What is your take?

Wolferz · 03-07-13, 04:07 PM

The native Americans should be more offended by the name ol' Chris gave them. Indians. The idiot thought he had landed on the shores of east India, where actual Indians live.

As for the Redskins football team, I think they would be better served by removing the native American logo or pay some royalties for its use.

Besides, insult can't be given unless taken. If they take insult, too bad.
I'm part Iroquois and it doesn't bother me.

Every time I hear the word Indian I think of...
Would you like a slushie wid dat?

Takeda Shingen · 03-07-13, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolferz

The native Americans should be more offended by the name ol' Chris gave them. Indians. The idiot thought he had landed on the shores of east India, where actual Indians live.

As for the Redskins football team, I think they would be better served by removing the native American logo or pay some royalties for its use.

Besides, insult can't be given unless taken. If they take insult, too bad.
I'm part Iroquois and it doesn't bother me.

Every time I hear the word Indian I think of...
Would you like a slushie wid dat?

I don't think it is the logo that is the problem. They could probably even keep the Native American theme, but just drop the use of redskin. Call them something else. I know a lot of people of Irish ancestery that would be pretty pissed off if the Celtics were called the Boston Micks.

AVGWarhawk · 03-07-13, 04:41 PM

"Mick" certainly has the negative connotation. Probably because of the use more over than redskin. I can not say I have heard anyone use "redskin" as a derogatory term. I did have a friend in college that was full Native American that did not like to be called chief.

soopaman2 · 03-07-13, 04:49 PM

It is not being used in a disrespectful manner.

It is not like if they named a team the Detroit Negroes, which would be disrespectful. (No offense to anyone, just an example of a true stereotypical sports team name, that would be offensive, intended to contrast the sillyness)

Redskins, the fierce warriors that destroyed the bastard Custer. The cry from the front of the wagon train that invoked terror into every man woman and child.

I see it as respect for the warrior prowess they held, the resistance they gave in the face of superior firepower and manpower. Stalwart, brave, unwavering.

A fine name for a sports team.

Takeda Shingen · 03-07-13, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by soopaman2

It is not being used in a disrespectful manner.

The term itself is disrespectful. 'Redskin' was a term of disparegement used by those of European descent against native peoples. It is akin to the N word referring to African Americans. That one does not mean it offensively does not negate the offense of the word.

If you want stalwart and brave, call them the Washington Warriors. You can keep the Native American imagery, the big tough connotation and still not offend people. Done.

mookiemookie · 03-07-13, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

If you want stalwart and brave, call them the Washington Warriors. You can keep the Native American imagery, the big tough connotation and still not offend people. Done.

That wouldn't even work. Marquette University was the Warriors. Then their Board of Trustees decided that was offensive and changed the name to the Gold, then the Golden Eagles.

soopaman2 · 03-07-13, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

The term itself is disrespectful. 'Redskin' was a term of disparegement used by those of European descent against native peoples. It is akin to the N word referring to African Americans. That one does not mean it offensively does not negate the offense of the word.

If you want stalwart and brave, call them the Washington Warriors. You can keep the Native American imagery, the big tough connotation and still not offend people. Done.

I see your point, I just do not hold it in that context, at least in my own mind. The fans of that team do not either.

The Atlanta Braves came under the same scrutiny in the past, whats offensive about Braves. Besides someone looking to sue? Or try to cement a legacy by battling the big bad white man, who lord over them now.

Natives have taken a legacy from the ex enslaved, who wish to continually use our rotten history against us. Unlike the African slaves, they were at least givin reservations, where they govern as their own. Yet some activist jumps up, to talk about how many of their kin did not get free casino loans. Or free independant land.

The blacks oughta be angry about this. We really treated them like crap, we didn't trade with them, we traded them.

Takeda Shingen · 03-07-13, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by soopaman2

I see your point, I just do not hold it in that context, at least in my own mind. The fans of that team do not either.

The Atlanta Braves came under the same scrutiny in the past, whats offensive about Braves. Besides someone looking to sue? Or try to cement a legacy by battling the big bad white man, who lord over them now.

Natives have taken a legacy from the ex enslaved, who wish to continually use our rotten history against us. Unlike the African slaves, they were at least givin reservations, where they govern as their own. Yet some activist jumps up, to talk about how many of their kin did not get free casino loans. Or free independant land.

The blacks oughta be angry about this. We really treated them like crap, we didn't trade with them, we traded them.

I think you need to read up on your American history.

mookiemookie · 03-08-13, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by soopaman2

The Atlanta Braves came under the same scrutiny in the past, whats offensive about Braves. Besides someone looking to sue? Or try to cement a legacy by battling the big bad white man, who lord over them now.

As I understand it, the Atlanta Braves controversy was centered not so much around the name, but the imagery the team used. The Tomahawk chop and some of the cartoony stuff like Chief Noc-A-Homa. Same thing with the Cleveland Indians and Chief Wahoo.

TarJak · 03-08-13, 08:27 AM

Rats clacker. As in I couldn't give one.

Wolferz · 03-07-13, 05:19 PM

Drop the red and keep the skins.

Platapus · 03-07-13, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolferz

As for the Redskins football team, I think they would be better served by removing the native American logo or pay some royalties for its use.

I suspect that is the actual goal. Many years my Highschool, who used an "Apache" as the logo, had a complaint from a local Indian tribe (not Apache by the way). The school system ended up paying the tribe an undisclosed amount of money. Suddenly, their offense went away.

A little bit of money can do wonders for being offended, I guess.

AVGWarhawk · 03-07-13, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus

A little bit of money can do wonders for being offended, I guess.

Al Sharpeton can confirm this.

RickC Sniper · 03-07-13, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolferz

As for the Redskins football team, I think they would be better served by removing the native American logo or pay some royalties for its use.

Pay a royalty to whom?

Which tribe?

Every tribe?

Everyone with .02% Indian ancestry?

The Crazy Horse monument under construction?

I see a legit gripe about the term Redskin. It is a slur.
Indians, Fighting Sioux, Seminoles, Utes........all good names in imo.

03-07-13, 04:07 PM	#1
Wolferz Navy Seal Join Date: May 2007 Location: On a mighty quest for the Stick of Truth Posts: 5,963 Downloads: 52 Uploads: 0	I would think.. The native Americans should be more offended by the name ol' Chris gave them. Indians. The idiot thought he had landed on the shores of east India, where actual Indians live. As for the Redskins football team, I think they would be better served by removing the native American logo or pay some royalties for its use. Besides, insult can't be given unless taken. If they take insult, too bad. I'm part Iroquois and it doesn't bother me. Every time I hear the word Indian I think of... Would you like a slushie wid dat? __________________ Tomorrow never comes

03-07-13, 04:41 PM	#3
AVGWarhawk Lucky Jack Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: In a 1954 Buick. Posts: 28,254 Downloads: 90 Uploads: 0	"Mick" certainly has the negative connotation. Probably because of the use more over than redskin. I can not say I have heard anyone use "redskin" as a derogatory term. I did have a friend in college that was full Native American that did not like to be called chief. __________________ “You're painfully alive in a drugged and dying culture.” ― Richard Yates, Revolutionary Road

03-07-13, 04:49 PM	#4
soopaman2 Der Alte Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: New Jersey, USA Posts: 3,316 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 0	It is not being used in a disrespectful manner. It is not like if they named a team the Detroit Negroes, which would be disrespectful. (No offense to anyone, just an example of a true stereotypical sports team name, that would be offensive, intended to contrast the sillyness) Redskins, the fierce warriors that destroyed the bastard Custer. The cry from the front of the wagon train that invoked terror into every man woman and child. I see it as respect for the warrior prowess they held, the resistance they gave in the face of superior firepower and manpower. Stalwart, brave, unwavering. A fine name for a sports team. __________________ If Hitler invaded Hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons. -Winston Churchill- The most fascinating man in the world.

03-07-13, 05:19 PM	#11
Wolferz Navy Seal Join Date: May 2007 Location: On a mighty quest for the Stick of Truth Posts: 5,963 Downloads: 52 Uploads: 0	Drop the red and keep the skins. __________________ Tomorrow never comes

03-08-13, 08:27 AM	#10
TarJak Fleet Admiral Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 17,052 Downloads: 150 Uploads: 8	Rats clacker. As in I couldn't give one.