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.

---

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



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.

---

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".

---

The thread from hell that just won't go away !

---

Exactly!

Which proves my point above to be correct.
.

---

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.

Here’s a YOU TUBE VIDEO video. See a wide array of how Native Americans associate with the word “Redskin” [Note: most, not all, find it negative].

SCOTUS held that DEROGATORY trademarks are protected by 1st Amend. “Redskin” is DEROGATORY, period. This axiom isn’t affected by the fact that some might say it’s not offensive to them or it wasn’t meant to be offensive. The N-word is offensive and can cause suffering even if some don’t think so or one didn’t mean it to cause suffering by its use. Also, it is ignorant, lacks scholarship, childish, prejudice to identify a “leader;” then reduce “[her]” or “[their]” thinking to a sound bite; and decidedly racist to presume that misrepresented sound bite speaks for all Native Americans.

One Native American asserts he’s proud of his “Indian heritage;” 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 😂.

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 US’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 80’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.

Washington’s NFL name is just one symbol, but it’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 Echawamahu’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 “Redskin” and the President [Trump] can call Sen. Warren “Pocahontas.” 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.

Maslow’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 “we are White; you be Redskin.” 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 America’s symbolistic propaganda has successfully influenced its target audience.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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

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

The DOJ sided with the NAs believing “Redskin” 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 Snyder’s Trademarks will be restored, because the Lanham Act has been declared unconstitutional, NOT because “redskin” was not disparaging.

If you ask a Native American, are you a “Redskin?” 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 I’ll say it again, this axiom doesn’t change because someone doesn’t find it offensive or someone doesn’t mean it to be.

Moreover, racial discrimination and prejudice will not disappear until the day we don’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 doesn’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.