Native Americans Not Offended by Washington Redskins

[Boss]

"Native Americans Not Offended by Washington Redskins"

A majority of Native Americans – not all.

And this in no way mitigates the fact that the term is inherently offensive.

As Webster defines ‘redskin’:

“The word redskin is very offensive and should be avoided.”

I don't see how anybody could take it offensive.

Team names are created in honor--not ridicule. Who would name their team the Carolina Clown Heads?

Sports teams generally choose names respectable to leadership, power, integrity, and above all, champions.

I'm not an Indian, but I think if I were, I would be proud of cities of choosing my heritage to represent their sports teams.

I see and know how it can be offensive.

So we have to eliminate all verbs people used back then?

Again, I am legally registered with the US Census as a Native American. I find "red-skin" LESS offensive than "Native American." The descriptor "red skin" is no different than "white skin", "yellow skin" or "black skin". It isn't offensive in the least.... Native American is a label slapped on my people and the people of many other indigenous tribes who's cultures were erased and forgotten. Their individual and disparate histories were destroyed and they became tagged forever a simply, "Native Americans" ....they were NEVER Americans! It wasn't until the first quarter of the 20th century they were even considered American citizens. Even THEN, they were being disrespectfully referred to as Indians.

Native American is extremely offensive! It is the white man's label to mask over his conscience about what he did,. To somehow pretend this is an honor done out of respect for my people... You stole our lands, marched us across the country to reservations, treated us like dogs for 200 years and then slap your cute little "title" on us and think everything is fine? We are native Choctaw. We are native Cherokee. We are native Seminole... The Puritans were native Americans.

 

[Asclepias]

"Native Americans Not Offended by Washington Redskins"

A majority of Native Americans – not all.

And this in no way mitigates the fact that the term is inherently offensive.

As Webster defines ‘redskin’:

“The word redskin is very offensive and should be avoided.”

I don't see how anybody could take it offensive.

Team names are created in honor--not ridicule. Who would name their team the Carolina Clown Heads?

Sports teams generally choose names respectable to leadership, power, integrity, and above all, champions.

I'm not an Indian, but I think if I were, I would be proud of cities of choosing my heritage to represent their sports teams.

I see and know how it can be offensive.

So we have to eliminate all verbs people used back then?

Again, I am legally registered with the US Census as a Native American. I find "red-skin" LESS offensive than "Native American." The descriptor "red skin" is no different than "white skin", "yellow skin" or "black skin". It isn't offensive in the least.... Native American is a label slapped on my people and the people of many other indigenous tribes who's cultures were erased and forgotten. Their individual and disparate histories were destroyed and they became tagged forever a simply, "Native Americans" ....they were NEVER Americans! It wasn't until the first quarter of the 20th century they were even considered American citizens. Even THEN, they were being disrespectfully referred to as Indians.

Native American is extremely offensive! It is the white man's label to mask over his conscience about what he did,. To somehow pretend this is an honor done out of respect for my people... You stole our lands, marched us across the country to reservations, treated us like dogs for 200 years and then slap your cute little "title" on us and think everything is fine? We are native Choctaw. We are native Cherokee. We are native Seminole... The Puritans were native Americans.

Use your brain if you have one. Why would we eliminate verbs that are not offensive?

I didnt ask you want you found offensive. I said I can see why and how some NA's have the sense to call it offensive.

Why would you say NA is offensive? Obviously you have no clue what native means if you think the puritans were native to the Americas.

 

[Boss]

Use your brain if you have one. Why would we eliminate verbs that are not offensive?

I didnt ask you want you found offensive. I said I can see why and how some NA's have the sense to call it offensive.

Why would you say NA is offensive? Obviously you have no clue what native means if you think the puritans were native to the Americas.

I thought I explained it. NA is offensive because we were never Americans. You came here and called our land America.. we didn't call it America. Our people are natives of their tribe, there were dozens of them all over this continent. 30 million of us lived here before it was ever known as America.

The first people to be native of "America" would be the Puritans who were first born in (or native to) America. If you want to count the whole Western Hemisphere in YOUR established "Americas" maybe it was the Aztecs or Mayans? But WE are natives of our tribes who were getting along just fine in our own individual ways long before the white man came. "NA" is the white man's phrase for us... I suppose it's better than "Injun" but really, not a whole lot. It's patronizing and condescending to call me a "Native American" when my people were never treated as any kind of American.

The term "redskin" doesn't bother me. Most indigenous tribes had more reddish skin... it's not an insult. It's at least an intellectually honest descriptor. "NA" is an insulting slap in the face to the history of our tribes that you destroyed and continue to ignore.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I am part native American, Iroquois Nation one of the most brutal and epic Indian nations. I have white skin and fine blond hair but dark brown eyes. So far I have not heard any complaints about the Cleveland Indians baseball team.

Oh, they come here every year; about less than a dozen or so. But this time, they pressured the Cleveland Indians into giving up their caricature of Chief Wahoo.

That is a hell of a lot more offensive than the Redskins' logo. The Indians mascot is a caricature...the Redskins use a dignified image that is almost a portrait.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I am part native American, Iroquois Nation one of the most brutal and epic Indian nations. I have white skin and fine blond hair but dark brown eyes. So far I have not heard any complaints about the Cleveland Indians baseball team.

Oh, they come here every year; about less than a dozen or so. But this time, they pressured the Cleveland Indians into giving up their caricature of Chief Wahoo.

That is a hell of a lot more offensive than the Redskins' logo. The Indians mascot is a caricature...the Redskins use a dignified image that is almost a portrait.

To be quite honest, I don't think it's offensive to many people. We just have a handful of libs that cry about it every season opener. The Indians are no different than any other group of people. There will be fraction of them that are sensitive and the media will focus on them instead of the entire group.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Never said it was especially bad, just that the Indians' caricature is a lot worse than the Redskins' portrait.

 

[Asclepias]

Use your brain if you have one. Why would we eliminate verbs that are not offensive?

I didnt ask you want you found offensive. I said I can see why and how some NA's have the sense to call it offensive.

Why would you say NA is offensive? Obviously you have no clue what native means if you think the puritans were native to the Americas.

I thought I explained it. NA is offensive because we were never Americans. You came here and called our land America.. we didn't call it America. Our people are natives of their tribe, there were dozens of them all over this continent. 30 million of us lived here before it was ever known as America.

The first people to be native of "America" would be the Puritans who were first born in (or native to) America. If you want to count the whole Western Hemisphere in YOUR established "Americas" maybe it was the Aztecs or Mayans? But WE are natives of our tribes who were getting along just fine in our own individual ways long before the white man came. "NA" is the white man's phrase for us... I suppose it's better than "Injun" but really, not a whole lot. It's patronizing and condescending to call me a "Native American" when my people were never treated as any kind of American.

The term "redskin" doesn't bother me. Most indigenous tribes had more reddish skin... it's not an insult. It's at least an intellectually honest descriptor. "NA" is an insulting slap in the face to the history of our tribes that you destroyed and continue to ignore.

When Africans came to your land we didnt call it the Americas. White people did that just like the called all of Africa Ethiopia and later changed it to Africa. Those are the present day terms by which we call those land masses. Native American is an umbrella term people use to describe the people that are native to this particular land mass.

Even using your logic Puritans were still not the first to be Americans. You do realize that the Americas are named after a Italian guy Amerigo Vespucci.

I'm not trying to make the term redskin bother you. I said it does bother some Natives. You are the first Native I have ever heard of that is insulted by the moniker NA. Now that you explain it I can understand why.

 

[Boss]

Use your brain if you have one. Why would we eliminate verbs that are not offensive?

I didnt ask you want you found offensive. I said I can see why and how some NA's have the sense to call it offensive.

Why would you say NA is offensive? Obviously you have no clue what native means if you think the puritans were native to the Americas.

I thought I explained it. NA is offensive because we were never Americans. You came here and called our land America.. we didn't call it America. Our people are natives of their tribe, there were dozens of them all over this continent. 30 million of us lived here before it was ever known as America.

The first people to be native of "America" would be the Puritans who were first born in (or native to) America. If you want to count the whole Western Hemisphere in YOUR established "Americas" maybe it was the Aztecs or Mayans? But WE are natives of our tribes who were getting along just fine in our own individual ways long before the white man came. "NA" is the white man's phrase for us... I suppose it's better than "Injun" but really, not a whole lot. It's patronizing and condescending to call me a "Native American" when my people were never treated as any kind of American.

The term "redskin" doesn't bother me. Most indigenous tribes had more reddish skin... it's not an insult. It's at least an intellectually honest descriptor. "NA" is an insulting slap in the face to the history of our tribes that you destroyed and continue to ignore.

When Africans came to your land we didnt call it the Americas. White people did that just like the called all of Africa Ethiopia and later changed it to Africa. Those are the present day terms by which we call those land masses. Native American is an umbrella term people use to describe the people that are native to this particular land mass.

Even using your logic Puritans were still not the first to be Americans. You do realize that the Americas are named after a Italian guy Amerigo Vespucci.

I'm not trying to make the term redskin bother you. I said it does bother some Natives. You are the first Native I have ever heard of that is insulted by the moniker NA. Now that you explain it I can understand why.

Again, this "land mass" wasn't called America until European men discovered it hundreds or thousands of years after the people who were here had settled it. You mention Africans... what if we called them "Native Migrant Laborers" instead of "African-American?" Instead of respecting your heritage, what if we just called you Eurotrash? You're not German, Italian, Irish or Greek... you're all just Eurotrash! We can slap that label on you and pretend to respect you and give you honor to be labeled by us, your conquerors! How would that sit with you?

I don't need for you to explain what Native American is supposed to mean... I'm not 5-years-old. I'm telling you that it's offensive when you apply a blanket umbrella term to define dozens of disparate cultures and histories of beautiful people across the continent. Our identities have been stolen! Are you not getting that? Can you not comprehend that?

Furthermore, it's offensive that you have the audacity to now try and call us "Americans" when you never treated us as Americans of ANY kind. We weren't part of America, we weren't given citizenship until the 1920s. This is a condescending attempt to slap a label on my people and arrogantly think you've honored us somehow. As if we can all forget the past and pretend that we were always respected as the native people of this land mass... we're STILL not being respected as such. You're STILL trying to erase our individual histories and cultures... to group us all together under your umbrella term that you've imagined some kind of honor in.

 

[martybegan]

"Native Americans Not Offended by Washington Redskins"

A majority of Native Americans – not all.

And this in no way mitigates the fact that the term is inherently offensive.

As Webster defines ‘redskin’:

“The word redskin is very offensive and should be avoided.”

You are inherently a patronizing progressive twat.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

"Native Americans Not Offended by Washington Redskins"

A majority of Native Americans – not all.

And this in no way mitigates the fact that the term is inherently offensive.

As Webster defines ‘redskin’:

“The word redskin is very offensive and should be avoided.”

You are inherently a patronizing progressive twat.

Somebody should ask him how something can be offensive if a majority of people don't find it offensive? How does that work?

 

[Asclepias]

Use your brain if you have one. Why would we eliminate verbs that are not offensive?

I didnt ask you want you found offensive. I said I can see why and how some NA's have the sense to call it offensive.

Why would you say NA is offensive? Obviously you have no clue what native means if you think the puritans were native to the Americas.

I thought I explained it. NA is offensive because we were never Americans. You came here and called our land America.. we didn't call it America. Our people are natives of their tribe, there were dozens of them all over this continent. 30 million of us lived here before it was ever known as America.

The first people to be native of "America" would be the Puritans who were first born in (or native to) America. If you want to count the whole Western Hemisphere in YOUR established "Americas" maybe it was the Aztecs or Mayans? But WE are natives of our tribes who were getting along just fine in our own individual ways long before the white man came. "NA" is the white man's phrase for us... I suppose it's better than "Injun" but really, not a whole lot. It's patronizing and condescending to call me a "Native American" when my people were never treated as any kind of American.

The term "redskin" doesn't bother me. Most indigenous tribes had more reddish skin... it's not an insult. It's at least an intellectually honest descriptor. "NA" is an insulting slap in the face to the history of our tribes that you destroyed and continue to ignore.

When Africans came to your land we didnt call it the Americas. White people did that just like the called all of Africa Ethiopia and later changed it to Africa. Those are the present day terms by which we call those land masses. Native American is an umbrella term people use to describe the people that are native to this particular land mass.

Even using your logic Puritans were still not the first to be Americans. You do realize that the Americas are named after a Italian guy Amerigo Vespucci.

I'm not trying to make the term redskin bother you. I said it does bother some Natives. You are the first Native I have ever heard of that is insulted by the moniker NA. Now that you explain it I can understand why.

Again, this "land mass" wasn't called America until European men discovered it hundreds or thousands of years after the people who were here had settled it. You mention Africans... what if we called them "Native Migrant Laborers" instead of "African-American?" Instead of respecting your heritage, what if we just called you Eurotrash? You're not German, Italian, Irish or Greek... you're all just Eurotrash! We can slap that label on you and pretend to respect you and give you honor to be labeled by us, your conquerors! How would that sit with you?

I don't need for you to explain what Native American is supposed to mean... I'm not 5-years-old. I'm telling you that it's offensive when you apply a blanket umbrella term to define dozens of disparate cultures and histories of beautiful people across the continent. Our identities have been stolen! Are you not getting that? Can you not comprehend that?

Furthermore, it's offensive that you have the audacity to now try and call us "Americans" when you never treated us as Americans of ANY kind. We weren't part of America, we weren't given citizenship until the 1920s. This is a condescending attempt to slap a label on my people and arrogantly think you've honored us somehow. As if we can all forget the past and pretend that we were always respected as the native people of this land mass... we're STILL not being respected as such. You're STILL trying to erase our individual histories and cultures... to group us all together under your umbrella term that you've imagined some kind of honor in.

Obviously you are deflecting because i pointed out your claim that Puritans were the first native americans was wrong even using your logic. I am the one that pointed out the land mass was named after an Italian guy who wasnt a puritan. The indigenous people of the americas were the first native workers. I have no issue with you calling them euro trash.

Obviously i needed to explain to you what it meant. You just called the Puritans the first native americans.

I didnt make up the term and even admitted that once you explained it ...it made sense to view it as offensive. Whats weird is your hypocritical acceptance of the term red skin even though that too is an umbrella term.

 

[Boss]

Use your brain if you have one. Why would we eliminate verbs that are not offensive?

I didnt ask you want you found offensive. I said I can see why and how some NA's have the sense to call it offensive.

Why would you say NA is offensive? Obviously you have no clue what native means if you think the puritans were native to the Americas.

I thought I explained it. NA is offensive because we were never Americans. You came here and called our land America.. we didn't call it America. Our people are natives of their tribe, there were dozens of them all over this continent. 30 million of us lived here before it was ever known as America.

The first people to be native of "America" would be the Puritans who were first born in (or native to) America. If you want to count the whole Western Hemisphere in YOUR established "Americas" maybe it was the Aztecs or Mayans? But WE are natives of our tribes who were getting along just fine in our own individual ways long before the white man came. "NA" is the white man's phrase for us... I suppose it's better than "Injun" but really, not a whole lot. It's patronizing and condescending to call me a "Native American" when my people were never treated as any kind of American.

The term "redskin" doesn't bother me. Most indigenous tribes had more reddish skin... it's not an insult. It's at least an intellectually honest descriptor. "NA" is an insulting slap in the face to the history of our tribes that you destroyed and continue to ignore.

When Africans came to your land we didnt call it the Americas. White people did that just like the called all of Africa Ethiopia and later changed it to Africa. Those are the present day terms by which we call those land masses. Native American is an umbrella term people use to describe the people that are native to this particular land mass.

Even using your logic Puritans were still not the first to be Americans. You do realize that the Americas are named after a Italian guy Amerigo Vespucci.

I'm not trying to make the term redskin bother you. I said it does bother some Natives. You are the first Native I have ever heard of that is insulted by the moniker NA. Now that you explain it I can understand why.

Again, this "land mass" wasn't called America until European men discovered it hundreds or thousands of years after the people who were here had settled it. You mention Africans... what if we called them "Native Migrant Laborers" instead of "African-American?" Instead of respecting your heritage, what if we just called you Eurotrash? You're not German, Italian, Irish or Greek... you're all just Eurotrash! We can slap that label on you and pretend to respect you and give you honor to be labeled by us, your conquerors! How would that sit with you?

I don't need for you to explain what Native American is supposed to mean... I'm not 5-years-old. I'm telling you that it's offensive when you apply a blanket umbrella term to define dozens of disparate cultures and histories of beautiful people across the continent. Our identities have been stolen! Are you not getting that? Can you not comprehend that?

Furthermore, it's offensive that you have the audacity to now try and call us "Americans" when you never treated us as Americans of ANY kind. We weren't part of America, we weren't given citizenship until the 1920s. This is a condescending attempt to slap a label on my people and arrogantly think you've honored us somehow. As if we can all forget the past and pretend that we were always respected as the native people of this land mass... we're STILL not being respected as such. You're STILL trying to erase our individual histories and cultures... to group us all together under your umbrella term that you've imagined some kind of honor in.

Obviously you are deflecting because i pointed out your claim that Puritans were the first native americans was wrong even using your logic. I am the one that pointed out the land mass was named after an Italian guy who wasnt a puritan. The indigenous people of the americas were the first native workers. I have no issue with you calling them euro trash.

Obviously i needed to explain to you what it meant. You just called the Puritans the first native americans.

I didnt make up the term and even admitted that once you explained it ...it made sense to view it as offensive. Whats weird is your hypocritical acceptance of the term red skin even though that too is an umbrella term.

No... "redskin" is a description, it has no offensive intent whatsoever. We might even say, "Hey, that Choctaw has more redskin than that Cherokee!" Black people, when describing another black person, don't say "less-pigmented" to avoid "offensiveness" ...they say "light-skin." It's just not offensive.

When I said Puritans were the "Native Americans" it was under the presumption we were talking about "The United States of America" since that's the only place you call the indigenous people "Native Americans." Are Incas, Aztecs and Mayan's also called "Native Americans?"

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Not to mention, Native Americans are actually of Asian descent.

 

[Asclepias]

Use your brain if you have one. Why would we eliminate verbs that are not offensive?

I didnt ask you want you found offensive. I said I can see why and how some NA's have the sense to call it offensive.

Why would you say NA is offensive? Obviously you have no clue what native means if you think the puritans were native to the Americas.

I thought I explained it. NA is offensive because we were never Americans. You came here and called our land America.. we didn't call it America. Our people are natives of their tribe, there were dozens of them all over this continent. 30 million of us lived here before it was ever known as America.

The first people to be native of "America" would be the Puritans who were first born in (or native to) America. If you want to count the whole Western Hemisphere in YOUR established "Americas" maybe it was the Aztecs or Mayans? But WE are natives of our tribes who were getting along just fine in our own individual ways long before the white man came. "NA" is the white man's phrase for us... I suppose it's better than "Injun" but really, not a whole lot. It's patronizing and condescending to call me a "Native American" when my people were never treated as any kind of American.

The term "redskin" doesn't bother me. Most indigenous tribes had more reddish skin... it's not an insult. It's at least an intellectually honest descriptor. "NA" is an insulting slap in the face to the history of our tribes that you destroyed and continue to ignore.

When Africans came to your land we didnt call it the Americas. White people did that just like the called all of Africa Ethiopia and later changed it to Africa. Those are the present day terms by which we call those land masses. Native American is an umbrella term people use to describe the people that are native to this particular land mass.

Even using your logic Puritans were still not the first to be Americans. You do realize that the Americas are named after a Italian guy Amerigo Vespucci.

I'm not trying to make the term redskin bother you. I said it does bother some Natives. You are the first Native I have ever heard of that is insulted by the moniker NA. Now that you explain it I can understand why.

Again, this "land mass" wasn't called America until European men discovered it hundreds or thousands of years after the people who were here had settled it. You mention Africans... what if we called them "Native Migrant Laborers" instead of "African-American?" Instead of respecting your heritage, what if we just called you Eurotrash? You're not German, Italian, Irish or Greek... you're all just Eurotrash! We can slap that label on you and pretend to respect you and give you honor to be labeled by us, your conquerors! How would that sit with you?

I don't need for you to explain what Native American is supposed to mean... I'm not 5-years-old. I'm telling you that it's offensive when you apply a blanket umbrella term to define dozens of disparate cultures and histories of beautiful people across the continent. Our identities have been stolen! Are you not getting that? Can you not comprehend that?

Furthermore, it's offensive that you have the audacity to now try and call us "Americans" when you never treated us as Americans of ANY kind. We weren't part of America, we weren't given citizenship until the 1920s. This is a condescending attempt to slap a label on my people and arrogantly think you've honored us somehow. As if we can all forget the past and pretend that we were always respected as the native people of this land mass... we're STILL not being respected as such. You're STILL trying to erase our individual histories and cultures... to group us all together under your umbrella term that you've imagined some kind of honor in.

Obviously you are deflecting because i pointed out your claim that Puritans were the first native americans was wrong even using your logic. I am the one that pointed out the land mass was named after an Italian guy who wasnt a puritan. The indigenous people of the americas were the first native workers. I have no issue with you calling them euro trash.

Obviously i needed to explain to you what it meant. You just called the Puritans the first native americans.

I didnt make up the term and even admitted that once you explained it ...it made sense to view it as offensive. Whats weird is your hypocritical acceptance of the term red skin even though that too is an umbrella term.

No... "redskin" is a description, it has no offensive intent whatsoever. We might even say, "Hey, that Choctaw has more redskin than that Cherokee!" Black people, when describing another black person, don't say "less-pigmented" to avoid "offensiveness" ...they say "light-skin." It's just not offensive.

When I said Puritans were the "Native Americans" it was under the presumption we were talking about "The United States of America" since that's the only place you call the indigenous people "Native Americans." Are Incas, Aztecs and Mayan's also called "Native Americans?"

Native american is also a description. I'm not getting your point or hypocrisy. Its a known fact whites used "red skin" in a derogatory manner as I have already posted.

When the puritans arrived it wasn the united states of america so you logic fails on that point as well. I dont know if its the only place but I do know the ones in Canada are called Indigenous Canadians. Looks like the same thing as Native American.

So what do you call the entire group of people that are somewhat native to the americas? You have to call them something because if you pick one tribe you are offending the other tribes.

 

[Boss]

Native american is also a description. I'm not getting your point or hypocrisy. Its a known fact whites used "red skin" in a derogatory manner as I have already posted.

I dont know if its the only place but I do know the ones in Canada are called Indigenous Canadians. Looks like the same thing as Native American. So what do you call the entire group of people that are somewhat native to the americas? You have to call them something because if you pick one tribe you are offending the other tribes.

No... "Native American" is a label, not a description. My people are native Choctaw and Cherokee. We are completely different from native Seminoles or native Apache. Each of our tribal nations had it's own culture, society, government, trade partners, enemies, art, traditions... it was all stripped from us and destroyed by white settlers who applied this blanket label to us so they could pretend to appease their guilty conscience.

Redskin is just a simple descriptor, but if you are truly offended by that and wish to better honor the indigenous tribes... call your team the Washington Cherokee, Cleveland Shawnee or Atlanta Choctaw. But save the hypocrisy of speaking for people you know nothing about over what is offensive to them.

 

[mikegriffith1]

The Washington Post is reporting a new poll that finds that a majority of Native Americans are not offended by the name of Washington, D.C.'s football team, the Washington Redskins.

John Woodrow Cox, Scott Clement and Theresa Vargas report:

Nine in 10 Native Americans say they are not offended by the Washington Redskins name, according to a new Washington Post poll that shows how few ordinary Indians have been persuaded by a national movement to change the football team’s moniker.

The survey of 504 people across every state and the District reveals that the minds of Native Americans have remained unchanged since a 2004 poll by the Annenberg Public Policy Center found the exact same result. Responses to The Post’s questions about the issue were broadly consistent regardless of age, income, education, political party or proximity to reservations.

The poll was conducted by by telephone Dec. 16 to April 12 among a random sample of 504 Native American adults. The poll asked. "The professional football team in Washington calls itself the Washington Redskins. As a Native American, do you find that name offensive, or doesn't it bother you?"

90 percent said "does not bother," 9 percent said it was offense, and 1 percent had no opinion.

The Washington Redskins name has been controversial in recent years. In 2014 the federal Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ruled that the team’s name is offensive to Native Americans and therefore ineligible for federal trademark protection under the Lanham Act, which bars protection for names that “may disparage” or bring people into contempt or disrepute. That decision was overturned in 2015 by the The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

In response to the poll. Redskin owner Daniel Snyder issued a statement: “The Washington Redskins team, our fans and community have always believed our name represents honor, respect and pride. Today’s Washington Post polling shows Native Americans agree. We are gratified by this overwhelming support from the Native American community, and the team will proudly carry the Redskins name.”

That's because most Native Americans aren't brainwashed and stupid like the far-left wingnuts who still whine about this issue. It's like the far left wants to turn back the clock 120 years and ignore the fact that to the vast majority of the population, the name "Redskins" is an honorable, positive term that indicates power, courage, strength, and a will to win.

 

[Asclepias]

Native american is also a description. I'm not getting your point or hypocrisy. Its a known fact whites used "red skin" in a derogatory manner as I have already posted.

I dont know if its the only place but I do know the ones in Canada are called Indigenous Canadians. Looks like the same thing as Native American. So what do you call the entire group of people that are somewhat native to the americas? You have to call them something because if you pick one tribe you are offending the other tribes.

No... "Native American" is a label, not a description. My people are native Choctaw and Cherokee. We are completely different from native Seminoles or native Apache. Each of our tribal nations had it's own culture, society, government, trade partners, enemies, art, traditions... it was all stripped from us and destroyed by white settlers who applied this blanket label to us so they could pretend to appease their guilty conscience.

Redskin is just a simple descriptor, but if you are truly offended by that and wish to better honor the indigenous tribes... call your team the Washington Cherokee, Cleveland Shawnee or Atlanta Choctaw. But save the hypocrisy of speaking for people you know nothing about over what is offensive to them.

"Label" is a synonym of "description" so you just pretty much killed yourself on that one. Thats all great about your tribes but the question is what do you call all the tribes collectively?

Native American is also a simple descriptor. So is American Indian, Indigenous Canadian etc. I know quite alot about whats offensive. I'm part Blackfoot. Youre a hypocrite for being OK with "red skin" but having an issue with "native american". At least be consistent and logical. FYI. the team is not called the Washington Cherokee. Its called the Washington Redskins.

 

[Contumacious]

The Washington Post is reporting a new poll that finds that a majority of Native Americans are not offended by the name of Washington, D.C.'s football team, the Washington Redskins.

John Woodrow Cox, Scott Clement and Theresa Vargas report:

Nine in 10 Native Americans say they are not offended by the Washington Redskins name, according to a new Washington Post poll that shows how few ordinary Indians have been persuaded by a national movement to change the football team’s moniker.

The survey of 504 people across every state and the District reveals that the minds of Native Americans have remained unchanged since a 2004 poll by the Annenberg Public Policy Center found the exact same result. Responses to The Post’s questions about the issue were broadly consistent regardless of age, income, education, political party or proximity to reservations.

The poll was conducted by by telephone Dec. 16 to April 12 among a random sample of 504 Native American adults. The poll asked. "The professional football team in Washington calls itself the Washington Redskins. As a Native American, do you find that name offensive, or doesn't it bother you?"

90 percent said "does not bother," 9 percent said it was offense, and 1 percent had no opinion.

The Washington Redskins name has been controversial in recent years. In 2014 the federal Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ruled that the team’s name is offensive to Native Americans and therefore ineligible for federal trademark protection under the Lanham Act, which bars protection for names that “may disparage” or bring people into contempt or disrepute. That decision was overturned in 2015 by the The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

In response to the poll. Redskin owner Daniel Snyder issued a statement: “The Washington Redskins team, our fans and community have always believed our name represents honor, respect and pride. Today’s Washington Post polling shows Native Americans agree. We are gratified by this overwhelming support from the Native American community, and the team will proudly carry the Redskins name.”

No, according to Jimmy Fallon they are offended by the "Cowboys".

.

 

[Asclepias]

The Washington Post is reporting a new poll that finds that a majority of Native Americans are not offended by the name of Washington, D.C.'s football team, the Washington Redskins.

John Woodrow Cox, Scott Clement and Theresa Vargas report:

Nine in 10 Native Americans say they are not offended by the Washington Redskins name, according to a new Washington Post poll that shows how few ordinary Indians have been persuaded by a national movement to change the football team’s moniker.

The survey of 504 people across every state and the District reveals that the minds of Native Americans have remained unchanged since a 2004 poll by the Annenberg Public Policy Center found the exact same result. Responses to The Post’s questions about the issue were broadly consistent regardless of age, income, education, political party or proximity to reservations.

The poll was conducted by by telephone Dec. 16 to April 12 among a random sample of 504 Native American adults. The poll asked. "The professional football team in Washington calls itself the Washington Redskins. As a Native American, do you find that name offensive, or doesn't it bother you?"

90 percent said "does not bother," 9 percent said it was offense, and 1 percent had no opinion.

The Washington Redskins name has been controversial in recent years. In 2014 the federal Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ruled that the team’s name is offensive to Native Americans and therefore ineligible for federal trademark protection under the Lanham Act, which bars protection for names that “may disparage” or bring people into contempt or disrepute. That decision was overturned in 2015 by the The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

In response to the poll. Redskin owner Daniel Snyder issued a statement: “The Washington Redskins team, our fans and community have always believed our name represents honor, respect and pride. Today’s Washington Post polling shows Native Americans agree. We are gratified by this overwhelming support from the Native American community, and the team will proudly carry the Redskins name.”

That's because most Native Americans aren't brainwashed and stupid like the far-left wingnuts who still whine about this issue. It's like the far left wants to turn back the clock 120 years and ignore the fact that to the vast majority of the population, the name "Redskins" is an honorable, positive term that indicates power, courage, strength, and a will to win.

 

[Asclepias]

No wonder the team is called the Redskins. The owner that named them was a stone cold feral racist cave chimp.

A History Lesson for the Redskins Owner


" At the time, the Redskins were the southern-most team in the NFL, and Marshall marketed his team to a white Southern audience by playing Dixie before games and saying proudly, “We’ll start signing Negroes when the Harlem Globetrotters start signing whites.” This is why the team is called Redskins: it was a racist name from a racist owner."