5 ms·

Apache is not a derogatory name for an American Indian. '"Redskin" is a term for Native Americans. Its connotations are a subject of debate,[1] although the te

Apache is not a derogatory name for an American Indian. '"Redskin" is a term for Native Americans. Its connotations are a subject of debate,[1] although the term is defined in current dictionaries of American English as "usually offensive",[2] "disparaging",[3][4] "insulting",[5] and "taboo." [6]' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_(slang) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_(slang)

protomyth 12y ago
Well, Apache is the name of a group of tribes and they might decide they want the website back. And I take a bit of an offense at you telling me or my Dad what you think Redskin means versus what he grew up with and myself growing up on a reservation with the slang "skins" being used often and not in anyway like your dictionary definition probably written by someone who had never set foot on a reservation.
- iterationx 12y ago
  For some reason, liberals like to be offended on behalf of other groups.
  - kaonashi 12y ago
    I see you've removed all agency from the 'other groups'. Kudos.
    - protomyth 12y ago
      Maybe, but I've just seen a whole reservation take a vote on a name and be ignored by the NCAA. If you can honestly tell me that this came from the tribes and was voted on by their people, I'll believe it is an actual movement. Otherwise, its just more of the loud offended that don't really give a damn about.
      - thenmar 12y ago
        Um, it did come from a Native American group. Not that your opinion on whether or not something is an "actual movement" matters to anyone but yourself...
        protomyth 12y ago
        You didn't actually read the document with the named-non-group plaintiffs.
        dragonwriter 12y ago
        The plaintiffs are individual persons because of the standing issues related to disparagement claims), and ones just past the age of legal adulthood specifically to negate the laches defense raised in the immediately previous case on the same issue (the Harjo case, whose procedural history is discussed at length in the decision, and whose trial record was adopted wholesale in this case by mutual consent of the parties, because the substantive issues in this case are a subset of those in the Harjo case. So, while its nice that you read the named plaintiffs, it would probably help if you read the document beyond the names of the parties to get a clear understanding of what is actually going on.
        protomyth 12y ago
        I'm pretty well aware of what's going on, hard not to be where I'm standing. I didn't see the support I would want to see, but I wouldn't expect it given earlier actions.
      - dragonwriter 12y ago
        You might want to look at this brief (and, in particular, see who the amici offering it are) in support of the plaintiffs' position in the preceding case raising the same issues (the present case is a rehash of that case, organized by the same group, with younger named plaintiffs to avoid the laches defense that ended up being a problem for the earlier case): http://www.ncai.org/attachments/LegalBriefing_TByaxkdqYwYRDohDiQUvSVlcVeXOGzqntVkEXTaEnFailZrpGfN_Amici-NCAI-et-al-10-16-09.pdf http://www.ncai.org/attachments/LegalBriefing_TByaxkdqYwYRDo... Note that the first two listed are: Amicus National Congress of American Indians ("NCAI") was established in 1944 and is the oldest and largest national intertribal organization; it represents over 250 tribes, nations, pueblos, and Alaska Native villages with a combined enrollment of over 1.2 million. Amici Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, Comanche Nation of Oklahoma, Oneida Indian Tribe of Wisconsin, and Seminole Nation of Oklahoma are federally recognized Indian tribes that have adopted resolutions condemning the use of Indian names and mascots by sports teams.
    - CamperBob2 12y ago
      No, the pearl-clutchers have pretty much got that covered.
      - kaonashi 12y ago
        Interesting that you characterize basic human decency as an overreaction.
  - protomyth 12y ago
    If they want to be offended maybe they should look at the crappy government health care (search: don't get sick after june), or the federal prosecutor who won't prosecute non-indians who steal on the reservation (even if the rez has video), look at the high unemployment rate after shutting down the defense contractor, or maybe take crimes against children with some seriousness. Being offended by names is way the heck down on the list. Oh, excuse me, all of those are failures of government and we cannot acknowledge that.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      The organized groups that have been involved in protest against disparaging use of Native American slurs or images by sports teams are often also (and often far more) concerned about other failures of government related to treatment of Native Americans (of course, government granted monopolies like registered trademarks are as much actions of government as prosecutorial decisions, so its inconsistent to label only the latter as a failure of government.) I mean, one of the organized groups that started protesting and lobbying against these sports uses the earliest was AIM [1], who, whatever else one might say, certainly cannot fairly be described as not interested in addressing "failures of government" affecting Native Americans. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Movement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Movement
      - protomyth 12y ago
        AIM isn't behind this and I'm not sure AIM is even a going concern these days after everything that the FBI did to them. It would be hard to actually live on a reservation and not know about AIM or its history.
        dragonwriter 12y ago
        > AIM isn't behind this AIM's history of involvement on this issue was among the pieces of evidence cited in the decision supporting the conclusion of fact that the marks at issue were disparaging to a substantial composite of Native Americans at the time registered. > I'm not sure AIM is even a going concern these days after everything that the FBI did to them. There clearly less active now than in the past, e.g., their most recent press release on their website is October 22, 2013 -- concerning the very issue here, interestingly enough.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - jotato 12y ago
    haha! best comment I have read this morning. :)
- greatergoodguy 12y ago
  He didn't tell you what he thinks the word meant. He told you the definition as accepted by many dictionaries. Be careful not to take other peoples word and apply it through your own filter.
  - talmand 12y ago
    Seems that advice could easily go both ways.
  - protomyth 12y ago
    I cannot really put into words my reply other than I am rather put out someone would link a wikipedia article in this way. I really don't have the words anymore.
- jarin 12y ago
  Welp, pack it up guys, two people don't think the trademark is offensive.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Well, Apache is the name of a group of tribes and they might decide they want the website back. They never had the website, and they can't get it back. And being the name of a group isn't the basis for the legal decision here, so that part is irrelevant, too. > And I take a bit of an offense at you telling me or my Dad what you think Redskin means versus what he grew up with and myself growing up on a reservation with the slang "skins" being used often and not in anyway like your dictionary definition probably written by someone who had never set foot on a reservation. The petitioners for cancellation of the trademarks in this case (and the previous one on the same marks) were all Native Americans, enrolled in tribes -- I'm not sure if anyone of them lived on reservations or not, but that's irrelevant to the legal standard anyhow. Further, the evidence presented in the case, and the legal standard, address whether the terms were disparaging to a substantial composite of the referenced group (Native Americans), not to some group irrelevant to that. That doesn't mean that all Native Americans have to view the mark as disparaging for it to be cancelled, but it certainly does mean that the decision is not about whether other people, who aren't Native Americans, think the term is disparaging to Native Americans.
emehrkay 12y ago
I learned over the weekend that "red skin" was used to describe the blood on their skin after they were maimed/killed. edit: http://www.npr.org/2014/06/12/321392824/the-ad-campaign-to-turn-washingtons-team-name-to-the-r-word http://www.npr.org/2014/06/12/321392824/the-ad-campaign-to-t...
- iambateman 12y ago
  Thanks for this, I didn't realize the origin came from bloody skin. If that's the case, it seems like it's time to change the name of the team. The image really is pretty bad.
- JackFr 12y ago
  There are actually no citations to support this, and prior usages make it seem unlikely that is the derivation. That isn't to say it's not offensive -- but I don't think promotion of inflammatory false information is constructive. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/02/AR2005100201139_2.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10...
  - 001sky 12y ago
    I agree with the general tenor of this comment, but the idea that you need a "citation" is misplaced. The common practise of "scalping" was widespread (although not uniformly) and this is documented in various places. The speculation on the origin of what is essentially a slang word is speculative regarless of what side of the debate you want to argue--thus citation is irrelevant. Conversely, there was certainly an origin of the term, and lack of citation doesn't support the term never had an origin (correctly understood or otherwise). A variation of "Red-skin" also appears in the French Language (something there is no data to support Native Americans would have objected to, presumably). Again, this is neither here nor there in that french speaking canadiens would have been in contact with all manner of native americans, including those among which 'scalping' took place (in terms of geographic an time period overlap etc). editL Just a cut-n-paste but might be helpful for some folks to baseline: Redskin...had not emerged first in English or any European language. The English term, in fact, derived from Native American phrases involving the color red in combination with terms for flesh, skin, and man. These phrases were part of a racial vocabulary that Indians often used to designate themselves in opposition to others whom they (like the Europeans) called black, white, and so on. But the language into which those terms for Indians were first translated <was French>. The tribes among whom the proto forms of redskin first appeared lived in the area of the upper Mississippi River called Illinois country. Their extensive contact with French-speaking colonists, before the French pulled out of North America, led to these phrases being translated, in the 1760s, more or less literally as peau-rouge and only then into English as redskin. It bears mentioning that many such translators were mixed-blood Indians. So the original term in the west was "peau-rouge" and this can be see in various french-language citations if needed--including news reports. How and why this was used as slang in English is another question all together, and how or why it ended up as a mascot (like braves, warriors, spartans etc) another question again.
sthu11182 12y ago
The decision is not based on the dictionary definition only, but based on the fact 1/3 of Native Americans have consistently (based on the evidence presented) thought the term to be offensive. Oddly enough, one of the owners of the redskins was a racist. The washington redskins were the last team to integrate and their foundation was specifically forbidden to donate money towards integration causes. However, I think their team name was picked by the original owner, who named them the Boston Braves like the baseball team (now Atlanta Braves) who wanted the team to be like the New York Giants football/baseball (now S.F. Giants), but Boston fans were confused and they changed the name.
- 001sky 12y ago
  (1) Native Americans are not some homogenous group of people. (2) 1/3 is an arbitrary number. The threshold for materiality is only 5% generally speaking. (3) The whole analysis is clearly an ex post facto rationalization of a pre-conceived policy outcome (4) This is a terribly way to make law (5) Cloaking it in "data analysis" is a joke...see 1-4.
  - sthu11182 12y ago
    If the Fed Circuit reverses, it might be on the evidence, but that is a higher standard for reversal.
- Shivetya 12y ago
  We always ask them how they feel about Andrew Jackson, you know the guy on the twenty dollar bill? I am very sure he is more offensive than the football team. I assume we are only after sports teams because its easy to guilt the owners. Please have Cleveland get rid of their mascot
  - retr0grad3 12y ago
    Hyperbole and incorrect facts ref. Cleveland. Cleveland's name is based on reference to the nickname for Joe Louis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Browns http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Browns and the original owner wanted to name it after the coach Paul Brown.

protomyth 12y ago

Well, Apache is the name of a group of tribes and they might decide they want the website back. And I take a bit of an offense at you telling me or my Dad what you think Redskin means versus what he grew up with and myself growing up on a reservation with the slang "skins" being used often and not in anyway like your dictionary definition probably written by someone who had never set foot on a reservation.

iterationx 12y ago
For some reason, liberals like to be offended on behalf of other groups.
- kaonashi 12y ago
  I see you've removed all agency from the 'other groups'. Kudos.
  - protomyth 12y ago
    Maybe, but I've just seen a whole reservation take a vote on a name and be ignored by the NCAA. If you can honestly tell me that this came from the tribes and was voted on by their people, I'll believe it is an actual movement. Otherwise, its just more of the loud offended that don't really give a damn about.
    - thenmar 12y ago
      Um, it did come from a Native American group. Not that your opinion on whether or not something is an "actual movement" matters to anyone but yourself...
      - protomyth 12y ago
        You didn't actually read the document with the named-non-group plaintiffs.
        dragonwriter 12y ago
        The plaintiffs are individual persons because of the standing issues related to disparagement claims), and ones just past the age of legal adulthood specifically to negate the laches defense raised in the immediately previous case on the same issue (the Harjo case, whose procedural history is discussed at length in the decision, and whose trial record was adopted wholesale in this case by mutual consent of the parties, because the substantive issues in this case are a subset of those in the Harjo case. So, while its nice that you read the named plaintiffs, it would probably help if you read the document beyond the names of the parties to get a clear understanding of what is actually going on.
        protomyth 12y ago
        I'm pretty well aware of what's going on, hard not to be where I'm standing. I didn't see the support I would want to see, but I wouldn't expect it given earlier actions.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      You might want to look at this brief (and, in particular, see who the amici offering it are) in support of the plaintiffs' position in the preceding case raising the same issues (the present case is a rehash of that case, organized by the same group, with younger named plaintiffs to avoid the laches defense that ended up being a problem for the earlier case): http://www.ncai.org/attachments/LegalBriefing_TByaxkdqYwYRDohDiQUvSVlcVeXOGzqntVkEXTaEnFailZrpGfN_Amici-NCAI-et-al-10-16-09.pdf http://www.ncai.org/attachments/LegalBriefing_TByaxkdqYwYRDo... Note that the first two listed are: Amicus National Congress of American Indians ("NCAI") was established in 1944 and is the oldest and largest national intertribal organization; it represents over 250 tribes, nations, pueblos, and Alaska Native villages with a combined enrollment of over 1.2 million. Amici Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, Comanche Nation of Oklahoma, Oneida Indian Tribe of Wisconsin, and Seminole Nation of Oklahoma are federally recognized Indian tribes that have adopted resolutions condemning the use of Indian names and mascots by sports teams.
  - CamperBob2 12y ago
    No, the pearl-clutchers have pretty much got that covered.
    - kaonashi 12y ago
      Interesting that you characterize basic human decency as an overreaction.
- protomyth 12y ago
  If they want to be offended maybe they should look at the crappy government health care (search: don't get sick after june), or the federal prosecutor who won't prosecute non-indians who steal on the reservation (even if the rez has video), look at the high unemployment rate after shutting down the defense contractor, or maybe take crimes against children with some seriousness. Being offended by names is way the heck down on the list. Oh, excuse me, all of those are failures of government and we cannot acknowledge that.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    The organized groups that have been involved in protest against disparaging use of Native American slurs or images by sports teams are often also (and often far more) concerned about other failures of government related to treatment of Native Americans (of course, government granted monopolies like registered trademarks are as much actions of government as prosecutorial decisions, so its inconsistent to label only the latter as a failure of government.) I mean, one of the organized groups that started protesting and lobbying against these sports uses the earliest was AIM [1], who, whatever else one might say, certainly cannot fairly be described as not interested in addressing "failures of government" affecting Native Americans. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Movement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Movement
    - protomyth 12y ago
      AIM isn't behind this and I'm not sure AIM is even a going concern these days after everything that the FBI did to them. It would be hard to actually live on a reservation and not know about AIM or its history.
      - dragonwriter 12y ago
        > AIM isn't behind this AIM's history of involvement on this issue was among the pieces of evidence cited in the decision supporting the conclusion of fact that the marks at issue were disparaging to a substantial composite of Native Americans at the time registered. > I'm not sure AIM is even a going concern these days after everything that the FBI did to them. There clearly less active now than in the past, e.g., their most recent press release on their website is October 22, 2013 -- concerning the very issue here, interestingly enough.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- jotato 12y ago
  haha! best comment I have read this morning. :)
greatergoodguy 12y ago
He didn't tell you what he thinks the word meant. He told you the definition as accepted by many dictionaries. Be careful not to take other peoples word and apply it through your own filter.
- talmand 12y ago
  Seems that advice could easily go both ways.
- protomyth 12y ago
  I cannot really put into words my reply other than I am rather put out someone would link a wikipedia article in this way. I really don't have the words anymore.
jarin 12y ago
Welp, pack it up guys, two people don't think the trademark is offensive.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> Well, Apache is the name of a group of tribes and they might decide they want the website back. They never had the website, and they can't get it back. And being the name of a group isn't the basis for the legal decision here, so that part is irrelevant, too. > And I take a bit of an offense at you telling me or my Dad what you think Redskin means versus what he grew up with and myself growing up on a reservation with the slang "skins" being used often and not in anyway like your dictionary definition probably written by someone who had never set foot on a reservation. The petitioners for cancellation of the trademarks in this case (and the previous one on the same marks) were all Native Americans, enrolled in tribes -- I'm not sure if anyone of them lived on reservations or not, but that's irrelevant to the legal standard anyhow. Further, the evidence presented in the case, and the legal standard, address whether the terms were disparaging to a substantial composite of the referenced group (Native Americans), not to some group irrelevant to that. That doesn't mean that all Native Americans have to view the mark as disparaging for it to be cancelled, but it certainly does mean that the decision is not about whether other people, who aren't Native Americans, think the term is disparaging to Native Americans.

emehrkay 12y ago

I learned over the weekend that "red skin" was used to describe the blood on their skin after they were maimed/killed. edit: http://www.npr.org/2014/06/12/321392824/the-ad-campaign-to-turn-washingtons-team-name-to-the-r-word http://www.npr.org/2014/06/12/321392824/the-ad-campaign-to-t...

iambateman 12y ago
Thanks for this, I didn't realize the origin came from bloody skin. If that's the case, it seems like it's time to change the name of the team. The image really is pretty bad.
JackFr 12y ago
There are actually no citations to support this, and prior usages make it seem unlikely that is the derivation. That isn't to say it's not offensive -- but I don't think promotion of inflammatory false information is constructive. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/02/AR2005100201139_2.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10...
- 001sky 12y ago
  I agree with the general tenor of this comment, but the idea that you need a "citation" is misplaced. The common practise of "scalping" was widespread (although not uniformly) and this is documented in various places. The speculation on the origin of what is essentially a slang word is speculative regarless of what side of the debate you want to argue--thus citation is irrelevant. Conversely, there was certainly an origin of the term, and lack of citation doesn't support the term never had an origin (correctly understood or otherwise). A variation of "Red-skin" also appears in the French Language (something there is no data to support Native Americans would have objected to, presumably). Again, this is neither here nor there in that french speaking canadiens would have been in contact with all manner of native americans, including those among which 'scalping' took place (in terms of geographic an time period overlap etc). editL Just a cut-n-paste but might be helpful for some folks to baseline: Redskin...had not emerged first in English or any European language. The English term, in fact, derived from Native American phrases involving the color red in combination with terms for flesh, skin, and man. These phrases were part of a racial vocabulary that Indians often used to designate themselves in opposition to others whom they (like the Europeans) called black, white, and so on. But the language into which those terms for Indians were first translated <was French>. The tribes among whom the proto forms of redskin first appeared lived in the area of the upper Mississippi River called Illinois country. Their extensive contact with French-speaking colonists, before the French pulled out of North America, led to these phrases being translated, in the 1760s, more or less literally as peau-rouge and only then into English as redskin. It bears mentioning that many such translators were mixed-blood Indians. So the original term in the west was "peau-rouge" and this can be see in various french-language citations if needed--including news reports. How and why this was used as slang in English is another question all together, and how or why it ended up as a mascot (like braves, warriors, spartans etc) another question again.

sthu11182 12y ago

The decision is not based on the dictionary definition only, but based on the fact 1/3 of Native Americans have consistently (based on the evidence presented) thought the term to be offensive. Oddly enough, one of the owners of the redskins was a racist. The washington redskins were the last team to integrate and their foundation was specifically forbidden to donate money towards integration causes. However, I think their team name was picked by the original owner, who named them the Boston Braves like the baseball team (now Atlanta Braves) who wanted the team to be like the New York Giants football/baseball (now S.F. Giants), but Boston fans were confused and they changed the name.

001sky 12y ago
(1) Native Americans are not some homogenous group of people. (2) 1/3 is an arbitrary number. The threshold for materiality is only 5% generally speaking. (3) The whole analysis is clearly an ex post facto rationalization of a pre-conceived policy outcome (4) This is a terribly way to make law (5) Cloaking it in "data analysis" is a joke...see 1-4.
- sthu11182 12y ago
  If the Fed Circuit reverses, it might be on the evidence, but that is a higher standard for reversal.
Shivetya 12y ago
We always ask them how they feel about Andrew Jackson, you know the guy on the twenty dollar bill? I am very sure he is more offensive than the football team. I assume we are only after sports teams because its easy to guilt the owners. Please have Cleveland get rid of their mascot
- retr0grad3 12y ago
  Hyperbole and incorrect facts ref. Cleveland. Cleveland's name is based on reference to the nickname for Joe Louis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Browns http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Browns and the original owner wanted to name it after the coach Paul Brown.