Washington Redskins Name Controversy

  • Thread starter JMoney
  • 274 comments
  • 11,073 views

Should the name for the NFL team "Washington Redskins" be changed?

  • Yes

    Votes: 23 25.0%
  • No

    Votes: 69 75.0%

  • Total voters
    92
Make your mascot a Native American and you are insulting their people.
Why is a caricature by itself a problem? It's supposed to be absurd by its nature.
wfm4hks.jpg

I still don't really see much difference between teams with this theme and themes that take after Vikings, Romans, etc.
Like I said, nobody has a problem with the Chiefs and the Braves. Those two are more like Vikings and Romans. Vikings, Romans, Chiefs, and Braves are not slurs, and never were slurs. Redskins was a slur and in any other context than the football team is a word I think most reasonable people wouldn't use.

I don't think Indians is necessarily a problem but I really am not a fan of the logo. I don't really think the Blackhawks logo is an issue either but I'd be fine if they changed it too.
 
Last edited:
The Boston Bruins are trying to get out in front of the animial rights wackos activists by hiring bears as greeters..
boston-bruins-date.jpg

Note: No bears were harmed while taking this picture
 
My immediate thought is that the first two seem a bit odd in that they're less associated with warriors, which is part of the reason for the appeal with Roman/Viking/Native themes. You could argue that in itself is an issue because a Native American isn't automatically a warrior, but then neither the existence of the association or the mascot/icon imply that in the first place. The same goes for Vikings, etc, just that less people are offended by those themes.

If I were to modify those caps to represent something more inline with how I feel about the Indians, they would names more like "Maccabees" and "The Han" or something along those lines.

As for the faces themselves, I'll admit that if the two left most images were used to represent a new team, they would be hated out of existence. The normalization that you mentioned previously is something that I think is in play with the NA teams, but I don't think it's a bad thing. To me that normalization sort of overwrites the old connotations (if any) with the images. Also I think the Jews/Chinamen images are over-done to elicit negative reaction, but that could just be bias on my part. As it is now, I don't think I'd see much wrong with the Indians logo if the team came into being today.

Like I said, nobody has a problem with the Chiefs and the Braves. Those two are more like Vikings and Romans. Vikings, Romans, Chiefs, and Braves are not slurs, and never were slurs. Redskins was a slur and in any other context than the football team is a word I think most reasonable people wouldn't use.

I don't think Indians is necessarily a problem but I really am not a fan of the logo. I don't really think the Blackhawks logo is an issue either but I'd be fine if they changed it too.
The history with the term redskins makes it easier to understand why people don't like it, but as I said above I kind of see the normalization of the term through use as a team name wiping that away. I'm not saying that having a Redskins team does anything for people who may have been taunted with that term repeatedly. It's completely understandable that people with such an experience would hate the name. At the same time though, the team name is a separate idea from the slur. Even if the owners of the team are secretly racist the name shouldn't really project any kind of negativity on Native Americans.
 
I suppose it's just a matter of time before the animal rights activists get in on the act, taking offense from the Marlins, Dolphins, Cardinals, Bears, Cubs, Eagles, etc, and of course the Blackhawks.
If they have a live animal they do get protested.

http://www.peta.org/features/animal-mascots/

Like I said, nobody has a problem with the Chiefs and the Braves.
Or they do and you can't tell because the Redskins are the one most recently in the news.

http://bringmethenews.com/2015/10/1...t-plan-to-rally-ahead-of-vikings-game-sunday/

Even the Florida State Seminoles, who have tribal approval, can't escape.

http://www.thenation.com/article/florida-state-seminoles-champions-racist-mascots/

If it is about being a caricature or what is now considered derogatory, then Notre Dame should be on the offensive list.

2554.gif
 
If it is about being a caricature or what is now considered derogatory, then Notre Dame should be on the offensive list.

How so - surely that's a Leprechaun? It's the actual term "fighting Irish" that might have more connotations I guess... but then fighting is still an important part of some sectors of Irish culture.
 
How so - surely that's a Leprechaun? It's the actual term "fighting Irish" that might have more connotations I guess... but then fighting is still an important part of some sectors of Irish culture.
The bolded part alone would get you 5-10 from the pc police:lol:
 
How so - surely that's a Leprechaun? It's the actual term "fighting Irish" that might have more connotations I guess... but then fighting is still an important part of some sectors of Irish culture.
tumblr_nusp5jmZkZ1r4o9xho1_r1_500.jpg


Are you saying that Irish are leprechauns? Where I live calling an Irishman a leprechaun is an insult. Throw in some Lucky Charms jokes for good measure.

Are you aware of the historical racism against Irish immigrants in this country?


So, if the Washington Redskins just created a web page with an explanation about how they are honoring the people and what Redskins really means to them it would be OK?




Of course, all of this doesn't explain why the Rebels get grief for having a confederate soldier as their mascot.


To be honest, if you wanted me to go down the list of mascots and point out any that have a potential for being offensive I could likely do it to nearly every human mascot.



As for the Redskins, they should replace their logo with a potato. Or change their name to the some derogatory term for PC police. If they are going to push you to spend millions of dollars to appease their sense of righteousness at least make it good.
 
To be honest, if you wanted me to go down the list of mascots and point out any that have a potential for being offensive I could likely do it to nearly every human mascot.
Push comes to shove, aren't all mascots offensive to people with larger heads, like me:sly:
 
So, if the Washington Redskins just created a web page with an explanation about how they are honoring the people and what Redskins really means to them it would be OK?
That is the basis of their argument already so how would that change anything? Irish Catholics calling themselves the fighting Irish is not even close to the same thing as a team that was named by the most racist white man in the NFL at the time, George Marshall. http://www.ncai.org/proudtobe
 
Are you saying that Irish are leprechauns? Where I live calling an Irishman a leprechaun is an insult. Throw in some Lucky Charms jokes for good measure.

No... I was saying that I don't see the offence in a leprechaun character. Nor do I see the offence in the term "the fighting Irish". I don't see that Notre Dame are drawing a connection either, if I'm honest, although I'll admit that I don't know the history of either rugby-for-ladies or that particular team very well.
 
That is the basis of their argument already so how would that change anything? Irish Catholics calling themselves the fighting Irish is not even close to the same thing as a team that was named by the most racist white man in the NFL at the time, George Marshall. http://www.ncai.org/proudtobe
African Americans often refer to themselves as 🤬, does that make it ok for us honky's to do the same?
 
One of the funniest things I've seen in quite a while

One of the stupidest things I've seen in quite a while.

African Americans often refer to themselves as 🤬, does that make it ok for us honky's to do the same?

Oh, wow, great point! Yes, let's all go around and just scream every bigoted term we can think of all day, every day. :rolleyes:

---

Sigh, when do you give your PC illusion a rest? ;)

All signs point to never.
 
One of the stupidest things I've seen in quite a while.

Oh, wow, great point! Yes, let's all go around and just scream every bigoted term we can think of all day, every day. :rolleyes:

All signs point to never.
Brilliant contribution:lol:
 
Brilliant contribution:lol:

That's all you've got in way of a reply? I was hoping you'd at least attempt to justify this absurdity. I guess it's just another example of anti-PC hyperbole that's utterly lacking in nuance and devoid of any desire to actually discuss something worthwhile.

This paranoid "slippery slope" stuff that pervades all of your posts in this thread is tiresome.
 
Is the name offensive? Probably. Should they change it? Probably. Will it have any impact on making the Washington Redskins a football team that isn't awful? Absolutely not, but I guess at this point they might as well try since RG3 became a China doll.

The controversy has give me a good fantasy team name though:

BqcZ3ZaCUAAQ1y4.jpg



I suppose it's just a matter of time before the animal rights activists get in on the act, taking offense from the Marlins, Dolphins, Cardinals, Bears, Cubs, Eagles, etc, and of course the Blackhawks.

You forgot the Lions, but that's ok, we like to pretend they don't exist here anyways. :lol:
 
You forgot the Lions, but that's ok, we like to pretend they don't exist here anyways. :lol:

PETA probably doesn't find that offensive because the Lions don't beat anyone in the first place. Hard to be abusive and offensive when they can only beat the Bears who are just as bad as (if not worse than) Detroit.
 
Oh, wow, great point! Yes, let's all go around and just scream every bigoted term we can think of all day, every day. :rolleyes:
So, no, then? Still black people only? Can people be called queer again if they are homosexual? That's another one that's been confusing me lately, because I'm pretty sure it's still supposed to be obviously offensive like "faggot" became, except now it's frequently being tacked on to the end of what was "LBGT" by actual LBGT groups.



It's certainly quite difficult nowadays for the middle class white guy to know what he's supposed to load himself up with white guilt over, even in contexts widely divorced from any actual intent of insult, and since you're the arbiter of bigoted terms perhaps you can clarify.
 
Last edited:
It's certainly quite difficult nowadays for the middle class white guy to know what he's supposed to load himself up with white guilt over, even in contexts widely divorced from any actual intent of insult, and since you're acting like the arbiter of bigoted terms perhaps you can clarify.
Come on. The line of discussion is about white people not using the N word and you're talking about white guilt? There's a pretty blatantly obvious contextual difference there and it's not "white guilt" to avoid using that word. There's a pretty obvious contextual difference between the LGBT community using the word queer and its history as a slur.

__________

Regarding the whole idea of PC gone mad, what line is "enough"? Where is the line drawn? Do you think social conservatives in history didn't think that the social changes of their time weren't "too far?" Because it seems like anything socially liberal besides gay marriage or weed gets mocked for being too PC.
 
Last edited:
That's all you've got in way of a reply? I was hoping you'd at least attempt to justify this absurdity. I guess it's just another example of anti-PC hyperbole that's utterly lacking in nuance and devoid of any desire to actually discuss something worthwhile.

This paranoid "slippery slope" stuff that pervades all of your posts in this thread is tiresome.
Respond to what, flamebait? No thanks.

...Funny? You got one twisted sense of humor there, bud. That vid scared me :censored:less. Sure it's bit exaggerated but still - brrrrrr...
It's funny because it is just a bit exaggerated as you say. For some people though, it's not an exaggeration..it's the way it should be...and you're right that is scary.
 
There's a pretty blatantly obvious contextual difference there and it's not "white guilt" to avoid using that word.
What is it then? Even ignoring the etymological history, I'm smart enough to know that I'm not supposed to drop the N-bomb at all because I'm aware of the negative connotations that it carries if I was to use it just because I am indeed a middle class white guy. On that basis alone I know that there is no context that it is "allowed", and when you factor in the historical background I'm aware that "white guy dropping N-Bombs" alone is enough to make people believe offensive intent. I'm also smart enough to know that it does not carry the same connotations universally, and that it's foolish for people to act like it does when trying to dictate offensiveness; hence huskeR32's response about a "bigoted term" is meaningless because it doesn't actually refute what Johnnypenso said because it isn't an inherently bigoted term.


There's a pretty obvious contextual difference between the LGBT community using the word queer and its history as a slur.
What is it then? The word itself was essentially a slur even before it carried the connotations as a slur specifically against homosexuals. Then it was used more directly against homosexuals. Now it, like the N-bomb above, falls easily under the umbrella of "words most people are afraid to use in public because they know they are 'bad'", but now parts of the LBGT community are deliberately trying to normalize it so it has no harmful intent. How is that any different from what this thread is about? Don't be an asshole and hurt people with its usage, and what's the problem?


Let's respond to your sentiment for the purposes of this thread:
The line of discussion is about white people not using the N word and you're talking about white guilt? There's a pretty blatantly obvious contextual difference there and it's not "white guilt" to avoid using that word.
You mean like the obvious contextual difference between actually calling a Native American a Redskin whatever and talking about a crappy football team; which is overwhelmingly what people in 2015 are using the word to describe regardless of what a racist asshole intended in 1932 when he named it? The movement to have the team name changed couldn't be any more obviously fueled by people it doesn't actually affect than if it actually went so far as to start on tumblr, so I find it a bit hard to directly compare the extremely normalized usage of a word 80+ years in the making to the actual usage of the same word as a slur and be properly offended by its usage as the former.



Something like this:

clinglogo_1_1.jpg


I get that, because even someone who grew up long after the heyday of TV Westerns should find the originally intended meaning obvious. But that's not what this thread is about.
 
Last edited:
The movement to have the team name changed couldn't be any more obviously fueled by people it doesn't actually affect...

I think anybody who is likely to have the name appear on their TV, in their newspaper or, most importantly, to their children is affected by it. If the team agree to use the name just inside the stadium and not have it published elsewhere then I guess that would be fine :)
 
Back