Mascots

[The Cysko Kid]

I'm currently far more outraged about my insurance premiums than Indians.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Oh don't worry, I trust you guys will always be able to find something to be outraged over.

WSS

Steve, and his one man war on "outrage."

 

Of course, whether or not it's "outrage", you'll call it "outrage" as a way to dismiss it as some sort of shrieking, thoughtless madness. But calling every point you don't like an example of "outrage" is very thoughtful. I agree.

 

In this thread, we haven't even gotten something from you that would amount to a coherent argument as to why "Redskins" isn't offensive and should not be changed. We've simply gotten "liberal outrage" and "I don't think it is, so it isn't." Also, "liberals are responsible for the plight of the American Indian."

 

Well done, sir.

[Stewy]

guns and bullets are made of steel. Now the steelers will have to change their name.

 

And the colts...Colt .45? They will have to change their name. And the Broncos... you know, the bron..x..., in NY where

 

they have so many armed gangs....

 

they will. And the bengals and ravens. well, they poop on the wh, and the bengals are vicious killers, so that's a national security issue, they have to change their names,

 

and the dolphins... have been trained by the Navy, so that name should be changed, and the 49/s,... name comes from the gold rush,

 

which symbolizes greed and the taking of land from the Indians, that one too. Every team has to be renamed. Then we can start all over again.

 

.... GGG

 

I don't follow this Cal. I assume you're just being sarcastic and merely mocking the Bullets name change, otherwise anything can be twisted to sound bad.

[Stewy]

Hmm...

 

Washington "Bullets"...bad.

Washington "Redskins"...worse.

Washington "Senators"...pure evil. Especially the democrat ones...the most offensive name ever and no one cares.

[Westside Steve]

Steve, and his one man war on "outrage."

 

Of course, whether or not it's "outrage", you'll call it "outrage" as a way to dismiss it as some sort of shrieking, thoughtless madness. But calling every point you don't like an example of "outrage" is very thoughtful. I agree.

In this thread, we haven't even gotten something from you that would amount to a coherent argument as to why "Redskins" isn't offensive and should not be changed. We've simply gotten "liberal outrage" and "I don't think it is, so it isn't." Also, "liberals are responsible for the plight of the American Indian."

Well done, sir.

Actually Heck your prior example sort of underlines my point doesn't it?

In these discussions everyone loves to use the word N*****.

Now I said that nothing is derogatory unless it's meant in a derogatory manner. And I don't think Dan Snyder means to use the word Redskins in a derogatory matter. That's all there is to it

 

Still the word N***** is used all the damn time by black people or African Americans or Negroes or whatever they demand to be called today. Remember when black was offensive? Remember when

Negro was the preferred term?

 

Anybody here remember Heck demanding that NWA change their name ?

Any outcry at all? Nope.

Still that term is commonly used all the time and only when someone they don't approve of uses the term is it called the N word.

 

Hypocrisy the hallmark of the left.

Nice work heck.

 

Does anyone here feel that calling the team the Redskins is meant to insult Native Americans? Seriously does anyone think that?

 

WSS

[Westside Steve]

Cysko did you delete that post? If so I will too. WSS

[The Cysko Kid]

I deleted it because my phone posted it incomplete on accident while I was giving my kid a bath. Plus it came out a little different than I had intended

[Westside Steve]

Ok out it goes

[VaporTrail]

Hypocrisy the hallmark of the left.

Nice work heck.

 

Does anyone here feel that calling the team the Redskins is meant to insult Native Americans? Seriously does anyone think that?

 

Hypocrisy is the hallmark of the entire human race.

 

Anyways, I found this...

 

http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/downloads/political_communication/naes/2004_03_redskins_09-24_pr.pdf

 

In a phone survey in 2004, 768 of the 65,000 respondents self-identified as Native American. Among those 768, 91% of them thought the term was acceptable and 9% thought it offensive.

 

Apparently it's not nearly as offensive as I thought it to be.

[Westside Steve]

It is at that, VT.

(Hallmark of the entire race)

WSS

[The Cysko Kid]

 

Hypocrisy is the hallmark of the entire human race.

 

Anyways, I found this...

 

http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/downloads/political_communication/naes/2004_03_redskins_09-24_pr.pdf

 

In a phone survey in 2004, 768 of the 65,000 respondents self-identified as Native American. Among those 768, 91% of them thought the term was acceptable and 9% thought it offensive.

 

Apparently it's not nearly as offensive as I thought it to be.

Well, shit, there you have it. 9% thought it was offensive, that's pretty acceptable margins.

 

I wonder how they'd feel about Wahoo but if Redskins is alright with them its alright with me.

[VaporTrail]

I thought this part of the study was really interesting

 

 

 

Thirteen percent of Indians with college degrees or more education said “Redskins” was offensive, compared to 9 percent of those with some college and 6 percent of those with a high school education or less.

Fourteen percent of Indians who called themselves politically liberal said the name was offensive, compared to 9 percent of moderates and 6 percent of conservatives.

Among Indians with household incomes of $75,000 or more, 12 percent found the name offensive, compared to 9 percent of those with incomes between $35,000 and $75,000 and 8 percent of those with incomes below $35,000.

 

 

 

Well, shit, there you have it. 9% thought it was offensive, that's pretty acceptable margins.

I wonder how they'd feel about Wahoo but if Redskins is alright with them its alright with me.

 

I found this paper with really shitty formatting from before the internet existed (like 1997, the days of dial up *gasp*). It's tough to read, but there's some interesting data in it. I couldn't make out what the correlation scores correlated to because of the formatting, but the graphs he put in looked interesting too. It's not in a peer-reviewed journal, so you may want to take what it says with a grain of salt.

 

http://aistm.org/symbolic.racism.htm

[calfoxwc]

It does depend on how it's used. Being offended is all too often

a convenience and a political gain tack. Like Steve said - a lot of blacks use it,

and it's okay. But...then if a white uses it.... it's bad. What happens is all of a sudden,

those blacks get political/emotional power in situations when they want it.

They don't want it with other blacks. It's hard to discern true, legit offense. If the n-word

was so bad, they would never use it.

 

"Redskins" was used to classify indians generally, apart from knowing individual tribes, back then. I see it

as more historical. Apparently, per the poll listed previously, a lot of indians feel the same.

 

And, my post was being sarcastic about making a point of feigned/victimization of "offense".

True offense doesn't change with the circusmstances. And yeah, most of those bullets are brass, I suppose,

but that would mess up my point. GGG

[heckofajobbrownie]

Actually Heck your prior example sort of underlines my point doesn't it?

 

No, it was an explanation of the flaw in Cal's logic.

In these discussions everyone loves to use the word N*****.

 

We do?

 

Now I said that nothing is derogatory unless it's meant in a derogatory manner. And I don't think Dan Snyder means to use the word Redskins in a derogatory matter. That's all there is to it

 

I completely disagree. What is or is not in Dan Snyder's mind is not only not "all there is to it" it's completely irrelevant to me. I don't see you think it is. If you subtract Dan Snyder from the equation nothing changes.

 

Still the word N***** is used all the damn time by black people or African Americans or Negroes or whatever they demand to be called today. Remember when black was offensive? Remember when

Negro was the preferred term?

 

Anybody here remember Heck demanding that NWA change their name ?

Any outcry at all? Nope.

Still that term is commonly used all the time and only when someone they don't approve of uses the term is it called the N word.

 

Are you serious?

 

Hypocrisy the hallmark of the left.

Nice work heck.

 

Oh brother.

 

Does anyone here feel that calling the team the Redskins is meant to insult Native Americans? Seriously does anyone think that?

 

That's also not the point. Which you seem to think is "Is Dan Snyder using the word 'Redskins' because he wants to insult Native Americans?"

 

You're a silly man.

[Westside Steve]

 

 

Actually Heck your prior example sort of underlines my point doesn't it?

 

No, it was an explanation of the flaw in Cal's logic.

 

 

he was being facetious, good eye...

 

 

In these discussions everyone loves to use the word N*****.

 

We do?

 

at least you do, that's the go to example isn't it?

 

 

Now I said that nothing is derogatory unless it's meant in a derogatory manner. And I don't think Dan Snyder means to use the word Redskins in a derogatory matter. That's all there is to it

 

I completely disagree. What is or is not in Dan Snyder's mind is not only not "all there is to it" it's completely irrelevant to me. I don't see you think it is. If you subtract Dan Snyder from the equation nothing changes.

 

again it's his team and his choice unless you guys intervene. And if it bothers you replace the word dan Snyder with all the teams fans and just about everyone in America.

 

 

Still the word N***** is used all the damn time by black people or African Americans or Negroes or whatever they demand to be called today. Remember when black was offensive? Remember when

Negro was the preferred term?

 

Anybody here remember Heck demanding that NWA change their name ?

Any outcry at all? Nope.

Still that term is commonly used all the time and only when someone they don't approve of uses the term is it called the N word.

 

Are you serious?

 

 

yes, are you?

 

 

Hypocrisy the hallmark of the left.

Nice work heck.

 

Oh brother.

 

Does anyone here feel that calling the team the Redskins is meant to insult Native Americans? Seriously does anyone think that?

 

That's also not the point. Which you seem to think is "Is Dan Snyder using the word 'Redskins' because he wants to insult Native Americans?"

 

Is anybody? like I said above replace his name with just about everybody.

 

 

You're a silly man.

not nearly as silly as putting on the mantle of the defender of the weak like you usually do. This politically correct Circus is almost a cottage industry for you guys.

 

ironic that it's so Orwellian. Newspeak Thought crime?

 

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Yeah, that's not what Orwell was talking about. And just because you're being facetious doesn't mean you're not being an idiot.

 

Well, I guess you've taken stock of Dan Snyder's thoughts and found them to be pure and even though that's not the issue, it's allowed you to spit out some tired conservative buzzwords ("Outrage!" "Politically correct!") and tired conservative arguments ("Black people say N***** all the time, what's the big deal?") and hate the left.

 

What a surprise. No way!

 

In my view, these types of caricatures are relics from another time and while not grossly offensive should probably be done away with knowing that no one would ever name a professional sports franchise something like that today. Equivalent slurs from other races used for team names, as with the hats above, show just how out of step the "Redskins" or the Cleveland Indians logo have become. We wouldn't name a team the "Blackskins" and have a logo of a black man, or "Yellowskins" and have a picture of a Asian, so I'm not so wedded to the tradition of "Redskins" to oppose changing the name. It's probably time to move on. That way we can move on to more serious issues, like blaming liberals for the plight of the American Indian.

[MLD Woody]

We could have been the Cleveland Negros though...

[calfoxwc]

Heck, enough with your nonsense rationale. You think there were all sorts of different tribes in black and asian culture, eh?

 

How about we move on from you being completely and ignorantly wrong again.. ?

*************************************************************

"Redskin" was used throughout the English-speaking world (and in equivalent transliterations in Europe) throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries as a common term of reference for indigenous Americans. However, the more commonly used term from early colonization through the twentieth century was "Indian", perpetuating Columbus' error. ^[9]

The first use of red-skin or red indian may have been limited to specific groups that used red pigments to decorate their bodies, such as the Beothuk people of Newfoundland who painted their bodies with red ochre. ^[10]

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. ^[11]

The indigenous peoples of the continent had no common identity, and referred to themselves using individual tribal names, which is also preferred to the present day. Group identity for Native Americans only emerged during the late 18th and early 19th century, in the context of negotiations between many tribes signing a single treaty with the United States. ^[12]

Many claim the term is a particularly egregious racial epithet that represents a bloody era in American history in which Indigenous Americans were hunted, killed, and forcibly removed from their lands by European settlers.^[13] The claim often centers around a proclamation against Penobscot Indians in 1755 issued by King George II of Great Britain, known commonly as the Phips Proclamation.^[14][15] The proclamation orders, “His Majesty’s subjects to Embrace all opportunities of pursuing, captivating, killing and Destroying all and every of the aforesaid Indians.” The colonial government paid 50 pounds for scalps of males over 12 years, 25 pounds for scalps of women over 12, and 20 pounds for scalps of boys and girls under 12. Twenty-five British pounds sterling in 1755, worth around $9,000 today —a small fortune in those days when an English teacher earned 60 pounds a year.^[14] However, since the proclamation itself does not use the word redskin, citing it as the origin of "redskin = scalp" has also been called "revisionist history".^[16]

A linguistic analysis of books published between 1875 and 1930 show an increasing negative context in the use of redskin, often in association with "dirty", "lying", etc. So-called benign or positive usage such as "noble" redskin were used in a condescending manner. ^[9] The term continued in common use, as evidenced in Western movies, but is now largely considered a pejorative and is seldom used publicly (aside from the football team - see below). As with any term perceived to be discriminatory, different individuals may hold differing opinions of the term's appropriateness.^[17]

[Westside Steve]

Bark bark bark.

Of course that's what Orwell is talking about. He talked of many things kiddo. Maybe you could borrow Woody's cliff notes.

But words are offensive if they're meant to offend.

 

I'm sure blasphemy offend some Christians.

I don't suppose I'll hear you demanding it be removed from the sitcoms.

Should GD bear the same weight as the N word?

 

And why not other than the fact you don't like Christians.

WSS

[Stewy]

We could have been the Cleveland Negros though...

 

And it's really that simple. People are creating gray areas where there are none.

It's not that they don't understand...it's that they refuse to undrstand.

 

[Stewy]

I have seen blacks wear the Indians jacket with the Chief Wahoo logo.

 

Just wonderin what they would think if I, a whitey, would have a patch on my jacket like the African below, and have the name "Black Sambos" stitched across the back.

 

If confronted, all I would have to do is tell them I am "honoring" him, just like he's honoring the American Indian and everything would be cool, right?

 

[Westside Steve]

Well T and whoever else is on board I'd think it was equally offensive, if someone chose to be offended, by calling a team the Seminoles seeing as how they're playing on land they probably stole from them.

I guess we have an inherent need to express righteous indignation.

WSS

[MLD Woody]

And why not other than the fact you don't like Christians.

WSS

 

Oh geez

[heckofajobbrownie]

Yes, he's killed yet another thread.

[Westside Steve]

so answer the question. Many Christians are deeply offended by that term. Should it be done away with? Yes or no? Or should they learn to live with it?and if anyone has killed this stupid thread it's you because you can't take the middle ground on anything. Sorry most people just aren't as upset about this as you. Ironically only Mr T.

[heckofajobbrownie]

You think I'm looking for everyone to agree with me? In here? Really?

 

Look, your example isn't any good. It's just you riding your hobby horse. The analogous situation wouldn't be someone saying "God Damn." You can't "do away" with a term. And no one is suggesting that we do away with people saying Redskins somehow.

 

There isn't really an analogous situation with Christians because it's a religious belief, not a race of people. Something close to analogous would be a NFL team with some name that is an out of step caricature of Christians as a whole. But Christians don't look a particular way, so you'll have to come up with one.

 

But yes, I'd be against a sports franchise naming their team "The Jefferson City Jesus Freaks" or something similar.

 

Try this one instead: Jews are sometimes considered a race of people as well as a religious belief. How's "The Houston Hooknoses" sound to you? With that same picture of a Jew from the hat on page one.

 

That's pretty much the same thing as the Washington Redskins. It reduces a racial group to a physical feature. Sound good to you?

[Westside Steve]

oh no not do away with the term. Just make it the same as using the N word regularly on primetime television. That's all they would ask. Because, everyone deserves to be protected from being offended correct?

WSS

[Westside Steve]

and to another one of your silly points you say that a belief system or an affectation is different than a racial characteristic? Fine. Seems to me some folks get outraged, sorry to use that word again, if some other folks mention fried chicken watermelon or make fun of ebonics.

 

so for you politically correct speech now excludes: creed and religion and focuses only on race. I understand.

[Westside Steve]

isn't there a sports team called the something or other deacons?

[heckofajobbrownie]

oh no not do away with the term. Just make it the same as using the N word regularly on primetime television. That's all they would ask. Because, everyone deserves to be protected from being offended correct?

WSS

 

Again, a red herring and not the point. No one is talking about protecting everyone from offense. I think you're arguing with a student from Mount Holyoke in 1991.