What's in a name?

or do as I say, not as I do mantra.

But the majority of natives are NOT offended, at least according to polling. So why is the majority being ignored?

And who am I to tell you that you should be offended?

I will quote from a Facebook post of a good friend of mine who is aboriginal.

“Redskins? is part of that mentality from colonial times when our people were hunted by soldiers and mercenaries who were paid for the scalps of our men, women and children. How can anyone claim this is a proud tradition to come from? The labels, racism and hatred that Indian people continue to experience are directly tied to those racial slurs. Let me be clear: The racial slur “redskins? is not okay with me. It’s never going to be okay with me. It’s inappropriate, damaging and racist.
And that describes perfectly why this Redskin name is different IMO from any of the other team names like Chiefs, Indians, Braves etc. The word uniquely is considered a derogatory term by a significant number of Native Americans/aboriginal people - that's good enough for me.

wow. you always seem to have a 'friend' who suits every discussion.
kinda like mikem always claimed to have spent a few years working at any place that was being discussed.

but if the term is so offensive to aboriginals, why are there Native American schools that call their sports teams “Redskins”?

His name is Warren Green. He is originally from Kenora Ontario and currently lives in Toronto but was in Hamilton last week at an open house of the Native Centre at 678 Main Street East in Hamilton where he works once a month with Aboriginal youth. He is an Outreach & Support Service Worker at The Ontario Aboriginal HIV/AIDS Strategy. Would you like his cellphone number Drummer so you can verify he knows me? :roll:

Back to the original post, the question was posed as to whether the Eskimos should be changed and I view it is two separate questions. If the term Eskimo was viewed in any way as being offensive, there may be a comparison but to the best of my knowledge, nobody considers the Eskimo name to be offensive so that is a non-issue.

Tangled - I don't know - I'm not an expert on this. I just know that the term is considered derogatory by lots of native groups and that is what I base my decision on.

Who knows - perhaps in that region or among the tribe that school is a part of 'Redskins' does not have as negative a meaning as it does with other tribes. And it is quite different for a local native school where in the town they play in it is not considered offensive describing themselves that way - compared to a commercial enterprise not a native organization located in an area of the country where local native groups DO TAKE OFFENCE.

Also there is a difference between using 'slang' words to self-identify compared to others using those terms - when traditionally those others used them historically in a derogatory way. For example today it is generally considered OK for blacks among themselves to use the N word and sometimes good non-black friends can get away with using the word in a 'friendly' way among black friends, just like 'fag' among gays. A few straight friends or members of my family can use that word around me in certain contexts and I don't take offence but likely would if a relative stranger referred to me that way.

And cfleskfan - re: the Eskimos - I tend to agree with you from what I understand.

your friend would be happy knowing you’re giving his info out on the internet?
some ‘friend’.

He said it was OK to do so. He's justifiably proud of who he is and what he does. My name is Patrick Barry. I have no problem standing behind anything I put anywhere on the internet and would be happy to have friends quote me 99% of the time. (Even I the odd time have made a bonehead post - that I regret - but I've never found the need to delete anything.

It’s not by about 80-90% of natives and in fact, a number of them embrace it. That’s what I base mine on.

'embrace' it is a stretch. Any polls I've seen quoted on this are something like ten years old with suspect methodology and was 'did not take offence' to the term - not 'embrace' it - very different.

Regardless of how many are 'not offended' by it a sizeable portion are offended - so I take the view this uncertainty of what percentage shouldn't really matter. That the word has an undeniably racist history and is considered by many to be offensive - it should not be used.

And the situation today is that these are the groups asking for the change - the Cherokee, Comanche, Oneida and Seminole tribes, as well as the National Congress of American Indians, the largest intertribal organization, which represents more than 250 groups with a combined enrollment of 1.2 million. - “The ‘Redskins’ trademark is disparaging to Native Americans and perpetuates a centuries-old stereotype of Native Americans as ‘blood-thirsty savages,’ ‘noble warriors’ and an ethnic group ‘frozen in history,’? the National Congress said in a brief filed in the lawsuit.

The fact is that no matter what you call any particular franchise, somebody could dredge up some obscure reason to oppose or question the name. Sometimes it is simple to oppose. There could be an argument that the Calgary Stampeders name glorifies rodeos and rodeos are cruel, thereby the name promotes cruelty to animals. The simple fact is that though some may consider the name Redskins to be offensive, it is in itself not meant to be, in fact most people considerate the opposite and the fact is that if the Washington Franchise change the name, there would be native groups that will protest the name change.

To take things further, the most successful sports franchise in many peoples opinion is the New York Yankees. For many the term Yankee is meant to be offensive. The fact is that some people will complain about being hung by a new rope and in my opinion there are many people who protest just for the sake of protest.

That is my opinion and I don't need to prove it. This is for the most part a forum to express opinions, people have no right to question the morals or the intent of the contributors. If somebody claims the have native friends it is no business of any body to question that claim. Challenge the opinion or the viewpoint, don't challenge the contributor. A forum that involves one person would be pretty boring. In my case very correct but boring nonetheless.

I don't think many native groups will be protesting if the Redskins change their name. I certainly don't recall any protests when schools like Stanford changed their name from Indians to Cardinal after a request to drop the Indian mascot and name by native groups and their supporters. And that was a much less controversial name than the derogatory Redskins name.

However none of that addresses what must be the most offensive team name to English teachers everywhere - the Toronto Maple Leafs. Everybody knows the plural of leaf is leaves. :stuck_out_tongue: :stuck_out_tongue:

A sizeable portion? They are not even close to being a majority! And while the poll might be a decade old, the last large-scale one I saw stated that almost 90% of natives didn’t object to it. My sizeable is a lot larger than your sizeable.

And there are a number of mostly-native high schools that use the name still. There would be one more if a native lady that tried to stop a school from changing theirs had won. If that’s not embracing it, I don’t know what word you want to use. But at the end of the day,

...it's not going to be easy telling the Kingston (Okla.) High School (57.7 percent Native American) Redskins that the name they've worn on their uniforms for 104 years has been a joke on them this whole time. Because they wear it with honor.

“We have two great tribes here,” says Kingston assistant school superintendent Ron Whipkey, “the Chicasaw and the Choctaw. And not one member of those tribes has ever come to me or our school with a complaint. It is a prideful thing to them.”

“It’s a name that honors the people,” says Kingston English teacher Brett Hayes, who is Choctaw. "The word ‘Oklahoma’ itself is Choctaw for ‘red people.’ The students here don’t want it changed. To them, it seems like it’s just people who have no connection with the Native American culture, people out there trying to draw attention to themselves.

“My kids are really afraid we’re going to lose the Redskin name. They say to me, ‘They’re not going to take it from us, are they, Dad?’”


Why don’t these people get a say?

I can imagine how that conversation went;

Travel pat: hey, friend. In the event I need a native reference in a post on a cfl forum in the future, can I use you as my reference and give out all your personal information as well as contact number so forum members can call you and verify my claims?

Friend; of course. I’m proud of who I am and what I do.

:roll: :roll:

The mascot of the Fighting Irish is not drunk.

"Redskins" is a racial slur and has been used as one in the past. Chiefs, Blackhawks, Celtics, Fighting Irish etc are not. They may offend some people but they are not in the same ballpark as "REDSKIN."

Logos are a different discussion altogether.

"REDSKIN" is a racist slur. The name is not appropriate and should go.

Actually drummer it was a quick exchange on facebook chat. I saw he was online and I know he posted about this yesterday so we had this exchange and I quote

"Hey Warren - I’m involved in a discussion on a CFL chatboard where I’m trying to convince people why the Redskins name is racist and should be changed - is it OK if I quote your post from yesterday’

His reply - ‘Hey Pat - Please use it - how’s your Mom doing?’

Then when drummer doubts I have an aboriginal friend - I ask ‘Hey Warren - believe it or not some idiot now doubts that I actually have an aboriginal friend - lol. Mind if I use your name and deets.’

His reply - ‘Do you really think you need to ask? - go for it!’