Half US Senate Pressuring NFL to Change Redskins Name, Comparing Situation to Donald Sterling

[Jims_Doors]

You aren't supporting any of your claims with anything other than personal feeling. When you compared the "N" word with Redskin you showed your ignorance on the matter. They aren't comparable because they don't hold the same history of hatred or pain. It's really quite simple.

During the entire history of America until the turn of the twentieth century, Indigenous Americans were hunted, killed, and forcibly removed from their lands by European settlers. This includes the paying of bounties beginning in the colonial period with, for example, a proclamation against the Penobscot Indians in 1755 issued by King George II of Great Britain, known commonly as the Phips Proclamation. The proclamation orders, “His Majesty’s subjects to Embrace all opportunities of pursuing, captivating, killing and Destroying all and every of the aforesaid Indians.”

The colonial government paid 50 pounds for scalps of males over 12 years, 25 pounds for scalps of women over 12, and 20 pounds for scalps of boys and girls under 12. Twenty-five British pounds sterling in 1755, worth around $9,000 today —a small fortune in those days when an English teacher earned 60 pounds a year. Since the proclamation itself does not use the word, citing it as the origin of "redskin" as another word for scalp has also been called "revisionist history".

However, an historical association between the use of "redskin" and the paying of bounties can be made. In 1863, a Winona, MN newspaper, the Daily Republican, printed among other announcements: "The state reward for dead Indians has been increased to $200 for every red-skin sent to Purgatory. This sum is more than the dead bodies of all the Indians east of the Red River are worth.

Americans certainly scalped Indians during the Revolution and after," says Colin Calloway, who teaches history at Dartmouth College. "They also stripped Indian corpses of skin."

New England is littered with evidence if you know where to look. Some 35 miles north of the Hannah Dustin statue, at New Hampshire's Rumney rest area off Route 25, a discreet historic marker reading "Baker River" tells of Lieutenant Thomas Baker and his scouting party, whose 1712 razing of a nearby Pemigewasset Indian village earned a "scalp bounty" of 40 pounds sterling from Massachusetts Colonial authorities. The deed earned Baker a promotion to captain - and a namesake river.

Historical records confirm that Colonial authorities offered a bounty on Indian scalps. Hannah Dustin, for example, collected a monetary reward and a pewter tankard. In Salem, redeemed scalps were hung along the walls of the town courthouse, in full view of the public, until the building was torn down in 1785.


No pain or hatred????????

 

[Wedgie]

Lol....

Dood, do you even know what year it is?

Obviously you know how to cut and paste, but think? Dont think so.

 

[Caliskinsfan]

Everyone has a right to have and state their opinion. We are still a republic, last I checked.

The problem is when one segment of the population demands the rest of the population to think the same way.

You may feel redskin is derogatory. Many do not. I do not.

Intent and context are everything. That's why you have mitigating circumstances in law.

I don't agree with "whoever the people" that are telling me, that when I declare myself a redskin fan, I am insulting Native Americans.

You may not agree with me, but I fully accept your RIGHT to not agree with me.

Just don't try and shove this political correctness down my throat. I cry BS.

 

[RoboticDreams]

During the entire history of America until the turn of the twentieth century, Indigenous Americans were hunted, killed, and forcibly removed from their lands by European settlers. This includes the paying of bounties beginning in the colonial period with, for example, a proclamation against the Penobscot Indians in 1755 issued by King George II of Great Britain, known commonly as the Phips Proclamation. The proclamation orders, “His Majesty’s subjects to Embrace all opportunities of pursuing, captivating, killing and Destroying all and every of the aforesaid Indians.”

The colonial government paid 50 pounds for scalps of males over 12 years, 25 pounds for scalps of women over 12, and 20 pounds for scalps of boys and girls under 12. Twenty-five British pounds sterling in 1755, worth around $9,000 today —a small fortune in those days when an English teacher earned 60 pounds a year. Since the proclamation itself does not use the word, citing it as the origin of "redskin" as another word for scalp has also been called "revisionist history".

However, an historical association between the use of "redskin" and the paying of bounties can be made. In 1863, a Winona, MN newspaper, the Daily Republican, printed among other announcements: "The state reward for dead Indians has been increased to $200 for every red-skin sent to Purgatory. This sum is more than the dead bodies of all the Indians east of the Red River are worth.

Americans certainly scalped Indians during the Revolution and after," says Colin Calloway, who teaches history at Dartmouth College. "They also stripped Indian corpses of skin."

New England is littered with evidence if you know where to look. Some 35 miles north of the Hannah Dustin statue, at New Hampshire's Rumney rest area off Route 25, a discreet historic marker reading "Baker River" tells of Lieutenant Thomas Baker and his scouting party, whose 1712 razing of a nearby Pemigewasset Indian village earned a "scalp bounty" of 40 pounds sterling from Massachusetts Colonial authorities. The deed earned Baker a promotion to captain - and a namesake river.

Historical records confirm that Colonial authorities offered a bounty on Indian scalps. Hannah Dustin, for example, collected a monetary reward and a pewter tankard. In Salem, redeemed scalps were hung along the walls of the town courthouse, in full view of the public, until the building was torn down in 1785.


No pain or hatred????????

Just read this article and then tell me what you really know of the matter. This was researched for 7 months by Ives Goddard, an Indian language scholar of the Smithsonian Institute.

Redskins: The debate over the Washington football team's name incorrectly invokes history.

 

[Caliskinsfan]

Interestingly enough, this thread reflects a lot of peoples thinking on the redskin name. Most do not think it is derogatory in intent or design. A few do.

 

[Wedgie]

Interestingly enough, this thread reflects a lot of peoples thinking on the redskin name. Most do not think it is derogatory in intent or design. A few do.

Yeah, true enough, but if American Indians themselves dont care, that's pretty much all I need. But then again, Im not the sort to try and force an adult, and a business owner, to change the name of their business because I get a smug satisfaction out of doing so.

 

[Jims_Doors]

Just read this article and then tell me what you really know of the matter. This was researched for 7 months by Ives Goddard, an Indian language scholar of the Smithsonian Institute.

Redskins: The debate over the Washington football team's name incorrectly invokes history.

And from that article:

Of course, the names of many peoples who have been at war have been used with an intention to demonize or denigrate. That we can find Germans spoken of with malice during World War II, though, does not make German slang or offensive.But the informal usage of redskin seems to have made it especially inviting to the creators of frontier tales.

Such contexts and, more importantly, the violent history of U.S. Indian policy, help explain why the 1898 Webster's Collegiate dictionary labeled red-skin "often contemptuous," as Peter Sokolowski of Merriam-Webster has pointed out. But our lexicographical take on the word remained complicated.


So in other words, since the name had been used with an intention to demonize or denigrate for well over a hundred years, all of a sudden it wasn't suppose to be?

"A linguistic analysis of 42 books published between 1875 and 1930 shows that negative contexts in the use of redskin were significantly more frequent than positive usage. The use of the word Indian in a similarly selected set of books was more balanced though negative contexts were still more frequent than positive contexts. The term was in common use in movies during the most popular period for Hollywood westerns approximately 1920-1970, with "redskins" usually being used to refer to Native Americans as primitive and warlike. As with any term perceived to be discriminatory, different individuals may hold differing opinions of the term's appropriateness."

 

[NinerSickness]

Question for people who, for whatever reason, think the name needs to go.

Honest question: can you explain to me exactly how the name of a football team hurts another person. Like specifically.

 

[RoboticDreams]

And from that article:

Of course, the names of many peoples who have been at war have been used with an intention to demonize or denigrate. That we can find Germans spoken of with malice during World War II, though, does not make German slang or offensive.But the informal usage of redskin seems to have made it especially inviting to the creators of frontier tales.

Such contexts and, more importantly, the violent history of U.S. Indian policy, help explain why the 1898 Webster's Collegiate dictionary labeled red-skin "often contemptuous," as Peter Sokolowski of Merriam-Webster has pointed out. But our lexicographical take on the word remained complicated.


So in other words, since the name had been used with an intention to demonize or denigrate for well over a hundred years, all of a sudden it wasn't suppose to be?

"A linguistic analysis of 42 books published between 1875 and 1930 shows that negative contexts in the use of redskin were significantly more frequent than positive usage. The use of the word Indian in a similarly selected set of books was more balanced though negative contexts were still more frequent than positive contexts. The term was in common use in movies during the most popular period for Hollywood westerns approximately 1920-1970, with "redskins" usually being used to refer to Native Americans as primitive and warlike. As with any term perceived to be discriminatory, different individuals may hold differing opinions of the term's appropriateness."

Okay, you are obviously hell-bent on being offended by this so don't let me stop you. I don't think the majority of the Native American population agrees with you but whatevs.

You took a snippet from the article that furthers your ideological stance and totally dismissed the overall gist of the article. Enjoy being offended by everything, JD.

 

[mrwallace2ku]

Question for people who, for whatever reason, think the name needs to go.

Honest question: can you explain to me exactly how the name of a football team hurts another person. Like specifically.

Loaded Q...words don't hurt anyone anytime, just the word use in context does. In my OP the name should go.

 

[Jims_Doors]

Interestingly enough, this thread reflects a lot of peoples thinking on the redskin name. Most do not think it is derogatory in intent or design. A few do.

If some of today's American Indians find it offensive, that's what matters most. Not what you or I think posting in this thread.

It's quite clear that some American Indians still do find it offensive.

 

[NinerSickness]

Loaded Q...words don't hurt anyone anytime, just the word use in context does.

Ok, so in this instance the context is the name of a football team. Does that actually hurt any one particular person on earth?

I ask because changing the name would absolutely hurt people in the Redskins' organization. It would cost them a truck load of money. So if the name isn't hurting anyone, why force 'em to spend all that money?

 

[RoboticDreams]

Loaded Q...words don't hurt anyone anytime, just the word use in context does. In my OP the name should go.

And in what context is this word ever used as a means to insult those of Native American descent? I just don't get the hysteria over this. People don't go around screaming "you good for nothin' Redskin!!!!"

 

[ram29jackson]

Ahhh...so less representing makes it ok.

Got it.

as a matter of fact it does. Majority rules. this liberal bullcrap that if only 1 is offended it needs to go about any topic in life is a bunch of stupidity. tv magnifies the smallest groups and the stupidest topics to unneeded levels.

this is a non issue of the utmost non- ness . No one with a brain gives a damn.

its a contrived issue that doesn't do a damn thing to help or hinder a damn thing about the lives of indians

 

[mrwallace2ku]

Ok, so in this instance the context is the name of a football team. Does that actually hurt any one particular person on earth?

I ask because changing the name would absolutely hurt people in the Redskins' organization. It would cost them a truck load of money. So if the name isn't hurting anyone, why force 'em to spend all that money?

Maybe the "skinnies" should focus on putting a winning product on the field instead of worrying about their merchandise branding. Changing a name and then winning on the field will kill two birds with one stone.

 

[Jims_Doors]

Okay, you are obviously hell-bent on being offended by this so don't let me stop you. I don't think the majority of the Native American population agrees with you but whatevs.

You took a snippet from the article that furthers your ideological stance and totally dismissed the overall gist of the article. Enjoy being offended by everything, JD.

Never once did I say I was offended by the word, but obviously some are and are others who have no Indian roots. Sports writers Peter King and John Feinstine already have said they won't be using the term anymore.

It's not about ones self being hurt, it's about having feelings for others who are "directly" hurt by it.

 

[ram29jackson]

Yeah right. Keep living in your own little world.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/big-l...ginalize-chief-wahoo-logo-081024357--mlb.html

whats your point ? they still wear the logo

 

[mrwallace2ku]

And in what context is this word ever used as a means to insult those of Native American descent? I just don't get the hysteria over this. People don't go around screaming "you good for nothin' Redskin!!!!"

I have heard ^said remarks up the Gorge out here where local fisherman bitch-n-moan about Native Americans and the way Indians get to fish in the Columbia and they don't. Small sample I know. Put it to a vote amongst the folks that name affects, let the cards fall as they may...end of story except for Washington's new name of course.

 

[ram29jackson]

Never once did I say I was offended by the word, but obviously some are and are others who have no Indian roots. Sports writers Peter King and John Feinstine already have said they won't be using the term anymore.

It's not about ones self being hurt, it's about having feelings for others who are "directly" hurt by it.

no, its about being stupid and agreeing with stupid people because you cant think with your head instead of your feelings.

Peter King is a great football writer in my opinion and gets a great inside view but he's as dumb as a rock on this or just trying to appease a stupid reader base

 

[erckm510]

whats your point ? they still wear the logo

Read the article for the point. Geez.