Since terms like Chinaman, Jap, negro, etc. were once acceptable terms and now are considered offensive, I’m not sure if you really have a point here.
If you look in the dictionary, you will certainly find a usage note that “redskin” is usually offensive, or something like that.
Do you have a citation that “mispronouncing” Celtics is offensive? The OED appears to list both pronunciations as acceptable. Link. Am I misunderstanding something, such as the dictionary being yet another source of Anglo-Celtic oppression?
And as far as Viking goes, I’ve never heard that term used offensively, and my immediate family is chock-full of Scandinavians. Viking is similar to the term pirate, in that not all white people are marauders, so it isn’t really a comment on race. Redskin clearly is a comment on race, not warrior status or the like.
In other words, I’m still awaiting evidence of the double standard that you see.
Actually, if you want to get down to it, I actually find the term Native American at least as offensive as anything related to Red. AFAICT, Red most likely has similar origins to black or white, so it should be no more and no less offensive than using those terms. Native American, on the other hand, is an artificial term that clumps in a bunch of groups that really have very little to do with eachother (did you know it originally included Inuits and Samoans?. Why is European ancestory thought of as German or French, but we clump Indians together as “Native Americans” and Blacks together as “African Americans”?
So no, I’m not going to call someone Red, but not because it’s offensive, but because it’s not the prefered term. I prefer Indian or American Indian, and so do the plurality of others (cite). If, after meeting them, they want to be called Native Americans or Red or whatever else, that’s their choice.
There’s no evidence that it was originally derogatory and was most likely a pretty neutral term so the fact that a few people may find it offensive now does not say anything about whether or not it was originally offensive.
And sure, a term like negro is offensive now but it wasn’t when, say, the UNCF was founded. I don’t see anyone up in arms about how that name should be changed. I can’t find any figures now, but I imagine it’s considerably higher than the 9% who find Redskins offensive.
Or you missed the point. The fact that it was pronounced incorrectly long enough that it is now considered acceptable doesn’t take away from the fact that pronouncing it that way displays ignorance about the culture. Hey, also according to OED I can pronounce the word “forte” (strong point) as two syllables, even though that only arose through conflating it with “forte” (loud).
Like I said, if you don’t think mispronouncing something like that is offensive to some people, ask a few Canadians if they find having their country refered to as Canadia offensive.
Personally, I don’t really find it offensive as much as I think it makes the person saying it look like an idiot.
Except Viking doesn’t refer to all white people, it refers to specific group of people from Scandanavia. But, interestingly enough, there’s a large segment of that culture that takes pride in that heritage. Their ancestors being feared warriors is something that a lot of people who pride their heritage are happy to point out.
And sure, Redskin denotes the color of the skin, but in the light of the other groups that are used as mascots (Vikings, Spartans, Braves, Warriors, etc.) it is clearly meant to recall the that aspect. At worst, it’s saying that people with red skin are warriors. I fail to see how that’s offensive at all.
I think you might get a boot up your arse in Glasgow for suggesting that it is demeaning to the culture.
As for the number of people offended by the name - I’d like to see the question asked by the poll. A degree of offense fatigue probably sets in, and people don’t want to be seen as raising a stink. My ex-girlfriend (part Cherokee) came to visit, and was asked in a bar if she found the name offensive. When she said she did, the very person who asked her spent about 15 minutes spewing idiotic, semi-abusive drivel at her. She never bothered to say it was offensive down here after that.
And, well, I am not offended if called a Brit. I call myself a Brit some of the time. It can get annoying though, especially when strangers do it; and a professional sports team named the Brits would piss me off more, because of the patronising aspect involved.
If nobody finds the word “negro” in United Negro College Fund offensive, then that’s that. Clearly there are some people who find “redskin” offensive as applied to the team name. So what is your point? That if someone doesn’t like the team name, they should sue the UNCF too?
So someone, long ago, was offended by the pronunciation of Celtic, but now it is accepted. That sounds quite the opposite of the case of the term redskin.
For the life of me, I can’t figure out what you are arguing. That if someone long ago was offended by something, but now they aren’t, that there is now a double standard for people who used to NOT be offended by something, but now they are?
Yes. A specific group of marauders. Just like the term “Spartans” isn’t used as a code for the racial composition of Greeks, just like “Cowboy” isn’t used to mean all white Americans, just like “the 49ers” isn’t used as a slang for everyone in California, and just like “Rams” isn’t used to describe all sheep. Vikings is a description of a certain kind of bandit, if you use the term broadly, not as a comment on a race.
Find me a dictionary definition of redskin that has anything to do with what you’re talking about. It’s a term about members of a certain race, period. IMHO, the offensiveness is that it uses a racial term to imply a certain characteristic to members of that race.
For example, if Chase Manhattan decided to change their name to the Wall Street Shylocks, and made a logo of a hook-nosed silhouette, it would clearly be a tribute to the thrifty and wise fiscal ways of the Jews, not a racial insult at all in your book, eh?
I think you mean to say that the question of whether something is offensive is a question of fact. The question of how many people are offended doesn’t appear to the part of the calculation, correct? As in, the popularity of a particular opinion (e.g., the public’s views on a particular term, whether or not the glove fit, whether separate is equal, etc) isn’t a reliable reflection of the true nature of the facts.
I’m an alum of the University of Illinois, and I find it weird that colleges who use Indian tribes for their team names or Indian images as mascots are given such a hard time about it (to the point where our Chief Illiniwek has been permanently retired), while an NFL team who uses a clear perjorative doesn’t seem to.
I have never been embarrassed by the symbolic portrayal of an Indian at my University, but I would be embarrassed to be a Redskins fan.
But it’s not, is it? When was the last time you ever heard someone–in the news or any other cultural context–refer to any American Indian as “redskinned”? It’s not a commonly accepted alternative to AI or NA. Outside of a western, you’re never going to hear someone referred to this way without it being a situation with racially-loaded subtext. To assert that it’s somehow just another benign term that’s merely “less preferred” is ridiculous.
I mean that, so far as I can tell, there’s no particular legal standard for percentages… i.e., only 5% of the population is offended, therefore it’s not offensive within the meaning of trademark law.
So you say. So people might say who’ve never used the word outside of football. I can’t say for sure, but it wouldn’t surprise me if the term was never used in the past to refer to Indians outside of Hollywood movies of the past.
How about the Washington Savages.
Has anyone here used the word Redskins pejoratively or heard anyone use it in such a manner ?
Ever play Indians and Cowboys ? Cowboys are the white ones and when the term is used pejoratively it is to imply that cowboys are rednecks.
The word Negro is NOT considered offensive. It never was and it is not now.
It is now considered outdated or old fashioned, just as colored is, but there is no pejorative connotation associated with the word and there is nor insult, however mild, that it conjures up. It marks the speaker as a bit out of touch with current mores, but it says nothing about ther person or persons so identified.
tomndebb, I presume you’ll be contacting the editors of these dictionaries forthwith and correcting them with a Straight Dope Fact Moment. Let me know how that goes.
I probably will. I have never seen the word used in an offensive manner if not buried in a deliberately insulting statement that would be insulting regardless of the word chosen and I would be more than curious to see an actual citation to offensive usage.
I have seen it used offensively in particular contexts, just as I have seen black or Irish or Italian used in an offensive manner, but that would tend to be based on employing it ironically or in a deliberately demeaning way, (e.g., Obama the magic Negro), which would have nothing to do with the simple use of the word. The idea that United Negro College Fund could be offensive is simply the sort of look how anti-PC I can be statement that is not based on any real American usage of the word.
I’m a Cleveland Indians fan, and they should change their name as well. Even though they are alleged to have been named in honor of Louis Sockalexis (I think that’s a legend), and even though “Indians” is a hell of a lot more benign than “Redskins.”
If an individual used the term “redskin” around me, I’d think them fools at best. Why wouldn’t I hold a business to the same standard?
In terms of an example, “The office I work in employs three Negroes” would probably fit as an offensive use of the term in an otherwise innocuous context. In terms of authoritative, I have cited three widely respected dictionaries that establish that the word is sometimes offensive.
If you wish to show that the term isn’t offensive, by all means provide your own cites from authoritative sources.
Apart from the dictionary rebuttal above, I think there’s something to be said about wilfully being out of touch.
When I was single, I had a girlfriend that caused my great-aunt to tell me, “I think it’s just fine that you’re dating a Negro girl. Never let anyone tell you differently.” That usage fits precisely with what you’re saying: she was in her late eighties at the time (my great-aunt, not my girlfriend ), and honestly meant no disrespect at all.
But if a thirty-year-old said the same thing, my default reaction would have been different; I would have expected a thirty-year-old to understand that the term simply wasn’t in use now, and judged the use of it to be deliberate and insensitive.
), and honestly meant no disrespect at all.