Poll: Should the "Redskins" name be changed?

[IDBillzFan]

He's correct - the NAACP kept the "colored" part as a reminder of what they were fighting against.

 

Also, they focus now on civil rights of all - regardless of skin color, orientation, etc. And if you're into keeping track of those sort of things, their current president is white.

 

So in other words, the use of the phrase "colored people" IS acceptable.

 

Frankly I don't give a crap about any of this. That our congressional representatives find it necessary to play in this sandbox is not unusual because everyone knows they don't care about the term "Redskins." The only reason these dolts are making an issue of it is because they need campaign cash. They put their name to a document, and then carry a copy to the local casino or NA lobby to beg for money, knowing full well their letter won't do anything.

 

The only thing this topic has made me realize is that I miss the days when sports reporters stuck to reporting on sports and STFU about anything else.

[26CornerBlitz]

So in other words, the use of the phrase "colored people" IS acceptable.

 

Frankly I don't give a crap about any of this. That our congressional representatives find it necessary to play in this sandbox is not unusual because everyone knows they don't care about the term "Redskins." The only reason these dolts are making an issue of it is because they need campaign cash. They put their name to a document, and then carry a copy to the local casino or NA lobby to beg for money, knowing full well their letter won't do anything.

 

The only thing this topic has made me realize is that I miss the days when sports reporters stuck to reporting on sports and STFU about anything else.

 

Sports writers have never done this.

[Malazan]

I think we just name an NFL team a racial slur for white people and see how many people care...

[IDBillzFan]

I think we just name an NFL team a racial slur for white people and see how many people care...

 

Nothing would make me smile more than watching the LA Honkies vs. the Minnesota Crackas.

[KD in CA]

I think we just name an NFL team a racial slur for white people and see how many people care...

 

We already have the Cowboys and I don't hear anyone crying about them. I've heard 'cowboy' used as a disparaging term numerous times (excuse me, the C-word). However, I can't ever recall ever hearing anyone use the word 'Redskin' in any way or fashion, other than talking about Washington's football team.

[DC Tom]

And if you're into keeping track of those sort of things, their current president is white.

 

He's half-black. Which makes him...black, according to the standard set by those calling Obama "black".

 

But he has very light skin...which must make him a "white black," according to the standard set by those who called George Zimmerman a "white hispanic".

 

Both of which I mention just to point out how unbelievably silly racial discussions ultimately get.

[Mr. WEO]

He's half-black. Which makes him...black, according to the standard set by those calling Obama "black".

 

But he has very light skin...which must make him a "white black," according to the standard set by those who called George Zimmerman a "white hispanic".

 

Both of which I mention just to point out how unbelievably silly racial discussions ultimately get.

 

Tiger Woods is 1/8th more "black" than I am! Why do they refer to him as a black golfer? And not Asian?

 

Vijay Singh is hands down the blackest man in professional golf---and he gets no credit for this?!

 

It's a damn shame, it is..

[Homey D. Clown]

Nothing would make me smile more than watching the LA Honkies vs. the Minnesota Crackas.

 

I would totally enjoy the Hartford Honkeys...

[San Jose Bills Fan]

In 27 pages, this was probably already mentioned but seeing as we're going in circles, it might be worth mentioning again:

 

http://profootballta...-who-coined-it/

 

The team’s decision to hire Frank Luntz to conduct a focus group undoubtedly aimed at crafting a better defense to the ongoing use of the name constitutes an implicit acknowledgement that the boat has sprung a leak. But the effort to plug the leak could cause more leaks by creating more coverage and, in turn, fueling the movement to change the name.

 

http://www.thedailyb...t-redskins.html

 

When George Preston Marshall died in 1969, he left some money to his children but directed that the bulk of his estate be used to set up a foundation in his name. He attached, however, one firm condition: that the foundation, operating out of Washington, D.C., should not direct a single dollar toward “any purpose which supports or employs the principle of racial integration in any form… This is the man who gave the Washington Redskins their name. He was one of the most despicable racists in the American sporting arena of the entire 20th century. He thought Redskins was funny, just as he thought the war paint and feather headdress he made the head coach wear were funny. And this is the legacy that current Redskins owner Dan Snyder wants to uphold?"

 

Most famously of all, Marshall was the last owner to accept a black player—fully 15 years after the ban was lifted. And his team drafted an African-American then (in 1961) only because it was forced to by the government—the then-new stadium that we call RFK Stadium today was built on Department of Interior land, which permitted the Kennedy administration to order the lessee (the team) to adhere to federal nondiscrimination policies. In other words, Marshall wasn’t merely a standard-issue racist of the time, like H.L. Mencken or countless others. He was diseased. He seethed with hatred of nonwhite people. And “Redskins” is his handiwork. Because “Braves” wasn’t quite descriptive enough.

Edited June 15, 2013 by San Jose Bills Fan

[NoSaint]

In 27 pages, this was probably already mentioned but seeing as we're going in circles, it might be worth mentioning again:

 

http://profootballta...-who-coined-it/

 

The team’s decision to hire Frank Luntz to conduct a focus group undoubtedly aimed at crafting a better defense to the ongoing use of the name constitutes an implicit acknowledgement that the boat has sprung a leak. But the effort to plug the leak could cause more leaks by creating more coverage and, in turn, fueling the movement to change the name.

 

http://www.thedailyb...t-redskins.html

 

When George Preston Marshall died in 1969, he left some money to his children but directed that the bulk of his estate be used to set up a foundation in his name. He attached, however, one firm condition: that the foundation, operating out of Washington, D.C., should not direct a single dollar toward “any purpose which supports or employs the principle of racial integration in any form… This is the man who gave the Washington Redskins their name. He was one of the most despicable racists in the American sporting arena of the entire 20th century. He thought Redskins was funny, just as he thought the war paint and feather headdress he made the head coach wear were funny. And this is the legacy that current Redskins owner Dan Snyder wants to uphold?"

 

Most famously of all, Marshall was the last owner to accept a black player—fully 15 years after the ban was lifted. And his team drafted an African-American then (in 1961) only because it was forced to by the government—the then-new stadium that we call RFK Stadium today was built on Department of Interior land, which permitted the Kennedy administration to order the lessee (the team) to adhere to federal nondiscrimination policies. In other words, Marshall wasn’t merely a standard-issue racist of the time, like H.L. Mencken or countless others. He was diseased. He seethed with hatred of nonwhite people. And “Redskins” is his handiwork. Because “Braves” wasn’t quite descriptive enough.

 

That's the most blunt- I've mentioned several times it seems it was more "bearded woman sideshow" than "great honor to a proud and loved people" in some respect

 

I'd be very curious for a reporter to take on the climate of football, and its fans at the time of naming. Obviously the process of monetizing the game has evolved.... The more I hear, the more it seems that at that point something strange might have had more curb appeal than something to identify with and that in some cases mockery was perhaps more profitable than pride, and eventually as football became America's game that evolved to our current view of bleeding our teams colors.

 

I do find it hard to give the owner any benefit of the doubt given his history.

Edited June 15, 2013 by NoSaint

[Uncle Monkeyhead]

I'm the last person anyone would associate with being TOO pc. But this is what it boils down to:

1. The team name was not used in a negative sense, obviously. Why would a team insult themselves? It's actually used as a sentiment to the toughness of the natives who fought hard against the invaders of their country.

2. The majority who find it offensive are most likely not football fans who would get the point made in number 1 above.

3. That being said, I can see why a Native American would cringe at hearing the name. What if you were a citizen of am African country and a soccer team was named the Crackers and had a cowboy with a rifle on their logo? Maybe they admire Americans icons like John Wayne and Wyatt Earp. If you loved soccer and this didn't bother you, still it would bother other whites who just didn't get it.

 

Not everyone will be happy and while it doesn't offend me, I can respect that it offends others.

So, in keeping with the Constitution of the US, we have freedom of speech and the owner of a football team should be able to call his team whatever the hell he wants to.

 

But I understand the sensitivity of the other side.

 

 

[San Jose Bills Fan]

1. The team name was not used in a negative sense, obviously. Why would a team insult themselves? It's actually used as a sentiment to the toughness of the natives who fought hard against the invaders of their country.

 

2. The majority who find it offensive are most likely not football fans who would get the point made in number 1 above.

 

 

Did you happen to read the post two above yours?

[LynchMob23]

He's half-black. Which makes him...black, according to the standard set by those calling Obama "black".

 

But he has very light skin...which must make him a "white black," according to the standard set by those who called George Zimmerman a "white hispanic".

 

Both of which I mention just to point out how unbelievably silly racial discussions ultimately get.

 

You got me there Tom , and you're right, it does get silly. I was just trying to throw some info in to illustrate the name isn't just a hackneyed slang term people are overreacting to... Ultimately, as is many other cases on a message board people have opinions that will not be changed, so I'm ejecting out of this and saving myself the headache. If, after looking into the history of the Washington team's founder people still ask, "why?", this won't be the place to change their opinion.

[bbb]

Tim Graham gets a lot of flack around here because of The Great 2009 TSW Meltdown, and deservedly so.

 

But even for those who didn't bear witness to his behavior then, the ways he's conducted himself in the paper, on Twitter and everywhere else have only reinforced what most of us already knew to be true while introducing everyone else to his intolerable, churlish immaturity.

 

Holy cow is this true. He acts like a total ass on twitter.............I wasn't sure if he was right or wrong when he left here (the thing that sent him leaving seemed very trivial, but wasn't sure what else there was)...........But, he is so self-important it's ridiculous.

 

This is such a look at me article and aftermath. Why couldn't he just not call them the Redskins without announcing that is what he's doing?

[IDBillzFan]

Holy cow is this true. He acts like a total ass on twitter.............I wasn't sure if he was right or wrong when he left here (the thing that sent him leaving seemed very trivial, but wasn't sure what else there was)...........But, he is so self-important it's ridiculous.

 

This is such a look at me article and aftermath. Why couldn't he just not call them the Redskins without announcing that is what he's doing?

 

It's funny. I originally followed Tim because of the Bills. Now I follow him like TMZ follows Charlie Sheen.

[eme123]

In 27 pages, this was probably already mentioned but seeing as we're going in circles, it might be worth mentioning again:

 

http://profootballta...-who-coined-it/

 

The team’s decision to hire Frank Luntz to conduct a focus group undoubtedly aimed at crafting a better defense to the ongoing use of the name constitutes an implicit acknowledgement that the boat has sprung a leak. But the effort to plug the leak could cause more leaks by creating more coverage and, in turn, fueling the movement to change the name.

 

http://www.thedailyb...t-redskins.html

 

When George Preston Marshall died in 1969, he left some money to his children but directed that the bulk of his estate be used to set up a foundation in his name. He attached, however, one firm condition: that the foundation, operating out of Washington, D.C., should not direct a single dollar toward “any purpose which supports or employs the principle of racial integration in any form… This is the man who gave the Washington Redskins their name. He was one of the most despicable racists in the American sporting arena of the entire 20th century. He thought Redskins was funny, just as he thought the war paint and feather headdress he made the head coach wear were funny. And this is the legacy that current Redskins owner Dan Snyder wants to uphold?"

 

Most famously of all, Marshall was the last owner to accept a black player—fully 15 years after the ban was lifted. And his team drafted an African-American then (in 1961) only because it was forced to by the government—the then-new stadium that we call RFK Stadium today was built on Department of Interior land, which permitted the Kennedy administration to order the lessee (the team) to adhere to federal nondiscrimination policies. In other words, Marshall wasn’t merely a standard-issue racist of the time, like H.L. Mencken or countless others. He was diseased. He seethed with hatred of nonwhite people. And “Redskins” is his handiwork. Because “Braves” wasn’t quite descriptive enough.

 

If George Marshall named his team with the intent to humiliate American Indians then Snyder should absolutely change the name. Given his history (according to the daily beast) he may have coined the team Redskins to poke fun at Indians. That article is a little flimsy however.

 

Im still not convinced the term "Redskin" is a racial slur. I was poking around the net and found out that in 2003 a U.S. District Court struck down an original ruling of Trademark Trial led by a very liberal U.S Department of Commerce. They used several grounds including this

"that there was an absence of evidence that the term redskin is disparaging in the particular context of the name of the sports team"

 

 

The poll that started this thread should say a lot. The feelings of American Indians should also say a lot. The below are just two examples of a majority of feeling from American Indians I saw on Facebook regarding the term Redskin.

 

Anonymous Facebook Post #1

Very true. It was a term that came from the Native Americans describing themselves/ourselves. To us, when used with respect, it is not an insult. Native American's are a brave, hardworking and loyal group of people. For example, just take the time to read of the accomplishments of the Navajo code talkers. Just amazing... So proud to be a Navajo Indian.

 

Anonymous Facebook Post #2

I am American Indian and love the honor of the Indian on the helmet of the redskins with great pride and passion of the Indian heritage history and legacy of the brave men and women before me and shows respect that we as people don't often get from others most people don't even know a real Indian and how we feel and think and we are disapearing on the real issues that American Indians face each day in America and most people don't care that we exist we are something out the history books but we are still here with our beliefs and customs and we love this land cause its our home and we will always be the first Americans.

[bbb]

It's funny. I originally followed Tim because of the Bills. Now I follow him like TMZ follows Charlie Sheen.

 

And, when he's having one of his many twitter fights, he'll mock somebody out for having a lot less followers. Yeah, you are posting news about the Bills and have the inside scoop. You think that has something to do with it?

[San Jose Bills Fan]

If George Marshall named his team with the intent to humiliate American Indians then Snyder should absolutely change the name. Given his history (according to the daily beast) he may have coined the team Redskins to poke fun at Indians. That article is a little flimsy however.

 

Im still not convinced the term "Redskin" is a racial slur. I was poking around the net and found out that in 2003 a U.S. District Court struck down an original ruling of Trademark Trial led by a very liberal U.S Department of Commerce. They used several grounds including this

"that there was an absence of evidence that the term redskin is disparaging in the particular context of the name of the sports team"

 

The poll that started this thread should say a lot. The feelings of American Indians should also say a lot. The below are just two examples of a majority of feeling from American Indians I saw on Facebook regarding the term Redskin.

 

Anonymous Facebook Post #1

Very true. It was a term that came from the Native Americans describing themselves/ourselves. To us, when used with respect, it is not an insult. Native American's are a brave, hardworking and loyal group of people. For example, just take the time to read of the accomplishments of the Navajo code talkers. Just amazing... So proud to be a Navajo Indian.

 

Anonymous Facebook Post #2

 

I am American Indian and love the honor of the Indian on the helmet of the redskins with great pride and passion of the Indian heritage history and legacy of the brave men and women before me and shows respect that we as people don't often get from others most people don't even know a real Indian and how we feel and think and we are disapearing on the real issues that American Indians face each day in America and most people don't care that we exist we are something out the history books but we are still here with our beliefs and customs and we love this land cause its our home and we will always be the first Americans.

 

 

Flimsy?

 

Possibly although no one seems to argue with the contention that Marshall was an extreme racist and that because he believed that his head coach was part native indian, he had him wear a headdress on the sidelines. These things are true.

 

I would say the theory that Marshall was treating the Redskins name as a self-pleasing joke is more likely than any other theory.

 

For the first anonymous Facebook post, blacks call each other the "N" word pretty commonly. That doesn't give non-blacks license to do the same.

 

And for anonymous Facebook posts in general, I don't trust them at all. We have no idea who is posting what so those posts carry zero weight for me.

 

The only thing that would satisfy me to leave the name as is is if The National Congress of American Indians or some national organization concerned with indian welfare held a long-term, open conversation on the subject and then concluded that conversation with a comprehensive, all inclusive poll of native indians.

 

If the majority of a large sample size of native indians was good with the Redskins name, I would be too.

 

Short of that happening, I'll maintain my position that Redskins is a tasteless name and just one of numerous ways that Daniel Snyder has proven himself to be an a-hole.

 

Contrary to my belief that the name is wrong and Snyder is an a-hole, I respect his right to keep the name as it is.

[Uncle Monkeyhead]

 

 

Did you happen to read the post two above yours?

 

Obviously no

[first_and_ten]

I wish this topic would just die