Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
DBIsports

Do you think Snyder should change the name of the Redskins?

Should the Washington Redskins change their name?  

669 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

I did a search and did not see where this has been brought up recently, but it's making headlines againRedskins name deemed "Racial Slur".

The article even mentions protests and asking RG3 to get involved.

At one time I think I would have found it silly to even think about changing something so familiar and tradition filled. But now I wonder if it is truly offensive to someone of that race, maybe a name change isn't the worst idea.

We all are aware of the history of racism in this country, and a team name with almost any other racial slur being changed wouldn't even be up for debate.

Am I just turning way too leftist in my old age, or is there reason to consider this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only no but HELL NO. This PC B.S. is going way too far, leave it alone already. Has anyone noticed with the re-election of the most liberal President in US history, the left are going full throttle ahead with any and every left wing agenda they see fit to advance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it doesn't offend me but i am not a native american. i think it's foolish to claim you know what should and should not offend a group of people that you are not a part of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an issue of human decency. It is very fit to advance the agenda of respect amongst human beings. The genocide, racism, and bigotry that litter this nation's history have never been and never will be cool. No progress to change this is ever too small or unimportant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would anyone have a problem if the Harlem Blackskins are the next NFL expansion team?

But at least the Redskins logo isn't quite as woefully insensitive as this guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it doesn't offend me but i am not a native american. i think it's foolish to claim you know what should and should not offend a group of people that you are not a part of.

But that is the issue, many Native Americans are offended. So how can a non- Native American, like Daniel Snyder, decide its not offensive enough?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it doesn't offend me but i am not a native american. i think it's foolish to claim you know what should and should not offend a group of people that you are not a part of.

But that is the issue, many Native Americans are offended. So how can a non- Native American, like Daniel Snyder, decide its not offensive enough?
He can't. But he can decide if he doesn't care enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At one time I think I would have found it silly to even think about changing something so familiar and tradition filled.

There are lots of folks in the South that were proud of their slave-owning tradition, or racial segregation tradition. That doesn't make it right. Now I'll grant you that it's not *quite* in the same league, but it is still pretty offensive and rather insensitive to defend it simply because "that's the way it's been for a long time." But as an article discussing this mentioned, the team would probably make quite a bit of money with a name change since they'd not only sell a lot of their current uniforms, but a bunch with the new team name (and logo, if changed). Besides, Danny Snyder could also use this as an excuse to sell rights to getting to pick the name. Edited by SelenaCat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would anyone have a problem if the Harlem Blackskins are the next NFL expansion team?But at least the Redskins logo isn't quite as woefully insensitive as this guy.

This.Was gonna post exact same thing except using Newark instead of Harlem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only no but HELL NO. This PC B.S. is going way too far, leave it alone already. Has anyone noticed with the re-election of the most liberal President in US history, the left are going full throttle ahead with any and every left wing agenda they see fit to advance?

Obama is not even CLOSE to the most liberal president in history. Have you never heard of FDR (Franklin Delano Roosevelt)? You know, the only president to serve more than 2 terms and basically the driving force behind our victory in World War 2?

FDR wanted nationalized health care, guaranteed employment, free education, provided housing, etc.

The Second Bill of Rights

The Second Bill of Rights was a list of rights proposed by Franklin D. Roosevelt during his State of the Union Address on January 11, 1944. [1] In his address Roosevelt suggested that the nation had come to recognize, and should now implement, a second "bill of rights". Roosevelt's argument was that the "political rights" guaranteed by the constitution and the Bill of Rights had "proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness." Roosevelt's remedy was to declare an "economic bill of rights" which would guarantee:

Employment, with a living wage

Freedom from unfair competition and monopolies

Housing

Medical care

Education

Social security

Edited by gandalas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only no but HELL NO. This PC B.S. is going way too far, leave it alone already. Has anyone noticed with the re-election of the most liberal President in US history, the left are going full throttle ahead with any and every left wing agenda they see fit to advance?

:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I think it's dangerous to fall into a pattern of constantly worrying about "offending" every minority group that comes along, it's just a name. If NATIVE AMERICAN PEOPLE are truly offended, then change it. If it's mostly hooty tooty middle aged white people trying to make a stink (and all too often, they are the driving force behind these types of complaints), then %#^$ them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was not in favor when a bunch of colleges dropped tribe names as their mascots, but I have to say I agree with changing the name of the Redskins. It's pretty much the equivalent of calling a black person the N-word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I think it's dangerous to fall into a pattern of constantly worrying about "offending" every minority group that comes along, it's just a name. If NATIVE AMERICAN PEOPLE are truly offended, then change it. If it's mostly hooty tooty middle aged white people trying to make a stink (and all too often, they are the driving force behind these types of complaints), then %#^$ them.

Meh, just give them another casino and some booze and call it a day. They'll pipe down. Edited by Hang 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many moons ago, the cross-town rivals of the high school I went to had a similar issue. Their nickname was the Indians.

Here's some history on the school and it's nickname:

History

The original Renton High School was built in March 1911 on land originally owned by the Duwamish Indian Tribe,[1] at a cost of $65,000. The three-story brick building, featuring a bell tower that rang out every half hour, stood on the location of the east wing of the current building. The school stood on wooden pilings, which started to rot when Lake Washington was lowered owing to the building of the ship canal. The timbers cracked and the crowded building sank a few inches during the 1923 graduation ceremonies.[2] It was replaced by a larger school in March 1932. In 1941, the old building was torn down and a new addition built near the current building.[3] The school was remodeled in 1969.[4]

In April 1998, Renton voters approved a levy to renovate the high school. Funds were collected from private donors to expand the project to turn the school's auditorium into a performing arts center, at an estimated additional cost of $1.5 million. The City of Renton appropriated another $400,000 for the project. The naming rights were secured by IKEA for $500,000 and construction began in June 2002. The shared-use facility, known as the Renton Community IKEA Performing Arts Center, was completed in June 2003.[5]

When the school first opened, there were only 43 students: 17 freshmen, 19 sophomores, 3 juniors, and the 4 seniors who made up the first graduating class, in May 1911. By comparison, the largest graduating class, that of 1965, when Renton was still the only high school in the district, comprised 809 seniors.[2]

The nickname "Indians" was adopted in honor of Henry Moses, who from 1916 through 1920 was the school's sole Native American basketball player. Moses was the last chief of the Duwamish tribe, and a great grandnephew of Chief Sealth, for whom Seattle was named.[2] Though the name has become controversial in recent years, Moses' widow and the Duwamish Tribe have asked Renton to retain the name to honor Moses' memory.[1] In response to a 1993 resolution by the Washington State Board of Education asking all school districts to review their mascots and logos, the mascot was modified to depict a Pacific Northwest Indian.[6] The words to the school fight song have been modified to say "let's show 'em" in place of the former "let's scalp 'em".[7]

_ _ _

I also recall a poll taken of the local tribe in the late 70's. Results were something like 93% in favor of retaining the nick IIRC

Sounds like a better way to go (asking the theoretical victims of the nickname) rather than the PC police.

Edited by identikit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I think it's dangerous to fall into a pattern of constantly worrying about "offending" every minority group that comes along, it's just a name. If NATIVE AMERICAN PEOPLE are truly offended, then change it. If it's mostly hooty tooty middle aged white people trying to make a stink (and all too often, they are the driving force behind these types of complaints), then %#^$ them.

They are. Here's more from that symposium. I also remember seeing a list of all the Native American groups that have condemned it recently, I'll see if I can find it.

I'm a fan of the team, but bottom line to me is that there's really no significant downside to changing the name. If a significant number of people (more than just a few crazies) find it offensive, why not change it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only no but HELL NO. This PC B.S. is going way too far, leave it alone already. Has anyone noticed with the re-election of the most liberal President in US history, the left are going full throttle ahead with any and every left wing agenda they see fit to advance?

No ####, but if they do change it, I suggest the Washington Whiteys or Washington Crackers. That way the PC BS would go to new levels of 'why do the white people get a team named after them?' You can call me whitey or cracker all day. I could seriously could care less. It would be kinda cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only no but HELL NO. This PC B.S. is going way too far, leave it alone already. Has anyone noticed with the re-election of the most liberal President in US history, the left are going full throttle ahead with any and every left wing agenda they see fit to advance?

No ####, but if they do change it, I suggest the Washington Whiteys or Washington Crackers. That way the PC BS would go to new levels of 'why do the white people get a team named after them?' You can call me whitey or cracker all day. I could seriously could care less. It would be kinda cool.
"Washington Whiteys" for a team from Chocolate City? That's Utah Jazz level bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only no but HELL NO. This PC B.S. is going way too far, leave it alone already. Has anyone noticed with the re-election of the most liberal President in US history, the left are going full throttle ahead with any and every left wing agenda they see fit to advance?

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only no but HELL NO. This PC B.S. is going way too far, leave it alone already. Has anyone noticed with the re-election of the most liberal President in US history, the left are going full throttle ahead with any and every left wing agenda they see fit to advance?

No ####, but if they do change it, I suggest the Washington Whiteys or Washington Crackers. That way the PC BS would go to new levels of 'why do the white people get a team named after them?' You can call me whitey or cracker all day. I could seriously could care less. It would be kinda cool.
"Washington Whiteys" for a team from Chocolate City? That's Utah Jazz level bad.
Yeah. People would go ####### nuts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I think it's dangerous to fall into a pattern of constantly worrying about "offending" every minority group that comes along, it's just a name. If NATIVE AMERICAN PEOPLE are truly offended, then change it. If it's mostly hooty tooty middle aged white people trying to make a stink (and all too often, they are the driving force behind these types of complaints), then %#^$ them.

They are. Here's more from that symposium. I also remember seeing a list of all the Native American groups that have condemned it recently, I'll see if I can find it.

I'm a fan of the team, but bottom line to me is that there's really no significant downside to changing the name. If a significant number of people (more than just a few crazies) find it offensive, why not change it?

Because it would #### up our touchdown song! :rant:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I think it's dangerous to fall into a pattern of constantly worrying about "offending" every minority group that comes along, it's just a name. If NATIVE AMERICAN PEOPLE are truly offended, then change it. If it's mostly hooty tooty middle aged white people trying to make a stink (and all too often, they are the driving force behind these types of complaints), then %#^$ them.

They are. Here's more from that symposium. I also remember seeing a list of all the Native American groups that have condemned it recently, I'll see if I can find it.

I'm a fan of the team, but bottom line to me is that there's really no significant downside to changing the name. If a significant number of people (more than just a few crazies) find it offensive, why not change it?

Because it would #### up our touchdown song! :rant:
Song still works with "Warriors." And it's alliterative!

I don't think anyone would have a problem with Warriors if you got rid of the Native American imagery. People who whine about using military analogies to talk about sports, maybe, but those people are terrible, so screw them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I think it's dangerous to fall into a pattern of constantly worrying about "offending" every minority group that comes along, it's just a name. If NATIVE AMERICAN PEOPLE are truly offended, then change it. If it's mostly hooty tooty middle aged white people trying to make a stink (and all too often, they are the driving force behind these types of complaints), then %#^$ them.

They are. Here's more from that symposium. I also remember seeing a list of all the Native American groups that have condemned it recently, I'll see if I can find it.

I'm a fan of the team, but bottom line to me is that there's really no significant downside to changing the name. If a significant number of people (more than just a few crazies) find it offensive, why not change it?

Because it would #### up our touchdown song! :rant:
Song still works with "Warriors." And it's alliterative!

I don't think anyone would have a problem with Warriors if you got rid of the Native American imagery. People who whine about using military analogies to talk about sports, maybe, but those people are terrible, so screw them.

So what kind of a logo are we talking about with this new name?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I think it's dangerous to fall into a pattern of constantly worrying about "offending" every minority group that comes along, it's just a name. If NATIVE AMERICAN PEOPLE are truly offended, then change it. If it's mostly hooty tooty middle aged white people trying to make a stink (and all too often, they are the driving force behind these types of complaints), then %#^$ them.

They are. Here's more from that symposium. I also remember seeing a list of all the Native American groups that have condemned it recently, I'll see if I can find it.

I'm a fan of the team, but bottom line to me is that there's really no significant downside to changing the name. If a significant number of people (more than just a few crazies) find it offensive, why not change it?

Because it would #### up our touchdown song! :rant:
Song still works with "Warriors." And it's alliterative!

I don't think anyone would have a problem with Warriors if you got rid of the Native American imagery. People who whine about using military analogies to talk about sports, maybe, but those people are terrible, so screw them.

So what kind of a logo are we talking about with this new name?
Link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I think it's dangerous to fall into a pattern of constantly worrying about "offending" every minority group that comes along, it's just a name. If NATIVE AMERICAN PEOPLE are truly offended, then change it. If it's mostly hooty tooty middle aged white people trying to make a stink (and all too often, they are the driving force behind these types of complaints), then %#^$ them.

They are. Here's more from that symposium. I also remember seeing a list of all the Native American groups that have condemned it recently, I'll see if I can find it.

I'm a fan of the team, but bottom line to me is that there's really no significant downside to changing the name. If a significant number of people (more than just a few crazies) find it offensive, why not change it?

Because it would #### up our touchdown song! :rant:
Song still works with "Warriors." And it's alliterative!

I don't think anyone would have a problem with Warriors if you got rid of the Native American imagery. People who whine about using military analogies to talk about sports, maybe, but those people are terrible, so screw them.

So what kind of a logo are we talking about with this new name?
The Spear Helmet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I think it's dangerous to fall into a pattern of constantly worrying about "offending" every minority group that comes along, it's just a name. If NATIVE AMERICAN PEOPLE are truly offended, then change it. If it's mostly hooty tooty middle aged white people trying to make a stink (and all too often, they are the driving force behind these types of complaints), then %#^$ them.

They are. Here's more from that symposium. I also remember seeing a list of all the Native American groups that have condemned it recently, I'll see if I can find it.

I'm a fan of the team, but bottom line to me is that there's really no significant downside to changing the name. If a significant number of people (more than just a few crazies) find it offensive, why not change it?

Because it would #### up our touchdown song! :rant:
Song still works with "Warriors." And it's alliterative!

I don't think anyone would have a problem with Warriors if you got rid of the Native American imagery. People who whine about using military analogies to talk about sports, maybe, but those people are terrible, so screw them.

So what kind of a logo are we talking about with this new name?
The Spear Helmet
I'm willing to compromise. I'd go spear helmet and no name change. :thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would anyone have a problem if the Harlem Blackskins are the next NFL expansion team?But at least the Redskins logo isn't quite as woefully insensitive as this guy.

I'm against most of the PC crap nowadays... but this is always pretty good point. Change is not always bad, but I do like to keep the history of the game with the uniforms/logos of long ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I think it's dangerous to fall into a pattern of constantly worrying about "offending" every minority group that comes along, it's just a name. If NATIVE AMERICAN PEOPLE are truly offended, then change it. If it's mostly hooty tooty middle aged white people trying to make a stink (and all too often, they are the driving force behind these types of complaints), then %#^$ them.

They are. Here's more from that symposium. I also remember seeing a list of all the Native American groups that have condemned it recently, I'll see if I can find it.

I'm a fan of the team, but bottom line to me is that there's really no significant downside to changing the name. If a significant number of people (more than just a few crazies) find it offensive, why not change it?

Because it would #### up our touchdown song! :rant:
Song still works with "Warriors." And it's alliterative!

I don't think anyone would have a problem with Warriors if you got rid of the Native American imagery. People who whine about using military analogies to talk about sports, maybe, but those people are terrible, so screw them.

So what kind of a logo are we talking about with this new name?
The Spear Helmet
Washington Spear Chuckers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some snippets I thought were good from a look at linguistic controversy over the word itself and whether it is regarded as a slur or offensive.

The controversy around the word redskin is especially interesting for its unique place in the modern language and culture. While the modern dictionary entries for redskin and the lack of news headlines (either positive or negative) using redskin to label a Native American serve as evidence that a general consensus has been reached that the word is offensive, a major American professional football team uses the word as its name. The offensive nature of this is best understood when an analogy is presented. Unlike other Native American names for teams (Indians, Chiefs, Blackhawks, Braves, etc.), redskin has actually been classified as a disparaging ethnic slur. Just like the Cleveland Indians’ Chief Wahoo is to Native American mascots, the name Redskins is to Native American team names; that is, each is generally viewed as the most unacceptable and disparaging of their respective groups. As such, one only needs to replace “Redskins” with any other ethnic or racial slur that they know to form an analogous situation in their mind.

The fourth edition of the American Heritage Dictionary (2000) defines “redskin” as offensive slang, “a disparaging term for a Native American,” but Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1998) only calls it a “common appellation for a North American Indian.” While there may still be some disagreement among modern dictionaries as to the offensiveness of the word, a general consensus seems to have been reached among most of the media, and much of society, that the word is negative. Considering that much of the media has labeled the word offensive, it is rarely ever used in newspaper or other headlines, and all of the individual cases where groups have expressed their negative opinion of the word, one might begin to wonder; if the Washington Redskins were not called such, would the word still be used at all today? While certainly it would remain in history, would the word ever really be used at such a frequency and popularity as it is today? It seems illogical to think so. A word that so many have expressed a negative opinion of would seem destined for labels of antiquity and archaic nature if not for a battalion of major corporations who are able to make money off of it. Yet, despite all the reasons why redskin should be an archaic term, it still survives and makes money to this day, existing as a unique, and controversial, entry in the modern American lexicon.

As far as my own thoughts... I think it's clear enough it's widely viewed as an offensive term at best, outright slur at worst. This isn't just the case of some fringe element trying to be uber-PC. So I'd rather see the name changed.

Preferably the team would get together with some Native American representatives. As a group, come up with something that would honor the Native American history, including hopefully keeping the existing logo. There are other examples of sports teams use of Native American themes being embraced by their community. I'd rather see the Redskins work to make that happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's pretty much the equivalent of calling a black person the N-word.

Can you explain this? I've heard people say this before, but I don't get it. I've literally never heard anyone use "Redskins" in a derogatory manner. I've literally never witnessed anyone even so much flinch when they hear someone else use the word "Redskins". I can't say that for the N word. Many people cringe at the use of the N word. Many people deliberately use it in a derogatory manner.If someone argues that they are offended by "Redskins", I'm certainly not going to tell them they are wrong. But, I don't see how the two words are equivalent. Of course, that doesn't really settle this debate. A word can be less offensive than the N word and still be offensive enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's pretty much the equivalent of calling a black person the N-word.

Can you explain this? I've heard people say this before, but I don't get it. I've literally never heard anyone use "Redskins" in a derogatory manner. I've literally never witnessed anyone even so much flinch when they hear someone else use the word "Redskins". I can't say that for the N word. Many people cringe at the use of the N word. Many people deliberately use it in a derogatory manner.If someone argues that they are offended by "Redskins", I'm certainly not going to tell them they are wrong. But, I don't see how the two words are equivalent. Of course, that doesn't really settle this debate. A word can be less offensive than the N word and still be offensive enough.
How many times have any of us heard Redskins used to refer to anything other than the football team?Not many I'd imagine. Like the article I just posted said, the word seems to have fallen out of use because it was viewed as offensive.Let me give you another example. I know that many consider the term "jap" to be offensive. I've heard that it's still used that way on the West Coast in particular. I don't think I've ever personally heard the term used as a slur. I wasn't even aware it was viewed that way until the Bill Parcell's comment. Before that incident I might have used it same as I would the term "brit". But just because I don't hear it used that way doesn't mean it doesn't have a history of offensive use. A history that is going to be heard by others even if I try to use it non-offensively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's pretty much the equivalent of calling a black person the N-word.

Can you explain this? I've heard people say this before, but I don't get it. I've literally never heard anyone use "Redskins" in a derogatory manner. I've literally never witnessed anyone even so much flinch when they hear someone else use the word "Redskins". I can't say that for the N word. Many people cringe at the use of the N word. Many people deliberately use it in a derogatory manner.If someone argues that they are offended by "Redskins", I'm certainly not going to tell them they are wrong. But, I don't see how the two words are equivalent. Of course, that doesn't really settle this debate. A word can be less offensive than the N word and still be offensive enough.
How many times have any of us heard Redskins used to refer to anything other than the football team?Not many I'd imagine.
That's my point. It's not used negatively. The N word is widely used in a negative manner. Therefore, they aren't equivalent. Seriously, what the Redskins changed their name to the N Words? Would we see that is an offensive-neutral move? Would we say, "Well, they changed their name but it's pretty much the same thing"? No, there would be a full outcry and they'd make nearly no money because the N word is almost universally repulsive to use in public like that.

Like the article I just posted said, the word seems to have fallen out of use because it was viewed as offensive.

Is that a standard linguistic conclusion? That if a word is no longer used as a positive or a negative, that it is offensive?

Let me give you another example. I know that many consider the term "jap" to be offensive. I've heard that it's still used that way on the West Coast in particular. I don't think I've ever personally heard the term used as a slur. I wasn't even aware it was viewed that way until the Bill Parcell's comment. Before that incident I might have used it same as I would the term "brit". But just because I don't hear it used that way doesn't mean it doesn't have a history of offensive use. A history that is going to be heard by others even if I try to use it non-offensively.

I guess what I'm wondering is if "redskins" is used negatively, as "jap" is? Are there areas of the country where the higher Native American population lives that use the word as a slur? I would think that if it is a slur, it would be in use. When has our culture ever outlived offensive slurs? The N word and "jap" still exists in use BECAUSE they are a slur. I would think if they weren't offensive, they'd have faded away and wouldn't be used. There are plenty of racists out there to keep slurs alive.But, as with you and "jap", it could just be that I don't have any association with that world and the usage of "redskins". Maybe the use of that word in a racial context exists. That's mostly what I'm wondering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Snyder can do anything legally within the rules that he wishes to with his team including changing the name which is a racist slur.I think he's got a grand opportunity to do so right now if he has a saavy media darling type of hot-shot African American NFL Offensive Rookie of the year first round quarterback as his spokesman.Some who have no ill intent or malice but who see nothing wrong with this term will resist any sort of change but that is a racial slur and its high time to make a good name change.Their is just one question.How much guts does Danniel Snyder have? Very little if he doesn't take this opportunity now that he's got the perfect spokesman to accomplish this very easy task.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it doesn't offend me but i am not a native american. i think it's foolish to claim you know what should and should not offend a group of people that you are not a part of.

I don't have to be Native American to believe that the team name is now and has always been a racist slur. I'm not Chinese or Mexican, either, but that doesn't mean I'd be happy if the NFL featured the San Francisco Chinamen or the San Antonio Wetbacks.

While I think it's dangerous to fall into a pattern of constantly worrying about "offending" every minority group that comes along, it's just a name. If NATIVE AMERICAN PEOPLE are truly offended, then change it. If it's mostly hooty tooty middle aged white people trying to make a stink (and all too often, they are the driving force behind these types of complaints), then %#^$ them.

I'm not suggesting we poll every minority to see if they're offended by anything. I'm just proposing an outright ban on any name that was intended as a racial slur. You don't have to poll Chinese people before naming a team the "chinks". And I don't care if the team plays in freaking La Brea, and 80% of black people don't mind, there's no way in hell I'd ever support a team being called the "Tar Babies". I don't care if it's archaic and I've never actually heard it used, the phrase was invented to denigrate and dehumanize a certain ethnic group, so it doesn't belong on a sports team. That's the kind of history that deserves to be recognized, remembered, and corrected, not emblazoned on jerseys and blasted over national tv.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess what I'm wondering is if "redskins" is used negatively, as "jap" is? Are there areas of the country where the higher Native American population lives that use the word as a slur? I would think that if it is a slur, it would be in use. When has our culture ever outlived offensive slurs? The N word and "jap" still exists in use BECAUSE they are a slur. I would think if they weren't offensive, they'd have faded away and wouldn't be used. There are plenty of racists out there to keep slurs alive.But, as with you and "jap", it could just be that I don't have any association with that world and the usage of "redskins". Maybe the use of that word in a racial context exists. That's mostly what I'm wondering.

Lots of slurs fall out of style, usually because hating that ethnicity falls out of style. During the late 1800s to early 1900s, the Irish and Italian were reviled. Major newspapers published front page stories blaming them for all crime and poverty, and (as bizarre as it is to consider now), both groups were considered "non-white" or "non-Caucasian". Obviously, now both groups have been absorbed into mainstream society, so we don't hear them called Dago, Paddy, Taig, Guinea, or Wop anymore. Other slurs get rendered obsolete by cultural changes (such as Mammy) or by time (Tar Baby, Peckerwood). Still, just being out of common usage doesn't mean they should be fair game. Can you imagine if there was a WNBA team named the Mississippi Mammies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they probably should change the name, but I don't see any need to ditch the logo and etc. I don't really think it is offensive though.The above suggestion of Washington Warriors would work really well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Snyder has said he's not changing the name. IMO, only two things will change the name while he is owner:1. A legal ruling forcing the change or2. People actually stop using the word when referring to the team, making it a business decision for Snyder.If it's clearly so offensive, why does the NFL not force a change? Why are ESPN, Fox, CBS, and NBC ok with broadcasting their games and saying the word? Why is the Washington Post ok with using the word over and over and over in their work? Why is Prince George's County, Maryland, ok with a stadium with the word "Redskins" on it in their county? Why is Loudoun County, Virginia, ok with a practice facility with the word "Redskins" on it in their county? Why did the city of Richmond recently agree to host Redskins training camps and market it using the word "Redskins"?OK, I guess money answers a lot of these questions. But, why is there money to be made there? If "much of society" says the word is negative, as Greg Russel's posted article says, then why does much of society continue to use the word, leading to there being a market for the team name? Why do people at this message board not call out others for using the word and accuse them of using a racial slur? Better yet, why do all the people in this thread who claim it is clearly an offensive slur continue to type the word on this board and use the word as part of their language?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Condensing some for number of quote blocks.

...That's my point. It's not used negatively.

It was used negatively and it still is viewed as having that connotation. Just because it is no longer in wide use outside of referring to the team doesn't mean it lost that connotation. If it had lost that connotation, we could use it to refer to Native Americans and there wouldn't be any reaction to it.

Like the article I just posted said, the word seems to have fallen out of use because it was viewed as offensive.

Is that a standard linguistic conclusion? That if a word is no longer used as a positive or a negative, that it is offensive?
It isn't that it is viewed as offensive because it's not in use. It's viewed as offensive because it was used to give offense. That meaning is still how society in general views the word.Your argument could be boiled down to saying "Redskins" to refer to the team bears no connection to using the word "redskins" to refer to Native Americans, merely because the latter use isn't seen frequently these days. That isn't so, it is still going to be offensive to the people the word was originally meant to offend.Ultimately, communication is about the message that the audience hears. It isn't the amount of use of the word, it's the meaning that still is drawn if it is used. That meaning is still negative.

Let me give you another example. I know that many consider the term "jap" to be offensive. I've heard that it's still used that way on the West Coast in particular. I don't think I've ever personally heard the term used as a slur. I wasn't even aware it was viewed that way until the Bill Parcell's comment. Before that incident I might have used it same as I would the term "brit". But just because I don't hear it used that way doesn't mean it doesn't have a history of offensive use. A history that is going to be heard by others even if I try to use it non-offensively.

I guess what I'm wondering is if "redskins" is used negatively, as "jap" is? Are there areas of the country where the higher Native American population lives that use the word as a slur? I would think that if it is a slur, it would be in use. When has our culture ever outlived offensive slurs? The N word and "jap" still exists in use BECAUSE they are a slur. I would think if they weren't offensive, they'd have faded away and wouldn't be used. There are plenty of racists out there to keep slurs alive.But, as with you and "jap", it could just be that I don't have any association with that world and the usage of "redskins". Maybe the use of that word in a racial context exists. That's mostly what I'm wondering.
I don't really think you need to wonder. I think it's pretty clear it's been used offensively, and is still largely viewed that way. Especially by the people it was meant to be a slur against.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we know how Fantasy Football Index publisher Ian Allan feels about this issue.

You won't find the words "Redskins" or "Chiefs" anywhere in the magazine. Been that way as long as I can remember.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Snyder has said he's not changing the name. IMO, only two things will change the name while he is owner:1. A legal ruling forcing the change or2. People actually stop using the word when referring to the team, making it a business decision for Snyder.If it's clearly so offensive, why does the NFL not force a change? Why are ESPN, Fox, CBS, and NBC ok with broadcasting their games and saying the word? Why is the Washington Post ok with using the word over and over and over in their work? Why is Prince George's County, Maryland, ok with a stadium with the word "Redskins" on it in their county? Why is Loudoun County, Virginia, ok with a practice facility with the word "Redskins" on it in their county? Why did the city of Richmond recently agree to host Redskins training camps and market it using the word "Redskins"?OK, I guess money answers a lot of these questions. But, why is there money to be made there? If "much of society" says the word is negative, as Greg Russel's posted article says, then why does much of society continue to use the word, leading to there being a market for the team name? Why do people at this message board not call out others for using the word and accuse them of using a racial slur? Better yet, why do all the people in this thread who claim it is clearly an offensive slur continue to type the word on this board and use the word as part of their language?

Yeah, as you said, Money. The small size of the Native American population makes their objections not enough of a deterrent that it outweighs the gains for each of those entities. Not enough people object, so not enough care.If a team was named a slur against Blacks, Asians, or Latinos, I imagine the NFL would probably force them to change.If we could go back in time and cause Washington to choose some other moniker... do you think the NFL would let an expansion team in 2013 come into the league with the name Redskins? I don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Snyder has said he's not changing the name. IMO, only two things will change the name while he is owner:1. A legal ruling forcing the change or2. People actually stop using the word when referring to the team, making it a business decision for Snyder.If it's clearly so offensive, why does the NFL not force a change? Why are ESPN, Fox, CBS, and NBC ok with broadcasting their games and saying the word? Why is the Washington Post ok with using the word over and over and over in their work? Why is Prince George's County, Maryland, ok with a stadium with the word "Redskins" on it in their county? Why is Loudoun County, Virginia, ok with a practice facility with the word "Redskins" on it in their county? Why did the city of Richmond recently agree to host Redskins training camps and market it using the word "Redskins"?OK, I guess money answers a lot of these questions. But, why is there money to be made there? If "much of society" says the word is negative, as Greg Russel's posted article says, then why does much of society continue to use the word, leading to there being a market for the team name? Why do people at this message board not call out others for using the word and accuse them of using a racial slur? Better yet, why do all the people in this thread who claim it is clearly an offensive slur continue to type the word on this board and use the word as part of their language?

Part of it is that when a team nickname has been around forever people kind of stop thinking about what it means and their brain just goes to the team when they hear the word rather than the other meaning of the word. When was the last time you heard the team name of the New York basketball team and thought of baggy trousers that were popular in the early 20th century? Or heard the name of the LA basketball team and thought about people who live near lakes?I think the money question is ultimately what turns this, though. I haven't analyzed it too much but I think Snyder will ultimately lose on the trademark challenges, and obviously you can't afford to own an NFL team that doesn't have a trademark on its name and attire. You'd lose millions. The challengers lost last time around on a procedural snag, but that'll get cleaned up next time around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.