I lived in the northeast for much of my life and would have had the same opinion. I also thought Indians were ummm in a bad spot and not taken care of by our gov't, less fortunate...lots of bad thoughts.I've lived in Oklahoma for five years now.The Choctaws are impressive. They call themselves Indians. Another post by a different tribe leader also did. "The Indian way" seems to have become where a tribe builds a casino and supports its people. The Choctaws rrrrreally take care of their own and it's fascinating. Our government could likely learn something from them.While that's awfully vague and all...it wasn't til I was about 30 that I even knew there was a tribe in NY named the Awkwesasne Indians (forgive spelling please). My sis, from CT, didn't know either.Anyhow, I find all this indian stuff fascinating and didn't know it was so near to me there. I thought you possibly might be unaware as well and interested.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Do you think Snyder should change the name of the Redskins? (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter DBIsports
- Start date
Redskins is a stupid ignorant and insensitive name.No one will ever admit to that.Best move would be for someone to talk Snyder into renaming the team next time they hire a coach and GM to start anew. Take a different approach, skip the racist stuff. When you take the wrong doing aspect away, people tend to be more open to change.
DBIsports
Footballguy
Except that as mentioned before the Annenberg survey was not a good poll, a good percentage of Native Americans, and apparently at least some non- Native Americans, are offended, and it is not a question of the portrayal of a race, but a team name that uses what is mentioned by some as a derogatory term.Somehow it is hip to find a way to be offended by something these days. I don't know what it is, but it seems everyone wants to find a way to be offended. Like that stupid Volkswagen commercial that had a white guy talking like a Jamaican guy. A few (non Jamaican) New York Times writers were outraged, but when they asked actual representatives from Jamaica, they liked the commercial.
cobalt_27
Footballguy
At the essence, you may be both dumb and racist. The fact that I disagree with you is just collateral damage.
Last edited by a moderator:
southeastjerome
Footballguy
It's very commendable, hip even, that you are outraged. The one actual living/breathing native american that I know doesn't like football and could not care less about the Redskins name. PM me and I'll give you his number, maybe you should convince him he is wrong and should be outraged.Except that as mentioned before the Annenberg survey was not a good poll, a good percentage of Native Americans, and apparently at least some non- Native Americans, are offended, and it is not a question of the portrayal of a race, but a team name that uses what is mentioned by some as a derogatory term.
squistion
Footballguy
Well that settles it, the opinion of one person you know is representative of how all Native Americans feel. If he is such a bellwether don't waste your time giving out his number to people here, have him contact CNN (or more appropriately FOX News) as being the true spokeperson for all Native Americans on this issue.It's very commendable, hip even, that you are outraged. The one actual living/breathing native american that I know doesn't like football and could not care less about the Redskins name. PM me and I'll give you his number, maybe you should convince him he is wrong and should be outraged.Except that as mentioned before the Annenberg survey was not a good poll, a good percentage of Native Americans, and apparently at least some non- Native Americans, are offended, and it is not a question of the portrayal of a race, but a team name that uses what is mentioned by some as a derogatory term.
southeastjerome
Footballguy
No, it is what one person feels. I just lay more credence to the fact that he is not offended, but you are basically telling him that he should be. If you want more of a larger audience, check out the poll of Native Americans already posted in this thread. Based on the fact that the team name originated as a tribute to their Native American coach and not a racial slur, the intent is not there. Secondly, going back before football, the term "redskin" as used by Native American's before any football team name and it was not used in a derogatory way. So it is not as if "the white man" even made it up. Furthermore, no one had a problem with it until 1995? All of a sudden, now it is offensive. Give me a break.Well that settles it, the opinion of one person you know is representative of how all Native Americans feel. If he is such a bellwether don't waste your time giving out his number to people here, have him contact CNN (or more appropriately FOX News) as being the true spokeperson for all Native Americans on this issue.It's very commendable, hip even, that you are outraged. The one actual living/breathing native american that I know doesn't like football and could not care less about the Redskins name. PM me and I'll give you his number, maybe you should convince him he is wrong and should be outraged.Except that as mentioned before the Annenberg survey was not a good poll, a good percentage of Native Americans, and apparently at least some non- Native Americans, are offended, and it is not a question of the portrayal of a race, but a team name that uses what is mentioned by some as a derogatory term.
squistion
Footballguy
As noted by others in this thread, that poll is considered an outlier (if you disagree please provide a link to a subsequent poll that replicated those results).The origin of the name is irrelevant as to whether or not people currently find offensive (see prior post re Sambo's Restaurant chain).
And I remember well before 1995 that some Native Americans had a problem with this name (and other related Indian team names/mascot) so it is revisionist history to claim that "All of a sudden, now it is offensive." In fact Stanford changed their nickname and mascot in the early 70's as a result of objections from Native Americans:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_Cardinal
Last edited by a moderator:
spider321
Footballguy
The team's name will eventually be changed for the same reason that the NFL will one day be two-hand tag... the "sissification" of America.Someone might get their feelings hurt or lose a fingernail.After "Redskins", they will go after "Chiefs", because that's racist too, right?Then it will be "Saints", because no true Saint would want to be associated with a violent game, right?Then it will be "Giants", because someone tall might decide to be offended.Then it will be "Packers", because what Cobalt and his life-partner do in the privacy of their home is none of your business.There will still be football in Goodell and Cobalt's world, it just won't be a man's game anymore.
Last edited by a moderator:
Forbes did a study in July of 2012 where The Redskins were ranked #5 as the most valuable sports team in the world. Not the NFL, but the world, just behind your Dallas Cowboys and New York Yankees who were tied for 3rd place. Should it be changed because it is a bit offensive? I would say probably, but it's a business decision so I certainly don't blame Snyder for it. I also don't find it odd at all that Goodell and the rest of the NFL defers to The Redskins when the topic comes up. If there is one thing the NFL and Goodell won't stand for it's anyone screwing with their revenue and The Redskins ugly name is worth $1.55 Billion.
SSOG
Moderator
It's ironic someone brought up Columbus Day, since the holiday was created to ease racial resentment towards the Italians, and was quickly adopted and promoted by the Irish (who were desperate for a Catholic role model who could be embraced by the largely Protestant American population).
Right. Because banning names that are racist slurs is the first step on a slippery slope that will inevitably lead to banning names of mythical creatures and corporate sponsors (the Indian Packing Company bought Green Bay's uniforms for them in exchange for having the team named after them).
You can make quite a few arguments as to why the team shouldn't change the name. All of the ones you listed are completely idiotic.
spider321
Footballguy
As is changing a team name that was never a racial slur because the participation trophy generation needs a pompous cause to champion.
Last edited by a moderator:
Claiming that the Giants will change their name due to tall people being offended completely discredits anything you post. You just end up looking like a complete tool. The Redskins name being or not being a racial slur has little bearing on whether the name ever gets changed. Until you see the team loose value the conversation is pointless. The Redskins name/logo are far too valuable.I also notice you cut out your idiotic post in your quote......drunk posting, or embarassed I suppose.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
If you want to continue to stick your head in the sand about our team's name, so be it. But posting a dubious decade-old poll that found that only approximately 300,000 people find the name offensive and derogatory is not "good posting." Here's a much more recent information about a poll that found "the overwhelming number of Indians, American Indians, do not like the name; they feel it’s offensive."
Not that it should matter. Is there some minimum number of native Americans who would need to find the name offensive for you to support changing it? We know you don't mind offending 300,000 people with what they consider a racial slur. Would you be OK with calling a million people by a racial slur? If that too much, or still OK? What about five million?
Last edited by a moderator:
Yenrub
Footballguy
I’m not sure why Columbus day is a holiday here in the 1st place. Perhaps he should have a day over in Italy or Spain but not here. The whole he discovered America thing is bull#### , the native Americans were already here and I believe there were other European explorers that “discovered” America before he did.(I actually forgot it was a holiday since I haven’t had it off since high school)
roadkill1292
Footballguy
Instead of changing the name, let's just throw the franchise out of the league and give one to Cuban instead. Two birds, one stone.
ConnSKINS26
Footballguy
Thanks for the post. I live within an hour of two gigantic casinos owned by Native Americans. Mohegan Sun, and Foxwoods.So it was pretty common growing up in my part of CT for most people in this area to think that all Native Americans were pretty well off. The reality is that the vast majority of the reservations across the U.S. do not have casinos, and are below the poverty level.
Last edited by a moderator:
southeastjerome
Footballguy
I know nothing about either poll, but a New York Times article means little to me as well. They were outraged that the Volkswagen super bowl commercial was racist despite many Jamaicans saying not only did they have no problem with it, but they liked it.Did you read the post from nittanylion earlier this thread? If you didn't take the time to read it. It talks of the original name and that the term "redskins" actually came from Native Americans themselves as it is used in speeches decades before the NFL existed. Secondly, the name was actually a tribute to their native american coach. The fact that it was a term used by their own people (and not in a derogatory way) and the fact that it was named as a tribute for a native american, there is clearly no ill intent.If you want to continue to stick your head in the sand about our team's name, so be it. But posting a dubious decade-old poll that found that only approximately 300,000 people find the name offensive and derogatory is not "good posting." Here's a much more recent information about a poll that found "the overwhelming number of Indians, American Indians, do not like the name; they feel it’s offensive."
Not that it should matter. Is there some minimum number of native Americans who would need to find the name offensive for you to support changing it? We know you don't mind offending 300,000 people with what they consider a racial slur. Would you be OK with calling a million people by a racial slur? If that too much, or still OK? What about five million?
southeastjerome
Footballguy
I know this, but it only strengthens my point. It was used to ease racial tensions, however while at the same time celebrating the man who began and lead the demise and wiping out of a people.
southeastjerome
Footballguy
Well the U.S. District Court made a ruling that disagrees with you on this. I don't know what else to tell ya.
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion
Footballguy
Yes, let's not try to confuse you with any facts. And horrors, the polls were mentioned in an article by the NY Times (who didn't do the polls, they were conducted by Indian Country Today) so obviously they are as suspect as if they are appeared in Pravda.And as has been noted before, the origin of the Redskins name (however well intended) is completely irrelevant to whether Native Americans find the name offensive today. The origin of Sambo's Restaurant chain was a mix of its two founders names, but that it did not make it any less offensive to African Americans. The fact there was no ill intent with the Redskins is similarly irrelevant.I know nothing about either poll, but a New York Times article means little to me as well. They were outraged that the Volkswagen super bowl commercial was racist despite many Jamaicans saying not only did they have no problem with it, but they liked it.Did you read the post from nittanylion earlier this thread? If you didn't take the time to read it. It talks of the original name and that the term "redskins" actually came from Native Americans themselves as it is used in speeches decades before the NFL existed. Secondly, the name was actually a tribute to their native american coach. The fact that it was a term used by their own people (and not in a derogatory way) and the fact that it was named as a tribute for a native american, there is clearly no ill intent.If you want to continue to stick your head in the sand about our team's name, so be it. But posting a dubious decade-old poll that found that only approximately 300,000 people find the name offensive and derogatory is not "good posting." Here's a much more recent information about a poll that found "the overwhelming number of Indians, American Indians, do not like the name; they feel it’s offensive."
Not that it should matter. Is there some minimum number of native Americans who would need to find the name offensive for you to support changing it? We know you don't mind offending 300,000 people with what they consider a racial slur. Would you be OK with calling a million people by a racial slur? If that too much, or still OK? What about five million?
southeastjerome
Footballguy
Why not, its fun to question the veracity of a poll that does not lend credence to your point. You already did that to me.Yes, let's not try to confuse you with any facts. And horrors, the polls were mentioned in an article by the NY Times (who didn't do the polls, they were conducted by Indian Country Today) so obviously they are as suspect as if they are appeared in Pravda.And as has been noted before, the origin of the Redskins name (however well intended) is completely irrelevant to whether Native Americans find the name offensive today. The origin of Sambo's Restaurant chain was a mix of its two founders names, but that it did not make it any less offensive to African Americans. The fact there was no ill intent with the Redskins is similarly irrelevant.I know nothing about either poll, but a New York Times article means little to me as well. They were outraged that the Volkswagen super bowl commercial was racist despite many Jamaicans saying not only did they have no problem with it, but they liked it.Did you read the post from nittanylion earlier this thread? If you didn't take the time to read it. It talks of the original name and that the term "redskins" actually came from Native Americans themselves as it is used in speeches decades before the NFL existed. Secondly, the name was actually a tribute to their native american coach. The fact that it was a term used by their own people (and not in a derogatory way) and the fact that it was named as a tribute for a native american, there is clearly no ill intent.If you want to continue to stick your head in the sand about our team's name, so be it. But posting a dubious decade-old poll that found that only approximately 300,000 people find the name offensive and derogatory is not "good posting." Here's a much more recent information about a poll that found "the overwhelming number of Indians, American Indians, do not like the name; they feel it’s offensive."
Not that it should matter. Is there some minimum number of native Americans who would need to find the name offensive for you to support changing it? We know you don't mind offending 300,000 people with what they consider a racial slur. Would you be OK with calling a million people by a racial slur? If that too much, or still OK? What about five million?
Its not really clear cut either way. You find some Native Americans who are offended and others who could not care less. As there are polls posted in this thread that show both ends of the spectrum.
southeastjerome
Footballguy
I'm going to bow out of this thread for now as I don't think I can say much more about how I feel on this and it will likely turn into stupid arguing that I'd rather avoid. Most people here seem like decent people, decent people that like to argue their opinion. I do respect that. I guess we'll see what happens in due time. I do suggest folks read nittanylion's post (albeit a long one) http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=676828&view=findpost&p=15330088. I think it reflects how a lot of folks feel and it comes from an unbiased source. I'll be spending the rest of the winter in the FFA, see ya there! 
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
I did read nittanylion's post. And I responded to it. As I said then- I don't care about etymology, I care about current meaning. My example was a word rhyming with maggot, which also wasn't always derogatory (although I question that with respect to this word, and the team's narrative about it being a tribute is full of holes). I don't care what a word meant 80 years ago. I care what it means right now. Right now a huge number of Native Americans consider it derogatory. And it's only a name. Who cares if it's changed? The team still would play in the same stadium, representing the same city, with the same personnel. We're not talking about a significant sacrifice here.'southeastjerome said:I know nothing about either poll, but a New York Times article means little to me as well. They were outraged that the Volkswagen super bowl commercial was racist despite many Jamaicans saying not only did they have no problem with it, but they liked it.Did you read the post from nittanylion earlier this thread? If you didn't take the time to read it. It talks of the original name and that the term "redskins" actually came from Native Americans themselves as it is used in speeches decades before the NFL existed. Secondly, the name was actually a tribute to their native american coach. The fact that it was a term used by their own people (and not in a derogatory way) and the fact that it was named as a tribute for a native american, there is clearly no ill intent.'TobiasFunke said:If you want to continue to stick your head in the sand about our team's name, so be it. But posting a dubious decade-old poll that found that only approximately 300,000 people find the name offensive and derogatory is not "good posting." Here's a much more recent information about a poll that found "the overwhelming number of Indians, American Indians, do not like the name; they feel it’s offensive."
Not that it should matter. Is there some minimum number of native Americans who would need to find the name offensive for you to support changing it? We know you don't mind offending 300,000 people with what they consider a racial slur. Would you be OK with calling a million people by a racial slur? If that too much, or still OK? What about five million?
Joe Summer
Footballguy
spider321 will need a name change of his own if he keeps this up.
Joe Summer
Footballguy
Yes -- one is a member of a once-proud group of people with a recent history of depression, despair, poverty, drug abuse, and underachievement.....and the other is a Native American.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Shouldn't this be in the FFA?
But anyway, the answer is ... no, the Skins shouldn't change their name.
The discussion about race is really dumb because every single person changes the rules to fit their argument. The Washington Redskins have as much to do with American Indians native Americans (a misnomer in itself, we're all "native" Americans now and if we're going to go nuts on Columbus Day how dare we have the temerity to call a whole continent after some Italian navigator-cartographer, why don't we resort to the names given by each of the 100,000+ tribes who once lived here (meaning Canada, USA & Mexico)?) the people whom we would now call "Americans" who were here as of 1491, as "white" Americans (Caucasians) have to do with the Caucasus (let's face it, unless like the Kardashians they're Armenian, 99.9% of all such never had forbears who came from the Caucasus) or as much as "African-Americans" have to do with Egypt, North Africa or the other 95% of Africa itself (considering that most African-American forbears came from relatively limited swaths of west Africa and to some extent the horn of East Africa). The arguments on this stuff are useless and destructive towards the goal of gaining real peace and understanding.
Otherwise, on the other hand, if we're going to go the "Plymouth Rock landed on me" route then let's really go all the way, the term "redskin" is really the last thing you should be worrying about and restoration of lands, rivers and resources, and renaming of whole states, regions and coasts, ought to be the discussion.
But anyway, the answer is ... no, the Skins shouldn't change their name.
The discussion about race is really dumb because every single person changes the rules to fit their argument. The Washington Redskins have as much to do with American Indians native Americans (a misnomer in itself, we're all "native" Americans now and if we're going to go nuts on Columbus Day how dare we have the temerity to call a whole continent after some Italian navigator-cartographer, why don't we resort to the names given by each of the 100,000+ tribes who once lived here (meaning Canada, USA & Mexico)?) the people whom we would now call "Americans" who were here as of 1491, as "white" Americans (Caucasians) have to do with the Caucasus (let's face it, unless like the Kardashians they're Armenian, 99.9% of all such never had forbears who came from the Caucasus) or as much as "African-Americans" have to do with Egypt, North Africa or the other 95% of Africa itself (considering that most African-American forbears came from relatively limited swaths of west Africa and to some extent the horn of East Africa). The arguments on this stuff are useless and destructive towards the goal of gaining real peace and understanding.
Otherwise, on the other hand, if we're going to go the "Plymouth Rock landed on me" route then let's really go all the way, the term "redskin" is really the last thing you should be worrying about and restoration of lands, rivers and resources, and renaming of whole states, regions and coasts, ought to be the discussion.
Last edited by a moderator:
spider321
Footballguy
Don't worry, that's next on the overly sensative *****es' agenda.
I appreciate his dedication to lowering the bar even further in the Shark Pool.
ImTheScientist
Footballguy
People are too sensitive these days.
ImTheScientist
Footballguy
Most of you don't even know a single native american person.
Last edited by a moderator:
B-Deep
Footballguy
ok, thanks for that insight
B-Deep
Footballguy
http://misterirrelevant.com/index.php/2013/02/22/lets-talk-about-that-infamous-2004-redskins-poll/
– Ultimately, one way to look at this is to say, “You guys! 90% of Native Americans are okay with the name! HIGH FIVE!,” which is how the AP spun it in their story linked above. And then there’s the other way to look at it, which is to say, “Holy crap, ONE out of every 10 Native Americans polled finds this name offensive!” You can guess which way I skew.
I am not trying to change anyone’s mind. I am not trying to speak for anyone. I am not looking for things to get offended about. I do not disagree that some people seem to be grandstanding to get facetime based on this issue. I just wish my favorite team had a name that didn’t make ANYONE feel denigrated. That’s all.
– Ultimately, one way to look at this is to say, “You guys! 90% of Native Americans are okay with the name! HIGH FIVE!,” which is how the AP spun it in their story linked above. And then there’s the other way to look at it, which is to say, “Holy crap, ONE out of every 10 Native Americans polled finds this name offensive!” You can guess which way I skew.
I am not trying to change anyone’s mind. I am not trying to speak for anyone. I am not looking for things to get offended about. I do not disagree that some people seem to be grandstanding to get facetime based on this issue. I just wish my favorite team had a name that didn’t make ANYONE feel denigrated. That’s all.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
This cracks me up:
Do "Indians" even want to be lumped into being all "Indians"? How many tribes are there right now? How many have there ever been? I know in Louisiana there are many unrecognized tribes, heck some tribes don't even recognize other tribes.In trying to buff up their PC bona fides these guys at Annenberg & the AP seem to fall into the same cultural bias trap they are decrying.**********As an example of how ridiculous this is, there are "several" (many?, maybe more than the whole number of "Indians" polled?) in New Orleans and the surrounding area who protest that the use of the fleur-de-lis on the Saints' helmet and iconography is racist because it represents the royal French colonial period which was known as being so cruel and oppressive to the people of African heritage who were brought here and enslaved.Sorry, do the "Indians" protesting about the Skins and their supporters not care about the cruelties of slavery?
Last edited by a moderator:
B-Deep
Footballguy
Thinking that being considerate of others is somehow the evil of "PC" has helped make us a worse society.
Instead of thinking "if it is reasonable to consider others I should" we always go to "I must not lose my right to be offensive to the sinkhole of PC"
When I used the word oriental to describe a person and someone let me know that was not the polite way to refer to them my first thought was "I'll simply not do that any more" , not "damn your political correctness"
it's sad that courtesy is a weakness
but as i said, it is all irrelevant, the name is simply not changing under any circumstances short of federal intervention (oddly the same thing it took for the Redskins and their illustrious founder to finally allow a "negro" on their team)
Instead of thinking "if it is reasonable to consider others I should" we always go to "I must not lose my right to be offensive to the sinkhole of PC"
When I used the word oriental to describe a person and someone let me know that was not the polite way to refer to them my first thought was "I'll simply not do that any more" , not "damn your political correctness"
it's sad that courtesy is a weakness
but as i said, it is all irrelevant, the name is simply not changing under any circumstances short of federal intervention (oddly the same thing it took for the Redskins and their illustrious founder to finally allow a "negro" on their team)
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Being considerate of others is laudible, and being Correct in PC is even better, it's the Political part in PC that's the problem and only serves to divide people and shut down conversation rather than encourage debate.It's not the motive, it's the absurdity of the result of all this proper naming of things and peoples which kills communication.
So colored people becomes people of color. We're ok now, right?
Oriental (like occidental in Occidental College means western) means eastern. So an occidental viewpoint is ok but not an oriental one. And the fact that Uighurs, Arabs and Manchurians are all Asians has nothing do with what an Asian-American might think.
And Latinos are just Latin people. Well so are Italians and Spaniards and Greeks, but even if you limit it to the Americas Brazilians have nothing to do with Hondurans, yet somehow in American elections all these interests from all these countries in North (Mexico, Cuba, Puerto Rico), Central and South America and all their centuries of history and immigration get lumped into one big political group. Who's being offensive here?
And the fact that a good number of Seminoles are of African-American descent doesn't seem to keep anyone from minding that a guy mascot named Chief Osceola in an old fashioned Buffalo Bill Show costume who looks nothing like an African-American runs out with a spear before every FSU game. Has anyone asked the 768 "Indians" from x-thousand tribes from California to Maine what they think about this? I mean, come'on.
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
SaintsinDome2006 going for the world record for non-sequiturs in here. Good luck!
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
I think they rank it slightly behind being slaughtered so that their land could be stolen on the atrocity scale.
Csonka4life
Footballguy
Would any team have a slur against Jewish people in their name in this day in age? You would think a minority that still faces slights in some circles would be sensitive to another clearly downtrodden minorities issues with the name. By the way since when did the Orangemen become a slur? Also the Redskins could do what the Orangemen did and shorten the nickname to the Skins and show a beaver pelt. Of course Green Peace would be up in arms....
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
The oompa loompa lobby is a strong one.
Similar threads
