Those Gol-Darned Injuns!

DGS49

Diamond Member
Apr 12, 2012
15,661
13,007
2,415
Pittsburgh

The American (sic) use of the term "Indian" to refer to the indigenous peoples of our continent is more than a little bit bizarre. It is a vestige of Cristoforo Colombo's initial mistaken impression that, in 1492, he had landed his small fleet on islands off the eastern coast of India. We all know now that this was an almost-comical misapprehension..hell, even Colombo eventually figured out his mistake, but the appellation, "Indians," remains in common usage some 528 years later.

For reasons that were far from insulting, hundreds of American sports teams have chosen to call themselves the "Indians." In employing this name, they sought to invoke what they perceived as the honorable, brave, and - yes - warlike reputation of our native American predecessors, to exhort those teams to do their best within the context of their sports.

But what of the people who are referred to as, "Indians"? Do they object to being referred to with this comical historical semantic mistake? Clearly some do. Not many, but some. At the same time many of such people - the vast majority in fact - refer to themselves as "Indians."

In our contemporary culture, people are "graded" by how successful they are at finding things about which to be offended. We have come from colored people being offended by being called "colored," retarded people being insulted by being called, "retarded," handicapped people offended by being called "handicapped" (in spite of their entitlement-laden license plates), Oriental people offended at being referred to as "Oriental," to now indigenous people demanding not to be called, "Indians."

But in the context of sports, this is a good thing, manifestly. It is a good thing for people who make sports uniforms, promotional brochures, sports paraphernalia, baseball caps and stuff like that. It obsoletes mountains of such stuff and forces the teams and their supporters to go out and re-purchase their stuff - now at a higher cost. (I honestly don't know what's going on in the Nation's Capital with the "Washington Football Team." Is anyone buying jerseys with this written on them?)

I can't come up with a good insulting replacement for the name, "Indians." I'll leave that to others. But I feel more relief than I can even articulate about the end of this perpetual insult to the various nations of indigenous people living in our midst.

On a not-completely-different point, I wonder how long it will be before the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People gets with the program.
 
NDN. That's what they call themselves. It separates them from Indians that now have taken over the term, from India.

Try browsing Powwow.com sometime. They will tell you straight up (95% of them anyway) that Braves, Chiefs, Warriors, etc is considered NOT an insult. Saying some woman is an NDN Princess IS insulting because they did not have prince and princesses. That is a purely European term. So if some chick claims she is an indian Princess, daughter of a Chief of an American tribe...she has forked tongue.

BTW..."redskin" is not an insult any more than a blackskin or whiteskin or brownskin. Actually, NDN's call themselves the Human Beings. And they are.
 
engines2.jpg
 
They should rename the Chicago white sox the Chicago Pollock's I would be proud as heck :)
 

The American (sic) use of the term "Indian" to refer to the indigenous peoples of our continent is more than a little bit bizarre. It is a vestige of Cristoforo Colombo's initial mistaken impression that, in 1492, he had landed his small fleet on islands off the eastern coast of India. We all know now that this was an almost-comical misapprehension..hell, even Colombo eventually figured out his mistake, but the appellation, "Indians," remains in common usage some 528 years later.

For reasons that were far from insulting, hundreds of American sports teams have chosen to call themselves the "Indians." In employing this name, they sought to invoke what they perceived as the honorable, brave, and - yes - warlike reputation of our native American predecessors, to exhort those teams to do their best within the context of their sports.

But what of the people who are referred to as, "Indians"? Do they object to being referred to with this comical historical semantic mistake? Clearly some do. Not many, but some. At the same time many of such people - the vast majority in fact - refer to themselves as "Indians."

In our contemporary culture, people are "graded" by how successful they are at finding things about which to be offended. We have come from colored people being offended by being called "colored," retarded people being insulted by being called, "retarded," handicapped people offended by being called "handicapped" (in spite of their entitlement-laden license plates), Oriental people offended at being referred to as "Oriental," to now indigenous people demanding not to be called, "Indians."

But in the context of sports, this is a good thing, manifestly. It is a good thing for people who make sports uniforms, promotional brochures, sports paraphernalia, baseball caps and stuff like that. It obsoletes mountains of such stuff and forces the teams and their supporters to go out and re-purchase their stuff - now at a higher cost. (I honestly don't know what's going on in the Nation's Capital with the "Washington Football Team." Is anyone buying jerseys with this written on them?)

I can't come up with a good insulting replacement for the name, "Indians." I'll leave that to others. But I feel more relief than I can even articulate about the end of this perpetual insult to the various nations of indigenous people living in our midst.

On a not-completely-different point, I wonder how long it will be before the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People gets with the program.
What bunch of injuns gave you permission to speak for them, Paleface?
 
NDN. That's what they call themselves. It separates them from Indians that now have taken over the term, from India.

Try browsing Powwow.com sometime. They will tell you straight up (95% of them anyway) that Braves, Chiefs, Warriors, etc is considered NOT an insult. Saying some woman is an NDN Princess IS insulting because they did not have prince and princesses. That is a purely European term. So if some chick claims she is an indian Princess, daughter of a Chief of an American tribe...she has forked tongue.

BTW..."redskin" is not an insult any more than a blackskin or whiteskin or brownskin. Actually, NDN's call themselves the Human Beings. And they are.
" The Cleveland Steamers" is fitting or "The Burning River Bombers" both fit pretty well
 

The American (sic) use of the term "Indian" to refer to the indigenous peoples of our continent is more than a little bit bizarre. It is a vestige of Cristoforo Colombo's initial mistaken impression that, in 1492, he had landed his small fleet on islands off the eastern coast of India. We all know now that this was an almost-comical misapprehension..hell, even Colombo eventually figured out his mistake, but the appellation, "Indians," remains in common usage some 528 years later.

For reasons that were far from insulting, hundreds of American sports teams have chosen to call themselves the "Indians." In employing this name, they sought to invoke what they perceived as the honorable, brave, and - yes - warlike reputation of our native American predecessors, to exhort those teams to do their best within the context of their sports.

But what of the people who are referred to as, "Indians"? Do they object to being referred to with this comical historical semantic mistake? Clearly some do. Not many, but some. At the same time many of such people - the vast majority in fact - refer to themselves as "Indians."

In our contemporary culture, people are "graded" by how successful they are at finding things about which to be offended. We have come from colored people being offended by being called "colored," retarded people being insulted by being called, "retarded," handicapped people offended by being called "handicapped" (in spite of their entitlement-laden license plates), Oriental people offended at being referred to as "Oriental," to now indigenous people demanding not to be called, "Indians."

But in the context of sports, this is a good thing, manifestly. It is a good thing for people who make sports uniforms, promotional brochures, sports paraphernalia, baseball caps and stuff like that. It obsoletes mountains of such stuff and forces the teams and their supporters to go out and re-purchase their stuff - now at a higher cost. (I honestly don't know what's going on in the Nation's Capital with the "Washington Football Team." Is anyone buying jerseys with this written on them?)

I can't come up with a good insulting replacement for the name, "Indians." I'll leave that to others. But I feel more relief than I can even articulate about the end of this perpetual insult to the various nations of indigenous people living in our midst.

On a not-completely-different point, I wonder how long it will be before the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People gets with the program.
What bunch of injuns gave you permission to speak for them, Paleface?
The same ones that lost their land.
 
I find it best to leave it up to the people who actually have a certain identity to decide how it should be used or portrayed. People do crazy things with other people's identities. I like going to antique and junk shops and live in the DC/Md/Va area. I've found plenty of salt-and-pepper shaker sets that, get this, are figures of a black man and black woman. Who in the heck would have made these objects and why? It's just bizarre, and I've wondered whether black people have white-people salt-and-pepper shakers on their tables. Let people own their own identities.
 
There collectors items now. And yes, my black teacher in high school, she did have those same type but white people. To me it depends on what an individual perception is of an object. It doesn't bother me that there's a company called cracker boy and cracker girl syrup products. Not only salt and pepper shakers of black people but whole dinner sets.. As a child my grandparents took me to a restaurant called Sambos. It was based on a child's story book. Back then it was popular but today it would cause protest.
 
All of this is not going to change anything in the long run. This is more political form those who should be pioneers and visionaries in creating wealth and millions of jobs but really do not have that ability. But they are the tried and true people of statist abilities that will bring nirvana and utopia to all. They won't but people will fall for it. And have.
 
I try to let people of the actual ethnic group determine what is or isn't offensive, rather than engage in outrage-by-proxy, which may seem cathartic but I really don't think it helps. Many don't care, but many do, and the legal standard is just that a "significant amount" need to be offended in order for the law to step in; it doesn't have to be half, or most, or all.

Personally, I judge team nicknames based on whether you can apply an equivalent term to another ethnicity without cringing. I don't see Blackhawks any worse than Celtics, Chiefs any worse than Kings, or Braves any worse than Cavaliers. There are two that step over the line, though, the first being the Indians mascot Chief Wahoo; imagine that bucktoothed grin on a caricature wearing an Afro, a sombrero, or Hasidic ringlets, and it becomes pretty awful.

The second is the Redskins. It's clearly a reference to the color of their skin, and it was used for decades (if not centuries) as a blatant ethnic slur, although its use has lessened in recent years. That, to me, sounds similar to "darkie," and I wouldn't find that acceptable at all. I'm glad Washington finally got pressured enough to change it.
 

Forum List

Back
Top