I’m from Minnesota. And my heritage is, in some part, Nordic. And I love the Vikings.
I love watching them play, I love watching my son watching them play. I love me throwing to Randy Moss, Cris Carter, Ahmad Rashad, Sydney Rice and Dirtball Darrin in my back yard.
I love watching him spike the ball when he gets both feet down in the corner to score 6 as time runs out in Green Bay. Love it.
And I rarely consider what the image of the Viking means; or even what it means to BE a Viking. Like, a real Viking back in the day. I don’t consider how they waged war, or how they treated enemies conquered. I don’t know if they perished by the sword, the disease or famine. I don’t know much.
But when I do consider why the team decided to go with the name “Vikings” I suspect it’s because they realized that there was a history of Nordic nature in Minnesota. Many people originate from Sweden or Norway or Denmark in Minnesota. And – and this is important – they wanted to celebrate that condition of character that stood out as desirable in combat. Or competition.
I find it … cool that my football team is named after a nation of gifted warriors who were courageous and feared in battle.
And it would seem as if I am among a 90% majority:
Nine in 10 Native Americans say they are not offended by the Washington Redskins name, according to a new Washington Post poll that shows how few ordinary Indians have been persuaded by a national movement to change the football team’s moniker.
As Dan Snyder pointed out:
The Washington Redskins team, our fans and community have always believed our name represents honor, respect and pride
But hey, even though the majority of players and fans are fine with it, let’s let the fringe minority Liberal Football-Haters continue to push their p.c. bullsh#t and f##k the majority, right? Only in a Liberal’s world do the 0.00002% matter more than the rest. Not the same as the rest, but MORE than the rest. Such is the Liberal definition version of “Equality”. Idiots.
Such is the Liberal definition version of “Equality”.
And so liberty weeps.
It would be one thing if the name of the football team was the Braves or Warriors or even Indians. I would listen to the argument that these names pay tribute to what the Native Americans were (or at least what the white man thinks they were. Most Native Americans were a peaceful people that rarely went into battle and only as a last resort). But the term Redskin is about as derogatory as they come. It is talking of the color of ones race’s skin and nothing else. If the founder of the Redskins was truly trying to pay homage to a race of “warriors”, then he made of poor choice of names. I think that Mr Snyder should change the name. Not because he is being forced to by the masses. He should change it because we, as a nation, are simply better than this.
But the term Redskin is about as derogatory as they come.
It is how they referred to themselves:
I looked all over the internet and found many references to redskin being derogatory and also as a term to simply differentiate the European settlers and the Native Americans. It was used by the settlers and the Native Americans. We could argue all day long about which means more and to whom. I also did some research on the term nigger and found that that word also started out benign.The OED offers as its first definition “Used by people who are not black as a relatively neutral (or occasionally positive) term, with no specifically hostile intent” My point here is, I don’t care where the word started or who started using it to describe whoever. A fairly easy litmus test would be to ask yourself if you are comfortable addressing a Native American as Redskin to his/her face. If not, why?