better analogy, your team is called the "New York N-grs" and you decide to solve it by founding the "New York N-gr African American Foundation."
Cool, good on Dan Snyder for realizing that there's a problem that was totally ****ing obvious and donating a slim proportion of his wealth to fixing it. That name is still really ****ing racist.
To the poster claiming the name isn't racist.... Here is an easy test, go to one of the Reservations, walk up to the first American Indian male you see between the ages of 25 and 50 and great him by saying "Hey redskin!" and report back to us how it goes... Thanks in advance. As I said earlier, I don't care if he keeps the name (the NFL will eventually force him to change it) or not, just don't act like the term Redskins is flattering or positive.
Most Redskins diehard fans that I know (and I casual fan myself) absolutely hate Snyder. Dude must be young. Anyhow, I'm pretty unPC myself, but just personally, I use a two-step criteria to gauge the difference among offensiveness levels: 1) Is it reasonable for the offended to be offended? 2) Is the offended in any way responsible? An example that fails test #1 would be the local chapter of the NAACP being offended by the "U Mad Bro" sign at the football game calling it racial intimidation, all bc some parents are ignorant of internet memes. http://gawker.com/5837350/high-schoolers-you-mad-bro-sign-called-racial-intimidation An example that fails test #2 were the fatties protesting the 24hr fitness ad in San Fran. http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Persons-of-heft-protest-health-club-s-ad-3305257.php Damn, I just pulled a memory from 15 years ago...I'm just rotting away here. Anyhow, that ad was funny and didn't really insult fat people, but I can get why someone wouldn't like it. But hell, unless you have a pituitary gland problem, being fat is a choice that comes with consequences, such as a funny ad at your expense. So on to the Redskins. Regarding #2, a Native American can't change from being Native American. Regarding #1, considering that the origin of the word comes from skinning your ancestors' scalps because the government paid people to do kill your kind, I can understand why some Native Americans would be offended. So yes, it's reasonably offensive to some people who can't really do anything about it. That sucks for them...it really does. I also believe that Snyder can do whatever the hell he wants with his team's name because it's his team. So let the damn market play out. If the social pressure becomes too strong for Snyder and his ignorant supporters, then it will have to change. If Snyder can buy his way into enough people's graces (and his team can win), then it might never change. Redskins will always be offensive to some. It will always be unoffensive and a source of pride to others who grew up with the team. Even if those who didn't know become less ignorant over the years, that might not change anything. Hell, the N word debate is still huge in the black community amongst many who are aware of its history.
I never tried to say that George Preston Marshall wasn't racist; it's a well known fact that he was. And no, I wouldn't be comfortable with a team using a racist slur for a nickname. If there were a team with the N word for a name, I would feel very badly for all African Americans. I would, in fact, be outraged, because that word has been used for degradation and insults for so many years. And it would be a real outrage, too...not this false kind that comes from listening the mainstream media. The term Redskins, however it is viewed now, did not originate as a racist name. The Redskins' first HC was a Native American, and the name was intended, among things previously listed, to be an honor to him. And you wonder why Snyder's foundation isn't called the Washington Redskins Original Redskins Foundation? Can I be frank here? That's a dumb argument. With that title, he's just highlighting the fact that Native Americans were the original Americans. Your argument could work if Snyder had named it the Original Native Americans Foundation, but that's not the case.
For the purpose of clarification, the name of Snyder's foundation is the Washington Redskins Original Americans Foundation. I didn't make that clear in the last paragraph.
The term Redskins did not come from the practice of killing Native Americans for pay. The English term comes from the Native Americans phrases involving the color red in combination with terms like skin, man, and flesh. Combinations of colors and words were used by Native Americans to distinguish between themselves and other races. And those that translated between the Native American language and the Europeans language were mixed race Native Americans. It's the same as how we today make that distinction by calling ourselves blacks or whites. However the term is used or has been used, it came from the Native Americans.
I don't know Dan Snyder. I know he's been a bad football owner. Whether or not this is purely PR, and whether or not he ever changes the name, he is correct that the far more important issue, IMHO, is the dire condition of many of the tribal communities in the US. The statistics, the poverty, the lack of hope are pretty depressing. I doubt his little foundation moves the needle, but if he kept drawing attention to the plight of native communities in North America over time, that would be awesome. Let's see.
I didn't get my info from the "mainstream media," but from a books and the Native American History class I took at Texas A&M in 1999. I'll find the info. Roots or 2ndary usage or whatever. There is a point in time where people used it as an offensive term and Natives took it as an offensive term. Whoever wins the language war over it...I really don't care. Anyhow, I'll study the linked findings and try to find my old class notes later and update.
That's cool and all, but the article I linked from Slate actually goes back to historical writings where the word originated. It's not relying on text books that are written with a bias.
I'm not sure why the origin of the term really matters. What seems important is whether the term eventually was used as a derogatory term on a reasonably wide scale at some point and was seen as offensive by Native Americans.
It matters because the poster brought it up and said it was a word that originated out of the scalping and skinning of Native Americans.
Sorry - I wasn't referring to why it matters in terms of the educational discussion on the BBS, but why it would matter in regards to the Redskins controversy.
I would be interested to see any of this information, provided the author is credible, of course. Like just about every Interwebs debate in the history of the world, there will be no winner and no loser; none of us will change their mind either way. The most important thing is that we learn a little something about the other side. I would be interested in anyone's thoughts about why the Atlanta Braves aren't receiving any negative attention like the Redskins. One Native American(I couldn't find a link anywhere) said that the term Redskins was hurtful because it painted the Native Americans as merely mascots; this person was basically saying that it put them a step below other people. So, if the Redskins are portraying the Native Americans as noble, and have a logo of a proud-looking warrior, why are they getting all the negative attention but the Braves, who have a comical looking Native American as their mascot, aren't. Wouldn't a silly logo with a tomahawk be more degrading than a noble-looking Native American?
There have been plenty of protests against the Braves and the Cleveland Indians. I can't answer why they aren't as loud about both teams as they are against the Redskins. Doesn't make it right, though.
Because the NFL is the biggest sport in America and the Redskins are one of the most valuable sports franchises in the world. More people watch a Redskins game on MNF than ever watch a Braves or Indians game.
I've seen a few protests, too, but nothing like the Redskins name generates. I have a hunch that it has something to do with that darn D.C. media. A lot of those guys are extremely vocal with their anti-Redskins noise; and combine that with a few lone attention-seeking Native Americans who want their 15 minutes, and you have a huge overblown story. Here's a few of Jenkins' worst: http://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...e3be02-771b-11e3-8963-b4b654bcc9b2_story.html LMFAO! Seriously? A boy emperor? And she actually thinks he thought he could dictate the playcalling? http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...giii-bragged-about-his-influence-over-snyder/ LOL. Unnamed insiders? Why do I have a hard time questioning your credibility? But the worst part is that most people, including a staggering number of Redskins fans, eat it up and beg for more. The stupidity from this woman is overwhelming. But I'll shut up about the D.C. media now. You're welcome.
That's more than likely the biggest reason. If they take down the more popular and the higher profile first, the others will topple more easily.
More like the squeakiest wheel gets the grease. More people are aware of the NFL, so naturally it gets more attention. It's not some brilliant plan devised with a top-down strategy, it's simply the way the world works. Plus on top of all that, the Redskins name is one of the more egregious, compared to "Braves", especially.
