Poll: Should the "Redskins" name be changed?

[NoSaint]

 

 

It's a "bad" thing when "groups" (as they're prone to) start keeping tally of "disrespect" as an excuse for what ails them. My issue is that putting the focus on what we're called distracts from what the real "issues" might be. So, I see these campaigns as a waste of perfectly good intentions but nothing ever really changes, because nothing is ever really addressed. Instead, everyone not associated with the problem is just guilted into "respect"--which, by the way, is the worst means for earning respect there is.

 

while theres certainly elements of truth there - in a conversation answering the question: should the redskins name be changed? id say none of it has much bearing on the answer, which is it probably should be. is it the best place to spend effort and energy? probably not. is it right or proper to carry the moniker washington redskins? probably not.

 

its sometimes a tough conversation to have because so many side issues come in muddying up the waters around that central issue of should snyder just go ahead and make the switch

[The Big Cat]

while theres certainly elements of truth there - in a conversation answering the question: should the redskins name be changed? id say none of it has much bearing on the answer, which is it probably should be. is it the best place to spend effort and energy? probably not. is it right or proper to carry the moniker washington redskins? probably not.

 

its sometimes a tough conversation to have because so many side issues come in muddying up the waters around that central issue of should snyder just go ahead and make the switch

 

Well there are two questions, and we only agree on the answer to the first one:

 

Why should the Redskins change their name? Because Native Americans find it offensive.

 

Why do Native Americans find it offensive? Derp.

 

I might pose an entirely separate question: Why aren't the Native Americans proud of a culture of such bravery, honor, ferocity and strength that multiple teams across multiple sports across multiple levels of competition want that culture to epitomize their spirit? How would they rather be depicted?

Edited May 14, 2013 by taC giB ehT

[San Jose Bills Fan]

It's a "bad" thing when "groups" (as they're prone to) start keeping tally of "disrespect" as an excuse for what ails them. My issue is that putting the focus on what we're called distracts from what the real "issues" might be. So, I see these campaigns as a waste of perfectly good intentions but nothing ever really changes, because nothing is ever really addressed. Instead, everyone not associated with the problem is just guilted into "respect"--which, by the way, is the worst means for earning respect there is.

 

Yes, it's a separate issue because it's the issue. So why are we focused on what we're being called when there are far bigger fish to fry? Do you understand what I mean?

 

I understand what you mean but I disagree.

 

As an electrician I would say that we can do things in parallel, not in series.

 

An analogous statement to what you've made would be something like:

 

"We shouldn't vaccinate people to prevent the spread of disease, instead we should educate them about how diseases are spread."

 

You can do both. Maybe not a good example but I think you get the idea. Often times the best solutions are multi-pronged.

 

And I disagree with your characterization about "guilting." That makes it sound like we're a bunch of kids being hassled by our parents (the government).

 

I'm talking about an appeal to our better selves. That part of us that is actually (you know) respectful and kind to others. Why do people want to obstinately fight this, get angry about it, and call it an attack on the constitution?

 

Wouldn't a reasonable person just say, "yeah it's pretty tasteless. It would be great if they changed the name of the team."

 

What kind of person would say "No effin way! We're not gonna be forced into this!" etc.

 

I cannot relate to those opposed to a name change, much less so for those vehemently opposed.

 

JMO.

 

Well there are two questions, and we only agree on the answer to the first one:

 

Why should the Redskins change their name? Because Native Americans find it offensive.

 

Why do Native Americans find it offensive? Derp.

 

I might pose an entirely separate question: Why aren't the Native Americans proud of a culture of such bravery, honor, ferocity and strength that multiple teams across multiple sports across multiple levels of competition want that culture to epitomize their spirit? How would they rather be depicted?

 

Who says that native Americans aren't proud of some sports nicknames.

 

To be clear, I'm talking about the Washington Redskins.

 

I'm not talking about the (former) North Dakota Fighting Sioux. I always thought that was cool just like the Fighting Irish.

 

This was the point of one of my earlier posts upthread.

 

Redskins is not the same thing as Fighting Sioux.

 

Elevator Operator is not the same thing as Fighting Zulus.

 

Rice Eater is not the same as Mongols.

 

Redskins is a pejorative term.

 

Alright, I'm done here. Carry on.

[The Big Cat]

I understand what you mean but I disagree.

 

As an electrician I would say that we can do things in parallel, not in series.

 

An analogous statement to what you've made would be something like:

 

"We shouldn't vaccinate people to prevent the spread of disease, instead we should educate them about how diseases are spread."

 

You can do both. Maybe not a good example but I think you get the idea. Often times the best solutions are multi-pronged.

 

And I disagree with your characterization about "guilting." That makes it sound like we're a bunch of kids being hassled by our parents (the government).

 

I'm talking about an appeal to our better selves. That part of us that is actually (you know) respectful and kind to others. Why do people want to obstinately fight this, get angry about it, and call it an attack on the constitution?

 

Wouldn't a reasonable person just say, "yeah it's pretty tasteless. It would be great if they changed the name of the team."

 

What kind of person would say "No effin way! We're not gonna be forced into this!" etc.

 

I cannot relate to those opposed to a name change, much less so for those vehemently opposed.

 

JMO.

 

 

 

Who says that native Americans aren't proud of some sports nicknames.

 

To be clear, I'm talking about the Washington Redskins.

 

I'm not talking about the (former) North Dakota Fighting Sioux. I always thought that was cool just like the Fighting Irish.

 

This was the point of one of my earlier posts upthread.

 

Redskins is not the same thing as Fighting Sioux.

 

Elevator Operator is not the same thing as Fighting Zulus.

 

Rice Eater is not the same as Mongols.

 

Redskins is a pejorative term.

 

Alright, I'm done here. Carry on.

 

I don't oppose the name change, and I think that invoking the constitution in vehement protest is utterly ludicrous. But, as I've said, I am irked by the campaign (from NA's themselves, mind you, not--as you've suggested--from Redskins staff sitting around saying, "ya know..."). I also think that a name change at their request puts Snyder, et al in a dubious position, politically.

 

And while I know we're talking about the Redskins here, I'm curious which ones they are proud of...after a seven-year hiatus Chief Illiniwek may be making a comeback, yet I'm still befuddled as to what was offensive about him in the first place. What's the difference between the Fighting Irish and the Fighting Sioux? How bout the Ragin' Cajuns? The Quakers? The Mountaineers? Surely folks from West Virginia might prefer they not be represented by a rifle-wielding man in a coonskin cap!

 

As for Redskin being pejorative...fine.

 

How bout Illinois's own Pekin High School who--until 1980--were called THE CHINKS!?

 

The point being, I don't personally care for the ever tightening pejorative line when "real" problems continue to pile up--seemingly without end.

Edited May 14, 2013 by taC giB ehT

[eme123]

Eme,

 

As they say about stupidity, "stupid is as stupid does."

 

So my opinion is that for all "intensive purposes" the campaigns carried out towards native Americans (most famously The Trail of Tears, Wounded Knee) were genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.

 

We can say what we want about the machinations but I define it based on the end results.

 

First hand accounts and your opinion 200 years later are quite different. It was ugly. There is no debating that.

 

The goal was cotton & money. The american government had no interest in "wiping indians from the planet". Lets not insult groups that have actually lived through "systematic genocide" & ethnic cleansing.

 

All that said it was awfully generous of the U.S. government to let Indians take their African Slaves with them to Oklahoma. (Sarcasm)

[26CornerBlitz]

U.S. reps urge end to 'Redskins': http://espn.go.com/n...ins-change-name

 

Ten members of Congress are urging the Washington Redskins to change their name because it is offensive to many Native Americans.

 

The letter to Snyder says that "Native Americans throughout the country consider the 'R-word' a racial, derogatory slur akin to the 'N-word' among African Americans or the 'W-word' among Latinos."

 

PDF of the Congressional Letter: http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2013/0528/faleomavaega.pdf

Edited May 29, 2013 by 26CornerBlitz

[Nanker]

Bullcrap. They don't need to change the name of the team. They just need to change the logo.

[Helpmenow]

Heck no! Tell them to go screw.

[NoSaint]

U.S. reps urge end to 'Redskins': http://espn.go.com/n...ins-change-name

 

Ten members of Congress are urging the Washington Redskins to change their name because it is offensive to many Native Americans.

 

The letter to Snyder says that "Native Americans throughout the country consider the 'R-word' a racial, derogatory slur akin to the 'N-word' among African Americans or the 'W-word' among Latinos."

 

PDF of the Congressional Letter: http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2013/0528/faleomavaega.pdf

 

im not against them sending the suggestion, but will be against them intervening any further.

[KD in CA]

U.S. reps urge end to 'Redskins': http://espn.go.com/n...ins-change-name

 

Ten members of Congress are urging the Washington Redskins to change their name because it is offensive to many Native Americans.

 

The letter to Snyder says that "Native Americans throughout the country consider the 'R-word' a racial, derogatory slur akin to the 'N-word' among African Americans or the 'W-word' among Latinos."

 

PDF of the Congressional Letter: http://a.espncdn.com...aleomavaega.pdf

WTF is the "W word"?

 

 

Oh, ferchrissakes. The n-word? The r-word? The w-word? What happened to the !@#$ing adults who are supposed to be running this show?

This. And from members of Congress. How pathetic.

[26CornerBlitz]

WTF is the "W word"?

 

 

Hint: It's the opposite of a dry front.

[eme123]

March 2013 Congress Approval Rating

Gallup: 13%

Rasmussen: 8% Favorable

 

Its pretty safe to say that what they recommend doesn't mean much.

[Boludo]

Could you imagine if a sport launched a new expansion franchise called the Chicago Blackskins? Or the San Diego Yellowskins?

 

It's completely unimaginable.

 

Redskins is a little bit absurd of a team name tbh in this day and age.

 

Also, using an ETHNICITY as a MASCOT is offensive. It's different to use a profession or other group of people (Cowboys/Patriots) than it is to use your birth race.

 

I think if the New York Mets were to try to change their name to the Long Island Jews it would not be favorably received. Just because the name Redskins has been around for a long time doesn't mean it's a good name.

[KD in CA]

Hint: It's the opposite of a dry front.

 

A wet front?

[The Big Cat]

Also, using an ETHNICITY as a MASCOT is offensive. It's different to use a profession or other group of people (Cowboys/Patriots) than it is to use your birth race.

 

I think if the New York Mets were to try to change their name to the Long Island Jews it would not be favorably received. Just because the name Redskins has been around for a long time doesn't mean it's a good name.

 

Why is it offensive?

 

And why would anyone name themselves the Jews? As I mentioned already in this thread, Indians of all kinds have been chosen as mascots a.) because their culture is deeply rooted in the geographies that call the teams home and b.) because they're associated with tenacity and bravery.

 

But I digress. "Jew" would be offensive to Long Island because the place is predominately Jewish? Then you must be in an uproar about this: http://www.yumacs.co...0802113402.aspx

 

Also, what about Bethany College? They're not JUST the Swedes, they're the Terrible Swedes. GASP http://www.bethanyswedes.com/

 

Is it offensive to be named after that ethnicity? Is it offensive to refer to Swedes as terrible?

Edited May 29, 2013 by taC giB ehT

[bigK14094]

Only one vote counts....Dan Snyder.....the owner of the Redskins. And, Dan says he will not change....end of story. If the US Congressmen who recently ask him to change are offended, they need not patronize his events. Folks, the money talks. And, I do agree with Mr Snyder in this case.

[RK_BillsFan]

Can we just name them "The Hogs" and get it over with. Although honestly all this crap is nothing but free publicity for the team.

[SRQ_BillsFan]

While the word Redskins can be meant in it's negative context, one can't argue that it can also be seen in it's positive form. In the context of this thread most people choose to see the negative in it. I assume most of the US population does.

 

As stated numerous times the N-word is also often used in a positive context. Usually, but not always, within a specific race.

 

Who knows what they were thinking when they chose the name? It may be correctly documented somewhere. However I do not think that when the name was chosen it was meant in a negative context. Most sports teams choose a name that depicts strength and they would like their team to be percived from this standpoint.

 

If one chooses to place a derogatory meaning to the name that was their choice, not the intended vision. Almost anything can appear to be inflammatory in some sense if you allow yourself to go there.

 

I do not think that was the intended vision of the team when the name was chosen and I think it should be taken as it was intended. Even if you do not agree you must be able to see where it could be taken as a positive image of the American Indian.

 

 

To turn that into a negative is the personal choice of those who percive it that way. I think Washington's logo is professional and I do not believe I have seen the team show it in the negative way it has been portrayed here.

Edited May 29, 2013 by SRQ_BillsFan

[DC Tom]

WTF is the "W word"?

 

It's what the "m-word," "n-word," "k-word," "other k-word," "w-word," and "f-word" use to refer to "s-word."

 

Hint: It's the opposite of a dry front.

 

Seriously? Are you not grown up enough to type "wetback" and trust that other people will understand that you're not ACTUALLY calling anyone a "wetback"?

 

How the hell can this country have any sort of adult discussion on race when we're too damn sensitive to discuss racial slurs?

[26CornerBlitz]

It's what the "m-word," "n-word," "k-word," "other k-word," "w-word," and "f-word" use to refer to "s-word."

 

 

 

Seriously? Are you not grown up enough to type "wetback" and trust that other people will understand that you're not ACTUALLY calling anyone a "wetback"?

 

How the hell can this country have any sort of adult discussion on race when we're too damn sensitive to discuss racial slurs?

 

I am, but I chose to do it my way....I'm sure you're okay with that....If not...WGAS?