Mayor of D.C. wants Redskins nickname changed

First, I am going to preface this by saying that the early history of the country is nothing to be proud of in terms of the natives or the slaves that were brought over. Those were bad things that happened to both races for sure. But no, I am not offended when I hear the terms honkey or Cracker. I understand why there may be a desire for someone to find a name to call a white person considering the past history.

That being said my point was that both of the names, when you think of them, evoke images of bands of them running roughshod over another group. The difference being as far as I can see is that I understand someone can reference my ancestors as the people they were and i know that it has zero relativity to me except skin color because we have evolved, changed and become different people than we once were. There is nothing stopping you or the natives from doing the same thing. The best defense you have for that sort of thing is to lead your life the way you want your people to be seen and remembered and not worry about what the impressions are of the past. :D

The term "Viking" simply defined appears to be a Scandinavian Pirate, or, Scandinavians of a certain era...none of which appear to be slanderous or derogatory to me, but, my heritage is German/Prussian, we have our own issues...

Viking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Viking | Define Viking at Dictionary.com

Redskin, on the other hand...

Redskin (slang) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Redskin | Define Redskin at Dictionary.com

I have several Native American friends and would never refer to any of them, their friends, family, or any as a redskin. Conversely, I grew up in South Dakota and Nebraska, and have dozens of Norwegian and Swedish friends...one of my Aunts is from Norway. I do not recall one of them being anything but proud to be referred to as a Viking, or, being of Viking heritage.

I can see the mayor's point.

RE: your questions Kevon, no, I don't really care if I'm called a honkey or a cracker. But, I would think referring to a sports team as such would be in bad taste for sure...

Cracker | Define Cracker at Dictionary.com

Honkey | Define Honkey at Dictionary.com

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaxVike

The term "Viking" simply defined appears to be a Scandinavian Pirate, or, Scandinavians of a certain era...none of which appear to be slanderous or derogatory to me, but, my heritage is German/Prussian, we have our own issues...

Viking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Viking | Define Viking at Dictionary.com

Redskin, on the other hand...

Redskin (slang) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Redskin | Define Redskin at Dictionary.com

I have several Native American friends and would never refer to any of them, their friends, family, or any as a redskin. Conversely, I grew up in South Dakota and Nebraska, and have dozens of Norwegian and Swedish friends...one of my Aunts is from Norway. I do not recall one of them being anything but proud to be referred to as a Viking, or, being of Viking heritage.

I can see the mayor's point.

RE: your questions Kevon, no, I don't really care if I'm called a honkey or a cracker. But, I would think referring to a sports team as such would be in bad taste for sure...

Cracker | Define Cracker at Dictionary.com

Honkey | Define Honkey at Dictionary.com

---

Thanks for the info. Its as I thought.
I guess I don't see the name Viking being representative of a whole subsection of people. I think of it like I do the term Roman or Trojan. It elicits a specific visual connection but not one I would make me feel that all Norwegians act/acted in the a Viking like manner. It's similar to the term Pirate.

However, I believe that redskin targets a specific culture/race of people and it typically has a negative connotation. Vikings were explorers (or so we are taught in history) and their conquest are tales of legendary bravery. When I think of Vikings, I think of a man's man and a warrior. When I think of redskin, I think of the colonist talking down to the natives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Purple Floyd

First, I am going to preface this by saying that the early history of the country is nothing to be proud of in terms of the natives or the slaves that were brought over. Those were bad things that happened to both races for sure. But no, I am not offended when I hear the terms honkey or Cracker. I understand why there may be a desire for someone to find a name to call a white person considering the past history.

That being said my point was that both of the names, when you think of them, evoke images of bands of them running roughshod over another group. The difference being as far as I can see is that I understand someone can reference my ancestors as the people they were and i know that it has zero relativity to me except skin color because we have evolved, changed and become different people than we once were. There is nothing stopping you or the natives from doing the same thing. The best defense you have for that sort of thing is to lead your life the way you want your people to be seen and remembered and not worry about what the impressions are of the past. :D

---

I agree with you that it is referenced as the people they were. No one thinks Roman and thinks that these Lambogini driving playboys are still running around in tunics and shields.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kevoncox

I don't feel its the same thing. Vikings actually existed no? I'm not sure if they called themselves that. However, redskins was used as a derogatory name by the settlers.
Lets not forget that the owner who created the name was a well known Racist and refused to integrate the team. I think it should be changed to something Native American but still allowed to wipe his accomplishments from the books.

Two questions....
Do white people actually feel anger/hurt when called a cracker or honkey? As a black man, I have always felt that those "jabs" are laughed at by Caucasians. I mean they are probably the worst attempts at a derogatory name in history. Just asking as the internet allows people to talk about things they wouldn't normally ask.

---

Does anybody even use the terms Cracker or Honkey anymore? When I hear them I conjure up images of some 70's white guy in cords with a bushy mustache, lol. No, I don't think that either of those terms has anywhere near the effect on me or any other white person that the N word has on black people. They simply never had the power behind them because of the social structure in the United States. Personally, I would be much more offended if somebody called me a racist than if they called me a Cracker.

Regarding the Redskins name, I can understand and agree with the want to change the name. It truly was a derogatory term for Native Americans used by white pioneers. At no time in history did Native Americans every refer to themselves as Redskins.

However, there are several other Native American names that have come under attack recently by Native American groups, such as the Fighting Sioux, the Braves, the Warriors, etc. I absolutely disagree with the notion that a school or organization is not allowed to use a nickname or mascot simply because that term "belongs" to a particular demographic. There is a strong self-victimization sentiment among many Native American groups, particularly in the Midwest, that saddens me. Instead of embracing and sharing their amazing culture they are hoarding it to a level that can only be deemed as exclusive. Most tribes require that you have at least 1/4 Native American blood in order to even be a member of the tribe. I wish there was more celebration of native american heritage there than the jealously guarding of it like I see elsewhere in the United States.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NodakPaul

Does anybody even use the terms Cracker or Honkey anymore? When I hear them I conjure up images of some 70's white guy in cords with a bushy mustache, lol. No, I don't think that either of those terms has anywhere near the effect on me or any other white person that the N word has on black people. They simply never had the power behind them because of the social structure in the United States. Personally, I would be much more offended if somebody called me a racist than if they called me a Cracker.

Regarding the Redskins name, I can understand and agree with the want to change the name. It truly was a derogatory term for Native Americans used by white pioneers. At no time in history did Native Americans every refer to themselves as Redskins.

However, there are several other Native American names that have come under attack recently by Native American groups, such as the Fighting Sioux, the Braves, the Warriors, etc. I absolutely disagree with the notion that a school or organization is not allowed to use a nickname or mascot simply because that term "belongs" to a particular demographic. There is a strong self-victimization sentiment among many Native American groups, particularly in the Midwest, that saddens me. Instead of embracing and sharing their amazing culture they are hoarding it to a level that can only be deemed as exclusive. Most tribes require that you have at least 1/4 Native American blood in order to even be a member of the tribe. I wish there was more celebration of native american heritage there than the jealously guarding of it like I see elsewhere in the United States.

---

I think you are correct about the power balance in the US as it relates to derogatory names for Caucasians. However, not all Caucasians are in positions of power and many are in the same economic class as blacks. Did you know that average Black person is middle class. Often the media paints it as most Blacks live at or below the poverty level. I find the race relations in this country fascinating as I am not from here and things are different where I am from.

The only name on the list that I have trouble with is the fighting Sioux and that's because of their long standing history of mistreatment in the US. I don't think the nickname is that bad, I just think if they don't like it, its for a reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaxVike

I have several Native American friends and would never refer to any of them, their friends, family, or any as a redskin.

---

Same here. Where I grew up it was 95% white and 5% hispanic. not a single black person in town that I can remember. I know growing up that there were racial biases against the hispanics in town and there certainly was plenty of negative references to black people in school etc. Me personally, I was inflicted with a gene that forces me to evaluate people on what they do and not on their skin color and that led me to get along with some of the hispanics very well and also not get along with some whites. In college pretty much the same. If a person of another ethnicity was a good person I got along with them very well and if they were not good people my opinion didn't change because of their skin color.

I never once met a native american that conjured up the image of what a Redskin would be. Most were honest, good people who just had a different way of doing things. But there were also a great many who allowed the whole racial stereotype thing to become a reason to fail instead of using their life as a way to show others what they were really all about and I think that is what this all boils down to in the end.

If the native american tribes would spend their time out there defining for the world what they are and how they should be viewed, the whole redskin thing would end up being no different that the name Vikings or as Kev noted, the Romans etc.

Only they can really change the mindset of the rest of the world.

Quote:

---

Conversely, I grew up in South Dakota and Nebraska, and have dozens of Norwegian and Swedish friends...one of my Aunts is from Norway. I do not recall one of them being anything but proud to be referred to as a Viking, or, being of Viking heritage.

---

Same here except the time after the season when their favorite team snatches defeat from the hands of victory yet again.:rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Purple Floyd

How would the Vikings name be more derogatory than redskins? Does the name not conjur pretty much the same images?

---

I think we might be misunderstanding each other here. I never said Viking was a derogatory term. Only that if a team were using a derogatory name for your people, on land that was stolen from under their dead bodies, and profiting tremendously from it(and donating some of those profits to politicians who aren't exactly IA friendly,) you would not like it.

I don't think they invoke the same images at all. But that's already been discussed sufficiently.

Another factor to consider is time. The genocide of the Indigenous American population was completed little more than a century ago. Historically speaking, those are pretty fresh wounds, which were never justly treated. The Viking age came to an end what, 8 or 900 years ago? And obviously came to an end in a much less destructive way, in terms of societal stability for the group they represented, than what happened to the Indigenous population in this country.

The name is especially offensive when the condition of the Indigenous American population is considered. They're the poorest racial and/or ethnic(depending on how you define it) group in the US. Rendering one of the arguments for maintaining the name, brand preservation, totally absurd. "We can't change it or we might only make $325 million next year!" While the real "redskins" have practically nothing, unless they're lucky enough to have gotten into the casino gaming business.

And the other reason to keep the name? Tradition: They're only called the Redskins because they played in Fenway for a few years in the 1930s. They were the Boston Braves before that. I contend, that if it were any other group in the US, the name would have been changed a long time ago.

It seems like the most common reasoning for continuing to call them The Redskins is, well, not a reason at all. "People are too concerned with political correctness." Though it's not usually expressed that way. "PC Police" "Who cares" etc. It's all bullshit. There is no good reason to continue calling them by this name.

Again, I'm not personally offended by it, as I am not of Indigenous American heritage, but it's very clearly inappropriate in this day and age.

As far as the word cracker or honkey goes... there's no weight behind it. I've never had it used against me in any way that wasn't obviously meant to be funny. Any racial epithet or slur against Indigenous or African Americans have centuries have a genocide or more than two centuries of enslavement worth of weight behind them. If the tables were turned, where white people in this country had been enslaved or massacred and called honkey or cracker all along then the words would pack much, much stronger punch.

I think I've exhausted this subject to the best of my ability. I don't think I would we would have gotten this productive, interesting discussion a few years ago. I guess lack of activity on these boards can have some upside.

:think:

As Vikings fans, we can rest easy knowing we have the best name in the NFL.

End of discussion.