Senators Urge N.F.L. to Act on Redskins’ Name

[SBUffalo]

Listen, this "aren't there real issues" or "wow our tax dollars are being wasted on this!?" **** is unbelievably ignorant. They aren't ignoring the other things you think they should be spending 100% of their time on (NO SLEEP!!!!). There's only so much they can do about a certain issue at a given time. It's not like a few guys going after the Washington Racists is holding all of the government down. Stop being lazy and just cherry picking for a chance to insult the government. There's a lot of work to be done, and there are many places you can insult them... Worrying about things that have a negative or offensive impact on hundreds of thousands isn't one of them.

[jjmac]

I don't care if it's offensive to anyone. The fact that the United States of America has a football team in it's nation's capital named after a race of people it tried to ethnically cleanse, is over the top. Either change the name, or change the mascot to a potato.

 

And offend corn? What about peas?

[FireChan]

 

 

This is one of the most childish things I've ever seen.

 

Also, let's stop playing with percentages. "90% of Native Americans polled don't find the term offensive..." Well, they're admitting that 10% polled DO find it offensive. That's 300,000 in the US alone. You're okay with offending 300,000 people?

 

 

But let's me be honest... It's more than 10%. Realistically I'd bet it's more like 20-30% which would be between 600,000 to 1,000,000 people.

 

Yeah. I'm okay. He'll have to spend millions to rebrand and change merchandise. 300,000 people can kick rocks.

[billsfan1959]

While I do not believe the Senate spent a great deal of time on this, I am not a big fan of legislators spending any time at all on the offensiveness of the name of a football team when there are much more critical issues they should be addressing. I think, as a society, we have become overly sensitive and much too willing to yield to "sensitivity" demands that border on the ludicrous at times. With that said; however, we should (as I used to tell my children) pick and choose our battles wisely. This is not the battle to pick. The term "Redskins" has always had negative connotations associated with it and any arguments to the contrary are just not rooted in fact or logic. I think they could easily change it to something like the Washington Warriors and even keep a semblance of their logo, if not the actual logo (as it was designed by a Native American) to honor the bravery of the Native American in battle.

Edited May 24, 2014 by billsfan1959

[Rocky Landing]

While I do not believe the Senate spent a great deal of time on this, I am not a big fan of legislators spending any time at all on the offensiveness of the name of a football team when there are much more critical issues they should be addressing. I think, as a society, we have become overly sensitive and much too willing to yield to "sensitivity" demands that border on the ludicrous at times. With that said; however, we should (as I used to tell my children) pick and choose our battles wisely. This is not the battle to pick. The term "Redskins" has always had negative connotations associated with it and any arguments to the contrary are just not rooted in fact or logic. I think they could easily change it to something like the Washington Warriors and even keep a semblance of their logo, if not the actual logo (as it was designed by a Native American) to honor the bravery of the Native American in battle.

Very rational.

[FireChan]

He won't have to spend millions, but he'll make millions. You're willing to offend hundreds of thousands for the sake of somebody else's money? Man, !@#$ you.

 

How will changing the name make him millions?

 

And it's not my place to be "willing" about anything. It's not my company, and I'm not offended. No one is getting discriminated against, beaten, killed, threatened, or taxed without representation here. No one needs protecting. A name that used to mean one thing is used differently now. Get the pitchforks! Force him to sell! The government needs to step in!

 

It's ridiculous. Majority rules, not who screams the loudest. 3 of your kids ask nicely for McDonald's, but the other won't stop screaming about going to Wendy's, you don't cave and go to Wendy's. That makes you a bad parent and a bad country.

 

I now remedy my earlier statement; 300,001 people can go kick rocks.

Edited May 24, 2014 by FireChan

[FireChan]

Does anyone else find it ironic that posters are resorting to offending each other in a thread that revolves around the central theme of stopping something that offends people?

 

Nah, it's completely expected.

[WotAGuy]

I'd be on board with the Washington Gingers, especially if they trade for Andy Dalton.

 

But honestly I think I have become immune to the term since I've heard it pretty much all my life (at least 45 years anyway) in association with the team.

 

But when I really think about what the term means it is an offensive and derogatory term in my mind. Here in Syracuse, Ive heard a lot of black Americans call each other the N-word. But I've never heard a Native American call another Native American "Redskin". And the Onondaga tribe is pretty well represented around here.

[billsfan1959]

 

 

Engaging in behavior that is offensive to others - because they disagree with your stance that behavior that is offensive to others should be stopped...

 

Hmmmmmm...

 

I'm sticking with ironic

[Rocky Landing]

The argument has been made that, regardless of whether or not the name should be changed, the Senate has no business discussing it. Well, the more I think about it, the more I disagree. Really, having a team, in the nation's capital, with such an offensive name is a national embarrassment. It's along the same lines as if Berlin, the capital of Germany, had a soccer team called the Berlin Kikes. It really is.

[KD in CA]

Blah blah blah the only people who are offended by this name are ignorant white people with nothing better to do.

 

Robert Green, Chief of the Patawomeck Tribe tells theRichmond Times-Dispatch the name isn’t an issue for the vast majority of members of his tribe.

“About 98 percent of my tribe is Redskins fans, and it doesn’t offend them, either,” Green said.

http://washington.cb...-redskins-name/

 

Dodson is a full-blooded American Inuit chief originally from the Aleutian Tribes of Alaska, and said he was tired of being spoken for as a Native American.

“People are speaking for Native Americans that aren’t Native American. Being a full-blooded Indian with my whole family behind me, we had a big problem with all the things that were coming out [of the discussion],” he said. “I think they were basically saying that we were offended, our people were offended, and they were misrepresenting the Native American nation.

“We don’t have a problem with [the name] at all; in fact we’re honored. We’re quite honored.”

http://www.redskins....cd-18d7fb768bb7

 

My Uncle is part Cherokee, as are my cousins (obviously) and they couldn't care less. My Uncle is a big Chiefs fan too.

 

Bingo. Of course the bored, white, urbanites need something to be 'outraged' over and apparently the Donald Sterling story is dying down.

 

Not to mention, how can anyone respect such an obvious and pathetic attempt at some cheap, election year PR from a bunch of Senators worried about re-election?

[DC Tom]

The argument has been made that, regardless of whether or not the name should be changed, the Senate has no business discussing it. Well, the more I think about it, the more I disagree. Really, having a team, in the nation's capital, with such an offensive name is a national embarrassment.

 

How about having that team in Maryland?

[Rocky Landing]

How about having that team in Maryland?

Hmm... would the Hamburg Kikes be much better? I guess not. But perhaps, were the team in Maryland, it would be an issue for the Maryland State Legislature? Edited May 24, 2014 by Rocky Landing

[FireChan]

Hmm... would the Hamburg Kikes be much better? I guess not. But perhaps, were the team in Maryland, it would be an issue for the Maryland State Legislature?

 

Maryland State Legislature would be better off doing something government-related. You know, their jobs? Draft laws and all that. I don't know if they're supposed to pressure private companies to alter their brand and lose millions of dollars, because of something that has no economic, physical, or even mental detriment to the majority.

 

The argument has been made that, regardless of whether or not the name should be changed, the Senate has no business discussing it. Well, the more I think about it, the more I disagree. Really, having a team, in the nation's capital, with such an offensive name is a national embarrassment. It's along the same lines as if Berlin, the capital of Germany, had a soccer team called the Berlin Kikes. It really is.

 

The situation's are further apart than you suggest. The Holocaust and the US-native incidents were not similar in motivations nor scale.

 

Also, most Native American atrocities were committed closer to 200 years ago, not 70. The Vikings used to rape and pillage my people back 1000 years ago, can I be outraged at Minnesota? Can I get the US senators to write them a letter?

[MILFHUNTER#518]

It is all political grandstanding, the Dems are simply trying to change the discourse from how inept Obama has been on the VA issue to "Wow, look at those Dems! They are soooo compassiiioonnaattee! Look at how they are sticking up for the poor Native Americans!"

[Pneumonic]

I support the Senators views to change the redskins name but, only, if they agree to also urge Notre Dame to change from the "fighting" Irish to something more politically correct.

[Rocky Landing]

Maryland State Legislature would be better off doing something government-related. You know, their jobs? Draft laws and all that. I don't know if they're supposed to pressure private companies to alter their brand and lose millions of dollars, because of something that has no economic, physical, or even mental detriment to the majority.

 

 

 

The situation's are further apart than you suggest. The Holocaust and the US-native incidents were not similar in motivations nor scale.

 

Also, most Native American atrocities were committed closer to 200 years ago, not 70. The Vikings used to rape and pillage my people back 1000 years ago, can I be outraged at Minnesota? Can I get the US senators to write them a letter?

I get your point, there certainly are differences (although, comparing the Native American genocide to your European roots is also rather inaccurate). But, the Native American genocide (and, I DO believe that genocide is an appropriate designation), is no less a part of our national identity than is slavery. There just happens to be quite a bit fewer true Native Americans left to offend, than descendants of slavery. And I do believe that just about nobody would approve of naming a team after ANY reference to slavery.

 

One of the differences to the Nazi genocide that I might add to your list, is that the Native American genocide was much more successful. Also, as far as scale, there were an estimated six million Jews who died in the holocaust. Scholarly estimates for the Native American Holocaust range from two to 18 million. And, much more recent than 200 years. The famous Wounded Knee massacre occurred in 1890. The last on record, as such, was a massacre of eight Shoshones in 1911-- just a little over 100 years ago. After that, who was left?

 

One other difference between the Jewish Holocaust, and the Native American Holocaust, is that the former occurred in Germany. The latter occurred here. In Germany, it is a crime to display the Swastika (an abrogation of civil liberties we would never tolerate). We, on the other hand, have an NFL team representing our nation's capital named after the worst epithet you can call a Native American.

Edited May 24, 2014 by Rocky Landing

[Rocky Landing]

I support the Senators views to change the redskins name but, only, if they agree to also urge Notre Dame to change from the "fighting" Irish to something more politically correct.

What's denigrating about "fighting" Irish? I could understand if it was "cowering" Irish, or "drunken" Irish...

[IDBillzFan]

Not to mention, how can anyone respect such an obvious and pathetic attempt at some cheap, election year PR from a bunch of Senators worried about re-election?

 

Let's be fair to the Senators...it's not like they're heading into Memorial Day weekend with a lot of items to address.

 

I mean, if dozens of war veterans were killing themselves because the VA was delaying their treatment and hiding the facts of its embarrassing wait list, then yes, maybe that would be worth their effort as they get ready to attend Memorial Day services throughout the country.

 

But all is well. So I can totally understand them taking time to address the Redskin issue..

Edited May 25, 2014 by LABillzFan

[BarleyNY]

I think whether or not offense is taken by the name "Redskins" largely depends upon the meaning people associate with it. If it thought of to be just an observation about the skin color (red man, white man, etc.) then I don't think many find offense. But its other usage is another story entirely. That relates to the bounty the British government put on the scalps of Native Americans in an attempt to eradicate them from North America. Bounties were paid for "redskins" and traders paid for them along with deerskins, etc. Different amounts were paid for men, women and children. If that's the context, then change the name. Today. If it's the former then that's another story, but if even a decent minority of Native Americans associate it with attempted genocide and the government sponsored murder of men, women and children then it should be changed. I'm generally one to think people should be less sensitive about most things and I don't have issues with tribal names being used (Seminoles, Blackhawks, etc.), but this one is different to me.