Do you think Snyder should change the name of the Redskins? (2 Viewers)

[Captain Quinoa]

Again, much like the Redskins, the mascot is meant to celebrate and honor a group. But instead, some thin skinned people have to get butt hurt and act like it's a big deal. Well, it's not. Neither is. If someone is doing something to honor you, just be happy. It's ridiculous how sensitive we've become.

Where to begin...

As a tribute to the prominent Jewish population of New York City, I am forming a new football team. They're call the New York Filthy Money-Grubbing Jews. The mascot is a Rabbi with horns and a huge hooked nose. I hope no thin-skinned Jews are offended.

That's a horrible comparison.

The comparison you could make is if you called the team by a name they liked now. But in 100 years, it became offensive. Your comparison is just calling a team horrible things.

The team is only 80 years old and has been protested for at least the part 25. The original anti-trademark lawsuit was over 20 years ago. And I don't know where you get the idea that "they" liked the Redskins name originally, unless you're actually buying what Dan Snyder is selling, which obviously you shouldn't, considering he's done things like trot out a fake Native American chief to defend the name. I assume that back then some liked it, many more didn't, and even more didn't care, which is probably also the case now.

At the very least, the line between "tribute" and "opportunism" in the early 20th century was a fine one. The Redskins were meant to "honor" Native Americans in the same way that wrestling companies took Italian guys, dressed them up as Indian chiefs, and had them dance around the ring and deliver tomahawk chops. It was a gimmick. "Lone Star" Dietz was likely an Indian impersonator (that's what the draft board found), like lots of self-professed "Indians" who went to Carlyle College to play football for free. The Braves/Redskins' early attempts to market their puported "Indian" players was the same way that boxing and wrestling used to try to promote ethnic champions in different cities. It was a means of product differentiation.

Whoa whoa whoa. Are you trying to tell me that Chief Jay Strongbow wasn't full blooded Native American????

Next you're gonna tell me Roddy Piper isn't really Scottish.

Strongbow (Joe Scarpa) was Italian. Wahoo McDaniel, I think, was 1/32nd Native American, but not raised in the culture in any way. Tatanka was a full-blooded Native American, but because he came along later, he took the heat for having an offensive gimmick. Suck it, Tatanka.

Piper's Canadian, but is of Scottish descent.

But the Moondogs are really from the moon, right? Right??

 

[Rayderr]

Again, much like the Redskins, the mascot is meant to celebrate and honor a group. But instead, some thin skinned people have to get butt hurt and act like it's a big deal. Well, it's not. Neither is. If someone is doing something to honor you, just be happy. It's ridiculous how sensitive we've become.

Where to begin...

As a tribute to the prominent Jewish population of New York City, I am forming a new football team. They're call the New York Filthy Money-Grubbing Jews. The mascot is a Rabbi with horns and a huge hooked nose. I hope no thin-skinned Jews are offended.

That's a horrible comparison.

The comparison you could make is if you called the team by a name they liked now. But in 100 years, it became offensive. Your comparison is just calling a team horrible things.

The team is only 80 years old and has been protested for at least the part 25. The original anti-trademark lawsuit was over 20 years ago. And I don't know where you get the idea that "they" liked the Redskins name originally, unless you're actually buying what Dan Snyder is selling, which obviously you shouldn't, considering he's done things like trot out a fake Native American chief to defend the name. I assume that back then some liked it, many more didn't, and even more didn't care, which is probably also the case now.

At the very least, the line between "tribute" and "opportunism" in the early 20th century was a fine one. The Redskins were meant to "honor" Native Americans in the same way that wrestling companies took Italian guys, dressed them up as Indian chiefs, and had them dance around the ring and deliver tomahawk chops. It was a gimmick. "Lone Star" Dietz was likely an Indian impersonator (that's what the draft board found), like lots of self-professed "Indians" who went to Carlyle College to play football for free. The Braves/Redskins' early attempts to market their puported "Indian" players was the same way that boxing and wrestling used to try to promote ethnic champions in different cities. It was a means of product differentiation.

Whoa whoa whoa. Are you trying to tell me that Chief Jay Strongbow wasn't full blooded Native American????

Next you're gonna tell me Roddy Piper isn't really Scottish.

Strongbow (Joe Scarpa) was Italian. Wahoo McDaniel, I think, was 1/32nd Native American, but not raised in the culture in any way. Tatanka was a full-blooded Native American, but because he came along later, he took the heat for having an offensive gimmick. Suck it, Tatanka.

Piper's Canadian, but is of Scottish descent.

But the Moondogs are really from the moon, right? Right??

And I've never ridden a motorcycle and I think the Grateful Dead sucks.

But I don't really know why we're going down this route. Not really much different than what happens in Hollywood. Ben Affleck isn't Hispanic, yet he still played the lead in Argo.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Again, much like the Redskins, the mascot is meant to celebrate and honor a group. But instead, some thin skinned people have to get butt hurt and act like it's a big deal. Well, it's not. Neither is. If someone is doing something to honor you, just be happy. It's ridiculous how sensitive we've become.

Where to begin...

As a tribute to the prominent Jewish population of New York City, I am forming a new football team. They're call the New York Filthy Money-Grubbing Jews. The mascot is a Rabbi with horns and a huge hooked nose. I hope no thin-skinned Jews are offended.

That's a horrible comparison.

The comparison you could make is if you called the team by a name they liked now. But in 100 years, it became offensive. Your comparison is just calling a team horrible things.

The team is only 80 years old and has been protested for at least the part 25. The original anti-trademark lawsuit was over 20 years ago. And I don't know where you get the idea that "they" liked the Redskins name originally, unless you're actually buying what Dan Snyder is selling, which obviously you shouldn't, considering he's done things like trot out a fake Native American chief to defend the name. I assume that back then some liked it, many more didn't, and even more didn't care, which is probably also the case now.

At the very least, the line between "tribute" and "opportunism" in the early 20th century was a fine one. The Redskins were meant to "honor" Native Americans in the same way that wrestling companies took Italian guys, dressed them up as Indian chiefs, and had them dance around the ring and deliver tomahawk chops. It was a gimmick. "Lone Star" Dietz was likely an Indian impersonator (that's what the draft board found), like lots of self-professed "Indians" who went to Carlyle College to play football for free. The Braves/Redskins' early attempts to market their puported "Indian" players was the same way that boxing and wrestling used to try to promote ethnic champions in different cities. It was a means of product differentiation.

Whoa whoa whoa. Are you trying to tell me that Chief Jay Strongbow wasn't full blooded Native American????

Next you're gonna tell me Roddy Piper isn't really Scottish.

Strongbow (Joe Scarpa) was Italian. Wahoo McDaniel, I think, was 1/32nd Native American, but not raised in the culture in any way. Tatanka was a full-blooded Native American, but because he came along later, he took the heat for having an offensive gimmick. Suck it, Tatanka.

Piper's Canadian, but is of Scottish descent.

But the Moondogs are really from the moon, right? Right??

And I've never ridden a motorcycle and I think the Grateful Dead sucks.

But I don't really know why we're going down this route. Not really much different than what happens in Hollywood. Ben Affleck isn't Hispanic, yet he still played the lead in Argo.

I brought it up because several people have opined that the Redskins nickname was meant "to honor Native Americans." While I think it's probably true that the nickname (at that time) wasn't chosen to demean Native Americans (even though linguistic analyses have shown that it was used more often in a derogatory manner in the late 19th and early 20th centuries), I think the evidence is clear that it wasn't really "honoring" Native Americans either. It was exploiting their history and iconography as a marketing ploy in a way that is associated with industries with shadier reputations (like pro wrestling, which "modernized" much later than other sports).

With that said, I don't think it really matters what the intent was in 1920 or whatever anyway. I don't think Little Black Sambo was meant to demean African Americans (considering that the character was neither African nor American). But by the last half of the 20th century, it was clear that the term had developed an offensive meaning and the Sambo's restaurants abandoned the trademark.

 

[tonydead]

Are the Chief's ok? Is the root of the issue the reference to skin color?

 

[Rayderr]

Are the Chief's ok? Is the root of the issue the reference to skin color?

Chiefs have had their share of complaints. Not over the team name, but because of all the Native American imagery they have.

 

[Chaka]

Nancy Pelosi suggests the US Patent & Trademark Office should not protect the name Redskins

 

[Fat Nick]

I've been pretty solidly behind keeping the name for a multitude of reasons until I saw the picture associated with this article.

Just the look on the protester's face and the completely idiotic looking outfit of the fan was enough to make me swing my stance on this one. I can't even imagine the thoughts going on in the protester's head, but his face shows that there is clearly a lot there, and it's not right for him to basically have to be insulted by a giant walking stereotype of what his people are portrayed to represent. The fan looks...well...like an idiotic fan with red face paint, which is clearly much shallower than the Native American culture as a whole...

I'm on board for change now...I'd always miss the Redskin's name for tradition's sake, but this picture really struck me.

 

[TheIronSheik]

I've been pretty solidly behind keeping the name for a multitude of reasons until I saw the picture associated with this article.

Just the look on the protester's face and the completely idiotic looking outfit of the fan was enough to make me swing my stance on this one. I can't even imagine the thoughts going on in the protester's head, but his face shows that there is clearly a lot there, and it's not right for him to basically have to be insulted by a giant walking stereotype of what his people are portrayed to represent. The fan looks...well...like an idiotic fan with red face paint, which is clearly much shallower than the Native American culture as a whole...

I'm on board for change now...I'd always miss the Redskin's name for tradition's sake, but this picture really struck me.

Which one is the protester?

And I am so sick of hearing about how white people with face paint is racist. Why is face paint only wrong when honkies do it?

 

[TobiasFunke]

I've been pretty solidly behind keeping the name for a multitude of reasons until I saw the picture associated with this article.

Just the look on the protester's face and the completely idiotic looking outfit of the fan was enough to make me swing my stance on this one. I can't even imagine the thoughts going on in the protester's head, but his face shows that there is clearly a lot there, and it's not right for him to basically have to be insulted by a giant walking stereotype of what his people are portrayed to represent. The fan looks...well...like an idiotic fan with red face paint, which is clearly much shallower than the Native American culture as a whole...

I'm on board for change now...I'd always miss the Redskin's name for tradition's sake, but this picture really struck me.

Yeah, I have a feeling that picture's gonna accelerate the timeline for change a bit. Pretty awful visual. It's easy to dismiss the offended people as some abstract concept until there's a dude standing in front of your face driving home the ridiculousness of the mascot.

On the bolded thing- I grew up rooting for the Skins with my dad, and I guess maybe I'll feel some sort of loss of tradition there. But I also have two young kids, and if I have anything to say about it they're gonna grow up DC sports fans like their dad, and there's zero doubt that by the time they are adults the name will be changed. So from that perspective on "tradition" I'd rather they change it ASAP. I think you gotta look at it in both directions, considering the inevitability of a change.

 

[Rubi]

I've been pretty solidly behind keeping the name for a multitude of reasons until I saw the picture associated with this article.

Just the look on the protester's face and the completely idiotic looking outfit of the fan was enough to make me swing my stance on this one. I can't even imagine the thoughts going on in the protester's head, but his face shows that there is clearly a lot there, and it's not right for him to basically have to be insulted by a giant walking stereotype of what his people are portrayed to represent. The fan looks...well...like an idiotic fan with red face paint, which is clearly much shallower than the Native American culture as a whole...

I'm on board for change now...I'd always miss the Redskin's name for tradition's sake, but this picture really struck me.

 

[Rayderr]

I've been pretty solidly behind keeping the name for a multitude of reasons until I saw the picture associated with this article.

Just the look on the protester's face and the completely idiotic looking outfit of the fan was enough to make me swing my stance on this one. I can't even imagine the thoughts going on in the protester's head, but his face shows that there is clearly a lot there, and it's not right for him to basically have to be insulted by a giant walking stereotype of what his people are portrayed to represent. The fan looks...well...like an idiotic fan with red face paint, which is clearly much shallower than the Native American culture as a whole...

I'm on board for change now...I'd always miss the Redskin's name for tradition's sake, but this picture really struck me.

Yeah, I have a feeling that picture's gonna accelerate the timeline for change a bit. Pretty awful visual. It's easy to dismiss the offended people as some abstract concept until there's a dude standing in front of your face driving home the ridiculousness of the mascot.

On the bolded thing- I grew up rooting for the Skins with my dad, and I guess maybe I'll feel some sort of loss of tradition there. But I also have two young kids, and if I have anything to say about it they're gonna grow up DC sports fans like their dad, and there's zero doubt that by the time they are adults the name will be changed. So from that perspective on "tradition" I'd rather they change it ASAP. I think you gotta look at it in both directions, considering the inevitability of a change.

There will still be dumb###es like him even if teams change the name.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I've been pretty solidly behind keeping the name for a multitude of reasons until I saw the picture associated with this article.

Just the look on the protester's face and the completely idiotic looking outfit of the fan was enough to make me swing my stance on this one. I can't even imagine the thoughts going on in the protester's head, but his face shows that there is clearly a lot there, and it's not right for him to basically have to be insulted by a giant walking stereotype of what his people are portrayed to represent. The fan looks...well...like an idiotic fan with red face paint, which is clearly much shallower than the Native American culture as a whole...

I'm on board for change now...I'd always miss the Redskin's name for tradition's sake, but this picture really struck me.

Yeah, I have a feeling that picture's gonna accelerate the timeline for change a bit. Pretty awful visual. It's easy to dismiss the offended people as some abstract concept until there's a dude standing in front of your face driving home the ridiculousness of the mascot.

On the bolded thing- I grew up rooting for the Skins with my dad, and I guess maybe I'll feel some sort of loss of tradition there. But I also have two young kids, and if I have anything to say about it they're gonna grow up DC sports fans like their dad, and there's zero doubt that by the time they are adults the name will be changed. So from that perspective on "tradition" I'd rather they change it ASAP. I think you gotta look at it in both directions, considering the inevitability of a change.

There will still be dumb###es like him even if teams change the name.

There's dumb###es of all types at every game, the question is whether the team takes part in the idiocy or not. I mean this guy was actually dressed up as a pretty good likeness of a mascot the Indians still use.

 

[Rayderr]

I've been pretty solidly behind keeping the name for a multitude of reasons until I saw the picture associated with this article.

Just the look on the protester's face and the completely idiotic looking outfit of the fan was enough to make me swing my stance on this one. I can't even imagine the thoughts going on in the protester's head, but his face shows that there is clearly a lot there, and it's not right for him to basically have to be insulted by a giant walking stereotype of what his people are portrayed to represent. The fan looks...well...like an idiotic fan with red face paint, which is clearly much shallower than the Native American culture as a whole...

I'm on board for change now...I'd always miss the Redskin's name for tradition's sake, but this picture really struck me.

Yeah, I have a feeling that picture's gonna accelerate the timeline for change a bit. Pretty awful visual. It's easy to dismiss the offended people as some abstract concept until there's a dude standing in front of your face driving home the ridiculousness of the mascot.

On the bolded thing- I grew up rooting for the Skins with my dad, and I guess maybe I'll feel some sort of loss of tradition there. But I also have two young kids, and if I have anything to say about it they're gonna grow up DC sports fans like their dad, and there's zero doubt that by the time they are adults the name will be changed. So from that perspective on "tradition" I'd rather they change it ASAP. I think you gotta look at it in both directions, considering the inevitability of a change.

There will still be dumb###es like him even if teams change the name.

There's dumb###es of all types at every game, the question is whether the team takes part in the idiocy or not. I mean this guy was actually dressed up as a pretty good likeness of a mascot the Indians still use.

headdress is totally wrong.

 

[B-Deep]

I've been pretty solidly behind keeping the name for a multitude of reasons until I saw the picture associated with this article.

Just the look on the protester's face and the completely idiotic looking outfit of the fan was enough to make me swing my stance on this one. I can't even imagine the thoughts going on in the protester's head, but his face shows that there is clearly a lot there, and it's not right for him to basically have to be insulted by a giant walking stereotype of what his people are portrayed to represent. The fan looks...well...like an idiotic fan with red face paint, which is clearly much shallower than the Native American culture as a whole...

I'm on board for change now...I'd always miss the Redskin's name for tradition's sake, but this picture really struck me.

Which one is the protester?

And I am so sick of hearing about how white people with face paint is racist. Why is face paint only wrong when honkies do it?

because of the history

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackface

 

[TheIronSheik]

I've been pretty solidly behind keeping the name for a multitude of reasons until I saw the picture associated with this article.

Just the look on the protester's face and the completely idiotic looking outfit of the fan was enough to make me swing my stance on this one. I can't even imagine the thoughts going on in the protester's head, but his face shows that there is clearly a lot there, and it's not right for him to basically have to be insulted by a giant walking stereotype of what his people are portrayed to represent. The fan looks...well...like an idiotic fan with red face paint, which is clearly much shallower than the Native American culture as a whole...

I'm on board for change now...I'd always miss the Redskin's name for tradition's sake, but this picture really struck me.

Which one is the protester?

And I am so sick of hearing about how white people with face paint is racist. Why is face paint only wrong when honkies do it?

because of the history

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackface

That's a dumb argument.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I've been pretty solidly behind keeping the name for a multitude of reasons until I saw the picture associated with this article.

Just the look on the protester's face and the completely idiotic looking outfit of the fan was enough to make me swing my stance on this one. I can't even imagine the thoughts going on in the protester's head, but his face shows that there is clearly a lot there, and it's not right for him to basically have to be insulted by a giant walking stereotype of what his people are portrayed to represent. The fan looks...well...like an idiotic fan with red face paint, which is clearly much shallower than the Native American culture as a whole...

I'm on board for change now...I'd always miss the Redskin's name for tradition's sake, but this picture really struck me.

Which one is the protester?

And I am so sick of hearing about how white people with face paint is racist. Why is face paint only wrong when honkies do it?

because of the history

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackface

That's a dumb argument.

I was really hoping you were joking with this line of reasoning. I still am.

Even if you're not let's say you are, OK?

 

[Ballstein]

I've been pretty solidly behind keeping the name for a multitude of reasons until I saw the picture associated with this article.

Just the look on the protester's face and the completely idiotic looking outfit of the fan was enough to make me swing my stance on this one. I can't even imagine the thoughts going on in the protester's head, but his face shows that there is clearly a lot there, and it's not right for him to basically have to be insulted by a giant walking stereotype of what his people are portrayed to represent. The fan looks...well...like an idiotic fan with red face paint, which is clearly much shallower than the Native American culture as a whole...

I'm on board for change now...I'd always miss the Redskin's name for tradition's sake, but this picture really struck me.

OK that's enough for me too

 

[Ballstein]

Again, Vikings were mass murders and robbers. They invaded foreign lands, raped the women, and killed the men and children. But it's the Redskins that have an offensive name? OK.

ALL Nations have invaded foreign lands, raped the women, and killed the men and children.The Vikings didn't steal land and commit genocide on another level,

 

[The Commish]

Again, much like the Redskins, the mascot is meant to celebrate and honor a group. But instead, some thin skinned people have to get butt hurt and act like it's a big deal. Well, it's not. Neither is. If someone is doing something to honor you, just be happy. It's ridiculous how sensitive we've become.

Where to begin...

As a tribute to the prominent Jewish population of New York City, I am forming a new football team. They're call the New York Filthy Money-Grubbing Jews. The mascot is a Rabbi with horns and a huge hooked nose. I hope no thin-skinned Jews are offended.

That's a horrible comparison.

The comparison you could make is if you called the team by a name they liked now. But in 100 years, it became offensive. Your comparison is just calling a team horrible things.

We get comparisons like this in these threads though. Just like the "N word"....the difference that no one wants to acknowledge is that the "N word" was NEVER EVER a positive term to anyone. If we are to believe the history of the term "redskin" it's origins were positive (or neutral at worst) up until it was hijacked to reference the scalping events. At that point it became a negative term. It's had multiple meanings and continues to have multiple meanings. Ignoring them and trying to ignore possible context is a bit bizarre to me, but here we are. I have yet to hear the argument that Washington Redskin was meant to be an offensive term.

Commence with the shouting down and calling me names......

 

[Fat Nick]

I've been pretty solidly behind keeping the name for a multitude of reasons until I saw the picture associated with this article.

Just the look on the protester's face and the completely idiotic looking outfit of the fan was enough to make me swing my stance on this one. I can't even imagine the thoughts going on in the protester's head, but his face shows that there is clearly a lot there, and it's not right for him to basically have to be insulted by a giant walking stereotype of what his people are portrayed to represent. The fan looks...well...like an idiotic fan with red face paint, which is clearly much shallower than the Native American culture as a whole...

I'm on board for change now...I'd always miss the Redskin's name for tradition's sake, but this picture really struck me.

Yeah, I have a feeling that picture's gonna accelerate the timeline for change a bit. Pretty awful visual. It's easy to dismiss the offended people as some abstract concept until there's a dude standing in front of your face driving home the ridiculousness of the mascot.

On the bolded thing- I grew up rooting for the Skins with my dad, and I guess maybe I'll feel some sort of loss of tradition there. But I also have two young kids, and if I have anything to say about it they're gonna grow up DC sports fans like their dad, and there's zero doubt that by the time they are adults the name will be changed. So from that perspective on "tradition" I'd rather they change it ASAP. I think you gotta look at it in both directions, considering the inevitability of a change.

We've got our first kid on the way...couldn't agree more. For purely selfish reasons, better to change now and impact me than change in 5 years and impact us both.

 

[Fat Nick]

We get comparisons like this in these threads though. Just like the "N word"....the difference that no one wants to acknowledge is that the "N word" was NEVER EVER a positive term to anyone. If we are to believe the history of the term "redskin" it's origins were positive (or neutral at worst) up until it was hijacked to reference the scalping events. At that point it became a negative term. It's had multiple meanings and continues to have multiple meanings. Ignoring them and trying to ignore possible context is a bit bizarre to me, but here we are. I have yet to hear the argument that Washington Redskin was meant to be an offensive term.

Commence with the shouting down and calling me names......

I totally see where you're coming from (look at my argument earlier in this thread...for the Pro-"Redskins side). I guess what that picture made me realize is that, while you're 100% right, it was never meant to be offensive, it clearly is offensive now. Just because something isn't being used "as intended" doesn't mean that the ultimate result isn't real or valid.

I argued hard that until I saw "a majority" of Native Americans actively call it offensive, that it should stay. Seeing the look on that one Native American's face with the fan, all dressed up, made me realize what a kick in the nuts it must be to someone who actually "owns" the term Native American, to have sports primarily dominated and controlled by the same people that, let's face it, forcibly took your ancestor's way of life and turned it upside down now make a caricature of your culture. Intent or not, you can't argue that the poor guy in the picture has to be offended, right?

 

[jdoggydogg]

If you're not willing to walk up to a Native American and call him a redskin, then you really have no rational argument in favor of Washington retaining this name. You can appeal to tradition, and you can dig up some random Native American that isn't offended by the name. But the simple fact is most Natives would not want to hear this word used to describe them, and that's the only thing that matters.

 

[squistion]

Keith Olbermann - "Redskins" Is Costing Dan Snyder Money:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6uowuromf8&feature=youtu.be

 

[Kal El]

I'm of the mindset that if Snyder won't change the name, change the mascot. Make the mascot a devil, and the problem could pretty much take care of itself.

 

[Parrothead]

I'm of the mindset that if Snyder won't change the name, change the mascot. Make the mascot a devil, and the problem could pretty much take care of itself.

or how about a red salamander? or a ladybug?

 

[Kal El]

I'm of the mindset that if Snyder won't change the name, change the mascot. Make the mascot a devil, and the problem could pretty much take care of itself.

or how about a red salamander? or a ladybug?

If you want to go that route, go for it. I figured that the fans would like to at least have an intimidating mascot.

 

[Mr. Retukes]

We get comparisons like this in these threads though. Just like the "N word"....the difference that no one wants to acknowledge is that the "N word" was NEVER EVER a positive term to anyone. If we are to believe the history of the term "redskin" it's origins were positive (or neutral at worst) up until it was hijacked to reference the scalping events. At that point it became a negative term. It's had multiple meanings and continues to have multiple meanings. Ignoring them and trying to ignore possible context is a bit bizarre to me, but here we are. I have yet to hear the argument that Washington Redskin was meant to be an offensive term.

I think that if you were to ask the average person in the 1700s what they thought of "Redskin" and the N-word, I think he would say that both words were neutral.

 

[The Commish]

We get comparisons like this in these threads though. Just like the "N word"....the difference that no one wants to acknowledge is that the "N word" was NEVER EVER a positive term to anyone. If we are to believe the history of the term "redskin" it's origins were positive (or neutral at worst) up until it was hijacked to reference the scalping events. At that point it became a negative term. It's had multiple meanings and continues to have multiple meanings. Ignoring them and trying to ignore possible context is a bit bizarre to me, but here we are. I have yet to hear the argument that Washington Redskin was meant to be an offensive term.

I think that if you were to ask the average person in the 1700s what they thought of "Redskin" and the N-word, I think he would say that both words were neutral.

If you mean white hillbillies in the deep south of the US as "average person" I'd agree.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Sincerity.

 

[SWC]

If you're not willing to walk up to a Native American and call him a redskin, then you really have no rational argument in favor of Washington retaining this name. You can appeal to tradition, and you can dig up some random Native American that isn't offended by the name. But the simple fact is most Natives would not want to hear this word used to describe them, and that's the only thing that matters.

bam brohan you just hit the nail on the head man up or shut up damn straight bromigo

 

[B-Deep]

I think to trying to argue that there is no way that the most racist owner in sports meant this as an insult is ridiculous.

none of us can KNOW what was in his mind, so it is tough to argue either way, but the man was a racist, THE racist. It took the feds threatening him before he would agree to simply allow a black man to even play on his team. I believe that he picked this name because the image of the savage scalping redskin was something people would fear, i do not believe it was a tribute to the noble native americans.

I freely admit i could be wrong, but people on the other side need to admit i could be right.

NOW, none of that means that snyder or current fans intend it as a slur, but i also am not sure intentions are the determining factor here.

but as others have said, Dan's unwillingness to use this "non slur" when he addresses native americans speaks volumes. He knows it is a slur, he just thinks it is not a slur when it is used for his team.

 

[B-Deep]

Also, IF redskins was ever not negative, it was hundreds of years before the team name was picked so that is not relevant. I am also not sure the N word was always a slur either

so that whole argument is weak

 

[Fat Nick]

If you're not willing to walk up to a Native American and call him a redskin, then you really have no rational argument in favor of Washington retaining this name. You can appeal to tradition, and you can dig up some random Native American that isn't offended by the name. But the simple fact is most Natives would not want to hear this word used to describe them, and that's the only thing that matters.

As recently noted, I've switched from anti-name change to pro-name change, so I'm on the name change side, but this is one argument I don't really agree with...perhaps it's splitting hairs, but I don't think any of us would go up to ANYONE of another race, and feel comfortable calling them by their race (even agreed-upon unoffensive racial names). You don't greet/introduce people by their race (irregardless of whether the term you use is a nickname, slur, or socially accepted descriptor).

Case in point, would you go up to Ndamukong Suh and say, "Hey there African American!" or would you refrain because you realize he'd probably be a bit offended by being referred to as a race and kick your ###? Likewise, would you introduce a friend by saying, "This is my good friend Xao. He's Asian."

You don't utilize a racial name when addressing people. Irregardless of whether the racial name is offensive or not. The practice itself is seen as offensive by most.

 

[B-Deep]

If you're not willing to walk up to a Native American and call him a redskin, then you really have no rational argument in favor of Washington retaining this name. You can appeal to tradition, and you can dig up some random Native American that isn't offended by the name. But the simple fact is most Natives would not want to hear this word used to describe them, and that's the only thing that matters.

As recently noted, I've switched from anti-name change to pro-name change, so I'm on the name change side, but this is one argument I don't really agree with...perhaps it's splitting hairs, but I don't think any of us would go up to ANYONE of another race, and feel comfortable calling them by their race (even agreed-upon unoffensive racial names). You don't greet/introduce people by their race (irregardless of whether the term you use is a nickname, slur, or socially accepted descriptor).

Case in point, would you go up to Ndamukong Suh and say, "Hey there African American!" or would you refrain because you realize he'd probably be a bit offended by being referred to as a race and kick your ###? Likewise, would you introduce a friend by saying, "This is my good friend Xao. He's Asian."

You don't utilize a racial name when addressing people. Irregardless of whether the racial name is offensive or not. The practice itself is seen as offensive by most.

redskin is not their race

i would ask suh a question like "hasd it been tough for you being an africain american, have you encoutnered racism?"

would you say that to a native american

"has it been tough for you being a redskin?"

and in his own foundation he addresses their race calling them "First Americans", why not describe their race with Redskin?

because it is a slur, he knows it, everyone knows it.

 

[TheIronSheik]

I'd call an Indian a Redskin. Problem is, I can't find any Indians.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Hmm, I wonder if the Redskins are offended at being called Indians - You would think that after 500 years we would correct the mistake that Columbus made it to India

 

[Doug B]

Slight tangent:

Are there serious proposals out there for the Redskins to keep the helmet design and trademarked art, but to change the team's name to something like "Renegades" or "Potomacs"?

 

[Fat Nick]

Slight tangent:

Are there serious proposals out there for the Redskins to keep the helmet design and trademarked art, but to change the team's name to something like "Renegades" or "Potomacs"?

First I've heard of it...I think Renegades is dumb and sounds like an Arena Football name...Potomacs I could actually get behind because that actually refers to an Indian tribe. Of course that would probably be offensive to some until we spelled it Patawomeck.

 

[glock]

Slight tangent:

Are there serious proposals out there for the Redskins to keep the helmet design and trademarked art, but to change the team's name to something like "Renegades" or "Potomacs"?

I'm not thinking "Renegades" would work out so well:

noun 1. a person who deserts a party or cause for another.
2. an apostate from a religious faith.
adjective 3. of or like a renegade; traitorous.

 

[the moops]

Hmm, I wonder if the Redskins are offended at being called Indians - You would think that after 500 years we would correct the mistake that Columbus made it to India

India didn't exist in 1492

 

[Rayderr]

Again, Vikings were mass murders and robbers. They invaded foreign lands, raped the women, and killed the men and children. But it's the Redskins that have an offensive name? OK.

ALL Nations have invaded foreign lands, raped the women, and killed the men and children.The Vikings didn't steal land and commit genocide on another level,

But American Indians did?

 

[matttyl]

Hmm, I wonder if the Redskins are offended at being called Indians - You would think that after 500 years we would correct the mistake that Columbus made it to India

India didn't exist in 1492

Pretty sure it id.

The ancient Greeks referred to the Indians as Indoi. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India

 

[the moops]

Hmm, I wonder if the Redskins are offended at being called Indians - You would think that after 500 years we would correct the mistake that Columbus made it to India

India didn't exist in 1492

Pretty sure it id.

The ancient Greeks referred to the Indians as Indoi. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India

Columbus was an ancient greek?

 

[TxBuckeye]

Columbus was an ancient greek?

I think you are thinking of Columbukus.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Columbus was an ancient greek?

I think you are thinking of Columbukus.

Didn't he play for da Bears?

 

[Parrothead]

Columbus was an ancient greek?

I think you are thinking of Columbukus.

Colomboukus? he was a detective and detectives discover things

 

[Fennis]

Hmm, I wonder if the Redskins are offended at being called Indians - You would think that after 500 years we would correct the mistake that Columbus made it to India

India didn't exist in 1492

Pretty sure it id.

The ancient Greeks referred to the Indians as Indoi. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India

Columbus was an ancient greek?

His name wasn't Columbus.

 

[Raider Nation]

Bob Costas on Olbermann's show

 

[jdoggydogg]

If you're not willing to walk up to a Native American and call him a redskin, then you really have no rational argument in favor of Washington retaining this name. You can appeal to tradition, and you can dig up some random Native American that isn't offended by the name. But the simple fact is most Natives would not want to hear this word used to describe them, and that's the only thing that matters.

As recently noted, I've switched from anti-name change to pro-name change, so I'm on the name change side, but this is one argument I don't really agree with...perhaps it's splitting hairs, but I don't think any of us would go up to ANYONE of another race, and feel comfortable calling them by their race (even agreed-upon unoffensive racial names). You don't greet/introduce people by their race (irregardless of whether the term you use is a nickname, slur, or socially accepted descriptor).

Case in point, would you go up to Ndamukong Suh and say, "Hey there African American!" or would you refrain because you realize he'd probably be a bit offended by being referred to as a race and kick your ###? Likewise, would you introduce a friend by saying, "This is my good friend Xao. He's Asian."

You don't utilize a racial name when addressing people. Irregardless of whether the racial name is offensive or not. The practice itself is seen as offensive by most.

I don't think any of us would go up to ANYONE of another race, and feel comfortable calling them by their race

This is the key. If you call someone a Chinese man and he's Chinese, that isn't a derogatory term. Calling a Native American "redskin" isn't simply trumpeting their race. It's. A. Slur. The end.

 

[drummer]

I don't think any of us would go up to ANYONE of another race, and feel comfortable calling them by their race

This is the key. If you call someone a Chinese man and he's Chinese, that isn't a derogatory term. Calling a Native American "redskin" isn't simply trumpeting their race. It's. A. Slur. The end.

This coming from someone who is a Tarantino apologist for using the n-bomb for something such as unnecessary as "Dead ###### Storage" in many lines.

ETA: or how about Dennis Hopper's lines in True Romance? Ya know, where he basically was murdered for re-visioning history, "Your great great great great great Grandma ####ed a ######"....

Let's not forget the over 200 uses of the word ###### in Django Unchained, to which he says it was used to show how ugly it was during that period, and that he used it excessively to the point where it ultimately a joke in script, just like his earlier scripts.

Do you wanna see an example of what Tarantino goes after as far as trying to educate you with his bull#### vision of history?

http://atlantablackstar.com/2014/02/21/8-disturbingly-racist-childrens-books-designed-to-devalue-black-people/

This is totally not safe for work, or maybe even appropriate. Unless it's Tarantino.