This is both humorous and informative.
For sure. The other question that I posed to them with zero response was, you both went to school in the district for many years as a “redskin” At any point in your educational path did you feel upset about the mascot? Or were you just culturally unaware of the hurtful nature of the name?
I believe 100% that the reason all of these things come to light is the social media where everyone can get their opinion out and the nature of society is to be overly sympathetic so these stories take off and gain traction from the regular media.
It is only a matter of time before they go after street names…there is a Tomahawk Trail in Lancaster but no one is outraged over that…yet. I probably just started something there ooops. Hope no liberal hippies read this post.
A tomahawk is a tool where Redskin is a derogatory term…
It’s the same thing is having a school team be called the “N*****s”. Bleep out due to the super sensitive nature of the word. Weird how sensitive we are as a society to everything African American due to slavery but it’s alright to say and do what ever to a culture that we tried to exterminate.
So many bleeding hearts.
Playing lacrosse with and being friends with many many natives, I hear this banter on a daily basis.
So maybe they should start calling themselves Redskinz and making music about it.
-
-
- Updated - - -
-
Serious question…are they upset about the name or not?
I see it maybe being a generational thing.
It def varies. All the old timers have a pretty firm stance on it being offensive. But over the years have had no choice but to deal with it. Most of the younger ones aren’t fully versed in why they should hate it, however the younger ones who are are extremely opposed to it are also the ones who have the energy and determination to make the noise needed to bring it to every bodies attention. Same thing happened with the NFL Redskins. The original tribe who were fighting the name got to a point where they were to old to proceed. The argument went away for a while. It got rehashed the past year or so due to a much younger much more determined group of natives. I admit growing up I wasnt fully educated on certain aspects of our history. Especially that history that isnt in the history books. But over the last 20+ yrs of playing and being friends with natives I have learned alot. The thing is it is an offensive term to them. Same as every other racial slur that is politically incorrect this day an age. This is just next on the list. I mean at one point ****** spic and **** were acceptable.
I get all of that and respect it, but what always gets to me (and maybe because “my people” were never oppressed) but if someone walked up to me and called me a Pollock or a Honkey I would probably laugh.
Words are only powerful when you give them power.
Do you think that the new generation are picking up the fight for this are only doing so because they have more of a platform and easier time getting their message out to a wide array of people? Because these team names/mascots have been around for a long time and the major coverage seems to be more recent.
I’m just excited to listen to the next big Native American rapper drop his newest mixtape where he refers to his crew as “Buffalo.”
“Where the Buffalo roam” might turn into slang for a reservation.
If they embrace it they could make a lot of money using the word while at the same time still holding that it’s demeaning for non-Native Americans to use.
I think you just hit the nail on the head.
This is not the same thing at all. Redskin was never meant to be racist. N***er was always derogatory.
“Redskin” - was the scalp of a Native American hunted for bounty and given as proof of the killing.
“Derogatory” - To lesson the merit or reputation of a person.
Lol the term redskin has always been a derogatory descriptive term for natives. Mike.Mike. is correct
n.
“American Indian,” 1690s, from red (adj.1) + skin (n.). Red as the skincolor of Native Americans is from 1580s; red man is from 1580s. Cf. red cent.
The use of the term redskin is first recorded in the 18th century, translating (via French) a term in the Illinois language meaning literally ‘person with red skin’. The term originally had a neutralmeaning and was used by American Indians themselves, but it eventually acquired an unfavorableconnotation. Redskin, like the related terms red man and Red Indian, is now dated or offensive.American Indian, Native American, and (in Canada) First Nations are now the standardumbrella terms for members of the indigenous peoples of North America. Of course, if it ispossible or appropriate, one can also use specific tribal names.
lol keep reading the books that the pale face wrote.
The story in my family goes that the term dates back to the institutionalized genocide of Native Americans, most notably when the Massachusetts colonial government placed a bounty on their heads. The grisly particulars of that genocide are listed in a 1755 document called the Phips Proclamation, which zeroed in on the Penobscot Indians, a tribe today based in Maine. Spencer Phips, a British politician and then Lieutenant Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Province, issued the call, ordering on behalf of British King George II for, “His Majesty’s subjects to Embrace all opportunities of pursuing, captivating, killing and Destroying all and every of the aforesaid Indians.” They paid well – 50 pounds for adult male scalps; 25 for adult female scalps; and 20 for scalps of boys and girls under age 12. These bloody scalps were known as “redskins.”
These are the same “stories” I have heard from many of native friends.
I think people aren’t offended when called “Pollack,” “Mick,” “Honkey” etc because they don’t experience social injustice for it. How often does a Polish person have someone yell “Pollack” at them while walking down the street? How many jobs have Irish people been turned away from because their last name is “Mc____.” It did happen in the past, to Italians, to Irish, etc. But future generations assimilate, and no longer maintain the language or other identifiable aspects, and their skin is white. So they basically appear as anyone else. No rich person gets mad when someone calls them rich. No one on top gets mad when people give them a hard time for being on top. It’s when those who are still held back by whatever conception, are continued to be, AND then others make light of the situation, that’s where the problem lies.
More pertinent to the discussion at hand, my friend Bart recently phrased quite eloquently:
“It took me 2 seconds to google the guy who organized the petition to find out he’s a pro-mascot activist whose active in the debate over the Washington NFL team. He’s not truly petitioning to change the city’s name; he’s trying to trivialize an issue that the vast majority of our country’s Native population doesn’t find trivial (and neither do I). He’s preying on our short attention span culture, where we don’t actually read about facts, but rather scan social media feeds and get outraged by whatever is thrown up by our friends, family members, or terribly unsophisticated local media outlets.”
The existence of a legitimately neutral origin to the word doesn’t mean it can’t be offensive or that there needs to exist a far more cartoonishly violent origin with a clear cut villain/victim relationship.
the attitude that Indians were some noble people, one with nature and knew no violence among them is as antiquated and patronizing as the term redskin.
I don’t see anyone trying to ban this
I can at least understand the argument not that I agree with it about Lancaster redskins but claiming buffalo is offensive in the context of a city is weak…That is like an irish person saying the use of potato in any context is offensive.
That’s because every true Irishman loves touchdown Jesus and fighting.