Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (0 fans in chatroom)
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 2  Next >

Ditka says Redskins debate is "so stupid it's

Avatar

Posted: 8/21/2014 10:52 AM

Ditka says Redskins debate is "so stupid it's 


Attaboy Iron Mike. It's about time...

“What’s all the stink over the Redskin name?” Ditka said. “It’s so much [expletive] it’s incredible. We’re going to let the liberals of the world run this world. It was said out of reverence, out of pride to the American Indian. Even though it was called a Redskin, what are you going to call them, a Proudskin? This is so stupid it’s appalling, and I hope that owner keeps fighting for it and never changes it, because the Redskins are part of an American football history, and it should never be anything but the Washington Redskins. That’s the way it is.

“Its been the name of the team since the beginning of football. It has nothing to do with something that happened lately, or something that somebody dreamed up. This was the name, period. Leave it alone. These people are silly — asinine, actually, in my opinion.”


Richman suggested that non-Redskins fans and people outside the D.C. area are the ones driving the controversy about the name.


“It’s all the political correct idiots in America, that’s all it is,” Ditka said. “It’s got nothing to do with anything else. We’re going to change something because we can. Hey listen, I went through it in the 60s, too. I mean, come on. Everybody lined up, did this. It’s fine to protest. That’s your right, if you don’t like it, protest. You have a right to do that, but to change the name, that’s ridiculous. Change the Constitution — we’ve got people trying to do that, too, and they’re doing a pretty good job.”


Richman then asked Ditka about Daniel Snyder’s efforts to defend the Redskins name.

“I admire him for it,” Ditka said. “Really, I think it’s tradition, it’s history, it’s part of the National Football League. It was about Sammy Baugh and all the guys who were Redskins way back then. I didn’t think that Lombardi and Halas never had a problem with it, why would all these other idiots have a problem with the name? I’m sorry. I’m not very tolerant when it comes to the liberals who complain about everything.”


The rest of the article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/wp/2014/08/19/mike-ditka-says-redskins-name-debate-is-so-stupid-its-appalling/




*Suh,Megatron,Best,Broyles*

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 8/21/2014 11:46 AM

Re: Ditka says Redskins debate is "so stupid it's 


Awesome. Im sure there is a big target on his back now. Someome will probably dig up some old story and twist it around to show he is ''obviously" racist. I have native american blood in me, the only people who seem to care are the people looking for something to protest and make a name for themselves.
1 Ebron TE
2 Latimer WR
3 Martin DE 
4 Exum DB
4 P. Gaines CB
4 Seastrunk RB
Reply | Quote

Posted: 8/21/2014 12:23 PM

Re: Ditka says Redskins debate is "so stupid it's 


I don't think "Da Coach" is racist - but I also don't take political cues from people who used to take shots to the head for a living ... call me crazy if you will. eek1
LionsSlashWings wrote:


Even though it was called a Redskin, what are you going to call them, a Proudskin?"

Or, you know, we could just not refer to people by their skin at all.  Plenty of teams have changed their names before without the entire Earth imploding.  Seems less than revolutionary to me.

Anyway, nothing I'm losing sleep about either way.  I do find the name fairly racist and I do think it ought to be changed, and in general I'm not as irrationally afraid of change as some folks seem to be, but it's not like I've ever supported any teams in Washington or ever will anyway, so it's not hugely impactful on my life.  I support the Lions, who have their own dubious history (though more about losing than anything else).
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 8/21/2014 12:43 PM

Re: Ditka says Redskins debate is "so stupid it's 


kalamazoo - I have friends that are Native (my buddy Josh is Algonquin). He nor his family are offended by it in the least bit. Quite the opposite actually. They're proud, honoured.. a Redskin was a way of the warrior. Heck when I go visit him on the reserve.. Redskins fans are everywhere. I saw a Steelers fan once, but other then that.. it's pretty much Redskins fans wearing merchandise all around the area.

Do you know what the term "Redskins" stand for? Do you really understand it's origin?

My buddy & his family explained it to me, showed me books to read. And I'm with them, as well as Ditka..this is beyond silly. Little do people know what it actually means and why they're so proud of it.




*Suh,Megatron,Best,Broyles*

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 8/21/2014 1:03 PM

Re: Ditka says Redskins debate is "so stupid it's 


Who is they?  If "they" are so proud of it why have the National Congress of American Indians been protesting the name since 1968??  Their protesting has led to 3 major Universities changing their former name "redskin."  Their protesting has led 28 high schools in 18 states to change their name over the last 25 years as well.

I tend to agree with you LSW; in fact an SI poll of Native Americans found that 91% felt the name shouldn't be changed - if that's the case, then yes I agree that the name should not be changed if 9 out of every 10 Native Americans aren't offended by the usage.

Unlike Ditka, I don't pretend that liberals created this issue.  It is well known that the National Congress of American Indians began this crusade 40+ years ago. 
LionsSlashWings wrote: kalamazoo - I have friends that are Native (my buddy Josh is Algonquin). He nor his family are offended by it in the least bit. Quite the opposite actually. They're proud, honoured.. a Redskin was a way of the warrior. Heck when I go visit him on the reserve.. Redskins fans are everywhere. I saw a Steelers fan once, but other then that.. it's pretty much Redskins fans wearing merchandise all around the area.

Do you know what the term "Redskins" stand for? Do you really understand it's origin?

My buddy & his family explained it to me, showed me books to read. And I'm with them, as well as Ditka..this is beyond silly. Little do people know what it actually means and why they're so proud of it.
What do you call a Viking with a Super Bowl ring?

An Ex-Packer

13 Time World Champs

Last edited 8/21/2014 1:05 PM by CM3Beast

Reply | Quote

Posted: 8/21/2014 1:22 PM

Re: Ditka says Redskins debate is "so stupid it's 



CM3Beast wrote: Who is they?  If "they" are so proud of it why have the National Congress of American Indians been protesting the name since 1968??  Their protesting has led to 3 major Universities changing their former name "redskin."  Their protesting has led 28 high schools in 18 states to change their name over the last 25 years as well.

I tend to agree with you LSW; in fact an SI poll of Native Americans found that 91% felt the name shouldn't be changed - if that's the case, then yes I agree that the name should not be changed if 9 out of every 10 Native Americans aren't offended by the usage.

Unlike Ditka, I don't pretend that liberals created this issue.  It is well known that the National Congress of American Indians began this crusade 40+ years ago. 
LionsSlashWings wrote: kalamazoo - I have friends that are Native (my buddy Josh is Algonquin). He nor his family are offended by it in the least bit. Quite the opposite actually. They're proud, honoured.. a Redskin was a way of the warrior. Heck when I go visit him on the reserve.. Redskins fans are everywhere. I saw a Steelers fan once, but other then that.. it's pretty much Redskins fans wearing merchandise all around the area.

Do you know what the term "Redskins" stand for? Do you really understand it's origin?

My buddy & his family explained it to me, showed me books to read. And I'm with them, as well as Ditka..this is beyond silly. Little do people know what it actually means and why they're so proud of it.
It may not be a new "crusade," but the primary reason it's gained so much momentum is because of bored, butthurt liberals continuously looking for something to change.  These activists will fight for something inorganic to what they really believe if they need to.  Whatever heals their guilt complex or gets their name in the paper is a win in their book.  In this nation, if you're not trying to satisfy all 100%, you're the bad guy...  even if 91% believe in the status quo.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 8/21/2014 1:28 PM

Re: Ditka says Redskins debate is "so stupid it's 


hey CM3 - yeah I guess there's always a minority. Here's a good history lesson on what the term "Redskins" stands for. It goes in line with what my buddy Josh has told me in the past (he's Algonquin). He's the one that sent me this link a few months ago. Here's an excerpt from the article:

"I have always been told the Mi-Wuk tribe has supported the name, what it represents and has not objected to it. I have never seen any public objection from them. I took Johnson’s suggestion and did a little research on the origin of the name Redskins.

I found that the name Redskin was a European name used to describe the Algonquin natives painting of their faces with red ocher and blood root as war paint.

This is supported by Reader’s Digest in its book “America’s Fascinating In-dian Heritage,” where it is quoted as stating the name Redskin was “… inspired not by their natural complexion, but by their fondness for vermilion makeup concocted from fat mixed with berry juice and minerals that provided the desired color. The men would streak their faces and bodies with bright red ocher and bloodroot.”

Additionally, I found that red is the most common color used by American Indians in painting their skin, according to “Dress Clothing of the Plains Indians,” by Ronal P. Koch.

I’m sure that there are plenty of other sources that would identify other origins of the name. Understanding that high school football organizations will often model teams after professional teams, CHS chose Redskins – a name and image that reflected the American Indian heritage that so many people in Calaveras County, native and nonnative alike, would like to preserve.

I then researched the name of the National Football League Washington Redskins and found its name was the Boston Braves, until 1933. This is when the coach, William “Lone Star” Dietz, who was actually Sioux, changed the name to the Redskins. He was known to dress up in American Indian clothing at games and be open about his pride of being American Indian. He saw the name as “bestowing an image of pride and recognition for the Native American people.”

Therefore, the name of the NFL team came from an American Indian who saw nothing wrong with the name. The name Redskins was never intended as a racial slur as other words and phrases in our society were, so why now is the name “racist” and “demeaning?” The only people who find the name offensive are those jumping on the latest bandwagon of political correctness. The name Red-skins is not offensive, de-meaning or racist. For those who wish to change it, keep in mind you are challenging the proud heritage of our high school football team, cheerleaders, parents, supporters and alumni who find inspiration in this mascot." - Gary Stevens

http://www.calaverasenterprise.com/opinion/article_2c5301b8-57b2-11e3-81c4-0019bb2963f4.html




*Suh,Megatron,Best,Broyles*

Last edited 8/21/2014 1:33 PM by LionsSlashWings

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 8/21/2014 1:34 PM

Re: Ditka says Redskins debate is "so stupid it's 


Not that I don't agree with Coach Ditka....

...so let me get this straight, he doesn't have a problem with the redskins name but has a problem with Stafford's backward hat?  Okay....
==============
Twitter: LiveAsALion
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 8/21/2014 1:37 PM

Re: Ditka says Redskins debate is "so stupid it's 


Thanks for sharing LSW.  I always enjoy reading your posts.  I think a lot of people could benefit from taking the time to read this.
LionsSlashWings wrote: hey CM3 - yeah I guess there's always a minority. Here's a good history lesson on what the term "Redskins" stands for. It goes in line with what my buddy Josh has told me in the past (he's Algonquin). He's the one that sent me this link a few months ago. Here's an excerpt from the article:

"I have always been told the Mi-Wuk tribe has supported the name, what it represents and has not objected to it. I have never seen any public objection from them. I took Johnson’s suggestion and did a little research on the origin of the name Redskins.

I found that the name Redskin was a European name used to describe the Algonquin natives painting of their faces with red ocher and blood root as war paint.

This is supported by Reader’s Digest in its book “America’s Fascinating In-dian Heritage,” where it is quoted as stating the name Redskin was “… inspired not by their natural complexion, but by their fondness for vermilion makeup concocted from fat mixed with berry juice and minerals that provided the desired color. The men would streak their faces and bodies with bright red ocher and bloodroot.”

Additionally, I found that red is the most common color used by American Indians in painting their skin, according to “Dress Clothing of the Plains Indians,” by Ronal P. Koch.

I’m sure that there are plenty of other sources that would identify other origins of the name. Understanding that high school football organizations will often model teams after professional teams, CHS chose Redskins – a name and image that reflected the American Indian heritage that so many people in Calaveras County, native and nonnative alike, would like to preserve.

I then researched the name of the National Football League Washington Redskins and found its name was the Boston Braves, until 1933. This is when the coach, William “Lone Star” Dietz, who was actually Sioux, changed the name to the Redskins. He was known to dress up in American Indian clothing at games and be open about his pride of being American Indian. He saw the name as “bestowing an image of pride and recognition for the Native American people.”

Therefore, the name of the NFL team came from an American Indian who saw nothing wrong with the name. The name Redskins was never intended as a racial slur as other words and phrases in our society were, so why now is the name “racist” and “demeaning?” The only people who find the name offensive are those jumping on the latest bandwagon of political correctness. The name Red-skins is not offensive, de-meaning or racist. For those who wish to change it, keep in mind you are challenging the proud heritage of our high school football team, cheerleaders, parents, supporters and alumni who find inspiration in this mascot." - Gary Stevens

http://www.calaverasenterprise.com/opinion/article_2c5301b8-57b2-11e3-81c4-0019bb2963f4.html
What do you call a Viking with a Super Bowl ring?

An Ex-Packer

13 Time World Champs
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 8/21/2014 1:49 PM

Re: Ditka says Redskins debate is "so stupid it's 


Perhaps you should send this to the National Congress of American Indians. They are politicians first, American Indians second and most likely not football fans at all. I doubt they even know the Redskins name came from one of their own.
LionsSlashWings wrote: hey CM3 - yeah I guess there's always a minority. Here's a good history lesson on what the term "Redskins" stands for. It goes in line with what my buddy Josh has told me in the past (he's Algonquin). He's the one that sent me this link a few months ago. Here's an excerpt from the article:

"I have always been told the Mi-Wuk tribe has supported the name, what it represents and has not objected to it. I have never seen any public objection from them. I took Johnson’s suggestion and did a little research on the origin of the name Redskins.

I found that the name Redskin was a European name used to describe the Algonquin natives painting of their faces with red ocher and blood root as war paint.

This is supported by Reader’s Digest in its book “America’s Fascinating In-dian Heritage,” where it is quoted as stating the name Redskin was “… inspired not by their natural complexion, but by their fondness for vermilion makeup concocted from fat mixed with berry juice and minerals that provided the desired color. The men would streak their faces and bodies with bright red ocher and bloodroot.”

Additionally, I found that red is the most common color used by American Indians in painting their skin, according to “Dress Clothing of the Plains Indians,” by Ronal P. Koch.

I’m sure that there are plenty of other sources that would identify other origins of the name. Understanding that high school football organizations will often model teams after professional teams, CHS chose Redskins – a name and image that reflected the American Indian heritage that so many people in Calaveras County, native and nonnative alike, would like to preserve.

I then researched the name of the National Football League Washington Redskins and found its name was the Boston Braves, until 1933. This is when the coach, William “Lone Star” Dietz, who was actually Sioux, changed the name to the Redskins. He was known to dress up in American Indian clothing at games and be open about his pride of being American Indian. He saw the name as “bestowing an image of pride and recognition for the Native American people.”

Therefore, the name of the NFL team came from an American Indian who saw nothing wrong with the name. The name Redskins was never intended as a racial slur as other words and phrases in our society were, so why now is the name “racist” and “demeaning?” The only people who find the name offensive are those jumping on the latest bandwagon of political correctness. The name Red-skins is not offensive, de-meaning or racist. For those who wish to change it, keep in mind you are challenging the proud heritage of our high school football team, cheerleaders, parents, supporters and alumni who find inspiration in this mascot." - Gary Stevens

http://www.calaverasenterprise.com/opinion/article_2c5301b8-57b2-11e3-81c4-0019bb2963f4.html
Reply | Quote
  • BrandyFan
  • Bear Beatin' Bobcat
  • 2172 posts this site
Avatar

Posted: 8/21/2014 1:54 PM

Re: Ditka says Redskins debate is "so stupid it's 


You can't undo a couple centuries of people using the name as a slur against Native American's. And there's that pesky issue of scalps being collected for bounty given the same name. Yes, there's historical references for that too.

Having said that, their are a lot of Native Americans that just want people to know that they still exist and that life is still crappy for many of them. While Native American leadership almost unanimously wants the name changed, the common folk have a different perspective.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 8/21/2014 1:57 PM

Re: Ditka says Redskins debate is "so stupid it's 


Thanks CM, no prob. This whole thing is madness.. is there an election coming up or something? lol. Some people ya know.. my goodness.

CM3Beast wrote: Thanks for sharing LSW.  I always enjoy reading your posts.  I think a lot of people could benefit from taking the time to read this.
LionsSlashWings wrote: hey CM3 - yeah I guess there's always a minority. Here's a good history lesson on what the term "Redskins" stands for. It goes in line with what my buddy Josh has told me in the past (he's Algonquin). He's the one that sent me this link a few months ago. Here's an excerpt from the article:

"I have always been told the Mi-Wuk tribe has supported the name, what it represents and has not objected to it. I have never seen any public objection from them. I took Johnson’s suggestion and did a little research on the origin of the name Redskins.

I found that the name Redskin was a European name used to describe the Algonquin natives painting of their faces with red ocher and blood root as war paint.

This is supported by Reader’s Digest in its book “America’s Fascinating In-dian Heritage,” where it is quoted as stating the name Redskin was “… inspired not by their natural complexion, but by their fondness for vermilion makeup concocted from fat mixed with berry juice and minerals that provided the desired color. The men would streak their faces and bodies with bright red ocher and bloodroot.”

Additionally, I found that red is the most common color used by American Indians in painting their skin, according to “Dress Clothing of the Plains Indians,” by Ronal P. Koch.

I’m sure that there are plenty of other sources that would identify other origins of the name. Understanding that high school football organizations will often model teams after professional teams, CHS chose Redskins – a name and image that reflected the American Indian heritage that so many people in Calaveras County, native and nonnative alike, would like to preserve.

I then researched the name of the National Football League Washington Redskins and found its name was the Boston Braves, until 1933. This is when the coach, William “Lone Star” Dietz, who was actually Sioux, changed the name to the Redskins. He was known to dress up in American Indian clothing at games and be open about his pride of being American Indian. He saw the name as “bestowing an image of pride and recognition for the Native American people.”

Therefore, the name of the NFL team came from an American Indian who saw nothing wrong with the name. The name Redskins was never intended as a racial slur as other words and phrases in our society were, so why now is the name “racist” and “demeaning?” The only people who find the name offensive are those jumping on the latest bandwagon of political correctness. The name Red-skins is not offensive, de-meaning or racist. For those who wish to change it, keep in mind you are challenging the proud heritage of our high school football team, cheerleaders, parents, supporters and alumni who find inspiration in this mascot." - Gary Stevens

http://www.calaverasenterprise.com/opinion/article_2c5301b8-57b2-11e3-81c4-0019bb2963f4.html




*Suh,Megatron,Best,Broyles*

Reply | Quote

Posted: 8/21/2014 2:58 PM

Re: Ditka says Redskins debate is "so stupid it's 


Concerning history...let us not forget that the owner of the Redskins was the LAST owners to desegregate his football team. That policy of fighting racial desegregation helped to give rise to teh Dallas Cowboys "Americas team" stuff as the Dallas team was one of the first to desegregate:
"In 1962, they became the final professional American football franchise to integrate."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Redskins

Concerning why the name was selected:
" Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University Law School, cites a newspaper article from 1933 in which Marshall is quoted as saying the name was selected only to save money by not having to change the logo of the Braves, and not to honor Dietz or the Indian players."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washingt...ame_controversy

Yep, I am using Wiki...but I ain't writin' no damn college paper here! On no level is it clear that the original coach was even a Native American at all. The name was picked (in my opinion) to help differentiate the football team from the professional baseball team called the Boston Braves as they played in the same stadium at that point.

Folks are putting too much emphasis on two things:
1) The origin of the term. You bet its origins were based on actually what looks like great intentions. I have NO issue with pointing that out. BUT...over the next 300 years as Native Americans were treated like garbage by the American Government, hunted, killed, lied to and killed the CONTEXT of that word changed.

Here is a great link that gives an overview of the term, esp. as it was used in the mid/later 1800's and early 20th century (around the time the Redskins team name was selected): www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2...tory-of-redskin

Here is another example...if someone compliments you on your shirt and says (and you are a guy) "that is one hell of a gay shirt" how are you gonna take that? gay USED to mean having or showing a merry or lively mood. Now it has a mostly sexual meaning. We all know that, right?

2) Whether you are a Native American or have Native blood in your hetitage and what your INDIVIDUAL opinion is right now. I absolutely respect your opinion on this issue if you are of native descent, esp. if you are an active tribal or council member. But I am not sure if there is a group with as wide of opinions as the group with Native blood in their heritage. Hundreds or even thousands of tribes, they never united, each tribe has a different perspective, some members enjoy dual citizenship, some are just tribal members and so on. There are hundreds and thousands of nuanced perspectives within this larger community.

One person's "no big deal to me" is an important perspective (like many on this board)...but your opinion is just as important as another tribal person's opinion. There is no ONE native perspective on this complicated issue. Here is a look at how large this community is:
"with 2 million Indians enrolled in 566 federally recognized tribes, plus another 3.2 million who tell the Census they are Indian — it’s difficult to tell how many are opposed to the name."
washington.cbslocal.com/2013/1...kins-is-a-slur/

And you bet tribes have schools and their own mascots that use that term. And that is that tribes decision whatever their decision is. It is just different to have a private business with special tax breaks that also happens to be the professional football team in the nations capital. The CONTEXT (there is that word again) is different. And there is nothing wrong with that. That is the real world.

So, noting that:
1) the owner was a huge racist ("Marshall, however, had a reputation as a racist. He was the last NFL owner who refused to sign black players — the federal government forced him to integrate in 1962 by threatening to cancel the lease on his stadium. When he died in 1969, his will created a Redskins Foundation but stipulated that it never support “the principle of racial integration in any form.” washington.cbslocal.com/2013/1...ns-is-a-slur/),

2) that the name has little to do with honoring anything originally (the name helped to distinguish the Boston Braves from the football team that used the same stadium),

3) the the Redskins term may have had an honorable start BUT for a long period of American history the term takes on a much darker and dishonorable meaning,

4) that it is almost impossible to reach a consensus on American Indian opinion regarding this issue (many don'y care or don't see it as racist, many do)

I don't think this is a clear issue at all. In fact, I come down on the side that overall this is no longer an endearing term for Native Americans and it hasn't been like that for over 100 years.

I also see nothing that makes this a liberal or conservative issue at all. Nothing. this has nothing to do with viewpoints about government or government policy or elections at all. It has everything to do with what folks think about the term Redskins, their understanding of the ENTIRE history of the word...and understanding what disparage means. AND THEN whether Redskins fits the definition of disparaging (to speak of or treat slightingly; depreciate; belittle:, to bring reproach or discredit upon; lower the estimation of).

Despite what Mike Ditka notes...this is a complex, difficult issue. Waving it off as a liberal V. conservative issue does nothing to further this debate one side or another. In other words,thanks again Mike for offering absolutely nothing on the subject at hand.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 8/21/2014 3:03 PM

Re: Ditka says Redskins debate is "so stupid it's 


Imagine that...an out of touch, old, white person thinks he should get to decide what is offensive to other people.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 8/21/2014 3:12 PM

Re: Ditka says Redskins debate is "so stupid it's 



undergroundape wrote: Imagine that...an out of touch, old, white person thinks he should get to decide what is offensive to other people.

yup, disgusting!

I proudly bought a Redskins hat almost 2 months ago... Using it as decoration in my man cave, of course its taking back seat to all my lions and other Detroit sports gear. But its a way for me to show my support. Love the name, love the colors, love the tradition and love the honor pride and support that comes with it from those who actually understand its meaning.

 

Reply | Quote

Posted: 8/21/2014 3:14 PM

Re: Ditka says Redskins debate is "so stupid it's 


The true origins of the term are wildly debated.  What is not debated is that the term, since its inception, has come to be used as a slur.  Look no further than any dictionary.  This from Webster's:

Definition of REDSKIN

usually offensive
Me4LionsPresident wrote:
undergroundape wrote: Imagine that...an out of touch, old, white person thinks he should get to decide what is offensive to other people.

yup, disgusting!

I proudly bought a Redskins hat almost 2 months ago... Using it as decoration in my man cave, of course its taking back seat to all my lions and other Detroit sports gear. But its a way for me to show my support. Love the name, love the colors, love the tradition and love the honor pride and support that comes with it from those who actually understand its meaning.

Last edited 8/21/2014 3:18 PM by undergroundape

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 8/21/2014 3:21 PM

Re: Ditka says Redskins debate is "so stupid it's 



undergroundape wrote: The true origins of the term are wildly debated.  What is not debated is that the term, since its inception, has come to be used as a slur.  Look no further than any dictionary.  This from Webster's:

Definition of REDSKIN

usually offensive
Me4LionsPresident wrote:
undergroundape wrote: Imagine that...an out of touch, old, white person thinks he should get to decide what is offensive to other people.

yup, disgusting!

I proudly bought a Redskins hat almost 2 months ago... Using it as decoration in my man cave, of course its taking back seat to all my lions and other Detroit sports gear. But its a way for me to show my support. Love the name, love the colors, love the tradition and love the honor pride and support that comes with it from those who actually understand its meaning.

depends who you are, why would a team pick a racial slur for a nickname - wont happen...Being a small fraction Native American, I am very grateful that there is an NFL team out there to represent/honor my ancestors. Its great for our children and our children's children.

 

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 8/21/2014 3:22 PM

Re: Ditka says Redskins debate is "so stupid it's 



undergroundape wrote: Imagine that...an out of touch, old, white person thinks he should get to decide what is offensive to other people.

To me, I'd make it simple. Let Natives vote and have this debate on National TV. Whatever their (not ours) majority vote favours?.. then so be it. White folks & African Americans stay out of it.




*Suh,Megatron,Best,Broyles*

Reply | Quote

Posted: 8/21/2014 3:22 PM

Re: Ditka says Redskins debate is "so stupid it's 


Here are the original lyrics to the Redskins fight song, written by the owner's wife:

"The original words were:
Hail to the Redskins!

Hail Victory! Braves on the Warpath! Fight for old Dixie! Run or pass and score -- we want a lot more!

Scalp 'em, swamp 'em -- We will take 'em big score Read 'em, weep 'em, touchdown - we want heap more Fight on, Fight on -- 'Till you have won Sons of Wash-ing-ton. Rah!, Rah!, Rah!
haruth.com/r/RedskinsHailtotheRedskins.html

I like the "Scalp 'em, swamp 'em -- We will take 'em big score" part. Keep 'em classy Corinne Griffith, wife of original owner George Preston Marshall!

To be clear, while I have my opinion here about this term andthis situation and about Marshall, like all things in life people are complicated. These few issues should NOT dominate the life of George Marshall who also did a lot of good stuff. Life is complicated and people are a lot more then one of two decisions (or hundreds!). I am commenting on JUST this idea in front of us.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 8/21/2014 3:29 PM

Re: Ditka says Redskins debate is "so stupid it's 



Me4LionsPresident wrote:
undergroundape wrote: The true origins of the term are wildly debated.  What is not debated is that the term, since its inception, has come to be used as a slur.  Look no further than any dictionary.  This from Webster's:

Definition of REDSKIN

usually offensive
Me4LionsPresident wrote:
undergroundape wrote: Imagine that...an out of touch, old, white person thinks he should get to decide what is offensive to other people.

yup, disgusting!

I proudly bought a Redskins hat almost 2 months ago... Using it as decoration in my man cave, of course its taking back seat to all my lions and other Detroit sports gear. But its a way for me to show my support. Love the name, love the colors, love the tradition and love the honor pride and support that comes with it from those who actually understand its meaning.

depends who you are, why would a team pick a racial slur for a nickname - wont happen...Being a small fraction Native American, I am very grateful that there is an NFL team out there to represent/honor my ancestors. Its great for our children and our children's children.

Here here Me4. Damn straight, my Native friends are honoured & proud as well.




*Suh,Megatron,Best,Broyles*

Reply | Quote

Posted: 8/21/2014 3:30 PM

Re: Ditka says Redskins debate is "so stupid it's 


Lions'Wings, I very much appreciate your viewpoint here. And I respect your viewpoint even if I disagree. I LOVE your idea. But part of the issue with your idea, and part of the schism within the Native American community is WHICH Native Americans would be allowed to vote? Just tribal members, just active participating members, is there an amount of heritage as a percentage that would be required and/or would one have to live on the reservation?

Tribes also sometimes change the definition of what it means to be a tribal member all the time (often tied to local elections and sometimes directly tied to corrupt) as to benefit certain members over others. It would be almost impossible to measure national tribal opinion accurately (as others point out as well).

And even if one could...is that HOW one would want to measure an issue like this. If say 4 out of 10 tribal members felt this issue was disparaging to have a white-owned private business use this term would that make anyone feel better?

I have believed that this is a REALLY complicated issue on many levels. Respect all opinions here, even if you disagree as folks may not be all that far apart on their opinions if they were broken down over time. Even if folks disagree with me (I have no issue with that) I think respecting all opinions here is important.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 8/21/2014 3:36 PM

Re: Ditka says Redskins debate is "so stupid it's 


And Lions'Wings...while this sounds like it is true for YOUR circle ("Here here Me4. Damn straight, my Native friends are honoured & proud as well.") what about some other Native American who holds a differing opinion:

"A recent study by the California State University, San Bernadino reports 67% of Native Americans find the Washington Redskins name and imagery racist."...further "12 percent of Native respondents were neutral and 20 percent disagreed. In contrast, 60 percent of white respondents do not find the name racist. When asked if they found the term “disrespectful,” the number of positive respondents rose to 68%."
www.buzzfeed.com/lindseyadler/...ial-slur#icp2yw

I have no idea how valid that study is...but what would an acceptable percentage of Native Americans who find the term offensive...say 75% support the name and 25% do not support that Washington private business team name owned by a white guy.

I think it is wise to tread carefully here.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 8/21/2014 3:56 PM

Re: Ditka says Redskins debate is "so stupid it's 


there are natives who believe the media is playing the race card at their expense just to increase ratings... the media thrives on 'racial issues'

 

Reply | Quote

Posted: 8/21/2014 3:58 PM

Re: Ditka says Redskins debate is "so stupid it's 


I would tend to think that the study carries more weight than the typical anecdotal response, "my native american friend doesn't mind".
MyLions wrote: And Lions'Wings...while this sounds like it is true for YOUR circle ("Here here Me4. Damn straight, my Native friends are honoured & proud as well.") what about some other Native American who holds a differing opinion:

"A recent study by the California State University, San Bernadino reports 67% of Native Americans find the Washington Redskins name and imagery racist."...further "12 percent of Native respondents were neutral and 20 percent disagreed. In contrast, 60 percent of white respondents do not find the name racist. When asked if they found the term “disrespectful,” the number of positive respondents rose to 68%."
www.buzzfeed.com/lindseyadler/...ial-slur#icp2yw

I have no idea how valid that study is...but what would an acceptable percentage of Native Americans who find the term offensive...say 75% support the name and 25% do not support that Washington private business team name owned by a white guy.

I think it is wise to tread carefully here.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 8/21/2014 4:00 PM

Re: Ditka says Redskins debate is "so stupid it's 


It did happen.  The term is offensive.  If you disagree, take it up with Webster.
Me4LionsPresident wrote:
undergroundape wrote: The true origins of the term are wildly debated.  What is not debated is that the term, since its inception, has come to be used as a slur.  Look no further than any dictionary.  This from Webster's:

Definition of REDSKIN

usually offensive
Me4LionsPresident wrote:
undergroundape wrote: Imagine that...an out of touch, old, white person thinks he should get to decide what is offensive to other people.

yup, disgusting!

I proudly bought a Redskins hat almost 2 months ago... Using it as decoration in my man cave, of course its taking back seat to all my lions and other Detroit sports gear. But its a way for me to show my support. Love the name, love the colors, love the tradition and love the honor pride and support that comes with it from those who actually understand its meaning.

depends who you are, why would a team pick a racial slur for a nickname - wont happen...Being a small fraction Native American, I am very grateful that there is an NFL team out there to represent/honor my ancestors. Its great for our children and our children's children.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 8/21/2014 4:03 PM

Re: Ditka says Redskins debate is "so stupid it's 



undergroundape wrote: I would tend to think that the study carries more weight than the typical anecdotal response, "my native american friend doesn't mind".
MyLions wrote: And Lions'Wings...while this sounds like it is true for YOUR circle ("Here here Me4. Damn straight, my Native friends are honoured & proud as well.") what about some other Native American who holds a differing opinion:

"A recent study by the California State University, San Bernadino reports 67% of Native Americans find the Washington Redskins name and imagery racist."...further "12 percent of Native respondents were neutral and 20 percent disagreed. In contrast, 60 percent of white respondents do not find the name racist. When asked if they found the term “disrespectful,” the number of positive respondents rose to 68%."
www.buzzfeed.com/lindseyadler/...ial-slur#icp2yw

I have no idea how valid that study is...but what would an acceptable percentage of Native Americans who find the term offensive...say 75% support the name and 25% do not support that Washington private business team name owned by a white guy.

I think it is wise to tread carefully here.
or maybe it just depends on the region of the study? its hard to say... I know a lot of native americans and am a fraction myself... maybe there is a handful or more that are offended but as of now I still don't know any and the ones ive talked to, mostly peers and family - no one is offended and most of us take pride in such nicknames - especially my grandmother

 

Reply | Quote

Posted: 8/21/2014 4:17 PM

Re: Ditka says Redskins debate is "so stupid it's 


Two things...one offensive is NOT the standard here. I agree with some conservatives here. Folks can get offended at just about anything. Disparaging is the key here, not offensive. Disparaging is the term used by the federal government to strip away protection (a largely symbolic move)...as pointed out by others on the board here at that time.

And to Me4LionsPresident...I agree with that sentiment that there are folks set up to take advantage of this situation for sure. I think your point IS correct. However, this anti-redskins name movement has been around for over 40 years:
"Although often assumed to be a debate of recent origins, the local Washington, DC newspapers have published news items on the controversy many times since at least 1971, all in response to Native American individuals or organizations asking for the name to be changed.[48]"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washingt...ame_controversy

Under protests. Also found in the same link:
"There was a protest of about 2,000 people at the 1992 Super Bowl between the Redskins and the Buffalo Bills. The game was held in Minnesota, and many Native Americans from the region came out to protest the name. The American Indian Movement's (AIM) Vernon Bellecourt was one of the main organizers of the protest. Before and during the game Chippewa, Sioux, Winnebago, and Choctaw, and other Native Americans and other members of the local population, protested. Their signs read, "We are not Mascots", "Promote Sports not Racism", and "Repeal Redskin Racism."

As I mentioned, this is a complex issue. It has been around a long time and it ain't going away.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 8/21/2014 4:29 PM

Re: Ditka says Redskins debate is "so stupid it's 


My Lions - I started this thread for 2 reasons:

1) Because I'm glad finally someone in the media (Ditka) showed some cojones by going against the opposition.

2) Because I wanted to share my take on the matter, through the eyes of my Native friends (some Algonquin, some from the Oneida Tribe here in Canada). They've given me more education on this topic than any American media source out their. The earliest settlers in Canada (derived from Kanata) were Native Indians. My buddies 95 year old grand father is one of the wisest men I've ever encountered. By his account that book written by Ronal P. Koch. “Dress Clothing of the Plains Indians,” .. is as close to accurate as there is out there. So of course, I'm inclined to put a huge amount of stock into what he says.

I mean if Eric Clapton or Jimmy Page tell me a thing or 2 about guitar?.. then I best be listening and taking down notes.

To answer your question.. "which Native Americans would be allowed to vote"?

Answer: ALL OF THEM. I don't care how, just get it done I say. If a Presidential election can cost millions upon hundreds of millions.. then  I'm sure there's enough chump change in the pockets of those money hungry bass turds to appease a Native American vote of this magnitude.

Or are they not that important enough to do so? They do have a voice, no? Or is that only when it matters to a certain group of people?

 - take those involved in the SI poll of Native Americans that found that 91% of felt the name shouldn't be changed
-  take those involved in the San Bernadino reports 67%

Take it all into account. This is there fight ML, Native Americans. Not the White man, not the Black man, not the Asian man.

It's a joke that the white man is trying to push his weight around in this fight. I mean puh lease. And I'm a white man saying that.

Yes..I'm white!..

 photo ImWhite_zpsbf698f2e.jpg




*Suh,Megatron,Best,Broyles*

Last edited 8/21/2014 4:39 PM by LionsSlashWings

Reply | Quote

Posted: 8/21/2014 4:30 PM

Re: Ditka says Redskins debate is "so stupid it's 


Fair enough.  I think the key would be to have the group in question determine whether the term is disparaging. The NFL should commission a serious study, surveying Native Americans from across the country.  It is a joke to let white people decide what is considered disparaging toward other races.


MyLions wrote: Two things...one offensive is NOT the standard here. I agree with some conservatives here. Folks can get offended at just about anything. Disparaging is the key here, not offensive. Disparaging is the term used by the federal government to strip away protection (a largely symbolic move)...as pointed out by others on the board here at that time.

And to Me4LionsPresident...I agree with that sentiment that there are folks set up to take advantage of this situation for sure. I think your point IS correct. However, this anti-redskins name movement has been around for over 40 years:
"Although often assumed to be a debate of recent origins, the local Washington, DC newspapers have published news items on the controversy many times since at least 1971, all in response to Native American individuals or organizations asking for the name to be changed.[48]"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washingt...ame_controversy

Under protests. Also found in the same link:
"There was a protest of about 2,000 people at the 1992 Super Bowl between the Redskins and the Buffalo Bills. The game was held in Minnesota, and many Native Americans from the region came out to protest the name. The American Indian Movement's (AIM) Vernon Bellecourt was one of the main organizers of the protest. Before and during the game Chippewa, Sioux, Winnebago, and Choctaw, and other Native Americans and other members of the local population, protested. Their signs read, "We are not Mascots", "Promote Sports not Racism", and "Repeal Redskin Racism."

As I mentioned, this is a complex issue. It has been around a long time and it ain't going away.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 8/21/2014 4:37 PM

Re: Ditka says Redskins debate is "so stupid it's 



MillenForPresident wrote: Not that I don't agree with Coach Ditka....

...so let me get this straight, he doesn't have a problem with the redskins name but has a problem with Stafford's backward hat?  Okay....
this was the best, funniest, most ironic line of all the posts.  it shows the complete hypocrisy of one grizzled old tight end spouting his mouth off about how others should just shut their traps when he's guilty of the same.. good post.  

fwiw, ditka's statements would have had more weight if he left the whole liberal thing out of it otherwise it just sounds politically motivated in its own right.  both liberals and conservatives are constantly wanting to change things equally and usually for the worse imho.  you only see the other side of the fence though depending on which fence you stand behind unfortunately
Reply | Quote
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 2  Next >