Jump to content

"I AM A RED-SKIN", by Ives Goddard, Senior Linguist, Smithsonian Institution


Elephant Tipper

Recommended Posts

Vastly different understanding of the use of "Redskin" by THE noted linguist on this issue when compared with statements made by the Obama administration and media. The term "red skin" meant a person with red skin, a term originating with the Indian tribes. Indians equally applied the terms "black skin" for a black-skinned person, "brown skin" for a brown-skinned person, and "white skin" for a white-skinned person with no disparagement implied, only racial differentiation based on the skin color of the individual.

Ives Goddard (curator and senior linguist, Dept. of Anthropology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution) : http://anthropology.si.edu/goddard/

"I am a Red-Skin", origins and use of the term by Indian tribes of themselves and contemporaries in early America: http://anthropology.si.edu/goddard/redskin.pdf

A summary written by Penn State author Bill Poser: http://itre.cis.upen...ves/002961.html

EXCERPT of Penn State article: "So, there you have it. On the one hand an utterly unsubstantiated and implausible theory advocated by Suzan Harjo (SH is an Indian activist who brought the original suit to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in 1992), who exhibits no knowledge of the history of English usage of redskin, of American Indian languages, or of the early history of relations between Indians and Europeans. On the other hand a detailed account with numerous explicit citations to original documents by Ives Goddard, who has dedicated his entire life to the study of American Indian languages and the documentation thereof. It is always possible that some new evidence will be brought to bear, but for the present I don't think that there can be any ambiguity as to which is the more credible account."

Link to comment
Share on other sites





Indians equally applied the terms "black skin" for a black-skinned person, "brown skin" for a brown-skinned person, and "white skin" for a white-skinned person with no disparagement implied, only racial differentiation based on the skin color of the individual.

This, IMO, is the difference. Language evolves, including language of disparagement.

Our word "negro" (and its even more offensive variation, the forbidden "N-word") comes from the Latin word for "black", and today referring to African-Americans as "black" is not as offensive as calling them "negro" or its even uglier cousin. In the 1950's & earlier, however, "negro" was considered more politically correct than "colored" or n***er". I was taught never to use the word ni**er, but to be respectful by saying "colored" or 'negro". (Born in 1954, incidentally.) And of course, terms like "colored" or the more colloquial "Darkies" were references to skin color originally.

"Red skinned" may not have been offense to Native Americans centuries ago. But today, it's easy to see why many people might consider calling a team the "Redskins" to be as offensive as a team named for Africans called the "Darkies".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indians equally applied the terms "black skin" for a black-skinned person, "brown skin" for a brown-skinned person, and "white skin" for a white-skinned person with no disparagement implied, only racial differentiation based on the skin color of the individual.

This, IMO, is the difference. Language evolves, including language of disparagement.

Our word "negro" (and its even more offensive variation, the forbidden "N-word") comes from the Latin word for "black", and today referring to African-Americans as "black" is not as offensive as calling them "negro" or its even uglier cousin. In the 1950's & earlier, however, "negro" was considered more politically correct than "colored" or n***er". I was taught never to use the word ni**er, but to be respectful by saying "colored" or 'negro". (Born in 1954, incidentally.) And of course, terms like "colored" or the more colloquial "Darkies" were references to skin color originally.

"Red skinned" may not have been offense to Native Americans centuries ago. But today, it's easy to see why many people might consider calling a team the "Redskins" to be as offensive as a team named for Africans called the "Darkies".

You either didn't read the attached articles or only glanced at them because you are making the very same argument as Suzan Harjo which the US District Court struck down. To quote the Court: "that there was an absence of evidence that the term redskin is disparaging in the particular context of the name of the sports team". Just as Harjo's argument yours is also based on speculation. She never produced evidence to support her claim, only assertions without substance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

liberals-Nature's idiots.......WAR taking place. American's beheaded. ALL the other issues that need urgent attention(most of the problems CREATED by the current WH occupant and his cronies)...and they are more worried about made up racial issues. What a huge lib MESS. :-\

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indians equally applied the terms "black skin" for a black-skinned person, "brown skin" for a brown-skinned person, and "white skin" for a white-skinned person with no disparagement implied, only racial differentiation based on the skin color of the individual.

This, IMO, is the difference. Language evolves, including language of disparagement.

Our word "negro" (and its even more offensive variation, the forbidden "N-word") comes from the Latin word for "black", and today referring to African-Americans as "black" is not as offensive as calling them "negro" or its even uglier cousin. In the 1950's & earlier, however, "negro" was considered more politically correct than "colored" or n***er". I was taught never to use the word ni**er, but to be respectful by saying "colored" or 'negro". (Born in 1954, incidentally.) And of course, terms like "colored" or the more colloquial "Darkies" were references to skin color originally.

"Red skinned" may not have been offense to Native Americans centuries ago. But today, it's easy to see why many people might consider calling a team the "Redskins" to be as offensive as a team named for Africans called the "Darkies".

You either didn't read the attached articles or only glanced at them because you are making the very same argument as Suzan Harjo which the US District Court struck down. To quote the Court: "that there was an absence of evidence that the term redskin is disparaging in the particular context of the name of the sports team". Just as Harjo's argument yours is also based on speculation. She never produced evidence to support her claim, only assertions without substance.

You're correct--I only glanced at the linked articles. My comments were just my thoughts, following up Tipper's that at one time the term "red skin" was not offensive to Native Americans, and was in fact used by them. If my words bordered on plagiarism of the article, I apologize.

I actually agree with the district court's ruling in this case. The is no legal basis for forcing a change that I can think of. I don't think I would have bothered to take it to court.. And derogatory or not, freedom of speech allows it unless it's being used to incite violence, just like the "N-word".

Of course, while the name be legal as far as the Constitution, people may still take offense. "Freedom from being offended" is not one of the rights protected by the Constitution. The football team might even lose some revenue to "political correctness" if they decide to keep the name, but that remains the choice of the team or its owners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A stupid argument IMO. Who cares? And for the ones that do...why do they care? The term "offensive" or "offended" is so over blown these days. Yes...I'm white, Caucasian...my skin is no more "white" than it is black, but I don't cry offended and most rational people dont.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

liberals-Nature's idiots.......WAR taking place. American's beheaded. ALL the other issues that need urgent attention(most of the problems CREATED by the current WH occupant and his cronies)...and they are more worried about made up racial issues. What a huge lib MESS. :-\

:laugh: Take it up with Elephant Tipper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

liberals-Nature's idiots.......WAR taking place. American's beheaded. ALL the other issues that need urgent attention(most of the problems CREATED by the current WH occupant and his cronies)...and they are more worried about made up racial issues. What a huge lib MESS. :-\

:laugh: Take it up with Elephant Tipper.

Guess the power got cut off to your cave homer. WarTim and I are in complete agreement. This is a manufactured issue by the WH when other pressing matters deserve Obama's attention rather than being concerned with a non-issue like the "Redskin" name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

liberals-Nature's idiots.......WAR taking place. American's beheaded. ALL the other issues that need urgent attention(most of the problems CREATED by the current WH occupant and his cronies)...and they are more worried about made up racial issues. What a huge lib MESS. :-\

:laugh: Take it up with Elephant Tipper.

Guess the power got cut off to your cave homer. WarTim and I are in complete agreement. This is a manufactured issue by the WH when other pressing matters deserve Obama's attention rather than being concerned with a non-issue like the "Redskin" name.

Apparently, my point went right over your head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has actually been a issue for quite some time. Just like most things in this country that involve Native Americans it is pushed to the back, overlooked, and not determined important. It is partly the fault of Native Americans, cause they unfortunately have pretty much just accepted it and don't put in the time, effort, and money into fighting discrimination that some other groups do. Some tribes take more offense to the term than others also.

I myself have a significant Comanche ancestry, and then living in Texas and Oklahoma really got to explore some of that. Especially when we lived near Ft. Sill, which is where Quanah Parker and the Comanche finally surrendered (after being told if they continued to fight that every man, woman, and child would be killed) and their reservations are located. Parker is actually buried at Ft. Sill, and got to see his home in Cache. I have been out to the reservations also. Geronimo's (and Apache) jail is still there actually, some really interesting history on base. Especially considering it is a location that you can get both sides of the story.

If there was ever a greater evidence of the phrase "to the victors goes the history books" the United States dealings with the Native Americans is a perfect example. Mean we still glorify Custer as a hero, when he really was no better than Hitler. Then alot of that history between the Comanche and the US is exactly the type of stuff some are trying to write out of the history books.

So through personal experience I can honestly say it is not a made up issue, and that a random public poll of 1004 American adults is not representative of the views on the issues of at least certain tribes. The Comanche are part of the group that is involved in this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a manufactured "issue" to deflect from the absolute train wreck that is the obama WH. No doubt about it.

BTW......I have Cherokee ancestors on both sides of my family............

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has been going on years before Obama was in the WH, its been going on since the 1970's.

You do know the Cherokee support the lawsuit.

But she notes that the many organizations supporting her lawsuit include the Cherokee, Comanche, Oneida and Seminole tribes, as well as the National Congress of American Indians, the largest intertribal organization, which represents more than 250 groups with a combined enrollment of 1.2 million.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/just-how-many-indians-think-redskins-slur

So what did your ancestors have to say about things, or what were the attitudes and thoughts of those that still live on reservations and participate in tribal meetings?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has been going on years before Obama was in the WH, its been going on since the 1970's.

You do know the Cherokee support the lawsuit.

But she notes that the many organizations supporting her lawsuit include the Cherokee, Comanche, Oneida and Seminole tribes, as well as the National Congress of American Indians, the largest intertribal organization, which represents more than 250 groups with a combined enrollment of 1.2 million.

http://bigstory.ap.o...k-redskins-slur

So what did your ancestors have to say about things, or what were the attitudes and thoughts of those that still live on reservations and participate in tribal meetings?

I may be mistaken but, I think the point here is there are MUCH MORE IMPORTANT issues pressing than what to call a professional football team and this is simply a distraction from those more pressing issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has been going on years before Obama was in the WH, its been going on since the 1970's.

You do know the Cherokee support the lawsuit.

But she notes that the many organizations supporting her lawsuit include the Cherokee, Comanche, Oneida and Seminole tribes, as well as the National Congress of American Indians, the largest intertribal organization, which represents more than 250 groups with a combined enrollment of 1.2 million.

http://bigstory.ap.o...k-redskins-slur

So what did your ancestors have to say about things, or what were the attitudes and thoughts of those that still live on reservations and participate in tribal meetings?

OK... the Cherokee are offended..anyone else? A study by University of Pennsylvania says ONLY 9% are offended by the "Redskins" moniker. is that enough to pass a law, just to appease 9% of the Native American population?

http://www.shortnews...rt.cfm?id=43211

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has been going on years before Obama was in the WH, its been going on since the 1970's.

You do know the Cherokee support the lawsuit.

But she notes that the many organizations supporting her lawsuit include the Cherokee, Comanche, Oneida and Seminole tribes, as well as the National Congress of American Indians, the largest intertribal organization, which represents more than 250 groups with a combined enrollment of 1.2 million.

http://bigstory.ap.o...k-redskins-slur

So what did your ancestors have to say about things, or what were the attitudes and thoughts of those that still live on reservations and participate in tribal meetings?

OK... the Cherokee are offended..anyone else? A study by University of Pennsylvania says ONLY 9% are offended by the "Redskins" moniker. is that enough to pass a law, just to appease 9% of the Native American population?

http://www.shortnews...rt.cfm?id=43211

The Comanche.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has been going on years before Obama was in the WH, its been going on since the 1970's.

You do know the Cherokee support the lawsuit.

But she notes that the many organizations supporting her lawsuit include the Cherokee, Comanche, Oneida and Seminole tribes, as well as the National Congress of American Indians, the largest intertribal organization, which represents more than 250 groups with a combined enrollment of 1.2 million.

http://bigstory.ap.o...k-redskins-slur

So what did your ancestors have to say about things, or what were the attitudes and thoughts of those that still live on reservations and participate in tribal meetings?

OK... the Cherokee are offended..anyone else? A study by University of Pennsylvania says ONLY 9% are offended by the "Redskins" moniker. is that enough to pass a law, just to appease 9% of the Native American population?

http://www.shortnews...rt.cfm?id=43211

The Comanche.

So the Cherokee and the Comanche = 9%?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has been going on years before Obama was in the WH, its been going on since the 1970's.

You do know the Cherokee support the lawsuit.

But she notes that the many organizations supporting her lawsuit include the Cherokee, Comanche, Oneida and Seminole tribes, as well as the National Congress of American Indians, the largest intertribal organization, which represents more than 250 groups with a combined enrollment of 1.2 million.

http://bigstory.ap.o...k-redskins-slur

So what did your ancestors have to say about things, or what were the attitudes and thoughts of those that still live on reservations and participate in tribal meetings?

OK... the Cherokee are offended..anyone else? A study by University of Pennsylvania says ONLY 9% are offended by the "Redskins" moniker. is that enough to pass a law, just to appease 9% of the Native American population?

http://www.shortnews...rt.cfm?id=43211

The study at Penn was also conducted by phone, included over 65,000 random calls, that asked individuals to identify what they were and only 768 said they were Native American. Thus relying on a random phone survey without any way to verify the true classification of the participants. Then even in this case only one opinion was allowed per household.

http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/downloads/political_communication/naes/2004_03_redskins_09-24_pr.pdf

I will take my actual personnel interactions and discussions with verified tribe members over this random phone survey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has been going on years before Obama was in the WH, its been going on since the 1970's.

You do know the Cherokee support the lawsuit.

But she notes that the many organizations supporting her lawsuit include the Cherokee, Comanche, Oneida and Seminole tribes, as well as the National Congress of American Indians, the largest intertribal organization, which represents more than 250 groups with a combined enrollment of 1.2 million.

http://bigstory.ap.o...k-redskins-slur

So what did your ancestors have to say about things, or what were the attitudes and thoughts of those that still live on reservations and participate in tribal meetings?

OK... the Cherokee are offended..anyone else? A study by University of Pennsylvania says ONLY 9% are offended by the "Redskins" moniker. is that enough to pass a law, just to appease 9% of the Native American population?

http://www.shortnews...rt.cfm?id=43211

The study at Penn was also conducted by phone, included over 65,000 random calls, that asked individuals to identify what they were and only 768 said they were Native American. Thus relying on a random phone survey without any way to verify the true classification of the participants. Then even in this case only one opinion was allowed per household.

http://www.annenberg...ns_09-24_pr.pdf

I will take my actual personnel interactions and discussions with verified tribe members over this random phone survey.

OK. Its called PC run amok. In the grand scheme of things it makes little to no difference and besides Dan Snider DGAS, He's not changing it and I hope he stands firm. Its HIS damn team!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has been going on years before Obama was in the WH, its been going on since the 1970's.

You do know the Cherokee support the lawsuit.

But she notes that the many organizations supporting her lawsuit include the Cherokee, Comanche, Oneida and Seminole tribes, as well as the National Congress of American Indians, the largest intertribal organization, which represents more than 250 groups with a combined enrollment of 1.2 million.

http://bigstory.ap.o...k-redskins-slur

So what did your ancestors have to say about things, or what were the attitudes and thoughts of those that still live on reservations and participate in tribal meetings?

OK... the Cherokee are offended..anyone else? A study by University of Pennsylvania says ONLY 9% are offended by the "Redskins" moniker. is that enough to pass a law, just to appease 9% of the Native American population?

http://www.shortnews...rt.cfm?id=43211

The Comanche.

So the Cherokee and the Comanche = 9%?

768 unverified respondents = all Native Americans?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has been going on years before Obama was in the WH, its been going on since the 1970's.

You do know the Cherokee support the lawsuit.

But she notes that the many organizations supporting her lawsuit include the Cherokee, Comanche, Oneida and Seminole tribes, as well as the National Congress of American Indians, the largest intertribal organization, which represents more than 250 groups with a combined enrollment of 1.2 million.

http://bigstory.ap.o...k-redskins-slur

So what did your ancestors have to say about things, or what were the attitudes and thoughts of those that still live on reservations and participate in tribal meetings?

OK... the Cherokee are offended..anyone else? A study by University of Pennsylvania says ONLY 9% are offended by the "Redskins" moniker. is that enough to pass a law, just to appease 9% of the Native American population?

http://www.shortnews...rt.cfm?id=43211

The study at Penn was also conducted by phone, included over 65,000 random calls, that asked individuals to identify what they were and only 768 said they were Native American. Thus relying on a random phone survey without any way to verify the true classification of the participants. Then even in this case only one opinion was allowed per household.

http://www.annenberg...ns_09-24_pr.pdf

I will take my actual personnel interactions and discussions with verified tribe members over this random phone survey.

OK. Its called PC run amok. In the grand scheme of things it makes little to no difference and besides Dan Snider DGAS, He's not changing it and I hope he stands firm. Its HIS damn team!

And as a lifelong Cowboys fan I can give him and his team all the s*** I want! as well as my right to agree with the Comanche.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has been going on years before Obama was in the WH, its been going on since the 1970's.

You do know the Cherokee support the lawsuit.

But she notes that the many organizations supporting her lawsuit include the Cherokee, Comanche, Oneida and Seminole tribes, as well as the National Congress of American Indians, the largest intertribal organization, which represents more than 250 groups with a combined enrollment of 1.2 million.

http://bigstory.ap.o...k-redskins-slur

So what did your ancestors have to say about things, or what were the attitudes and thoughts of those that still live on reservations and participate in tribal meetings?

I may be mistaken but, I think the point here is there are MUCH MORE IMPORTANT issues pressing than what to call a professional football team and this is simply a distraction from those more pressing issues.

And my point is that when it comes to Native American issues in this country there are always as you said much more important issues. IF you say hey things in the Middle East are more pressing... I would agree. When you say this is all just made up liberal bs to hide issues...this I don't agree with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has been going on years before Obama was in the WH, its been going on since the 1970's.

You do know the Cherokee support the lawsuit.

But she notes that the many organizations supporting her lawsuit include the Cherokee, Comanche, Oneida and Seminole tribes, as well as the National Congress of American Indians, the largest intertribal organization, which represents more than 250 groups with a combined enrollment of 1.2 million.

http://bigstory.ap.o...k-redskins-slur

So what did your ancestors have to say about things, or what were the attitudes and thoughts of those that still live on reservations and participate in tribal meetings?

I may be mistaken but, I think the point here is there are MUCH MORE IMPORTANT issues pressing than what to call a professional football team and this is simply a distraction from those more pressing issues.

And my point is that when it comes to Native American issues in this country there are always as you said much more important issues. IF you say hey things in the Middle East are more pressing... I would agree. When you say this is all just made up liberal bs to hide issues...this I don't agree with.

This has been going on years before Obama was in the WH, its been going on since the 1970's.

You do know the Cherokee support the lawsuit.

But she notes that the many organizations supporting her lawsuit include the Cherokee, Comanche, Oneida and Seminole tribes, as well as the National Congress of American Indians, the largest intertribal organization, which represents more than 250 groups with a combined enrollment of 1.2 million.

http://bigstory.ap.o...k-redskins-slur

So what did your ancestors have to say about things, or what were the attitudes and thoughts of those that still live on reservations and participate in tribal meetings?

I may be mistaken but, I think the point here is there are MUCH MORE IMPORTANT issues pressing than what to call a professional football team and this is simply a distraction from those more pressing issues.

And my point is that when it comes to Native American issues in this country there are always as you said much more important issues. IF you say hey things in the Middle East are more pressing... I would agree. When you say this is all just made up liberal bs to hide issues...this I don't agree with.

Weird position to take just to "give the Redskins s***" because you're a Dallas fan. Look, suit yourself. Get as emotionally outraged and irrationally indignant til your heart is content if that is achievable, however, in this case I suspect it isn't. I have a great idea and its what I do when something offends me.....IGNORE IT. You'll be unbelievably surprised how little an affect the name of a professional football franchise will have on you.

Im sticking with my original position which is, this hardly merits the attention it is receiving when our President is assuring people Ebola is highly unlikely to come here and its here. That same President is half assed prosecuting anti-terrorism tactics that aren't working against an enemy he wont even correctly identify. So lets all get offended and righteously indignant over a football team's name thats been that way since 1932. :hellyeah:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...