Vikings with horns??

[Lynch]

They say that Redskins name are contorversial because it´s a lil bit rasistic and its political incorrect, the same thing about calling natives for indians because of the simple reason that they just arent indians.

But anyway I find strange that they dont think start talk about that the Minnesota Vikings potrait a Viking in profile with helmet with horns which is very incorrect. its just a myth that Vikings had horns on their helmet, its the english , who were very jealous that the scandinavians had such cool ancestors that they wanted them too so they made up that they also had vikings and they had horns on their helmets.

So if Redskins should change their name should Vikings change their logo. But I if people here those name or there logo they think of the football teams not natives or scandinavian vikings

[DeeEss57]

They say that Redskins name are contorversial because it´s a lil bit rasistic and its political incorrect, the same thing about calling natives for indians because of the simple reason that they just arent indians.

But anyway I find strange that they dont think start talk about that the Minnesota Vikings potrait a Viking in profile with helmet with horns which is very incorrect. its just a myth that Vikings had horns on their helmet, its the english , who were very jealous that the scandinavians had such cool ancestors that they wanted them too so they made up that they also had vikings and they had horns on their helmets.

So if Redskins should change their name should Vikings change their logo. But I if people here those name or there logo they think of the football teams not natives or scandinavian vikings

There's a difference between being racist and not being historically accurate. We know the Vikings didn't wear horns on their helmets. And we -- the Scandanavian population of the great state of Minnesota -- don't care.


Dawn
Scandanavian descended and proud of it

[Swaps]

the English were "racist" again the Scandinavians...


what's the difference?

White vs white?

how is that not fair?

[S197]

If we get rid of the horns we may as well make our uniforms orange. It's the first image in my mind when someone says Minnesota Vikings and I'd be more than sad to see them go (which I don't think will ever happen).

[Demi]

Maybe our european friend here finds it offensive, did you ever think of that? Or are you, as americans unable to consider how they might feel about this issue? I think it's very cold of you three to determine what is offensive, and what is not.

[Swaps]

Maybe our european friend here finds it offensive, did you ever think of that? Or are you, as americans unable to consider how they might feel about this issue? I think it's very cold of you three to determine what is offensive, and what is not.

sometimes... I find that I love you Demi!

[wang_chi7]

They say that Redskins name are contorversial because it´s a lil bit rasistic and its political incorrect, the same thing about calling natives for indians because of the simple reason that they just arent indians.

But anyway I find strange that they dont think start talk about that the Minnesota Vikings potrait a Viking in profile with helmet with horns which is very incorrect. its just a myth that Vikings had horns on their helmet, its the english , who were very jealous that the scandinavians had such cool ancestors that they wanted them too so they made up that they also had vikings and they had horns on their helmets.

So if Redskins should change their name should Vikings change their logo. But I if people here those name or there logo they think of the football teams not natives or scandinavian vikings

Isn't that kind of trivializing the whole controversy with the Redskins name?

I usually don't have a problem with Native American names for teams, but that one does get to me. Most seem like homages to a local tribe and an honor, that one just sounds condescending.

I'm not of native blood (well a tiny bit, but not enough to be significant) though, so I just leave it up to them on if it is indeed offensive. If a tribe has a problem with a team named after them, then by all means it should be changed.

With the Vikings horns, thats a historic innaccuracy that doesn't belittle anybody. It was actually started to make their mythology even more vibrant, thats not on par with using a racial slur as a nickname for a football team. I wouldn't go around calling Indians "Redskins," I doubt hardly anybody else would, thats why I have a problem with the team name.

Could you argue that naming the team "Vikings" could be viewed as offensive? Well yes, if Scandinavians think its offensive then its offensive (I am of Scandinavian blood and don't think it is, I don't know anybody that does.) Because I don't know anybody that actually thinks its offensive, the analogy seems moot.

This whole topic is very controversial, the Fighting Sioux nickname for UND has been talked about ad nausium on this board. Thats also a sticky situation as the word Sioux was actually what their enemies called them.

Get ready for the can of worms.

[vikingman]

Maybe our european friend here finds it offensive, did you ever think of that? Or are you, as americans unable to consider how they might feel about this issue? I think it's very cold of you three to determine what is offensive, and what is not.

extremely deep thinking Demi. I think we should rename you the PROFESSOR.

[Lynch]

I think u misunderstod me, I said that I didnt care about that the Vikings logo has horns, it´s the Minnesota Vikings!.
I mean if people complain that Redskins are called Redskins then they also could complain about Vikings logo, but perhaps its not that intresting.

All I´m saying is that when u hear the name Redskins u think about the football team and when u see the Vikings logo u think about Minnesota Vikings. Not what is political or historical correct everyone knows how the vikings look like or how the natives are called. It´s the same thing abut the Dophins logo its not realistic but who cares??Its a logo!

So I find it strange that people complain about the name Redskins.

[wang_chi7]

I think u misunderstod me, I said that I didnt care about that the Vikings logo has horns, it´s the Minnesota Vikings!.
I mean if people complain that Redskins are called Redskins then they also could complain about Vikings logo, but perhaps its not that intresting.

All I´m saying is that when u hear the name Redskins u think about the football team and when u see the Vikings logo u think about Minnesota Vikings. Not what is political or historical correct everyone knows how the vikings look like or how the natives are called. It´s the same thing abut the Dophins logo its not realistic but who cares??Its a logo!

So I find it strange that people complain about the name Redskins.

Took me a second to get what you were saying. I guess its just a sensitive situation with the way natives were treated in our country's past, being pushed out of their homeland and killed in record numbers after the whiteman showed up (though most of that was disease and an accident.)

The history of it does bring connotations. Though I think you are right on some level, when you hear "Redskin" you think of the team and not the people.

If they changed their name to Powhaten or another actual tribe that inhabited the area it would be different (of course only with said tribes approval.) Though it would be tough to change now with them having the name so long, its pretty much stuck.

[Cliff]

So I find it strange that people complain about the name Redskins.

Naming a team after a people for a name in which they feel is derogatory is wrong.

People wouldn't stand for the "BlackFaces" with this as their symbol;


and they shouldn't. I don't see why an exception is made for "Red Skins".



That's not much better IMO.

It's even worse when you consider where the term "RedSkin" came from;

Back not so long ago, when there was a bounty on the heads of the Indian people...the trappers would bring in Indian scalps along with the other skins that they had managed to trap or shoot. These scalps brought varying prices as did the skins of the animals. The trappers would tell the trading post owner or whoever it was that he was dealing with, that he had 2 bearskins, a couple of beaver skins...and a few scalps. Well, the term "scalp" offended the good Christian women of the community and they asked that another term be found to describe these things. So, the trappers and hunters began using the term "redskin"...they would tell the owner that they had bearskin, deer skins....and "redskins." The term came from the bloody mess that one saw when looking at the scalp...thus the term "red"...skin because it was the "skin" of an "animal" just like the others that they had...so, it became "redskins". So, you see when we see or hear that term...we don't see a football team...we don't see a game being played...we don't see any "honor"...we see the bloody pieces of scalps that were hacked off of our men, women and even our children...we hear the screams as our people were killed...and "skinned" just like animals.

[wang_chi7]

I didn't know thats where the term came from. I knew the practice of "scalping" went on, but not that the name came from that. Thanks for the info, now I'm even more against the name.

[Demi]

Harjo argues that pejorative use of "redskin" grew from the practice of offering bounties to anyone who killed Indians. Bounty hunters "needed proof of kill, but they had a storage problem," she said. "Instead of a body, they accepted the 'redskin' or the genitalia, or scalps."

But while such bounty proclamations were issued as early as the mid-18th century, Harjo acknowledged that she has not found an early instance of "redskin" in such a context.

Except a quick search shows that there is zero actual evidence to back up that claim.

n fact, the earliest usages of "redskin" that Goddard tracked down were in statements made in 1769 by Illinois tribal chiefs involved indelicate negotiations with the British to switch loyalties away from the French.

I shall be pleased to have you come to speak to me yourself," said one statement attributed to a chief named Mosquito. "And if any redskins do you harm, I shall be able to look out for you even at the peril of my life." The French used the phrase " peaux Rouges " -- literally "red skins" -- to translate the chief's words

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 139_2.html

There are other examples of it being used in a no where near as inventive, insulting, and completely unfounded way as was posted earlier. Examples that can be substantiated with actual physical evidence, and have been by linguists. Not by native americans whose sole purpose when spouting the nonsense was to get the Redskins trademark removed...

[Cliff]

Not by native americans whose sole purpose when spouting the nonsense was to get the Redskins trademark removed...

Yeah, those crazy Redskins are just spouting their jibberish because they hate the trademark for no reason.

They're not offended by it, just insane.

Except a quick search shows that there is zero actual evidence to back up that claim.

Except a quick search of the internet was how I came across that quote.

I searched google for "redskin origin" ... here's the link.
Google link

It's the very first link.

All that aside. Lets drop the origin of the word all together. It's a word that offends a good portion of an entire race, is that not enough to get rid of it, at least in the context in which it is most popular?

[spdolphs]

OK, I will throw in my two cents worth....

I think the whole thing is silly! When you pick a name for your team you think of something that portrays strength and honor! You don't pick a name that is a symbol of weakness.

The Washington Redskins, Atlanta Braves, Cleveland Indians...Dallas Cowboys, Minnesota Vikings, Oakland Raiders, all are named after a strong symbol! Something you can take pride in! Even the ones named after animals. Eagles, Panthers, Falcons.

If not, then we would have the Minnesota Peasants, Dallas Greenhorns, Washington Politicians (a weak tribe...lol), Atlanta Scaredy Pants, Philadelphia Chickens, Carolina House Cats, etc...

As long as the team mascot is held in high regard with honor, I don't think anyone should be offended.

Now, the one team that didn't pick a good name would have to be the Packers! How threatening is a Packer wearing a piece of cheese on his head?

Just my opinion, I could be wrong.