Washington Redskins Name Controversy

[fatkrakr]

Yup, I agree. Doesn't mean they shouldn't do it.



Because it's racist and therefore a negative image for the business. Businesses are free to be racist and project racist things, and I'm free to think they're stupid for doing so.



No, it has a definition. It would also be racist if they changed their name to the "Blackskins" and had a black guy as the mascot.



Why would that change my opinion on the matter?



I will insist that the term is racist because it is. I wouldn't presume to tell someone what they should or shouldn't hate.



None of that applies to me.



This has no bearing on my feelings about myself. What some organization with a racist name does or does not do has exactly zero impact on my self-image. I am aware of the fact that native americans have a different pigment to their skin than myself (same goes for tons of other racial groups), and I am aware of some of the racist terms that can be used for native americans (as is the case for tons of other racial groups). No that doesn't make me feel guilty about anything, nor should it.





Yea, let's not associate this with native americans.

There's nothing wrong with having a native american mascot either (see below). They should just use a term that isn't racist. It's not like it's unprecedented. The Washington Redskins as an organization gets to make this decision, not me. It's their business and up to them what image they want to portray. I'm sure on some level they'd like to have a name that didn't reflect negatively on their organization. I'm sure the Ravens, for example, aren't jealous of their neighbors' mascot and franchise name. If you asked the Ravens if they'd rather their name had some sort of racist connotation I'm sure they'd be like "uh... absolutely not. We would not like to trade places with the Redskins." The Redskins don't change their name because they don't want to look weak, and they don't want to alienate fans. What they don't realize is that their fans don't love them because of their mascot any more than Jacksonville fans love their team because they love Jaguars. What the Washington team calls themselves is not all that important. They need a bit more self-esteem as an organization to realize that they can change their name and nobody will care. The Bullets did it not that long ago - it happens.

And I don't see why anyone gets indignant at the notion that they should change their name. It's a stupid name with negative connotations. Why should we hang on to it? No, I'm not offended. But I think it's dumb for any business to go around projecting a negative image for no good reason. Until they change their name, I'll think they're stupid.

All of that is just your and a few others opinion on the subject nothing more nothing less and your intitled to that opinion. As has been said before though, the word Redskins isn't by itself racist. How people choose to use the word can be racist though. That doesn't make the word racist just the person who use it in that matter. There isnt a single incident of the fans or people of Washington using the word racially. The only people who are using the word racially are the people who are claiming to be standing up for a group of people who never asked for them to butt their PC noses in it.

 

[Danoff]

All of that is just your and a few others opinion on the subject nothing more nothing less and your intitled to that opinion. As has been said before though, the word Redskins isn't by itself racist. How people choose to use the word can be racist though. That doesn't make the word racist just the person who use it in that matter. There isnt a single incident of the fans or people of Washington using the word racially. The only people who are using the word racially are the people who are claiming to be standing up for a group of people who never asked for them to butt their PC noses in it.

Everything I said is my opinion except for the fact that the name is racist. That part is fact. I could go into a whole big explanation about how the mascot is chosen for particular characteristics (like all mascots) and that the attribution of particular characteristics to having red-colored skin is the very definition of racist, but I don't have to. Because you know that if they changed their name to the Washington Blackskins and had a Black guy as the mascot that it would be racist. Done.

Next question.

 

[Keef]

What if they change their name and then go on to win the championship that year? They could have won it as the redskins - an honor to Native Americans around the land. But they didn't. They had to shed that image to win, implying that Native Americans are a bunch of loser homos that can't compete. What would you say to all the folks who imply that?

 

[AnthonyD1993]

Some people are mad at the current name, and others would hate the new name. That really doesn't matter. And Washington won't be winning a Super Bowl any time soon with how the team is currently playing.

 

[fatkrakr]

Next question.

My I see where you are getting your "facts" from that says Redskins is a racist term?

 

[Danoff]

What if they change their name and then go on to win the championship that year? They could have won it as the redskins - an honor to Native Americans around the land. But they didn't. They had to shed that image to win, implying that Native Americans are a bunch of loser homos that can't compete. What would you say to all the folks who imply that?

I would say that's ridiculous because pretty much nobody on the team is actually a native american anyway. And why did you assume that they changed their name to something that has nothing to do with native americans? I think they should stick with the native theme and just not use a racist trademark.

My I see where you are getting your "facts" from that says Redskins is a racist term?

Yes. Here:

I could go into a whole big explanation about how the mascot is chosen for particular characteristics (like all mascots) and that the attribution of particular characteristics to having red-colored skin is the very definition of racist, but I don't have to. Because you know that if they changed their name to the Washington Blackskins and had a Black guy as the mascot that it would be racist. Done.

 

[huskeR32]

What if they change their name and then go on to win the championship that year? They could have won it as the redskins - an honor to Native Americans around the land. But they didn't. They had to shed that image to win, implying that Native Americans are a bunch of loser homos that can't compete. What would you say to all the folks who imply that?

What does sexuality have to do with this all of a sudden?

 

[fatkrakr]

I would say that's ridiculous because pretty much nobody on the team is actually a native american anyway. And why did you assume that they changed their name to something that has nothing to do with native americans? I think they should stick with the native theme and just not use a racist trademark.



Yes. Here:

Oh well in that case Mods please close this thread, because Danoff has spoken on the subject and we all know what he says must be fact or he wouldn't of said it.

As I said before its YOUR opinion and nothing else. The word isn't racist just the context it can be used in.

 

[Northstar]

My I see where you are getting your "facts" from that says Redskins is a racist term?

Oxford
Merriam-Webster
Dictionary.com

 

[huskeR32]

Oh well in that case Mods please close this thread, because Danoff has spoken on the subject and we all know what he says must be fact or he wouldn't of said it.

As I said before its YOUR opinion and nothing else. The word isn't racist just the context it can be used in.

He's not the only person in this thread with that opinion. Also, you know what's entirely more relevant than any of our opinions? The opinion of actual Native Americans.

I highly doubt you'd tell an African American that they had no place being offended by the n-word, would you? Yet, that seems to be your attitude about "redskins."

If the people that that name applies to find it to be racist and disrespectful, then it's racist and disrespectful.

 

[fatkrakr]

Oxford
Merriam-Webster
Dictionary.com

The problem with those sources are that they were all written within the last 4 or so years. You know after all this BS started to make its way around the internet. Real easy to make a word racist if that is your goal. Again though it still comes down to how the word is used. Is this statement racist, We had roast beef and redskin potatoes for lunch? Its all in how people choose to use the word.

He's not the only person in this thread with that opinion. Also, you know what's entirely more relevant than any of our opinions? The opinion of actual Native Americans.

I highly doubt you'd tell an African American that they had no place being offended by the n-word, would you? Yet, that seems to be your attitude about "redskins."

If the people that that name applies to find it to be racist and disrespectful, then it's racist and disrespectful.

In my opinion the N word has been given to much power. That's why its so offensive, if people just ignored the word I bet in a few short years the term would all but die. As it is now though it causes so much uproar and that's the reason people use the word. If those people couldn't get a reaction from the word then the word becomes useless.

 

[Northstar]

The problem with those sources are that they were all written within the last 4 or so years.

It doesn't matter whether or not it was offensive in the past, what does matter is how it's viewed now. Take the swastika, it's been around for thousands of years primarily as a positive signal, than some guy came along and tarnished it in a matter of years.

Also, the first protests of the Redskins moniker were in 1988, long before the internet took off.

 

[Omnis]

So, if this is true, I doubt the name is going to stick.

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/news/true-redskins-meaning

A Redskin is the skin of the head of a native american after being scalped by bounty hunters. A price was put on the indians' collective heads, and those who collected the bounties traded scalps for cash in the crown-sponsor genocide to protect and expand their colonies.

Sounds pretty gruesome. Time to look for a different name.

 

[Scaff]

In my opinion the N word has been given to much power. That's why its so offensive, if people just ignored the word I bet in a few short years the term would all but die. As it is now though it causes so much uproar and that's the reason people use the word. If those people couldn't get a reaction from the word then the word becomes useless.

Did you serious write that!

My wife (and by logical extension, my children) are mixed race; and having been with them and had to deal with the fallout from racist abuse I can honestly say that your comment here is total and utter nonsense.

A rather classic example of blame the victim.

It would all be so much better if all those pesky non-white folk would just stop getting bothered when we hurl offensive names at them.

If you can't see why that attitude is utterly arse about face then you quite frankly are a part of the problem.

 

[GTPorsche]

The term "redskin" goes back to at least the very early 1900s, most likely further back than that as well. This isn't a sudden thing that just came up within the last half decade.

 

[Famine]

Is this statement racist, We had roast beef and redskin potatoes for lunch? Its all in how people choose to use the word.

And in this case it's next to a picture of a native American*.

So now everyone's happy that the word "Redskin" in this instance is used to refer to native Americans (or at least one native American), rather than potatoes. Do you think that this is an acceptable use?

Perhaps they should change their logo to a potato?

 

[Omnis]

And in this case it's next to a picture of a native American*.

So now everyone's happy that the word "Redskin" in this instance is used to refer to native Americans (or at least one native American), rather than potatoes. Do you think that this is an acceptable use?

Perhaps they should change their logo to a potato?

 

[Danoff]

Perhaps they should change their logo to a potato?

That would make it no longer racist.

 

[Omnis]

The potato farmers of america are missing a huge opportunity here.

 

[Liquid]

Washington Scarlets would allow them to retain a 'red' connotation in their name.

The tatty farmers need a Lincoln Redskins to capitalise on Nebraska.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The problem with those sources are that they were all written within the last 4 or so years. You know after all this BS started to make its way around the internet. Real easy to make a word racist if that is your goal. Again though it still comes down to how the word is used. Is this statement racist, We had roast beef and redskin potatoes for lunch? Its all in how people choose to use the word.

If you think that recognition of redskin as a racist term only goes back 4-or-so years then you're simply misinformed.

In my opinion the N word has been given to much power. That's why its so offensive, if people just ignored the word I bet in a few short years the term would all but die. As it is now though it causes so much uproar and that's the reason people use the word. If those people couldn't get a reaction from the word then the word becomes useless.

Or mad.

 

[Exorcet]

And I don't see why anyone gets indignant at the notion that they should change their name. It's a stupid name with negative connotations. Why should we hang on to it? No, I'm not offended. But I think it's dumb for any business to go around projecting a negative image for no good reason. Until they change their name, I'll think they're stupid.

I feel that throwing it away will only reinforce the negative connotations. Holding on to it will give it a chance to change into something else.

You brought up the "Blackskins" example, I had actually been going over in my head self-generated offense names to see what would sound offensive. I ended up judging names by how much I'd think society as a whole would be offended and not so much the names themselves. Redskins may differ from Blackskins only in that it's been around so long in a "friendly" way that people no longer care, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.

Whether or not the name is changed is up to the owners and they can't really choose incorrectly. What I feel the most thinking about the whole issue is that if the name is changed, it's a bit of a loss. At the same time though I don't want to ignore that some people see the name in a very negative light.

It would all be so much better if all those pesky non-white folk would just stop getting bothered when we hurl offensive names at them.

My take on this is that "how offensive" a term is, is less important than the context it's used in. If someone isn't all that friendly to someone of a specific race and they use racist terms in their speech, what's most bothering to me is that they're hostile.

The link between the words and the hostility can make it easy to see why someone is uncomfortable with those words being said, but at the same time if you take away the hostility then you're just left with words.

 

[Keef]

Or just Potato Skins. That's something everyone can get behind. It retains the word "skin" with just the right amount of spitefulness. I like it.

 

[Jump_Ace]

I'd like to see the name get changed, along with the logo. But then I'd also want the Reds and Indians get different names and logos too. Would people be offended if they were the Washington White Trash? Um, I'll check the Yes box on that.


Jerome

 

[huskeR32]

I'd like to see the name get changed, along with the logo. But then I'd also want the Reds and Indians get different names and logos too. Would people be offended if they were the Washington White Trash? Um, I'll check the Yes box on that.


Jerome

I may be mistaken here, but I'm pretty sure that the Reds were once the Red Stockings, and at some point just shortened it to Reds.

 

[fatkrakr]

I may be mistaken here, but I'm pretty sure that the Reds were once the Red Stockings, and at some point just shortened it to Reds.

Well according to some here that doesn't matter. What matters is now that someone made the connection it must go as well. While were at it lets get rid of the Pirates as well, I own a boat and I think Pirates sheds a bad light on us boat owners.

 

[LeMansAid]

If we don't judge the intent over the word(s), we're going to eventually end up with no words left.

How many Redskins fans view the name as a way to honour a barbarous time in history? I dare say, none.

 

[Famine]

Well according to some here that doesn't matter. What matters is now that someone made the connection it must go as well.

[Citation needed]

If you're going to make up what other people say, you're going to have a bad time.

You accept that the Redskin name refers to a Native American and not a potato, given that the badge is a Native American and not a potato, surely?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Maybe he thinks it's the face of a guy who got really sunburnt.

 

[fatkrakr]

It doesn't matter whether or not it was offensive in the past, what does matter is how it's viewed now.

Ok

[Citation needed]

If you're going to make up what other people say, you're going to have a bad time.

You accept that the Redskin name refers to a Native American and not a potato, given that the badge is a Native American and not a potato, surely?