Detroit News Bans Use of 'Redskins' In Football Coverage
The Detroit News will no longer use the term 'Redskins' in its football coverage, "reflecting the growing view that the term is offensive to many Americans." No word on whether the paper will discontinue referring to the state of Oklahoma as such, considering it quite literally means 'red people' in Choctaw.
[Ed-S: Reinstating this thread, but we're gonna be moderating closely. Don't be an asshole no matter how much you think someone else is being an asshole rules in effect.]
Yes, that "trigger" thing is is way more serious than a football team's mascot. Based on these criteria, what is widely considered the greatest American novel of all time will be banned (or, more dramatically, burned).
"Huckleberry Finn" has all kinds of racist sentiment and racial slurs and yet is one of the great monuments to human freedom and dignity for all people in our culture.
This is precisely my point.
Joy, whats her face, is broadcasting over the same airwaves on the same BS channel MSNBS that has to reprimand a host every other week for outragesously offensive statements including stating that someone should shit in Sarah Palin's mouth.
Remenber that.
what a meatheaded comment
I don't know how the rich, white elitists who have been pushing this name change more than anyone else can be intellectually consistent on the issue. The state of Oklahoma literally means 'red people'. Where is the outrage on that? Dial tone.
Well, does "Oklahoma" have a history of use as a racial slur?
It means red people. If one thinks the colloquial use of the term 'Redskins' is offensive, they would have to think that calling Native Americans 'red people' would be offensive as well, no?
Do you think calling somebody white and calling somebody a nigger should be equally offensive as well? After all, both terms are simply a reference to skin color, right?
Okay, your analogy is ridiculous. Red people and redskins are incredibly similar terms. Ni**** and white, or ni**** and black? Not even close. If you can't realize this, I can't help you. Have a nice day.
How about negro and n*****? Would you saw they're pretty similar?
Not that I really care, but that's his point. Your helping to make his point. Just as those are similar and you wouldn't say either to an African American, the words Oklahoma and Redskin are also very similarly offensive. So if you wouldn't use one, why the other?
Except that they aren't similarly offensive at all. One is a Choctaw Indian word with no history of derogatory use, and the other is a well-documented racial slur that's been considered very offensive by a substantial percentage of Native Americans and labeled as inappropriate by various English dictionaries for decades.
...do you find "Oklahoma" and "Redskin" to be similarly offensive?
Negro was commonly used and not considered offensive fairly recently. it's similar sounding slur was considered quite offensive, as it is today.
Oh I don't care either way. I was just making an observation based on your comments back and forth. I don't know what people see as offensive and honestly I don't care that much. But, I've just always been taught that negro is offensive. So in my mind negro and the "n" word are equally offensive, so why can't someone believe Redskin and Oklahoma is equally offensive? I'm not saying I agree either way, I was simply pointing out an observation.
But if you want to know whether they are equally offensive, why not consult the people directly affected? There are quite a few of them here on this thread, telling you.
No, red people and redskins are not incredibly similar terms because of the enormous difference in historical context, a context that you clearly have not taken the time to educate yourself on. My analogy is actually very pertinient as it demonstrates that words with similar literal meanings can have vastly different connotations based on their use. If you can't realize this, I can't help you. Have a nice day.
Blog. Saying Oklahoma = red people = redskin is like saying Chinatown = chinese = chink. Use, context andconnotation matter a great deal. It's not just a load of "PC crap"
You lost the arguement
I'm still very perplexed at the NCAA forcing UND to drop their Fighting Sioux name, even though the Sioux tribe liked the name.
Dumb. They're the Sioux. They'll always be the Sioux.
Have you ever been to Standing Rock? Gotten close enough to people there to find out what they really think?
I have a feeling that a lot of people making statements about what "Native Americans think" are operating off a very small sample.
IIRC one branch of the Sioux objected to the name.
Except they won't always be the Sioux. It will fade over time until it is a footnote of history.
Now, I certainly agree that getting rid of a patently offensive term like "Redskin" should be easier than Fighting Sioux.
Whatever side of the fence you fall on, there are a lot bigger issues in this country that newspapers will not touch with a ten foot pole. That is what I have a problem with. Trivial issues = big deal, massive issues that affect the freedom of all Americans = not even mentioned. That is a problem, and that's why the mainstream continues its decline.
+1, however I am offended by the name Black Socks
If you know your history (and i have a significant amount of Indian blood in my body) you will also know that the scalps taken BY Indians of white settlers were also worth a significant bounty paid by the French and later the British.
Lets not act as if Indians were singled out for bounties. The bounty system went both ways back then.
A Native American, from a plains tribe, I remember saying something along the lines of:
"We've never been seen as the real people we were. Prior to relatively recently, we were only seen as savages, that hunted and killed whites seeking a free west for no other reason than because we were blood-thirsty killers. Now, we are looked at as if we were a utopian society, at peace with the world and all those around us. Neither of those are true, and to a degree both are true. Basically, we were real people too."
Just thought I'd note that there is a sentiment within the Native American community that feels the same way outside of you. They don't want to be seen one way or the other, they want to be seen for their true history.
Pretty interesting look at western expansion and all that. Produced by the great Ken Burns. It's on Netflix now (9 episodes I believe) and worth a watch for those interested in a bit of the history of it all.
Yes. As a dual national with Ireland, and Michigan grad, I've long argued that not only is their mascot an insulting stereotype, any association with the school is an offense to the Irish people.
Thank god you all are michigan fans or I don't know how I would read the basic one sidedness of this board....Hail to the redskins. The name was actually chosen to honor their first gm of the team who was native American. Whoever said above how shameful the history of the word is is making up their own one sided history. People don't name teams to shame others, but to bring pride and unification to their team. America has gotten dumb fast.
You can't change the facts. Here is the meaning and origin of that word. I'm Native American, and I don't feel honored by it.
I don't want to Godwin the thread, but doesn't anyone ever imagine the Berlin or Munich equivalent of this, or of Chief Wahoo, and say "Whoa...WTF are we doing here"?
Who cares about that? I'm a white NFL fan, and damn it, I want my team to be called a racial slur!
was an avowed racist? Interesting that you're so willing to give him the benefit of the doubt in terms of his motives.
Mentioned this down the thread, but most evidence suggests that the coach the team is named after was passing as Indian to try to take advantage of the post Jim Thorpe noteriety of Indian athletes.*
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/the-legend-of-lone-star-d…
*For those who are curious, Philip Deloria, who teaches in History and American Culture at Michigan has written extensively about both Indian athletes and whites who play Indian.
I agree with part of your post, Moran
Are there native americans lining up asking them to drop the name? It seems like they should be the ones to determine whether it is offensive.
Besides, the term "Redskin" in and of itself may be offensive, but in the context of it being one's mascot, it represents team pride. They are not using it in a derogatory sense. It isn't like Michigan named themselves "Wolverines" to make fun of a species.
The lawsuit is comprised of Native American requesting the name change.
Well then there ya go!
So it's okay to use a word many Native Americans find deeply offensive as long as the team didn't mean it that way? I dunno about that.
So Darkie Toothpaste was ok as a brand name, because it celebrated how shiny black people's teeth looked? And Crazy Horse Malt Liquor was ok because, well, nothing like getting as drunk as a drunken injun, right? I totally see your logic.
And yes, for all of you questioning whether Native Americans have been pursuing this issue, the answer is yes, for more than 20 years. Didn't notice until recently? Well that's not really surprising, is it?
The wolverine is an animal, by the way.
People act like this issue came out of nowhere. I remember debating this in American History class in 1996.
I'm glad to see that the same absurd arguments like "What's next?! Detroit Tigers will have to change their name because it is offensive to Tigers?" are still being used. Same slippery slope garbage it was back then.
It used to be a lot more.