Is redskin an offensive name

Is redskin an offensive name

Posted in the Huntington Forum

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
THE LAST WARRIOR POET

Barboursville, WV

#1 Oct 14, 2013
No. Native americans arent red.They acquired the name because they painted their bodies with red ocher before battle.And furthermore native americans from a reservation in South Dakota actually were responsible for drawing the Washington Redskin mascot.So shut up whine ass liberals.Find another cause to stir up shyt to pat yourself on the back for.
The Scoop

New York, NY

#2 Oct 14, 2013
The race baiters have worn out the blacks. Now they are going for other minorities to stir hate.
hmm

Vandergrift, PA

#3 Oct 14, 2013
THE LAST WARRIOR POET wrote:
No. Native americans arent red.They acquired the name because they painted their bodies with red ocher before battle.And furthermore native americans from a reservation in South Dakota actually were responsible for drawing the Washington Redskin mascot.So shut up whine ass liberals.Find another cause to stir up shyt to pat yourself on the back for.
If that's offensive then what about the BROWNS?
Cheif Knock A Homa

Grove City, OH

#4 Oct 14, 2013
The Cleveland Browns were named after Paul Brown the coach of the team.Coach Brown actually despised this named for the second franchise in Cleveland (the other being the Rams which would move to Los Angelos and later St. LOUIS) but the fans of cleveland had such admiration for him it stuck. Couch Paul Brown would win 8 championships during his time only to be fired by Art Modell (Bastard may he burn in hell) and start the Franchise known as the Cincinasty Bungels still owned by the family today. HERE WE GO BROWNIES HERE WE GO WOOF WOOF
them guys suck

Pittsburgh, PA

#5 Oct 14, 2013
Cheif Knock A Homa wrote:
The Cleveland Browns were named after Paul Brown the coach of the team.Coach Brown actually despised this named for the second franchise in Cleveland (the other being the Rams which would move to Los Angelos and later St. LOUIS) but the fans of cleveland had such admiration for him it stuck. Couch Paul Brown would win 8 championships during his time only to be fired by Art Modell (Bastard may he burn in hell) and start the Franchise known as the Cincinasty Bungels still owned by the family today. HERE WE GO BROWNIES HERE WE GO WOOF WOOF
The browns couldn't win a BCS title
Lolo

Chesapeake, VA

#6 Oct 14, 2013
them guys suck wrote:
<quoted text>The browns couldn't win a BCS title
Whut?

Level 4

Since: Dec 12

Huntington, WV

#7 Oct 14, 2013
It is, and it isnt.

First, "redskins" was used in a defamatory way when were plotting to slaughter millions of them and steal their land, so not only was it an offensive racial slur, it is also now a spit in the face to native-Americans and their turbulent history with the white man because it marginalizes and negates their massive loss and suffering.

2nd, It could be argued that the term is being used out of respect. It not the Washington Redskins Child Molesters, its the NFL, modern-day gladiators, so to speak. Pro football players are revered as strong, fearless, aggressive competitors, who take risks every time they take the field, and as such, regard the American Indian the same way.

But point #2 could also backfire as it denotes a violent connection. In other words, they are offended that anything associated with the American Indian has violent connotations.

IMO, point #2 assumes more than it honors, and does so without the blessing of the NA's. We have no right to project was is offensive or not, because after all, its their feelings, not ours, as we (well, the owner of the team)are the ones who created the name and set forth actions to exploit it. They did nothing.
Mathematically, there are more compelling reasons to change it than keep it.
Keeping perspective, its a team name, not the name of an abortion clinic or a nuclear bomb. Its not nearly as big a deal as many make it out to be, so if nots that big of an issue, then there is no reason not to change it. By doing nothing it only serves to keep a level of hostility towards the white man, which is completely unnecessary and fixable.
Silent majority

Alexandria, VA

#8 Oct 14, 2013
nohalgerg wrote:
It is, and it isnt.
First, "redskins" was used in a defamatory way when were plotting to slaughter millions of them and steal their land, so not only was it an offensive racial slur, it is also now a spit in the face to native-Americans and their turbulent history with the white man because it marginalizes and negates their massive loss and suffering.
2nd, It could be argued that the term is being used out of respect. It not the Washington Redskins Child Molesters, its the NFL, modern-day gladiators, so to speak. Pro football players are revered as strong, fearless, aggressive competitors, who take risks every time they take the field, and as such, regard the American Indian the same way.
But point #2 could also backfire as it denotes a violent connection. In other words, they are offended that anything associated with the American Indian has violent connotations.
IMO, point #2 assumes more than it honors, and does so without the blessing of the NA's. We have no right to project was is offensive or not, because after all, its their feelings, not ours, as we (well, the owner of the team)are the ones who created the name and set forth actions to exploit it. They did nothing.
Mathematically, there are more compelling reasons to change it than keep it.
Keeping perspective, its a team name, not the name of an abortion clinic or a nuclear bomb. Its not nearly as big a deal as many make it out to be, so if nots that big of an issue, then there is no reason not to change it. By doing nothing it only serves to keep a level of hostility towards the white man, which is completely unnecessary and fixable.
Thats the biggest bunch of nothing i ever heard...

Redskins is not defamatory...the state of oklahoma is based on the choctaw word which means "red people"...the indians came up with the term so how could it be racist?

Regarding the football team:

“In 1932, the NFL team moved to the historic Fenway Park and were left under the leadership of George Preston Marshall. The very next year, Marshall changed the name to ‘Redskins.’ Why?” Beck continued.“Well that’s a good question for the president to ask … the name was changed to ‘Redskins’ to honor then-coach Lone Star Dietz, an American Sioux. So the name actually pays tribute to a great people.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/10/11/do...
3 posts removed
Cheif Knock A Homa

Grove City, OH

#12 Oct 14, 2013
Thanks Silent Majority I wasn't aware of how the team came to be the Redskins. These pc ass kissers really kill me. What is your thoughts on the Indians logo and Chief Wahoo?

Level 4

Since: Dec 12

Huntington, WV

#13 Oct 14, 2013
Silent majority wrote:
<quoted text>
Thats the biggest bunch of nothing i ever heard...
Redskins is not defamatory...the state of oklahoma is based on the choctaw word which means "red people"...the indians came up with the term so how could it be racist?
Regarding the football team:
“In 1932, the NFL team moved to the historic Fenway Park and were left under the leadership of George Preston Marshall. The very next year, Marshall changed the name to ‘Redskins.’ Why?” Beck continued.“Well that’s a good question for the president to ask … the name was changed to ‘Redskins’ to honor then-coach Lone Star Dietz, an American Sioux. So the name actually pays tribute to a great people.”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/10/11/do...
- "Red People" is not Redskins
- There's thousands of places in the USA with Indian names
- Dietz is a purely German name, he and his family were NOT of Indian descent. He nicknamed himself "Lone Star" after James One Star, and used this appellation to avoid the draft.
- The Redskins didnt move TO Boston, they moved FROM Boston
THE LAST WARRIOR POET

Barboursville, WV

#14 Oct 14, 2013
I say keep the name rather then give in to cry babie libs.I wouldnt cry if a totally native american university named themselves the PALE FACES.And if these shythead crybaby PC libs had their way we would have to do away with the name vikings, highlanders,celts among others because it only represents one particular race of people and doesnt represent other races equally.Bullshyt. And take the name fighting irish ,these people endured as much if not more then people of color and the name itself could imply a drunken irishman always brawling but they dont whine do they? No, thats only reserved for haters from other races and their whiners the white libs that put this shyt in their head.Its time someone put their foot down and said STFU.

Level 4

Since: Dec 12

Huntington, WV

#15 Oct 14, 2013
THE LAST WARRIOR POET wrote:
I say keep the name rather then give in to cry babie libs.I wouldnt cry if a totally native american university named themselves the PALE FACES.And if these shythead crybaby PC libs had their way we would have to do away with the name vikings, highlanders,celts among others because it only represents one particular race of people and doesnt represent other races equally.Bullshyt. And take the name fighting irish ,these people endured as much if not more then people of color and the name itself could imply a drunken irishman always brawling but they dont whine do they? No, thats only reserved for haters from other races and their whiners the white libs that put this shyt in their head.Its time someone put their foot down and said STFU.
The libs arent crying, its the NA's that are offended and they have a right to their feelings as much as you do. Just because YOU wouldn't be offended by "palefaces", doesnt mean it globally right, thats pretty arrogant of you to assume you represent everyone else's feelings. Vikings, Highlander, Celts etc, are real names of races, and as such , could not possibly be found offensive. Native American Indians are not redskins.
THE LAST WARRIOR POET

Barboursville, WV

#16 Oct 14, 2013
nohalgerg wrote:
<quoted text>
The libs arent crying, its the NA's that are offended and they have a right to their feelings as much as you do. Just because YOU wouldn't be offended by "palefaces", doesnt mean it globally right, thats pretty arrogant of you to assume you represent everyone else's feelings. Vikings, Highlander, Celts etc, are real names of races, and as such , could not possibly be found offensive. Native American Indians are not redskins.
Your right they're not redskins.It was because they painted themselves as red to do battle.Therefore its not debasing them because of the real color of their skin so how can it be anything racial.And what about the fighting sioux of North Dakota University that was made to change their name? Thats a real name so why were they offended with it? Because every damn body is to thin skinned. Whats the diff between fighting sioux or fighting irish? Nothing except whine asses wanting empowerment over others.
vendetta

Alexandria, VA

#17 Oct 14, 2013
Washington is offensive to me. Should remove Washington from the team name.

Level 4

Since: Dec 12

Huntington, WV

#18 Oct 15, 2013
THE LAST WARRIOR POET wrote:
<quoted text>
Your right they're not redskins.It was because they painted themselves as red to do battle.Therefore its not debasing them because of the real color of their skin so how can it be anything racial.And what about the fighting sioux of North Dakota University that was made to change their name? Thats a real name so why were they offended with it? Because every damn body is to thin skinned. Whats the diff between fighting sioux or fighting irish? Nothing except whine asses wanting empowerment over others.
Why ask me what offends them? I cant testify to others feelings.

Level 4

Since: Dec 12

Huntington, WV

#19 Oct 15, 2013
vendetta wrote:
Washington is offensive to me. Should remove Washington from the team name.
Right on man!
1 post removed
THE LAST WARRIOR POET

Barboursville, WV

#21 Oct 15, 2013
nohalgerg wrote:
<quoted text>
Why ask me what offends them? I cant testify to others feelings.
Seem to have had all their answers so far. Finally run out of em?
history lover

Huntington, WV

#22 Oct 15, 2013
nohalgerg wrote:
<quoted text>
- "Red People" is not Redskins
- There's thousands of places in the USA with Indian names
- Dietz is a purely German name, he and his family were NOT of Indian descent. He nicknamed himself "Lone Star" after James One Star, and used this appellation to avoid the draft.
- The Redskins didnt move TO Boston, they moved FROM Boston
The term "Red Skin" was used by native americans as early as the 1600s. It is documented and found to be first used by the native americans in Iowa. It was initially used to distinguish the difference between the native americans and the "white skin", as they also called the English and French. This was documented by the initial interpreter and the translation approved by the Indian Chief that they spoke to. The English and French were a pale white, the native americans were a reddish-brown. This is why there was simplicity in the reference (i.e. white skin, red skin).
In early 1800s, there is a speech that was documented by two different tribal chiefs at the White House in which they referred to themselves as "red skin". It is by far a racial slur.
Silent majority

Alexandria, VA

#23 Oct 15, 2013
nohalgerg wrote:
<quoted text>
, thats pretty arrogant of you to assume you represent everyone else's feelings.
Lol...thats exactly what youre doing. I dont know of any indians who are offended but you claim they are...pretty arrogant.

Indians dont need some pasty white liberal to defend them...
Silent majority

Alexandria, VA

#24 Oct 16, 2013
nohalgerg wrote:
<quoted text>
The libs arent crying, its the NA's that are offended
Wrong again my self rightious friend...worry about yourself and leave the Indians alone. They can speak for themselves...read more talk less.

"In response, the longtime chief of a major Virginia-based tribe went on the record to say he’d actually be offended if the team DID change the name.

Robert “Two Eagles” Green, who retired from his presiding role over the 1300-member Patawomeck Tribe in March, was a guest on SiriusXM NFL Radio’s “The Opening Drive” on Wednesday.

He gave a detailed account of the origin of the term Redskin, why so many people are offended by it, and how political correctness has allowed this story to fester far longer than it should.

“I think that first of all, you have to make a decision whether you consider it offensive or not, and frankly, the members of my tribe, the vast majority, don’t find it offensive,” Green said.“I’ve been a Redskins fan for years and to be honest with you, I would be offended if they did change it.”

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/05/29/ret...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Huntington Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
does anyone know where to get cigarettes withou... (Jul '11) 4 min Ruthie 28
Forget GoodWill go to Plato's Closet. 11 min Consumer 6
Where is the best place to get car windows tinted? 11 min your mom 1
black 39 yr old 16 min monique 1
News W.Va. AG announces antitrust agreement in hospi... 38 min WATCHDOG 2
Most Annoying Person on FB 48 min dale denton 26
Hot bartender at black sheep 1 hr tristate tech 20
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Huntington Mortgages