They likely did this to white people so its okay.Raw Dawgin' it;1526705 wrote:Didn't Vikings rape women and kill entire villages?
I am pretty sure they just had a sex boat party with prostitutesRaw Dawgin' it;1526705 wrote:Didn't Vikings rape women and kill entire villages?
If the name comes from the Boston Tea Party, then why do they use a Native American in EVERYTHING?Raw Dawgin' it;1526707 wrote:Name comes from Boston tea party when they were the Boston redskins. Back when people called indians redskins and it wasn't racist. Just like the term colored and negro used to be acceptable. Most people associate Redskin with the NFL.
I think this is far from the truth. Many people advocating against the term want to do away with injustice and racial hatred/stereotypes. Would the people who complained about slavery also be those that had "political axes to grind?" Slavery was discrimination...but yet people fought it. And those that fought it were not the ones that were slaves or held slaves. It was the people who saw it was wrong (on many fronts) and discriminatory.HitsRus;1526754 wrote:The only people who complain about stereotypes are those with political axes to grind, and hence they get a forum to advance their agenda. It is a shame that people are so easily suckered into believing that these 'depictions' actually contribute to continuing discrimination.
White people are all the scum of the earth . They are not human so they deserve no rights . It's fashionable to hate white people especially, if you are white .sleeper;1526856 wrote:They likely did this to white people so its okay.
I think this place should change it's name. As an "Ohio Native" I find the name of this site offensive.justincredible;1526546 wrote:I think Dan Snyder should be free to do as he pleases with the name of the team.
This would not work either. It would be seen as favoritism to whites and exclusionary to those of other skin "colors".sleeper;1526923 wrote:Actually he should change the name to the Washington Whiteskins so minorities can stop complaining about everything.
I was literally just about to post this. You can't win with minorities; they never stop complaining about everything skin related. I guess if my life sucked I'd complain all the time too especially about pointless topics like skin color.majorspark;1527072 wrote:This would not work either. It would be seen as favoritism to whites and exclusionary to those of other skin "colors".
Natives slaughtered other natives over land all the time. It was the same reason for everyone involved, white guys just happened to be better, so naturally, white guys are terrible.OSH;1526949 wrote:They are also regular people who were slaughtered and pushed away for no reason.
There is no franchisor. NFL teams operate independently and only adhere to NFL "rules" to get their share of the league revenue.Con_Alma;1526552 wrote:Normally I would agree but when you are a franchise you also have to have the blessing of the franchisor.
The business operations itself, however, should make/keep the name whatever the heck they want it to be...offensive or not. The patrons will either accept it or not.
Does this do anything for that?HitsRus;1526988 wrote:no problem..........no problem.......no problem.....
BIG problem???? WTF?
A leprechaun isn’t a real person, and there’s not a contemporary community of Leprechauns who are undergoing active colonialism and actively fighting misrepresentations. I totally feel for all those leprechauns living in poverty while the US government continues to systematically marginalize them through ongoing policies that ignore their inherent sovereignty and Indigenous rights to the land. While the Irish may have had a history of oppression in the US, no one can argue that they are still marginalized or would be categorized as anything other than part of the majority culture.
Indian is also slag and offensive. They're not from India, Columbus was a huge idiot.Laley23;1527278 wrote:Ive never understood what is offensive about it?
So the mascots used in sports are sometimes cartooned a bit...who cares? They wouldnt be using your name as a mascot if they didnt think you were "tough, scary, hard working, etc". Its much more of a compliment to these tribes and other groups than discriminatory.
No one in sports is poking fun at the tribes. They arent making fun of their existence. They arent making fun of the way you live or lived. Its literally because its a cartooned picture or the name is slang??? Is that it? Would all the natives be happy if the Indians changed Chief Wahoo to a dark brown and didnt have the big eyes and smile? Just a normal drawing of an "indian"? Would that magically make it all better? Cause that is the only thing they are doing that is considered offensive...
So the name of the team is "Fighting Leprechauns"?A leprechaun isn’t a real person
who are undergoing active colonialism and actively fighting misrepresentations. I totally feel for all those leprechauns living in poverty while the US government continues to systematically marginalize them through ongoing policies that ignore their inherent sovereignty and Indigenous rights to the land.
The name "Fighting Irish" officially dates back to 1927...but dates back to the origins of the Universityof Notre Dame in the early-mid 1800's....and was every bit part of the "history" of Irish oppression". The difference now...is that the Irish have assimilated into the country....all of this DESPITE the popularization of this characture.While the Irish may have had a history of oppression in the US, no one can argue that they are still marginalized or would be categorized as anything other than part of the majority culture.
sleeper;1527089 wrote:I was literally just about to post this. You can't win with minorities; they never stop complaining about everything skin related. I guess if my life sucked I'd complain all the time too especially about pointless topics like skin color.