It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Washington Redskins: Is the name as bad as the N word? Some think so and seek legislation to ban

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 09:10 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 09:12 PM

Originally posted by olaru12
How about....the

Baton Rouge Rednecks

Michigan White Trash

Washington Obominites

Careful now... You may very well have some locals in those areas take you up on those as good ideas!

posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 09:12 PM
reply to post by FraternitasSaturni

Here you go

posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 09:18 PM
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

For what its worth, my 15 year old son thinks they should keep the name. He thinks that people need to "stop being such wusses and getting their skirts all ruffled."

I sure haven't raised a PC kid.

posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 09:23 PM
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

Now that does refresh my faith in good common sense and the capacity for logic. lol.... The next generation will have some level minds among them.

I can't help but wonder how funny the general 'tptb' see all this. Among all the problems that have nations teetering on fiscal collapse or war, depending on which..and a dozen other things that could really screw life up for millions .. People fixate on a team name and mascot that's been there for a long time. It's not actively hurting anyone or anything but perhaps some feelings under paper thin skin here and there.

Pulling distractions from what matters is getting easier and easier isn't it?

posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 09:44 PM
reply to post by gunshooter

Please get on with the program and edit out white to "pale face"...

Chíhéne or Chííhénee’ 'Red Paint People' (also known as the Eastern Chiricahua, Warm Springs Apache, Gileños, Ojo Caliente Apache, Coppermine Apache, Copper Mine, Mimbreños, Mimbres, Mogollones, Tcihende). In truth the term red skin only gained popularity after the armed resistance to the intrusions by Americans during the 19th century.

What type of history education does the US citizen get? it is not that you have much to cover. This leads to a lack of historical understanding and dissonance.

Harlyn Geronimo, Geronimo's great-grandson, said to the Senate Commission on Indian Affairs, "(use of 'Geronimo' in the raid that killed Bin Laden) either was an outrageous insult (or) mistake. And it is clear from the military records released that the name Geronimo was used at times by military personnel involved for both the military operation and for Osama Bin Laden himself."
edit on 7-4-2013 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 10:14 PM
reply to post by buster2010

I can understand if someone thinks it's offensive in their opinion and they want to get the name changed. But to be forcefully changed by law? Why does everything in America have to have some kind of law? It's getting ridiculous.
Whatever happened to the freedom of speech? I didn't know it's illegal to offend people now.

posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 08:11 AM
reply to post by JohnPhoenix

To me it's not racist unless used in a demeaning manor. I'm sure there are many American Indians living in Washington that is proud to have the major football team named for the Indians.

Maybe it's a matter of how you hear it - and from what perspective

What if it was the Washington Darkies? Would anyone feel honored by that?

It's not like the team name is The Lakota, or the Cheyenne or the Apaches

Red - Skins

It should go - that's what I think

edit on 4/8/2013 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 08:29 AM
reply to post by Spiramirabilis

I'm offended by Ritz Crackers.

posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 08:45 AM
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

So - we no longer care about showing respect?

Mornin' Tex :-)

Seriously though....this is someone who wants to challenge a word. Not the intent. Words mean nothing. Intent does.

Words are merely tools. Its how they are used that really matters.

So - what was the intent behind these words?

I know we think we all live in a land and time where we've arrived at true equality - nobody should be offended - it's just harmless fun

they are a beloved football team

this is just an anachronism - and, awww - c'mon - the Native Americans should let this one go?


I know - sticks and stones...

look at it this way Tex - this anti-PC thing is just a way to say that we're tired of having to care about this stuff - but not caring about it sets precedent

it really is about intent - stuff means stuff

posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 09:05 AM
reply to post by Spiramirabilis

Stuff does mean stuff.

But words don't mean anything. It is what you mean that actually has meaning.

Humans tend to speak in hyperbole and metaphor. It is just the way we are wired (relationally logical creatures that we are, tying up knots and putting things in boxes).

Offending a single person? Or a small group of people? cannot please all the people all the time. Doing something that I consider offensive? Yeah, that is wrong. But should there be a law to punish me for doing it? Or is the damage to my reputation not enough? In the spirit of freedom and all, that is.

My great grandmother walked the Trail of Tears. It is how my family ended up in Oklahoma (two generations back), and how there is a town in Oklahoma named after my family (I think 6 people live there). So it isn't like I don't have a stake in this. It is just that I feel it to be unoffensive. Maybe because I am trying to be the change I want to see. To create that world of equality.

posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 09:10 AM
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

I think these days people are tired of conflict - but some of us are still annoying like that


We all have history - mine is not Native American

I know Red Skins was not intended as a compliment - now or then

out of here Tex - more later - if there is more

posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 09:16 AM
reply to post by Spiramirabilis

My wife is a latina. Her and I often laugh at how some take extreme offense at the term "Mexican". o.O

Being unaware of the origin of the term "red skin", i presume it is a description that the pale skins and white faces coined upon coming to North America.

when I say "red skin", am I implying something negative (despite the inference of the audience)?

In any event, of all the indian folks I know out here in the desert Southwest, none seem offended by the Washington Redskins outside the fact that they are hardened Dallas Cowboys fans.

edit on 8-4-2013 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 10:25 AM
Historically the term Redskin was used both as a harmless descriptive term to denote an American Indian or as a slang term - depending on who was speaking and the context in which it was used.

I ask you. If you were white and living in Africa, would you be offended simply because someone the indigenous people sometimes describes you as a whiteskin to their dark skinned friends? I would not. As in, " We traded with the whiteskin today for corn He gave us wondrous things called a magnifying glass that makes things bigger." To take offense at this would be silly.

Now if that African called you a whiteskin in a context of shame, belittling or demeaning manor, it would be different. Such as " That evil whiteskin devil stole our land and enslaved us to mine diamonds.." " Damn whiteskins" That would be a different story.

People have to consider the speaker and context. You cannot just go around putting definite labels on things and define them in terms of being absolute. It's not fair and it's wrong, as in it is incorrect to do so.

I found this interesting: The first use of the term Redskin came from the American Indians themselves. This is where the white man got the idea it was o.k. to refer to the Indians as "redskins"

Smithsonian Institution senior linguist Ives Goddard spent seven months researching its history and concluded that "redskin" was first used by Native Americans in the 18th century to distinguish themselves from the white "other" encroaching on their lands and culture.

When it first appeared as an English expression in the early 1800s, "it came in the most respectful context and at the highest level," Goddard said in an interview. "These are white people and Indians talking together, with the white people trying to ingratiate themselves."

It was not until July 22, 1815, that "red skin" first appeared in print, he found -- in a news story in the Missouri Gazette on talks between Midwestern Indian tribes and envoys sent by President James Madison to negotiate treaties after the War of 1812.

The envoys had rebuked the tribes for their reluctance to yield territory claimed by the United States, but the Gazette report suggested that Meskwaki chief Black Thunder was unimpressed: "Restrain your feelings and hear calmly what I say," he told the envoys. "I have never injured you, and innocence can feel no fear. I turn to all red skins and white skins, and challenge an accusation against me." A Linguist's Alternative History of 'Redskin'

posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 10:44 AM
reply to post by JohnPhoenix

What people doesn't get is that this is not an attempt to get rid of racism in any way, this is one of those attempts to tamper with freedom of speech again

Yes my friends this is nothing more than trying to keep eroding our First amendment again, after all our second is been legislated as we speak why not bring in the first one too.

NIP, NIP, NIP, wake up America.

posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 11:03 AM
They are in Washington, they should be the Washington Slave runners....Oh crap that wouldn't work either...

Washington puppet masters......Na - Jeff Dunham might take offense

Washington Douchebags....Female activists might not like....

Oh well, I give up....Redskins are fine by me.......

Quit crying and stop watching if you don't like it.....

posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 03:29 PM
The Redskins will eventually change their name, but it won't have a damn thing to do with all the Indian nonsense. They'll change their name as soon as they have a major up season and are expected to be a Super Bowl contender. That name change, combined with the chance of a big year will ensure maximum merchandise sales to their fan base. The team brass, however, will point towards the PC bullcrap while they make the change in hopes of fan believing the team is buckling to public pressure.

posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 03:38 PM
reply to post by burdman30ott6

Hey, everybody have their reasons for doing things in America, why not to make money in the process too.

Free Enterprise and capitalism.

posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 03:48 PM
reply to post by marg6043

Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with a team I'm not a fan of changing their name, logo, city, etc. to make more money. They're a privately owned corporation of sorts and, as such, it is NOBODIES business what their team name or logo is... including those who make the choice to take offense at it. The complainers really only have the right to either be offended or not be offended. At that point, their rights and responsibilities end. They have no right to expect their voices of complaint to be listened to or given a crap about by anyone else in this country. The only potential issue I can see here is that, in regards to stadiums, if a municipality owns a stadium, I suppose enough offended could convince a judge to put the kabosh on the team's supposedly offensive logo and name being displayed on that stadium.

I'm a damn Braves fan and have been since I was a toddler. I've started Tomahawk chops in Coors Field and Bank One Ballpark in AZ. I still flip my Braves cap up into a mohawk during a rally. Is that offensive to some? Maybe it is. Do I give a damn? Nope. Just as don't expect many folks to give a damn about crap I find offensive. To be real blunt, the quickest way to diffuse somebody who is being intentionally offensive is to embrace it. I'm a redneck, a proud redneck, and I look the part. I have inlaws who believe calling somebody a redneck is a grave insult and anyone who gets called such should be "shamed" into being offended by it. My Brother-in-law doesn't communicate with me at all since I started thanking him for honoring me with his various redneck "insults." It diffused the situation and sucked the wind completely out of his sails.

posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 04:33 PM
reply to post by burdman30ott6

And that, my friend, is why i am oilfield trash.

Be what and who you are, and do it with some gusto!

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in