Liberals Can Win Again If They Stop Being Moral Condescending Busybodies
Condescension being a hallmark of liberalism is an age-old discussion. Yet, after Hillary Clinton’s stinging 2016 defeat to Donald Trump, some are wondering if their attitude to people who don’t think, act, or live like them might be an issue in terms of bridging the cultural divide we have (i.e. urban vs. rural). Business Insider’s Josh Barro, who also hosts Left, Right, and Center on KCRW, commented on this issue and offered ways in which his fellow Democrats can stop being so annoying. There are parts with which I disagree - namely that we’re a socially liberal country. I still think we’re right-of-center, but Barro is blunt and straightforward in his assessment that liberals have just become insufferable in their intolerance towards people who don’t live in the urban bastions of progressivism. As a result, they have become the “moral busybodies” that was often a criticism of conservatism. Barro calls this particularly problem within liberalism “the hamburger problem.” And by cultural disconnect, he’s not talking about policy stances either, which is often an excuse for liberals to think that they’re not out of touch.
Suppose you're a middle-income man with a full-time job, a wife who also works outside the home, and some children. Suppose it's a Sunday in the early fall, and your plan for today is to relax, have a burger, and watch a football game.
Conservatives will say, "Go ahead, that sounds like a nice Sunday." (In the Trump era, they're not going to bother you about not going to church.) But you may find that liberals have a few points of concern they want to raise about what you mistakenly thought was your fundamentally nonpolitical plan for the day.
Liberals want you to know that you should eat less meat so as to contribute less to global warming. They're concerned that your diet is too high in sodium and saturated fat. They're upset that the beef in your hamburger was factory-farmed.
They think the name of your favorite football team is racist. Or even if you hate the Washington Redskins, they have a long list of other reasons that football is problematic.
Beyond what you're doing this weekend, this movement has a long list of moral judgments about your ongoing personal behavior.
The SUV you bought because it was easier to install car seats in doesn't get good enough gas mileage. Why don't you have an electric car?
The gender-reveal party you held for your most recent child inaccurately conflated gender with biological sex. ("Cutting into a pink or blue cake seems innocent enough — but honestly, it's not," Marie Claire warned earlier this month.)
You don't ride the subway because you have that gas-guzzling car, but if you did, the way you would sit on it would be sexist.
No item in your life is too big or too small for this variety of liberal busybodying. On the one hand, the viral video you found amusing was actually a manifestation of the patriarchy. On the other hand, you actually have an irresponsibly large number of carbon-emitting children.
[…]
Liberals like to complain that working-class voters who back Republicans have voted "against their own self-interest," by which they implicitly mean economic self-interest. This idea could benefit from a little introspection.
Do liberals go into the voting booth and choose a candidate based on a narrow conception of economic self-interest? Of course not.
[…]
Objectively, you would think the groups most substantively exposed to risk from the Trump presidency are low-income people who face benefit cuts and members of minority groups against whom he whips up and indulges negative sentiment.
Yet, as the Republican pollster Patrick Ruffini has pointed out in his analyses of turnout in House special elections, the "resistance" surge in Democratic turnout relative to Republican turnout is occurring almost entirely among college-educated whites. That is, the people most alarmed by Trump seem to be the ones who stand to lose the most cultural power, not those who stand to lose the most materially.
Barro later goes into how liberals can fix this perception that could hurt outreach initiatives since whether they like to admit it or not, Democrats need to win back white working class voters (i.e. Trump voters). One is working to diffuse the high tension on cultural issues and recognizing that this is not a sign of defeat or compromise. Actually, this can be applied to a whole host of issues that liberals will fight to the death on, like immigration. Here's the rest of his advice on what liberals should do to temper their cultural intolerance:
Don't tell people they should feel guilty. As I discussed at the top of this piece, Americans are broadly open to liberal positions on cultural policy issues. Over the last few decades, they have increasingly internalized the idea that the government should let people be free to do what they want in their lives. So embrace that ethos by emphasizing how liberal policy positions would let members of all sorts of groups live their best lives, protected from discrimination and harm. Don't tell people they should feel bad about living their own lives as they want.
Say when you think the liberal commentariat has gone overboard. While former President Barack Obama has urged people to eat less meat, usually the leading voices of the new liberal moralism are not politicians. Less-smug liberal commentators will usually protest that these voices are marginal, especially the college students who get so much attention on Fox News for protesting culturally insensitive sushi in the dining hall. If these voices are so marginal, it should be easy enough for Democratic politicians to distance themselves by saying, for example, that some college students have gotten a little nuts and should focus on their studies instead of the latest politically correct cause. Showing that you also think liberal cultural politics has gotten a little exhausting is a good way to relate to a lot of voters.
Offer an agenda that provides benefits people can see as mattering in their daily lives. If you want voters to refocus away from petty cultural fights and toward public policy, it's not enough to turn down the temperature on culture; you need a policy agenda they can relate to. I wrote in December about some ideas to do this — though of course, you could also make such an agenda in farther-left flavors.
Don't get distracted by shiny objects. If the government can't do anything about the problem you're discussing — if it's purely a matter of the cultural discourse — should you spend your time on it and risk alienating people on the opposite side of the issue? Probably not.
You can debate among yourselves if this will actually take hold with Democratic Party leaders and the elite that keep the war chests funded. Right now, let’s say it’s very possible that these could take hold. Democrats have no economic message for the 2018 midterms at present. They’re divided, leaderless, and searching for a route to political revival. You never know what could be added into the mix, if they ever get to it—for a winning political message. At the same time, there’s plenty to suggest this won’t happen. The number of rural Democrats on the Hill is slim. Overall, they’re pretty much a species on the verge of extinction. They were all but wiped out in 2010. In Appalachia, a once robust bastion of Democratic support among working class whites, Hillary Clinton only won 21 out of its 490 counties. That’s a total collapse and Democratic elites may not want to even bother with rebuilding the party apparatus out there, though it’s necessary if they want to expand the map, especially for state and local races which are key to keeping a talent pool well maintained for future national races. Also, these people don’t think white voters matter, which was crystal clear with the Clinton campaign.
Condescension seems to have its roots in American liberalism. Whenever it’s mentioned I always think back to the story between an aide and Adlai Stevenson, who, like Clinton, is also a two-time presidential loser; Stevenson ran and lost twice in 1952 and 1956. The tale goes that the aide was confident of a Stevenson win, saying to the Democratic candidate something along the lines of “Mr. Stevenson, you have the thinking people on your side” to which Stevenson replies, “ah, but I need a majority.” Snobbery and condescension may have always been ingrained in liberal politics, but social media made this virus airborne. https://m.townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2017/07/18/business-insider-liberals-can-win-again-if-they-stop-being-moral-condescending-b-n2356264
Suppose you're a middle-income man with a full-time job, a wife who also works outside the home, and some children. Suppose it's a Sunday in the early fall, and your plan for today is to relax, have a burger, and watch a football game.
Conservatives will say, "Go ahead, that sounds like a nice Sunday." (In the Trump era, they're not going to bother you about not going to church.) But you may find that liberals have a few points of concern they want to raise about what you mistakenly thought was your fundamentally nonpolitical plan for the day.
Liberals want you to know that you should eat less meat so as to contribute less to global warming. They're concerned that your diet is too high in sodium and saturated fat. They're upset that the beef in your hamburger was factory-farmed.
They think the name of your favorite football team is racist. Or even if you hate the Washington Redskins, they have a long list of other reasons that football is problematic.
Beyond what you're doing this weekend, this movement has a long list of moral judgments about your ongoing personal behavior.
The SUV you bought because it was easier to install car seats in doesn't get good enough gas mileage. Why don't you have an electric car?
The gender-reveal party you held for your most recent child inaccurately conflated gender with biological sex. ("Cutting into a pink or blue cake seems innocent enough — but honestly, it's not," Marie Claire warned earlier this month.)
You don't ride the subway because you have that gas-guzzling car, but if you did, the way you would sit on it would be sexist.
No item in your life is too big or too small for this variety of liberal busybodying. On the one hand, the viral video you found amusing was actually a manifestation of the patriarchy. On the other hand, you actually have an irresponsibly large number of carbon-emitting children.
[…]
Liberals like to complain that working-class voters who back Republicans have voted "against their own self-interest," by which they implicitly mean economic self-interest. This idea could benefit from a little introspection.
Do liberals go into the voting booth and choose a candidate based on a narrow conception of economic self-interest? Of course not.
[…]
Objectively, you would think the groups most substantively exposed to risk from the Trump presidency are low-income people who face benefit cuts and members of minority groups against whom he whips up and indulges negative sentiment.
Yet, as the Republican pollster Patrick Ruffini has pointed out in his analyses of turnout in House special elections, the "resistance" surge in Democratic turnout relative to Republican turnout is occurring almost entirely among college-educated whites. That is, the people most alarmed by Trump seem to be the ones who stand to lose the most cultural power, not those who stand to lose the most materially.
Barro later goes into how liberals can fix this perception that could hurt outreach initiatives since whether they like to admit it or not, Democrats need to win back white working class voters (i.e. Trump voters). One is working to diffuse the high tension on cultural issues and recognizing that this is not a sign of defeat or compromise. Actually, this can be applied to a whole host of issues that liberals will fight to the death on, like immigration. Here's the rest of his advice on what liberals should do to temper their cultural intolerance:
Don't tell people they should feel guilty. As I discussed at the top of this piece, Americans are broadly open to liberal positions on cultural policy issues. Over the last few decades, they have increasingly internalized the idea that the government should let people be free to do what they want in their lives. So embrace that ethos by emphasizing how liberal policy positions would let members of all sorts of groups live their best lives, protected from discrimination and harm. Don't tell people they should feel bad about living their own lives as they want.
Say when you think the liberal commentariat has gone overboard. While former President Barack Obama has urged people to eat less meat, usually the leading voices of the new liberal moralism are not politicians. Less-smug liberal commentators will usually protest that these voices are marginal, especially the college students who get so much attention on Fox News for protesting culturally insensitive sushi in the dining hall. If these voices are so marginal, it should be easy enough for Democratic politicians to distance themselves by saying, for example, that some college students have gotten a little nuts and should focus on their studies instead of the latest politically correct cause. Showing that you also think liberal cultural politics has gotten a little exhausting is a good way to relate to a lot of voters.
Offer an agenda that provides benefits people can see as mattering in their daily lives. If you want voters to refocus away from petty cultural fights and toward public policy, it's not enough to turn down the temperature on culture; you need a policy agenda they can relate to. I wrote in December about some ideas to do this — though of course, you could also make such an agenda in farther-left flavors.
Don't get distracted by shiny objects. If the government can't do anything about the problem you're discussing — if it's purely a matter of the cultural discourse — should you spend your time on it and risk alienating people on the opposite side of the issue? Probably not.
You can debate among yourselves if this will actually take hold with Democratic Party leaders and the elite that keep the war chests funded. Right now, let’s say it’s very possible that these could take hold. Democrats have no economic message for the 2018 midterms at present. They’re divided, leaderless, and searching for a route to political revival. You never know what could be added into the mix, if they ever get to it—for a winning political message. At the same time, there’s plenty to suggest this won’t happen. The number of rural Democrats on the Hill is slim. Overall, they’re pretty much a species on the verge of extinction. They were all but wiped out in 2010. In Appalachia, a once robust bastion of Democratic support among working class whites, Hillary Clinton only won 21 out of its 490 counties. That’s a total collapse and Democratic elites may not want to even bother with rebuilding the party apparatus out there, though it’s necessary if they want to expand the map, especially for state and local races which are key to keeping a talent pool well maintained for future national races. Also, these people don’t think white voters matter, which was crystal clear with the Clinton campaign.
Condescension seems to have its roots in American liberalism. Whenever it’s mentioned I always think back to the story between an aide and Adlai Stevenson, who, like Clinton, is also a two-time presidential loser; Stevenson ran and lost twice in 1952 and 1956. The tale goes that the aide was confident of a Stevenson win, saying to the Democratic candidate something along the lines of “Mr. Stevenson, you have the thinking people on your side” to which Stevenson replies, “ah, but I need a majority.” Snobbery and condescension may have always been ingrained in liberal politics, but social media made this virus airborne. https://m.townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2017/07/18/business-insider-liberals-can-win-again-if-they-stop-being-moral-condescending-b-n2356264
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
121 visitors
They think the name of your favorite football team is racist. Or even if you hate the Washington Redskins, they have a long list of other reasons that football is problematic
Total hypocrisy and lies from one of your favorite publications.
You just posted this:
Christians who dare voice the belief that marriage is a union between one man and one woman are being fired from their jobs and losing their businesses. The clear message is, "Espouse Christian values at your peril."
And have the freaking nerve to to post the above. The Redskin name is not only racist, it's a disgrace. How about we name a team "Skinned christian white man". Would you be good with that? You think it's cool to have a team whose name is about a violent act against indians, but then have the audacity to complain about perceived infringement on your values? How about adding to your Christian values that it's not OK to name a team after a disgusting act done to tens of thousands of Indians... or do you think celebrating scalping indians is dandy?
Your northern California is the only place I ever saw on a pub a sign saying "No Dogs No Indians". Is that where you get your ideas from?
I am totally disgusted.
Perrie, I think it would be fair to say that XX Jefferson has seeded DOZENS of articles just like this, if not more (seriously, it could be hundreds). You can't expect him to have read all of them. His point is that liberals suck and are anti-God and anti-America, anything else about it is details that he is not that interested in.
Now you know why people in the know mock him in lieu of engaging him. He doesn't care about the Redskins name one way or the other. He cares about promoting his political ideology.
Now you know why people in the know mock him in lieu of engaging him. He doesn't care about the Redskins name one way or the other. He cares about promoting his political ideology.
John, I totally disagree with mocking anyone on this site. I didn't mock him. I engaged him. We are a discussion site, and many here have their own political ideology, including you, but that is the point of the site, to debate and not mock.
John, you are the embodiment of what this seed is actually about.
How about we name a team "Skinned white man". ould you be good with that?
I'm fine with the Fighting Irish, and that's more of a stereotype of than Redskins is, certainly. My Greek neighbor and MSU grad also flies a Spartan flag all football season.
"Redskins" is a synonym for Indians. Not skinned red man or whatever you are trying to say. I think you've fallen for a hoax, otherwise.
The problem with this whole "offensive" rigmarole is pretty obvious. Sports teams take their names from things that are strong and inspirational. It'a an honor and was always considered one before the PC police lost their minds and invented an issue.
the PC police lost their minds and invented an issue
I think you have lost your mind and disinvented one. It is well known that "redskins" referred to a bounty put on the natives by colonials.
A ' Redskin ' Is the Scalped Head of a Native American, …
Native Americans pass down ... her parents shared one about the term " redskins ." ... most notably when the Massachusetts colonial government placed a bounty on ...
Redskin (slang) - Wikipedia
... of paying a bounty for Indians , and that " redskin ... colonials thought of Indians as essentially ... redskin , by Native Americans to refer to ...
" Redskins ": A Native's Guide To Debating An Inglorious …
... when the Piankashaws referred to themselves and other Natives as ... as NWA eloquently put it ... referred to themselves and other Natives as " redskins ."
Pundit claims Redskins historically used as 'term of ...
Jun 04, 2014 · Pundit claims Redskins historically used as ... Two tribal leaders referred to themselves as " redskins " in ... Put a free PunditFact widget on your ...
How the Redskins Got Their Name, and Why Just …
How the Redskins Got Their Name, and Why Just ... native peoples from around the world are put on display for ... redskins " originated in the bounty ...
That's a fake story John.
The origin of the word Redskin is well documented. In the words of the world's foremost expert on the topic Dr Ives Goddard, of the Smithsonian "It is extremely unusual," he wrote, "to be able to document the emergence of a vernacular expression in such exact and elucidative detail."
Dr. Goddard responded to the bloody scalp claim, which originated this century thusly " is not acceptable is for her to give as the only relevant historical fact the fictional claim that the word originally referred to scalps, for which there is no evidence."
The evidence as set forth by Dr. Goddard is clear and not contradicted.
According to Smithsonian historian Ives Goddard , early historical records indicate that "Redskin" was used as a self-identifier by Native Americans to differentiate between the two races. Goddard found that the first use of the word "redskin" came in 1769, in negotiations between the Piankashaws and Col. John Wilkins. Throughout the 1800s, the word was frequently used by Native Americans as they negotiated with the French and later the Americans. The phrase gained widespread usage among whites when James Fenimore Cooper used it in his 1823 novel The Pioneers . In the book, Cooper has a dying Indian character lament, "There will soon be no red-skin in the country."
Sean,
I'm fine with the Fighting Irish, and that's more of a stereotype of than Redskins is, certainly.
That term means that the Irish never took BS when handed to them. It is hardly a slur.
"Redskins" is a synonym for Indians. Not skinned red man or whatever you are trying to say. I think you've fallen for a hoax, otherwise.
I think you might need to investigate this further. The name redskins is about scalping and not skin color. Here:
Above is an excerpt from The Daily Republican newspaper in Winona, Minnesota from Sept. 24, 1863. It reads:
Many challenge what the term "redskin" means to Native Americans. I heard from a lot of them yesterday about a piece detailing how the term has affected my life as a Native American. Some accused us of personally forging and inventing the Phips Proclamation , a historical document from 1755 that called for the scalping of Indians. Others accused us of making up the etymology of the word . Others implied it doesn't matter because " there's like 6 true Native Americans " left anyway.
A few cited a study written by Smithsonian Institution senior linguist Ives Goddard that makes the case that the word did not begin as an insult.
But here is a quote from another member of the Smithsonian – Kevin Gover, a member of the Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma and director of the Institution's National Museum of the American Indian:
"I'm really not that interested in where the word comes from," Gover said . "I know how it was used. And it's been used in a disparaging way for at least a couple of centuries. Up to and including the time I was growing up in Oklahoma."
What is germane to the conversation? What is semantics? That is debatable. The fact remains that to many Native Americans, the term "redskin" has long meant the act of our ancestor's scalps being collected for bounty.
The kind of bounty that was referenced above. The kind of bounty that was referenced in the 1755 Phips Proclamation.
T he name redskins is about scalping and not skin color.
That's simply not true. There are plenty of documented instance of the word clearly being used to denote skin color as opposed to whites that precede your reference by over a hundred years.
It is clear from the earliest citations that redskin was regarded as an Indian expression. It was at first used only to translate what Indians said or as a consciously adopted Indian turn of phrase employed in formally addressing Indians. The tribal identities of the speakers who were quoted using this word in the period from 1769 to 1822 point to its specific languages of origin. The French ex
In any case, it is evident that a convention of translating the word for ‘Indians’ in all Indian languages with French Peaux-Rouges and English redskins had become established among the close-knit group of interpreters that worked for William Clark and his agents, many of whom had linguistic skills in more than one Indian tongue. Even if these expressions were used in translating languages that did not have a term with this exact meaning, the linguistic evidence shows that this usage was a literal translation of expressions used in at least some of the Algonquian and Siouan languages of the area. And the rendering of an Algonquian element meaning ‘brown’ as rouge or red would attest the persistent influence of an older and more wide
This is the definitive academic study:
he name redskins is about scalping and not skin color.
Your own source doesn't use "redskin" to mean scalping. It clearly is used interchangeably with Indian. It's a $200 reward for every Indian killed, plain and simple.
Apparently you didn't read what I posted.Goddard was opposed by other professors at the Smithsonian. That newspaper clipping made it perfectly clear. It's from the period, and it makes a distinction between whole indian and a redskin.
Over the years the true meaning got lost with people who are not indians, but it never was forgotten by those who this practice was used upon. If you are unsure of that, go over to an indian and call him a "redskin" and see what happens.
That term means that the Irish never took BS when handed to them. It is hardly a slur
Of course it isn't. Why would a football team name itself after a slur?
That's the point, teams take nicknames that demonstrate strength and inspirational symbolism. IT's why teams don't call themselves the Benedict Arnolds, or the Yellow Bellied Cowards. Redskins, like the Fighting Irish, is a name that denotes strength. It's siilly to think that Redskins is an insult while every other nickname is a mark of honor and inspiration.
.Goddard was opposed by other professors at the Smithsonian.
Apparently, you don't understand what I wrote.
NO one has contradicted Goddard's exhaustive research.
This is the opposition you cite:
""I'm really not that interested in where the word comes from"
Well then...
makes a distinction between whole Indian and a redskin.
Are you kidding?!/! Read it again and try and please explain it how there is a distinction.
What an outrageous claim. It's $200 per "redskin sent to purgatory." There is simply no honest way to contort the English language to find some distinction between Indian and red-skin in that ad.
(On a side note it seems strange that "purgatory" would be used in 1863 Minnesota, a state without a substantial catholic population to my knowledge. Doesn't seem like the type of language a protestant editor would use, since Protestants don't believe in purgatory.) Odd.
Obviously, you either don't want to get it of you just don't care how an entire people feel. I promise you, if you said that to any indian, they would give you a lesson.
Here, let me put it in another way so you get it.
Even if you want to believe that the term redskin doesn't mean scalps, it sure was used as a slur.. and one that was usually tied to killing indians.
From NPR who cites Goddard's conclusions also said:
The Pioneers and other books by Cooper were largely seen as sympathetic toward Native Americans and their struggles in the 1800s. Decades later, the word "redskin" began to take on a negative, increasingly violent connotation. Author L. Frank Baum, best known for his classic The Wizard of Oz, celebrated the death of Sitting Bull and the massacre at Wounded Knee with a pair of editorials calling for the extermination of all remaining Native Americans. In one of the December 1890 pieces, Baum wrote, "With his fall the nobility of the Redskin is extinguished, and what few are left are a pack of whining curs who lick the hand that smites them."
Yeah, I'm feeling the love.
You started this discussion with 'The fighting Irish" Sean, which was a non starter. It isn't meant as a slur. I'm a New Yorker, who dated many an Irishman. How would you feel about the "The Fighting Mics or the The Fighting Donkeys? That is the class of name that redskin is.
Even if you want to believe that the term redskin doesn't mean scalp
It's not a question of believing. The facts are clear and the evidence is overwhelming it doesn't. There's no serious dispute about the original meaning. There's as much evidence that redskin originally meant scalp as there is that it originally meant nuclear fusion.
Does it bother you that your entire response to Jeff is premised on manufactured propaganda designed to manipulate the public? If the case for removing the nickname Redskins was that strong, it's proponents wouldn't have to resort to these sort of cheap deceptions in support of it.
ou just don't care how an entire people feel.
The polling of the entire people is quite clear. Most Indians believe the term Redskins is a perfectly acceptable name for a football game. Lemme guess though, all those Indians who have no problem with the nickname aren't "real Indians," right?
, it sure was used as a slur.
Any word describing an ethnic group can be used as a slur. It's all about context. In the context of a football team, it's obviously not being used as a slur.
NO one has contradicted Goddard's exhaustive research.
Except members of the research team, which I documented.
Which makes this statement:
There's as much evidence that redskin originally meant scalp as there is that it originally meant nuclear fusion.
Untrue. Furthermore, as I said, even if you don't believe that it's tied to scalping, it is most definitely was used as a slur. You never answered me about going over to an indian and using that term. The truth is, you know what their reaction would be.
The polling of the entire people is quite clear.
That poll was shown to be faulty. And what a joke. A poll done by the Washington Post, which just happens to be the team's hometown.
First and foremost, the Post states clearly that they did not verify the actual Native American identity or tribal enrollment of its respondents. Unlike most “minorities,” non-Native Americans have often declared themselves Native American with little or no factual evidence or cultural connection whatsoever. Furthermore, 56 percent of those asked said they were not part of any tribal nation or could not name what tribe their ancestors claimed. Imagine asking 500 white Americans for an opinion about Europe and not caring that more than half had no connection to their ancestors’ place of origin.
Does it bother you that your entire response to Jeff is premised on manufactured propaganda designed to manipulate the public?
First of all, I resent you calling my point of view propaganda. Are you an indian? No. So of course why would you really actually feel invested into this discussion, since it has nothing to do with you and everything to do with what you perceive as being PC, which is your propaganda, isn't it? See how that works? When we dismiss the other person's POV by using words like "Propaganda"
As for Jeff, what I find amazing is he feels his own pain real well, but others he does not. He posted two article in one day that just blew my mind. So yeah, I feel that both of these articles are propaganda to push his specific views, which is fine, but also I am allowed to show him the hypocrisy of doing so.
Untrue. Furthermore, as I said, even if you don't believe that it's tied to scalping, it is most definitely was used as a slur. You never answered me about going over to an indian and using that term. The truth is, you know what their reaction would be.
As Sean said, it's about context. The team obviously didn't intend to slur itself. If anything, the team is conjuring up the image of scalping the other side not being scalped.
The polling of the entire people is quite clear.
That poll was shown to be faulty. And what a joke. A poll done by the Washington Post, which just happens to be the team's hometown.
Baloney. Washington DC is an overwhelmingly democratic jurisdiction, filled with PC people, and the Washington Post staff reflects the population. If anything, their knee jerk reaction would be to agree with you.
First and foremost, the Post states clearly that they did not verify the actual Native American identity or tribal enrollment of its respondents.
Oh come on. What poll actually verifies what a respondent says?
Unlike most “minorities,” non-Native Americans have often declared themselves Native American with little or no factual evidence or cultural connection whatsoever.
Yes, like Elizabeth Warren. Still, all you have to rebut the poll is your opinion. You're not an Indian and, even if you were, you couldn't speak for anybody but yourself.
Furthermore, 56 percent of those asked said they were not part of any tribal nation or could not name what tribe their ancestors claimed. Imagine asking 500 white Americans for an opinion about Europe and not caring that more than half had no connection to their ancestors’ place of origin.
What? How can white people, who originate in Europe, have no connection to the place they originate even if they don't know their exact country of origin? Putting that aside, even by your reckoning, 44% of those polled are Indian and they didn't have a problem with "redskin."
Except members of the research team, which I documented.
You cited a Smithsonian member who said " "I'm really not that interested in where the word comes from," as the supposed refutation of the article posted in scholarly journal that I cited about the origins of the word.
Nothing else really needs to be said, I hope.
ou never answered me about going over to an Indian and using that term. The truth is, you know what their reaction would be.
I have no problem discussing the Redskins with Indian football fans. Do you really think there would be trouble If I told one of the Navajo nation that make up Red Mesa High that their Redskins are having a good game?
Like with any other word, it's all about context.
That poll was shown to be faulty
It's numerous polls that demonstrate support for the Redskins nickname and the massive 90% majority overcomes any of the supposed methodological faults and leave a huge margin for error.
A poll done by the Washington Post, which just happens to be the team's hometown
Are you kidding? You are accusing the Washington Post, of all papers, of manipulating a post to support the Redskins? Please.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/washington-post-editorials-will-no-longer-use-redskins-for-the-local-nfl-team/2014/08/22/1413db62-2940-11e4-958c-268a320a60ce_story.html?utm_term=.7dcb56c881bc
I resent you calling my point of view propaganda
I didn't say your pov is propaganda. You are entitle to any POV you want. But the "facts" you rely on are clearly propaganda.
But your argument that " not OK to name a team after a disgusting act done to tens of thousands of Indians... or do you think celebrating scalping indians is dandy?" is clearly based on propaganda.
Are you an indian?
What percent of Indian blood must I have to rebut false arguments?
I have no problem discussing the Redskins with Indian football fans. Do you really think there would be trouble If I told one of the Navajo nation that make up Red Mesa High that their Redskins are having a good game?
Go ahead and try it. And what? Only football indians have a say here? Do you realize how insulting that is? How about you go to one of your local Rezs and try that?
You cited a Smithsonian member who said " "I'm really not that interested in where the word comes from," as the supposed refutation of the article posted in scholarly journal that I cited about the origins of the word.
Wow talk about cherry picking words. Here is the exact quote from that member of the Smithsonian:
"I'm really not that interested in where the word comes from," Gover said . "I know how it was used. And it's been used in a disparaging way for at least a couple of centuries. Up to and including the time I was growing up in Oklahoma."
It's numerous polls that demonstrate support for the Redskins nickname and the massive 90% majority overcomes any of the supposed methodological faults and leave a huge margin for error.
Find me another. Because I found none. Furthermore, how the poll was done..
There has been a sudden period of soul searching, especially from sports reporters who were previously secure in their opinions that the term “Redskins” was insulting and offensive to Native people. Some have started to ask where is the disconnect between what they believed to be true and the results of the poll.
Well, the answer is simple. The disconnect is, no pun intended, the telephone.
The Washington Post poll was conducted exclusively by telephone. And just as most of us have warned our children, and even reminded ourselves, that people on the internet might not be who they claim to be, the very same thing is true of the telephone. The only thing you can be sure of from a telephone survey — and even this is sketchy with improvements in voice automation — is that the person on the other end is, well, a person.
So unless there is some Native American Yellow Pages that I am not aware of, the result of the Washington Post poll is not that 9 out of 10 Native Americans aren’t offended by the name. The result of the poll is that 9 out of 10 people who claimed to be Native Americans over the telephone aren’t offended by the name “Redskins”. There’s a big difference.
On to this:
But your argument that " not OK to name a team after a disgusting act done to tens of thousands of Indians... or do you think celebrating scalping indians is dandy?" is clearly based on propaganda.
And I also said, even if you believe that to be a fallacy, the term itself became an insult, again which you seem to totally ignore.
What percent of Indian blood must I have to rebut false arguments?
That was not my point. You have no idea what indians think as a whole, since literally you are not a member of a tribe. So let's bring it back to you. Can I call a team the Washington Donkeys or The Washington Mics? Can I dress up like drunken leprechaun at games... something akin to this:
Does this look like an honor?
Were they honoring your heritage here?
Or here:
or here:
So let me spell out the difference. The only reason we don't see images like this anymore is because the Irish make up more than 11% of the population as opposed to indians, who make up barely 1%, so who the hell cares what indians feel. And there are only 1% of the population because of people like L. Frank Baum who may I remind you said:
"With his fall the nobility of the Redskin is extinguished, and what few are left are a pack of whining curs who lick the hand that smites them."
Does this look like an honor?
Surely you know that's not how fans typically dress. I have seen fans in elaborate Indian outfits and it's clearly intended to be complementary.
It would seem that are so called experts on Indian really have no idea what their talking about...If you don't think that Indians despise the term here is a list of Indian organizations , individuals, and civil rights groups that oppose the name. The date is 2013 and many more have been added to that list.
1ofmany, your right, your not an Indian and telling us what is insulting to us is the height of arrogance.
Native Americans and organizations advocating change [ edit ]
In the 1940s the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) created a campaign to eliminate negative stereotyping of Native American people in the media. Over time, the campaign began to focus on Indian names and mascots in sports. [3] The NCAI maintains that teams with mascots such as the Braves and the Redskins perpetuate negative stereotypes of Native American people, and demean their native traditions and rituals. [4] The NCAI issued a new report in 2013 summarizing opposition to Indian mascots and team names generally, and the Washington Redskins in particular. [5] In the trademark case, the TTAB placed significance on the NCAI opposition, estimating that the organization represented about 30% of the Native American population at the time the trademarks were granted, which met their criteria for a "substantial composite" of Native Americans finding the name disparaging. [6]
The following groups have passed resolutions or issued statements regarding their opposition to the name of the Washington NFL team:
Tribes [ edit ]
Organizations [ edit ]
After accepting $200,000 from the Washington Redskins Original Americans Foundation for the prior year, the Indian National Finals Rodeo (INFR), which says it is the U.S.' and Canada's largest rodeo organization for Native Americans, sent a letter refusing any further donations. INFR Vice President Michael Bo Vocu stated “After much soul searching, we have decided that we cannot in good conscience accept resources from you on the terms you have offered, no matter how desperately we need it ... because, as you know, the resources you are offering are not truly philanthropic -- they come with the expectation that we will support the racial slur that continues to promote your associated professional football team’s name.” Last year the Redskins primary logo appeared at many Native rodeo events, creating a backlash from those offended by it. [29]
Individuals [ edit ]
Interviews at a powwow in Towson, Maryland find several Native Americans who favor a change of the Redskins name. [30]
These Native Americans have put their opposition to the Redskins' name on the public record:
Civil rights and religious organizations [ edit ]
1ofmany, your right, your not an Indian and telling us what is insulting to us is the height of arrogance.
That's where you're wrong. I'm not telling Indians what's insulting or not insulting to them so the list of those offended by the term is irrelevant. What I posted is a poll that said there are many Indians who aren't offended by the term so your beef is with those who answered the poll not me.
What I am saying is that I agree with Sean that the context controls. Question. Do you think that the Washington redskins used the term to slur themselves or to suggest that they, themselves, should be scalped?
In 2017 it is no longer acceptable to name team mascots after races or skin colors. Can you imagine a team be nicknamed the BrownSkins, YellowSkins, or even the WhiteSkins ?
And don't bother bringing up the Notre Dame leprechaun because it is a midget. That is an imaginary character.
In 2017 it is no longer acceptable to name team mascots after races or skin colors. Can you imagine a team be nicknamed the BrownSkins, YellowSkins, or even the WhiteSkins ?
You don't seem to have any appreciation at all for the context. The brownskins, yellowskins, and white skins connotes nothing. The intent of the name "redskins" is not a slur and that's obvious,
You don't seem to have any appreciation at all for the context. The brownskins, yellowskins, and white skins connotes nothing. The intent of the name "redskins" is not a slur and that's obvious,
The "connotation" is irrelevant. The name is racial.
The "connotation" is irrelevant. The name is racial.
It's not relevant to you but entirely relevant to me. I don't care whether the name is racial because the context is not a slur. It's not about brownskins and whiteskins but rather images of ferocity and strength. To me, the image it conjures is somebody out for blood. Are all Indians offended by the image? No. My Sioux friend laughed and said he enjoyed watching the Indians hit the white soldiers in the head with tomahawks when we watched Last of the Mohicans.
Nice sidestep 1ofmany....the poll posted is very flawed as you well know.
That list is damn important since it represents thousands of Indians across the U.S. which you choose to ignore. More arrogance.
Your saying that the term isn't insulting, how do you know that. Have you ever walked up to an Indian and called him a Re*skin and told him that you were honoring him?
Your saying that the term isn't insulting, how do you know that. Have you ever walked up to an Indian and called him a Re*skin and told him that you were honoring him?
You're still not following so I'll ask again. Why do you think they named the team "redskins"?
Since the owner at the time was a avowed racist, that's a good question..The NFL sued Marshall because he wouldn't draft black players...And his first coach, the one that he tried to pass off as Indian was actually a German born in Wisconsin and was arrested for trying to avoid the draft in WWI by passing himself as Indian.
I follow just fine, you seem to be the one that is having the problem.
Since the owner at the time was a avowed racist, that's a good question..The NFL sued Marshall because he wouldn't draft black players...And his first coach, the one that he tried to pass off as Indian was actually a German born in Wisconsin and was arrested for trying to avoid the draft in WWI by passing himself as Indian.
All interesting but irrelevant. Why do you think he named the team redskins?
All interesting but irrelevant. Why do you think he named the team redskins?
Anything but irrelevant....Since Marshall used the phony ''Chief'' to justify the name until he finally admitted that the name was a marketing ploy. They were originally know as the Boston Braves (football) and he wanted to change the name so there wouldn't be a mix up with the other Boston Braves (baseball)
By changing from the Braves to the Re*skins he, in his own words said it was a marketing ploy to keep the same ''motif''....
Nothing to do with honor at all.
That doesn't explain why he picked the word "redskins". Do you think he named the team redskins to slur it or suggest that they should, themselves, be scalped?
I have no idea what is in the mind of a avowed racist....
Perhaps you do 1ofmany.
I have no idea what is in the mind of a avowed racist....
Perhaps you do 1ofmany.
You don't have to be a mind reader kavika. It's just a simple matter of common sense. No team owner would slur his own team or create an image of defeat by viewing them as victims of a scalping. This seems to me to be so obvious that no reasonable person could dispute it. Whether he is a racist or not, he used the term to invoke an image of being out for blood . . . just like the owner of the Vikings team.
Only football indians have a say here? Do you realize how insulting that is?
No, but I would only discuss the redskins football team with football fans. I don't go around talking to random white people about the chances for the Irish to win the national championship either.
The point as always is context. Football fans tend to be people to whom talking about the Redskins football team is worthwhile.
Wow talk about cherry picking words. Here is the exact quote from that member of the Smithsonian:
"I'm really not that interested in where the word comes from," Gover said . "I know how it was used. And it's been used in a disparaging way for at least a couple of centuries. Up to and including the time I was growing up in Oklahoma."
What is the topic of this debate? THE ORIGIN of the term Redskin. The ORIGIN , which your "expert" admits he has no interest in discussing so he changes the topic to what is interesting to him. For Pete's sake, the first words out of mouth are that he has NO INTEREST in discussing where the word came from.
It doesn't get any plainer than that. If I say the earth has one moon, and you have an expert that says "I have no interest in discussing how many moons the earth have but the there are craters on the moon," do you think you've successfully countered my argument that the Earth has one moon?
Words matter and your expert clearly, obviously etc.. is not trying to rebut the scholarship about the origins of the word Redskin. For fucks sake he admits it himself! He's obviously making a point that the term "Redskin" has been used as a slur, not that it originally meant "scalped." Those are two entirely different arguments.
I don't know what else to say. You are embarrassing yourself if you persist in mis using the words of this man to support a point he's obviously not addressing.
The mics
I'm fine with the Micks. Green unis, tri color flags... Go for it.
You have a picture of a guy honoring the famous hogs who led the Redskins to a couple super bowls, so what? The Howgs are legendary. It's a tribute to one of the best offensive line in NFL history.
Sean,
Let's go back to the original argument, since you also seem to not care how indians feel about the name. Let's talk about the white guy who was not around during that period, who is a linguist and made that proclamation. First, there have been other linguist who have disputed Goddard, if you want to exclude the one that was actually there while making this decision.
Here is one article:
More controversy:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/a-brief-history-of-the-word-redskin-and-how-it-became-a-source-of-controversy/2016/05/19/062cd618-187f-11e6-9e16-2e5a123aac62_story.html?utm_term=.2f37404a2517
A whole page dedicated to this controversy disagreeing with Goddard from Google Scholar:
So excuse me? Making myself look foolish? As far as I can see, you are hanging on the words of one guy who thought he understood Algonquins relationship with the settlers. Meanwhile, almost all other people who this name is used on, say it's an insult.
The mics
I'm fine with the Micks. Green unis, tri color flags... Go for it.
LOL, like that will ever happen. Which is my entire point. Easy for you to say. Not your people being insulted. And may I remind you, you were the one who thought the "Fighting Irish was a slur", which it isn't. Funny how something that isn't a slur you took umbrage with.
You have a picture of a guy honoring the famous hogs who led the Redskins to a couple super bowls, so what? The Howgs are legendary. It's a tribute to one of the best offensive line in NFL history.
In indian garb with a pig's nose.. gee I am sure indians feel very honored. BTW, I knew that when I posted the photo.
Look, you're not going to change my mind, and I am not going to change yours. At least I don't go around insulting people's background. Glad that you're OK with that for Indians, who apparently are the only group of Americans that it's OK to insult.
At least I don't go around insulting people's background. Glad that you're OK with that for Indians, who apparently are the only group of Americans that it's OK to insult.
I know a few Indians who aren't insulted at all by the thought of Indians scalping white people and that's exactly what the fans are doing when they dress as Indians, brandish tomahawks, and make war cries. But the PC crowd needs to hop on a bandwagon and beat a drum about something so this stupid controversy is as good as any.
A. I know a lot of native americans and they do mind and
B. I am not PC. I have made that abundantly clear on this forum.
A. I know a lot of native americans and they do mind and
I know some who couldn't care less and, in fact, think Indians scalping whites is funny. The "evidence" is anecdotal and proves nothing either way.
B. I am not PC. I have made that abundantly clear on this forum.
Meriam Webster defines political correctness as "conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated." Your argument is, essentially, that the word "redskin" should not be used because it could offend Indians even though the word, in context, is obviously not intended to be offensive. I can't see how your argument is based on anything other than political correctness.
since you also seem to not care how indians feel about the name
I'm the one who provided actual evidence of how the majority of Indians feel.
You make declarations about Indians feel.
ISo excuse me? Making myself look foolish?
Do you read your links or understand the argument you made? You claimed that the word Redskin originally meant "scalped." You have provided zero evidence to support that point. Read your articles again. Your first guy says he's not interested in the original meaning. The second "expert" in the WAPO article says she has no evidence to contradict the scholar's exhaustive finding. The third article you linked to supports the Goddard's thesis.
Now you try and change what argued into, well, it's an "insult."
This should be clear, but arguing that it was an insult at some time in the past is words different than your original debunked claim that it ORIGINALLY meant scalped.
Not your people being insulted
That's because a football team named the micks would not be an insult. Context matters.
you were the one who thought the "Fighting Irish was a slur", which it isn't. Funny how something that isn't a slur you took umbrage with.
I said the Fighting Irish is based on a stereotype, which it is. Here's an example:
If you've never heard the Irish stereotyped as drunken brawlers, you've lived a very different existence than anyone I've known.
since you also seem to not care how indians feel about the name
I'm the one who provided actual evidence of how the majority of Indians feel.
No you provided a singular poll that's methodology was questioned. It's strange that when you read indian publications, they totally disagree. Then Kavika gave a whole list of tribes who came out against it, but you totally disregarded that.
I So excuse me? Making myself look foolish?
Do you read your links or understand the argument you made? You claimed that the word Redskin originally meant "scalped." You have provided zero evidence to support that point. Read your articles again. Your first guy says he's not interested in the original meaning. The second "expert" in the WAPO article says she has no evidence to contradict the scholar's exhaustive finding. The third article you linked to supports the Goddard's thesis.
My first guy was on the Smithsonian study and clearly said:
"I know how it was used. And it's been used in a disparaging way for at least a couple of centuries. Up to and including the time I was growing up in Oklahoma."
But you dismissed that because of the first sentence.
The second one was about linguistics and my last link was a whole bunch of articles not just one, that discussed this issue. You are just glued to the ones that agree with you.
Now you try and change what argued into, well, it's an "insult."
I'm not trying to change the argument. I am bringing it down to brass tacks. The term is offensive to Indians. If an Irishmen tells me that being called a Mic is an insult, I take heed. But apparently, this courtesy is not allowed to indians.
Not your people being insulted
That's because a football team named the micks would not be an insult. Context matters.
I'm calling BS on that. I know way too many Irish to know better.
you were the one who thought the "Fighting Irish was a slur", which it isn't. Funny how something that isn't a slur you took umbrage with.
I said the Fighting Irish is based on a stereotype, which it is.
You should look into the history of things before proclaiming it's an insult. Read here from the University of Notre Dame:
The Fighting Irish nickname was first coined for the Irish immigrant soldiers who fought for the Union during the Civil War in what became called the Irish Brigade, including three regiments from New York. Their valor was later memorialized in the poetry of Joyce Kilmer. That’s also the Irish way: Ireland’s poetry is often better than its fighting, turning defeat into eternal glory. The University has a valid claim to the nickname because the brigade’s beloved chaplain was Rev. William Corby, C.S.C., who later became the third president of Notre Dame.
No you provided a singular poll that's methodology was questioned
Here's another independent poll
The results are clear.
But you dismissed that because of the first sentence.
Well, yeah when the first sentence disqualifies the guy from a having a learned opinion on the topic, I do. But beyond the fact that he says he's not interested in discussing the origins of the word (THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS DISCUSSION), did you even notice that he doesn't say that redskins meant "scalped." He said," And it's been used in a disparaging way for at least a couple of centuries."
"Disparaging way" doesn't mean scalps. At all.
You keep trying to distort this statement into something it's not, namely support for your debunked argument that it meant scalped.
last link was a whole bunch of articles not just one, that discussed this issue. You are just glued to the ones that agree with you.
This is how a troll argues. Dump a bunch a links claiming "they agree with me" without actually pointing to how they support you. I looked at a few and the execerpts say nothing about contradicitng the scholarly article I actully provided. Yours are hidden behind paywalls, so what, if any relevance, they have is not accessible.
By all means, excerpt one of those articles that supposedly claims scalped is the original meaning of the word redskin and I'd be happy to address it.
I know way too many Irish to know better.
Sure.
Y ou should look into the history of things before proclaiming it's an insult
The irony.
I'm not offended by the Fighting Irish and never claimed Notre Dame's nickname was an insult. The point is that there is a negative stereotype in our culture of the fighting Irish. There is also the best college football program in the country nicknamed the fighting Irish that many Irish embrace.
Here are a few links addressing the stereotype:
But you've proven my point. "Fighting Irish" can be an derogatory stereotype, at the same time it can be a nickname embraced by the Irish themselves. CONTEXT MATTERS!
Just like with the Redskins football team, it's the context of how it's used that matters.
No you provided a singular poll that's methodology was questioned
Here's another independent poll
The results are clear.
No it isn't for the same reason that the first one wasn't clear. It was done by phone and people were allowed to self identify. Do you know how many people say that they have indian in them but can't prove it and are not in the least bit connected to any tribe? Do you know how many indian princesses I have met? LOL what a joke. There are no indian princesses. It's even become a census issue.
"Disparaging way" doesn't mean scalps. At all.
You keep trying to distort this statement into something it's not, namely support for your debunked argument that it meant scalped.
Sean and you seem to keep missing my point. Whether or not we agree over the scalping aspect of this discussion, is almost secondary to the fact that Indians overwhelmingly view it as a slur. So while I started with scalping, it doesn't preclude how it was used for centuries as an insult.
last link was a whole bunch of articles not just one, that discussed this issue. You are just glued to the ones that agree with you.
This is how a troll argues . Dump a bunch a links claiming "they agree with me" without actually pointing to how they support you. I looked at a few and the execerpts say nothing about contradicitng the scholarly article I actully provided. Yours are hidden behind paywalls, so what, if any relevance, they have is not accessible.
Whoa there. Nice way of skirting the CoC and indirectly calling me a troll. Until now, I thought we were having a civil discussion. There will be no citation for a violation, since I am the only mod, and I am involved in the discussion, so it would be unethical for the troll to moderate you. Anything you have to say to me from this point will get no reply. You may view this as a victory.
A. I know a lot of native americans and they do mind and
I know some who couldn't care less and, in fact, think Indians scalping whites is funny. The "evidence" is anecdotal and proves nothing either way.
Wow.. you know some indians and I know a lot of indians. And as I pointed out to Six, it was the French who brought scalping to N America. And funny, I don't know any indians who think it's funny about scalping white people. They also don't think it's funny that even today, they are not even on the radar as a people.
B. I am not PC. I have made that abundantly clear on this forum.
Meriam Webster defines political correctness as "conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated." Your argument is, essentially, that the word "redskin" should not be used because it could offend Indians even though the word, in context, is obviously not intended to be offensive. I can't see how your argument is based on anything other than political correctness.
You seemed to have missed a critical part of that phrase:
Meriam Webster defines political correctness as "conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities.
There is nothing political about this for me. It's personal as I am one of many, too.
A. I know a lot of native americans and they do mind and
I know some who couldn't care less and, in fact, think Indians scalping whites is funny. The "evidence" is anecdotal and proves nothing either way.
Wow.. you know some indians and I know a lot of indians. And as I pointed out to Six, it was the French who brought scalping to N America. And funny, I don't know any indians who think it's funny about scalping white people. They also don't think it's funny that even today, they are not even on the radar as a people.
As I pointed out earlier, the "evidence" of who knows who is all anecdotal and proves nothing either way. And so what if you don't know any Indians that think scalping white people is funny. I do.
B. I am not PC. I have made that abundantly clear on this forum.
Meriam Webster defines political correctness as "conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated." Your argument is, essentially, that the word "redskin" should not be used because it could offend Indians even though the word, in context, is obviously not intended to be offensive. I can't see how your argument is based on anything other than political correctness.
You seemed to have missed a critical part of that phrase:
Meriam Webster defines political correctness as "conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offendpolitical sensibilities.
There is nothing political about this for me. It's personal as I am one of many, too.
The parentical qualifier which follows "political sensibilities" makes clear that it's referring to matters such as "sex and race" to avoid insulting a particular group. You're splitting off the word "political" and saying there's nothing political about it for you and, therefore, you're not being politically correct. However, what undergirds any definition of political correctness is the desire to avoid insulting a particular group of disadvantaged people regardless of whether the motivation is political or personal.
Your argument and comments are based entirely on a desire to avoid offending a disadvantaged group (Indians) and, for that reason, fall squarely within the definition of political correctness. If you see it otherwise, then we can just agree to disagree.
Your argument and comments are based entirely on a desire to avoid offending a disadvantaged group (Indians) and, for that reason, fall squarely within the definition of political correctness. If you see it otherwise, then we can just agree to disagree.
No. My interest is human and personal.
No. My interest is human and personal.
That's what they all say.
Really? That is your come back? Ok let's put this one to bed.
Here is the commercial ran during the Superbowl that was produced by National Congress of American Indians.
One of Many has concocted a rationale that the original owner of the Redskins football team meant to honor Indians by using the name, therefore the name is appropriate forever and ever.
"Redskins" is an overtly racial word in the 21st century. It is arguable it is offensive even without any reference to scalping. The context of present society has more sway , imo, than the original "context".
Just change the name to something that is not overtly racial. It won't kill you and you can make money selling paraphernalia with the new name.
One of Many has concocted a rationale that the original owner of the Redskins football team meant to honor Indians by using the name, therefore the name is appropriate forever and ever.
I didn't concot anything. All I did was employ a little common sense to conclude that he wanted to inspire his team and intimidate the opposition. To me, he wouldn't slur his own team so I don't think he intended it to be offensive. I didn't express an opinion on whether the name was "appropriate" then or now.
Just change the name to something that is not overtly racial. It won't kill you and you can make money selling paraphernalia with the new name.
I don't own the team and, if I did, I probably wouldn't have called it the "redskins" in the first place. The name sounds like something out of an early western movie and strikes me as dull-witted.
I used to own a (Jeep) Cherokee. Did I view it as owning and/or riding an Indian? Of course not. I associated the name with someone who can find his way over any terrain. Could somebody somewhere be offended by naming a car after his people? I'm sure somebody could. Do I care? NO. Why? Because I don't agree with their point of view and I'm not going to let them dictate what I think.
Problem solved:
LOL Gary!
I agree with Sean. In any historical reference and in every western I have ever seen, the term "redskin" referred to Indians as a race (not scalping) just as the term "pale face" referred to white people.
Polls show that most Indians are not offended by the term "redskin."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/new-poll-finds-9-in-10-native-americans-arent-offended-by-redskins-name/2016/05/18/3ea11cfa-161a-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html?utm_term=.74bac6dfea39
Sports teams named themselves after things that would create an image of strength or things that kill. They didn't refer to themselves as mice, flies, love bugs, doves, kisses, or Girl Scouts but rather as Vikings, falcons, cowboys, Spartans etc. Common sense would disctate that nobody would seek to create an image of seeing themselves scalped. If anything, the image they wanted to create is that of scalping the opposition as when the "redskins" scalped whites. If I were an Indian, that image would be fine by me.
I agree with Sean.
Of course you would. In fact, the only minority group you feel any compassion for are Palestinians. Curious, right?
Of course you would. In fact, the only minority group you feel any compassion for are Palestinians. Curious, right?
Obviously, the only way one can be compassionate is to see the world as you do.
OK, Let's spin it that way... LOL.. nice try.
The irony is that the seed was about the arrogant condescending of American liberal busybodies and how that costs them elections. Quite the derailing we've had here,other than to prove the headline correct.
Comment removed for skirting the CoC [ph]
It's my seed. So, no, I won't get lost.
But since the seed has been completely derailed and I can't get it back on topic and the moderator has already commented and can't moderate, it is now 🔒 locked.
''They think the name of your favorite football team is racist. Or even if you hate the Washington Redskins, they have a long list of other reasons that football is problematic.''
From the article XX....the comments are not off topic or a derail....
Are you not aware of what's in your own seeds?
I hate this PC bullshit. I shop in Whole Foods. Every time I went to check out, the cashier would ask me if I brought my bags. She knew full well that I have paper bags because she would give them to me every time I would buy groceries but I would never bring them back. Finally, she just asked me what I did with all the bags and why I never reuse them. This nosy woman ahead of me had her head cocked back listening for the answer. I told the cashier that, if you must know, paper bags are perfect for catching the oil under my motorcycle when I do oil changes. I wait until they are all saturated with oil and then I gather them up, drive down to the Potomac river, and pitch them in. The nosy woman practically had a heart attack. I was just waiting for her to start lecturing but she wisely chose to keep her big mouth shut.
What the heck? OK nevermind...
Ah, the environmental movement is about harrassing you. Good to know.
Ah, the environmental movement is about harrassing you. Good to know.
My problem is not with the environmental movement but rather with people telling me what to think, whether it's how to express compassion for minorties or what to do with a fucking paper bag.
I have to deal with this plastic bag bull crap here in Ca. The coastal urban elite having already banned plastic bags in many of their communities decided to impose their wishes on the whole state. Fortunately like with incandescent light bulbs I'd hoarded a closet full of the old style plastic bags. I don't use the new kind and I don't pay for bags. Fortunately there are stores here who give away paper bags and don't even offer the new plastic ones.
No please don't give them advice on how to win again. That's like telling Manson what to say at his parole hearing to help him get out of prison.
Good point Dean. Of course here like click work they go off in some unrelated virtually meaningless tangent having next to nothing to do with the topic of the article offering said advice.
Here are all of the NFL mascot names that refer to people
Packers
Vikings
Giants
Cowboys
Redskins
Buccaneers
Saints
49 ers
Patriots
Bills
Steelers
Browns (named after owner)
Titans
Texans
Raiders
Chiefs
Chargers
Almost all of these names are either anachronistic or relate to imaginary beings. The Redskins Chiefs and Cowboys and Texans are really the ones that refer to present day groups of actual people.
The word Redskins is anachronistic, but the people it refers to are real today.
. . . The word Redskins is anachronistic, but the people it refers to are real today.
So what? The fans are a bunch of white and black guys pretending to be Indians, ready to scalp the other side. And there are quite a few Indians that don't mind seeing whites get scalped, no matter who does it. It's all in fun and not intended to insult anybody. The entire controversy is ridiculous.
Out of 17 NFL team names that refer to people, only one of them is at all controversial.
Did it ever occur to you that there is a reason for that?
Out of 17 NFL team names that refer to people, only one of them is at all controversial.
Did it ever occur to you that there is a reason for that?
Yes. Political correctness.
You have been attacked by the PPO and that is not Preferred Provider Organization.
You can find anything you want in the link above.
I can see where the connection between scalping and the word Redskin started was because of the bounty on Indian or Redskin's scalps, although there was no bounty on white men's scalps, the Indians scalped them too, along with other tribes or other Redskins.
The use of the word is thought of today as someone or a group who are strong and fighters in context to football.
Although it may be offensive to some or many Indians, it is definitely not meant to be. It has always been considered a warrior, fighter or someone strong to football fans. The word Redskin started with the translations from the French and later to English and had nothing to do with scalping other than the Redskin's scalp. The Indians washed and cleaned the scalps of the blood.
There's plenty to read in the link above. You should save it in your bookmarks.
The Indians or Redskins as they were known to refer to themselves were scalping each other long before the settlers began scalping Indians. The Indians or Redskins were scalping whites before they were scalped by whites. There probably would never have been any scalping had it not already existed before the settlers arrived in this country.
This is not to imply scalping of the Indians/Redskins and putting a bounty on the scalp was excusable. It was not, but the word Redskin or Redskins and scalping are two different things. One is the identifying characteristic of a people and the other is an act of removing the scalp of someone whether it was a Redskin or any other person, including whites by Indians. Whites were not known to scalp other whites, while Indians were known to scalp other Indians.
PPO (People of Perpetual Outrage) will always find some way to associate anything they can to promote their outrage even though it was them in this case who already had the tradition of scalping their Indian foes, decorating polls or sticks with the number of scalps they had accumulated.
In saying all this, I want everyone to know I think the Indians have suffered more than any other people in this country. When the Indian population should be one of the most populous in this country, it is one if not the smallest, basically because of the European invasion upon this land and the atrocities committed against them since the first settlers arrived here.
"Don't tell people they should feel guilty. As I discussed at the top of this piece, Americans are broadly open to liberal positions on cultural policy issues. Over the last few decades, they have increasingly internalized the idea that the government should let people be free to do what they want in their lives. So embrace that ethos by emphasizing how liberal policy positions would let members of all sorts of groups live their best lives, protected from discrimination and harm. Don't tell people they should feel bad about living their own lives as they want."
The Indians or Redskins as they were known to refer to themselves were scalping each other long before the settlers began scalping Indians.
Gee Six, where do I start? Indians never referred to themselves as "Redskins" I know that this requires linguistics, but they referred to them self as having Red Skin as opposed to being White skinned. There is a difference.
Second, Europeans brought over scalping, and it was the French in particular who taught indians how to scalp. This isn't disputed.
Read here on google Scholar:
PPO (People of Perpetual Outrage)
So now you have taken to insulting? Sheesh.
He's not the one who took a portion of a single sentence of the seeded article and convoluted it with a separate seed a member posted to derail the seed to talk about anything but it's real meaning regarding liberal busybodies, thus acting the part of one.
The article is the subject, because you don't like that portions were taken and discussed is your problem XX.
If you think commenting on part of the article is derailing then you should report it....Like you been told to do numerous times before.
BTW, you left the article unattended for hours and didn't moderate your own article. You and everyone else knows that if you leave an article for long periods of time you are to close the article and reopen when your available to moderate.
Since it seems that you can't abide by simple instructions and continue to whine and complain about so called derailing rings hollow.
Seems simple enough for most anyone to understand.
Were the French even here in 1325?
Many tribes of Native Americans practiced scalping, in some instances up until the end of the 19th century. Of the approximately 500 bodies at the Crow Creek massacre site, 90 percent of the skulls show evidence of scalping. The event took place circa 1325 CE. [13]
Were the French even here in 1325?
No. The origin of scalping in America is mixed. Clearly, "some" tribes practiced scalping long before the Europeans got here. But Europeans quickly picked up the practice and began scalping themselves. Then Europeans started paying for scalps, which spread the practice to tribes that may not have previously practiced scalping. So I think it's true that Indians scalped before Europeans got here and it's also true that Europeans introduced scalping to some tribes.
1,
That would be the most accurate information so far.
Scalping was used also in Europe Asia and Africa.
Georg Frederici noted in Scalping and Similar Warfare Customs in America that, “Herodotus provided the only clear and satisfactory portrayal of a scalping people in the old world”, in his description of the Scythians , a nomadic people then located to the north and west of the Black Sea. [3]
Herodotus related that Scythian warriors would behead the enemies they defeated in battle and then present the heads to their king, in order to claim their share of the plunder. That done, the warrior “strips the skin off the head by making a circular cut round the ears and shaking out the skull; he then scrapes the flesh off the skin with the rib of an ox, and when it is clean works it with his fingers until it is supple, and fit to be used as a sort of handkerchief. He hangs these handkerchiefs on the bridle of his horse, and is very proud of them. The best man is the man who has the greatest number.” [4] Ammianus Marcellinus noted the taking of scalps by the Alani , a people of Asiatic Scythia , in terms quite similar to those used by Herodotus. [5]
The Abbé Emmanuel H. D. Domenech referenced the decalvare of the ancient Germans and the capillos et cutem detrahere of the code of the Visigoths as examples of scalping in early medieval Europe, [6] though some more recent interpretations of these terms relate them to shaving off the hair of the head as a legal punishment rather than scalping. [7]
In 1845, Mercenary John Duncan observed what he estimated to be 700 scalps taken in warfare and displayed as trophies by a contingent of female soldiers — Dahomey Amazons — employed by the King of Dahomey (present-day Republic of Benin ). Duncan noted that these would have been taken and kept over a long period of time and would not have come from a single battle. Although Duncan travelled widely in Dahomey, and described customs such as the taking of heads and the retention of skulls as trophies, nowhere else does he mention scalping. [8] [9]
Scalping: Fact & Fantasy
By Philip Martin
Rethinking Columbus: The Next 500 Years, pp. 58-59, edited by Bill Bigelow and Bob Peterson, 2nd edition, Rethinking Schools, Milwaukee, 1998, 189 pp.
Scalping had been known in Europe, according to accounts, as far back as ancient Greece ("the cradle of Western Civilization"). More often, though, the European manner of execution involved beheading. Enemies captured in battle - or people accused of political crimes - might have their heads chopped off by victorious warriors or civil authorities. Judicial systems hired executioners, and "Off with their heads!" became an infamous method of capital punishment.
In some places and times in European history, leaders in power offered to pay "bounties" (cash payments) to put down popular uprisings. In Ireland, for instance, the occupying English once paid bounties for the heads of their enemies brought to them. It was a way for those in power to get other people to do their dirty, bloody work for them.
Europeans brought this cruel custom of paying for killings to the American frontier. Here they were willing to pay for just the scalp, instead of the whole head. The first documented instance in the American colonies of paying bounties for native scalps is credited to Governor Kieft of New Netherlands.
By 1703, the Massachusetts Bay Colony was offering $60 for each native scalp. And in 1756, Pennsylvania Governor Morris, in his Declaration of War against the Lenni Lenape (Delaware) people, offered "130 Pieces of Eight [a type of coin], for the Scalp of Every Male Indian > Enemy, above the Age of > Twelve Years, " and "50 Pieces of Eight for the Scalp of Every Indian Woman, produced as evidence of their being killed."
Massachusetts by that time was offering a bounty of 40 pounds (again, a unit of currency) for a male Indian scalp, and 20 pounds for scalps of females or of children under 12 years old.
The terrible thing was that it was very difficult to tell a man's scalp from a woman's, or an adult's from a child's - or that of an enemy soldier from a peaceful noncombatant. The offering of bounties led to widespread violence against any person of Indian blood, male or female, young or old. Paying money for scalps of women and even children reflected the true intent of the campaign - to reduce native populations to extinction or to smaller numbers so the natives could not oppose European seizure of Indian lands. Scholars disagree on whether or not scalping was known in America before the arrival of Europeans.
By anyone's standards, the Europeans were more skilled and deadly in the practice of war. Paying bounties for scalps was just one of many ways in which the Europeans took warfare to new levels of violence.
The Indians were pulled into warfare against white settlers by rival European factions in America. In wars between the French and British, and between the British and the American colonists, each side encouraged their Indian allies to mount violent attacks on the other's population.
Popular literature and newspapers loved to describe any Indian attack in great detail in a blood- thirsty, sensational manner. Readers easily believed that Indians were all "savages," - as that is what the newspapers said. And this helped the government justify its practice of driving native families off tribal lands or killing them.
Almost every fictional account of scalping blames the Indians. The European involvement is over-looked. But it is wrong to do so. Oral history collected from native peoples differs greatly in theinterpretation of who was the most cruel, why conflicts were started, or who was defending their family homes from whom. But it is the victors who write the official history books, and it is the white viewpoint which has dominated our image of the American past.
From information in Unlearning "Indian" Stereotypes (Council on Interracial Books for Children) and other sources. Philip Martin is a folklorist and book editor for Rethinking Schools.
Europeans put them up to it, y'know Oydman 02/21 06:48:33 Offered bounties for scalps, since scalps were easily collected as proof of enemy killed. Lots of cheap whiskey was paid for with scalp money. Most of the scalps were from "enemy" tribesmen. Of course, by "enemy" I mean enemy of a particular European power, such as Huron scalps when the Brits were backing the Iroquois.
The "civilized" Belgians used to punish unproductive villagers in the Congo by having their native soldiers cut off hands. The hands were then smoked over a fire to preserve them and taken back to HQ as proof of a job well done. At least as bad as scalping, and similar in intent.
Euros took a spotty custom and Oydman 02/22 12:40:20 added a big financial incentive to make it into an industry. Oh, you folks occasionally take the scalp of a fallen foe? Why don't you kill all your enemies, give us the scalps for money, and stay drunk during the off-season?
It was only a tradition among certain tribes, but Whites spread the word in the hopes that it would become more common. But there were many tribes who were not particularly warlike, such as the Pottowatami. They only took up arms when the US made it obvious they were going to be forced west of the Mississippi.
In any case, the actions of a few stone-age people, often egged-on by Whites, does not justify killing most of them and forcing the rest to marginal reservation lands where Whites didn't want to settle. How'd your last trip to the Indian Casino go? I lost $15 to the Chippewa, but had a good time anyway. Nice to see them working and the fine new school they built for their people.
Graphic Credits:
If there were no Europeans here yet how would the Indians involved in the crow creek massacre even know what Europeans were doing?
Vikings were here long before Columbus got lost and tripped over North America.
Around 1100 AD.
There were no Vikings in South Dakota.
There was no South Dakota in 1100
The subject of the name of the Washington Redskins has been litigated on this site dozens and dozens of times over the years. Yes I think it is offensive and yes I know it's a very sensitive subject for many people here, but that does not change the truth that everyone has made their opinions known over and and over and over again and no one has or (IMHO) will ever change their minds. Personally I consider this to be a dead hose that has been beaten on this site so much and so many times by the same people that there is not even any hide left.
The whole Washington Redskins football issue was brought up solely as a derail to prevent conversation about what the seeded article is about.
Mr. Jefferson County,
You have seeded dozens of articles , including recently, that are extremely similar in argument and tone to this one. It is impossible to argue that this particular seed deserves some sort of respectful reverence. Give a freaking rest.
XX,
First the article you posted contained the issue that we are discussing.
Second, We have been through this once before. I look at your timestamps. You first post the article at at 9:21pm on Tuesday. You then don't come back to make your first comment till, 9:52pm Wends. That is over 24 hours without you tending to your article, which I have addressed with you before. If you don't want your article to go in a specific direction then be here or close your article till you can attend to it. You can't complain if you are not here.
And for the record, once an article brings up a subject, without RBR's everything is free game.
''I consider this to be a dead hose that has been beaten on this site so much and so many times by the same people that there is not even any hide left.''
Interesting but how do you beat a dead HOSE and I wasn't aware that hoses had hides.
''I consider this to be a dead horse that has been beaten on this site so much and so many times by the same people that there is not even any hide left.''
Happy now!