@pirate227 well, i would ask why it hasn’t become an issue till now? Since it’s not exactly a new team name – not saying it shouldn’t happen, but seems idiotic at this point.
""Redskin" is a descriptor for Native Americans, the origins of which are disputed. Although by some accounts not originally having negative intent,1 the term is now defined by dictionaries of American English as “usually offensive”,2 “disparaging”,34 “insulting”,5 “taboo” 6 and is avoided in public usage with the exception of its continued use as a name for sports teams."
Yup, that sure is a complement… in your skewed world.
In 1987, I had only been a few months in Portugal. I had become friendly with an American student (in geology if I recall correctly but I don’t remember his name!) who was over there on an exchange programme. I remember mentioning, while discussing apartheid – as one invariably did as soon as someone discovered I came from South Africa – “redskin Indians” to differentiate, in my mind, from what I knew as the Indian community in SA. The shocked look on this young American’s face stopped me.
Of course, I had grown up in a society riven with discrimination and with discrimatory laws still on the books in 1987, it hadn’t occured to me that the term I had used was offensive. But I took to heart the explanation given to me all those years back and still clearly remember that lesson; and from one of your compatriots! I’ve forgotten his name but not his lesson. It was offensive in 1987, it was offensive before and it clearly still remains offensive.
pirate227 over 10 years ago
Except for the Native Americans.
lyle122 over 10 years ago
Would anyone care if Reskins became Whiteskins? Or Blackskins? Or Pinkskins? Or Pigskins?
Tue Elung-Jensen over 10 years ago
@pirate227 well, i would ask why it hasn’t become an issue till now? Since it’s not exactly a new team name – not saying it shouldn’t happen, but seems idiotic at this point.
rowena28 Premium Member over 10 years ago
So cleats, shoulder pads, and helmets are dated? Do they play in bare feet with no protective gear now?
pirate227 over 10 years ago
Try wikipedia:
""Redskin" is a descriptor for Native Americans, the origins of which are disputed. Although by some accounts not originally having negative intent,1 the term is now defined by dictionaries of American English as “usually offensive”,2 “disparaging”,34 “insulting”,5 “taboo” 6 and is avoided in public usage with the exception of its continued use as a name for sports teams."
Yup, that sure is a complement… in your skewed world.
OmqR-IV.0 over 10 years ago
In 1987, I had only been a few months in Portugal. I had become friendly with an American student (in geology if I recall correctly but I don’t remember his name!) who was over there on an exchange programme. I remember mentioning, while discussing apartheid – as one invariably did as soon as someone discovered I came from South Africa – “redskin Indians” to differentiate, in my mind, from what I knew as the Indian community in SA. The shocked look on this young American’s face stopped me.
Of course, I had grown up in a society riven with discrimination and with discrimatory laws still on the books in 1987, it hadn’t occured to me that the term I had used was offensive. But I took to heart the explanation given to me all those years back and still clearly remember that lesson; and from one of your compatriots! I’ve forgotten his name but not his lesson. It was offensive in 1987, it was offensive before and it clearly still remains offensive.