DEMONSTRATION TO BE HELD AT NRG OVER WASHINGTON'S TEAM NAME http://abc13.com/sports/texans-first-opponent-brings-controversy-to-nrg/297825/ <iframe width="476" height="270" src="http://abc13.com/video/embed/?pid=297825" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Oh this again. I can't wait for all the people who will claim Redskin isn't offensive but on the other hand would never call their black friends "Blackskins"
this is what the native american community gets up in arms about? (I realize its just a few misguided native Americans). Native Americans have been abused by the department of indian affairs for decades. This is meaningless and does nothing to help them. <iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/uHxRSakuGMg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> Its only derogatory if the person using it means something derogatory (like when a slave master calls his slave 'boy'). If the person using it doesn't mean anything offensive, then why be offended?
What does it matter to you? If it offends Native Americans then there is no reason to use it. One of the reasons is that it is a term that has a long history of being used to dehumanize and belittle Native Americans.
tallanvor trying to change the meaning of slur for us mud peoples. "It's only bad if I think it's bad when I'm calling you it, redskin." He's so cute. BTW, what is the Republican plan to reform Native American Affairs? Probably vouchers, no health care, no minimum wage, and work harder ya bums! Ha, not a lot different from their usual platform for the rest of us.
Jesus, I don't know of anybody's plan to reform Indian Affairs; especially without a time machine of some kind.
Sweet chocolate Christ, can everyone stop trying to shoehorn their ****ty little feuds into a Native American thread?
You don't change an entire system just because a few feet get stomped. If that were the case the country would be in good hands but it's not. It's more about education then anything. If those who are offended knew the reason behind it, it'd be different. The term "redskin" originated as to a name to give honor to the native americans. The team uses the name to show support to, the logo was created by a native american. Those who are offended get offended because of the negativity being generated by the people who don't understand the root of the name. Hail.
Who actually said that stuff? Was it the owner of the team who won't change the name? The first time the term appeared in writing was in 1699 and it was most definitely offensive and not used to give honor at all. Of course at the time the NFL team chose the name it was already known to be offensive at the time, so any possibility of the root of the name being honorable isn't really on topic.
You are dense. The man that decided to name them the Redskins was extremely racist and if you don't think "redskin" is racist why don't you drive down to Oklahoma and go on a reservation and start calling random Native American's "redskin" and see what happens. You want to keep the name because it has been the name of the franchise for years, so be it. However this "education" line is just bull****.
It kind of sounds like Native Americans aren't as concerned about this issue as a number of others impacting their community. Why are other communities (whites, etc) more concerned than the NA community? Guilt? From an article at TIME magazine:
Right, it should be ignored because it may or may not be the #1 pressing issue breathing down their necks I think the real question is why are there so many white people insisting on keeping this name? Will it really hurt any white dude's feelings if they got changed to the Washington Lobsters or the Washington Anti-Christs?
In a related story the Vikings are playing this season and next at TCF Bank Stadium that is on U of MN campus and is campus property. The Redskins (should I say "Washington Football Team") are playing here on Nov. 2nd and the U of MN is pressing for them to not use the name and logos on their jerseys when they play here. The NFL and Vikings are against a ban on that and with the amount of money involved I'm pretty sure on Nov. 2nd "Redskins" will be visiting TCF Bank. My own opinion as someone who went to a highschool that up until last year mascot was called "Redskins" is while this isn't a big issue the name should be retired. Native Americans have tons of issues they are dealing with but that shouldn't lesson the fact that the name is offensive anymore than saying that black Americans have a lot of issues but that doesn't lesson that blackface is still considered offensive and no one does it anymore. I understand there is a lot of history and tradition behind it but this is football and not a matter of some sacred tradition. For example Stanford's mascot used to be the Cardinal Indians but in the 70's they dropped the "Indians" part and just went as "The Cardinal" . Even in the 90's at the Cal - Stanford game there would still be one old guy (a white guy) who showed up with a feathered headress and would set up a teepee outside Stanford stadium. Outside of that guy I don't think any Stanford fans cared and that guy was more of an embarrassment to Stanford fans. Now I doubt that many Stanford students even remember that the team was once The Cardinal Indians. Bottomline is changing the name didn't affect Stanford's traditions or their fan base and dropping 'Redskins' from Washington probably won't either.
It's time to erase Indians from the textbooks of history. If they get offended about everything, omit them from history. They will no longer be celebrated. Take away their gambling licences and take away any of the tax breaks they get based on the color tone of their skin. Then we will get rid of the redskins.........