talk about words adding up to nothing. I will take your dismissing of evidence as an admittance to the fact that you can't dispute it. simply repeating "it is offensive" isn't evidence in support of the claim that it is offensive. that is the equivalent of saying aspirin eliminates headaches because it eliminates headaches. and there is a huge difference between a football team being called Redskins and someone calling another person directly Redskins. the motivation of each is key, and what reason would I have to call someone Redskin anymore than the Indian walking up to me and calling me white person unless he was doing so for the deliberate intent of being offensive. so your analogy fails intellectually and anecdotally, unless you want to claim the term white person is an offensive term just because it can be used as such. if people continue to claim that it is offensive despite evidence of the historical use and meaning to the contrary, they are just being contrary, dishonest or outright stupid.
Hmmm..aren't the indian nations saying it is offensive and isn't that the only people in this entire discussion that can say it is or isn't? And I believe they have been saying exactly that for at least 25 years or more.
it doesn't matter who is saying it, they have to have a basis for the claim. if history shows that it was never used derogatorily, and was possibly originated by the Indians themselves, what is the basis for the claim that it is offended? there is a huge difference between "we are offended" and the claim that the term itself is offensive. just because they are Indian does not mean they cannot be ignorant of the term's history. again, by that argument, as long as white people say the term "white people" is offensive, it should be treated as such. that is a ridiculous position.
I really have to laugh that you think you're on the "intellectually correct" side of the argument. I'm sure you must be right ... Redskin was probably used in a very complimentary way. But then ... it's strange that what you say is correct, and yet somehow they're STILL offended. Why do you suppose that is? How do you explain that? What a bunch of oversensitive crybabies they must be. Or maybe they just don't have access to the Internet. If they read that article of your's I'm sure they would be fine with it after all. And by the way ... If your defense includes the phrase "possibly originated by the Indians themselves" I would hardly call that evidence.
it is more evidence then you have, and more valid than your baseless opinion. if you can dispute anything that has been presented with more than just an opinion, do so. otherwise you have nothing to say.
This is to no one in general, just the people who disagree the term is offensive. I am going to mention that linguist report though as an example. Look it's not even worth bothering with some of the people in this thread. However, since this has popped back up I will make one more post to try and lay out my thoughts on the subject. It's really not fair to point to some study found by one linguist, yet completely ignore historical context and everything else on the subject. Here's what it boils down to IMO. First, I don't think anyone knows for sure where the term originated, but that doesn't matter. The part that matters is the history of discrimination and borderline genocide against the Native Americans. In a time when most people thought the Natives were savages, I can promise you very few, if any, of the people calling them "redskins" were doing so harmlessly. That was NOT a time of equality between the white people and Natives. Any lingering racial term from that period is dubious at best. People like to keep bringing up this stupid "well don't say X, X offends me!" and trying to juxtapose that to the issue at hand. It's ridiculous to do so. If I say "hey there's that pasty white guy over there," maybe that offends you, it's impolite for me to say it, but there's no racial/social inequality or discrimination associated with calling someone "pasty white" so it's nowhere near the same. Try to think about what makes the most derogatory terms so offensive. Most if not all of them have a connection to social inequality, discrimination, etc. Redskin is in that exact same boat. However, people earlier in the thread were trying to combat the point that what the settlers did to the Native Americans is wrong. And if that's how you feel, don't even bother replying to me because you're just wrong. The conception that all Natives were hostile or savage is absurd. Some of the same ones sent packing to die in the west (or on the way there) fought along side Americans in war. There were many peaceful tribes, yet ultimately they all met the same fate. Some time ago I saw an OTL piece on this topic. It came up because there was a symposium in Washington D.C. (in some museum I believe) trying to get the word out on how offensive it was. So for every linguist you find me that thinks it's OK, don't act like there aren't just as many (or more) intelligent people with knowledge on the subject who disagree. The fact of the matter is, even if the term DIDN'T have any negative racial context back when it was used, it should STILL be changed. The fact of the matter is, certain classes of people that have a history of ridiculously unfair treatment (black people, Jewish people, Native Americans, etc) are normally just given a benefit of the doubt on what's offensive or not. The problem is, people don't put Native Americans in with that group, they seem to keep thinking of them as the Irish (Fighting Irish references). Oh, and let's not forget one more thing. The Redskins were founded by a KNOWN racist. They were the LAST team to allow integration. They don't have a great track record to fall back on.
I am particularly offended by people that on any given day find damn near everything offensive. If this continues soon every single term or word will be offensive to someone, and the memories of hundred of years of wonderful history including all sports will be lost because someone was offended by something. So by 2020 teams will be called by a random 10 digit number and no one will be offended, nor would they care because all passion and fervor will be lost in a sea of boredom. Sorry, thats my long winded way to say fuck no they should not change the name.
i am really surprised how many pundits i have seen who want the name changed. one douche today was saying of course you dont care the poor poor indians care. yeah there might be a few fucking whiny cunts out there but jesus if they renamed a team the whiteys i wouldnt give a fuck, i think it would be hilarious. how about the blue sox? how come they get no cred? the red the white but no blue i mean what THE fuck
Yes, my opinion is baseless ... So let's recap your fact-based argument: The word Redskin isn't offensive according to you ... and you know this because you read an article about it on the Internet ... So you know more about the history of the word, and what it means to Native Americans then they do. And it doesn't matter if they ARE offended, and they've been saying it for decades, because they have no reason to be. And even though it's a harmless word with no negative connotations, you still wouldn't use that word to describe a Native American if he was standing in front of you. Damn, I wish I had some facts to back up my baseless opinion. Looks like you've got me. I have nothing to say. Checkmate.
////////// Many NFL fans fail to understand that it's not just the fact that the term is offensive, but also because of its apologist popularization and sub-human mascot equation.
I really don't care if it's offensive or not. I'm not a Redskin fan so they can change the name to the Washington Homosexuals for all I care. I'm Italian American. I call myself a greasy wop all the time. If a football team was named the dirt poor murdering dago's, I'd be their first fan. This is a football site, you are not going to receive much empathy here. Go spew your political correctness somewhere else.
I really don't give a shit about this issue, but I am on my phone and it said that you made this post in 1969. That's cool, but also unfair. Tell me how. There is no other option. Tell me how.
So you're not offended by NFL team names? Someone call Obama, Daniel Snyder, and the Native Americans... "Mangolden Showers" doesn't have a problem with it. We can all move on now.
that's not what I said and the fact that you have to reduce what I have said to a Strawman interpretation is only further admittance that you can't dispute what I have actually said. it has nothing to do with whether the word Redskin is offensive, it is whether it is simply rude to address someone specifically by the color of their skin, as if that is all they are as an individual. I also don't walk up to people and call them white skin, black skin, or brown skin. by your logic, all descriptors of a racial group that include the color of skin is offensive, but I am willing to bet you don't find the term white person offensive, so that would make you a hypocrite as well. someone being offended is not the same as attempting to claim the term is offensive for everybody and it should be avoided. I could claim I am offended by the word cake, but unless I can validate why everyone else should as well then I can be offended by the word while the word itself is not offensive. it is up to you to defend your position that it is offense, and simply being offended by it is not enough. but you want to avoid that necessary requirement to defend your position and attempt to deflect, not dispute, arguments and evidence to the contrary. but deflecting is just a defensive device to avoid the argument.
I had actually typed out a long response to you, but decided to delete it. This is a circular argument, and it really is pointless. If you can't understand why having a team named the Redskins is offensive to an entire race of people who live in the same country as you, then so be it.
Oh, are you the official scorekeeper? Great. I'm sure Daniel Snyder would be happy to have your support.
