A message board dedicated to the discussion of Minnesota Viking Football.
https://www.vikingsmessageboard.com/
How am I trolling? It could happen!
No way in Hell it could happen.
It is the name the colonists gave the Native Americans. Viking is the English, bastardized term for Norse raiders.
Yes way in hell it could happen, at least according to this:
That is a hilarious articleHerschel's Revenge wrote: ↑Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:52 pmYes way in hell it could happen, at least according to this:
Norway Demands Minnesota Vikings Change Name, Saying It Mocks Country’s Proud Heritage as Murderous Swede-Killing Lutefisk Eaters
OSLO – Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg has sent a letter to Minnesota Vikings owner Zygi Wilf demanding that the team immediately cease and desist from using the name “Vikings” and replace its mascot Viktor the Viking with the dried crushed reindeer testicles Solbeg sent with the letter to better reflect the team’s urgent need to grow a pair and win at least a couple games this year and not be such a humiliation to just about everyone with Scandinavian heritage.
https://breakinginasia.com/norway-deman ... sk-eaters/
And the "n" word is just a form of the Spanish word for black (niger). The origin isn't important, the usage is.StumpHunter wrote: ↑Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:55 amIt is the name the colonists gave the Native Americans.
Yes, A 'Redskin' Does, In Fact, Mean the Scalped Head of a Native American, Sold, Like a Pelt, for Cash
The State reward for dead Indians has been increased to $200 for every red-skin sent to Purgatory. This sum is more than the dead bodies of all the Indians east of the Red River are worth.
I've got more "logic" arguments if this isn't enough. I feel strongly it is though.A few cited a study written by Smithsonian Institution senior linguist Ives Goddard that makes the case that the word did not begin as an insult.
But here is a quote from another member of the Smithsonian – Kevin Gover, a member of the Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma and director of the Institution's National Museum of the American Indian:
"I'm really not that interested in where the word comes from," Gover said. "I know how it was used. And it's been used in a disparaging way for at least a couple of centuries. Up to and including the time I was growing up in Oklahoma."
Don't get me wrong, it is fine that they are changing the name, and of all the Native American sports teams, it is the most offensive. However changing it isn't actually going to do anything. In fact, the name was a constant reminder of how Native Americans were treated, so that we never repeat the same mistake. A less offensive reminder would probably be better, but we tend to ignore those type reminders.Cliff wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2020 7:46 amAnd the "n" word is just a form of the Spanish word for black (niger). The origin isn't important, the usage is.StumpHunter wrote: ↑Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:55 amIt is the name the colonists gave the Native Americans.
Link.
Yes, A 'Redskin' Does, In Fact, Mean the Scalped Head of a Native American, Sold, Like a Pelt, for Cash
The State reward for dead Indians has been increased to $200 for every red-skin sent to Purgatory. This sum is more than the dead bodies of all the Indians east of the Red River are worth.I've got more "logic" arguments if this isn't enough. I feel strongly it is though.A few cited a study written by Smithsonian Institution senior linguist Ives Goddard that makes the case that the word did not begin as an insult.
But here is a quote from another member of the Smithsonian – Kevin Gover, a member of the Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma and director of the Institution's National Museum of the American Indian:
"I'm really not that interested in where the word comes from," Gover said. "I know how it was used. And it's been used in a disparaging way for at least a couple of centuries. Up to and including the time I was growing up in Oklahoma."
Given this historical context, it’s pretty obvious that the name Redskins needs to be changed. No argument here. Thanks for posting. I did not know this.Cliff wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2020 7:46 amAnd the "n" word is just a form of the Spanish word for black (niger). The origin isn't important, the usage is.StumpHunter wrote: ↑Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:55 amIt is the name the colonists gave the Native Americans.
Link.
Yes, A 'Redskin' Does, In Fact, Mean the Scalped Head of a Native American, Sold, Like a Pelt, for Cash
The State reward for dead Indians has been increased to $200 for every red-skin sent to Purgatory. This sum is more than the dead bodies of all the Indians east of the Red River are worth.I've got more "logic" arguments if this isn't enough. I feel strongly it is though.A few cited a study written by Smithsonian Institution senior linguist Ives Goddard that makes the case that the word did not begin as an insult.
But here is a quote from another member of the Smithsonian – Kevin Gover, a member of the Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma and director of the Institution's National Museum of the American Indian:
"I'm really not that interested in where the word comes from," Gover said. "I know how it was used. And it's been used in a disparaging way for at least a couple of centuries. Up to and including the time I was growing up in Oklahoma."
No problem.J. Kapp 11 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 6:30 amGiven this historical context, it’s pretty obvious that the name Redskins needs to be changed. No argument here. Thanks for posting. I did not know this.
That being said, in our current cancel culture, almost any name is going to offend someone. If Washington changed its nickname to the Fluffy Puppies, PETA would probably protest outside the stadium.
It does change something. The reminder that it gives Native Americans is almost certainly not "we can't let this happen again!". For just about everyone else, it amounts to the first reason you gave for the name:StumpHunter wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2020 8:34 am Don't get me wrong, it is fine that they are changing the name, and of all the Native American sports teams, it is the most offensive. However changing it isn't actually going to do anything. In fact, the name was a constant reminder of how Native Americans were treated, so that we never repeat the same mistake. A less offensive reminder would probably be better, but we tend to ignore those type reminders.
Any rationalization for the name in hindsight just comes off as disingenuous.The names of teams are their names because they are perceived as cool or tough.
Sure there are.Cliff wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 7:52 amNo problem.J. Kapp 11 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 6:30 amGiven this historical context, it’s pretty obvious that the name Redskins needs to be changed. No argument here. Thanks for posting. I did not know this.
That being said, in our current cancel culture, almost any name is going to offend someone. If Washington changed its nickname to the Fluffy Puppies, PETA would probably protest outside the stadium.
Well, that's obviously not true. To my knowledge there aren't any other team names being protested. Maybe the Chiefs? Which I can see though I have less of a problem with.
Though, again, I could see making important leaders of tribes represented by a cartoon wolf with googly eyes and fans filling the stadium in Native American headdress could come off as offensive. I'm sure it's not a great feeling to have your culture cartoon-ized and marketed to the ancestors of the people that slaughtered your forefathers.