Do you think the Washington Redskins should change their

[Deleted]

Absolutely I think they should change it. It's completely ridiculous. I cannot believe so many people are okay with their keeping this deeply offensive name. Dude. REDSKINS. REALLY??

Also, this.
www.theonion.com/articles/report-redskins-name-only-offensive-if-you-think-a,33449/

[Deleted]

Oh, I see my link didn't work. here's the text of the Onion article!


Report: Redskins’ Name Only Offensive If You Think About What It Means

WASHINGTON—A new study published Monday by the University of New Mexico confirmed that the name of the Washington Redskins is only offensive if you take any amount of time whatsoever to think about its actual meaning. “When you hear or say ‘Redskins’ in the abstract, it’s completely harmless, but we’ve discovered that if you briefly pause to remember it’s a racial slur for an indigenous group wiped out by genocide over the course of a few centuries, then, yeah, it’s awful,” said lead researcher Lawrence Wagner, adding that only if you allow the NFL franchise’s name to register in your mind does it evoke the thought of human beings devastated by the forced removal from tribal lands, intentional exposure to smallpox, and countless massacres. “It has the potential to come across as a degrading relic of an ethnocentric mentality responsible for the destruction of an entire people and their culture, but that’s only if you take a couple seconds to recognize it as something beyond a string of letters.” Wagner recommended that the NFL franchise should change their name to something more appropriate and historically accurate, such as the Washington Racist Fucks.

[PinkSquirrel]

Sept 22, 2013 20:04:03 GMT -5 pagas said:

I think this is an interesting article on the subject, especially the part about the HSs with Redskins as a mascot.
espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9689220/redskins-name-change-not-easy-sounds

I have never used it in a derogatory way, nor have I ever heard it used in such a matter. I can see both sides of the issue.

Indians is offensive to some people as well, so do the Cleveland Indians need to change their name too?

If you've used the name you've used it in a derogatory way.  The people who it refers to have said it's offensive, therefore any time you use the term you are flat out being offensive and derogatory.   This is one of those "I'm not racist even though I say blatantly racist shit" situations.

I am fucking horrified that there are more No's than Yes's in this poll. 

[pantsparty]

Okay, I made my potato joke, but I do think it should be changed. Just want to make that clear.

[emsumm]

Yes

[polka]

Definitely.  H and I were discussing this recently, and he also said he has always thought that name should be changed.  

[snickers]

Originally I said no, because it has never really occurred to me that it might be racist, actually. This is probably because it does not offend me and I am not into sports.
I mean, if it offends people, why not change it?

[ohiowan]

What about the Braves (tomahawk chop), and Indians (Chief wahoo)?

[thebuddhagouda]

Sept 22, 2013 20:50:53 GMT -5 PinkSquirrel said:

Sept 22, 2013 20:04:03 GMT -5 pagas said:

I think this is an interesting article on the subject, especially the part about the HSs with Redskins as a mascot.
espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9689220/redskins-name-change-not-easy-sounds

I have never used it in a derogatory way, nor have I ever heard it used in such a matter. I can see both sides of the issue.

If you've used the name you've used it in a derogatory way.  The people who it refers to have said it's offensive, therefore any time you use the term you are flat out being offensive and derogatory.   This is one of those "I'm not racist even though I say blatantly racist shit" situations.

Come the fuck on. I'm a lifelong fan that was born into the Redskins nation. My grandfather worked at RFK stadium. My family has season tickets. I absolutely think the name needs to be changed, BUT having Redskins stuff and cheering for the team does not make me racist.  It's possible for someone to be a fan of the team while still recognizing the need for dropping a derogatory name.

[rosiedozie]

Sept 23, 2013 8:38:18 GMT -5 ohiowan said:

What about the Braves (tomahawk chop), and Indians (Chief wahoo)?

Brave is not a racial slur. And while Indian isn't the preferred term over Native American, I don't think that people would categorize that as a racial slur either.

[Jalapeñomel]

Sept 23, 2013 8:52:21 GMT -5 Lucy Honeychurch said:

Let me be perfectly clear. When I say no, I don't think it should be changed, I say that because I think it's a waste of time and resources to get riled up about political posturing instead of addressing the very real problems faced by Native Americans on reservations in this country.

Sure, they should change it, but they likely won't; and the sheer time and money that would have to go into petitioning for this change is a fucking waste. I'd much rather throw my support behind advanced government funding for reservation schools, or increased funding for the truly heinous state of things in an already-marginalized society.

My uncle spent his life as a human-rights lawyer on behalf of Native American tribes, most notably the Nez Perce, and even he thought the grandstanding behind a name-change for a goddamn sports team was ludicrous.

So that's where I stand on this issue. That while the term is historically negative and offensive, the impetus behind a change could be put to much better use. Having lived in Arizona and volunteered on the Papago / Tohono O'odham reservation, I can tell you things are fucking dire; and the renaming of a sports team isn't going to do a damn thing to improve the quality of life for these people.

So because it would be hard and/or expensive to change the name, we should just say fuck it, it's ok we don't want to bother with the change?

[Deleted]

the real problem here, which i identified on page 1 of this post, is that dan snyder is AN ASSHOLE. he could've just quietly changed the fucking name years ago. but instead he got on his high horse about it and tradition and blah blah. seriously. google "dan snyder sucks" and view the plethora of responses.

am i filing a lawsuit against the team that diverts funds and attention from much needed relief for tribes? no. but do i think the name needs to be changed? yes.

this COULD be easy. voila. this year and henceforth we're the skins or something else. DONE. which is why when i'm asked a black and white yes or no question about the name change, the obvious answer is yes.


ETA:  PROOF:  www.washingtoncitypaper.com/articles/40063/the-cranky-redskins-fans-guide-to-dan-snyder

[Jalapeñomel]

Sept 23, 2013 9:16:15 GMT -5 nursecramer said:

Sept 23, 2013 8:52:21 GMT -5 Lucy Honeychurch said:

Let me be perfectly clear. When I say no, I don't think it should be changed, I say that because I think it's a waste of time and resources to get riled up about political posturing instead of addressing the very real problems faced by Native Americans on reservations in this country.

Sure, they should change it, but they likely won't; and the sheer time and money that would have to go into petitioning for this change is a fucking waste. I'd much rather throw my support behind advanced government funding for reservation schools, or increased funding for the truly heinous state of things in an already-marginalized society.

My uncle spent his life as a human-rights lawyer on behalf of Native American tribes, most notably the Nez Perce, and even he thought the grandstanding behind a name-change for a goddamn sports team was ludicrous.

So that's where I stand on this issue. That while the term is historically negative and offensive, the impetus behind a change could be put to much better use. Having lived in Arizona and volunteered on the Papago / Tohono O'odham reservation, I can tell you things are fucking dire; and the renaming of a sports team isn't going to do a damn thing to improve the quality of life for these people.

There are already people spending time and money to try to change it. washington.cbslocal.com/2013/03/07/fight-on-battle-over-redskins-name-heads-to-court/ The NFL has plenty of both; it's the most lucrative major sport. The League fines players who utter racial slurs, even if they are not in fact currently acting as an employee of the League www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/31/riley-cooper-racist-n-word-video_n_3684651.html but they allow a team to persist in using one?

And I would think that this name change would be a great opportunity for calling attention to the current issues that Native American tribes deal with, and raising more support for them.

Of course we'd rather see them donate money to the actual cause, but changing the name would bring about awareness in a huge way, with the largest money making sport in the country. And isn't making this change better than doing nothing at all, which is what is happening now?   Forbes has estimated that the team makes 1.7 billion dollars a year. 

"But money shouldn’t be a concern for Snyder. For all of Snyder’s faults, he has been a master of maximizing value from his franchise. The Redskins are the third most-valuable team in the NFL, at $1.7 billion (league average: $1.2 billion). Last year the franchise generated revenues of $381 million, and had an operating income of $104 million. Snyder’s teams would still share in the NFL’s $9.2 billion in annual profits. That TV money wouldn’t be going anywhere. And the fans? To paraphrase Jerry Seinfeld, they mainly cheer for laundry. Would you give up on your team because it changed their name that offended a group of people?"

[Jalapeñomel]

Sept 23, 2013 9:21:57 GMT -5 cville said:

the real problem here, which i identified on page 1 of this post, is that dan snyder is AN ASSHOLE. he could've just quietly changed the fucking name years ago. but instead he got on his high horse about it and tradition and blah blah. seriously. google "dan snyder sucks" and view the plethora of responses.

am i filing a lawsuit against the team that diverts funds and attention from much needed relief for tribes? no. but do i think the name needs to be changed? yes.

this COULD be easy. voila. this year and henceforth we're the skins or something else. DONE. which is why when i'm asked a black and white yes or no question about the name change, the obvious answer is yes.


ETA:  PROOF:  www.washingtoncitypaper.com/articles/40063/the-cranky-redskins-fans-guide-to-dan-snyder

AMEN.  Snyder is a dick, and a cheap bastard who wants to prove to everyone that he can keep the name just because he says so. 

[suzyp]

Sept 23, 2013 9:16:15 GMT -5 nursecramer said:

Sept 23, 2013 8:52:21 GMT -5 Lucy Honeychurch said:

Let me be perfectly clear. When I say no, I don't think it should be changed, I say that because I think it's a waste of time and resources to get riled up about political posturing instead of addressing the very real problems faced by Native Americans on reservations in this country.

Sure, they should change it, but they likely won't; and the sheer time and money that would have to go into petitioning for this change is a fucking waste. I'd much rather throw my support behind advanced government funding for reservation schools, or increased funding for the truly heinous state of things in an already-marginalized society.

My uncle spent his life as a human-rights lawyer on behalf of Native American tribes, most notably the Nez Perce, and even he thought the grandstanding behind a name-change for a goddamn sports team was ludicrous.

So that's where I stand on this issue. That while the term is historically negative and offensive, the impetus behind a change could be put to much better use. Having lived in Arizona and volunteered on the Papago / Tohono O'odham reservation, I can tell you things are fucking dire; and the renaming of a sports team isn't going to do a damn thing to improve the quality of life for these people.

There are already people spending time and money to try to change it. washington.cbslocal.com/2013/03/07/fight-on-battle-over-redskins-name-heads-to-court/ The NFL has plenty of both; it's the most lucrative major sport. The League fines players who utter racial slurs, even if they are not in fact currently acting as an employee of the League www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/31/riley-cooper-racist-n-word-video_n_3684651.html but they allow a team to persist in using one?

And I would think that this name change would be a great opportunity for calling attention to the current issues that Native American tribes deal with, and raising more support for them.

They are seeking to have the federal trademark cancelled - not to change the name outright - these are two very different things.  The Redskins are a private entity no one can force them to change the name.  The petitioners are seeking to cancel the federal trademark to hit the team financially to force the change. However, they would still retain the state trademark rights, so even if they are successful in the federal courts, it doesn't mean that anything will happen.

And honestly, anyone who knows Dan Snyder's M.O. know that the LAST thing he is going to do is change the name because people are trying to force him to do so. 

[CurlyQ284]

Sept 23, 2013 8:10:56 GMT -5 pagas said:

Sept 23, 2013 6:42:21 GMT -5 @barefootbarista said:

When has the term "redskin" ever meant something other than being derogatory? 

I don't understand how somebody can see both sides of an issue, when something is clearly racist. 

I'm a huge fan of the team.  We have season tickets and my dad used to coach Joe Gibbs son.  The name still sucks ass and should be changed.

Because I was raised in the DC area and when I was taught as a kid by my family, Redskin meant "football team," nothing else. 

So was I. I still say change it. I've seen several DC area posters say change it in this thread.

[BaliHai]

It blows my mind that the reasoning behind wanting the change - that it's derogatory and offensive - is not reason enough, period. Blows. my. mind.

[CrazyLucky]

I said no. I don't agree it's the same as the n-word. The n-word was never meant to be anything but a derogatory term, a put down. The team was originally named Redksins to honor their coach, who was a native american. Also, there is plenty of history that shows native americans referring to themselves as Redskins.
But the main reason I say no is this: I work in a plant with a very heavy native american population. I have talked to many of them about this, and not a single one wants them to change the name, not a one. The only poll I've seen shows that only 18% of native americans want the name changed.

[Deleted]

Look, people have said the same about all of the petitions and actions to remove the confederate flag from public spaces. I bristle at that for a number of reasons. Here in NC, there have been several recent situations where the flag was taken down from public display. Some with more fanfare than others. Did it immediately improve the socioeconomic status of my community? No. However, speaking only for myself, when someone declares publicly, on your behalf, that the marginalization and discrimination you've faced in the past is no longer acceptable in the public sphere, it's a meaningful and powerful gesture. Sure, there are people who have vocally disagreed with me, and most of them have been black. This actually says a lot to me, and I'm sure that's a topic for another day.

Articles like the one PAGAS posted that basically say, "the majority of minority X don't even care about issue Y" kind of get on my nerves. Unless the argument is that the issue shouldn't be offensive to ANYONE, it's obnoxious. I find it vaguely aggressive (for lack of a better word) to wave that type of reasoning in my face and expect me to pick a side or provide further support for why I may still be offended. Some things just aren't right.

I mean, it would be one thing if everything was just peachy, save for the football team name, or the confederate flag, or whatever. Trying to dictate what injustice a group should accept or what fight they should concede in their larger struggle for equal rights is just another manner of exerting power.

ALL of that said, I don't think anyone who feels differently than me is a racist or uninformed, or anything of the sort. I'm just offering my individual perspective here. I always feel like I should say that.

[CrazyLucky]

Sept 23, 2013 10:18:15 GMT -5 @barefootbarista said:

Sept 23, 2013 9:58:56 GMT -5 CrazyLucky said:

I said no. I don't agree it's the same as the n-word. The n-word was never meant to be anything but a derogatory term, a put down. The team was originally named Redksins to honor their coach, who was a native american. Also, there is plenty of history that shows native americans referring to themselves as Redskins.
But the main reason I say no is this: I work in a plant with a very heavy native american population. I have talked to many of them about this, and not a single one wants them to change the name, not a one. The only poll I've seen shows that only 18% of native americans want the name changed.

There is also plenty of history of black people referring to themselves as the N word.  And even if the team name was originally to honor the coach (who may or may not have had any NA heritage at all according to an expose'), the term has really never meant anything other than being derogatory.  The term Negro wasn't always meant to be derogatory either, but it is outdated and inappropriate.

I think there is a lot of debate on whether or not it had meaning that was not derogatory.  Regardless, if the people it is supposed to be derogatory against are not offended, is it really derogatory?

[CrazyLucky]

Sept 23, 2013 10:26:11 GMT -5 05heel said:

Look, people have said the same about all of the petitions and actions to remove the confederate flag from public spaces. I bristle at that for a number of reasons. Here in NC, there have been several recent situations where the flag was taken down from public display. Some with more fanfare than others. Did it immediately improve the socioeconomic status of my community? No. However, speaking only for myself, when someone declares publicly, on your behalf, that the marginalization and discrimination you've faced in the past is no longer acceptable in the public sphere, it's a meaningful and powerful gesture. Sure, there are people who have vocally disagreed with me, and most of them have been black. This actually says a lot to me, and I'm sure that's a topic for another day.

Articles like the one PAGAS posted that basically say, "the majority of minority X don't even care about issue Y" kind of get on my nerves. Unless the argument is that the issue shouldn't be offensive to ANYONE, it's obnoxious. I find it vaguely aggressive (for lack of a better word) to wave that type of reasoning in my face and expect me to pick a side or provide further support for why I may still be offended. Some things just aren't right.

I mean, it would be one thing if everything was just peachy, save for the football team name, or the confederate flag, or whatever. Trying to dictate what injustice a group should accept or what fight they should concede in their larger struggle for equal rights is just another manner of exerting power.

ALL of that said, I don't think anyone who feels differently than me is a racist or uninformed, or anything of the sort. I'm just offering my individual perspective here. I always feel like I should say that.

I'm not trying to convince you that you shouldn't be offended, not at all.  Just that, if the vast majority of people who it supposedly offends are not offended, does it really need to be changed?  
On the other hand, I completely agree with what you said about the confederate flag, so thank you for offering another perspective.

[CrazyLucky]

Sept 23, 2013 10:48:29 GMT -5 sameoldash said:

Sept 23, 2013 10:46:58 GMT -5 CrazyLucky said:

I think there is a lot of debate on whether or not it had meaning that was not derogatory.  Regardless, if the people it is supposed to be derogatory against are not offended, is it really derogatory?

so the people who have been asking for a change for the past 40+ years, they are not NA?

No, I'm not saying that.  Just that they don't necessarily represent the overall feeling of NAs.

[CurlyQ284]

Wait I just read the post that the Redskins are the third most valuable franchise in the NFL.

Not related to the topic but I'm surprised.

[Deleted]

I don't claim to know a lot about this particular term and the issues around it. But if it's the case that there are some NA groups who've been working to have it changed for 40 years, then yes, it should be changed. Additionally,I know that people joke about white liberal guilt, and white people being offended on behalf of others; but I think it should be considered that there are plenty of white folks who are offended by the term Redskin, or the Confederate flag, or plenty of other things. It's an embarrassing aspect of our history for everyone, and those that really want to cling to such symbols in the name of tradition make it uncomfortable for a lot of people. Like I said, the burden of effecting the change should not just be on the minority. You have to consider the entire context and history of why a group of people may feel a certain way.

I alluded to it in my previous post, but I have some theories about why and how minorities find themselves "unoffended" by various things that are strictly speaking, offensive. Contrary to what it may look like here, I'm far from militant or hypersensitive to racial issues. If I'm being honest with myself, it's often because I'm generally tired and demoralized. Lol (but not really). So yeah, I can see why many NA's, when asked, say that it's no big deal. I'd wager that a certain proportion of them are like me. I'm very active in my local NAACP, and we run into this all the time. I think it's sad.

[Deleted]

Sept 23, 2013 9:58:56 GMT -5 CrazyLucky said:

I said no. I don't agree it's the same as the n-word. The n-word was never meant to be anything but a derogatory term, a put down. The team was originally named Redksins to honor their coach, who was a native american. Also, there is plenty of history that shows native americans referring to themselves as Redskins.
But the main reason I say no is this: I work in a plant with a very heavy native american population. I have talked to many of them about this, and not a single one wants them to change the name, not a one. The only poll I've seen shows that only 18% of native americans want the name changed.

I don't even care if it's a derogatory or non-derogatory term.

I can't be the only one who thinks it's odd to use a group of people as a team name.  How weird would it be to have the Washington Black People or the Washington Asians or the Washington Latinos?  This is why I also take issue with the Cleveland Indians and any number of teams similarly named.

Numbers of people who want the name changed don't matter.  When segregation was at its height, do you think that the percentage of people favoring integration was high?  When slavery was at its height, do you think that the percentage of people favoring freeing the slaves was high?

No progress would be made if the majority or status quo always wins.

[CrazyLucky]

Sept 23, 2013 11:41:17 GMT -5 @misoangry said:

Sept 23, 2013 9:58:56 GMT -5 CrazyLucky said:

I said no. I don't agree it's the same as the n-word. The n-word was never meant to be anything but a derogatory term, a put down. The team was originally named Redksins to honor their coach, who was a native american. Also, there is plenty of history that shows native americans referring to themselves as Redskins.
But the main reason I say no is this: I work in a plant with a very heavy native american population. I have talked to many of them about this, and not a single one wants them to change the name, not a one. The only poll I've seen shows that only 18% of native americans want the name changed.

I don't even care if it's a derogatory or non-derogatory term.

I can't be the only one who thinks it's odd to use a group of people as a team name.  How weird would it be to have the Washington Black People or the Washington Asians or the Washington Latinos?  This is why I also take issue with the Cleveland Indians and any number of teams similarly named.

Numbers of people who want the name changed don't matter.  When segregation was at its height, do you think that the percentage of people favoring integration was high?  When slavery was at its height, do you think that the percentage of people favoring freeing the slaves was high?

No progress would be made if the majority or status quo always wins.

This isn't a hill I want to die on.  There were several people who asked the thought process of those who said no, so I gave it.  
There are so many examples of teams being named after groups of people.  The Irish, the Quakers, Demon Deacons, the Fighting Christians, etc.  So I don't think it's odd.  
No, I don't think that the majority of people wanted to end segregation.  I used that very same argument when I wrote to my state representatives when they were deciding whether to put an amendment against gay marriage up for a vote.  I said that if the general public had voted whether or not to have slavery, it would not have ended when it did.
However, I DO think that the majority of people affected by segregation and integration were for changing it.  And a majority of gay people are FOR the right to marry.  So I'll vote with them and write to my congressperson and try to convince conservatives down here that gay marriage is good.  If gay people didn't care that they couldn't marry, I probably wouldn't either.  From the limited knowledge I have, Native americans don't care that much about whether or not to change the team name.  So, no, I wouldn't change it.

[LLL]

oh lord.

[CrazyLucky]

Sept 23, 2013 10:55:32 GMT -5 @barefootbarista said:

Sept 23, 2013 10:52:45 GMT -5 CrazyLucky said:

No, I'm not saying that.  Just that they don't necessarily represent the overall feeling of NAs.

Well, I know some older black people that don't mind the term Negro and some younger ones that don't mind the N word. 

Nothing represents the overall feeling of any group of people.

Absolutely.  So what is the tipping point?  If 10% of people affected by it are offended, does it need to change? There has to be some threshold.

[CrazyLucky]

Sept 23, 2013 12:19:35 GMT -5 @barefootbarista said:

Sept 23, 2013 12:14:43 GMT -5 CrazyLucky said:

Absolutely.  So what is the tipping point?  If 10% of people affected by it are offended, does it need to change? There has to be some threshold.

No, there does not.  The threshold is simply that it is offensive, outdated, and inappropriate.  That is enough. I realize I'm not going to change your mind, but hopefully someone else reading this may rethink their stance.

You guys DID make me rethink my stance. 

[LLL]

Sept 23, 2013 12:14:43 GMT -5 CrazyLucky said:

Sept 23, 2013 10:55:32 GMT -5 @barefootbarista said:

Well, I know some older black people that don't mind the term Negro and some younger ones that don't mind the N word. 

Nothing represents the overall feeling of any group of people.

Absolutely.  So what is the tipping point?  If 10% of people affected by it are offended, does it need to change? There has to be some threshold.

Well for 1 the name offends more than just the minority group in question. 2 the fact that many Native Americans are apathetic (I guess? I don't know the stats) to the name change speaks more to the marginalization and dismissal of the issues facing that community then "Oh, they don't have a problem with it"