Washington Football Franchise team name discussion

[Goober]

Once again, if Indians called themselves redskins is it really offensive to them?

 

"After O’Fallon’s 1821 council with the Sauks, the next recorded uses of redskin were in August 1821 at a treaty conference held at Chicago with representatives of the Ottawas, Chippewas, and Potawatomis (Kappler 1904–1941, 2: 198–201). There the lead speaker for the Potawatomis was the accomplished orator Metea (Meete-ay), a chief from the Wabash River (McKenney and Hall 1933, 2: 205212), who declared: “I am an Indian, a red-skin, and live by hunting and fishing, but my country is already too small” (Schoolcraft 1825: 342). And Topinabee (Topenebee), the Potawatomi principal chief, said: “My Father,—I am a red skin. I do not know how to read or write, but I never forget what is promised me” (Schoolcraft 1825: 347)."

 

anthropology.si.edu/goddard/redskin.pdf

[witesoxfan]

I feel sorry for red skin potatoes. Are they going to be renamed? Maybe, not to be offensive, the NFL team should just switch out the Indian for some potatoes on their emblem and everyone wins.

 

I do think they should change the name. If a group of people are offended, they are offended, and it doesn't seem unreasonable they are offended.But to me, Chief Wahoo should be way more offensive.

 

I agree 100% with this.

 

Once again, if Indians called themselves redskins is it really offensive to them?

 

"After O’Fallon’s 1821 council with the Sauks, the next recorded uses of redskin were in August 1821 at a treaty conference held at Chicago with representatives of the Ottawas, Chippewas, and Potawatomis (Kappler 1904–1941, 2: 198–201). There the lead speaker for the Potawatomis was the accomplished orator Metea (Meete-ay), a chief from the Wabash River (McKenney and Hall 1933, 2: 205212), who declared: “I am an Indian, a red-skin, and live by hunting and fishing, but my country is already too small” (Schoolcraft 1825: 342). And Topinabee (Topenebee), the Potawatomi principal chief, said: “My Father,—I am a red skin. I do not know how to read or write, but I never forget what is promised me” (Schoolcraft 1825: 347)."

 

anthropology.si.edu/goddard/redskin.pdf

 

Black people call each other the n-word too.

[MEANS]

I think the point is they created the term, where as blacks appropriated the term.

[bmags]

Something tells me this statement was uttered 40-50 years ago in reference to changing a football team name because it offends someone

 

They would be correct.

[NorthSideSox72]

I've already made all the points I can on this, really, so I won't get into the circles again. There are people who are denial of the simple, factual reality that it is an insulting name, and I can't do anything about that. If people want to debate whether that should be OK or not, that's worth talking about maybe, but I won't keep hitting my head on the brick wall of ignorance.

 

However, for the things that are NOT subjective and are outright bizarre...

 

It is a term of historical ignorance and racism assigned by colonialists. There is no such historical figure as an Indian, or an American Indian, just like there is no group that is a Redskin.

 

There were tribes and nations all over these lands. Not a one of them would have self identifed as an Indian. They are Iroquois, or Pottawattomie, or whatever their historical nations were.

 

It is just as historically of a loaded term as any others.

 

This is just full of factual inaccuracies. There IS a historical and anthropological term Indian, specifically American Indian, and it is in fact the generally accepted term for the people living in the Americas prior to (insert your favorite Euro "discoverer" here) and going back at least 10,000 years. Go ask an Anthropologist. And yes of course there were tribes and families and villages, just like there are in every society, but that absolutely does not mean that higher level associations do not also exist (i.e. Nationalities), or that overarching scientific terms do not exist (i.e. Europeans).

 

And you have conflated "historically loaded" with "racist" here. They aren't the same. Heck, even if they were, that does nothing to make the term Redskin any less racist or insulting.

 

 

I guess what I'm trying to argue for is to use some of that passion you seem to have to go out there and contribute in other ways, rather than to use causes like this to challenge your debate skills...because I really don't believe that you'll get off your couch to do much of anything for American Indians when it really comes down to it.

 

The above post is strange to me. We aren't allowed to discuss any topic we haven't personally contributed money to? I mean, this is a DISCUSSION FORUM. In case it matters, I have helped causes associated with poor reservations, but honestly I fail to see how that adds any weight to what I say on this. The only thing that would add weight is if I actually WAS an American Indian (which in some very small percentage I probably am based on family stories, but not enough worth noting).

 

Once again, if Indians called themselves redskins is it really offensive to them?

 

"After O’Fallon’s 1821 council with the Sauks, the next recorded uses of redskin were in August 1821 at a treaty conference held at Chicago with representatives of the Ottawas, Chippewas, and Potawatomis (Kappler 1904–1941, 2: 198–201). There the lead speaker for the Potawatomis was the accomplished orator Metea (Meete-ay), a chief from the Wabash River (McKenney and Hall 1933, 2: 205212), who declared: “I am an Indian, a red-skin, and live by hunting and fishing, but my country is already too small” (Schoolcraft 1825: 342). And Topinabee (Topenebee), the Potawatomi principal chief, said: “My Father,—I am a red skin. I do not know how to read or write, but I never forget what is promised me” (Schoolcraft 1825: 347)."

 

anthropology.si.edu/goddard/redskin.pdf

 

Seriously? A quote translated through two languages to arrive in English from an 1821 Treaty discussion with a non-written-language people? The term existed well before then anyway, hell early US Presidents used it.

 

It was, and is, an insult, and any thorough reading of history will tell you that. Picking apart specific instances where it wasn't immediately protested doesn't change that, just as you can find all sorts of places where African Americans call themselves the N-word (in fact more so in that case I'd imagine)./

[southsider2k5]

This is just full of factual inaccuracies. There IS a historical and anthropological term Indian, specifically American Indian, and it is in fact the generally accepted term for the people living in the Americas prior to (insert your favorite Euro "discoverer" here) and going back at least 10,000 years. Go ask an Anthropologist. And yes of course there were tribes and families and villages, just like there are in every society, but that absolutely does not mean that higher level associations do not also exist (i.e. Nationalities), or that overarching scientific terms do not exist (i.e. Europeans).

 

Look it up. The name "American Indian" was adopted because they couldn't think of another over arching term, that people would actually understand, that wasn't more racist and/or wasn't a product of the same people that began calling them "American Indians" in the first place (such as "Native American"), and they did so despite and with full knowledge of its negative and racist connotations. Just because it is "generally accepted" does not mean it doesn't have the same set of factors attached to it as redskin or any of the other things we have called groups people over the centuries. Go back to the 50's and examine the general accepted names for other groups that we would dare use in public because of their connotations today. After the organized slaughter and removal of these groups over a course of centuries, the only thing they had to go to was the identity that the colonialists gave to them to strip them of their tribal and national identities.

 

These people are neither "American" nor "Indian", and definitely aren't "American Indian" anymore than they are "Redskins", "Noble Savages", or any of the other terms historically used to degredate their true histories and societies. Those are products of European minds, and not of the people who were here 10,000 years before the Europeans showed for for their 500 year genocidal show. The fact that they feel they have had their identity stripped down to the point where they feel there have no better identification than what their slaughterers have called them just goes to show how complete of a job that was done. It sure doesn't make it any less racist of a term.

[iamshack]

The above post is strange to me. We aren't allowed to discuss any topic we haven't personally contributed money to? I mean, this is a DISCUSSION FORUM. In case it matters, I have helped causes associated with poor reservations, but honestly I fail to see how that adds any weight to what I say on this. The only thing that would add weight is if I actually WAS an American Indian (which in some very small percentage I probably am based on family stories, but not enough worth noting).

That's not at all what I was trying to say.

 

Secondly, you don't think someone who has actually volunteered time and money for a particular cause is generally going to be more familiar with that cause than someone who latches onto it because it just happened become a hot topic in the news? You don't think that adds a little legitimacy to your stance? That you've actually spoken to the people involved as opposed to reading it or seeing it on the news?

 

Fair enough.

[NorthSideSox72]

Look it up. The name "American Indian" was adopted because they couldn't think of another over arching term, that people would actually understand, that wasn't more racist and/or wasn't a product of the same people that began calling them "American Indians" in the first place (such as "Native American"), and they did so despite and with full knowledge of its negative and racist connotations. Just because it is "generally accepted" does not mean it doesn't have the same set of factors attached to it as redskin or any of the other things we have called groups people over the centuries. Go back to the 50's and examine the general accepted names for other groups that we would dare use in public because of their connotations today. After the organized slaughter and removal of these groups over a course of centuries, the only thing they had to go to was the identity that the colonialists gave to them to strip them of their tribal and national identities.

 

These people are neither "American" nor "Indian", and definitely aren't "American Indian" anymore than they are "Redskins", "Noble Savages", or any of the other terms historically used to degredate their true histories and societies. Those are products of European minds, and not of the people who were here 10,000 years before the Europeans showed for for their 500 year genocidal show. The fact that they feel they have had their identity stripped down to the point where they feel there have no better identification than what their slaughterers have called them just goes to show how complete of a job that was done. It sure doesn't make it any less racist of a term.

You really, really want American Indian to be the same as Redskin. Yet they really, really aren't. One is a misnomer that has been accepted and in fact embraced not only by anthropolgists but by these people themselves. The other has been used for centuries as purely an insult.

 

It would be so much easier of all these things were the same. People want desperately to not have to deal with the shades of grey, to boil it all down to all or none. But especially in terms of cultural nomenclature, that is never the way it works.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

That's not at all what I was trying to say.

 

Secondly, you don't think someone who has actually volunteered time and money for a particular cause is generally going to be more familiar with that cause than someone who latches onto it because it just happened become a hot topic in the news? You don't think that adds a little legitimacy to your stance? That you've actually spoken to the people involved as opposed to reading it or seeing it on the news?

 

Fair enough.

More familiar? Of course.

 

Any more allowed or able to take a position? Not in the slightest.

 

[southsider2k5]

You really, really want American Indian to be the same as Redskin. Yet they really, really aren't. One is a misnomer that has been accepted and in fact embraced not only by anthropolgists but by these people themselves. The other has been used for centuries as purely an insult.

 

It would be so much easier of all these things were the same. People want desperately to not have to deal with the shades of grey, to boil it all down to all or none. But especially in terms of cultural nomenclature, that is never the way it works.

 

Actually that is my point. One is socially accepted, and one isn't, despite their origins and histories having the same checkered backgrounds. One has the mythical power, one doesn't.

 

People have convinced themselves that one is different.

[iamshack]

More familiar? Of course.

 

Any more allowed or able to take a position? Not in the slightest.

No one ever made the statement that someone is not "allowed" or even "able"to take positions. For all the lecturing you are doing above about nomenclature, you sure seem to be putting words in my mouth.

 

It is mainly an issue of credibility, which is important if one takes a position of authority on an issue, which is certainly what some folks in this section of our DISCUSSION FORUM like to do.

[NorthSideSox72]

Actually that is my point. One is socially accepted, and one isn't, despite their origins and histories having the same checkered backgrounds. One has the mythical power, one doesn't.

 

People have convinced themselves that one is different.

They don't have anything like the same backgrounds. Their backgrounds are no more similar than African American and the N word. Are those the same to you too?

 

[StrangeSox]

I would legitimately be interested in any background information on the history of the term "Indian," how it was applied by Europeans and how it was received by American Indians. I posted it several pages back now, but the modern concepts of race didn't even exist until the 17th century, and it wasn't really formalized until the 18th and 19th.

[NorthSideSox72]

No one ever made the statement that someone is not "allowed" or even "able"to take positions. For all the lecturing you are doing above about nomenclature, you sure seem to be putting words in my mouth.

 

It is mainly an issue of credibility, which is important if one takes a position of authority on an issue, which is certainly what some folks in this section of our DISCUSSION FORUM like to do.

 

Here's your quote...

 

I guess what I'm trying to argue for is to use some of that passion you seem to have to go out there and contribute in other ways, rather than to use causes like this to challenge your debate skills...because I really don't believe that you'll get off your couch to do much of anything for American Indians when it really comes down to it.

 

You are telling another poster you don't think they'll get off their couch to do anything about it, thus invalidating their perspective. And that poster (wasn't me) wasn't taking a position of authority - they were debating the issue. As we all are.

 

I studied this field a bit in undergrad (was sort of an emphasis for me under Poli Sci major and History minor), even wrote my longest paper in undergrad on the Dawes Act, Microfederalism and the Reservation System (and it is thrilling reading I assure you, LOL). It means I know something. But unless the insulting nature of the word impacts me directly, I really don't think my opinion should carry more weight than anyone else's as to whether or not the team name is OK. It only means I am more likely (one would hope) to be in possession of more background information.

[southsider2k5]

They don't have anything like the same backgrounds. Their backgrounds are no more similar than African American and the N word. Are those the same to you too?

 

There is one HUGE difference there. We didn't take over Africa and rename them on their own tribal and historical lands. They are actually African. Unless you are taking the term American to mean North American, and not United States of American. I don't use it as such, as tribes outside of the US still are identified by their tribal histories, such as the Maya, Inca, etc. They aren't known as Mexican Indians or some other artificial colonial construct.

[iamshack]

Here's your quote...

 

 

 

You are telling another poster you don't think they'll get off their couch to do anything about it, thus invalidating their perspective. And that poster (wasn't me) wasn't taking a position of authority - they were debating the issue. As we all are.

 

I studied this field a bit in undergrad (was sort of an emphasis for me under Poli Sci major and History minor), even wrote my longest paper in undergrad on the Dawes Act, Microfederalism and the Reservation System (and it is thrilling reading I assure you, LOL). It means I know something. But unless the insulting nature of the word impacts me directly, I really don't think my opinion should carry more weight than anyone else's as to whether or not the team name is OK. It only means I am more likely (one would hope) to be in possession of more background information.

What I am saying is a few folks seem to want to be condescending (or perhaps very passionate in some instances) towards others and their points of view when it comes to topics like this. I was identifying that as a potential positive if it is used for good rather than spent putting down others on here.

[NorthSideSox72]

There is one HUGE difference there. We didn't take over Africa and rename them on their own tribal and historical lands. They are actually African. Unless you are taking the term American to mean North American, and not United States of American. I don't use it as such, as tribes outside of the US still are identified by their tribal histories, such as the Maya, Inca, etc. They aren't known as Mexican Indians or some other artificial colonial construct.

That's not really true though. The term Indians is in fact used elsewhere in the Western Hemisphere outside the US.

 

Again, that's just trying to pick away nuances. They terms are different, and I can illustrate it very simply. If you met and had a conversation with, let's say, an Apache (or Cherokee or Comanche or any other tribal identification), I can guarantee you that you would be more comfortable saying American Indian than Redskin. In fact, I'm sure that unless you were discussing football, you wouldn't go anywhere near the term Redskin. That tells me what I need to know about the difference.

 

[StrangeSox]

There is one HUGE difference there. We didn't take over Africa and rename them on their own tribal and historical lands. They are actually African. Unless you are taking the term American to mean North American, and not United States of American. I don't use it as such, as tribes outside of the US still are identified by their tribal histories, such as the Maya, Inca, etc. They aren't known as Mexican Indians or some other artificial colonial construct.

The combo AmerIndians is applied more to Central American Indians than other groups. Tribes within the US are still identified uniquely, just as Europeans, Asians, Africans etc. identify by ethnic and national groups.

 

Africa was also named by the Romans, not by Africans.

[southsider2k5]

That's not really true though. The term Indians is in fact used elsewhere in the Western Hemisphere outside the US.

 

Again, that's just trying to pick away nuances. They terms are different, and I can illustrate it very simply. If you met and had a conversation with, let's say, an Apache (or Cherokee or Comanche or any other tribal identification), I can guarantee you that you would be more comfortable saying American Indian than Redskin. In fact, I'm sure that unless you were discussing football, you wouldn't go anywhere near the term Redskin. That tells me what I need to know about the difference.

 

That tells me what I need to know as well. Despite the same history, and the application of a term used to strip the history and culture away from a group, which is pretty much the ultimate in racism, it still isn't viewed in proper context.

[StrangeSox]

Despite the same history, and the application of a term used to strip the history and culture away from a group,

I am still looking for some substantiation of this claim

[Y2HH]

I'll solve this for the NFL, change the name of the team to the Washington Whiteskins.

 

It's a team name, nobody cares.

 

I'd rather have the Oilers back anyway.

[Balta1701]

I'll solve this for the NFL, change the name of the team to the Washington Whiteskins.

 

It's a team name, nobody cares.

 

I'd rather have the Oilers back anyway.

I dunno, there's plenty of oil money flowing into DC but do the lobbyists really want to pay for the team too?

[Y2HH]

I dunno, there's plenty of oil money flowing into DC but do the lobbyists really want to pay for the team too?

 

They probably already do.

[Balta1701]

They probably already do.

I doubt it. Even lobbyists wouldn't want to associate with a team that has a racist name.

[Y2HH]

I doubt it. Even lobbyists wouldn't want to associate with a team that has a racist name.

 

I don't think lobbyists care much about morals. Ask Jack Abramoff.