- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why are the Redskins getting so much heat?
Posted on 8/21/14 at 12:37 pm to DelU249
Posted on 8/21/14 at 12:37 pm to DelU249
quote:Indian. The definition has changed. Its genesis if of course due to Columbus's mistake and stubbornness, just as Hitler changed the meaning of Aryan and the swastika.
what is a more accurate description?
redskin
or
indian
Just as "Hispanic" which meant Spaniard (as in, Europe) to the Romans, now means people of mixed Spanish and Native descent living in the Western Hemisphere. Are you suggesting we call them brownskins instead?
This post was edited on 8/21/14 at 12:38 pm
1
Posted on 8/21/14 at 12:38 pm to PrimeTime Money
quote:
Why not?
Just because the dictionary didn't list the word as offensive then doesn't mean it wasn't offensive. It just means we as a society were desensitized to its actual meaning. That doesn't mean it can't change.
Posted on 8/21/14 at 12:48 pm to genro
quote:
Offense and discrimination
precisely, "is it offensive to native americans" meaning "are native americans offended by this"
is one issue
"is it racist"
is another
I'm unconcerned with the first one. It is so fricking irrelevant...The NAACP protested a spaced them hallmark card because they thought "black holes" sounded to similar to "black hos" did they find it offensive? obviously...do I give a shite? nope. Is that card racist? nope. Is that conclusion less meaningful than a black person's with the opposite opinion? nope
are native americans (generally speaking) offended by "redskins"? I don't know. I would imagine so, but I don't come to that conclusion because I think "redskins" is demeaning or nasty. I come to that conclusion because we live in an era obsessed with wrongs committed in the past and outrage over simple things. We are over consumed by cultural sensitivity. Is redskins "racist"? I don't think so. Do my feelings on the subject have less merit because I'm white? nope. And the overwhelming majority of people don't think it's offensive...and I take that as, they don't think it is racist, demeaning, insensitive, etc.
If dan Snyder wanted to change the name because he thought it was...who gives a shite, if he wants to change it because his consumers want it changed...who gives a shite. And that goes the other way as well
however, you cannot find one person who can articulately explain how it is "racist" when a black person says n***A it is not considered racist...one because of the intent (which is valid)...two because they're black (invalid) the first is sufficient
I actually do believe that the "A" in n***a makes a difference, but only because people believe it does...it is used with a different intent, in a different time, in a different context. even with an er...it's all about meaning and context.
words are just phonetic sounds WE attach meaning to...it is similar to money valuation...WE put our faith in currency, WE determine its value...otherwise it's just a piece of paper.
Posted on 8/21/14 at 12:52 pm to genro
quote:
Indian
incorrect, while tens of thousands of years ago, they traveled from the land now known as india...they aren't indian. They do however have a skin color most closely resembling red (I'm actually color blind so please don't get into further detail with actual color
)and obviously I get where its origins come from; however the original meaning and the current meaning are not the same...which leads me to quote:
The definition has changed.
what a novel idea...so you mean a word like "redskin" could theoretically not be racist even though it once was
quote:
just as Hitler changed the meaning of Aryan and the swastika.
precisely...and it can change back in 150 years...who the frick knows. You're assuming that only works in one direction...except you're not because you think "indian" is a more accurate description of native americans
words mean, what we want them to mean
Posted on 8/21/14 at 12:56 pm to DelU249
yes it's all about the words and what people read into them as meaning. According to what I have read, redskins is considered derogatory by Native Americans to a great degree. Good enough for me. White Guilt like that one.
I guess I never liked the Skins or the Cowboys anyway.
I guess I never liked the Skins or the Cowboys anyway.
Posted on 8/21/14 at 12:59 pm to ballscaster
quote:
On one side we have people who claim that the word is offensive and should be changed.
On the other side we have people who claim that the word isn't really that big a deal and that there is no need to change it.
Somehow the second group is way angrier than the first group.
Wat. Yea, the people who refuse the say the name "redskin" arent angry at all...
Posted on 8/21/14 at 1:01 pm to Hazelnut
quote:
are irish men all angry little fellas who like to fight?
I know you're just making a point, but to be fair, they are the fighting irish
Exactly what he means... The "fighting irish" must mean that all the irish like to fight. They must be so offended...
Posted on 8/21/14 at 1:03 pm to jg8623
If the Irish changed their name it wouldn't piss me off
Posted on 8/21/14 at 1:06 pm to genro
I don't understand why people think Fighting Irish is offensive. "Fighting" was never meant to be exclusive to just the Irish. They said that of many teams and peoples back then. You know, Fighting Tigers, the Fighting 53rd Infantry, whatever.
I could understand if it said Notre Damn the Ginger Drunken Irish, but that's not what it says.
I could understand if it said Notre Damn the Ginger Drunken Irish, but that's not what it says.
Posted on 8/21/14 at 1:06 pm to csorre1
quote:
I don't think it is racist. I think it has become politically incorrect even though no one seemed to have a problem with the name 15 years ago.
I agree with this
Posted on 8/21/14 at 1:09 pm to JEAUXBLEAUX
quote:
yes it's all about the words and what people read into them as meaning
no, it both what is communicated and what is received and sometimes the two aren't the same thing.
quote:
According to what I have read, redskins is considered derogatory by Native Americans to a great degree.
and? I understand that dan Snyder and all owners before him didn't mean it to be and don't consider it to be derogatory...one side doesn't get preference...and in talking with native americans...which I do because a dear friend of mine is 100% NA, not an Elizabeth Warren wannabe, I wouldn't call him a redskin...why? because of how he receives it? If I want to name my business redskins, and the intent is clear, the meaning is clear and almost everyone likes it, but he has a problem, he can go frick himself. And he knows this...
we're talking about a team name...they are called the redskins...no one is calling the Navajo tribe "redskins" so I really don't give two shits about what is being received, because the message isn't solely intended for them. It's for everyone.
If dan Snyder was addressing a group of native americans and called them redskins in a derogatory manner...different story.
and though I can logically understand why the message isn't racist, I've yet to understand or hear a clear explanation of why a minority of people receive it as racist...
and if you come back with some shite that I'm racist or "an arse" we're done discussing this.
Posted on 8/21/14 at 1:10 pm to SabiDojo
I'm not offended by any of it. It's just a stupid sports name, it doesn't matter. The only one I would give a shite about is the Crimson Tide.
Posted on 8/21/14 at 1:12 pm to genro
quote:
It's just a stupid sports name, it doesn't matter
but it is indicative of another issue and quite frankly even that doesn't matter...though it does baffle the bajesus out of me...
political correctness, the motivations, the tactics employed to enact changes wanted, the use of language, and a very interesting way of censoring people. And it is somewhat personal for me because of personal things that what I think I'm communicating in a very clear manner is more often than the average person...not clearly received...despite lengthy explanation over even the most minute things
and here is an issue that the majority understands the intent, the message, and I do as well...yet there is a minority of people who do not, and I feel determined to have them explain exactly why that is...and yet, I have yet to hear even a decent explanation...then there is also a sense of vagueness...as we have covered...offensive and racist aren't the same things, though people don't generally think that specifically (I, and trust me it is quite an unfortunate affliction, do.)
This post was edited on 8/21/14 at 1:16 pm
Posted on 8/21/14 at 1:17 pm to JG77056
I like walking up to Native American girls and saying "wassup squaw?". Surprisingly, this has yielded pretty poor results so far, but obviously with initial opening bait that strong and tasty, it's only a matter of time.
This post was edited on 8/21/14 at 1:20 pm
Posted on 8/21/14 at 1:23 pm to DelU249
Moron, idiot, and imbecile all began as neutral, medical terms. Those fell out of favor in the medical community as their use in the culture at large deemed it inappropriate. The same thing happened to retarded. The same thing will happen to mentally challenged.
By your exact same logic, it is entirely appropriate for me to call a mentally handicapped person an idiot.
All of our words evolve and change over time. Lesbian used to just mean someone from Lesbos. It may seem silly in the short run to just keep replacing them as their cultural definitions and connotations change. But that's the way it's always been, going back to ancient times. You can look at the Greek word "barbarian" and how its definition changed over time within the Greek empire.
By your exact same logic, it is entirely appropriate for me to call a mentally handicapped person an idiot.
All of our words evolve and change over time. Lesbian used to just mean someone from Lesbos. It may seem silly in the short run to just keep replacing them as their cultural definitions and connotations change. But that's the way it's always been, going back to ancient times. You can look at the Greek word "barbarian" and how its definition changed over time within the Greek empire.
Posted on 8/21/14 at 1:27 pm to JG77056
Mike Carey (NFL official) refusing to ref games last season. Phil Simms not using it on broadcasts.
How long have these guys been ok with it, and when did they decide they werent?
How long have these guys been ok with it, and when did they decide they werent?
Posted on 8/21/14 at 1:29 pm to genro
quote:
Moron, idiot, and imbecile all began as neutral, medical terms. Those fell out of favor in the medical community as their use in the culture at large deemed it inappropriate. The same thing happened to retarded. The same thing will happen to mentally challenged.
By your exact same logic, it is entirely appropriate for me to call a mentally handicapped person an idiot.
All of our words evolve and change over time. Lesbian used to just mean someone from Lesbos. It may seem silly in the short run to just keep replacing them as their cultural definitions and connotations change. But that's the way it's always been, going back to ancient times. You can look at the Greek word "barbarian" and how its definition changed over time within the Greek empire.
Well if redskin has evolved overtime the only thing it evolved to would be the name of the team in Washington DC. It definitely is not more derogatory now than before. In fact, ive never heard anyone use the term outside of the football team.
Posted on 8/21/14 at 1:35 pm to genro
quote:
Those fell out of favor in the medical community as their use in the culture at large deemed it inappropriate
yes, by a majority of the people, not by a majority of imbeciles.
quote:
All of our words evolve and change over time
but what you fail to understand is that the word "redskins" is almost entirely used to refer to a football team and the majority of people don't find it to be "racist" "inappropriate" or any such thing
If the popular sentiment swished the other way, I wouldn't understand "why" but at least I would agree it's racist...why? because that is how most people perceive it AND intend it.
Posted on 8/21/14 at 1:38 pm to genro
quote:
All of our words evolve and change over time
and again, you have not acknowledged the possibility that this is a two way street...and it is entirely possible given the general sentiment of those opposed that it originally was racist, that it has evolved in the opposite direction
it just is what it is...language is very much a "majority rules" arena...and the majority has ruled...not racist.
Posted on 8/21/14 at 1:43 pm to JG77056
So much heat.....some rain would probably help. Maybe a dance of some sort?
Page 4 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News