The R-Word--should it be banned?

Wrong. Where did you get that bull?

The Term Redskin

Dear Editor; It was brought to my attention that some were asking if the term "redskin" was really offensive to Indians and that they would like to hear from us on this subject. Well, here you are...I am Blackfoot, Cherokee and Choctaw...and yes, the term is extremely offensive to me. Let me explain why. Back not so long ago, when there was a bounty on the heads of the Indian people...the trappers would bring in Indian scalps along with the other skins that they had managed to trap or shoot. These scalps brought varying prices as did the skins of the animals. The trappers would tell the trading post owner or whoever it was that he was dealing with, that he had 2 bearskins, a couple of beaver skins...and a few scalps. Well, the term "scalp" offended the good Christian women of the community and they asked that another term be found to describe these things. So, the trappers and hunters began using the term "redskin"...they would tell the owner that they had bearskin, deer skins....and "redskins." The term came from the bloody mess that one saw when looking at the scalp...thus the term "red"...skin because it was the "skin" of an "animal" just like the others that they had...so, it became "redskins". So, you see when we see or hear that term...we don't see a football team...we don't see a game being played...we don't see any "honor"...we see the bloody pieces of scalps that were hacked off of our men, women and even our children...we hear the screams as our people were killed...and "skinned" just like animals. So, yes, Mr./Ms. Editor...you can safely say that the term is considered extremely offensive.

In Struggle,
Tina Holder
Mesa, Az.

Then what you need to see is a psychiatrist. Because while that certainly happened historically, it didn't happen during your lifetime, and it didn't happen in front of you. Personalizing traumatic events to which you were never a party is a form of delusion. Get help.

If we're going to accept any old racial stereotypes in the names of sports teams, I propose that we keep the Redskins, Fighting Irish, and Braves, and add the following team.

Los Angeles Wetbacks
Minneapolis Peckerwoods
Birmingham Crackers
Brooklyn Greasers
Jersey Dagos
San Francisco Dancin' Queens
Montgomery Coons.

What the hell. Freedom of speech, right??

I'm not opposed to the name being changed to accommodate the pussies who are complaining about it.

Provided the pussies who are complaining about it pay the expense to change it.

Archie Bunker's racism was intended to illustrate why racism is bullshit. I don't think this is a decent analogy.

Publiclly owned teams fall under different requirements. If the Redskins are receiving a public subsidy, it should be ended, but otherwise, the team name belongs to the team's owners.

You don't understand how business works do you?

The 'pussies' complaining about it are the freaking customers. The Washington Redskins only make money b/c people are willing to pay to watch them and companies are willing to pay to sponsor the team (which gets them access to the people who are watching the team). If the team pisses of it's fans and loses them then they don't make any money.

Remember that companies work for the customer, not the other way around. At least in a free market. In the kind of Randian Corporatist dystopia the market fundies want to turn us into that might not be the case.

Eh. I'll take the origin of the term redskin story with a handful of salt.

Then when their complaints are made with their wallets and in sufficient number, I expect the name will change. Until then, the tiny handful of oversensitive crybabies need to do more than wave the political correctness flag.

Native-Americans should be pissed that "Iron Eyes Cody" was actually an Italian-American born in Louisiana.

Kinda like "The Most Interesting Man in the World" from the Dos Equis commercials (Jonathan Goldsmith) is really a Jewish guy from New York.

why?
bounties for hunting non allied indians is pretty well documented.

I'm not sure why anybody should be pissed about either. Actors are pretty well known for portraying people they aren't. I'd be concerned if either character involved negative stereotypes, but I don't see that with them.

Hey gul!

True enough. Some completely unconvincing halfwit has been playing the role of U.S. President for some time now.

that's been true since Eisenhower

Shut the fuck up, Clyde.

Well, the whole "it is red because it is bloody" bit. It is pretty well established that "red" was used to distinguish skin color i.e. Red Man Chewing Tobacco. And to differentiate a "Red Indian" from an actual East Indian or a West Indian from the Caribbean. No, American Indians are no more read than black people are black, Asian people are yellow, or white people are white, but there you go.

If the name is ever changed in the future, I just hope they don't change the name to something singular, like Jazz, Wild, Magic, Heat, etc et al.

D.C. Follies might do.

Look at you and your big boy pants.

To me the amazing bit is that my post caused so much angst.

C'mon, there weren't any Native-Americans available for either role?

It'd be like David Carradine not really being Asian.

Hey Ancalagon!

You're a twat.

C'mon Ancalagon, let tonight be the night you don the big boy pants, what's your beef?

You're... Eh I dunno. Lemme guess you're a pal of somebody who isn't fond of me?

Either way welcome to Wordforge.

Hey Ancalagon rep this!

And again!

Once more even!