Moderator: Moderators
Mothman wrote:
Maybe they will if outside pressure keeps mounting.
Thanks for the book recommendation (I've added it to my "to read" list) and for the insights drawn from your experiences on and near reservations. I wish I had such experiences to draw upon and provide perspective but hear from someone who does is the next best thing.
If 99.99% of people don't view it as a slur why cant we get over the fact a dictionary says it is, culture changes and so do the meaning of words.GBFavreFan wrote:it comes down to this. The term "redskin" is a racial slur, it always was. "Redskin" is a less than flattering term to describe a Native American, and there is NO OTHER DEFINITION OF THAT WORD. There are different connotations of the word, but the root definition does not change.
Once you understand that, this issue becomes a no-brainer, because you cannot name an international sports team with a racial slur. It doesn't matter who is offended or not, it is a racial slur. Even if it is not a commonly used slur, it still is.
The confusion comes because 99.99% of us don't think of "redskin" as a racial slur. We only think of it as the logo of the NFL team, so therefore people think it's not a slur. it doesn't matter, it's still a racial slur.
There are others that will claim that a Native hasn't been called a "redskins" in 50 years. Even if that's true, there is no statute of limitations on what a word means. The only way out would be if "redskin" actually DID mean something else, like a type of animal, a disease, or something. But it doesn't. Only one definition. Redskin connotates something different, but the definition does not. And if the definition is still that of a slur, then you have to ditch it.
And if Redskin isn't a slur, then ask yourself this. If Washington was called the Rhinos or something from the very start, and Los Angeles finally got their expansion team in 2015, and proposed calling themselves the "Redskins" with an awesome painting of a Native American as its logo, how do you think that would go over? Once you understand that it would be dismissed immediately, then you understand that you have to change it.
And all these other arguments about being offended and political correctness are irrelevant. This is a word issue, and a mistake that slipped through the cracks and is being addressed. It is different from the Chiefs or Seminoles for many reasons, but the biggest is "Chiefs" and "Seminoles" are not slurs. Could someone be offended? sure, but they have multiple definitions and it is the connotation that would be offensive with the "chief" not the word. There are still issues with those names with a lot more gray area, but this "Redskin" thing is cut and dry.
allday1991 wrote:You ask somebody what the Redskins are and they will tell you its a football team.
Except it hasn't. Otherwise this wouldn't even be an issue.The word has lost its racist meaning
I'm Canadian, we have a much larger Native American community than the states do, none of my native friends have a problem with the name Redskins. Some people are going to have problems with everything, prove that a vast majority of natives have a problem with it then address it. As far as I know there concerns are making sure they keep there rights and culture. The fact there was all brought up because of a comment made by an owner in a completely different sport just goes to show your this is an emotion response and will blow over.dead_poet wrote:
That's not a universal fact. Go ask members of a Native American community. Of course you'll get some that answer "football team" but that likely won't be the only answer you get.
Except it hasn't. Otherwise this wouldn't even be an issue.
I'm afraid you need to look outside your group of friends. That's not exactly a representative sample of the beliefs of the Native American community. As an example:allday1991 wrote:I'm Canadian, we have a much larger Native American community than the states do, none of my native friends have a problem with the name Redskins.
