Poll: Should the "Redskins" name be changed?

[PastaJoe]

Get a tribe with a casino to pay for part of the stadium in exchange for changing the team name. Win-win.

[Wazzu Bill]

Interestingly, I never said that Native Americans were opposed to the name. Rather, I implied that relying on an anecdote to make a statistically significant point wasn't really acceptable. The Annenberg survey is certainly acceptable -- they're an excellent organization. I wonder how much has changed since the poll was taken in 2004, however. As far as I can tell, no credible polls have been taken in the last year or two. Maybe the numbers will be the same as before, but perhaps not give the increasing degree of controversy surrounding the name.

 

I understand the reasoning behind the argument that the name Redskins is offensive. In fact, if used in a particular context, it can be very offensive. However, context is everything. There are endless words that can be used in both offensive ways and completely non offensive ways.

 

Suppose a group of Nordic descendants decide that the term Viking is offensive because it implies that they are looters, pirates, and thieves (original meaning of "Viking"). That would be a case of trying to turn something offensive when the MN Vikings are simply using it as a mascot, a nickname. The Washington Redskins did not get their name because some racist guy decided he wanted to put a slur into a team name. There's no such team as the Albuquerque Beaners because that is simply racist. The Redskins is simply a mascot.

[Russ 'Em]

The majority of Native Americans don't even consider it to be an offensive team name. See link

 

http://washington.cb...id-change-name/

 

It is considered racist by pretentious and overly PC individuals like YOU, DStebb716.

 

Yeah take the word of a die hard Redskins fan to prove your point about natives feeling insulted. People like you who throw around "the worlds too PC" happen to be the problem here not the solution. A person who made a decision to stop using an offensive moniker to refer to a football team must be the bad guy, not the guy flaming him for using it. Educated adults respect the opinions of others. Go teach your kids your my way or the highway routine. I'm sure they will carry your narrow vision with them into the future.

[K-9]

I understand the reasoning behind the argument that the name Redskins is offensive. In fact, if used in a particular context, it can be very offensive. However, context is everything. There are endless words that can be used in both offensive ways and completely non offensive ways.

 

Suppose a group of Nordic descendants decide that the term Viking is offensive because it implies that they are looters, pirates, and thieves (original meaning of "Viking"). That would be a case of trying to turn something offensive when the MN Vikings are simply using it as a mascot, a nickname. The Washington Redskins did not get their name because some racist guy decided he wanted to put a slur into a team name. There's no such team as the Albuquerque Beaners because that is simply racist. The Redskins is simply a mascot.

 

Maybe not, but they got their name from their founder who was known as one of the most blatant racists in team sports history. Ironic.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[SBUffalo]

You're that sensitive about it and yet it needed to be pointed out to you after decades of use?

 

Calling people "sensitive" for realizing bigotry and racism? Sounds familiar. I think there was some sort of war against ourselves over this very idea.

 

It's pure ignorance to call people sensitive for calling for change of something offensive. You will not find an American Indian ANYWHERE in this country who doesn't find it offensive. It's so bad the team had to PAY a "Chief" to say it's not offensive. The original owner was a brutal racist and used this name to promote said racism. Learn.

 

 

 

Because no one of intelligence ever has their eyes opened or changes their mind. Of course.

 

Thank you.

Edited August 20, 2013 by DStebb716

[SBUffalo]

The term was coined by the immigrants that came here and took the country from those American Indians. The same people that just slaughtered them with complete disregard for their lives and hated them for making them work for this new land they had. Just consider that for a second.

[KD in CA]

Calling people "sensitive" for realizing bigotry and racism? Sounds familiar. I think there was some sort of war against ourselves over this very idea.

I'll leave it to DCTom to deal with that 3d grade interpretation of the Civil War.

 

It's pure ignorance to call people sensitive for calling for change of something offensive. You will not find an American Indian ANYWHERE in this country who doesn't find it offensive.

Or not....

Wazzu Bill, on 19 August 2013 - 05:59 PM, said:

Okay here is a more formal "scientific study" for you. Included is the methodology, sampling error, etc.

 

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

 

If there's one thing I hate, it's "Majority" individuals trying to be the voice of the Minority, instead of letting the minority individual speak for himself.

 

....pure ignorance indeed.

 

 

I wonder how much has changed since the poll was taken in 2004, however. As far as I can tell, no credible polls have been taken in the last year or two. Maybe the numbers will be the same as before, but perhaps not give the increasing degree of controversy surrounding the name.

I can't think of anything more insulting to American Indians than assuming that more white people whining about it is going to make them think differently about their heritage and how it's represented in modern times. Wazzu Bill hit the nail on the head above regarding the minority voice.

[SBUffalo]

I'll leave it to DCTom to deal with that 3d grade interpretation of the Civil War.

 

Did you want me to give a full breakdown? I don't have time for it right now. I can come back another time to give you a full breakdown if you'd like. I always forget that message boards aren't a place for simplifying statements for the sake of discussion and time.

 

 

 

Keep throwing that poll around. The reason that those results were found a decade ago is because the name has been in the public eye for such a long time. You don't really expect something that's in the public eye to be blatantly offensive.

 

Today, it's different. There have ALWAYS been people who have found it offensive, but it just took some that are in notable positions to come out and reveal the issue.

 

Unfortunately, we live in a country driven by our government and the media. So sometimes it does take them to open a lot of people's eyes. Maybe you'll open your mind a little bit eventually.

 

This is obviously satire, but its point is valid: http://www.theonion.com/articles/report-redskins-name-only-offensive-if-you-think-a,33449/

Edited August 20, 2013 by DStebb716

[KD in CA]

Did you want me to give a full breakdown? I don't have time for it right now. I can come back another time to give you a full breakdown if you'd like. I always forget that message boards aren't a place for simplifying statements for the sake of discussion and time.

 

Instead, why don't you give me a full breakdown of this laughable statement, and explain how the study you conducted could be so different than the one provided by Wazzu Bill.

 

You will not find an American Indian ANYWHERE in this country who doesn't find it offensive.

[NoSaint]

 

 

I understand the reasoning behind the argument that the name Redskins is offensive. In fact, if used in a particular context, it can be very offensive. However, context is everything. There are endless words that can be used in both offensive ways and completely non offensive ways.

 

Suppose a group of Nordic descendants decide that the term Viking is offensive because it implies that they are looters, pirates, and thieves (original meaning of "Viking"). That would be a case of trying to turn something offensive when the MN Vikings are simply using it as a mascot, a nickname. The Washington Redskins did not get their name because some racist guy decided he wanted to put a slur into a team name. There's no such team as the Albuquerque Beaners because that is simply racist. The Redskins is simply a mascot.

 

Well, minus the owner being incredibly racist for decades. Including making his coach wear war paint on the sideline after changing the name. Honor, or spectacle?

 

But I guess there's a 50 page thread on that somewhere around here....

[SBUffalo]

Instead, why don't you give me a full breakdown of this laughable statement, and explain how the study you conducted could be so different than the one provided by Wazzu Bill.

 

You will not find an American Indian ANYWHERE in this country who doesn't find it offensive.

 

Exaggeration. That's what it was. But there are many that would be and are offended (who have come out and said so).

[papazoid]

"redskin" is a RACIAL DESCRIPTOR for native americans. it is usually offensive or insulting.

[dave mcbride]

 

I'll leave it to DCTom to deal with that 3d grade interpretation of the Civil War.

 

 

Or not....

 

 

....pure ignorance indeed.

 

 

 

I can't think of anything more insulting to American Indians than assuming that more white people whining about it is going to make them think differently about their heritage and how it's represented in modern times. Wazzu Bill hit the nail on the head above regarding the minority voice.

 

This is mere self-righteousness. Instead of resorting to moralism, think about how opinions have changed since 2004 regarding gay marriage. The transformation has been huge. And if memory serves, the most vocal critics of the name have been Native Americans -- even if they represent a decided minority in their own population. The point is, opinions change, and we simply don't know what the prevailing view is 9 years after that original poll.

[26CornerBlitz]

Packers CEO says Redskins name is “very derogatory to a lot of people”: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/08/07/packers-ceo-says-redskins-name-is-very-derogatory-to-a-lot-of-people/

 

Saw this a couple of weeks ago. It's just a matter of time before the name change occurs. The dinosaurs will cry and whine about it, but oh well!

[eme123]

Packers CEO says Redskins name is “very derogatory to a lot of people”: http://profootballta...-lot-of-people/

 

Saw this a couple of weeks ago. It's just a matter of time before the name change occurs. The dinosaurs will cry and whine about it, but oh well!

 

Dinosaurs like me will not be crying and whining IF the name ever changed. We are just trying to save the PC's from expending so much energy crying and whining.

 

Its a private organization with the same name its had for decades. When Daniel Snyder decides he wants to change the name is when the name will change.

 

Until then I recommend a different type of protest than trying to sway the dinosaurs. Boycott the NFL! Pressure the rest of the teams to bully Snyder into changing the name. If this name is so bad then why are u contributing to their revenues. Don't watch the game this weekend. Take it a step further and refuse to support the NFL.

[Heels20X6]

The Viking vs. Redskin comparison is laughable. If I walked up to a Native American and said: "Hey Redskin!" I'd probably get punched in the face. If I walk up to a Nordic person and say: "Waddup Viking!" he'd probably high-five me. Why? Because to Nords, the term "Viking" is one of pride, they don't look back at their history with disdain like, say Germans with the term Nazi. However, "Redskin" was never created to be a term of endearment, it's existence was solely to denigrate a culture of human.

[Homey D. Clown]

Dinosaurs like me will not be crying and whining IF the name ever changed. We are just trying to save the PC's from expending so much energy crying and whining.

 

Its a private organization with the same name its had for decades. When Daniel Snyder decides he wants to change the name is when the name will change.

 

Until then I recommend a different type of protest than trying to sway the dinosaurs. Boycott the NFL! Pressure the rest of the teams to bully Snyder into changing the name. If this name is so bad then why are u contributing to their revenues. Don't watch the game this weekend. Take it a step further and refuse to support the NFL.

 

too hard... too much work... it's much easier to sit back and type your disdain on a message board.

[Meatloaf Sandwich]

They can change the name to the Washington Sandwiches... I won't be offended.

Edited August 20, 2013 by Meatloaf Sandwich

[KD in CA]

Exaggeration. That's what it was. But there are many that would be and are offended (who have come out and said so).

So in other words complete bullsh--, just like your stated causes of the Civil War. I think that just about takes care of your 'contributions' here.

 

 

This is mere self-righteousness. Instead of resorting to moralism, think about how opinions have changed since 2004 regarding gay marriage. The transformation has been huge. And if memory serves, the most vocal critics of the name have been Native Americans -- even if they represent a decided minority in their own population. The point is, opinions change, and we simply don't know what the prevailing view is 9 years after that original poll.

Boy if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black. Taking your own personal viewpoint and presuming that's suddendly the prevailing wisdom among American Indians based on "memory serves"? Exactly how many AI have you interviewed on the topic? Yes attitudes can change in 9 years but a) we're talking about a poll that was 91% vs. 9%; and b) your comparison to gay marriage is weak at best. Calling a football team 'Redskins' is hardly an act of overt legal discrimination such as homosexuals face on the marriage issue.

 

 

Dinosaurs like me will not be crying and whining IF the name ever changed. We are just trying to save the PC's from expending so much energy crying and whining.

I kind of enjoy watching them expend so much energy crying and whining. Pre-season is awfully boring.

 

 

too hard... too much work... it's much easier to sit back and type your disdain on a message board.

KONY 2012!!!

[uncle flap]

Why are people citing a poll of 768 people that were self reported native americans?

 

And furthermore that question is somewhat bogus. What does it mean to be "offended?" Was there a scale? Perhaps many don't feel "offended," but I doubt they feel "honored" as is the supposed justification. "Does it not bother you?" is a far cry from an endorsement.

 

I'm sure if the question was along the lines of "If a non-Indian called you a "redskin," would you be offended?" we'd see a very different response.

 

Check out some Indian/Native American websites and publications and then get back to us on how you think they feel.

 

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/ has a dedicated tab to "Redskins."

 

I understand the anti-PC crowd's point about "infringing on freedom." I actually don't think that the Skins should be "forced" to change their name. However, just because you have the right to be culturally insensitive, doesn't mean that you should, or that anyone has to like it.

 

"Freedom of speech" doesn't equal "freedom to not be criticized."