beast
6 years ago

I never knew it was considered "bad" until all this came up. I gotta say, I liked my ignorance, it was blissful. :-)

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 



I got to second that and say that's true about all of the other racial thing as well.

I remember being called "monkey" when I was acting physically silly and others too... then I had a black college roommate trying to act physically and seriously did the perfect charades chimp impression by mistake (noises and everything) and his best college friend (who was white) said, while laughing "you looked like a monkey" (which he totally did) and my roommate got very offended, because it was racist.

But the context wasn't racist, because he seriously was acting just like a chimp, and white people do say that even to each other.

I also had a professor who was a large part Native American, and considered himself Native American first, but he could see both sides, and gave me some great prospective, that where the Native American area he visits every year, trying to give back, they have problems with the local city people and in that context, Redskins is often used as a racist term. While the Redskins don't mean it in that context, it's how they grew up seeing and feeling that word used against them, that make them hate the word so much, but my professor said on the east coat area (where there are less Native American tribes today), the term had mostly lost it's racist undertone.

But innocence is blissful.
UserPostedImage
PackFanWithTwins
6 years ago

FALSE! I addressed the argument.

Had the argument been: "Person A is a NA and he is not offended by "Redskin" and he feels all NAs that are offended "have šŸ‡³šŸ‡“ pride in your heritage, self-respect and self-confidence.""

I would have said by this comment and the foregoing argument Person A has demonstrated he has no pride in his heritage, self-respect and self-confidence.

Originally Posted by: Barfarn 



Perhaps you should learn to comprehend what you read as that is almost exactly what I posted.

Everybody with indian heritage I know looks at it the same way I do. Not at it being derogatory or offensive, but as a source of pride in our heritages. To me it really seems that those who are offended by teams using indian names and mascots are ashamed of their heritage.



The argument against them is that they perpetuate "Negative Stereotypes". What is that negative stereotype, because myself and as I said, every person I know with indian heritage don't see it. They were chosen as mascots because Indians were a tough and proud people and those who go to the schools or cheer for the teams take pride in it also. The image they perpetuate is a much better image than actual tribal members living on reservations have created themselves over the past few decades.

You also say your reply would have said that I don't have pride in my heritage. That would be false. I have tremendous pride in Indian heritage. What I don't have pride in, is what Native Americans of today do and have done to the image. No school or team today would choose to name their team or create a mascot based on the current stereotype Native Americans made for themselves.
The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!
Cheesey
6 years ago
If all it takes is a word to give you low self asteem, then you already had that BEFORE the word was said.

I have been name called by some on this site too many times to count. If I let that lower my self worth, then something is wrong with me.
Yes, sometimes it hurts. Usually though, it only hurts if it comes from someone you like or respect.
Words can hurt. But you can use negative words said towards you to grow, to question your own beliefs, to become a better person yourself.
Or you can allow the "bad" people to control you, to "win".
UserPostedImage
Smokey
6 years ago
The thread from hell that just won't go away !

UserPostedImage
beast
6 years ago

Had the argument been: "Person A is a NA and he is not offended by "Redskin" and he feels all NAs that are offended "have šŸ‡³šŸ‡“ pride in your heritage, self-respect and self-confidence."

Originally Posted by: Barfarn 

Perhaps you should learn to comprehend what you read as that is almost exactly what I posted.

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins 


Exactly!

I would have said by this comment and the foregoing argument Person A has demonstrated he has no pride in his heritage, self-respect and self-confidence.

Originally Posted by: Barfarn 


Which proves my point above to be correct.
.
UserPostedImage
Barfarn
6 years ago



...the largest portion of anything in me is indian but I'm not a tribe member anywhere, though my family was as recent as my father and grandfather...

...What needs to be overcome is putting so much power in a word. A word can only put you down if you allow it to. If you have pride in your heritage, self respect and self confidence in who you are, NO word should be able to put you down....

...I have tremendous pride in Indian heritage. What I don't have pride in, is what Native Americans of today do and have done to the image. No school or team today would choose to name their team or create a mascot based on the current stereotype Native Americans made for themselves.

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins 





People should endeavor to be kind to others and not put down any race of People, especially if being nasty to others interferes with the privilege of possessing a certain type of NFL jersey.

Hereā€™s a YOU TUBE VIDEO video. See a wide array of how Native Americans associate with the word ā€œRedskinā€ [Note: most, not all, find it negative].

SCOTUS held that DEROGATORY trademarks are protected by 1st Amend. ā€œRedskinā€ is DEROGATORY, period. This axiom isnā€™t affected by the fact that some might say itā€™s not offensive to them or it wasnā€™t meant to be offensive. The N-word is offensive and can cause suffering even if some donā€™t think so or one didnā€™t mean it to cause suffering by its use. Also, it is ignorant, lacks scholarship, childish, prejudice to identify a ā€œleader;ā€ then reduce ā€œ[her]ā€ or ā€œ[their]ā€ thinking to a sound bite; and decidedly racist to presume that misrepresented sound bite speaks for all Native Americans.

One Native American asserts heā€™s proud of his ā€œIndian heritage;ā€ but not by the way NAs act today. He is not a member of a tribe; his father and G-father were. I spent some time reviewing my copious writings of my recent NA encounters to produce a sound-bite of what made NAs so great. They were survivors, spiritual, courageous, patriot, family-oriented, resilient, lived in harmony with the land never tried to dominate it, unyielding, strong, indomitable, and immersed in a TRIBAL mentality. When one family had an ailing member; the tribe had an ailing member. When one found food, the entire tribe ate. When the tribal council passed a healthcare bill; EVERYONE benefited equally šŸ˜‚.

Then, they were conquered, dominated, swindled, stripped of dignity, death-marched to virtual wastelands, lied to, and for 200 years NA culture was denigrated in every form of media and in the very text books their children learned in. The USā€™s goal was cultural genocide through physical deprivation and PROPAGANDA. In 2004, less than half of the homes on reservations had running water, 90K were homeless or under housed. In the last 40 years [sure it was no different prior], unemployment on the reservation was rarely under 70%, typically in the 80ā€™s and often in the 90+% range. The family unit suffered as one spouse, sometimes both, had to travel to find work. They were despised by White adjacent communities and crime was rampant on the Reservation. The TRIBE was weakened as many searched for work and never returned and each successive generation dissociates more from the Tribe. We have a firsthand account of this above.

Washingtonā€™s NFL name is just one symbol, but itā€™s an in your face constant reminder that it is okay to denigrate NAs. And remember, NAs are much more affected by symbolism. The typical American sees 2 buffalo running on a ridge as 2 buffalo running on a ridge; a NA might see as a sign. Earthquakes are nothing more than something that makes your house shake; NAs have interpreted them as a sign [EG, Yavapai healer Echawamahuā€™s instructions on restoring the land should be followed and Creek Chief Big Warrior saw the New Madrid Fault as a sign he should join Tecumsah in rebellion v. the US]. The Lakota believed DAPL represents a Black Snake prophesied to come into the Lakota homeland and cause destruction.

Only ignorant fools believe the immersion of words and symbols cannot shape thinking. Goebbels got a moral nation to rise to hate and kill 6M Jews in 8 years. In America in last 30 years an iconic shift in thinking regarding cigarettes occurred. Symbols of iconic TV fathers smoking [EG Ward Cleaver, Rob Petrie, Andy Griffith] were gone; alternatively, society was bombarded with the uncool, filthy and dangerous nature of smoking.

It is a big deal that NFL teams can denigrate by calling themselves ā€œRedskinā€ and the President [Trump] can call Sen. Warren ā€œPocahontas.ā€ Not only do things have a direct impact on NA self-esteem; but these are symbols that represent the reality that NAs truly are second class citizens and separate from White America.

Maslowā€™s hierarchy of needs asserts that physiological and security needs must be met to allow for feelings of loving and belonging, which must be met before esteem and self-actualization can be felt. Maslow would assert NA self-esteem is extremely hampered by deplorable living conditions, safety concerns, compromised family units and the scattering, which causes generational loss off the tribe. And these derogatory symbols and words detract from a feeling of being loved and belonging.

For 200 years NAs have been physically brutalized, exterminated and portrayed as violent savages, ignorant and drunken fools. They were death-marched and enslaved to live in squalor, the family is split, the Tribe is split and they have been told over and over and over that ā€œwe are White; you be Redskin.ā€ But, still even in the face of 200 years of adversity and the despicable events by our government at Standing Rock everything I saw requires one to be proud. This winter, I witnessed nothing but survivors, spirituality, courage, patriotism, family-oriented behavior, resilience, living in harmony with the land never trying to dominate it, refusal to yield, strength, indomitability, and immersion in the TRIBAL mentality.

Anyone not having pride in the steadfastness of the NA in the face of unspeakable past and present atrocities; or not being sympathetic to what occurred at Standing Rock; or not understanding the affect an NFL team degrading a Race of People has on the consciousness of America and the mind of that race; is just a damned shame and evidence that Americaā€™s symbolistic propaganda has successfully influenced its target audience.
Smokey
6 years ago
 uy65r62.jpg You have insufficient rights to see the content.

UserPostedImage
beast
6 years ago

ā€œRedskinā€ is DEROGATORY, period.

Originally Posted by: Barfarn 



That's you opinion... and while you're certainly correct,
that term can be derogatory, it doesn't have to be.

For example, the way that you are using the term is not derogatory.
The way that you are using the term is informative.
Your own words have proven that it's the context of the word
and not the word itself that decides if it's derogatory, or not.

Now lets look at the way the Washington is using the word.

Do you truly believe a team would purposely give their own team a negative image on purpose? Do you believe they're intent was to be racial? From almost all business marketing sense the answer is a clear no (unless you're attempting to be a shock jock). It's not an intent to be racist.

The Washington team is not acting in bigotry or racism... they (most likely) choose a mascot they thought was cool and they could sell and would represent their team well... not negatively. I'm sure some would say they failed, but they're rocking the term in the most positive light they can.



UserPostedImage
wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member
6 years ago

That's you opinion... and while you're certainly correct,
that term can be derogatory, it doesn't have to be.

For example, the way that you are using the term is not derogatory.
The way that you are using the term is informative.
Your own words have proven that it's the context of the word
and not the word itself that decides if it's derogatory, or not.

Now lets look at the way the Washington is using the word.

Do you truly believe a team would purposely give their own team a negative image on purpose? Do you believe they're intent was to be racial? From almost all business marketing sense the answer is a clear no (unless you're attempting to be a shock jock). It's not an intent to be racist.

The Washington team is not acting in bigotry or racism... they (most likely) choose a mascot they thought was cool and they could sell and would represent their team well... not negatively. I'm sure some would say they failed, but they're rocking the term in the most positive light they can.


Originally Posted by: beast 



The movie Men of Honor exemplified this concept.

In the beginning when Billy Sunday (Robert De Niro) called Carl Brashear (Cuba Gooding Jr.) "Cookie" is was most definitely derogatory. Although very few people would think of the word "Cookie" as being slanderous in general.

At the end of the movie when he called Brashear "Cookie" there was nothing slanderous or of evil intent in his motive. He had tremendous respect for Brashear and Brashear knew it.





It's not the word. It's the intent behind the word.

My father in law worked for CTA in Chicago in the 60s and 70s. Many of the drivers were Black men. He earned the right to call some of them by the N word if he so chose. They understood he wasn't insulting them.
UserPostedImage
Barfarn
6 years ago

That's you opinion... and while you're certainly correct,
that term can be derogatory, it doesn't have to be.

For example, the way that you are using the term is not derogatory.
The way that you are using the term is informative.
Your own words have proven that it's the context of the word
and not the word itself that decides if it's derogatory, or not.

Now lets look at the way the Washington is using the word.

Do you truly believe a team would purposely give their own team a negative image on purpose? Do you believe they're intent was to be racial? From almost all business marketing sense the answer is a clear no (unless you're attempting to be a shock jock). It's not an intent to be racist.

The Washington team is not acting in bigotry or racism... they (most likely) choose a mascot they thought was cool and they could sell and would represent their team well... not negatively. I'm sure some would say they failed, but they're rocking the term in the most positive light they can.

Originally Posted by: beast 



I don't think "Redskin"= bad is my opinion; its a scholarly judgement . Any dictionary that defines ā€œRedskin,ā€ identifies it as a slur. The National Congress of American Indians declared ā€œredskinā€ as racist.

In 2015, on summary judgment [This means with all facts and their inferences favoring Snider] a Federal judge ruled that ā€œRedskinā€ disparaged NAs, violated the Lanham Act and struck Sniderā€™s trademarks. Snider appealed to the 4th circuit, he didnā€™t argue ā€œRedskinā€ was not derogatory, he argued the Act violated the 1st Amendment.

The DOJ sided with the NAs believing ā€œRedskinā€ disparages NAs and has been defending the NAs on appeal.

Actually, just today based on the subject SCOTUS [Tam] ruling the DOJ and NAs have conceded the defense of the lower court ruling and Snyderā€™s Trademarks will be restored, because the Lanham Act has been declared unconstitutional, NOT because ā€œredskinā€ was not disparaging.

If you ask a Native American, are you a ā€œRedskin?ā€ That NA will most likely consider you either roundhouse ignorant/insensitive or looking to provoke. The term is derogatory and it will never be used as a term of respect when addressing a NA. And Iā€™ll say it again, this axiom doesnā€™t change because someone doesnā€™t find it offensive or someone doesnā€™t mean it to be.

Moreover, racial discrimination and prejudice will not disappear until the day we donā€™t even think about skin color. Identifying a NA as a "Redskin" conspicuously draws attention to color differences of the races.

To answer your question:
Snider is aware that it offends/upsets a huge majority of NAs, who remain close to the Tribe and he simply doesnā€™t care. So yes, Snider is a racist [One who expresses animosity toward another race].

Your logic takes a bad turn, though it shows a well intended heart, when you assume racist treatment is ipso facto negative treatment. I'm not sure "Redskins" was initially an honor to NAs. Did you see the before and after Dove add from 2011? A before and after picture with A Black women in the before and Latina woman between and a white women in the after. The add effectively says Dove turns Black women into Latina women into White women. This might be effective if Black women don't buy Dove anyways.

A similar strategy was used by Trump, he knew if he appealed to the antisemitic and racists he'd get their votes. Yes he torque off Backs and Jews but so what, they're voting democratic anyways.

At the time the NFL Washington came into existence racism abounded in many products. Coke was marketed to Whites; Pepsi to Blacks. I mentioned above several products that negatively advertised NAs. several adds in 40 and 50s were brutal on Japanese and in the 40's you could have bought "Darkie Toothpaste" that featured a wide eyed full teeth smiling caricature of a Black guy wearing a top hat or Darkie in a Watermelon for .15 cents. In the 60s the Lone Ranger's Tonto was horribly treated, called a "redskin" and portrayed as uneducated, though possessing mostly good qualities.

All of the images Washington has portrayed over the years, have not always been flattering toward NAs; which for many products was a positive strategy for marketing to Whites. I think in the last few decades, disparaging NAs would have been a negative thing and in the later part of Cooke's ownership they did several things to clean up their negative images of NAs. So, in the last 2 decades for the most part Washington's team name was more about honoring NAs than not.

But, the name offends many and should and will be changed for that reason. Actually Snider is dope; if he changed the name they'd make a fortune in merchandising.
Fan Shout
dfosterf (11h) : Maybe
Mucky Tundra (11h) : Yes
Zero2Cool (13h) : No.
Mucky Tundra (15h) : End of a Degu-era
dhazer (15h) : Steelers sign Patterson because of new kickoff rule interesting
Zero2Cool (18h) : Former #Packers TE Josiah Deguara is signing a 1-year deal with the Jaguars, per source.
Zero2Cool (19h) : They do not do it for "content sake".
dfosterf (28-Mar) : For the record, I enjoy Beast and Mucky drafts
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Haha
Mucky Tundra (27-Mar) : No time for talking! Back to work beast!
beast (27-Mar) : You saw only 4,201 of my mocks? šŸ„ŗ I think that means you missed more than half of them šŸ˜¢
dfosterf (27-Mar) : Does anyone know what Lambeau field improvements got put on hold? My guess would be for the 2025 draft
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : It's like listen, you made 4,201 mocks, no shit.
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Cuz during the draft "I had them mocked there!" as if it's amazing.
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : They're fun to do once in awhile. It's people who think they are "content" that annoy me.
dfosterf (27-Mar) : Against tbd
dfosterf (27-Mar) : Answer to your question is yes, it's a Thursday, will be the Chiefs aga
dfosterf (27-Mar) : Luckily for all concerned, I don't post them. I did one, but that was like 25 mocks ago
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : NFL 2024 gonna start Sept 5th isn't it???
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Ugh... kids these days!
dfosterf (27-Mar) : I'm gonna go do some more mock draft hell instead šŸ¤Ŗ
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Did we do one of those prediction threads yet for 2024 season?
dfosterf (27-Mar) : In my city, they are playing the nimby game, in order to keep some railroad tracks vs. 2 professional sports teams and a concert venue.
dfosterf (27-Mar) : And/Or a city council, of which I haven't seen a good one in a very long time
dfosterf (27-Mar) : That sounds like a Mayor, not a city.
buckeyepackfan (26-Mar) : Packers halt scheduled 80mil upgrade of stadium until lease agreement talks are restarted
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : City of Green Bay puts Packers' Lambeau Field lease talks on hold
buckeyepackfan (26-Mar) : Packers 1 of 3 teams to vote no on new kickoff rule.
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Packers sign another Kicker
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Lengthy explanation at PFF if you click the link
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Kickoff rules officially changed.ngthy explan
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : lol
Cheesey (26-Mar) : 2009? No thanks! One open heart surgery is enough!
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Good for you!
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Yes. That's the one.
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Is that "Lady Dugan" per chance?
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Crystal?
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Please refresh my memory
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Alan posts. Crystal back in my life. It's 2009 all over again! Lol
Mucky Tundra (26-Mar) : BAH GAWD! THAT'S CHEESEYS MUSIC!
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Gutekunst said early stages of Jordan Love contract being discussed.
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Shouldn't be penalized cuz official screwed up
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Yeah, challenge until you are incorrect twice.
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Fining them is the goal, per the people who made the rule anyway.
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Still waiting on the kickoff rule changes. Did hear yesterday that the touchback proposal will now be the 30 yard line, not the 35
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Probably speed of game issues with your proposal
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Hopefully the refs don't get in the habit of throwing flags on this
beast (25-Mar) : I think when it comes to Challenges should get two strikes, so unlimited challenges as long as they keep winning them, but 2 wrong then done
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Still subject to the fines etc
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Yes, I should have been more specific. Also, they are now saying it would be a 15 yard penalty. That makes more sense .
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2023 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 10 @ 3:25 PM
Bears
Sunday, Sep 17 @ 12:00 PM
Falcons
Sunday, Sep 24 @ 12:00 PM
SAINTS
Thursday, Sep 28 @ 7:15 PM
LIONS
Monday, Oct 9 @ 7:15 PM
Raiders
Sunday, Oct 22 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Sunday, Oct 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Nov 5 @ 12:00 PM
RAMS
Sunday, Nov 12 @ 12:00 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 19 @ 12:00 PM
CHARGERS
Thursday, Nov 23 @ 11:30 AM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 3 @ 7:20 PM
CHIEFS
Monday, Dec 11 @ 7:15 PM
Giants
Sunday, Dec 17 @ 12:00 PM
BUCCANEERS
Sunday, Dec 24 @ 12:00 PM
Panthers
Sunday, Dec 31 @ 7:20 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Jan 7 @ 3:25 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Jan 14 @ 3:30 PM
Cowboys
Saturday, Jan 20 @ 7:15 PM
49ers
Recent Topics
6h / Around The NFL / beast

11h / Green Bay Packers Talk / buckeyepackfan

28-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

28-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

27-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

27-Mar / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

27-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

24-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

24-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

22-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

Headlines
Copyright Ā© 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.comā„¢. All Rights Reserved.