Your own Slate-article doesn’t support that contention. It may have come to be that way, but it does not seem - certainly not clearly - meant as such. Especially since all the original citations seem to be french-translations of natives’ own words, in proximity to words similar to “white skins.” While they may have been used to imply/show/enforce a superior/inferior position, they seem to have originated as differentation-rehetoric.
if it didn’t start out that way, it clearly evolved that meaning for Native peoples, as least that’s what many of the activist groups have said. I see no reason not to be sympathetic to that.
That makes it better some how or more defensible? (EDited to add) should we only call out racism of the KKK/Neo-Nazi kind, or shouldn’t we examine our own deeply ingrained cultural prejudices and try to work them out as well?
So are you saying the intent of the name choice wasn’t hatred and therefore it does not embody hatred?
Cartoon validated, QED
5 Likes
I don’t have time to do more than skim the first article now, but as it says, and as I’ve always believed, redskin refers to the hue of their skin and at one time was a self identifying term, along with “redman”. While Indians were certainly murdered, I’ve never heard of skinning being a thing, certainly not a common one. I just feel trying to equate something even more horrible with the term is a bit disingenuous and tends to cause people take the overall all issue less seriously. That is I feel the viewpoint can’t stand on it’s own and has to be exaggerated.
I still not sure I agree with it having a negative connotation, though it is antiquated, much in the same way the word negro is. As I’ve mentioned before I am actually a federally recognized Indian, on the tribal rolls, etc. Though I guess I am also white. I think being Indian is more about connecting with your heritage and your ancestors and not your skin color. At least that is the feeling I get from my Band. A long time ago Europeans weren’t white either.
Anyway… I’ll leave it up to the wisdom of the elders to decide if they approve or not. Given my nation is in Oklahoma I haven’t seen anything mentioned by elders in the newsletters about it, other than just general news articles. Though perhaps an email is in order to see if they have a stance and why.
Bozho!
2 Likes
Other Native Americans disagree with you… of course, Native peoples are not a monolith, but if some find it an offensive term, why continue to use it. Plus, this isn’t about Natives using the term on their own terms, but about whites, who have historically been in an advantageous position over Native peoples, using the term.
But they are now and have been since the early 20th century, more or less… The Irish have had that distinction since the 19th century…
That’s would be interesting to hear… if you find anything out about that, you should let me know. I’d be curious to hear what they tyhink.
Also, FYI @Glitch, @OtherMichael, and @Mister44 - you might find this discussion of historians and their engagement with Native American history of interest:
And here I am, out of 
s for the day 
They could certainly have similar connotations, if not the same ones. Plenty of Americans historically hated and abused the Irish as a bunch of filthy, lazy, violent, drunken, idiotic, Catholics. To the “civilized” New Englanders facing the waves of incoming Irish, there was quite a lot of resentment and refusal to accept them for being an inherently violent and barbaric people.
Take this political cartoon depicting a violent Irish nationalist failing to fit cleanly and quietly into America’s “melting pot”.
Here’s one of violent drunken Irish hooligans making off with a ballot box, spoiling a civilized election.
Here’s a bunch of violent drunken Irish hooligans attacking the police as a celebration of Saint Patrick’s Day.
Here’s an Irish radical as a wild animal in a zoo, a diminutive “Dynamite Skunk”, the sort that would carry out the “indiscriminate murder” which the newspaper in the bottom right mentions.
Here’s a violent Irish anarchist chucking rocks.
Here’s an Irish hooligan butchering the Democratic party in the name of the Catholic Church.
Here’s another jab at Irish anarchists as violent, idiotic hillbillies.
Here’s good ol’ Uncle Sam reconsidering his policy of letting just anyone in when he sees a dirty, poor, diseased, drunken, anarchic, Catholic Irishman.
Another Irish anarchist, all the same details you would expect at this point.
Here’s an innocent American girl being abused by a brutish, angry Irishwoman.
Note the repeated refrain of violence; of anarchy; of the belief that the Irish are just aggitators that want to upend the social order, clamboring for a freedom that they are ironically unfit to possess, as evidenced by their poverty, stupidity, drunkenness, and slavish devotion to the Vatican.
Note the dehumanization in a lot of these; the ape-like or beastly qualities; the lack of personal hygeine and the obsession with material pleasures like booze; the unrestrained procreation leading to broods of disheveled mongrols; the need to cage them up or keep them behind walls and gates; to desire to control them and keep them from destroying all that is good and holy; their absurd allegiance to the Pope, et cetera.
Granted, it’s not full blown genocide. But as I pointed out, it’s a matter of degrees - of scope and scale. Where do you draw the line on discrimination, and on what can or cannot be considered offensive? Why is “Redskins” offensive but “Fighting Irish” isn’t, when both epithets and concepts have historically been used as brutal tools of oppression and humiliation?
3 Likes
Okay, I am completely lost as to how the name “redskins” is associated with skinning?
Are you riffing off the association with scalping (which I cited as an example of how skinning and death may not be inextricably entwined, at least as regards the partial removal of some skin), or conflating the use of “skin” with “skinning” ? Or is there no association at all, and these are two separate arguments that I have stumbled into?
1 Like
No, I am not saying that. I’m playing devil’s advocate, as I’ve made abundantly and repeatedly clear.
And in doing so, I also should point out that the argument that “intent does matter” isn’t wrong just because you want it to be. Yes, if someone is offended, the execution of your intent is quitely likely misplaced or misguided, but that doesn’t mean the intent is meaningless.
Flatly dismissing the feelings and opinions of those who disagree with you doesn’t do much except invite them to do the same. If you don’t care that someone had noble intentions and didn’t mean to offend, then why should they care that you’re offended?
Bizarro Cowicide? Is that you?
3 Likes
Fair enough on the distinction there. My argument is that because some Native people find the term offensive, for its association with colonial violence that included, yes, scalping (if not skinning, as the argument is that scalping was part of colonial violence and became associated with the term), then why continue to use it.
I thought the punchline was going to be that the characters were arguing over the Washington Idiots. WHOA! Whoa, not that R-word. That would be unforgivable, and somehow drastically different from Redskins, because reasons.
Why does N.W.A. get such a free pass, anyway!
@Glitch Glitch, did you notice that the violent Irish nationalist was at least welcome to be stirred into the citizenship-melting-pot of “Equal Rights”? But there were no Native Americans within it? [not that I can make out the caricatures; I could stand corrected.]
The Irish after all, also suffered the similar fate of North American aboriginal peoples, losing their original territorial lands (only oral traditions of the fabled “Emerald Isle” remain) as well has having nearly 98% of their original population wiped out (Irish Potato famine). A difference of degrees, to be sure, to be sure.
1 Like
Elsewhere, somebody pointed out a problem with the term “neckbeards” … which I guess I sorta agree with? Since my Dad has one? As my mother refused to kiss him with hair around his mouth, and he refused to not have a beard? And because I’ve seen lots of Amish?
But I’ve never seen “neckbeard” applied to anybody that wasn’t already worthy of several other more-worthy terms of opprobrium; and I’ve never seen it applied to my Dad or Amish men, either. Maybe Amish Gamers-with-a-capital-G? #notyourshield
Sorry, no. The part I quoted clearly says: “From my own point of view…” and then goes on to describe the conversation and activism as ‘complaining’. Were you still wearing your Devil’s Lawyer hat when you said “From my own point of view”?
Did I misread? If so, let’s just say I was playing Angel’s Advocate to your Satan Schuyster?
r
2 Likes
I’m well aware of the history of the Irish in America and the fact that they faced discrimination… my family were famine immigrants, after all. But they were incorporated into the white order in fairly short order and did not suffer the same colonial oppression and ethnic cleansing as Native Americans, at least in the US. In Ireland, it was a different story -as the famine was in fact worsened by acts of ethnic cleansing and native land dispossession by the English. I’m certainly not saying that we shouldn’t talk about that issue and point it out, but that this is not the discussion at hand. We’re talking about Native Americans, not the Irish.
Also, as someone up thread mentioned, the term “fightin’ Irish” as used by Notre Dame came from an army regiment, not from racist depictions of the Irish. So there’s that…
1 Like
Are you really employing that argument?
Actually it was about a quarter of the population that died or left because of the famine… but the population levels only recently rebounded. But there are some 30 million people world wide, myself included who claim Irish ancestry now.
1 Like
Skinning people? Where did you come up with this notion? It’s pretty far fetched.
There is a long, well documented history of English speakers referring to people of different ethnicities by the general hue of their skin.
Have you never heard of “The Red Man” to refer to First Nations / Native Americans? Just like how “The White Man” refers to Europeans, “The Yellow Man” refers to Asians, and “The Black Man” refers to Africans?
This color system view stems largely from the schoool of thought which brough us “scientific racism”, which is itself pretty terrible, but this is a far cry from the assumption that Europeans “skinned” First Nations / Native American peoples.
Except we were just talking about how the origins of the usage of “Redskins” come from their red uniforms and connections to the Boston Red Sox, and people want to ignore that fact.
Moreover, Irish Immigration started in the 1820, some 40 years before the Civil War - meaning the insulting viewpoint of Irish as violent anarchist brutes is older than the unit the team was supposedly named after.
And of course, the account that the team name comes from a Civil War unit is entirely unverified, having been put out by the school itself, and they would naturally want to portray the name’s origins positively.
And even if the story proves true, with a unit of Irish Americans actually calling themselves the Fighting Irish, just because they used the term positively to refer to themselves doesn’t mean it isn’t still insulting because it was used negatively previously by others to refer to the Irish.
After all - there are historical usages of First Nations / Native Americans positively calling themselves “redskins” and “red man/men” predating the naming of the Boston Redskins, but that doesn’t change the fact people view it as still being insulting because it was used negatively previously by others.
