WP:Drop ‘Redskins’ name? Time to take a stand. (By Robert McCartney)

[elkabong82]

The Native Americans insulted by the term are equivalent to any loud minority - here they're joined by a separate group with guilt complexes, an audience and the figurative pen. Why should the NA version of this critter warrant more attention than others we like to deride? Because we mistreated their ancestors so badly? When the majority of NAs (anecdotal) in my experience are fans, it's appeasing the wrong group to target the name. If I thought most NAs were insulted I would agree to a change for that reason. They're not, it's a manufactured controversy and we shouldn't be giving it the time of day.

I agree with you, and if it weren't for polls showing the majority of NA folk are ok with the name, my friend who is half NA who grew up as a Redskin fan due to the area and his father and his side of the family being fans, the NA school with the same name, and other examples of support, then I'd agree with a name change, and I imagine it would have already happened too. Most don't seem to be offended by the name, the origin of the name came from NAs, Redskin was donned by use due to our NA coach and recruited players as well as wanting to be similar to the Boston Redsox, and the name is not used disparagingly. I'll again posit that it is an overreaction by the PC crowd to the existence of "skin" in the name.

[Bang]

The Fighting Irish, Vikings, Bills, Zips, none of those groups suffered genocide in America.

What exactly did BUFFALO BILL do?


I mean damn, you really want to get down to it, pretty much every historian says that one of the largest factors in the destruction of the native way of life was the slaughter of the buffalo herds...
and WHO was the most famous buffalo hunter?
Was it Buffalo Bob?
Buffalo Jim?
Buiffalo Trevor?

Buffalo BILL made his name destroying their way of life, and when he was done, he grabbed the most famous of the chiefs, dressed them up in costumes and paraded them around the nation in his WILD WEST SHOW.
Slaughterer.. exploiter... but not offensive.

And while the "Bills" never suffered any genocides, ONE Bill in particular played a key role in the genocides you're mentioning.

As i said,, if we're REALLY going to be worrying about what IS offensive and what's not, then I would say that the Buffalo BILLS are number one on the list of names that are offensive to native culture.

As I said,, outrage without thought. They hate our name, but no one even recognizes what that one up in Buffalo actually MEANS. (especially when you consider they wanted to originally call themselves the "Bison".. assuming to honor the animal. Instead they settled on honoring the guy who killed more of them than anyone.)

Yay outrage! Boo thinking!

~Bang

[Predicto]

Buffalo Bill (William Cody) bragged about killing almost 5000 buffalo in 1.5 years. He claimed he killed his first Native American at age 12. He was a stagedriver and then a scout in the Army employed by Custer (slaughterer of Native Americans, Wounded Knee Massacre). Bill was hired by the Union-Pacific RR company to kill buffalo to feed the men, and that is how he earned the nickname Buffalo Bill. He later worked as a guide for people wanting to hunt buffalo. He was the scout in various battles against Native Americans as the government forced them out during manifest destiny.

Perhaps you should look these things up before making false claims based off your assumptions. In fact, Buffalo Bill makes more sense as being offensive to Native Americans.

Or, let's take your argument about a term "becoming" offensive and say that the Buffalo Bills should change their name because of the serial killer.

But, at the very least, look up your history before trying to claim facts. Buffalo Bill had a lot to do with nearly wiping out buffalo, and it's how he got his name. those railroads went all across America and he killed buffalo all along the way, so many that, again, it is why he is called "Buffalo" Bill.

Buffalo Bill Cody was a showman who made lots of big claims about everything he did, and most of them were grossly exaggerated. I'm a history buff and I know all about him - I read an entire biography about him. The demise of the Bison has everything to do with Manifest Destiny and turning the entire Midwest from open plains into farmland, and Cody was less than a bit player in the process. More to the point, the name "Buffalo Bills" has no legitimate bearing on this discussion. Its a red herring argument.

Again, I'll ask for some primary sources showing Redskins commonly used as a derogatory term.

Don't 15 dictionary definitions, all of them completely consistent in finding the word insulting in today's world, mean anything?

[Larry]

Nice try. We don't call Asian-Americans "Yellowskins" because we all understand that it would be offensive if we did. Somehow, some different rule is supposed to apply to "Redskins."

Perhaps because one of the terms, you just invented, and the other has been in common usage for 75 years?

[Predicto]

Really? So I guess you are unaware that the n word was in old dictionaries and wasn't defined as racist back then. As far as cultural terms, dictionaries represent the sentiment of the time in which they are published. They are very much subjective.

Well said. "Dictionaries represent the sentiment of the time in which they are published." I like that.

The sentiment of our time clearly is that word Redskin is an offensive anachronism.

[Larry]

Don't 15 dictionary definitions, all of them completely consistent in finding the word insulting in today's world, mean anything?

And all of them ignoring the way the term is used, 99% of the time, because well, that doesn't count?

How about the opinions of 90% of actual Native Americans?

[Predicto]

Perhaps because one of the terms, you just invented, and the other has been in common usage for 75 years?

I thought you said it wasn't commonly used.

[Larry]

The sentiment of our time clearly is that word Redskin is an offensive anachronism.

When not used as a proper noun.

(Words can have more than one definition.)

---------- Post added February-7th-2013 at 05:24 PM ----------

I thought you said it wasn't commonly used.

I said it wasn't commonly used if you ignore the two usages I listed, which make up 99% of the usage, but which the dictionary isn't allowed to count.

[Predicto]

And all of them ignoring the way the term is used, 99% of the time, because well, that doesn't count?

How about the opinions of 90% of actual Native Americans?

Like the word "colored" with reference to black people, the word "Redskin" with reference to Native Americans has fallen out of favor. It is now deemed offensive by every dictionary I can find. No one uses it anymore except a football team.

Are we supposed to be like King Canute, and pretend that we can order the tide not to come in? It comes in anyway. Why fight this to the bitter end?

[elkabong82]

Buffalo Bill Cody was a showman who made lots of big claims about everything he did, and most of them were grossly exaggerated. I'm a history buff and I know all about him - I read an entire biography about him. The demise of the Bison has everything to do with Manifest Destiny and turning the entire Midwest from open plains into farmland, and Cody was less than a bit player in the process. More to the point, the name "Buffalo Bills" has any legitimate bearing on this discussion.

Don't 15 dictionary definitions, all of them completely consistent in finding the word insulting in today's world, mean anything?

I was a history major in college and teach history now. How do you think he earned the name "Buffalo" Bill? He got that name before he was ever a showman. Again, he worked for the Union Pacific RR Co. which as a history buff you should know laid track all across America (hence the company name), and Bill worked for them killing buffalo all across America. Again, Bill also led lots of folk on buffalo hunting trips. He made some tall tales, as did a lot of people in those days, He's synonymous with killing buffalo and Native Americans. You're claim that he had "little to nothing to do" with killing buffalo is patently false.

Funny how you claim Bill didn't kill many buffalo, yet his nickname was earned for doing just that. So I guess you think it's unfair that he is misconstrued as a buffalo killer, sort of like how some are telling you the name Redskin has been misconstrued.

But your argument was that Redskin has become racist. Well, Buffalo Bill has become synonymous with killing buffalo and he is one of the most famous representatives of that era and those doings, so, per your own argument, because it is viewed that way now, then it is so.

[Predicto]

When not used as a proper noun.

(Words can have more than one definition.)

---------- Post added February-7th-2013 at 05:24 PM ----------



I said it wasn't commonly used if you ignore the two usages I listed, which make up 99% of the usage, but which the dictionary isn't allowed to count.

Hey, I can split hairs with the best of them, but you are one person who can always outdo me.

[stevemcqueen1]

Thank you for pointing out that your analogy is meaningless.

Next?

I think you missed his point.

We don't openly identify people and refer to them by the color of their skin. Any people. Because it's bad. We're not really supposed to identify or delineate people based on the color of their skin. Our country has a long, awful history of doing that, so we're supposed to make an effort not to do it any more.

I'm reading a lot of specious arguments based mostly on emotion in this thread. I think the people who get so heated and dogmatic in defense of the name sense that there is something wrong about the name deep down. I think they like the status quo though, they like the tradition, and they don't like thinking or hearing that the thing they love is bad, they don't like racism in the abstract and they don't like the idea that they love something that's got a racist name.

I think the name will change eventually though, and I don't think it's going to be that big a deal. It's not worth the trouble IMO and I think keeping the name is actually bad for the brand in the rest of the world. It makes us look somewhat pariah.

[elkabong82]

Well said. "Dictionaries represent the sentiment of the time in which they are published." I like that.

The sentiment of our time clearly is that word Redskin is an offensive anachronism.

Nobody is arguing that it isn't viewed as offensive. Nice try. I said it was subjective based on cultural views. You sure are good at ignoring my actual arguments in favor of strawmen in this thread.

Again, the PC crowd considers it offensive because of the word "skin."

Who is right? Dictionaries on a cultural term who once had it down that the n word was acceptable for blacks and also meant ignorant, or the majority of NA folk in polls who say redskin is not an offensive term?

Maybe my actual argument against dictionaries with cultural terms will sink in this time.

[stevemcqueen1]

Like the word "colored" with reference to black people, the word "Redskin" with reference to Native Americans has fallen out of favor. It is now deemed offensive by every dictionary I can find. No one uses it anymore except a football team.

Are we supposed to be like King Canute, and pretend that we can order the tide not to come in? It comes in anyway. Why fight this to the bitter end?

I think I've pretty much got the same attitude as you about this. But beyond that, simple cost/benefit analysis: what's the significant benefit of stubbornly clinging to this nickname? Why is this worth fighting over?

[Larry]

Like the word "colored" with reference to black people, the word "Redskin" with reference to Native Americans has fallen out of favor. It is now deemed offensive by every dictionary I can find. No one uses it anymore except a football team.

Why did you have to put the phrase "with reference to Native Americans" in your sentance?

Could it perhaps be because your sentence boils down to "when used in an offensive manner which nobody uses any more, then I'm right"?

"If you restrict the discussion to only allow offensive uses, then the term is universally agreed to be offensive".

The term "Oreo", when used to refer to a person, is offensive (and racial). Does that mean that the term "Oreo" is universally recognized as a racially offensive term, and should be banned from our language? Or does it mean that the term "Oreo", 99% of the time, is used to refer to a trademark name for a brand of cookie, but if you wave a wand and pretend that those 99% of usages don't count, then the term is always offensive?