Jump to content

Poll: Should the "Redskins" name be changed?

Just in Atlanta

By Just in Atlanta
in Off the Wall Archives

 Share

Redskins Name Change  

539 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the "Redskins" name be changed?

    • Yes. It's a derogatory word and the NFL should set a good example.
      169
    • No. It's not derogatory to most people and changing it would set a bad example.
      302
    • Maybe. I don't have a strong opinion but I wouldn't be fazed by a name change.
      68

  2. 2. How many of the following statements capture your views?

    • It's insensitive to have a team name that denotes skin color.
      150
    • I'm deeply offended; it's borderline bigotry.
      51
    • It's a politically-correct manufactured controversy.
      182
    • Another example of a select "offended" few forcing their PC views on everyone.
      177
    • The term doesn't bother me but it is offensive to many others.
      135
    • I value tradition in this debate.
      105
    • Why is this even an issue?
      229

Recommended Posts

nonprophet Rookie

nonprophet

Posted
Posted

Some think it's always okay to denigrate and/or marginalize another people's culture, history, and heritage as long as it's not theirs.

It makes no sense to give a derogatory name to a team that's intended to represent a major metropolitan area and the people who live in it and, therefore, the name "redskins" actually denotes respect for Native Americans in this context.

  • Replies 851
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

DC Tom Hall of Famer

DC Tom

Posted
Posted

Where's the "I think it's ironically appropriate, given how the federal government historically !@#$ed over the Native Americans" choice? They should also rename the stadium "Wounded Knee Stadium" or "Trail of Tears Park".

Offside Number 76 Veteran

Offside Number 76

Posted
Posted

I don't know if I believe this. We've seen atleast 3 guys that know a guy that's Native American and all of them agree its a totally awesome name. All evidence points to your friends being offended as probably made up or a character defect on their part - right?

 

Haha not sure. But it's certainly possible: one of those Cherokee friends is a law professor who, earlier in her career, spent a lot of time trying to change NCAA team names (except the Seminoles, which is practically licensed by that tribe), so it's definitely a hot-button issue with her.

 

Maybe geography plays a role, too. Most Indians that I know are southerners and preferred to be called "Indians" (if not by the name of their tribe), rather than "Native Americans," and that seems to be a little bit of a north-south divide. When I moved down there, I got quite a few lectures on "we're Indians, not Native Americans." Maybe the "redskins" thing is different from area to area too.

Pondslider RFA

Pondslider

Posted
Posted

It makes no sense to give a derogatory name to a team that's intended to represent a major metropolitan area and the people who live in it and, therefore, the name "redskins" actually denotes respect for Native Americans in this context.

 

LOL.

ExiledInIllinois Hall of Famer

ExiledInIllinois

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

It makes no sense to give a derogatory name to a team that's intended to represent a major metropolitan area and the people who live in it and, therefore, the name "redskins" actually denotes respect for Native Americans in this context.

 

What you say is very revisionist. It isn't like they thought up the name Redskins yesterday. The nickname was given when it was normal practice to use derogatory names openly. A day when it was acceptable to boost one up by tearing somebody else down. There is nothing noble about the name linked to the symbolism. Native names were popular because of their kindred link to animals and nature and teams could easily dehumanise along with it. Sports were not held in such high regard years ago as they are today. I am calling BS on all the noble crap. It is like saying the Confederates were noble for holding their views on slavery. It was wrong then, it is wrong now and the right shall win out. This isn't something the Washington NFL organization can or will control. The power is not in their hands. When somebody says: "Stop using an image of myself me as your derogatory mascot" the person or organization should grant that wish, no questions asked.

 

Where's the "I think it's ironically appropriate, given how the federal government historically !@#$ed over the Native Americans" choice? They should also rename the stadium "Wounded Knee Stadium" or "Trail of Tears Park".

 

I am almost positive this was talked about @ the start of the thread.

 

How is Chief Wahoo and the Cleveland "Tribe" Indians "noble" too?

Edited by ExiledInIllinois
DC Tom Hall of Famer

DC Tom

Posted
Posted

I am almost positive this was talked about @ the start of the thread.

 

Like I read all this ****. Once a thread gets past six pages, I'm too afraid of running into a Buffalo Barbarian post.

ExiledInIllinois Hall of Famer

ExiledInIllinois

Posted
Posted

 

 

Like I read all this ****. Once a thread gets past six pages, I'm too afraid of running into a Buffalo Barbarian post.

 

Fair enough. The names you threw out there for the stadium/park are spot on considering what off all places, DC, had on indigenous policy throughout our country's history.

nonprophet Rookie

nonprophet

Posted
Posted

What you say is very revisionist. It isn't like they thought up the name Redskins yesterday. The nickname was given when it was normal practice to use derogatory names openly.

The name is applied to the team, isn't it? Do you think that its owner would have just as readily named it the "Washington Wankers"?

Pondslider RFA

Pondslider

Posted
Posted

The name is applied to the team, isn't it? Do you think that its owner would have just as readily named it the "Washington Wankers"?

 

It's a dehumanizing name from a time when the perception of Native Americans was that they had been murderous savages without culture.

Phil Hansen Forever RFA

Phil Hansen Forever

Posted
Posted

If they forced North Dakota to change it's name, even though two groups of the Sioux nation approved the name, then yes force the Redskins to change theirs. Only because "Redskins" is derogatory; while the "Fighting Sioux" was not.

FleaMoulds80 RFA

FleaMoulds80

Posted
Posted (edited)

It should totally be changed. If I were a native Indian, I would seriously take offense to this. Might as well have a team in the NFL called the LA Blacks and have a picture of a black guy on their helmet, or maybe we can have a team called the Anaheim Yellowskins and have an Asian guy on the helmet. Before you come blasting me, i'm not racist and it's pretty much the same thing the Redskins are doing.

Edited by FleaMoulds80
papazoid All Pro

papazoid

Posted
Posted

In order to understand just how disgusting it is that the NFL team in Washington, D.C., is still called the "Redskins," you need to know the franchise's history.

 

You need to understand that George Preston Marshall, the man who bought the rights to an NFL franchise with three partners and started the Boston Braves in 1932, was an avowed segregationist. You have to understand the franchise was renamed in "honor" of a man raised by white parents who adopted a Native American persona (scholars say he was impersonating a Sioux man). And when the team relocated to D.C. five years after it was founded, the city was controlled by Southern white politicians, and its most powerful resident, Franklin D. Roosevelt, invited only the white Olympians who competed in 1936 to visit him at the White House.

 

 

"Hitler didn't snub me -- it was [FDR] who snubbed me," said Jesse Owens, who won four gold medals. "The president didn't even send me a telegram."

 

So before anyone dismisses the outcry to rename the football team as another example of political correctness gone wild, they must remember the first NFL team to reintegrate was the L.A. Rams in 1946 and the last was Marshall's "Redskins" in 1962.

 

 

But to fully appreciate just how revolting it is that the team still bears that name, you must know that Marshall didn't finally sign a black player because he was no longer a racist.

 

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/8944042/history-alone-prompt-washington-change-nfl-mascot

ExiledInIllinois Hall of Famer

ExiledInIllinois

Posted
Posted

In order to understand just how disgusting it is that the NFL team in Washington, D.C., is still called the "Redskins," you need to know the franchise's history.

 

You need to understand that George Preston Marshall, the man who bought the rights to an NFL franchise with three partners and started the Boston Braves in 1932, was an avowed segregationist. You have to understand the franchise was renamed in "honor" of a man raised by white parents who adopted a Native American persona (scholars say he was impersonating a Sioux man). And when the team relocated to D.C. five years after it was founded, the city was controlled by Southern white politicians, and its most powerful resident, Franklin D. Roosevelt, invited only the white Olympians who competed in 1936 to visit him at the White House.

 

 

"Hitler didn't snub me -- it was [FDR] who snubbed me," said Jesse Owens, who won four gold medals. "The president didn't even send me a telegram."

 

So before anyone dismisses the outcry to rename the football team as another example of political correctness gone wild, they must remember the first NFL team to reintegrate was the L.A. Rams in 1946 and the last was Marshall's "Redskins" in 1962.

 

 

But to fully appreciate just how revolting it is that the team still bears that name, you must know that Marshall didn't finally sign a black player because he was no longer a racist.

 

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/8944042/history-alone-prompt-washington-change-nfl-mascot

 

True. Good points. But, put it into context of the times and law, "separate but equal" was the legal doctrine of the land until the Brown case turned it upside down.

 

Of course I am not siding with segregation... Just putting it into the context of history.

 

 

Mr. WEO Hall of Famer

Mr. WEO

Posted
Posted

Gonna leave this here.... http://inamerica.blo...logo/?hpt=hp_c4

 

So the screaming Indian is out. But so is the smiling Indian.

 

What about "the Fighting Irish"? You just know everyone means "the Drunken, Fighting Irish". An F-ing leprachaun with his dukes up?? Where's the outcry?

 

Native Americans speak on sports imagery:

 

http://espn.go.com/b...-sports-imagery

 

I don't see the Native American leaders speaking out on why it's a great idea to keep their children holed up in tiny isolated pockets of 3rd world existence right here in this very country. Obviously, offensive sports team names certainly should be at the at the very top of any serious Native American Spokesperson Agenda, but is there no room on that list for poverty, alcoholism, joblessness, suicide and educational deficits found on their very own autonomous nations?

 

This is a trivial topic.

SageAgainstTheMachine All Pro

SageAgainstTheMachine

Posted
Posted

So the screaming Indian is out. But so is the smiling Indian.

 

What about "the Fighting Irish"? You just know everyone means "the Drunken, Fighting Irish". An F-ing leprachaun with his dukes up?? Where's the outcry?

 

 

 

I don't see the Native American leaders speaking out on why it's a great idea to keep their children holed up in tiny isolated pockets of 3rd world existence right here in this very country. Obviously, offensive sports team names certainly should be at the at the very top of any serious Native American Spokesperson Agenda, but is there no room on that list for poverty, alcoholism, joblessness, suicide and educational deficits found on their very own autonomous nations?

 

This is a trivial topic.

 

Yeah, I mean, why'd they go live on those dumb reservations in the first place?

 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...