Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
DBIsports

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

Should the Washington Redskins change their name?  

746 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

The name is a nice tribute IMO. If it weren't for sports teams named after them, we'd rarely even think about the Indians.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it should not be changed. There is way to much PC in this world.

>I can't find anything more current, but as of 2004 90% of Native Americans polled had no problems with the name.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/redskins/2004-09-24-redskins-indians-poll_x.h

tm

10% seems like sort of a lot. How many people are offended by the names of other NFL teams?

It seems kind of low to me. If one person out of ten complains do we need to change things to placate that one person, or should they realize things will happen in life they don't agree with?

Setting aside the fact that the study was flawed, "things that will happen in life they don't agree with" is not the same as "people will use racial slurs they find offensive but if other people don't find them offensive they have to deal with it."

I can't think of another racial slur whose use we tolerate in regular conversation even if 1% of the targeted population finds them offensive. But hey, feel free to throw out some examples if you've got 'em. It's Friday afternoon, this thread could use some spicing up.

:shrug: I don't really care, but I think it's a lot of fuss about nothing. I've never even heard it used a racial slur. The term is always in reference to the team.

Somehow your own personal experiences as a (white?) Tennessean who hangs out on a fantasy football message board don't really seem like a good measuring stick for what the term means.

Regardless, the team is clearly named after Native Americans, it's right there on the helmet. The name was given a long time ago, back when black people were called "coloreds" or worse and nobody batted an eye. The guy who named them that is one of the worst racists in the history of professional sports. Given those circumstances, I don't think "in reference to a football team" and "racial slur" are mutually exclusive.

I'm kinda with GoFishTN on this one....what is the racial slur that is associated with "Washington Redskins" ?? I've never heard it used in a derogatory manner by anyone ever, but concede I'm not in all places at all times.

Probably because it is an outdated slur. 150-200 years ago it was probably common. Now it is considered derogatory so you just don't hear it. I would put it on the same level as "darkie".

Interested in the slur and what it refers too though. Seems like folks are glossing over the term in question and dropping "Washington" from it and attacking it as if it were just "redskins" that has to be addressed.

wat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it should not be changed. There is way to much PC in this world.

>I can't find anything more current, but as of 2004 90% of Native Americans polled had no problems with the name.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/redskins/2004-09-24-redskins-indians-poll_x.h

tm

10% seems like sort of a lot. How many people are offended by the names of other NFL teams?

It seems kind of low to me. If one person out of ten complains do we need to change things to placate that one person, or should they realize things will happen in life they don't agree with?

Setting aside the fact that the study was flawed, "things that will happen in life they don't agree with" is not the same as "people will use racial slurs they find offensive but if other people don't find them offensive they have to deal with it."

I can't think of another racial slur whose use we tolerate in regular conversation even if 1% of the targeted population finds them offensive. But hey, feel free to throw out some examples if you've got 'em. It's Friday afternoon, this thread could use some spicing up.

:shrug: I don't really care, but I think it's a lot of fuss about nothing. I've never even heard it used a racial slur. The term is always in reference to the team.

Somehow your own personal experiences as a (white?) Tennessean who hangs out on a fantasy football message board don't really seem like a good measuring stick for what the term means.

Regardless, the team is clearly named after Native Americans, it's right there on the helmet. The name was given a long time ago, back when black people were called "coloreds" or worse and nobody batted an eye. The guy who named them that is one of the worst racists in the history of professional sports. Given those circumstances, I don't think "in reference to a football team" and "racial slur" are mutually exclusive.

I'm kinda with GoFishTN on this one....what is the racial slur that is associated with "Washington Redskins" ?? I've never heard it used in a derogatory manner by anyone ever, but concede I'm not in all places at all times.

Probably because it is an outdated slur. 150-200 years ago it was probably common. Now it is considered derogatory so you just don't hear it. I would put it on the same level as "darkie".

Interested in the slur and what it refers too though. Seems like folks are glossing over the term in question and dropping "Washington" from it and attacking it as if it were just "redskins" that has to be addressed.

"Redskin" is a racial descriptor for the indigenous peoples of the Americas and one of the color metaphors for race used in North America and Europe since European colonization of the Western Hemisphere.

"Red" as a color metaphor for indigenous people in the Americas is also used without being compounded with "skins", as in the "Red Power" movement in the US in the 1960s and 70s or the 1970 "Red Paper" on Indian policy published by the Indian Chiefs of Alberta in Canada their leader Harold Cardinal.

The term is controversial as it is considered by some to be extremely offensive (an r-word for Native Americans equivalent to the n-word for African-Americans),[1]but neutral by others.[2] The consensus based upon a comparison of current dictionary definitions is that the term has negative or disparaging connotations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interested in the slur and what it refers too though. Seems like folks are glossing over the term in question and dropping "Washington" from it and attacking it as if it were just "redskins" that has to be addressed.

WTH are you talking about? It's the nickname that is the problem. Would New York Hymies be OK because "New York Hymies" somehow means something different than if you just used the word Hymie on its own?

Apparently :shrug:

As the 90-minute hearing before three judges on the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board showed, the case against the team is not as simple as declaring that the word “redskins” is a slur and therefore shouldn’t have federal trademark protection. The group of five Native American petitioners has to show that the name “Washington Redskins” was disparaging to a significant population of American Indians back when the team was granted the trademarks from 1967 to 1990.

Seems to me that they have to show that "Washington Redskins" is a problem to a significant population of the American Indians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The name is a nice tribute IMO. If it weren't for sports teams named after them, we'd rarely even think about the Indians.

a tribute to their slaughter, maybe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its all a moo point

Native Americans lack the numbers and money to be a political power or an ecominc power. Even if they had more power, while this might offend them it is one in a list of issues they'd want to tackle, and probably not real high on the list. Conversely the NFL and the Redskins have a lot of money and power. There's a brand that has been established and they are not going to surrender that

So unless some legal trickery like this lawsuit succeeds, the name is here for good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interested in the slur and what it refers too though. Seems like folks are glossing over the term in question and dropping "Washington" from it and attacking it as if it were just "redskins" that has to be addressed.

WTH are you talking about? It's the nickname that is the problem. Would New York Hymies be OK because "New York Hymies" somehow means something different than if you just used the word Hymie on its own?

Apparently :shrug:

>As the 90-minute hearing before three judges on the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board showed, the case against the team is not as simple as declaring that the word “redskins” is a slur and therefore shouldn’t have federal trademark protection. The group of five Native American petitioners has to show that the name “Washington Redskins” was disparaging to a significant population of American Indians back when the team was granted the trademarks from 1967 to 1990.

Seems to me that they have to show that "Washington Redskins" is a problem to a significant population of the American Indians.

:lmao: Good god. That's not what it says at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interested in the slur and what it refers too though. Seems like folks are glossing over the term in question and dropping "Washington" from it and attacking it as if it were just "redskins" that has to be addressed.

WTH are you talking about? It's the nickname that is the problem. Would New York Hymies be OK because "New York Hymies" somehow means something different than if you just used the word Hymie on its own?

Apparently :shrug:

Seems to me that they have to show that "Washington Redskins" is a problem to a significant population of the American Indians.

>As the 90-minute hearing before three judges on the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board showed, the case against the team is not as simple as declaring that the word “redskins” is a slur and therefore shouldn’t have federal trademark protection. The group of five Native American petitioners has to show that the name “Washington Redskins” was disparaging to a significant population of American Indians back when the team was granted the trademarks from 1967 to 1990.<

/span>

:lmao: Good god. That's not what it says at all.

Sorry...was just reading the words on the page. How about educating me a bit?? I've not followed any of this closely. So if that's not what is meant, then what do they mean? The first step to me is getting rid of the trademark, no? That would allow you to disassociate the terms. As it stands I don't see how "Washington Redskin" as a term is offensive. Everyone knows what it means and what it's associated with.

Edited by The Commish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The previous suit was not thrown out on the merits (or to "stop being stupid"), but, on a laches argument that the plaintiffs should have filed suit earlier. The current suit involves younger plaintiffs, so they are hoping to avoid that this go-around.

Maybe they can go with a fetus as the plaintiff next time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The previous suit was not thrown out on the merits (or to "stop being stupid"), but, on a laches argument that the plaintiffs should have filed suit earlier. The current suit involves younger plaintiffs, so they are hoping to avoid that this go-around.

Maybe they can go with a fetus as the plaintiff next time.

sperm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Linky.

"There is today no single word more offensive to Indian people then the term "redskins," a racial epithet..."

Why ARE so many okay with this? :shrug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its all a moo point Native Americans lack the numbers and money to be a political power or an ecominc power. Even if they had more power, while this might offend them it is one in a list of issues they'd want to tackle, and probably not real high on the list. Conversely the NFL and the Redskins have a lot of money and power. There's a brand that has been established and they are not going to surrender that So unless some legal trickery like this lawsuit succeeds, the name is here for good.

I don't agree with some of your premises. I'm not sure that Snyder or the NFL would lose money by changing it. And plenty of non-Native Americans oppose the name too, so it isn't only them that matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its all a moo point

Native Americans lack the numbers and money to be a political power or an ecominc power. Even if they had more power, while this might offend them it is one in a list of issues they'd want to tackle, and probably not real high on the list. Conversely the NFL and the Redskins have a lot of money and power. There's a brand that has been established and they are not going to surrender that

So unless some legal trickery like this lawsuit succeeds, the name is here for good.

This is a very good point. Of all the things that have happened over the centuries this ranks pretty low on the scale but that doesn't mean it's not an offensive name. Should have never been granted in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interested in the slur and what it refers too though. Seems like folks are glossing over the term in question and dropping "Washington" from it and attacking it as if it were just "redskins" that has to be addressed.

WTH are you talking about? It's the nickname that is the problem. Would New York Hymies be OK because "New York Hymies" somehow means something different than if you just used the word Hymie on its own?

Apparently :shrug:

Seems to me that they have to show that "Washington Redskins" is a problem to a significant population of the American Indians.

>As the 90-minute hearing before three judges on the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board showed, the case against the team is not as simple as declaring that the word “redskins” is a slur and therefore shouldn’t have federal trademark protection. The group of five Native American petitioners has to show that the name “Washington Redskins” was disparaging to a significant population of American Indians back when the team was granted the trademarks from 1967 to 1990.<

/span>

:lmao: Good god. That's not what it says at all.

Sorry...was just reading the words on the page. How about educating me a bit?? I've not followed any of this closely. So if that's not what is meant, then what do they mean? The first step to me is getting rid of the trademark, no? That would allow you to disassociate the terms. As it stands I don't see how "Washington Redskin" as a term is offensive. Everyone knows what it means and what it's associated with.

Would "New York Hymies" be offensive?

I don't know what "words on the page" you're reading, but based on what you quoted maybe they're just saying that you need to meet the legal standard as it applies to the way the team is using it, you can't just walk in as the plaintiff, say its a slur and be done with it. The team is clearly referencing Native Americans, so "Redskin" vs. "Washington Redskin" is a meaningless distinction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Linky.

"There is today no single word more offensive to Indian people then the term "redskins," a racial epithet..."

Why ARE so many okay with this? :shrug:

because not all indians believe that

so it is easy to just say "why should a few people ruin our team name"

The term was once in common use, as evidenced in Western movies, but is now largely considered a pejorative and is seldom used publicly (aside from the football team - see below). As with any term perceived to be discriminatory, different individuals may hold differing opinions of the term's appropriateness.[4]However, common wisdom appears to have settled on the notion that the term is a particularly egregious racial epithet that represents a bloody era in American history in which Indigenous Americans were hunted, killed, and forcibly displaced removed from their lands by European settlers.

that line is the kicker, you can find some native americans that are not offended. So how many is the magic number where it is offensive?

Now consider how small and politically insignificant the native american minority is, and it is easy to poo poo this as a few indians who are pissed off

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interested in the slur and what it refers too though. Seems like folks are glossing over the term in question and dropping "Washington" from it and attacking it as if it were just "redskins" that has to be addressed.

WTH are you talking about? It's the nickname that is the problem. Would New York Hymies be OK because "New York Hymies" somehow means something different than if you just used the word Hymie on its own?

Apparently :shrug:

<

blockquote>

>As the 90-minute hearing before three judges on the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board showed, the case against the team is not as simple as declaring that the word “redskins” is a slur and therefore shouldn’t have federal trademark protection. The group of five Native American petitioners has to show that the name “Washington Redskins” was disparaging to a significant population of American Indians back when the team was granted the trademarks from 1967 to 1990.<

>/span>

Seems to me that they have to show that "Washington Redskins" is a problem to a significant population of the American Indians.

:lmao: Good god. That's not what it says at all.

Sorry...was just reading the words on the page. How about educating me a bit?? I've not followed any of this closely. So if that's not what is meant, then what do they mean?

They have a problem with the word "redskin" the same way somebody would have a problem with the word "coon" or "beaner". Unfortunately Native Americans do not have the clout to get people to care about the slur.

What they're doing is going to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (whatever that is) and saying that the Washington Redskins shouldn't be able to trademark their name because it violates a " law that prohibits registered names that are disparaging, scandalous, contemptuous or disreputable."

Basically they are trying to use this small legality in order to force a change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its all a moo point Native Americans lack the numbers and money to be a political power or an ecominc power. Even if they had more power, while this might offend them it is one in a list of issues they'd want to tackle, and probably not real high on the list. Conversely the NFL and the Redskins have a lot of money and power. There's a brand that has been established and they are not going to surrender that So unless some legal trickery like this lawsuit succeeds, the name is here for good.

I don't agree with some of your premises. I'm not sure that Snyder or the NFL would lose money by changing it. And plenty of non-Native Americans oppose the name too, so it isn't only them that matter.

I don't think he lose money either, but there's brand equity and it means a lot to him and the NFL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interested in the slur and what it refers too though. Seems like folks are glossing over the term in question and dropping "Washington" from it and attacking it as if it were just "redskins" that has to be addressed.

WTH are you talking about? It's the nickname that is the problem. Would New York Hymies be OK because "New York Hymies" somehow means something different than if you just used the word Hymie on its own?

Apparently :shrug:

Seems to me that they have to show that "Washington Redskins" is a problem to a significant population of the American Indians.

>As the 90-minute hearing before three judges on the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board showed, the case against the team is not as simple as declaring that the word “redskins” is a slur and therefore shouldn’t have federal trademark protection. The group of five Native American petitioners has to show that the name “Washington Redskins” was disparaging to a significant population of American Indians back when the team was granted the trademarks from 1967 to 1990.<

/span>

:lmao: Good god. That's not what it says at all.

Sorry...was just reading the words on the page. How about educating me a bit?? I've not followed any of this closely. So if that's not what is meant, then what do they mean? The first step to me is getting rid of the trademark, no? That would allow you to disassociate the terms. As it stands I don't see how "Washington Redskin" as a term is offensive. Everyone knows what it means and what it's associated with.

Would "New York Hymies" be offensive?

I don't know what "words on the page" you're reading, but based on what you quoted maybe they're just saying that you need to meet the legal standard as it applies to the way the team is using it, you can't just walk in as the plaintiff, say its a slur and be done with it. The team is clearly referencing Native Americans, so "Redskin" vs. "Washington Redskin" is a meaningless distinction.

This is the article:

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/03/07/fight-on-battle-over-redskins-name-heads-to-court/

Personally, I think it's like any other term and intent matters. Perhaps that's what the courts are saying??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its all a moo point

Native Americans lack the numbers and money to be a political power or an ecominc power. Even if they had more power, while this might offend them it is one in a list of issues they'd want to tackle, and probably not real high on the list. Conversely the NFL and the Redskins have a lot of money and power. There's a brand that has been established and they are not going to surrender that

So unless some legal trickery like this lawsuit succeeds, the name is here for good.

This is a very good point. Of all the things that have happened over the centuries this ranks pretty low on the scale but that doesn't mean it's not an offensive name. Should have never been granted in the first place.

I agree

I, however, generally feel sympathetic to the historic and current situation of native americans

a lot of people just don't give it a second thought. That does not make them bad people, it is just not a concern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if they had more power, while this might offend them it is one in a list of issues they'd want to tackle, and probably not real high on the list.

Probably not even the top sports-related issue. Chief Wahoo is way, way more racist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interested in the slur and what it refers too though. Seems like folks are glossing over the term in question and dropping "Washington" from it and attacking it as if it were just "redskins" that has to be addressed.

WTH are you talking about? It's the nickname that is the problem. Would New York Hymies be OK because "New York Hymies" somehow means something different than if you just used the word Hymie on its own?

Apparently :shrug:

Seems to me that they have to show that "Washington Redskins" is a problem to a significant population of the American Indians.

>As the 90-minute hearing before three judges on the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board showed, the case against the team is not as simple as declaring that the word “redskins” is a slur and therefore shouldn’t have federal trademark protection. The group of five Native American petitioners has to show that the name “Washington Redskins” was disparaging to a significant population of American Indians back when the team was granted the trademarks from 1967 to 1990.<

/span>

:lmao: Good god. That's not what it says at all.

Sorry...was just reading the words on the page. How about educating me a bit?? I've not followed any of this closely. So if that's not what is meant, then what do they mean? The first step to me is getting rid of the trademark, no? That would allow you to disassociate the terms. As it stands I don't see how "Washington Redskin" as a term is offensive. Everyone knows what it means and what it's associated with.

Would "New York Hymies" be offensive?

I don't know what "words on the page" you're reading, but based on what you quoted maybe they're just saying that you need to meet the legal standard as it applies to the way the team is using it, you can't just walk in as the plaintiff, say its a slur and be done with it. The team is clearly referencing Native Americans, so "Redskin" vs. "Washington Redskin" is a meaningless distinction.

This is the article:

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/03/07/fight-on-battle-over-redskins-name-heads-to-court/

Personally, I think it's like any other term and intent matters. Perhaps that's what the courts are saying??

No, they're just saying that the phrase as the team was using it must be shown to have been disparaging during a certain time frame. It's not about intent, it's about effect. I'm not sure why that time frame is the relevant one, I'd have to do some digging to get into that. But Washington Redskins vs Redskins shouldn't be an important distinction. Maybe if the team meant something else by "Redskin" it would be, but that's not the case here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have a problem with the word "redskin" the same way somebody would have a problem with the word "coon" or "beaner". Unfortunately Native Americans do not have the clout to get people to care about the slur.

What they're doing is going to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (whatever that is) and saying that the Washington Redskins shouldn't be able to trademark their name because it violates a " law that prohibits registered names that are disparaging, scandalous, contemptuous or disreputable."

Basically they are trying to use this small legality in order to force a change.

They don't seem to have a majority of their own people who care either. I'd like to think if even half of them cared, something would be done. I'm of the opinion that if it matters to them, then it matters to me. If they are ok with it, I'm ok with it etc.

"Honkey" is intended a derogatory term...as is "cracker", but not enough people care about it. But they are fighting words to some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have a problem with the word "redskin" the same way somebody would have a problem with the word "coon" or "beaner". Unfortunately Native Americans do not have the clout to get people to care about the slur.

What they're doing is going to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (whatever that is) and saying that the Washington Redskins shouldn't be able to trademark their name because it violates a " law that prohibits registered names that are disparaging, scandalous, contemptuous or disreputable."

Basically they are trying to use this small legality in order to force a change.

They don't seem to have a majority of their own people who care either. I'd like to think if even half of them cared, something would be done. I'm of the opinion that if it matters to them, then it matters to me. If they are ok with it, I'm ok with it etc.

"Honkey" is intended a derogatory term...as is "cracker", but not enough people care about it. But they are fighting words to some.

Why do you require a majority to care? I could understand that if the people who didn't care actually liked the name. But that's not the case here.

I mean, I wouldn't care if they used [insert hilarious derogatory reference to Jews] as a sports nickname. I bet the majority of Jews wouldn't care either. We're known to have a good sense of humor, after all. But that doesn't make it OK. If a nickname offends hundreds of thousands of a certain type of people, I don't see how "but more of you aren't offended!" is a good counterargument. After all we're not talking about rewriting the Ten Commandments here. It's the name of a sports team. Who gives a #### if we change it to something that doesn't offend lots and lots of people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see why only the views of Native Americans should matter.

Two different questions:

1. Is it a derogatory name? I think for the most part only the views of Native Americans should matter there. Being the possible target gives you a unique perspective on whether you're being disparaged.

2. Should they change the name? I think everyone's views matter there. Although I'd hope if the answer to #1 is yes for a decent number of people, most of us would agree on the answer to #2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see why only the views of Native Americans should matter.

Two different questions:

1. Is it a derogatory name? I think for the most part only the views of Native Americans should matter there. Being the possible target gives you a unique perspective on whether you're being disparaged.

2. Should they change the name? I think everyone's views matter there. Although I'd hope if the answer to #1 is yes for a decent number of people, most of us would agree on the answer to #2.

Are you saying only the recipient of a racial slur can be offended?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Honkey" is intended a derogatory term...as is "cracker", but not enough people care about it. But they are fighting words to some.

I can basically guarantee that if some predominantly black high school called their team the "crackers", and had a white guy in a wife beater with half his teeth missing and a confederate flag as the mascot, most of the people who voted 'no' in this poll would be losing their #### over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People are up in arms over a mascot? really? Anyone with a strong opinion on either side of this argument needs to calm the f down. It's a ######' mascot.

Now the Pekin Chinks, there's a mascot to get a little excited about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have a problem with the word "redskin" the same way somebody would have a problem with the word "coon" or "beaner". Unfortunately Native Americans do not have the clout to get people to care about the slur.

What they're doing is going to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (whatever that is) and saying that the Washington Redskins shouldn't be able to trademark their name because it violates a " law that prohibits registered names that are disparaging, scandalous, contemptuous or disreputable."

Basically they are trying to use this small legality in order to force a change.

They don't seem to have a majority of their own people who care either. I'd like to think if even half of them cared, something would be done. I'm of the opinion that if it matters to them, then it matters to me. If they are ok with it, I'm ok with it etc.

"Honkey" is intended a derogatory term...as is "cracker", but not enough people care about it. But they are fighting words to some.

almost every dictionary or non sports related definition of the word says it is widely accepted as a derogatory term

click down through

https://www.google.com/search?q=define+redskin&aq=f&oq=define+redskin&aqs=chrome.0.57j0l2j62l3.7197j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Taken out of the sports context the word is recognized as offensive

here is the issue, this is self reported census data

Out of the total U.S. population, 2.9 million people, or 0.9 percent, reported American Indian or Alaska Native alone. In addition, 2.3 million people, or another 0.7 percent, reported American Indian or Alaska Native in combination with one or more other races. Together, these two groups totaled 5.2 million people. Thus, 1.7 percent of all people in the United States identified as American Indian or Alaska Native, either alone or in combination with one or more other races

just not enough to matter. they have no impact at the poll booth or in the pocket book. additionally how many of us have a friend who falls in that small group? There's no neighbor to put a face with on this issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Honkey" is intended a derogatory term...as is "cracker", but not enough people care about it. But they are fighting words to some.

I can basically guarantee that if some predominantly black high school called their team the "crackers", and had a white guy in a wife beater with half his teeth missing and a confederate flag as the mascot, most of the people who voted 'no' in this poll would be losing their #### over it.

but that would be hella cool though :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the intent of a word matter? The name is obviously not intended to be a slur. It's not meant as a joke. The team and the city take pride in the name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The name is a nice tribute IMO. If it weren't for sports teams named after them, we'd rarely even think about the Indians.

a tribute to their slaughter, maybe.

Their skin really does have a reddish tint to it. It's not a reference to blood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see why only the views of Native Americans should matter.

Two different questions:

1. Is it a derogatory name? I think for the most part only the views of Native Americans should matter there. Being the possible target gives you a unique perspective on whether you're being disparaged.

2. Should they change the name? I think everyone's views matter there. Although I'd hope if the answer to #1 is yes for a decent number of people, most of us would agree on the answer to #2.

Are you saying only the recipient of a racial slur can be offended?

No, I'm saying they have the best perspective on whether it's derogatory, which is the legal standard and also what I personally care about. People get offended pretty easily over almost anything. Here we've got a significant number of people in the group who are depicted by the nickname saying it's derogatory and they don't like it. That's enough for me. I'm not sure why I should care what some white people who've never met a Native American think about whether it's offensive, or whether some hippie is upset when people use it.

Edited by TobiasFunke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the intent of a word matter? The name is obviously not intended to be a slur. It's not meant as a joke. The team and the city take pride in the name.

that is all debatable

perhaps not now, but on conception

remember as someone pointed out the man who chose this name was the most notorious racist in profesional sports. It took the federal government threatening him for him to allow a black man on his team. Was the change from Braves to Redskins innocent?

There are some accounts it was to honor a coach, no one is sure if that is true,m and it still could have been a backhanded honor by using a slur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the intent of a word matter? The name is obviously not intended to be a slur. It's not meant as a joke. The team and the city take pride in the name.

That's probably because they are not decended from Native Americans...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Linky.

"There is today no single word more offensive to Indian people then the term "redskins," a racial epithet..."

Why ARE so many okay with this? :shrug:

because not all indians believe that

so it is easy to just say "why should a few people ruin our team name"

The term was once in common use, as evidenced in Western movies, but is now largely considered a pejorative and is seldom used publicly (aside from the football team - see below). As with any term perceived to be discriminatory, different individuals may hold differing opinions of the term's appropriateness.[4]However, common wisdom appears to have settled on the notion that the term is a particularly egregious racial epithet that represents a bloody era in American history in which Indigenous Americans were hunted, killed, and forcibly displaced removed from their lands by European settlers.

that line is the kicker, you can find some native americans that are not offended. So how many is the magic number where it is offensive?

Now consider how small and politically insignificant the native american minority is, and it is easy to poo poo this as a few indians who are pissed off

However, common wisdom appears to have settled on the notion that the term is a particularly egregious racial epithet that represents a bloody era in American history in which Indigenous Americans were hunted, killed, and forcibly displaced removed from their lands by European settlers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Linky.

"There is today no single word more offensive to Indian people then the term "redskins," a racial epithet..."

Why ARE so many okay with this? :shrug:

because not all indians believe that

so it is easy to just say "why should a few people ruin our team name"

The term was once in common use, as evidenced in Western movies, but is now largely considered a pejorative and is seldom used publicly (aside from the football team - see below). As with any term perceived to be discriminatory, different individuals may hold differing opinions of the term's appropriateness.[4]However, common wisdom appears to have settled on the notion that the term is a particularly egregious racial epithet that represents a bloody era in American history in which Indigenous Americans were hunted, killed, and forcibly displaced removed from their lands by European settlers.

that line is the kicker, you can find some native americans that are not offended. So how many is the magic number where it is offensive?

Now consider how small and politically insignificant the native american minority is, and it is easy to poo poo this as a few indians who are pissed off

However, common wisdom appears to have settled on the notion that the term is a particularly egregious racial epithet that represents a bloody era in American history in which Indigenous Americans were hunted, killed, and forcibly displaced removed from their lands by European settlers.

I agree

but write a poll ask a question and get some responses of I don;t care and there ya go,. you can say "see most indians don't give a ####"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More importantly, if they got rid of the Redskins, what name do they take? My top 3 are "Bureaucrats", "Super PACs", and "Amendments".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the intent of a word matter? The name is obviously not intended to be a slur. It's not meant as a joke. The team and the city take pride in the name.

Not to me. I care how it's perceived, not how it's intended. If you don't agree or don't think most other people agree, go into a black neighborhood and start using the N word as a term of endearment and see how it goes. If people get mad at you, tell them you didn't intend it to be a slur but a term of affection. I'm sure they'll be relieved to hear it.

Edited by TobiasFunke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have a problem with the word "redskin" the same way somebody would have a problem with the word "coon" or "beaner". Unfortunately Native Americans do not have the clout to get people to care about the slur.

What they're doing is going to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (whatever that is) and saying that the Washington Redskins shouldn't be able to trademark their name because it violates a " law that prohibits registered names that are disparaging, scandalous, contemptuous or disreputable."

Basically they are trying to use this small legality in order to force a change.

They don't seem to have a majority of their own people who care either. I'd like to think if even half of them cared, something would be done. I'm of the opinion that if it matters to them, then it matters to me. If they are ok with it, I'm ok with it etc.

"Honkey" is intended a derogatory term...as is "cracker", but not enough people care about it. But they are fighting words to some.

How many times a day do you fall down or get lost?

O/U is 15 for both.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the intent of a word matter? The name is obviously not intended to be a slur. It's not meant as a joke. The team and the city take pride in the name.

that is all debatable perhaps not now, but on conception remember as someone pointed out the man who chose this name was the most notorious racist in profesional sports. It took the federal government threatening him for him to allow a black man on his team. Was the change from Braves to Redskins innocent? There are some accounts it was to honor a coach, no one is sure if that is true,m and it still could have been a backhanded honor by using a slur
With no proof to the contrary I'm pretty comfortable saying it was not intended as a slur. Can anyone produce one example in history of redskin being used as a slur?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the intent of a word matter? The name is obviously not intended to be a slur. It's not meant as a joke. The team and the city take pride in the name.

Not to me. I care how it's perceived, not how it's intended. If you don't agree or don't think most other people agree, go into a black neighborhood and start using the N word as a term of endearment and see how it goes. If people get mad at you, tell them you didn't intend it to be a slur but a term of affection. I'm sure they'll be relieved to hear it.
Redskins isn't really close the N word. Its pointless to compare the two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the intent of a word matter? The name is obviously not intended to be a slur. It's not meant as a joke. The team and the city take pride in the name.

that is all debatable perhaps not now, but on conception remember as someone pointed out the man who chose this name was the most notorious racist in profesional sports. It took the federal government threatening him for him to allow a black man on his team. Was the change from Braves to Redskins innocent? There are some accounts it was to honor a coach, no one is sure if that is true,m and it still could have been a backhanded honor by using a slur
With no proof to the contrary I'm pretty comfortable saying it was not intended as a slur. Can anyone produce one example in history of redskin being used as a slur?

Are you serious? Of course it was used a slur. How many different definitions have to be posted noting it as a slur to convince you? Not to mention the original owner who named them was pretty much a racist. Even to the point he left millions to charity as long as it didn't go toward any integration. Also he was famous for not wanting black players on his team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the intent of a word matter? The name is obviously not intended to be a slur. It's not meant as a joke. The team and the city take pride in the name.

that is all debatable perhaps not now, but on conception remember as someone pointed out the man who chose this name was the most notorious racist in profesional sports. It took the federal government threatening him for him to allow a black man on his team. Was the change from Braves to Redskins innocent? There are some accounts it was to honor a coach, no one is sure if that is true,m and it still could have been a backhanded honor by using a slur
With no proof to the contrary I'm pretty comfortable saying it was not intended as a slur. Can anyone produce one example in history of redskin being used as a slur?
Are you serious? Of course it was used a slur. How many different definitions have to be posted noting it as a slur to convince you? Not to mention the original owner who named them was pretty much a racist. Even to the point he left millions to charity as long as it didn't go toward any integration. Also he was famous for not wanting black players on his team.
I'm just looking to see some examples. Saying an Indian has red skin seems more of a statement of fact more than anything .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the intent of a word matter? The name is obviously not intended to be a slur. It's not meant as a joke. The team and the city take pride in the name.

that is all debatable perhaps not now, but on conception remember as someone pointed out the man who chose this name was the most notorious racist in profesional sports. It took the federal government threatening him for him to allow a black man on his team. Was the change from Braves to Redskins innocent? There are some accounts it was to honor a coach, no one is sure if that is true,m and it still could have been a backhanded honor by using a slur
With no proof to the contrary I'm pretty comfortable saying it was not intended as a slur. Can anyone produce one example in history of redskin being used as a slur?
Are you serious? Of course it was used a slur. How many different definitions have to be posted noting it as a slur to convince you? Not to mention the original owner who named them was pretty much a racist. Even to the point he left millions to charity as long as it didn't go toward any integration. Also he was famous for not wanting black players on his team.
I'm just looking to see some examples. Saying an Indian has red skin seems more of a statement of fact more than anything .

Well then I guess darkie is OK as well. Black folks sure have dark skin sometimes, just a statement of fact after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have a problem with the word "redskin" the same way somebody would have a problem with the word "coon" or "beaner". Unfortunately Native Americans do not have the clout to get people to care about the slur.

What they're doing is going to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (whatever that is) and saying that the Washington Redskins shouldn't be able to trademark their name because it violates a " law that prohibits registered names that are disparaging, scandalous, contemptuous or disreputable."

Basically they are trying to use this small legality in order to force a change.

They don't seem to have a majority of their own people who care either. I'd like to think if even half of them cared, something would be done. I'm of the opinion that if it matters to them, then it matters to me. If they are ok with it, I'm ok with it etc.

"Honkey" is intended a derogatory term...as is "cracker", but not enough people care about it. But they are fighting words to some.

Why do you require a majority to care? I could understand that if the people who didn't care actually liked the name. But that's not the case here.

I mean, I wouldn't care if they used [insert hilarious derogatory reference to Jews] as a sports nickname. I bet the majority of Jews wouldn't care either. We're known to have a good sense of humor, after all. But that doesn't make it OK. If a nickname offends hundreds of thousands of a certain type of people, I don't see how "but more of you aren't offended!" is a good counterargument. After all we're not talking about rewriting the Ten Commandments here. It's the name of a sports team. Who gives a #### if we change it to something that doesn't offend lots and lots of people?

I am not "requiring" anything from them. I care more about their opinions than I do other people who really have nothing to do with it other than choosing to be offended. Their opinions matter more to me than anyone else. I'm simply saying I'd go with the general consensus of the "targeted" group. Everyone else is white noise IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the intent of a word matter? The name is obviously not intended to be a slur. It's not meant as a joke. The team and the city take pride in the name.

that is all debatable perhaps not now, but on conception remember as someone pointed out the man who chose this name was the most notorious racist in profesional sports. It took the federal government threatening him for him to allow a black man on his team. Was the change from Braves to Redskins innocent? There are some accounts it was to honor a coach, no one is sure if that is true,m and it still could have been a backhanded honor by using a slur
With no proof to the contrary I'm pretty comfortable saying it was not intended as a slur. Can anyone produce one example in history of redskin being used as a slur?
Are you serious? Of course it was used a slur. How many different definitions have to be posted noting it as a slur to convince you? Not to mention the original owner who named them was pretty much a racist. Even to the point he left millions to charity as long as it didn't go toward any integration. Also he was famous for not wanting black players on his team.
I'm just looking to see some examples. Saying an Indian has red skin seems more of a statement of fact more than anything .
Well then I guess darkie is OK as well. Black folks sure have dark skin sometimes, just a statement of fact after all.
Pretty easy to find examples darkie being used as a slur. White boy would probably be a better comparison.

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.