Jeezus Q Kryst!!!!


BaalChatzaf

Recommended Posts

Michael:

I understand your points.

However, I am not convinced of your "sense" of her being "just misguided," or, mis-educated.

I hope you are right.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 100
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

When you call someone a "redskin", you're effectively saying that the things that their ancestors suffered through were insignificant or justified or both...

I don't know of a single person who uses the term in this manner or who even believes this.

Michael

That's because they're ignorant about a lot of American history. They don't know what the term represents, and have never been faced with such discrimination, so to them "redskin" is "just a word". If they did understand what the term "redskin" meant to Native Americans, only the really crazy ones would continue to use it.

There are many people in other countries who depict black people by having actors dress up in blackface. They don't know anything about the history of racism in America that that represents, so they see nothing wrong with it and continue to do it.

Would you ever appear on American television dressed up in blackface? If not, then you understand why the Washington Redskins should change their name.

I also don't think that the enjoyment that Redskins fans derive from watching football justifies anything at all. The fans of any other team enjoy football just as much without having a racist mascot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First there was the N word. Now there is the R word

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's because they're ignorant about a lot of American history. They don't know what the term represents...

That's my point.

And you want to be the one to teach peace-loving people who are having a good time to hate?

To hate where no hatred exists in their hearts, only fun?

Dayaamm!

Shame on you.

Not shame on them.

Shame on you.

Party-pooper.

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not a numbers game. If just one Native American told me to not call Native Americans "redskins" because they find it offensive and racist, I don't know about you, but that would be enough for me.

I was born and grew up in northwest British Columbia, specifically the port of Prince Rupert. For anyone with a glancing knowledge of anthropology, this area was at one time the unknown, a last blank region on the map of the world, a place where the seafaring nations and empires sought to each make their mark. Here the blank region was visited by the Russians, the Spanish, and the British. Here the redskins were differentiated into multiple nations. Prince Rupert thus was populated not only by recent immigrants and other Canadians, but also by the Tsimshian, Nisga'a, Kwakiutl, Haida, Tlingit, and so on, cultures whose historical areas bordered the city or were close at hand.

As I grew up to teenhood, I heard many names for these people, all the curse words and denigrating terms, insults and fighting words. On the other hand, the words that covered every one of them changed with usage over time. The terms of the Indian Act (Canada's carryover of royal responsibility) implied and prescribed tutelage. "Indians" were not full citizens. They could not vote until 1960, for example, nor attend university, among other strictures of 2nd class citizenship. Indians of BC's northwest had never made treaties with the Crown (from imperial Britain to colonial and later provincial governments) unlike all the other provinces. Until the 1980s the official Crown/BC government line was that any presumed rights of the natives, whether in land or fisheries or resource management -- all such rights had been extinguished.

Meanwhile ...

The words that referred to "Indians" of the Act were joined by native indian, aboriginal people, first peoples, first nations. Growing up to adulthood, I saw the multiple barriers to full citizenship fall away from the "Indians" and as the barriers fell new ways of self-naming came to be favoured. (many similar lexical shifts took place with regard to other 'minority' groups in Canada. Kike, Hymie, Sheenie fell out of favour, as did Jap, Chinaman, East Indian, Paki, Hindu, N***er, Polack, Frenchie, Half-Breed and so on).

If one has a measure of or even no respect for the "Indians" in their multiple instances, one can use the worst of the insults, or one can use words that the "Indians" themselves choose to go by. To strain an analogy, you can say, "Call me Kyrel," and I could use "Monkey-face" ...

Because I have Cherokee heritage as well! I find the term "Native American" offensive and racist. Say it no more to any of my tribe, please. /sarcasm

How much Cherokee heritage 'shows' (ie, could we spot you in a crowd), and how much of it can you pass on to your children? I expect that you do not celebrate Cherokee Day in your household, nor speak Cherokee language.

I appreciate the sarcasm, but I find the issues clouded by slippery slope type argument.

What I learned living among a whole host of 'different' native Indians in my early years was that words hurt kids, can be used to shame and humiliate and denigrate. I saw it, I even participated at times in 'aping' the accent and stereotype. The degree of active, persistent discrimination in work, housing, schooling, however, changed over the years. What was once shameful (think of status, think of civil rights, think of the systematic effect of a hundred odd years of tutelage, in this case culture at its most basic, language), became 'different,' became worthy of pride. I am proud of my country in the slow progress we have made to enfranchise a once-curbed class of people. The town I grew up in eventually shed a legacy of racism and tutelage. It took time and effort.

Whether you think of them as a large pot of similar, Cherokee not much different from Nisga'a, or whether you think of them as oppressed or properly subjugated or federally-favoured, I think we have to be alert to what Native Indians (or First Nations, or whatever) say about words that hurt, that tend to denigrate individuals. I don't really think anyone would (all things being equal) choose to call a new Native American acquaintance a 'brave,' a 'redskin,' or similar.

On the issue of sports-team names, I wonder if there is a disconnect. If what would be tasteless in personal conversation (N-word, Redskin, Brave, Klooch, Paiute) is used as a trademark for a team, is there a similar tastelessness?**

I do find the term "Native American" offensive. I am a mixture of Cherokee, Scottish (and maybe some Irish in that part), and English. The white part of my bloodline immigrated to the USA. The red part was presumably already here for generations.

It sounds like you emerged from the Hills without a particular ethnicity -- and then plunged into a multi-ethnic society in Brazil. I doubt you have ever traded on a Cherokee status, be it in family myth or careful genealogy. You have no lick of racism remaining that may have been acculturated in the mountains, anyways, nor tolerance for fighting words on race. I really don't know how your 'redskin'-ness may have been expressed, nor if 'redskin' was used against you in the rough and tumble of youth. Some folks do get teased and bullied for their looks.

For example, both my half-sisters were able to discover the names and 'bloodedness' of their paternal relations to several generations. One of my sisters also inherited a much more 'Asian/Native' phenotype, so much so that she was teased for being a Chink or Chink-eyes. But, like Deanna and MSK, she had no "Cherokee" culture handed down, and nothing to preserve by the time she was an adult.

I could believe that "Redskin" was common in Hillbilly Heights, as a pet-name, or neutral badge of identity. But I doubt that the ups and downs of the Cherokee nations has had any particular meaningfulness, that neither Cherokee Blonde nor Cherokee Redface participate in Redface get-togethers or pow-wows or other cultural events.

I mignt be wrong.

What's so difficult about that is that every single thing you say or do will be offensive to someone somewhere. If you're going to cease and desist actions and behaviors based on the fact that there might be one offended person, then you're going to have to live the rest of your life having absolutely no interaction of any kind with anyone.

Isn't this another slippery-slope type argument?

I think more in terms of 'register' -- is it in my own interest to use terms that are derogatory and demeaning in my everyday life, as my preferred identifying speech act? Do I use Redskin or Injun face-to-face with folks from the reserve? Do I even use that word when thinking about recent history?

___________________

** I don't know how this squabble over the Redskins will end. I did a bit of research when this issue popped up at OL earlier. I have no idea if, when, or how the Washington team (or the Cleveland Indians) might change names, mascots or trademarked logos and icons. I don't care one way or the other, mainly because the status of (North) American native Indians bears scant relation to the names of sport teams. I think as others do here, that mere 'offence' on behalf of a group (whether Injuns, Negroes, Wetbacks, Faggots or C*nts) is one thing, and the 'rights' of the native indians in America are almost entirely another subject.

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sounds like you emerged from the Hills without a particular ethnicity -- and then plunged into a multi-ethnic society in Brazil. I doubt you have ever traded on a Cherokee status, be it in family myth or careful genealogy. You have no lick of racism remaining that may have been acculturated in the mountains, anyways, nor tolerance for fighting words on race. I really don't know how your 'redskin'-ness may have been expressed, nor if 'redskin' was used against you in the rough and tumble of youth. Some folks do get teased and bullied for their looks.

For example, both my half-sisters were able to discover the names and 'bloodedness' of their paternal relations to several generations. One of my sisters also inherited a much more 'Asian/Native' phenotype, so much so that she was teased for being a Chink or Chink-eyes. But, like Deanna and MSK, she had no "Cherokee" culture handed down, and nothing to preserve by the time she was an adult.

I could believe that "Redskin" was common in Hillbilly Heights, as a pet-name, or neutral badge of identity. But I doubt that the ups and downs of the Cherokee nations has had any particular meaningfulness, that neither Cherokee Blonde nor Cherokee Redface participate in Redface get-togethers or pow-wows or other cultural events.

I mignt be wrong.

William,

You are right I have no racism in me. I grew up perplexed by the anti-black racism that was prevalent everywhere I went. (As a kid, I didn't have much choice about where I could go. Later I put a continent between myself and that. :smile: )

As to "trading" in Cherokee status, that thought never occurred to me. What would I gain by that? Come to think of it, maybe I could get some kind of oppressed class status or something, but who wants that? :smile: And the way you describe "pet-name" and "neutral badge of identity," that's just not the way we did it when I was growing up.

The thing most people don't realize about hillbillies is the amount of sheer boredom that is part of that lifestyle. (I speak from my own experience and I am pretty sure there are others who did not suffer as much boredom as I lived through and saw around me.) My hillbillies were coal mining hillbillies. So the idea of having Indian blood in me made me special. Colorful. Exotic. Really good because it indicated a life that was anywhere but where we were.

We also used the term Irish in the same way. In fact, we romanticized this so much, I grew up thinking some of my ancestors immigrated from Ireland, not Scotland as I later discovered. My brother even named his kids Irish names and collected Irish stuff. Now he knows differently, as do I, but the Irish fantasy is still there in my heart. The Cherokee fantasy is not as strong, but it is also there in this Disney adventure kind of way.

(Long story about why this Irish and Scottish confusion. Some day after I sign up for an account at Ancestry.com and do some research, I might write about it. In terms of fact and not just fantasy, I think there's a there there. I heard my great grandfather, "Bear" Kelly, killed someone and moved to Virginia from Tennessee or Kentucky, not sure which, and changed the story to better hide from the law. He also changed the spelling from Kelley to Kelly. I need to check this though. This might even be one of the reasons his son, my grandfather, married a Cherokee. And gawd, was she a racist. She died with hatred of blacks on her tongue.)

The one stereotype I can say about my grandmother is that she was a thieving Indian. To my knowledge, she didn't participate in Cherokee culture, at least I never saw anything like that. But she had some very sticky fingers. And not a smidgen of guilt about it. The odd part is she would usually steal from one to give the stolen item as a present to another. :smile:

Back to point. When we said redskin, it was not to claim class identity. It was to dream about life somewhere else where there was no black soot all over everything and feel a connection to it. Sort of like, I am a redskin so maybe one day I will go see these marvels and exotic things that are my heritage. And I have a right to because I belong--I am a redskin, too. Ditto for Irish. Later when we moved up north near Washington DC and away from the coal mines, that attitude went with us.

I don't know if that is clear.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... here is Ayn Rand spewing the usual bigotry about how Native Americans have no rights because they are "savages":

Agreed.

Not Rand's finest hour.

Her position was more nuanced than simple bigotry, though. People who used their conceptual minds for peaceful productive purposes were A-OK by her.

Rand's prejudice was against the tribal lifestyle, not against the race. In other words, as I understand Rand, I find it inconceivable she would have looked down on a successful rational Native American businessman or other high achiever just because he was an Indian.

In fact, those are the parts of Israel she applauded while blasting the tribal lifestyle based on tradition over there.

(As to the rights thing she talked about, that--the origin of landed property--is another kettle of fish that is real thorny for Objectivists and libertarians alike. That is for a different and long, long discussion.)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one is preventing the owners of the Redskins from calling their team the Redskins. Absolutely no one is violating their rights in any way here.

People might have a right to bigotry, stupidity, and depravity, but they don't have the right to taxpayer subsidized bigotry, stupidity, and depravity, which is what this trademark really is.

Perfectly OK.

And if this cancellation stands, let's have some real fun once a conservative president gets elected.

I can think of oodles of trademarks that offend hardline conservatives based on (religious) bigotry, stupidity, and (sexual) depravity--stuff they definitely would not want taxpayers subsidizing.

All kinds of moral issues, in fact...

:smile:

Ya' really want to go down this road with them?

:smile:

When Bush did the Patriot Act, he never imagined an Obama. Imagine what the present government powers could do if someone like Rick Santorum (or worse) ever gets elected. :smile:

And that's not impossible. All it takes is one successful major terrorist attack.

Michael

He's some turd, Michael.

I remember, during the Republican primaries, Santorum stated that the family is more important than an individual's rights. Religion also sits on his top shelf, for sure. If he were president, It wouldn't surprise me if he erected (at the taxpayers expense) thousands of Christian churches throughout the U.S. & which he might also happily trumpet, like Obama, "will create jobs for millions of Americans".

-Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fact, people who meet me always ask why my face is so red all the time. Well... it's because I am a redskin. :smile:

I was listening to Bill Handel on A.M. 640 KFI this morning and someone mentioned the fact that a lot of "white" people are actually pretty red or at least pink. I'm one of those guys that turns pretty red if I've been exercising at all and usually have some color even if I've been sitting in my office all day. So, I was wondering if you're red because of your "redskin" heritage, or because of your Scotch heritage or a combination of things.

I don't think I have any "redskin" in me, though I'm a little vague on some of the details of my heritage. As far as I know, I'm just a combination of German, Norwegian, and Danish, but my German roots in this country go back many generations and I'm a little sketchy on the details. At least I know I don't have any recent ancestors that are indigenous, and yet I'm fairly red.

I guess there's no real point to my comment other than to speculate about who is actually redder, the "redskins" or certain people of European ancestry.

Darrell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I was wondering if you're red because of your "redskin" heritage, or because of your Scotch heritage or a combination of things.

Darrell,

I speculate, but I imagine it is probably a combination of things.

It's funny, but Kat is now learning photography for real. She was--literally less than an hour ago--showing me the photos she took and I told her she never took pictures of me. She said it was because I was too red all the time. :)

And she had no idea about the present discussion.

Whatever it is, it's me. And I probably should start getting more images of lovable lil' ole' me done, red, green or blue.

:)

(Here's me telling on myself. The reason I am holding my chin in my avatar picture is not because I'm a heavy-thinking dude. It's because I have a double chin and my hand hides it. :) )

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael, Darrell is on to something. With your Scottish heritage, it's likely you inherited rosacea which could be the source of your "blush." I have that, too. (Seeing as how we're both from Appalachia and have similar heritages, I would not be surprised if we weren't distant cousins. LOL)

Jules (and Naomi and others), I was being facetious earlier. I was not really offended by the blowjob references or jokes. Or math, either. For the record. That was more of an exercise to get Naomi to think about her stance a little more carefully.

William, I have not enough time at the moment to read your full post nor to process it adequately. I see, however, that it is quite thoughtful and worth consideration, so I will definitely come back to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do "Redskin" (He's a Redskin) and "Redskins" (Here come the Redskins) actually refer to and why? It's not the skin color of American Indians, which is brown, but it is a conglomeration of different people also called Native Americans. How much is the use of the term due to Hollywood?

It may have something to do with red war paint. It also has a lot to do with a shorthand way of not bothering to differentiate one tribe from another. In the 19th century West that was useful if you wanted to kill them all and it wasn't useful to take your ignorant time to make a difference between a tribe at peace, even through treaty, and a tribe at war. Us against them. The Sand Creek Massacre is the worst example that comes to my mind. Redskins = warriors, that's now only football team and thems the good guys to the fans who think of themselves as Redskins too, which is a complete inversion from the racist excuse for the genocide killing of man, woman and child. The racism of Redskins are those ancient genocides sanitized by "The Indian Wars," an obscuring term, and Hollywood movies no longer being made with the cavalry coming to the toot-toot rescue of the wagon train or beseiged troopers.

The name of this football team is inertia from dead Hollywood cultural influence and it's time for it to go. "American Indian" and "Native American" don't have the genocidal baggage of "Redskin(s)" and are out of the loop for this discussion even though, having been born in the USA myself, I'm as native an American as anyone.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The team moved to Fenway Park[14] (home of the Boston Red Sox) the next year, and Marshall changed the name to the "Redskins" apparently in honor of then-coach Lone Star Dietz,[15] a Native American (he claimed to be part Sioux, but his actual ancestry has been challenged).[16] A 1933 news article quotes Marshall as saying that he did not name the team in honor of Dietz.[17]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Washington_Redskins#Establishment_in_Boston_.281932.E2.80.931936.29

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I asked two questions recently to someone who wants the name to change (and got a begrudging ummmmm mrrrlgghm).

1. What damage is being done to any American Indian when the Redskins play a football game? What damage is being done to any individual Indian by the football team being called that? Are any Indians being denied jobs, voting rights, bank loans, admission to schools, etc.? Are they being put in a lesser position because of the name used in football games?

Is there any kind of causal connection here?

If there is no causal connection, if nothing bad is happening right now that anyone can point to that the name is causing, then why do folks want to prohibit the trademark and make others stop using it?

2. Whenever Redskins fans cheer for the team, they are obviously not thinking about American Indians. They are thinking about the players on the field and winning the goddam game. When they go to buy a ticket to the games, or tune in on TV, they look for "Redskins," but they are not thinking about some Indian tribe or how to look down their noses on Indians. Who the hell does that? They are thinking about football.

So my question was (and is), if the do-gooders are truly interested in eliminating bigotry, isn't that something to be celebrated? All the poison has been drained from that term in the mainstream use. There is no bigotry in the minds of the people who use the term for football. Hell, there is no Indian at all in their minds. So shouldn't that be celebrated instead of condemned? Hasn't the culture progressed according to the very standards the do-gooders preach?

If so, then I say the issue is about bullying others and playing victimization power control games, not about eliminating bigotry.

In fact, I believe these folks don't want to eliminate bigotry at all. They dance on the graves of the truly oppressed so they can get power and the only way they can do that is to keep the bigotry alive. They are the true bigots by their own standards.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damage can be inferred but likely not known. Have a name-change competition.

Brant,

I don't even think it can be inferred. I just don't see it at all on any radar. I do think people can make up shit and play victim (once again, dancing on the graves of the real victims of the past).

Besides, the Redskins is one of the most lucrative brands in the NFL. This was built up over decades. Who would pay for the massive loss of profits in a name change? The do-gooders? The Indians? The government?

Heh.

In Brazil, they say that someone's asshole on fire from hot pepper is pure refreshment for the onlooker.

Granted, Snyder is a loudmouthed jerk who has made enemies, but there is a property thing going on here.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I asked two questions recently to someone who wants the name to change (and got a begrudging ummmmm mrrrlgghm).

1. What damage is being done to any American Indian when the Redskins play a football game? What damage is being done to any individual Indian by the football team being called that? Are any Indians being denied jobs, voting rights, bank loans, admission to schools, etc.? Are they being put in a lesser position because of the name used in football games?

Is there any kind of causal connection here?

If there is no causal connection, if nothing bad is happening right now that anyone can point to that the name is causing, then why do folks want to prohibit the trademark and make others stop using it?

If the US decided to put a swastika on its flag, would you find that acceptable? After all, what damage would be done to any Jew when people wave a swastika around, or salute a swastika, or send their kids to schools where they pledge allegiance to a swastika, or go to a football game where the mascot of the team they cheer for is a racist caricature of Jews?

If the name of a football team was offensive to any other racial or ethnic group, you wouldn't be caught dead making this argument. Why? Because:

2. Whenever Redskins fans cheer for the team, they are obviously not thinking about American Indians. They are thinking about the players on the field and winning the goddam game. When they go to buy a ticket to the games, or tune in on TV, they look for "Redskins," but they are not thinking about some Indian tribe or how to look down their noses on Indians. Who the hell does that? They are thinking about football.

Which is exactly the problem. In the schools and the media, the history of racism and genocide against Native Americans is either whitewashed or ignored. Ignorance of history then leads to people thinking that using terms like "redskin" or portraying Native Americans as savages is no big deal. Then when the ugly truth comes to light, even otherwise intelligent people like Rand start rationalizing the worst possible horrors, because anti-native attitudes and beliefs have been instilled in them their whole lives.

So my question was (and is), if the do-gooders are truly interested in eliminating bigotry, isn't that something to be celebrated? All the poison has been drained from that term in the mainstream use. There is no bigotry in the minds of the people who use the term for football. Hell, there is no Indian at all in their minds. So shouldn't that be celebrated instead of condemned? Hasn't the culture progressed according to the very standards the do-gooders preach?

How about we just forget that slavery and the holocaust ever happened, too? That way white people can use the word "nigger" and wave swastikas around without feeling uncomfortable. Would you call that progress?

"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." -Martin Luther King, Jr.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Naomi,

I don't think we are ever going to agree.

A swastika suddenly put on a team is different than a name that has used benignly for 82 years, since 1932.

I'm sorry you grew a budding social conscious and are all antsy to boss others around and shame them so you can exercise it, but if you want to change hearts and minds, you should at least identify correctly what you are up against.

And it isn't racism.

You can't change in reality what isn't real in the first place.

Calling people racists (or implying they are) who are not is the quickest way to shut down any communication with them. And if you try to use the government to force this opinion on them, the backlash will be ugly--like it is going to get. You have a frontline seat, so get some popcorn and enjoy the show.

btw - I agree the American Indians got a raw deal in the USA. But what you and the do-gooders want to do about it is useless controversy--cosmetic at best.

If you want to do something real like give Indians a helping hand, I would be interested in that. Even in helping out.

But if you just want to try to make sports fans feel guilty because you are uncomfortable being white (I presume you are white, but I don't know for sure) and need to scratch a guilt itch, that's bullshit. I didn't receive that particular brainwashing in school so I don't resonate with your itch. I doubt many Redskins fans do either.

btw - I notice you were unable to show me any Indian who has been damaged by the football team using the name Redskins. You have a time scale of 82 years. Almost a full century. Surely there is something you can find. Go for it, girl! :)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2. Whenever Redskins fans cheer for the team, they are obviously not thinking about American Indians.

Which is exactly the problem.

Your attitude is exactly the problem if you want to change things. You want to sell hatred where there is none.

If you want to learn propaganda and/or mind control and/or persuasion storytelling, etc., I have some great tools to point out to you so you can delve into them.

This "raise awareness" horseshit the way you are proposing is something for do-gooder people to pat themselves on the back with and complain about the world as they go home to their laps of luxury. Boo hoo. The world doesn't feel guilty like I do. The world is broken.

That's melodrama, not reality.

Like I said, if you want to do real things, I'm interested. If not, I have my own soap operas to deal with. :)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now