Supreme Court May Rule on Redskins Name (2 Viewers)

my grandfather is full blood coushatta. he's got no problem with it. redskin simply does not compare to wetback or the nword or any other racial slur, because it IS NOT A SLUR. It is considered offensive because of how it was used to describe scalps. Europeans did not invent the term, nor did they invent scalping, and any team named the redskins doesn't parade around a mascot dressed like a scalp. It is unfortunate the term brings up negative "memories" for a select few, but the same can be said of many terms, like crusaders, slave, jew, catholic, democrat, republican, liberal. The point is that it is the person hearing the term who is attaching a negative connotation to a word whose meaning is anything but. And this can be done with any word, and you can probably find a small group who are offended by any term used to describe a group.


"Redskin" is a racial descriptor for Native Americans and one of the color metaphors for race used in North America and Europe since European colonization of America.....The term was once in common use, as evidenced in Western movies, but is now largely considered a pejorative.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_(slang)

An often mentioned third but not proven origin involves the bloody skins (red-skins) of Native people as "prizes," in which they would be scalped after battle and their skins bought and sold in local towns.[3]. To date there is no historical documentation or evidence to support this theory.
 
To date there is no historical documentation or evidence to support this theory.

Right-- which that theory is the theory that is the reason for the trial, as well as for the % of native americans who find it offensive. Ive been to a couple of native american boards, and that theory is the reason they find the term Redskin derogative and offensive. But finding no evidence of it, its almost a "ghost" hatred; or a kind of reverse racism, like hating all people and figures who you percieve to be "The Man".

So if there is no evidence supporting that theory, and that theory is the theory that every outspoken native american cites as the reason they are offended by the term, I ask again-- remove that theory from the equation, and tell me, what is offensive about the term?
 
It's not worth changing the name. I don't know anyone who hears the Redskins and thinks of anything other then a football team.

It's a pointless ruling if they make them change it.

Just wondering if you are a native american?
 
Skins win. For the record, one of my great-grandparents was Choctaw and one was Cherokee and I have no problem with this ruling. :hihi:

WASHINGTON POST
Supreme Court refuses to hear Redskins naming case
By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 16, 2009


The Supreme Court on Monday declined to revive a lawsuit on behalf of Native American activists who claimed that the Washington Redskins' team name is so offensive that it does not deserve trademark protection.

The court without comment refused to get involved in the long-running dispute. The decision essentially lets stand a lower court ruling that the activists waited too long to bring the challenge.

Continued

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...11/16/AR2009111601298.html?hpid=moreheadlines
 
It truly is the same exact thing to Native Americans. I'm telling you from experience.
The N Word is not the same thing as redskin. They are both racial terms but the N word is 100x more powerful. Blackskin is the equivalent.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom