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

26CornerBlitz Hall of Famer

26CornerBlitz

Posted
Posted

Totally with you. I felt the same way about Lori. (runs and hides)

 

Why would anybody get overly sensitive enough to leave over what's said on a web forum? It's the nature of the exchange of ideas and divergent opinions.

  • Replies 851
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Gugny Hall of Famer

Gugny

Posted
Posted

Why would anybody get overly sensitive enough to leave over what's said on a web forum? It's the nature of the exchange of ideas and divergent opinions.

Exactly ... not to mention ... IT'S A GAME!!!!!!!!!

NoSaint Hall of Famer

NoSaint

Posted
Posted

 

 

Why would anybody get overly sensitive enough to leave over what's said on a web forum? It's the nature of the exchange of ideas and divergent opinions.

 

this place can go through some high and some low points. when at its worst, its not all that great to be around, and though many put him on a pedestal others certainly placed a target on his back. it was a bit silly to melt down like he did, but to lose interest or enjoyment coming here isnt that crazy.

The Big Cat Hall of Famer

The Big Cat

Posted
Posted

Why would anybody get overly sensitive enough to leave over what's said on a web forum? It's the nature of the exchange of ideas and divergent opinions.

 

I peace'd for about three months because this place devolved into a poop tossing tempest when the season took a dip. Wasn't personal, just intolerable.

 

Exactly ... not to mention ... IT'S A GAME!!!!!!!!!

 

Exactly. As if an NFL message board ever guarantee anyone anything.

 

this place can go through some high and some low points. when at its worst, its not all that great to be around, and though many put him on a pedestal others certainly placed a target on his back. it was a bit silly to melt down like he did, but to lose interest or enjoyment coming here isnt that crazy.

 

Nope. But his performance was nothing shy of epic.

Over 29 years of fanhood Hall of Famer

Over 29 years of fanhood

Posted
Posted

The value of a franchise/business absolutely changes with a name change.

 

Who would you rather own? NY Yankees or NY Mets?

Same Market

Same League/Product

Different Brand Recognition (Yankees have years of tradition & marketing back bone behind them)

 

Who are you calling a Yankee? I'm from the north!

Chump Change Rookie

Chump Change

Posted
Posted

I just think this 'issue' is not worthy of 25 pages of discussion, nor should the name of a professional football team EVER be a concern of the congressional PC police. It's silly and I hope they don't change the name. This indian isn't offended. That's all...

NoSaint Hall of Famer

NoSaint

Posted
Posted

I just think this 'issue' is not worthy of 25 pages of discussion, nor should the name of a professional football team EVER be a concern of the congressional PC police. It's silly and I hope they don't change the name. This indian isn't offended. That's all...

 

It's been a pretty lengthy discussion on the calendar more than content really. It gets a couple pages each time a new article comes out every couple weeks/months. Every now and again someone comes through guns blazing and sparks up debate for a day or two.

 

Ill chalk you up as not offended.

Gugny Hall of Famer

Gugny

Posted
Posted

I just think this 'issue' is not worthy of 25 pages of discussion, nor should the name of a professional football team EVER be a concern of the congressional PC police. It's silly and I hope they don't change the name. This indian isn't offended. That's all...

And I'm sure there are black people out there that wouldn't be opposed to a professional team being called The Harlem Spooks, either. And I'm sure there are Asians who wouldn't mind The Seattle Slant Eyes.

 

But one person can't speak for an entire race.

 

One person CAN speak for the NFL.

 

Redskins, like it or not, IS a derogatory term. For all the "cleaning up" Goodell is supposedly doing, he's really screwing the pooch on this one. But the almighty dollar gets in the way of doing the right thing, once again. It's the American way.

Gugny Hall of Famer

Gugny

Posted
Posted

2004 poll: 9% of Native Americans were offended by the name. If over the past decade, 40 plus percent have become outraged, I'd change my mind. Otherwise, Hail to the Redskins!

 

http://www.annenberg...ns_09-24_pr.pdf

768 people. That's under 800 people of an entire race.

 

Also .. why does it need to be offensive to a certain percentage of people in order for it to be changed? Wrong is wrong.

buffaloaggie Veteran

buffaloaggie

Posted
Posted

768 people. That's under 800 people of an entire race.

 

Also .. why does it need to be offensive to a certain percentage of people in order for it to be changed? Wrong is wrong.

People (overly-sensitive) can find offense in anything. What is "wrong" to you, may not be wrong to others. And I would respect the opinions of the majority of Native Americans over the majority of the overly sensitive "other" population. Nine percent.

 

So they just probably happened to tap the least sensitive sample of the Native American population, and no poll is ever worth a damn. All a lower sample size does is increase the margin of error. Does this sample size account for a 40% error rate? 4% error rate (+/- 2% as they said)? Maybe they should ask the same poll sample whether they take pride in this team calling themselves the Redskins and see how that is answered. Sometimes, it is all in how you ask.

NoSaint Hall of Famer

NoSaint

Posted
Posted

 

People (overly-sensitive) can find offense in anything. What is "wrong" to you, may not be wrong to others. And I would respect the opinions of the majority of Native Americans over the majority of the overly sensitive "other" population. Nine percent.

 

So they just probably happened to tap the least sensitive sample of the Native American population, and no poll is ever worth a damn. All a lower sample size does is increase the margin of error. Does this sample size account for a 40% error rate? 4% error rate (+/- 2% as they said)? Maybe they should ask the same poll sample whether they take pride in this team calling themselves the Redskins and see how that is answered. Sometimes, it is all in how you ask.

 

im sure we will see some awesome numbers from the pollster that the skins hired. he has a terrible reputation of producing whatever the clients need.

 

no idea the merits of the 2004 poll. generally it doesnt sway me either way - its a substantial number of people that it effects and should probably be changed, but its likely not a large enough number to actually get the change made.

T master All Pro

T master

Posted
Posted

Should the Chicago Black Hawks name be changed , should the Atlanta Braves name be changed , should the Cleveland Indians name be changed ??

 

This entire movement is as ignorant as it is to hate some one for the color of their skin !!

 

If it was actually degrading people maybe but it was used as a symbol of pride & strength not to mention heritage .

 

What it amounts to is some one will eventually show their true colors & start a law suit for money (if it hasn't already) & then we will see the true motivation behind this changing of the name thing .

 

Tell those involved that there will be no cash reward of any kind just the actual renaming of the team & i would be willing to bet that it would go away faster than it came about !!

Gugny Hall of Famer

Gugny

Posted
Posted

Should the Chicago Black Hawks name be changed , should the Atlanta Braves name be changed , should the Cleveland Indians name be changed ??

 

This entire movement is as ignorant as it is to hate some one for the color of their skin !!

 

If it was actually degrading people maybe but it was used as a symbol of pride & strength not to mention heritage .

 

What it amounts to is some one will eventually show their true colors & start a law suit for money (if it hasn't already) & then we will see the true motivation behind this changing of the name thing .

 

Tell those involved that there will be no cash reward of any kind just the actual renaming of the team & i would be willing to bet that it would go away faster than it came about !!

Redskins is akin to the N word. It's different than your examples.

buffaloaggie Veteran

buffaloaggie

Posted
Posted

im sure we will see some awesome numbers from the pollster that the skins hired. he has a terrible reputation of producing whatever the clients need.

 

no idea the merits of the 2004 poll. generally it doesnt sway me either way - its a substantial number of people that it effects and should probably be changed, but its likely not a large enough number to actually get the change made.

The poll was done by a group that also supplies data to FactCheck.org. They're well known and they carry a bit of merit. From what I can tell, it was an independent effort and Snyder had no hand in it.

 

I am really not sure how many people need to find something offensive before it needs to be changed. It would probably take a huge drop in ticket sales for this change to happen. I don't see it happening anytime soon.

T master All Pro

T master

Posted
Posted (edited)

And I'm sure there are black people out there that wouldn't be opposed to a professional team being called The Harlem Spooks, either. And I'm sure there are Asians who wouldn't mind The Seattle Slant Eyes.

 

But one person can't speak for an entire race.

 

One person CAN speak for the NFL.

 

Redskins, like it or not, IS a derogatory term. For all the "cleaning up" Goodell is supposedly doing, he's really screwing the pooch on this one. But the almighty dollar gets in the way of doing the right thing, once again. It's the American way.

 

Do you really think that the all mighty dollar isn't behind this movement ?

 

When the name was thought up it wasn't thought of as derogatory, i'm thinking it was due to the pride & strength of "The Redskin Nation" it was due to there toughness & determination against there advisory . But just as anything alls it takes is a few to start a movement with more than likely greed as the true motivation as

i believe it to be in this case !!

 

As to your first couple of lines in this post Redskins is no where even close to as derogatory as the things you put down & if it was then & only then should it be changed !

 

But putting the Washington Redskins in the same category of being derogatory as The Harlem Spooks when it comes to a name lets get real !!

 

This is just about as foolish as not putting speedy gonzales cartoons off the air :doh: !!

Edited by T master
Gugny Hall of Famer

Gugny

Posted
Posted

Do you really think that the all mighty dollar isn't behind this movement ?

 

When the name was thought up it wasn't thought of as derogatory, i'm thinking it was due to the pride & strength of "The Redskin Nation" it was due to there toughness & determination against there advisory . But just as anything alls it takes is a few to start a movement with more than likely greed as the true motivation as i believe it to be in this case !!

 

As to your first couple of lines in this post Redskins is no where even close to as derogatory as the things you put down & if it was then & only then should it be changed !

 

But putting the Washington Redskins in the same category of being derogatory as The Harlem Spooks when it comes to a name lets get real !!

I think the almighty dollar is what is keeping the name.

I also agree that, when the name was thought up, the intentions were not bad ones.

 

"Colored people" and "coloreds" used to be acceptable, too.

 

They're not, anymore.

NoSaint Hall of Famer

NoSaint

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

When the name was thought up it wasn't thought of as derogatory, i'm thinking it was due to the pride & strength of "The Redskin Nation" it was due to there toughness & determination against there advisory

 

it was a sideshow to create entertainment. the owner, a well documented racist, had the coach wear warpaint and feathers on the sidelines of homegames. this was, of course in the 1930s when football wasnt a gimme to have viewers or attendance.

Edited by NoSaint
K-9 Hall of Famer

K-9

Posted
Posted

The term "redskin" is a racial slur and always has been. But because it's associated with the NFL it's a term that "honors" the proud heritage of the very race the term insults?

 

Right.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Matt in KC Veteran

Matt in KC

Posted
Posted

 

The original "Hail to the Redskins" fight song was changed sometime before 1972.

Native American stereotypes

The original lyrics also perpetuated stereotypes of Native Americans. The second stanza of the original version exhorted the team to "scalp" their opponents, and invoked more stereotypes with lines like "we want heap more!" Those phrases have since been replaced with standard football play references like "run or pass or score, we want a lot more".

Wiki link (I know... Wikipedia):http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hail_to_the_Redskins#Native_American_stereotypes
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...