n. Offensive Slang: Used as a disparaging term for a Native American.
n : offensive terms for Native Americans [syn: Redskin, Injun, red man]
I realize not all Native Americans are offended by it, but it sure seems like the word is meant to be offensive. This is one of those arguments that never end, so I'm done with my 2 cents.
The bottom line here is that the term 'Redskin' is a derogatory slang term. It is akin to mexicans being called 'wetback', or Vietnamese being called 'gooks' or Chinese being called 'slants', or Africans being called 'spooks', or white americans being called 'honkys' or black americans being called 'niggers'.
The fact that is is still being allowed shows the lack of relavance that Native Americans have currently in this country. It is not right and this goes beyond a need to be PC. The fact is this is not an offensive term to anyone else so we trivialise it as no big deal.
If you are not of Mexican descent does the term 'wetback' offend you? Probably not, but that does not make it any less offensive to the target population.
Here is a good rule of them when deciding this issue....
"Would you walk up to a 7 foot tall 300 pound individual of the race in question and call him a ....."
If the answer is "sure," then the term is probably not offensive....
If the answer is "hell no," then you know somewhere deep down that the term is probably derrogatory....
Now I don't know about you, but I aint gonna walk up to any big native american and call him a redskin.... On the other hand, I would have no problems calling him a Seminole....
And this coming from the biggest Redskin (and Seminole) fan out there....
deacon wrote:The bottom line here is that the term 'Redskin' is a derogatory slang term. It is akin to mexicans being called 'wetback', or Vietnamese being called 'gooks' or Chinese being called 'slants', or Africans being called 'spooks', or white americans being called 'honkys' or black americans being called 'niggers'.
The fact that is is still being allowed shows the lack of relavance that Native Americans have currently in this country. It is not right and this goes beyond a need to be PC. The fact is this is not an offensive term to anyone else so we trivialise it as no big deal.
If you are not of Mexican descent does the term 'wetback' offend you? Probably not, but that does not make it any less offensive to the target population.
Think about it!
It's not as simple as you make it out. No one would call their team the gooks, the slants or the wetbacks because they are clearly derogatory and people want their team to have a positive name. On the other hand, whoever named their team the Redskins felt it was a positive term and did not intend it to be derogatory.
Further, from the polls I've seen, the majority (80% I think) of native americans don't have a problem with the name, either. So basically what we're talking about is a term that offends a relatively small population and is getting close to the PC "no one must be offended" mindset. There's talk of slippery slopes - how soon before any term that offends anyone at all becomes unacceptable? That's an impossible goal.
Further, from the polls I've seen, the majority (80% I think) of native americans don't have a problem with the name, either. So basically what we're talking about is a term that offends a relatively small population and is getting close to the PC "no one must be offended" mindset.
to which i have already responded:
through a few centuries, our culture has conditioned native americans to let everything slide. when a culture and a lifestyle and a homeland have been robbed, what's the weight of a derogatory term?
if i beat the snot out of you, rob you, and violate members of your family in all sorts of unspeakable ways, how bothered will you be when i turn around and look at your sorry, white butt and assign you some pejorative term? it's the least of the offenses. but it's still an offense. that, friends, is where principles become the issue.
benjapage wrote: to which i have already responded:
through a few centuries, our culture has conditioned native americans to let everything slide. when a culture and a lifestyle and a homeland have been robbed, what's the weight of a derogatory term?
Perhaps your theory is true, or perhaps most native americans are smart enough not to take offense when none is intended.
Goatwhacker wrote:It's not as simple as you make it out. No one would call their team the gooks, the slants or the wetbacks because they are clearly derogatory and people want their team to have a positive name. On the other hand, whoever named their team the Redskins felt it was a positive term and did not intend it to be derogatory.
This makes no sense. During the 60's and 70's, it was acceptable to call Asians gooks. So, if someone had started a team back then because they admired that Asians are smart or some other stereotypical trait (like Native Americans being the "noble savage"), and called them the Gooks, then that makes it ok, today, because they did not intend it to be derogatory?
Maybe since Asians don't have the stigma of other minorities, this argument doesn't carry as much weight. But, "nigger" was an acceptable term back then too. If someone named their team that because they admired a stereotypical trait like athletic ability, it doesn't make it ok today.
The Redskins were named in the 30's! Don't we all believe this country has changed for the better since then? Just change the damn name already, it's so obviously racist. And for the argument that says it's just a teamname...it goes both ways, it's just a teamname, so just change it; if it's not a big deal to have a racist teamname, then it's not a big deal to just change it.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Baseball
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by Heimholder » Fri Oct 21, 2005 12:50 pm 
