Moderator: Team Captains
Great call.KnowItAll wrote:how about they change it to redpotatoskins
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... ft/mds.htmThe general policy of naming Army aircraft after Indians tribes, chiefs or terms was made official by authority of AR 70-28, dated 4 April 1969. Although this regulation has been recinded, the Indian names were very popular among Army personnel and the practice continues in place. The commanding general of the US Army Material Command has the responsibility of initiating action to select a popular name for aircraft. For this purpose he has a list of possible names obtained from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (for brevity the names usually consist of only one word). When a new aircraft reaches the production stage or immediately before it goes into production, the commanding general selects five possible names. He bases his selection on the way they sound, their history and their relationship to the mission of the aircraft. They must appeal to the imagination without sacrificing dignity and suggest an aggressive spirit and confidence in the capabilities of the aircraft. They also must suggest mobility, firepower and endurance.
The names are sent to the Trade Mark Division of the US Patent Office to determine if there is any legal objection to their use. After approval by the Patent Office the five names are sent to the Chief of Research and Development, Department of the Army, with a short justification for each. From these five the Chief of Research and Development selects one. The approved name then goes to the Aeronautical Systems Division, Directorate of Engineering Standards, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. This Department of Defense unit has the responsibility of officially registering the names of all aircraft used by the military. It also prints a list of the names in a publication called "Model Designation of Military Aircraft, Rockets and Guided Missiles." Some Army aircraft, such as the Bird Dog and Otter, do not have Indian names. Most were named before the present policy went into effect. AR 70-28 specifies that these will not be changed.
I don’t actually write books or this column on Native American issues for a living.
At my regular job, I cover defense and homeland security topics for an industry magazine.
That exchange put me in mind of the only time I have ever heard about any opposition to the Army naming their helicopters and aircraft after Native American individuals or nations.
That came in 2003 when I attended a panel discussion in Lincoln about Whiteclay, Neb. Speaking there was the late American Indian Movement leader Vernon Bellecourt. For those who have never heard an AIM leader address a mostly white audience, I can tell you that every speech begins with a long preamble about all the injustices perpetrated on Indians by the white man.
Among Bellecourt’s litany was a complaint that the Army had named a helicopter after Chief Black Hawk. Black Hawk was a man of peace, he said, and he shouldn’t have an instrument of war named after him.
Well, the Sauk chief fought against the United States by siding with the British in the war of 1812. So I’m not so sure about that. Maybe he wanted peace and was dragged into the war. I don’t know.
Since then, I have not read or heard any other complaints from Native Americans about the Army’s tradition.
The comments to this story say they ask the tribes if they can use these names when they do this and they vote yes - if true, go figure.Toppy Vann wrote:I found a good article on the military issue here. It is a good read and one note says that Chief Black Hawk was peaceful yet they name the chopper after him and the troops all love these names.
This is by a native American.
http://stewmagnuson.blogspot.hk/2010/09 ... after.html
While those dug in will say this is different as Redskin was a prejudicial term like "*beep*" I have read it was not always so. It became used derogatorily later on. Those who named the team Redskins had the fierce native Indian in mind but they don't kill.
Ask the tribe spending their casino money on this issue why they didn't attack the military machine names as that is far more harmful in reinforcing a view of US history that the native Indiians were rounded up and put on reservations as they were savages! Watch TCM movies from those days. I think the extreme view is stop them. My view is to use these films to teach history and how whites got it wrong.
I don’t actually write books or this column on Native American issues for a living.
At my regular job, I cover defense and homeland security topics for an industry magazine.
This native American military has not since 2003 heard any complaints of naming fighting machines after natives! This was in response to the 2010 name use "Gray Eagle."
That exchange put me in mind of the only time I have ever heard about any opposition to the Army naming their helicopters and aircraft after Native American individuals or nations.
That came in 2003 when I attended a panel discussion in Lincoln about Whiteclay, Neb. Speaking there was the late American Indian Movement leader Vernon Bellecourt. For those who have never heard an AIM leader address a mostly white audience, I can tell you that every speech begins with a long preamble about all the injustices perpetrated on Indians by the white man.
Among Bellecourt’s litany was a complaint that the Army had named a helicopter after Chief Black Hawk. Black Hawk was a man of peace, he said, and he shouldn’t have an instrument of war named after him.
Well, the Sauk chief fought against the United States by siding with the British in the war of 1812. So I’m not so sure about that. Maybe he wanted peace and was dragged into the war. I don’t know.
Since then, I have not read or heard any other complaints from Native Americans about the Army’s tradition.
That's the issue in a nutshell. "Redskin" is a racial epithet; there's just no doubt about that. Any modern dictionary will confirm this. It doesn't matter whether it has always been this way (and there is some doubt about this). The fact that today's native Americans feel degraded by the term is sufficient to get rid of it. To native Americans, the term "redskin" registers roughly equivalently to the way "n**gger" (spoken by whites) does to American blacks.Toppy Vann wrote: While those dug in will say this is different as Redskin was a prejudicial term like "*beep*" I have read it was not always so. It became used derogatorily later on.
It defies common sense that the REDSKIN team name somehow lowers self esteem.South Pender wrote:That's the issue in a nutshell. "Redskin" is a racial epithet; there's just no doubt about that. Any modern dictionary will confirm this. It doesn't matter whether it has always been this way (and there is some doubt about this). The fact that today's native Americans feel degraded by the term is sufficient to get rid of it. To native Americans, the term "redskin" registers roughly equivalently to the way "n**gger" (spoken by whites) does to American blacks.Toppy Vann wrote: While those dug in will say this is different as Redskin was a prejudicial term like "*beep*" I have read it was not always so. It became used derogatorily later on.
Other native American words like Apache, Blackhawk, etc., are not racial epithets. It is no more insulting to name something Apache than it is to name it Sooner, Texan, or Cowboy. These are not insulting words.
For me, the whole thing comes down to what the empirical science says about the effect of such racial epithets on children's self-concept and development. The research that exists suggests that racial epithets and clownish mascots have a detrimental effect on the native American child's development of a sense of self. This effect persists through life and helps to account for low self-esteem, lowered accomplishments, and a more impoverished life in general for native Americans.
