My MOS has been declared politically incorrect

You just watch, as soon as the cultural-marxist are done with getting the Washington Redskins changing their name they are going to go after the U.S. Army because they name all of their helicopters after American Indian tribes.

 

I completely forgot about that, you can address an Army warrant officer as mister.

Naval officers below the rank of Lt. Cmdr. (O-4) can be addressed as mister. There was always a couple of naval officers in our NGF platoon. I always addressed them by their rank. Had one Lt. Cmdr. and always addressed him a commander even though he wasn't a commander but a lieutenant commander. But he liked being addressed as commander. Like Lt. Col's. always liked being addressed as colonel. And we had a Navy lieutenant (O-3) and I always and all of the other Marines addressed him as lieutenant, But I noticed our corpsman and the seabees and the sailors from the PBR base that was close by always addressed the lieutenant as mister.

 

"Redskins" is not a tribe, it's a slur. The original owner of the Redskins was one of the last hold-outs keeping blacks out of the NFL. He's on record as a racist. Naming aircraft after Indian tribes was meant to honor them, not slur them.

I'm not a fan of the US govt. telling a company or franchise how to run their business, but one thing's for sure, the Redskins name does not honor the indigenous peoples of America. It's for sure a slur.

Read up on this guy ====> George Preston Marshall, the founder of the Redskins. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Preston_Marshall ...


He's nothing to be proud of, I have no idea why fans of this football team are beholden to the namesake or the original owner. The guy is despicable.

 

Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence ? What if the Redskins changed their name to the Savages ?

 

I addressed that "fact" directly in the post you quoted! Good Lord!

Okay. Point is, they can also be addressed as "Miss" or "Ms". There is nothing magical about "Mister" that makes it a better term.

 

Actually, I am one who finds the attempted sterilization of any Indian references to be offensive. The names were not taken as a slur, like any mascot it was to hold the honor and bravery of the group.

But here, how about some real history?

The original name was the Boston Braves, in 1932. Then in 1933 the name was changed to the Redskins in honor of their new coach. And interestingly enough, George Marshall hired as their head coach William "Lone Star" Dietz, who had claimed for years he was Sioux.

Braves, Redskins, Indians, Chiefs, Fighting Irish, organizations that pick mascots for teams do not do it out of ridicule. Otherwise, where are the teams called "pickaninnies", the "Drunken Irish", the "Wetbacks"? No team picks a name out of ridicule, because that is their image.

Myself, being of Indian descent, I find the sterilizing of all references of my heritage from the American culture to be offensive.

In fact, even more offensive I find the fact that Indian schools, on reservations, have been forced to change their mascots. So now they can not even use their own images and heritage in their own teams.

 

That's actually myth, not history:
http://thinkprogress.org/sports/201...-i-didnt-name-team-to-honor-native-americans/

Apologies for the TP link, but they show the actual 1933 article. You could also try the original WashPo article, but it's behind a paywall for me:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...-were-named-to-honor-indian-coach/2014/05/28/

So the name change had nothing to do with honoring Dietz.

Never mind that Dietz wasn't Indian. He actually went to some length to *pose* as an Indian, but it seems abundantly clear that he wasn't. Indeed, he was convicted of falsely claiming to be an Indian when registering for the draft.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Henry_Dietz

So I'm not sure "chose an offensive name to 'honor' a man pretending to be an Indian" is a great backstory, even if it were true, which it isn't.

Agreed, but given this country's history with Indians, it's a sensitive subject -- too easy to fall back on stereotypes, too easy to be seen as yet another example of cultural domination.

I mean, there's a reason you don't see a team called the "Fighting Negros". Even though "negro" was a (relatively) benign term when it first came into usage.

I agree that forcing actual Indian organizations to change their mascots is ridiculous (unless it were one tribe/band slurring another). I also agree that being oversensitive to such things can cause drama and controversy where it's not necessary. You have to squint pretty hard to find "Chiefs" or "Indians" offensive.

But "Redskins" is a different matter, IMO.

"Sioux" is another one. Viewed benignly for the most part by whites, but the term doesn't have a benign origin. It was a term the Chippewa used to refer to the Dakota/Lakota people. It basically means "snake" (or, if you follow the alternative Algonquin etymology, "barbarian").

Which is why the tribes prefer the terms Dakota and Lakota, and why the University of North Dakota had to drop its "Fighting Sioux" mascot.

 

Notice I did say "claimed", not that he was an Indian.

That actually can be seen by looking back at the history of those 2 races in American culture and history.

Indians had long been praised and condemned in our history. The saviors of the Pilgrims, and then the barbarians who slaughter out settlers. Sophisticated with their own cultures in the East (which ironically where most of the Indian Mascots are found), like the Algonquin Nation. Then changing rapidly as you move further and further West, with the Apache, Blackfoot, then other tribes. Mostly only raising again once you reach the Pacific North-West.

So yes, many have had very positive relations for as long there have been Europeans on the Continent. After all, think of the reactions most would get from simply hearing the name of the following tribes:

Apache
Mohawk
Souix
Iroquoi

4 very different tribes, and with 4 very different "cultural memories" in the country. A "Mohawk Brave" would be described most likely in words like "Distinguished", "Cultured", "Honorable". But an "Apache Brave" would be more likely be described as "Barbarian", "Ruthless", and "Bandit".

So which group do you think the team founded in Boston as the "Braves" would have been trying to infer?

The other "minority races" in the country at that time were mostly connected with negative stereotypes. And I bet that even if somebody wanted to invoke even the industry of the Chinese workers who came here to improve their lives would see it as negative no matter what. Imagine the uproar if somebody called a team "The Freemen".

Yea, I am aware of the source of the name. But the individual I discussed identified himself as "Sioux", not "Lakota". And a great many tribal groups have had the names given to them by enemies remain in the popular culture. After all, most groups names for themselves normally translate as "People" or "Human", and the names for outsiders is generally "Barbarian".

And often times the outsider word sticks more. Such as with the Deutsche, which we know as an alternate name of the Rhine river.

 

So it seems we mostly agree on this. You understand the sticky nature of the European majority's relationship with what are essentially conquered peoples.

Given the ignorance about Indian history and culture that abounds among most white Americans, I highly doubt that the team owners of the time were doing much mental distinguishing between types of Indians.

For instance, the Boston Braves logo was an Indian in full headdress. I don't think that's a Mohawk custom; it's a Sioux custom.
http://www.sportslogos.net/logos/list_by_team/81/Boston_Braves/

Relatedly, the Milwaukee Braves, rather than showing Plains Indians as you might expect, depicted a Mohawk in their logo.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/17/magazine/who-made-that-redskins-logo.html?_r=0

And as long as we're on that link, Chief Wahoo?

So yeah, I doubt such logos were well-considered homages to a particular tribe.

 

The dictionary defines the term "Redskins" as usually offensive. Several Indians have in fact sued to have the name changed.

No one saying to wipe out any reference to native american mascots, and changing the Redskins name to something more suitable while still maintainng the American Indian reference is feasible.

The original founder of the Redskins wanted to appeal to Southern states as a potential fan base. He changed the Redskins fight song and specifically mentioned "old Dixie." He fought tooth and nail to keep black players off of his team because he felt white Southerners would not support a team with black players.

I'm against the government forcing a name change, but the current owners should change the name to another Indian reference, if for no other reason than to disassociate the team from it's original racist founder.

 

Actually, this kind of criticism is launched at all Indian mascots, in all sports. From the Atlanta Braves and Kansas City Chiefs, to even the Chicago Blackhawks (named after an Infantry Division the founder served in, named after Chief Black Hawk) and Edmonton Eskimos. All are under attack, not just one.

Of course, many people find a great many things offensive. Myself, I use the term "Indian" to refer to my heritage, and am proud of that. I find the term "Native American" to be patronizing, and consider everybody born in this country (no matter where their ancestors came from) to be "Native Americans".