Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Just read a rather tongue in cheek/sarcastic editorial, wherein the guy points out that, if we're changing the name of the 'Skins because "once upon a time it was a derogatory term" then we absolutely MUST change the name of the Yankees baseball team, because the term originated as a slur (in the article he says it was a slur used by the Dutch against Americans, but this is factually incorrect... It started as a slur against the English soldiers who beat the Dutch settlers/occupied their territory. It's well known that the word stems from the Dutch word for a particular type of smelly cheese, which through its usage and whatnot, ultimately led to the British soldiers calling Americans "Yankees" as a slur. So really, it's sort of a double slur, as the word originated from two different derogatory terms )

Just going to open that can worms eh Ensis

 Jihadin wrote:
Just going to open that can worms eh Ensis

Lol, I thought the article rather dry, but still mildly funny given the subject matter

I don't think he was talking about the article.

No mention of "Knife Hands" so it was not down and dirty knuckle dragging fight in body armor. Clean shooting

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
if we're changing the name of the 'Skins because "once upon a time it was a derogatory term"

That isn't why it is being changed, not that it is being changed as it is. It is a problem because it is still a slur while Yankee is not.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
if we're changing the name of the 'Skins because "once upon a time it was a derogatory term"

That isn't why it is being changed, not that it is being changed as it is. It is a problem because it is still a slur while Yankee is not.

It most definitely is a slur, if you're in the right part of the US. (not that this is a reason to change the name of a sports team, any more than the Skins should have to change theirs)

Time marches on and society advances.

Three cheers for government getting it right occasionally!

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
if we're changing the name of the 'Skins because "once upon a time it was a derogatory term"

That isn't why it is being changed, not that it is being changed as it is. It is a problem because it is still a slur while Yankee is not.

It most definitely is a slur, if you're in the right part of the US.

National slurs trump regional, context based slurs pretty much every time. One is a slur eve4rywhere, the other is a slur by some people in specific areas. We can pretend all words are the same but that won't suddenly make it so. At this point Yankee doesn't really carry much weight or pain. Calling someone a yankee would most likely get a laugh or a confused look, but calling a Blackfoot a redskin will most likely not get the same result.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Just read a rather tongue in cheek/sarcastic editorial, wherein the guy points out that, if we're changing the name of the 'Skins because "once upon a time it was a derogatory term" then we absolutely MUST change the name of the Yankees baseball team, because the term originated as a slur (in the article he says it was a slur used by the Dutch against Americans, but this is factually incorrect... It started as a slur against the English soldiers who beat the Dutch settlers/occupied their territory. It's well known that the word stems from the Dutch word for a particular type of smelly cheese, which through its usage and whatnot, ultimately led to the British soldiers calling Americans "Yankees" as a slur. So really, it's sort of a double slur, as the word originated from two different derogatory terms )

Not entirely correct, the word does not come from Dutch smelly cheese (Dutch cheese doesn't smell, that is the French one ) Yankees is derived from the the very common Dutch names Jan and Kees (which often combined into a single name Jan Kees). It started out as a slur used by the British towards the Dutch settlers and was later extended to all settlers in America.
Personally, I wonder how many people are actually offended by such slurs. I think it is blown out of proportions and a lot of hassle about nothing.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
if we're changing the name of the 'Skins because "once upon a time it was a derogatory term"

That isn't why it is being changed, not that it is being changed as it is. It is a problem because it is still a slur while Yankee is not.

Yankee is still a slur down here.

I vote the Washington Gridlocks. I think the reason is self explanatory.

The Yankee thing is another of the favorite red herrings that comes up in this discussion, along with the Fighting Irish.

That the Yankees are owned by and watched by a huge number of people that are, in fact, Yankees, I think calling it a slur is a bit much.

Again, the term Redskin isn't a problem becaue it was once offended, or because people could theoretically be offended. It's a problem because actualy Native Americans are actually offended.

If that's worth changing the name is a different issue, There's nothing inherently wrong with deciding that offending a (potentially small) segment of a tiny demographic. But that's not pretend that nobody is actually feeling offended.

Oklahoma means red people.

 The Home Nuggeteer wrote:
Oklahoma means red people.

Which is a non-sequitor. Simply calling someone Red is not a racial slur anymore than callling someone White or Black is.

Frazzled wrote:Yankee is still a slur down here.

One that almost no one cares about; calling someone a name they really don't care about hardly seems a slur. You can call me a Yankee, honky, cracker, ect all day and it won't bother me one bit, or almost anyone else for that matter. Pretending it is somehow equivalent is a bit disingenuous.

The Home Nuggeteer wrote:Oklahoma means red people.

As pointed out earlier (some) natives referring to themselves in their language to something that translates to "red people" is not the same as another group referring to them as redskins.

 Ahtman wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Yankee is still a slur down here.

One that almost no one cares about; calling someone a name they really don't care about hardly seems a slur. You can call me a Yankee, honky, cracker, ect all day and it won't bother me one bit, or almost anyone else for that matter. Pretending it is somehow equivalent is a bit disingenuous.

You say that but if I called you late for dinner you would be pissed.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
if we're changing the name of the 'Skins because "once upon a time it was a derogatory term"

That isn't why it is being changed, not that it is being changed as it is. It is a problem because it is still a slur while Yankee is not.

Does it matter at all that in pretty much every poll anyone's ever done, about 9/10 American Indians don't give a gak?

 cincydooley wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
if we're changing the name of the 'Skins because "once upon a time it was a derogatory term"

That isn't why it is being changed, not that it is being changed as it is. It is a problem because it is still a slur while Yankee is not.

Does it matter at all that in pretty much every poll anyone's ever done, about 9/10 American Indians don't give a gak?

Of course. I think the lack of cohesive action on the part of Native Americans is telling.

That some are offended also matters, but in the grand scheme of things, that matters less.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
if we're changing the name of the 'Skins because "once upon a time it was a derogatory term"

That isn't why it is being changed, not that it is being changed as it is. It is a problem because it is still a slur while Yankee is not.

Does it matter at all that in pretty much every poll anyone's ever done, about 9/10 American Indians don't give a gak?

You mean in that one poll that they did that said 90%? The newer one said 67% did find it offensive.

Could they keep the name but just change their mascot to the Mayor of Toronto?

 pretre wrote:


You mean in that one poll that they did that said 90%? The newer one said 67% didn't find it offensive.

So still two thirds...

I'm just saying.....

2/3 did find it offensive. My bad. I mistyped. Original edited.

 pretre wrote:
2/3 did find it offensive. My bad. I mistyped. Original edited.

Okay, so I actually opened it.

Not exactly mind blowing numbers surveyed there, eh?

 cincydooley wrote:

 pretre wrote:
2/3 did find it offensive. My bad. I mistyped. Original edited.

Okay, so I actually opened it.

Not exactly mind blowing numbers surveyed there, eh?

Out of curiosity, what sort of evidence would you want?

Last survey was only twice as big (your 90% one). My personal opinion is that it is offensive, does that count for anything?

 cincydooley wrote:

 pretre wrote:


You mean in that one poll that they did that said 90%? The newer one said 67% didn't find it offensive.

So still two thirds...

I'm just saying.....

The Redskins team name is a racial or racist word and symbol.
American Indians were 67 % in agreement, 12 % were neutral and 20 % disagreed with the statement.

That means 67% find it offensive.

upon further analysis more than 60% of whites reject the term Redskins as racist, while more than 60%
of Indians see the term Redskins as racist.

How are you saying 90% of 2/3rds DONT find it racist?

He's talking about a previous survey in 2004 with 700 or so people.

 pretre wrote:
He's talking about a previous survey in 2004 with 700 or so people.

Yes, this.

Regardless whether or not I think it's racist or not, I think Daniel Snyder should be able to call his team whatever the feth he wants until the NFL decides otherwise.

I don't think it should be the purview of the government to tell us what we can or cannot name our businesses.

I mean, if that's the case, shouldn't someone be raising a ruckus about NWA?

 cincydooley wrote:
I don't think it should be the purview of the government to tell us what we can or cannot name our businesses.

Welcome to page 1 of the thread?

As was pointed out, repeatedly, by many different posters in many different ways - the government isn't telling anyone what they can or cannot name their business.

 cincydooley wrote:

 pretre wrote:
He's talking about a previous survey in 2004 with 700 or so people.

Yes, this.

Regardless whether or not I think it's racist or not, I think Daniel Snyder should be able to call his team whatever the feth he wants until the NFL decides otherwise.

I don't think it should be the purview of the government to tell us what we can or cannot name our businesses.

I mean, if that's the case, shouldn't someone be raising a ruckus about NWA?

And the awards for Not Reading the Thread and Missing the Point go to.... drumroll please... cincydooley.

Come on up and get your awards!

edit: To be specific, we've covered those two points over and over again. No one is stopping him from naming his team whatever he wants. And if you don't know the difference between the Redskins and NWA, I don't think we're going to be able to fix that now.