shit if it's offensive or not. It's no ones business but the owner of the team, and the government shouldn't be restricting free speech by refusing the patent on the grounds that it is "disparaging Native Americans". What a load of horse shit. If people don't like his team they can boycott the fucking team. The market would have decided by now if it was that big of an issue. This is nothing but a power move by the libs to give credence to their bullshit about caring about diversity. Give me a break.
-
Salient poast, except for the "most of you ignorant fucks don't the shit I know" shit.MikeDamone said:
It's not really something that would be protected under the fist amendment as far as the trademark goes. I don't think most of you know what that right entails....that said, the government telling a private business what it can call itself is fucked up and should scare the fuck out of you, should that ever happen.PurpleJ said:For the record, I don't give a shit if it's offensive or not. It's no ones business but the owner of the team, and the government shouldn't be restricting free speech by refusing the patent on the grounds that it is "disparaging Native Americans". What a load of horse shit. If people don't like his team they can boycott the fucking team. The market would have decided by now if it was that big of an issue. This is nothing but a power move by the libs to give credence to their bullshit about caring about diversity. Give me a break.
-
90% of NA dont give a fuck.Mad_Son said:Yeah, I dunno, I just don't find it compelling. Lots of people have done it for a long time and inertia keeps it in place. I recognize that not every "native american" finds it offensive and some do. This is such a low priority on my list of issues and while do I think the Redskins should change their name, I don't really care to advocate one way or another. I do advocate against basing anything on the opinion of a high schooler though.
-
90% of the respondents in a questionable 2004 study don't care while the Cherokee, Comanche, Oneida and Seminole tribes, as well as the National Congress of American Indians oppose it.CuntWaffle said:
90% of NA dont give a fuck.Mad_Son said:Yeah, I dunno, I just don't find it compelling. Lots of people have done it for a long time and inertia keeps it in place. I recognize that not every "native american" finds it offensive and some do. This is such a low priority on my list of issues and while do I think the Redskins should change their name, I don't really care to advocate one way or another. I do advocate against basing anything on the opinion of a high schooler though.
Hrmm....
I stand by my original statement: "I recognize that not every "native american" finds it offensive and some do" -
Pointing out the obvious...is obvious.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Salient poast, except for the "most of you ignorant fucks don't the shit I know" shit.MikeDamone said:
It's not really something that would be protected under the fist amendment as far as the trademark goes. I don't think most of you know what that right entails....that said, the government telling a private business what it can call itself is fucked up and should scare the fuck out of you, should that ever happen.PurpleJ said:For the record, I don't give a shit if it's offensive or not. It's no ones business but the owner of the team, and the government shouldn't be restricting free speech by refusing the patent on the grounds that it is "disparaging Native Americans". What a load of horse shit. If people don't like his team they can boycott the fucking team. The market would have decided by now if it was that big of an issue. This is nothing but a power move by the libs to give credence to their bullshit about caring about diversity. Give me a break.
-
Somehow I knew you would say something while I was typing that, Mr. 1st Amendment Superiority Guy.MikeDamone said:
It's not really something that would be protected under the fist amendment as far as the trademark goes. I don't think most of you know what that right entails....that said, the government telling a private business what it can call itself is fucked up and should scare the fuck out of you, should that ever happen.PurpleJ said:For the record, I don't give a shit if it's offensive or not. It's no ones business but the owner of the team, and the government shouldn't be restricting free speech by refusing the patent on the grounds that it is "disparaging Native Americans". What a load of horse shit. If people don't like his team they can boycott the fucking team. The market would have decided by now if it was that big of an issue. This is nothing but a power move by the libs to give credence to their bullshit about caring about diversity. Give me a break.
-
But that didn't stop you from stating the fallacy?PurpleJ said:
Somehow I knew you would say something while I was typing that, Mr. 1st Amendment Superiority Guy.MikeDamone said:
It's not really something that would be protected under the fist amendment as far as the trademark goes. I don't think most of you know what that right entails....that said, the government telling a private business what it can call itself is fucked up and should scare the fuck out of you, should that ever happen.PurpleJ said:For the record, I don't give a shit if it's offensive or not. It's no ones business but the owner of the team, and the government shouldn't be restricting free speech by refusing the patent on the grounds that it is "disparaging Native Americans". What a load of horse shit. If people don't like his team they can boycott the fucking team. The market would have decided by now if it was that big of an issue. This is nothing but a power move by the libs to give credence to their bullshit about caring about diversity. Give me a break.
-
Meh. I was fucked up at the time.MikeDamone said:
But that didn't stop you from stating the fallacy?PurpleJ said:
Somehow I knew you would say something while I was typing that, Mr. 1st Amendment Superiority Guy.MikeDamone said:
It's not really something that would be protected under the fist amendment as far as the trademark goes. I don't think most of you know what that right entails....that said, the government telling a private business what it can call itself is fucked up and should scare the fuck out of you, should that ever happen.PurpleJ said:For the record, I don't give a shit if it's offensive or not. It's no ones business but the owner of the team, and the government shouldn't be restricting free speech by refusing the patent on the grounds that it is "disparaging Native Americans". What a load of horse shit. If people don't like his team they can boycott the fucking team. The market would have decided by now if it was that big of an issue. This is nothing but a power move by the libs to give credence to their bullshit about caring about diversity. Give me a break.
-
Where've you been? It's the go to phrase and analysis bailout for all the drones who believe if they just work hard enough and invest right, they'll be rich as hell.Mad_Son said:Since when is the market the most important power in the land?
-
Great bitter and political poast as alwaysFire_Marshall_Bill said:
Where've you been? It's the go to phrase and analysis bailout for all the drones who believe if they just work hard enough and invest right, they'll be rich as hell.Mad_Son said:Since when is the market the most important power in the land?
-
Somebody feeling left out in Obama's Amerika?Fire_Marshall_Bill said:
Where've you been? It's the go to phrase and analysis bailout for all the drones who believe if they just work hard enough and invest right, they'll be rich as hell.Mad_Son said:Since when is the market the most important power in the land?
-
I'm going to get my phone today. Obama has my back. FYFMFE.topdawgnc said:
Somebody feeling left out in Obama's Amerika?Fire_Marshall_Bill said:
Where've you been? It's the go to phrase and analysis bailout for all the drones who believe if they just work hard enough and invest right, they'll be rich as hell.Mad_Son said:Since when is the market the most important power in the land?
