Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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


DBIsports

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

It's stunning to me that it wasn't changed a long time ago.

Didn't this go to court once already and the court as well as appellate court tell them to pound sand?? That if it was a big concern to them they would have filed suit some 20-30 years prior??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's stunning to me that it wasn't changed a long time ago.

Didn't this go to court once already and the court as well as appellate court tell them to pound sand?? That if it was a big concern to them they would have filed suit some 20-30 years prior??

I haven't followed closely, but I think the lawsuit is still pending. I'm just saying I thought it would have been changed just as a matter of common sense/political correctness. Not because it's illegal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems, to me, like it would be incredibly offensive and I'd lean towards changing it, but I'm not a Native American, so my opinion doesn't matter.

I'm not too familiar past discussions on this issue. Is it that most Native Americans aren't bothered or that Snyder and previous owners just don't care if they are?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's stunning to me that it wasn't changed a long time ago.

Didn't this go to court once already and the court as well as appellate court tell them to pound sand?? That if it was a big concern to them they would have filed suit some 20-30 years prior??

I haven't followed closely, but I think the lawsuit is still pending. I'm just saying I thought it would have been changed just as a matter of common sense/political correctness. Not because it's illegal.

There's been another filed just recently I believe, but there was also one prior to the current one. I'm pretty sure the courts told them to piss off and stop being stupid, but I could be wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's stunning to me that it wasn't changed a long time ago.

Didn't this go to court once already and the court as well as appellate court tell them to pound sand?? That if it was a big concern to them they would have filed suit some 20-30 years prior??

I haven't followed closely, but I think the lawsuit is still pending. I'm just saying I thought it would have been changed just as a matter of common sense/political correctness. Not because it's illegal.

There's been another filed just recently I believe, but there was also one prior to the current one. I'm pretty sure the courts told them to piss off and stop being stupid, but I could be wrong.

From March 7 2013:

WASHINGTON (CBSDC/AP) — The long-running battle over the Washington Redskins name got a restart Thursday, when a group of Native Americans argued that the franchise should lose its federal trademark protection, based on a law that prohibits registered names that are disparaging, scandalous, contemptuous or disreputable.

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.

There won’t be a resolution any time soon. Lawyers said they expect the judges to take as long as a year to issue a ruling, and the Redskins are sure to appeal if it doesn’t go their way. A similar case, ultimately won by the team, was filed in 1992 and needed 17 years to go through the legal system before the Supreme Court declined to intervene.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it should be changed, mostly due to the negative connotation surrounding the name. Personally, I see no real issue with calling them the Reds, a la Cincinnati, but it's clearly not my decision.

Link to comment
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.

Edited by Don Quixote
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it should be changed. But unlike , the N word, amongst African Americans all American Indians don't believe it is disparaging so my guess is they will lose this suit as well. After all Red has been used by Indians as a descriptor. Like the Red Power movement of the 70's or the Red Paper an Indian policy paper produced by the Indian Chiefs of Alberta.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think TobiasFunke may have an opinion on this issue

I do. But I've offered it enough in the Shark Pool. Only thing I'll point out here is that one side has Daniel Snyder on it. Draw your own conclusions as to which side is the good one from there.

Also the story with the litigation is that there's two patent and trademark challenges. First was tossed on standing after a long legal battle; second is pending but shouldn't be affected by the first since it was a procedural ruling.

Link to comment
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.htm

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think TobiasFunke may have an opinion on this issue

I do. But I've offered it enough in the Shark Pool. Only thing I'll point out here is that one side has Daniel Snyder on it. Draw your own conclusions as to which side is the good one from there.

Also the story with the litigation is that there's two patent and trademark challenges. First was tossed on standing after a long legal battle; second is pending but shouldn't be affected by the first since it was a procedural ruling.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think Suzan Shown Harjo is among the plaintiffs in both suits? Harjo has been gunning for a name change for years now. Not jus the Redskins but High School mascots too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think TobiasFunke may have an opinion on this issue

I do. But I've offered it enough in the Shark Pool. Only thing I'll point out here is that one side has Daniel Snyder on it. Draw your own conclusions as to which side is the good one from there.

Also the story with the litigation is that there's two patent and trademark challenges. First was tossed on standing after a long legal battle; second is pending but shouldn't be affected by the first since it was a procedural ruling.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think Suzan Shown Harjo is among the plaintiffs in both suits? Harjo has been gunning for a name change for years now. Not jus the Redskins but High School mascots too.

I don't know if she's a named plaintiff, I think they have some kids because apparently there was a statute of limitations problem last time or something. I don't remember for sure.

Also that Annenberg study with the 90%/9% split had a lot of problems I think. SI did one too and 69% of the Native American Respondents- 57% of those on reservations- said they were OK with the name. That was also several years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One way or the other I am glad Snyder was very decisive in saying that he will never change the name and put the NEVER in caps he stated.

Had Snyder waffled or said "We may look into this one day" it would have gone on and on. Now everybody knows he is not changing it so the story is over and we can move on.

Central Michigan Chippawas are on deck.

Yes, I am sure we will never hear another peep from the Native Americans who are offended by this until Snyder either sells the team or dies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it should be changed, mostly due to the negative connotation surrounding the name. Personally, I see no real issue with calling them the Reds, a la Cincinnati, but it's clearly not my decision.

Except Reds is short for Red Legs...which is not really the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it should be changed, mostly due to the negative connotation surrounding the name. Personally, I see no real issue with calling them the Reds, a la Cincinnati, but it's clearly not my decision.

Except Reds is short for Red Legs...which is not really the same thing.

Actually they were called the Red Stockings first.

Link to comment
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.htm

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it should be changed, mostly due to the negative connotation surrounding the name. Personally, I see no real issue with calling them the Reds, a la Cincinnati, but it's clearly not my decision.

Except Reds is short for Red Legs...which is not really the same thing.

Actually they were called the Red Stockings first.

Still has nothing to do with Indians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it should be changed, mostly due to the negative connotation surrounding the name. Personally, I see no real issue with calling them the Reds, a la Cincinnati, but it's clearly not my decision.

Except Reds is short for Red Legs...which is not really the same thing.

Actually they were called the Red Stockings first.

I'm fully aware of the history surrounding baseball's Reds, but can someone give me a legitimate reason for why a football team can't use it?

Link to comment
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?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it should be changed, mostly due to the negative connotation surrounding the name. Personally, I see no real issue with calling them the Reds, a la Cincinnati, but it's clearly not my decision.

Except Reds is short for Red Legs...which is not really the same thing.

Actually they were called the Red Stockings first.

I'm fully aware of the history surrounding baseball's Reds, but can someone give me a legitimate reason for why a football team can't use it?

You mean other than copyright issues?

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still waiting for an atheist group to throw a fit that an LA baseball team is still called the "Angels."

Only if as a Christian I can sue to get "Devils" stricken from all teams that use it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still waiting for an atheist group to throw a fit that an LA baseball team is still called the "Angels."

Hard to imagine any atheists would mind in their current state. I would think if anyone would protest it would be religious people who are tired of hearing "the Angels suck" all the time.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

:lol: No doubt.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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".

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Queer. This term is used academia all the time (e.g. queer studies, queer theory, etc.) Lots and lots of people still find it offensive.

Edit: "Colored" is another example, both in its most direct term (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) and indirectly ("people of color").

Edited by IvanKaramazov
Link to comment
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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Queer. This term is used academia all the time (e.g. queer studies, queer theory, etc.) Lots and lots of people still find it offensive.

Good one. Dyke is kind of similar.

The minorities kind of appropriated those, though. No idea if Native Americans have done anything like that with Redskin.

Link to comment
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?

I think you have to weigh the benefits of any change against the drawbacks from the change. 10% of the Native American population equals thousands of people that find the name offensive. What's the reason to keep the name?

Link to comment
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.

×
  • Create New...