In Australia, redskin is a type of confectionery.
![]()
sure, in the UShint hint
Here it's short for Japanese. We call ourselves Kiwis, because it's shorter than New Zealanders.
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002961.html
I'll post some quotes later this am, but most of you should really read this
Redskin used to be a racist term but how much it is now is debatable. Go onto twitter and see how many times redskin gets used as a racist term. Honestly I searched for a bit but couldn't easily find one. Difficult to see it as a problem when over 99.9% of people use it to refer to a team and not as a racist term. Then you have polls that suggest over 70-90% of Native Americans don't have an issue with the name. It is difficult to gauge and much more complicated than lol PC police or redskin=nigger/wetback/chink etc. argument.
It's the same as porchmonkey tbqh. Some are even taking it back, last I heard.No one uses the word jigaboo anymore so its not racist right?
No one uses the word jigaboo anymore so its not racist right?
My righteous indignation is flickering. I don't know how you guys manage.
Notwithstanding the protests of activists, a 2002 poll commissioned by Sports Illustrated found that 75% of those American Indians surveyed had no objection to the Redskins name.[61] The results of the poll have been criticized by American Indian activists due to Sports Illustrated's refusal to provide polling information (i.e. how participants were recruited and contacted, if they were concentrated in one region, if one ethnic group is over represented and the exact wording and order of questions).[62][63] But in 2004, a poll by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania essentially confirmed the prior poll's findings, concluding that 91% of the American Indians surveyed in the 48 states on the mainland USA found the name acceptable and setting out in detail the exact wording of the questions.[64]
I'm down wit it! Spud warriors.They should just change all their logos to potatoes :/
Interesting!
For people without time to read
The Boston Redskins were named so in honor of coach William 'Lone Star' Dietz (Native American)
According to Ives Goddard of the Smithsonian, Redskin is a translation of a word used by Native Americans to describe themselves (Redskin and Whiteskin)
I won't review the evidence in detail because Goddard's paper is short enough and accessible enough that if you are interested you should read it yourself. I'll just summarize it. Goddard shows that the term redskin is a translation from native American languages of a term used by native Americans for themselves. Harjo's claim that it "had its origins in the practice of presenting bloody red skins and scalps as proof of Indian kill for bounty payments" is unsupported by any evidence.⁴ The term entered popular usage via the novels of James Fenimore Cooper. In the early- to mid-nineteenth century the term was neutral, not pejorative, and indeed was often used in contexts in which whites spoke of Indians in positive terms. Goddard concludes:
Cooper's use of redskin as a Native American in-group term was entirely authentic, reflecting both the accurate perception of the Indian self-image and the evolving respect among whites for the Indians' distinct cultural perspective, whatever its prospects. The descent of this word into obloquy is a phenomenon of more recent times.
The response to Goddard's paper is disappointing. Other than reiterating the unsubstantiated and implausible theory that the term owes its origin to scalping, Harjo and others have merely waved their hands, asserting that as Indians they know differently without presenting any evidence whatsoever. A typical example is found in this Native Village article, which quotes Harjo as follows:
I'm very familiar with white men who uphold the judicious speech of white men. Europeans were not using high-minded language. [To them] we were only human when it came to territory, land cessions and whose side you were on.
The only point here that even resembles an argument is the bald assertion that Europeans never spoke of Indians other than disparagingly. This is not true. Evidence to the contrary is explicitly cited by Goddard. What is more disturbing is that Harjo's primary response to Goddard is ad hominem: that as a white man what he says is not credible. Whether he is white, red, or green is of course utterly irrelevant, as thinking people have known since at least the Middle Ages. Goddard presents his evidence in detail, with citations to the original sources. You can evaluate it yourself, and you need not rely on his statements of fact but can, if you are willing to devote some time and effort, check out the sources yourself. Furthermore, without the slightest evidence Harjo imputes to Goddard not merely bias but racism, a charge which, based, as her own words reveal, entirely on racial stereotyping, merely reflects back on herself.
So, there you have it. On the one hand an utterly unsubstantiated and implausible theory advocated by Suzan Harjo, who exhibits no knowledge of the history of English usage of redskin, of American Indian languages, or of the early history of relations between Indians and Europeans. On the other hand a detailed account with numerous explicit citations to original documents by Ives Goddard, who has dedicated his entire life to the study of American Indian languages and the documentation thereof. It is always possible that some new evidence will be brought to bear, but for the present I don't think that there can be any ambiguity as to which is the more credible account.
The
“Old Sachem” Mosquito (French Maringouin) ended his first talk with an invitation:
“je serai flatté que tu Vienne parler toimeme pour avoir pitie De nos femmes et De nos enfans, et si quelques peaux Rouges te font Du mal je Scaurai soutenir tes Interests au peril De ma Vie” (Johnson 1921–1965, 7: 133).
This was translated as:
“I shall be pleased to have you come to speak to me yourself if you pity our women and our children; and, if any redskins do you harm, I shall be able to look out for you even at the peril of my life” (Johnson 1921–1965, 7: 137–138)
...
The French texts were described as “an Exact Copy” of what the chiefs’ French interpreter had written. The first has “si quelques peaux Rouges” translated as “if any redskins,” and the second has “tout les peaux rouges” translated as all the redskins.” The first appearances of redskin in English are thus as literal translations of what would be in standard French Peau-Rouge (in both cases the plural Peaux-Rouges), which is itself in a translation from a dialect of the Miami-Illinois language.2
They should change the helmet from this:
![]()
To that alternate they had whenever:
![]()
They should change the helmet from this:
![]()
To that alternate they had whenever:
![]()
It's sort of like... Chief Osceola and Renegade are the most racist approach to this that the Seminoles are kosher with FSU using. The times went like this:I know the Seminole tribe gets a ton from Florida State, but I think they also get to have a say in their logo, mascot, etc to ensure they're not offended by any of it.
So... basically a string of white guys continue to portray an approved fake version of a historical Seminole chief (who bizarrely was actually of mixed ethnicity himself) rather than an unsanctioned totally fake Seminole chief. But Osceola himself was never really the Chief of the Seminole (more like a general) and was captured by the US military by deception at an apparent peace talk, in violation of treaties, and he died three months later.This mascot was portrayed by a white male member of the gymnastics or circus programs, who performed wild stunts in garish faux-Native American garb. The gymnastics program's sponsorship of Sammy Seminole ended in 1968, but the character was quickly reintroduced.[7]
In the late 1960s Chief Fullabull emerged as a mascot during basketball games. Like Sammy Seminole, he donned cartoonish Native American-themed outfits, and performed clownish stunts. Under protest from Native American groups, the character's name was altered to Chief Wampumstompum, though this did nothing to assuage the concerns of protesters. The character was replaced with a more traditionally dressed figure named Yahola, also known as the "spirit chief". All of these mascots were eventually retired. Officials decided to find a more respectful representative for the school's teams.
Yeah, like I said earlier, man is a cheapskate who would put players safety at risk to save a buck. His refusal to change the name probably stems from the same motivation.As if there weren't enough reason to dislike Daniel Snyder.
I'd like to think we're past this sort of imagery in 2013.
Seems like they're not.Notwithstanding the protests of activists, a 2002 poll commissioned by Sports Illustrated found that 75% of those American Indians surveyed had no objection to the Redskins name.[61] The results of the poll have been criticized by American Indian activists due to Sports Illustrated's refusal to provide polling information (i.e. how participants were recruited and contacted, if they were concentrated in one region, if one ethnic group is over represented and the exact wording and order of questions).[62][63] But in 2004, a poll by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania essentially confirmed the prior poll's findings, concluding that 91% of the American Indians surveyed in the 48 states on the mainland USA found the name acceptable and setting out in detail the exact wording of the questions.[64]
And this is why I hate the PC bullshit. Kinda weird that so many people support the movement, yet some of the first posts I've read in this thread include nigger, jiggaboo, and porchmonkey...
And this is why I hate the PC bullshit. Kinda weird that so many people support the movement, yet some of the first posts I've read in this thread include nigger, jiggaboo, and porchmonkey...
And this is why I hate the PC bullshit. Kinda weird that so many people support the movement, yet some of the first posts I've read in this thread include nigger, jiggaboo, and porchmonkey...
lol, I bet you think that is some form of hypocrisy.
Oh dear.
But a new Associated Press-GfK poll shows that nationally, "Redskins" still enjoys widespread support. Nearly four in five Americans don't think the team should change its name, the survey found. Only 11 percent think it should be changed, while 8 percent weren't sure and 2 percent didn't answer.
I hate Dan Snyder but am completely, 100% fine like this. They're the Redskins. They'll always be the Redskins. They should always be the Redskins.
I really don't think the term is comparable to many other racial slurs. Is the term used in conjunction with a negative message? I don't know if I've ever heard anyone use the term redskin in a derogatory manner. Or at all for that matter.
So they should keep the name 'because.'?
When's the last time you heard Asians referred to as yellow? Would the Washington yellowskins be alright then?
Context matters, especially when you reverse a reference like that.I would venture a guess and say that the number of people who find the term redskin derogatory are very slim. Cracker is a term used to identify white people, so why in the world can I still go into a grocery store, in 2013, and find products with that term brazenly printed on packaging?! I demand justice!
You can make an argument for any possible word offending someone, doesn't mean it shouldn't be used, for if that were the case there would be very few words that could be used.
I would venture a guess and say that the number of people who find the term redskin derogatory are very slim. Cracker is a term used to identify white people, so why in the world can I still go into a grocery store, in 2013, and find products with that term brazenly printed on packaging?! I demand justice!