Redskin is a racist term for Native Americans, coupled with a mascot essentially in 'red-face' and it should change for that reason alone. If that's not enough reason to change it, imagine if the team name wasn't redskins and was some other racist term and featured a mascot that played into the stereotype of your ethnicity or culture.
So I would have to say that yes, I think they should change it.
So St. John's changing its mascot from the Redmen to the Red Storm, Marquette now the Golden Eagles instead of the Warriors and Stanford switching from the Indians to the Cardinal wasn't enough??? Maybe we should be going after the NFL's Kansas City Chiefs, baseball's Atlanta Braves and Cleveland Indians???
So St. John's changing its mascot from the Redmen to the Red Storm, Marquette now the Golden Eagles instead of the Warriors and Stanford switching from the Indians to the Cardinal wasn't enough??? Maybe we should be going after the NFL's Kansas City Chiefs, baseball's Atlanta Braves and Cleveland Indians???
Yes, maybe we should.
More to the point, I agree that the redskins name should probably be changed because its not just named after Indians, it's a derogatory name for them.
I see a distinction between naming a sports team after an indigenous people, and naming a sports team after a derogatory name for indigenous people. Don't you?
So St. John's changing its mascot from the Redmen to the Red Storm, Marquette now the Golden Eagles instead of the Warriors and Stanford switching from the Indians to the Cardinal wasn't enough??? Maybe we should be going after the NFL's Kansas City Chiefs, baseball's Atlanta Braves and Cleveland Indians???
Yes, maybe we should.
More to the point, I agree that the redskins name should probably be changed because its not just named after Indians, it's a derogatory name for them.
I see a distinction between naming a sports team after an indigenous people, and naming a sports team after a derogatory name for indigenous people. Don't you?
You can read speeches by the Meskwaki chief Black Thunder and the Omaha chief Big Elk in which the expression redskin is used, and early nineteenth century examples of the Meskwaki usage of terms meaning redskin and whiteskin . . . it does not seem the Washington Redskins were named after a derogatory name for indigenous people.
However, common wisdom appears to have settled on the notion that the term is a particularly egregious racial epithet that represents a bloody era in American history in which Indigenous Americans were hunted, killed, and forcibly displaced removed from their lands by European settlers
An offensive and derogatory term refering to native americans. Comes from when the government paid for each 'indian' one killed. Instead of carrying the bodies they would take the scalps to prove they had murdered a native american.
When plural the name of a NFL team from Washington DC
It seems there is a too common belief that the word redskin is not offensive so I dare those who believe that to go try that word out on a native american person and see their reaction.
I don't see why it should really be a question; its just a name for a sports team. What's the harm in changing it? It isn't that uncommon for sports teams to change their names anyway, and I would think racial insensitivity would be a great reason to change a name.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EDH UBW Sharuum BR Olivia Voldaren UR Jhoira URG Riku U Vendilion Clique
I mean, I think the Redskins are distinct from all of the other examples. I don't find the NAME "Indian" offensive, I find the mascot and logos offensive because of their representations of Indians. It's no worse than "49ers" because it's just a reference to a group of people. Exactly the same with Blackhawks, it's a reference to a specific historical tribe, depiction thereof, probably racist. Warriors, definitely nothing offensive about that, the logo and mascot connection to Indians, definitely screwed up. Redskin is a ****ing racial slur, and has no business being the name of anything ever.
Also, in response to "but they totally used it." MLK also used the derogatory term "negro" in several of his speeches, that does not justify the further continuation of that terminology (and he was criticized by Malcolm X for doing so). Also, lol early 19th century. A LOT of racial slurs were used in the 1800s, and hell even early 1900s that we've learned "hey maybe we ought not to say"
Also if anyone actually wants to take me up on the debate of whether or not it is offensive I'll provide actual scholarly sources instead of wiki and urban dictionary. But that position is kind of asinine, soooo...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Asking people to remove quotes in their signatures is tyranny! If I can't say something just because someone's feelings are hurt then no one would ever be able to say anything! Political correctness is stupid.
If I wanted to go open a watermelon stand and name it ****** Melons (censored word starts with an N). That's my right to do so. If it is successful then great. If it's too offensive then people wont buy stuff there and I will go out of business.
Similarly I could open a weight loss 1 stop shop named something like "Fatties are ugly!".... is that incredibly offensive to overweight people? yes. Does that mean I should be legally obligated to change the name? No.
I don't think anyone is talking about legal obligation here, dude. Nice strawperson.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Asking people to remove quotes in their signatures is tyranny! If I can't say something just because someone's feelings are hurt then no one would ever be able to say anything! Political correctness is stupid.
I don't think anyone is talking about legal obligation here, dude. Nice strawperson.
So you are proposing that a successful, popular business changes it's branding so that it is less offensive to a small portion of the population out of the goodness of their hearts?
Honestly there will always be a portion of the population that will find a way to be offended by something... If it isnt hurting the company's bottom line then they are not going to do anything about it.
So you are proposing that a successful, popular business changes it's branding so that it is less offensive to a small portion of the population out of the goodness of their hearts?
Yes?
I'm not sure I see anything wrong with that proposition.
So you are proposing that a successful, popular business changes it's branding so that it is less offensive to a small portion of the population out of the goodness of their hearts?
Yes?
I'm not sure I see anything wrong with that proposition.
Businesses dont like to lose money. A major brand change on a franchise with a rich history is a horrible idea. It may not seem like a big deal to you but to the fans it is. Franchises change brands when they are failing to try to generate excitement and in recent history they dont change everything just small details.
On the Packers website someone suggested the packers update their uniforms to be more modern.... not only did that person get blasted in the comments but the writer for the site suggested that if that happened the statue of Vince Lombardi would come alive walk up stairs to the President's office and ask what the hell was going on. That was the reaction tot eh suggestion of updating the uniform. How do you think fans would react to changing the name of the team?
So you are proposing that a successful, popular business changes it's branding so that it is less offensive to a small portion of the population out of the goodness of their hearts?
Yes?
I'm not sure I see anything wrong with that proposition.
Businesses dont like to lose money. A major brand change on a franchise with a rich history is a horrible idea. It may not seem like a big deal to you but to the fans it is. Franchises change brands when they are failing to try to generate excitement and in recent history they dont change everything just small details.
On the Packers website someone suggested the packers update their uniforms to be more modern.... not only did that person get blasted in the comments but the writer for the site suggested that if that happened the statue of Vince Lombardi would come alive walk up stairs to the President's office and ask what the hell was going on. That was the reaction tot eh suggestion of updating the uniform. How do you think fans would react to changing the name of the team?
Right, we get that they probably won't do it.
That doesn't mean we can't think they should do it.
That doesn't mean we can't think they should do it.
Ahh ok... I wasnt sure if people actually thought it was going to happen or not.
To be perfectly honest even if they changed it tomorrow it wouldnt do much. All of the old records would be the same, they would still be compared to the old "Redskins". The "Redskins" will never go away as long as there is an NFL team in Washington.
That doesn't mean we can't think they should do it.
Ahh ok... I wasnt sure if people actually thought it was going to happen or not.
To be perfectly honest even if they changed it tomorrow it wouldnt do much. All of the old records would be the same, they would still be compared to the old "Redskins". The "Redskins" will never go away as long as there is an NFL team in Washington.
True, but changing the name would go a long ways in helping from the perspective of people that are offended by it.
True, but changing the name would go a long ways in helping from the perspective of people that are offended by it.
Question... how many people need to be offended by something for it to garner public support to have that thing made less offensive?
If Peta starts lobbying to have animal names taken off sports teams because they find it offensive to have animals being used to represent violent sports should sports teams take that offense seriously?
Yes I am making a slippery slope argument but I think it's a valid one to make here. Society keeps getting more and more PC. There seems to be an ever growing group of people willing to fight for changing things that could offend someone else. In reality will it ever end? How many topics will become taboo before we stop finding things to be offended by?
True, but changing the name would go a long ways in helping from the perspective of people that are offended by it.
Question... how many people need to be offended by something for it to garner public support to have that thing made less offensive?
If Peta starts lobbying to have animal names taken off sports teams because they find it offensive to have animals being used to represent violent sports should sports teams take that offense seriously?
I think there is a substantial difference between someone getting offended by something about them, and someone getting offended on behalf of something/one else.
In the instant case (redskins) I am not offended by it. I'm also not clamouring for them to change it. Do I think that would be a good gesture? Yea. Would I do it if I could? Yea. Am I going to try and force them to do it? No.
I think there is a substantial difference between someone getting offended by something about them, and someone getting offended on behalf of something/one else.
In the instant case (redskins) I am not offended by it. I'm also not clamouring for them to change it. Do I think that would be a good gesture? Yea. Would I do it if I could? Yea. Am I going to try and force them to do it? No.
Ahh I think we are actually closer in view than I thought. I have a feeling the OP is taking this a bit more personally than you are.
Would I be offended if the Redskins changed their name? nope. Would I be surprised if Native Americans did not support that team because of the name? nope.
I just dont find it to be a cause worthy of worrying about. To me the uproar seems very similar to the groups that clamored to have the n-word removed from Huckleberry Finn when it's taught in schools... If the team was created tomorrow I would expect them to not be named the Redskins but to remove it now just seems like trying to forget something that already happened.
Fluffy, you are right, I do have some take some personal offense to the team name (I'm half Native) but still the point remains. It is a racist term and there are plenty of Native Americans who are offended by it (myself included).
Names like the Chiefs, Blackhawks, etc. are not derogatory terms, but 'redskin' is.
"The term is arguably most prominent in the name of the Washington Redskins, a National Football League football team. The team was founded in 1932 and was originally known as the Boston Braves, for their landlords, the baseball team called the Boston Braves. In 1933 the name was changed to the synonymous Boston Redskins when they left Braves Field for Fenway Park, the home of the Boston Red Sox. Some accounts state that the name "Redskins" was chosen to honor the team's coach, William "Lone Star" Dietz, who began coaching in 1933, and whose mother was allegedly Sioux. In 1937 the team moved and joining Capitol Hill as the second football team of Washington, D.C., becoming the Washington Redskins."
"I have no idea what it's like not to be a straight white male, and the experiences of others are irrelevant." -Conservative Motto
Calling someone a Commie is flaming and must be stopped, but turning the word Conservative into a loaded pejorative and using it over and over again is perfectly acceptable.
Also if anyone actually wants to take me up on the debate of whether or not it is offensive I'll provide actual scholarly sources instead of wiki and urban dictionary. But that position is kind of asinine, soooo...
If they were a new team and have not been around for, oh 70 years, I would say yes change it. Since they have been around close to a century, no, I dont feel they should change it.
If they were a new team and have not been around for, oh 70 years, I would say yes change it. Since they have been around close to a century, no, I dont feel they should change it.
That didn't stop the NCAA from forcing colleges like the University from Illinois to stop using their mascot Chief Illiniwek in 2005.
There's actually a really good book about the topic; It's called Dancing At Halftime by Carol Spindel. If anyone has ~$14 and a free day I'd recommend it as a read.
Ultimately, though, professional organizations differ from collegiate organizations in that professional organizations don't rely on public funding and the ability for the government to shut them down is significantly more limited. The NFC would have to threaten them with being kicked out of the league to force a name change, which is doubtful considering the massive backlash the organization would receive.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Even if the author is silenced, the performance is stopped, the story will not end.
Whether it's a comedy or a tragedy, if there is cheering, the story will continue on.
Just like the many lives.
For the us who are still in it and still in the journey, send warm blessings.
- We will continue to walk down this path until eternity.
If they were a new team and have not been around for, oh 70 years, I would say yes change it. Since they have been around close to a century, no, I dont feel they should change it.
That didn't stop the NCAA from forcing colleges like the University from Illinois to stop using their mascot Chief Illiniwek in 2005.
There's actually a really good book about the topic; It's called Dancing At Halftime by Carol Spindel. If anyone has ~$14 and a free day I'd recommend it as a read.
Ultimately, though, professional organizations differ from collegiate organizations in that professional organizations don't rely on public funding and the ability for the government to shut them down is significantly more limited. The NFC would have to threaten them with being kicked out of the league to force a name change, which is doubtful considering the massive backlash the organization would receive.
Maybe the government should make the NFL illegal unless they force the teams with names that offend a few are changed.
I am all for the American Indians. I am part Indian on my fathers side, how much I am not sure. My wife is 1/4 American Indian through her father. I find it terrible how the whites came through Indian country and all but destroyed a culture. But in the end, its only a name that only offends a very small percentage of the population.
I think the government should be equal opportunity and force some of the other teams to take on objectionable names of other races. That way everyone is offended.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
http://news.yahoo.com/video/washington-redskins-change-name-014536125.html
Redskin is a racist term for Native Americans, coupled with a mascot essentially in 'red-face' and it should change for that reason alone. If that's not enough reason to change it, imagine if the team name wasn't redskins and was some other racist term and featured a mascot that played into the stereotype of your ethnicity or culture.
So I would have to say that yes, I think they should change it.
Yes, maybe we should.
More to the point, I agree that the redskins name should probably be changed because its not just named after Indians, it's a derogatory name for them.
I see a distinction between naming a sports team after an indigenous people, and naming a sports team after a derogatory name for indigenous people. Don't you?
They should change the name. It's racially insensitive for no real gain.
You can read speeches by the Meskwaki chief Black Thunder and the Omaha chief Big Elk in which the expression redskin is used, and early nineteenth century examples of the Meskwaki usage of terms meaning redskin and whiteskin . . . it does not seem the Washington Redskins were named after a derogatory name for indigenous people.
Then again, as an Asian, I would take much offense at a sports team if they were called the "gooks" or "chinks".
Whether or not "redskin" is offensive could be debatable, I suppose, but my very scholarly sources below seem to indicate that it is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_(slang)
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=redskin
(Like I said, very scholarly)
I don't see why it should really be a question; its just a name for a sports team. What's the harm in changing it? It isn't that uncommon for sports teams to change their names anyway, and I would think racial insensitivity would be a great reason to change a name.
UBW Sharuum
BR Olivia Voldaren
UR Jhoira
URG Riku
U Vendilion Clique
Also, in response to "but they totally used it." MLK also used the derogatory term "negro" in several of his speeches, that does not justify the further continuation of that terminology (and he was criticized by Malcolm X for doing so). Also, lol early 19th century. A LOT of racial slurs were used in the 1800s, and hell even early 1900s that we've learned "hey maybe we ought not to say"
Also if anyone actually wants to take me up on the debate of whether or not it is offensive I'll provide actual scholarly sources instead of wiki and urban dictionary. But that position is kind of asinine, soooo...
If I wanted to go open a watermelon stand and name it ****** Melons (censored word starts with an N). That's my right to do so. If it is successful then great. If it's too offensive then people wont buy stuff there and I will go out of business.
Similarly I could open a weight loss 1 stop shop named something like "Fatties are ugly!".... is that incredibly offensive to overweight people? yes. Does that mean I should be legally obligated to change the name? No.
So you are proposing that a successful, popular business changes it's branding so that it is less offensive to a small portion of the population out of the goodness of their hearts?
Honestly there will always be a portion of the population that will find a way to be offended by something... If it isnt hurting the company's bottom line then they are not going to do anything about it.
Yes?
I'm not sure I see anything wrong with that proposition.
Businesses dont like to lose money. A major brand change on a franchise with a rich history is a horrible idea. It may not seem like a big deal to you but to the fans it is. Franchises change brands when they are failing to try to generate excitement and in recent history they dont change everything just small details.
On the Packers website someone suggested the packers update their uniforms to be more modern.... not only did that person get blasted in the comments but the writer for the site suggested that if that happened the statue of Vince Lombardi would come alive walk up stairs to the President's office and ask what the hell was going on. That was the reaction tot eh suggestion of updating the uniform. How do you think fans would react to changing the name of the team?
Right, we get that they probably won't do it.
That doesn't mean we can't think they should do it.
Ahh ok... I wasnt sure if people actually thought it was going to happen or not.
To be perfectly honest even if they changed it tomorrow it wouldnt do much. All of the old records would be the same, they would still be compared to the old "Redskins". The "Redskins" will never go away as long as there is an NFL team in Washington.
True, but changing the name would go a long ways in helping from the perspective of people that are offended by it.
Question... how many people need to be offended by something for it to garner public support to have that thing made less offensive?
If Peta starts lobbying to have animal names taken off sports teams because they find it offensive to have animals being used to represent violent sports should sports teams take that offense seriously?
Yes I am making a slippery slope argument but I think it's a valid one to make here. Society keeps getting more and more PC. There seems to be an ever growing group of people willing to fight for changing things that could offend someone else. In reality will it ever end? How many topics will become taboo before we stop finding things to be offended by?
I think there is a substantial difference between someone getting offended by something about them, and someone getting offended on behalf of something/one else.
In the instant case (redskins) I am not offended by it. I'm also not clamouring for them to change it. Do I think that would be a good gesture? Yea. Would I do it if I could? Yea. Am I going to try and force them to do it? No.
Ahh I think we are actually closer in view than I thought. I have a feeling the OP is taking this a bit more personally than you are.
Would I be offended if the Redskins changed their name? nope. Would I be surprised if Native Americans did not support that team because of the name? nope.
I just dont find it to be a cause worthy of worrying about. To me the uproar seems very similar to the groups that clamored to have the n-word removed from Huckleberry Finn when it's taught in schools... If the team was created tomorrow I would expect them to not be named the Redskins but to remove it now just seems like trying to forget something that already happened.
Names like the Chiefs, Blackhawks, etc. are not derogatory terms, but 'redskin' is.
Says you and some people... Any non-circular reasoning why you find it offensive. Oh, and BTW not all Native Americans feel this way.
Redskin
"The term is arguably most prominent in the name of the Washington Redskins, a National Football League football team. The team was founded in 1932 and was originally known as the Boston Braves, for their landlords, the baseball team called the Boston Braves. In 1933 the name was changed to the synonymous Boston Redskins when they left Braves Field for Fenway Park, the home of the Boston Red Sox. Some accounts state that the name "Redskins" was chosen to honor the team's coach, William "Lone Star" Dietz, who began coaching in 1933, and whose mother was allegedly Sioux. In 1937 the team moved and joining Capitol Hill as the second football team of Washington, D.C., becoming the Washington Redskins."
Flame infraction. - Blinking Spirit
Calling someone a Commie is flaming and must be stopped, but turning the word Conservative into a loaded pejorative and using it over and over again is perfectly acceptable.
Sounds like it's time for the below...
That didn't stop the NCAA from forcing colleges like the University from Illinois to stop using their mascot Chief Illiniwek in 2005.
There's actually a really good book about the topic; It's called Dancing At Halftime by Carol Spindel. If anyone has ~$14 and a free day I'd recommend it as a read.
Ultimately, though, professional organizations differ from collegiate organizations in that professional organizations don't rely on public funding and the ability for the government to shut them down is significantly more limited. The NFC would have to threaten them with being kicked out of the league to force a name change, which is doubtful considering the massive backlash the organization would receive.
Whether it's a comedy or a tragedy, if there is cheering, the story will continue on.
Just like the many lives.
For the us who are still in it and still in the journey, send warm blessings.
- We will continue to walk down this path until eternity.
Maybe the government should make the NFL illegal unless they force the teams with names that offend a few are changed.
I am all for the American Indians. I am part Indian on my fathers side, how much I am not sure. My wife is 1/4 American Indian through her father. I find it terrible how the whites came through Indian country and all but destroyed a culture. But in the end, its only a name that only offends a very small percentage of the population.
I think the government should be equal opportunity and force some of the other teams to take on objectionable names of other races. That way everyone is offended.