# Native Americans: Does a Sports Team Named Redskins Offend You?



## Rick (May 10, 2002)

Thank you for you thoughts!


----------



## wwubben (Oct 13, 2004)

Yes.I do not appreciate being called "CHIEF" either.


----------



## Mrs_Lewis (May 15, 2014)

When my father was a child in the 50's he was told not to use the term redskins but rather Indians while playing cowboys and Indians.

When I was a child in the 80's I was told not to use the term Indians but rather Native Americans and not to play cowboys and Indians because it was wrong.

A derogatory term isn't OK, even if one or many are not offended by it.


----------



## Rick (May 10, 2002)

Mrs_Lewis said:


> When my father was a child in the 50's he was told not to use the term redskins but rather Indians while playing cowboys and Indians.
> 
> When I was a child in the 80's I was told not to use the term Indians but rather Native Americans and not to play cowboys and Indians because it was wrong.
> 
> A derogatory term isn't OK, even if one or many are not offended by it.


Are you Native American. I am, but not full blooded - not even 12.5 % so I won't comment.


----------



## Rick (May 10, 2002)

wwubben said:


> Yes.I do not appreciate being called "CHIEF" either.


I respect your answer, and would only call you brother.


----------



## TerriLynn (Oct 10, 2009)

I answered for my husband who is part Native American, he said it doesn't bother him and saw no need to change the name.


----------



## Mrs_Lewis (May 15, 2014)

Rick said:


> Are you Native American. I am, but not full blooded - not even 12.5 % so I won't comment.


No, that's why I didn't vote.

But as my post stated, a derogatory term is derogatory no matter how many it offends.

Why anyone would want to use a term that is derogatory is beyond me.


----------



## unregistered41671 (Dec 29, 2009)

Mrs_Lewis said:


> No, that's why I didn't vote.
> 
> But as my post stated, a derogatory term is derogatory no matter how many it offends.
> 
> Why anyone would want to use a term that is derogatory is beyond me.


I don't understand how "Redskins" is a derogatory term. Please explain. Thanks


----------



## Rick (May 10, 2002)

Mrs_Lewis said:


> No, that's why I didn't vote.
> 
> But as my post stated, a derogatory term is derogatory no matter how many it offends.
> 
> Why anyone would want to use a term that is derogatory is beyond me.


I respect your opinion, but I will not try to explain why.

I posted this for Native Americans to be heard on it, should they so choose.


----------



## Mrs_Lewis (May 15, 2014)

Possum Belly said:


> I don't understand how "Redskins" is a derogatory term. Please explain. Thanks


The Native Americans labelled it such? 
A quick Google search will tell you that whether or not it's origin is the scalp of a dead Native American or not, it is considered a derogatory term.

I honestly don't see how calling a race or culture anything other than what they call themselves is called for, ever.


----------



## unregistered41671 (Dec 29, 2009)

Mrs_Lewis said:


> The Native Americans labelled it such?
> A quick Google search will tell you that whether or not it's origin is the scalp of a dead Native American or not, it is considered a derogatory term.
> 
> I honestly don't see how calling a race or culture anything other than what they call themselves is called for, ever.


Thank you.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

I'm not native either so I didn't vote. But you didn't say non-natives were restricted from commenting so I'm commenting.

Are all the team members of the Redskins natives? If the team members are all natives then I don't see a problem with the team choosing to call themselves the Redskins if the players are all comfortable with referring to themselves by the color of their skin and race. 

If the team members are not all natives then the Redskins name is a lie, a fraud, it's a form of racial imposterism as well as being socially inappropriate. If the team members are not all natives the name of the team should be changed to something that isn't fraudulent and doesn't reflect the color of any people's skin or race.

Or, if they really want to keep the Redskins name they need to get rid of every team member who isn't a native and bring in more natives to take their places.


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

My father, a Native American, used to refer to himself as a "*******", and with pride too. He never saw it as a derogatory title. It depends on how you look at things, and Dad always looked at his "race" or "culture" as a gift, and the way it set him apart from the "White skins" equally as a gift.


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

Paumon said:


> If the team members are not all natives then the Redskins name is a lie, a fraud, it's a form of racial imposterism as well as being socially inappropriate. If the team members are not all natives the name of the team should be changed to something that isn't fraudulent and doesn't reflect the color of any people's skin or race.
> 
> Or, if they really want to keep the Redskins name they need to get rid of every team member who isn't a native and bring in more natives to take their places.


Oh, Come on, get real. Should the "Red Sox" always wear red socks? Should the Cleveland Indians only be Native American or Hindus? Should the "Padres" not allow any man who has no children to play on the team? Or should anyone who isn't a perfect person play for the Angels? That's just ridiculous! 

The problem is that everyone seems to want to be a victim, and if they don't get a turn on the victim-go-round, they make up something that will include them on the ride. Its like its fashionable to be offended by something in society today. I can be offended due to my faith, or lack thereof, my race, my gender, my marital status, my age, my disability or lack thereof, something that is printed on our currency, words some idiot may use, team names, etc. etc. We've become thin skinned, wanna-be victim whiners. 

My father was Native American, and my mother was a northern European white woman. They were both proud of their heritage and taught us kids to embrace the diversity, but to be thick skinned, that you can't be proud of your heritage and be offended by it too. This upbringing has held me in good stead later in life as I joined the LDS church and had to deal with the persecution and ignorance that went along with that. I am not a victim of anything, let alone of someone else's choice of words. Whatever happened to the saying "sticks and stones may break my bones.....etc."?


----------



## Gravytrain (Mar 2, 2013)

******* is not a derogatory term. It is a term of pride used by native people to describe themselves. In fact, the Washington Redskins were named in honor of their first coach, Lone Star Dietz who was a Sioux.

View attachment 31332


From Slate.com (a very liberal publication):



_In 2005, the Indian language scholar Ives Goddard of the Smithsonian Institution published a remarkable and consequential study of *******'s early history. His findings shifted the dates for the word's first appearance in print by more than a century and shed an awkward light on the contemporary debate. Goddard found, in summary, that "the actual origin of the word is entirely benign."


*******, he learned, had not emerged first in English or any European language. The English term, in fact, derived from Native American phrases involving the color red in combination with terms for flesh, skin, and man. These phrases were part of a racial vocabulary that Indians often used to designate themselves in opposition to others whom they (like the Europeans) called black, white, and so on.​_
And yes, I'm part Mohawk.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

thequeensblessing said:


> Oh, Come on, get real. Should the "Red Sox" always wear red socks? Should the Cleveland Indians only be Native American or Hindus? Should the "Padres" not allow any man who has no children to play on the team? Or should anyone who isn't a perfect person play for the Angels? That's just ridiculous!


I am being real. I think the names chosen for sports teams should be a reflection of what the teams really are, or of the real game they play, or of their real location .... not some unreal name picked willy nilly out of the air that has nothing to do with the real team and the real game that they play. If it isn't real then it's a fake.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Paumon said:


> I am being real. I think the names chosen for sports teams should be a reflection of what the teams really are, or of the real game they play, or of their real location .... not some unreal name picked willy nilly out of the air that has nothing to do with the real team and the real game that they play. If it isn't real then it's a fake.


But you seemed to accept picking ones sex despite that not being real.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Paumon said:


> I am being real. I think the names chosen for sports teams should be a reflection of what the teams really are, or of the real game they play, or of their real location .... not some unreal name picked willy nilly out of the air that has nothing to do with the real team and the real game that they play. If it isn't real then it's a fake.


By that logic most of the teams at every level of sports would require renaming. It's just a name, it's just a game. Some things were never meant to be taken literally. Or too seriously.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

kasilofhome said:


> But you seemed to accept picking ones sex despite that not being real.


Wait .... what?? What ?!? What are you talking about? :stars:

LOL. I don't know what you're smoking but it must be awfully potent stuff. Maybe if I had some of that I'd be able to speak your language. :hysterical:


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

MO_cows said:


> By that logic most of the teams at every level of sports would require renaming. It's just a name, it's just a game. Some things were never meant to be taken literally. Or too seriously.


You're probably right. Most teams should probably be name changed. I wouldn't know - I don't watch sports games and don't know one team's name from another. Are there any teams called the Brownskins, Blackskins, Whiteskins and Yellowskins too?


----------



## 95bravo (Mar 22, 2010)

I'm a little bit Black Crow. I have only ever been treated like a blue eyed 'Merican , so I will never pretend that I will ever know what it's like to be a Native. 
That said , I don't the term. It calls out specific racial trait. If it was washington blackies or the washington pinkskin crackers it would have been changed a long time ago. How about change it to asian sqinty eyes. 
I don't have problem with Brave's because ( As I understand it ) is a term for warrior.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

My son who is a tlinght Indian and tribal member said that it is just a name...


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

I asked a couple friends who are NA
They think the whole thing is stupid and are actually more than a little embarrassed about the whole stink.
(I didn't vote, because I don't have enough Native American blood in me to matter, but since several generations of my family were born, lived, fought and died here, I do consider myself native.)


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

Paumon said:


> I am being real. I think the names chosen for sports teams should be a reflection of what the teams really are, or of the real game they play, or of their real location .... not some unreal name picked willy nilly out of the air that has nothing to do with the real team and the real game that they play. If it isn't real then it's a fake.


+ + + + + + + + +
strongly you feel about righting wrongs, we fully expect for you to

begin the job of getting the Vancouver Canucks to either change 

their name or location. You should be as outraged as the rest of

us to learn that there are actually MORE foreigners on the team's

roster, than 'native-born' Canadians! 6 Americans, 5 Swedes, 2

Danes and 1 Swiss; the other 11 are canucks.

After that . . . we're going go get the Edmonton Eskimos to stop their racist exploitation as well.

So when can we expect you to be joining the picket line?:soap:


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Nice try but the Canucks team are exempt because Canuck doesn't actually mean Canadian citizen. I know you didn't know that. 

It's an 1800's American slang word that means a hero of Canada or any person residing or working in Canada or any person in Canada who speaks a foreign language. So that's everyone on the Canucks team.

But I'll see what I can do to get the Edmonton Eskimos to stop their racist exploitation. :thumb:

Oh wait - some Canadians are already way ahead of me on that:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/was...ld-put-pressure-on-edmonton-eskimos-1.2680161


----------



## just_sawing (Jan 15, 2006)

It is a long used practice to get a people conditioned to apologize for something. First you pick something that you can by a means connect them (Slavery is always a good one) then when the public starts to move push and push more. This is the start of Socialist society. This is where you have now given up the right to own your own home, fly your flag or speak what you consider the truth. If you think you own your home stop paying property taxes and see.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Paumon said:


> You're probably right. Most teams should probably be name changed. I wouldn't know - I don't watch sports games and don't know one team's name from another. Are there any teams called the Brownskins, Blackskins, Whiteskins and Yellowskins too?


This pretty much sums up why some should not be 'in' on this activity. I don't mean the discussion, I mean the actual changing or re-naming.

I'm just wondering WHO the name offends? Progressives? They really need to be 'silenced'. JMHO.


----------



## hercsmama (Jan 15, 2004)

My dh is half Sioux, and his take on it is, that the entire thing is beyond stupid.
The team was named in Honor of a very respected man, and to take that from him and his family, is wrong.
Who are these people that are so offended? What kind of a stake do they have in this?
I honestly haven't been following the story, so really don't know.But it seems like it is just more "White guilt" at play here, there are so many more important issues to be dealt with in these days and times.
But let's all worry about a football teams name, and forget about Iraq, the economy, drug cartels, Benghazi, trading traitors for terrorists, and the rest.

Best to just pay attention to the Kardashions, Justin Beiber, and this nonsense, right?:facepalm:


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

I am part cherokee and my wifes aunt is full blooded Onieda. The ones bringing the case. It doesnt bother me at all and her either. Infact her tribe is not even for it. Just the few political heads of the tribe are against it. They see it as pride. Its the media making it seem like they all are against it. Every single poll conducted shows that there is overwhelming support for the Redskins. If they are forced to change their names many other teams will be forced to do the same and the PC crowd will take over this nation. While I personally do not want the name changed, I also am a fan who, regardless of the name, will yell just as loudly when Kerrigan sticks his giant paw up to intercept a throw and score a touchdown. That being said, we are raising a society of whiners and perpetuating the idea that if you don't like it and complain enough, you can get what you want. After all, good things come to those who cry loudly enough, right? Maybe being offended is a good thing. Maybe having to live in a world where you are not the center of attention isn't that bad. And maybe, just maybe, not getting your way all the time will teach you more about life than drawing attention to your, somewhat, overlooked station in life. I'm not racist and I certainly do not cheer for a team because their mascot is derogatory to someone else. Change the name or don&#8217;t, it&#8217;s not going to change much in the world. Enjoy you 15 minutes, next week it will be on to something far more interesting such as Miley Cyrus or whichever Kardashian looked like a hooker out in public.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

I thought this clip was interesting regarding the Cleveland Indians versus the Redskins. Sherman Alexie (Spokane Tribal member)

http://billmoyers.com/content/the-challenges-of-being-lost-inside-your-culture/


----------



## DryHeat (Nov 11, 2010)

As others, no known Native American ancestry, so not voting. My reaction, though, has rather been influenced by a good friend from college days who was half-Cherokee and had spent one summer traveling around the US seeking out various leaders, elders, shaman, in traditional tribal areas exploring his cultural roots. He was quite radical politically, having marched at SDS rallies, for example. But also, a rabid fan of the Washington Redskins. Venturing a complimentary word about talents of, or a play by, one of the Dallas Cowboys during one of the Dallas-Washington games while watching it at his house could get one literally thrown out of the room if not ostracized for a couple of weeks.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

thequeensblessing said:


> Oh, Come on, get real. Should the "Red Sox" always wear red socks? Should the Cleveland Indians only be Native American or Hindus? Should the "Padres" not allow any man who has no children to play on the team? Or should anyone who isn't a perfect person play for the Angels? That's just ridiculous!
> 
> The problem is that everyone seems to want to be a victim, and if they don't get a turn on the victim-go-round, they make up something that will include them on the ride. Its like its fashionable to be offended by something in society today. I can be offended due to my faith, or lack thereof, my race, my gender, my marital status, my age, my disability or lack thereof, something that is printed on our currency, words some idiot may use, team names, etc. etc. We've become thin skinned, wanna-be victim whiners.
> 
> My father was Native American, and my mother was a northern European white woman. They were both proud of their heritage and taught us kids to embrace the diversity, but to be thick skinned, that you can't be proud of your heritage and be offended by it too. This upbringing has held me in good stead later in life as I joined the LDS church and had to deal with the persecution and ignorance that went along with that. I am not a victim of anything, let alone of someone else's choice of words. Whatever happened to the saying "sticks and stones may break my bones.....etc."?


Thank you for the post. You are blessed.


----------



## badlander (Jun 7, 2009)

I am part Cherokee and legal to be enrolled IF great grandma Alice had enrolled herself, which she hadn't. I am none the less proud of my heritage and find nothing offensive in the term '*******' nor do I find 'Kansas City Chiefs' offensive along with the team names 'Braves' or 'Indians'. My father, 100% German was called Dutch by everyone who knew him. He didn't take offense.

What I have found offensive in the past was going to the Dixon Mounds burial site when it was still open to the public and gazing on the remains of all of those Native Americans who had been exhumed. Somebody asked me what I thought of the display and I frankly told them that I found it offensive. When they asked me why I asked them how would they like it if their 'people's' remains were put on display like a carnival act in the future. I ended it with 'I'm not a member of this tribe, but I am part Native American. Please bury these people'

Eventually they did in a tasteful ceremony.

I think the PC stuff has gone way over board and needs to be reined in.


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

Mrs_Lewis said:


> A derogatory term isn't OK, even if one or many are not offended by it.QUOTE]
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

Well, nothing really matters because the name is going the way of the dinosaur. 

Guaranteed gone.

I'm not native-anything. My ancestors came from Europe and I have white skin so I have no opinion on this matter. 

(post was edited to add clarity.)


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Jax-mom said:


> Does it really matter? The name is going the way of the dinosaur.
> 
> Guaranteed.


Agreed.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Paumon said:


> I'm not native either so I didn't vote. But you didn't say non-natives were restricted from commenting so I'm commenting.
> 
> Are all the team members of the Redskins natives? If the team members are all natives then I don't see a problem with the team choosing to call themselves the Redskins if the players are all comfortable with referring to themselves by the color of their skin and race.
> 
> ...


That's as far off track as I've seen you go. Do the Detroit Lions have to get rid of all the players who aren't really lions? I'll bet not a single one of the Purdue Boilermakers have ever made one, each a steam engine or the drink. None of the San Francisco 49ers look for gold except in a jewelry store.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

Double posting -.see below


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Paumon said:


> I am being real. I think the names chosen for sports teams should be a reflection of what the teams really are, or of the real game they play, or of their real location .... not some unreal name picked willy nilly out of the air that has nothing to do with the real team and the real game that they play. If it isn't real then it's a fake.


Fine. So when you buy a sports team, name it just how you like. I can't wait to see your Miami Marlins flopping around on the football field as they gasp for air.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

I imagine that the terms controversy has to do with what people assume about it. For years I was uncomfortable with the term "****'s age" because of it contained a word that I had heard used as a racial slur. But turns out it's origin had nothing to do with that. 
Maybe the discomfort (or in some cases, glee) in using the term ******* is the same misunderstanding. Thinking it is a racial slur when it is not. Because it sounds like it ought to be.
Maybe it's like the insistent changing of the term used to discribe a physical or mental limitation- we've gone from handicapped through disabled to special needs to that most hideous phrase differently abled. Each word in turn dirtied by offending someone.
Maybe both the insensative and sensative both need perspective.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

O


Paumon said:


> Nice try but the Canucks team are exempt because Canuck doesn't actually mean Canadian citizen. I know you didn't know that.
> 
> It's an 1800's American slang word that means a hero of Canada or any person residing or working in Canada [Uor any person in Canada who speaks a foreign language. So that's everyone on the Canucks team.[/U]


+ + + + + + + + +
learn that she hasn't a clue as to the origins of the word canuck
and pretty much makes it up as she goes along. That's okay dear,
most of the experts say that the original meaning is obscure as well.

However, EVERY SINGLE SOURCE starts off the current and common
meaning usage of the word presently being discussed, as a citizen or native
of CANADA! Used as a term to denote a Canadian in the same manner
as calling an American a yankee. But here's probably the best definition
from a Canadian writer who did the research into the word and his findings.

http://www3.telus.net/dmarchak/candef.htm

BTW: I went to a school of higher learning here in the state's, 
that literally could see the border of our northern neighbor and
whose hockey team had MORE players who called themselves
canucks rather than yankees! Here's another interesting tidbit
of information that perhaps you were unaware of as well and
may very well explain why your sis got a bit perturbed with me
in the past for using the term "canuck". It seems that it is
sometimes seen (and used) as a term of derision by yankees
towards canucks. Most interesting, from a stictly anthropological
standpoint, is that when the word is used in such a manner, it
is similar in application as how we in the U.S. of A. perceive 
(and use) the "n" word. It is NOT to be used by a caucasian in any 
way, shape or form, but is perfectly acceptable for another canadian
to call someone a canuck who also happens to have ice water flowing
in their veins. 

ETA: I'd be more than happy to review 
YOUR source(s), should you care to share them.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

I'm Tuscarora, from the central Carolinas. Here's the term I find offensive in this whole discussion, Native American. Most all of us are Native Americans, meaning we were born in America. If you heard someone was a native Swede, wouldn't you think they were born in Sweden? 

NA marginalizes American Indians by lumping them in with everyone else. But just to keep this in perspective, it doesn't raise my temperature by a tenth of one degree. 

Having lived there for several years and marrying a Cherokee/German/Dutch girl from that area, I'm a Cincy Bengals fan, even though they suck and there isn't a single real tiger on the team. While I hate the Washington Redskins as a football team, and think the owner is an arrogant jerk, the best thing he's done is fight this PC nonsense. 

I wish the country would focus on things that matter.


----------



## Guest (Jun 20, 2014)

Lord have mercy , look out Cleveland Browns !


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

I'm wondering how this will play out at my high school in Ohio, the Coshocton Redskins.

http://www.10tv.com/content/stories...shocton-high-school-as-example-of-mascot.html

Of course they could always claim it was about potatoes.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

Triple posting . . .
interesting considering that the submit button
was only hit once and these posts are so scattered
amongst other submissions. Any ideas mods?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Apparently the PTO rejecting the use of ******* as a trademark is politically motivated. According to this article, they have approved trademarks that use the word "*****", "****", the formal and slang names of male and female genitals, slang for ejaculate, derogatory slang for Italians, and more. But don't use Redskins. noooooooo. :spinsmiley:

http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/l-brent-bozell-iii/patently-absurd-activism-redskins


----------



## Mrs_Lewis (May 15, 2014)

Wolf mom said:


> Mrs_Lewis said:
> 
> 
> > A derogatory term isn't OK, even if one or many are not offended by it.QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

I think it often depends on the individual.
I am by birth a red neck hillbilly.
I take no offense at being called such.
My sister who has the same birthright as I do, does. She strives to be what she perceives is better. I also was talk to speak with out inflection that gives away my hillbilly roots. This was done so I could "go farther" in life. 

The point is no matter what happens some one some where will be offended. Not because of what one says or does but because of how what one says or does is perceived. 

I have no ill will towards Indians or Blacks or who ever but I personally never owned a slave nor have I ever killed an Indian. I did have ancestors who were kidnapped by Indians and ancestors who took those Indians to jail after rescuing the kidnapped women. (There is a long story written in our family history about this. They got the Indians drunk and tricked them into crossing a border where they were then arrested... makes no sense to me) One of the kidnapped women was my... great great... possibly great grandmother. Should I still believe that all Indians are kidnappers? Should I fear them still? No. Nor should I feel guilty for things done by those same ancestors.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Mrs_Lewis said:


> Wolf mom said:
> 
> 
> > Fair enough, I guess I should've been clearer.
> ...


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

DEKE01 said:


> Mrs_Lewis said:
> 
> 
> > They didn't call this place America, they aren't from India
> ...


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Nevada said:


> DEKE01 said:
> 
> 
> > As the saying goes, in 1492 Columbus discovered the people who were already here.
> ...


----------



## Mrs_Lewis (May 15, 2014)

Nevada said:


> DEKE01 said:
> 
> 
> > As the saying goes, in 1492 Columbus discovered the people who were already here.
> ...


----------



## rabbitgeek (Mar 22, 2008)

Mrs_Lewis said:


> The Native Americans labelled it such?
> A quick Google search will tell you that whether or not it's origin is the scalp of a dead Native American or not, it is considered a derogatory term.
> 
> I honestly don't see how calling a race or culture anything other than what they call themselves is called for, ever.


And yet calling people the N-word is derogatory, even though that is what they call themselves in movies, in music videos, and even in greeting on the street.

Strange set of rules we have.

Have a good day!


----------



## Mrs_Lewis (May 15, 2014)

DEKE01 said:


> Mrs_Lewis said:
> 
> 
> > But just because someone has used a term in a disparaging way at some point does not mean it should be considered derogatory. One of the latest that I got "caught" on was "Jew". One of the guys who used to work for me and who I enjoy a continuing relationship is a Jew. {gasp} According to the PC police, I just committed an infraction. The PC crowd says I'm supposed to say he is Jewish.
> ...


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Mrs_Lewis said:


> Not sure why I'm quoted as saying that?


It seems that the quote function has gone wonky and people aren't reviewing their posts to correct the malfunctioning mis-quotes before submitting their posts.


----------



## Guest (Jun 20, 2014)

DEKE01 said:


> I'm Tuscarora, from the central Carolinas. Here's the term I find offensive in this whole discussion, Native American. Most all of us are Native Americans, meaning we were born in America. If you heard someone was a native Swede, wouldn't you think they were born in Sweden?
> 
> NA marginalizes American Indians by lumping them in with everyone else. But just to keep this in perspective, it doesn't raise my temperature by a tenth of one degree.
> 
> ...


I'm confused , As far as I know the people being discussed in this thread aren't from India & therefore aren't Indians . If you object to them being called Native Americans what would you like for them to be called ?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

WV Hillbilly said:


> I'm confused , As far as I know the people being discussed in this thread aren't from India & therefore aren't Indians . If you object to them being called Native Americans what would you like for them to be called ?


from one of my prior posts...

With AmerInds, there is no really good term. They didn't call this place America, they aren't from India, Native has been used with just as much ill intent as ******* at various times, Aborigine is technically correct but is associated with Australia, unless you are on a reservation the odds of you guessing a tribal name of an individual is extremely low, so what are you gonna do? You can call me a ******* and I won't mind a bit.


----------



## belladulcinea (Jun 21, 2006)

We are Choctaw. There are too many other things in the world to be offended by besides words.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Well name or no name there is one thing for sure the true Native American indians can teach us. And that is what happens when illegal immigrants take over.


----------



## mountainlaurel (Mar 5, 2010)

My family is from the Cherokee Nation and are enrolled members. I wasn't raised there but my father was. I am a Redskins fan, since I'm from this area. 
Redskins doesn't bother me at all. What bothers me is Native American. My mother is white, but she is a native American. Just because her ancestors are from Ireland and Wales, she wasn't born there. If she isn't a native of America, where is she a native of.

At our house, the white lady was a Redskins fan and the Indian was a Cowboys fan


----------



## Rick (May 10, 2002)

mountainlaurel said:


> My family is from the Cherokee Nation and are enrolled members. I wasn't raised there but my father was. I am a Redskins fan, since I'm from this area.
> Redskins doesn't bother me at all. What bothers me is Native American. My mother is white, but she is a native American. Just because her ancestors are from Ireland and Wales, she wasn't born there. If she isn't a native of America, where is she a native of.
> 
> At our house, the white lady was a Redskins fan and the Indian was a Cowboys fan



I like "Original Settlers" myself


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

My ******* half objects to the use of the word Washington .We all know the redskins were crooked by that Washington bunch enough already.:shrug::nono:


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

Go Steelers


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

My First Nations friends and family feel that The term Indian is actually offensive because their ancestors did not come from India. ******* or red Indian has historically been a way of identifying First Nations people vs people from India. 

Those I know take great exception to being called any of the above but very few care about the name of a sports team.


----------



## wwubben (Oct 13, 2004)

DEKE01 said:


> For the record, I completely disagree with your characterization of *******. I didn't want to reply to your post with a quote where you equated it to a male body part because it is going to get deleted.
> 
> Do you think the Redskins should change their name because you really get hot about it? Do you believe private companies should be required to not offend you?


This opens up a new can of worms.I think the pro teams should be owned by the public like the packers.Why should the taxpayers pay for stadiums etc and the profits go to an individual?Pro sports teams are different than any other entities.


----------



## wwubben (Oct 13, 2004)

Wolf mom said:


> Mrs_Lewis said:
> 
> 
> > A derogatory term isn't OK, even if one or many are not offended by it.QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

wwubben said:


> This opens up a new can of worms.I think the pro teams should be owned by the public like the packers.Why should the taxpayers pay for stadiums etc and the profits go to an individual?Pro sports teams are different than any other entities.


Just because stupid pols, who want to rub elbows with famous sports stars, do stupid deals to pay for stadiums, is not a reason for the city to own the team. That would just open more opportunities for the politicians to do more harm.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Mrs_Lewis said:


> The Native Americans labelled it such?
> A quick Google search will tell you that whether or not it's origin is the scalp of a dead Native American or not, it is considered a derogatory term.
> 
> I honestly don't see how calling a race or culture anything other than what they call themselves is called for, ever.


Sorry if someone has already corrected you...it isn't the scalp.
At least that is what I researched. The 1st coach of the Redskins was native American & it was named in his honor. So those who are offended can just go ahead & be offended. Its not going to be the majority of Native Americans.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Paumon said:


> You're probably right. Most teams should probably be name changed. I wouldn't know - I don't watch sports games and don't know one team's name from another. Are there any teams called the Brownskins, Blackskins, Whiteskins and Yellowskins too?


There's the "Browns" also named after 1st coach, or owner, I think.
But what would be the point of the other names you listed? Are you not comprehending the honor given by naming the Redskins after their 1st coach?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

just_sawing said:


> It is a long used practice to get a people conditioned to apologize for something. First you pick something that you can by a means connect them (Slavery is always a good one) then when the public starts to move push and push more. This is the start of Socialist society. This is where you have now given up the right to own your own home, fly your flag or speak what you consider the truth. If you think you own your home stop paying property taxes and see.


----------



## Bellyman (Jul 6, 2013)

I also didn't vote because I don't have enough Native American blood in me to be called one... but I DO have some. 

Honestly, I think the whole thing is ridiculous. Is there nothing more worthy of people's attention? Seriously, to those who are offended... GET A LIFE!!


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

DEKE01 said:


> That's as far off track as I've seen you go. Do the Detroit Lions have to get rid of all the players who aren't really lions? I'll bet not a single one of the Purdue Boilermakers have ever made one, each a steam engine or the drink. None of the San Francisco 49ers look for gold except in a jewelry store.


I love it!
Again, I'll toss out MHO-progressives need to be SILENCED! B/c they offend waaay too many!

Here we explain that the name is in honor of the 1st coach but they still want to be offended. And I really do NOT believe they are NA.

Herein lies one of the differences b/w conservatives & progressives.
Betcha many of us-me anyway-once thought of this very thing..."that name sounds offensive"...then look it up...find out the origin. Now we know it is NOT offensive. But progressives? Noooo. Show 'em the facts & they still wanna be offended.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I'm wondering how this will play out at my high school in Ohio, the Coshocton Redskins.
> 
> http://www.10tv.com/content/stories...shocton-high-school-as-example-of-mascot.html
> 
> Of course they could always claim it was about potatoes.












Wonderful post!!!


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Mrs_Lewis said:


> Wolf mom said:
> 
> 
> > Fair enough, I guess I should've been clearer.
> ...


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

It seems like those looking to be offended always find what they are looking for. Since this whole fuss is based on making other people happy, which even without cause never happens, then it's best not to let the chronically dictatorial get attention by waiving that flag.
The government should never have misused their authority this way.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

My grandmother had a saying, it is not what you say, it is what you do that counts. If someone treats other people with respect, that is far more important than if they keep up with the latest fads in names.


----------



## Mrs_Lewis (May 15, 2014)

Tricky Grama said:


> Sorry if someone has already corrected you...it isn't the scalp.
> At least that is what I researched. The 1st coach of the Redskins was native American & it was named in his honor. So those who are offended can just go ahead & be offended. Its not going to be the majority of Native Americans.


No need to correct me as I said that regardless of whether that was the origin or not it has been labelled derogatory.


----------



## Mrs_Lewis (May 15, 2014)

Tricky Grama said:


> Mrs_Lewis said:
> 
> 
> > That is your opinion & I respect that. But I don't think you get to say if certain names offend certain people. And you don't get to chose the name of the football team and/or take it away. Nor does the gov't.
> ...


----------



## Rick (May 10, 2002)

wwubben said:


> "Apple" is a derogatory word off and on the rez by indians.Native americans is also disgusting and just barely tolerable.Indian is preferred by the people I know.


Would American Indian be better or worse?

Would Native American be a compromise to make everyone "happy".

As I said before, I would call you brother, no label is needed.

What kind of tea do you prefer?


----------



## Rick (May 10, 2002)

wwubben said:


> This opens up a new can of worms.I think the pro teams should be owned by the public like the packers.Why should the taxpayers pay for stadiums etc and the profits go to an individual?Pro sports teams are different than any other entities.


I agree with you 100 %

Only problem is, my opinion is the shift should be the demand of the spectators, in other words people would have to boycott pro sports, and that will likely never happen.


----------



## wwubben (Oct 13, 2004)

Rick said:


> Would American Indian be better or worse?
> 
> Would Native American be a compromise to make everyone "happy".
> 
> ...


Any black tea hits the spot.A weak green tea once in a while also works.


----------



## Rick (May 10, 2002)

wwubben said:


> Any black tea hits the spot.A weak green tea once in a while also works.


I like to blend black or green tea with home grown (read persistent useful weed) Spearmint!


----------



## Cookie2 (Feb 21, 2014)

Can I inject a little history here?

In 1992, a 'Native American' group (I'm a native American because I was born in this country but I guess that doesn't count) brought suit through the US Patents office to have the Washington Redskins trademark nullified. The trademark was cancelled in 1999 then the decision was over-turned on appeal in 2003.

The group that originally brought this action did so in an effort to hurt the team's financial success. In an NPR interview (recently aired), they admitted that they didn't like "a bunch of billionaires" getting rich off a name that reflects on their image. 

To strengthen their case, in 1993 (too late to have the issue apply to their current suit) this group worked with Congress to pass an amendment to the trademark laws that clarified the "disparage" clause. The sponsor of the bill was Richard Gephardt - a democrat from MO.

When the decision was over-turned on appeal, the group then brought the suit again in 2012, this time correcting for the "technicalities" that caused the appeal to be won in 2014 (as we are all so aware).

The group admits that this is just the beginning. While the current decision against the Redskins is currently in appeal, the group plans on bringing more suits.

The change in the trademark law has already had widespread effects. Several businesses have been denied trademark protection because the US Patent office is now the "thought police".

Do know the US Patent office has for a long time had a 'disparage' clause on the books, just nothing this general. In the past, you couldn't register a trademark that was meant to specifically disparage another trademark. For instance, you could trademark "Disney is a Dirty Theme Park". However, in the past the US Patent office didn't rule on general offenses.

Remember, the lack of trademark registration doesn't mean the Washington DC football team has to change their name. While under appeal, they can still go to court to uphold the validity of their trademark. This could take years to resolve.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Cookie2 - what are you CRAZY! 

Facts have no place in a discussion like this. 

But nonetheless, you have earned a :goodjob:


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Mrs_Lewis said:


> No need to correct me as I said that regardless of whether that was the origin or not it has been labelled derogatory.


who labeled it derogatory and why do they get to rule over those of us who do not believe it is derogatory? Why do you believe them and not me?


----------



## Mrs_Lewis (May 15, 2014)

DEKE01 said:


> who labeled it derogatory and why do they get to rule over those of us who do not believe it is derogatory? Why do you believe them and not me?


This was discussed in the beginning of this thread.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Paumon said:


> I am being real. ...
> 
> 
> If it isn't real then it's a fake.


Your statement that displays such sincerity over a simple past time needed to be realistic (to your standards) yet transgender is so pro for what the individual what's. I see that the individual team management what's something and I find your views to be intalorent. I just can not wrap my mind around the fact that the population that is of the notion that one's DNA is not real enough to decide gender yet a pastime sport must have higher standards of reality.

And I am vaping boldviolets from ht' blueberry 18 nic liquid.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Words don't mean the same things to all people, even if their skin _is_ the same color...

Indian/Native American is a perfect example. Some people insist the modern term is "Native American." 
On the other hand, I spent the first 35 years of my life on the Santee, Pine Ridge and Standing Rock reservations. Native American is considered a government word. Indian, or American Indian, is still the strongly preferred term on the above reservations, though that seems to be shifting a bit. 

When I was teaching (off the rez, but had a large Indian population), I asked my moms what they preferred for their kids. One said, "Indian! I swear white people just can not make up their minds! Oh, but I didn't mean you of course." 
No, of course not. lol


PS: Don't _ever_ tell a full-blooded, enrolled American Indian that you "have a little Indian" in you. Depending on company, the response will be somewhere between silent annoyance to downright ribald.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

I always had a sneaking feeling that the name Indian was a private source of humor to those that white people named such.

Go Fighting Whities........


----------



## mollymae (Feb 10, 2010)

I have some Cherokee on both sides from my parents. But...I'm blond and blue eyed! Didn't vote either. But compared to the kind of folk that's in the world today....I grow my own....I hunt my own....I fish for my own. I'd love nothing better than to be called a *******. I also teach our children to read!!


----------



## Allen W (Aug 2, 2008)

You want offensive you should hear what the other tribes call our local tribe.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

I'd just like to call you brother,, or sister, as I would all God's children.

As to the team, who really cares, and why would they?


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

LisaInN.Idaho said:


> I thought this clip was interesting regarding the Cleveland Indians versus the Redskins. Sherman Alexie (Spokane Tribal member)
> 
> http://billmoyers.com/content/the-challenges-of-being-lost-inside-your-culture/


Though too brief, this video clip is spot on! The comparison to the racist childhood storybook) caricature hit me in the gut. I still remember the restaurant chain named after the aforementioned racist character and the fact that my family would never stop to eat at one because the name was so offensive to us.


----------



## bignugly (Jul 13, 2011)

Mrs_Lewis said:


> The Native Americans labelled it such?
> A quick Google search will tell you that whether or not it's origin is the scalp of a dead Native American or not, it is considered a derogatory term.
> 
> I honestly don't see how calling a race or culture anything other than what they call themselves is called for, ever.


Words CANNOT hurt you, the context the words are used is where the hurt comes from. If the name of a football team is offensive then you may want to look within yourself. Jim Thorpe had no problem with the names of teams. I sure hope God doesn't take offense for using the "Saints", because we will all be in serious trouble.


----------



## Riverdale (Jan 20, 2008)

I am not allowed to vote, but I find it no more offensive than the NCU's intermural team 'The Fighting Whities' :gaptooth:

On the other handNotre Dame and the "Fighting Irish" is deragetory.


----------



## Michael W. Smith (Jun 2, 2002)

Tricky Grama - LOL!!!!!!


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

The local university has the team name of the Lumberjacks- every other year they have referendum on changing the name because it's so un-green.
The high school is the Loggers- same issue. 
I wonder if the local semi-pro baseball team named the Crabs offends anyone.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

where I want to said:


> The local university has the team name of the Lumberjacks- every other year they have referendum on changing the name because it's so un-green.
> The high school is the Loggers- same issue.
> I wonder if the local semi-pro baseball team named the Crabs offends anyone.


Should offend the left...the crabby ones.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Let's come with alternative names. Since the San Francisco 49ers are named after a period of ruthless colonization and ecology degradation, they should change to the San Francisco Socially Responsibles. The Seattle Sea Hawks could be the Seattle Ambivalents. Or visa versa.

Hmmm..... I would love it if the name of the team starting all of this could now be called the Washington Constitutionalists. I could cheer for that.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Here's an apt editorial that makes a few points not seen yet in this thread.

A part I found highly relevant

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Since 1947, there has been a movie theater, the Redskins Theatre (with the same logo as the football team), in Anadarko, Oklahoma, a city whose population is divided evenly between Indians and whites, and which calls itself the "Indian Capital of the Nation." Why, in 67 years, have the Indian populations of Anadarko and Oklahoma not changed this theater's name?

Because the left hadn't made it an issue. It's not an Indian issue; it's a left-wing issue. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Obviously those Indians do not know they should be offended, fortunately we have the left to teach those savage brutes better. Sorry if my sarcasm offends any here, but one of the schools where my family is from is now a respected institution of higher learning. However, it started out as the "Indian Normal School". It's purpose was to forcibly take children from Indian families so as to educate the kids in the proper ways of civilization (read that as meaning the standards of whites). It seems all this redskins controversy is mostly whites who think they know better than the reds, and believe white force should be used to impose the will of the more enlightened on those lesser folks. 



http://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2014/07/01/why-the-lefts-preoccupation-with-the-redskins-n1857558


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Cult is. Not offensive. I know because that word was justified by and expert in the PC movement. Public control is so logical.


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

DEKE01 said:


> Here's an apt editorial that makes a few points not seen yet in this thread.
> 
> A part I found highly relevant
> 
> ...


Deke I have not seen any post that puts the matter exactly where it belongs better than your last paragraph.


----------

