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

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 or

2. 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.

And while that's great for us, I don't imagine that Native Americans minds just thoughtlessly go to the team.

For me you can boil it down to this. What kind of reaction would you expect if you walk up to an average Native American person and say in a genuine voice of greeting, "Hey redskin, how's it going?"

I'd expect more times than not a negative reaction and for them to be offended. So if it's that obvious to me it's viewed as a negative term, then how can it not be wrong to use that name for a team alongside a logo that makes it clear the team name is referring to Native Americans by it?

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?
Can that be used as an argument that the Washington Redskins team name has helped the word to not be used negatively? I'm not arguing that's a reason to keep the name, just saying that the team could have actually been a positive.To answer Greg's question, I don't think the NFL would allow the team name today had it never been used before. But, maybe, that's because the word would have never been associated with something positive. Had the team name never existed, then all that would have ever existed is a slur. Now we have a situation where there word has been used negatively and positively.Hey, the team name may need to change. And my guess is it will change in my lifetime. But, I just don't buy arguments like "it's equivalent to the N word" and "society agrees it's a racial slur". I think if those were true, far more people would absolutely refuse to use the word in the football team context strictly based on the racial slur context. Far more people would absolutely refuse to buy t-shirts and hats. If those things were true, the money flow would have run dry. Maybe they'll be seen as true someday. They just aren't true right now.

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?
Can that be used as an argument that the Washington Redskins team name has helped the word to not be used negatively? I'm not arguing that's a reason to keep the name, just saying that the team could have actually been a positive.To answer Greg's question, I don't think the NFL would allow the team name today had it never been used before. But, maybe, that's because the word would have never been associated with something positive. Had the team name never existed, then all that would have ever existed is a slur. Now we have a situation where there word has been used negatively and positively.Hey, the team name may need to change. And my guess is it will change in my lifetime. But, I just don't buy arguments like "it's equivalent to the N word" and "society agrees it's a racial slur". I think if those were true, far more people would absolutely refuse to use the word in the football team context strictly based on the racial slur context. Far more people would absolutely refuse to buy t-shirts and hats. If those things were true, the money flow would have run dry. Maybe they'll be seen as true someday. They just aren't true right now.
Interesting argument. If it was every truly considered as bad as the "n" word I guess you could argue that maybe the team took some of the oomph out of the slur. But to me that's not enough to want to keep it. Enough people find it offensive that I think the negative far outweighs the positive. Maybe I'm just missing the positive. I've been a Skins fan for a looonnnng time, and I don't see that much value in just a name and a logo. As long as they find a way to keep the song.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can that be used as an argument that the Washington Redskins team name has helped the word to not be used negatively? I'm not arguing that's a reason to keep the name, just saying that the team could have actually been a positive.

To answer Greg's question, I don't think the NFL would allow the team name today had it never been used before. But, maybe, that's because the word would have never been associated with something positive. Had the team name never existed, then all that would have ever existed is a slur. Now we have a situation where there word has been used negatively and positively.

Hey, the team name may need to change. And my guess is it will change in my lifetime. But, I just don't buy arguments like "it's equivalent to the N word" and "society agrees it's a racial slur". I think if those were true, far more people would absolutely refuse to use the word in the football team context strictly based on the racial slur context. Far more people would absolutely refuse to buy t-shirts and hats. If those things were true, the money flow would have run dry. Maybe they'll be seen as true someday. They just aren't true right now.

No. Adopting a pejorative term as a team name about a race of people does not make it any less offensive to them.

And while I don't agree that it is in the N word league (so to speak) because of historical baggage, the bottom line is that most Native Americans perceive it as a derogatory slur and out of respect to them, its use a team name should end. As SSOG pointed out calling a team The San Antonio Wetbacks would not fly in this day and age, but because Native Americans have no political clout to speak of, it is allowed to stand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can that be used as an argument that the Washington Redskins team name has helped the word to not be used negatively? I'm not arguing that's a reason to keep the name, just saying that the team could have actually been a positive.To answer Greg's question, I don't think the NFL would allow the team name today had it never been used before. But, maybe, that's because the word would have never been associated with something positive. Had the team name never existed, then all that would have ever existed is a slur. Now we have a situation where there word has been used negatively and positively.Hey, the team name may need to change. And my guess is it will change in my lifetime. But, I just don't buy arguments like "it's equivalent to the N word" and "society agrees it's a racial slur". I think if those were true, far more people would absolutely refuse to use the word in the football team context strictly based on the racial slur context. Far more people would absolutely refuse to buy t-shirts and hats. If those things were true, the money flow would have run dry. Maybe they'll be seen as true someday. They just aren't true right now.

Politically correct terms change over time, negro, black, African American. The term black was considered taboo until the African American community took what had been a negative term 'black' and took control of it and changed it into a positive term.The term by the Washington football team hasn't ever been a positive term nor has it ever been taken control of by the people who have been slurred by it.Not only has it never been controled/owned or taken over by native people the term refers to their skin color and was a racial slur.The nickname describes the most visible part of one people. This is not a neutral term but refers to a part of their body.Dan Snyder is Jewish.If people refer to him by his religion he may not be offended at all, he may even be very proud.If people refer to him by a symbol of his religion he may not be offended and may be very proud.If people refered to Dan Synder's religious affiliation by using racist reference that the Nazi's used refering to his nose then it is totally different.Then it is a racial slur no matter if that slur was meant to be positive where a person could rise up and be prosperous and own a Nationally refered to football team. Oh and a NFL team that refers to many people who were wiped out by genocide and were treated as less than human and one way to label them was by refering those people by their skin color. A team owned by a Jewish owner might find some example in more recent history where a people were treated as less than human and were mass murdered by genocide. I bet he would change the name of his team if it were the Heebs or the hook noses even if he was making money or he didn't have enough people voting on polls who had no connection with the negative aspect of that sort of racial slur.

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?

Opposition has very slowly been picking up steam, but these things take time. I know several journalists and one entire Washington newspaper have decided to stop using the name.

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?

Opposition has very slowly been picking up steam, but these things take time. I know several journalists and one entire Washington newspaper have decided to stop using the name.
Which paper?

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?

Opposition has very slowly been picking up steam, but these things take time. I know several journalists and one entire Washington newspaper have decided to stop using the name.
Which paper?
The Washington City Paper. They now call them the Pigskins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dgreen, would you ever refer to a bunch of American Indians as redskins?

Probably not.
Why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dgreen, would you ever refer to a bunch of American Indians as redskins?

Probably not.
Why not?
For me, it would be because the word "redskins" would never cross my mind. The reason it would never cross my mind is because I have literally never heard someone say that. The only use of the word I have ever heard is in regards to the football team and in these discussions.

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?

Opposition has very slowly been picking up steam, but these things take time. I know several journalists and one entire Washington newspaper have decided to stop using the name.
Which paper?
The Washington City Paper. They now call them the Pigskins.
The paper that was sued by Snyder and the Redskins?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dgreen, would you ever refer to a bunch of American Indians as redskins?

Probably not.
Why not?
For me, it would be because the word "redskins" would never cross my mind. The reason it would never cross my mind is because I have literally never heard someone say that. The only use of the word I have ever heard is in regards to the football team and in these discussions.
I never hear anyone call a group of Hispanics Spics either, but I still know it would be offensive. :shrug:

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.

Then I want all schools including Notre Dame to stop using the word Irish.

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?
yup. i agree with that. i am saying daniel snyder's opinion shouldn't be worth anything here. is there a downside financially? wouldn't a new team name, new jerseys, new colors ect... mean a huge increase in new jersey sales and that kind of stuff for the team?

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.

Then I want all schools including Notre Dame to stop using the word Irish.
thats not the same. there aren't groups of people wanting notre dame to stop using the word irish. it doesn't offend anyone. in fact, as ar as i know, people of irish decent like that connection. if they did then yes, it would be in the same group. likewise, if native americans were okay with the redskins term, we wouldn't be an issue.it's up to them to decide if it is an offensive term or not. it is not up to me or you (assuming you are not of native american decent)

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?

Congrats on the dumbest post possible.I'm usually against changing team names but the redskins is probably the only one that should change. Edited by BoomGoesTheDynamite

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.

Then I want all schools including Notre Dame to stop using the word Irish.
thats not the same. there aren't groups of people wanting notre dame to stop using the word irish. it doesn't offend anyone. in fact, as ar as i know, people of irish decent like that connection. if they did then yes, it would be in the same group. likewise, if native americans were okay with the redskins term, we wouldn't be an issue.

it's up to them to decide if it is an offensive term or not. it is not up to me or you (assuming you are not of native american decent)

there aren't any that are ok with it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep the name. Change the logo to a certain red-hued potato. Problem solved. Go Spuds!

Edited by Harjiran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The term carries equal horrible connotations as other racial slurs. The fact that the Native American population is much smaller than other ethnic groups doesn't make it OK to use the term. Nor does it make it OK to have a stereotypical drawing on the helmet. I don't think we need to talk about the mascot. Unless you are a member of the group, you really have no business saying whether any of it should be taken as offensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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"?

Why were African Americans once held as property? Why were entire Native American tribes nearly exterminated by Europe immigrants? Why weren't African Americans allowed to vote in 1869? Why were women not allowed to vote in 1919? Why wasn't Rosa Parks allowed to ride in the front of the bus in 1955? I believe the answer is that those with power and indifference often require a little enlightenment to stop oppressing others.Bottom line, many Native Americans (and others as well) think it's offensive. That makes it offensive. Edited by LuckyOne

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?

Congrats on the dumbest post possible.

I'm usually against changing team names but the redskins is probably definitely the only one that should change.

It's racist, and people who don't want to change it are embracing racism quite explicitly. Some folks obviously have poor insight on issues regarding race and their own insensitivities, but this one is pretty obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dgreen, would you ever refer to a bunch of American Indians as redskins?

Probably not.
Why not?
For me, it would be because the word "redskins" would never cross my mind. The reason it would never cross my mind is because I have literally never heard someone say that. The only use of the word I have ever heard is in regards to the football team and in these discussions.
I never hear anyone call a group of Hispanics Spics either, but I still know it would be offensive. :shrug:
Sure you have. When I say I have never heard "redskins" used in an offensive manner, I mean that literally. Never. Not once. I don't think that's what you mean with the Hispanic analogy.And, I never said that doesn't make it offensive. I never used that as evidence that the team shouldnt change their name. I used that as evidence that it is not equivalent to the n word nor is it considered racists across all of society.

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?
yup. i agree with that. i am saying daniel snyder's opinion shouldn't be worth anything here. is there a downside financially? wouldn't a new team name, new jerseys, new colors ect... mean a huge increase in new jersey sales and that kind of stuff for the team?
I guarantee Snyder would fear a large loss of revenue in the short term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dgreen, would you ever refer to a bunch of American Indians as redskins?

Probably not.
Why not?
For me, it would be because the word "redskins" would never cross my mind. The reason it would never cross my mind is because I have literally never heard someone say that. The only use of the word I have ever heard is in regards to the football team and in these discussions.
I never hear anyone call a group of Hispanics Spics either, but I still know it would be offensive. :shrug:
Sure you have. When I say I have never heard "redskins" used in an offensive manner, I mean that literally. Never. Not once. I don't think that's what you mean with the Hispanic analogy.And, I never said that doesn't make it offensive. I never used that as evidence that the team shouldnt change their name. I used that as evidence that it is not equivalent to the n word nor is it considered racists across all of society.
I suspect you've heard it used and have either forgot or didn't take notice of it. You'd have to pretty much grow up without movies or television to have never heard it used as a slur.You couldn't have watched many Western movies or TV shows in your life. You couldn't have ever watched movies like "Thunderheart", "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest", or "On Deadly Ground" for example. Though the last being a Steven Seagal movie, it would be understandable if one tried to forget having ever seen it.

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.

:thumbup:

Well said!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Indians are offended by it then of course it should be changed. It's just a name, who cares.

I'm trying to relate, but finding it difficult. As a white American, I haven't been subjected to racial abuse. In fact, coming up with a slur is hard. If "cracker" is it, well... So, it isn't really the term that's offensive, but the derision, hate, and condescension that accompany it. I intended this post to say that I'd definitly get behind the Guatemala Gringos were I there, but now I'm not so sure.Edit for spelling Edited by daveR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe Washington Smallpox?Instead of waving Terrible Towels, fans could wave Influenza Blankets?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe Washington Smallpox?Instead of waving Terrible Towels, fans could wave Influenza Blankets?

Really? A joke about smallpox blankets in this conversation? :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure you have. When I say I have never heard "redskins" used in an offensive manner, I mean that literally. Never. Not once. I don't think that's what you mean with the Hispanic analogy.And, I never said that doesn't make it offensive. I never used that as evidence that the team shouldnt change their name. I used that as evidence that it is not equivalent to the n word nor is it considered racists across all of society.

Native Americans compose less than 1% of the population. Many of those live on reservations. Many of those that don’t live on reservations live in rural communities. Many people don’t know anyone or only know a few people that identify themselves as Native American. The smaller population results in less exposure to and less media coverage of bias against that group. So, your argument really sounds like you’re saying it’s OK because there are fewer Native Americans than other ethnic groups.It was a term used by the “white man” to describe those “heathens” they were wiping from this planet. Yep, just as offensive as any other racial slur.Many Native Americans find the term offensive. That’s all that really matters. Based on that alone the name, logo and mascot should be changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dgreen, would you ever refer to a bunch of American Indians as redskins?

Probably not.
Why not?
For me, it would be because the word "redskins" would never cross my mind. The reason it would never cross my mind is because I have literally never heard someone say that. The only use of the word I have ever heard is in regards to the football team and in these discussions.
I never hear anyone call a group of Hispanics Spics either, but I still know it would be offensive. :shrug:
Sure you have. When I say I have never heard "redskins" used in an offensive manner, I mean that literally. Never. Not once. I don't think that's what you mean with the Hispanic analogy.And, I never said that doesn't make it offensive. I never used that as evidence that the team shouldnt change their name. I used that as evidence that it is not equivalent to the n word nor is it considered racists across all of society.
I suspect you've heard it used and have either forgot or didn't take notice of it. You'd have to pretty much grow up without movies or television to have never heard it used as a slur.You couldn't have watched many Western movies or TV shows in your life. You couldn't have ever watched movies like "Thunderheart", "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest", or "On Deadly Ground" for example. Though the last being a Steven Seagal movie, it would be understandable if one tried to forget having ever seen it.
I've seen One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, but I don't remember it being used. I haven't seen those two other movies. I don't usually watch Westerns, so maybe that's why I haven't noticed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would help here is for fans of the Washington team to build momentum for this. It would be a show of grace and, perhaps, dignity. The alternative has been, and will continue to be (until such time the name change is forced upon the team), implicit and/or explicit racism born out of ignorance. This is yet another opportunity for self-reflection to Washington fans, as they could get this changed overnight if they truly took a step back and thought about it for a minute and decided that they are 100%, all in, against bigotry and racism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My grandfather was part cherokee, and he was a Redskins fan. One of the things he loved about the team was the name and logo. :shrug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Change it. Its brutally racist and the only reason why it has not been already change is because the first nations population has been brutally marginalized

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How come the Chiefs never seem to catch any crap for their nickname? It always seems to be the Redskins.

Because the redskins is flat out derogatory...the chiefs is not.

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.

Then I want all schools including Notre Dame to stop using the word Irish.
thats not the same. there aren't groups of people wanting notre dame to stop using the word irish. it doesn't offend anyone. in fact, as ar as i know, people of irish decent like that connection. if they did then yes, it would be in the same group. likewise, if native americans were okay with the redskins term, we wouldn't be an issue.

it's up to them to decide if it is an offensive term or not. it is not up to me or you (assuming you are not of native american decent)

Not true. My father and I are both Irish....and we find the term "fighting Irish" deeply offensive....don't understand how people can consider it acceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How come the Chiefs never seem to catch any crap for their nickname? It always seems to be the Redskins.

Because "Chief" is not a slur, it's a position of respect within the Native American community. It'd be like if Tuskegee University were trying to come up with a name for its football team, and it was deciding between "The Tuskegee Airmen" and "The Tuskegee Coons".

Now, this isn't to say "Chiefs" couldn't still be offensive if other elements of the team were caricatures or stereotypes, just like "The Tuskegee Airmen" could still be an offensive team name if the mascot was some white dude who danced around in blackface. It's just that the team "chiefs" is not inherently offensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How come the Chiefs never seem to catch any crap for their nickname? It always seems to be the Redskins.

Because "Chief" is not a slur, it's a position of respect within the Native American community. It'd be like if Tuskegee University were trying to come up with a name for its football team, and it was deciding between "The Tuskegee Airmen" and "The Tuskegee Coons".

Now, this isn't to say "Chiefs" couldn't still be offensive if other elements of the team were caricatures or stereotypes, just like "The Tuskegee Airmen" could still be an offensive team name if the mascot was some white dude who danced around in blackface. It's just that the team "chiefs" is not inherently offensive.

Hmmm...

Warpaint was a paint Pinto horse who served as the mascot for the Kansas City Chiefs from 1963 until 1989. Warpaint would run the length of the field after a chiefs touchdown with his rider "Chief" in full Indian Chief garb. After the Chiefs won Super Bowl IV, Warpaint led the parade.

Why do you figure they got rid of ol' Chief?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How come the Chiefs never seem to catch any crap for their nickname? It always seems to be the Redskins.

Because "Chief" is not a slur, it's a position of respect within the Native American community. It'd be like if Tuskegee University were trying to come up with a name for its football team, and it was deciding between "The Tuskegee Airmen" and "The Tuskegee Coons".

Now, this isn't to say "Chiefs" couldn't still be offensive if other elements of the team were caricatures or stereotypes, just like "The Tuskegee Airmen" could still be an offensive team name if the mascot was some white dude who danced around in blackface. It's just that the team "chiefs" is not inherently offensive.

Hmmm...

Warpaint was a paint Pinto horse who served as the mascot for the Kansas City Chiefs from 1963 until 1989. Warpaint would run the length of the field after a chiefs touchdown with his rider "Chief" in full Indian Chief garb. After the Chiefs won Super Bowl IV, Warpaint led the parade.

Why do you figure they got rid of ol' Chief?
Right. But the point is, they did get rid of ol' Chief, because it was offensive. And now what's left is not offensive, racist, stereotypical, or otherwise a caricature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll bet most Chiefs fans don't even know the genesis of the team's nickname:

The Chiefs actually were named for former mayor H. Roe Bartle — known as “The Chief” — who was key in getting the team to come to Kansas City in the 1960s.

Although the organization used Indian imagery in the past, Newman said, it does so no more beyond the arrowhead in its logo. “We hold the name in high esteem,” Newman said.

Still, the tepees, painted faces and turkey feathers persist with the smell of grilled brats where Chiefs fans gather for tailgating, Gayton said. “People don’t want to take responsibility,” he said. “People don’t want to think about it.”

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.

Then I want all schools including Notre Dame to stop using the word Irish.
thats not the same. there aren't groups of people wanting notre dame to stop using the word irish. it doesn't offend anyone. in fact, as ar as i know, people of irish decent like that connection. if they did then yes, it would be in the same group. likewise, if native americans were okay with the redskins term, we wouldn't be an issue.

it's up to them to decide if it is an offensive term or not. it is not up to me or you (assuming you are not of native american decent)

Not true. My father and I are both Irish....and we find the term "fighting Irish" deeply offensive....don't understand how people can consider it acceptable.
I think most Irish people like it, I know I do. Are people upset about the fighting Illini? I just don't see why the term fighting is negative in the context of sports. People may argue that it's a stereotype of the Irish drinking but that is your own bias coming into play.

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.

Then I want all schools including Notre Dame to stop using the word Irish.
thats not the same. there aren't groups of people wanting notre dame to stop using the word irish. it doesn't offend anyone. in fact, as ar as i know, people of irish decent like that connection. if they did then yes, it would be in the same group. likewise, if native americans were okay with the redskins term, we wouldn't be an issue.

it's up to them to decide if it is an offensive term or not. it is not up to me or you (assuming you are not of native american decent)

Not true. My father and I are both Irish....and we find the term "fighting Irish" deeply offensive....don't understand how people can consider it acceptable.
I think most Irish people like it, I know I do. Are people upset about the fighting Illini? I just don't see why the term fighting is negative in the context of sports. People may argue that it's a stereotype of the Irish drinking but that is your own bias coming into play.
Read above. The poster earlier claimed that "it doesn't offend anyone." Which isn't true - it offends me. I'm not lobbying to change the name....just pointing out that the poster above is flat out wrong. Google this topic and you'll find that others are offended too.....which again, does not mean we should change the name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last time this issue came up they asked the native americans in VA and MD what they thought of the Redskins, and they pretty muc all said it was "pretty cool." If it isnt offending the people who should be offended then it isnt offensive

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.