F*cking who cares what they are called. The Redskins should be more concerned if rg3 will ever become a quality god damn effin' pocket qb.

lOl

Calling Native Americans "braves," "warriors," "chiefs," and the like are stereotypical terms that many want to get away from. Native Americans are just regular people and don't need to be used as mascots.

....yes according to the world of political correctness in which you have been thoroughly indoctrinated. Thickening of one's skin to the realities of life..."sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me." ...has been replaced with heavy handed but limp-wristed 'self esteem' fluff....and of course, the laying of guilt on anybody of European origin and white skin.

...and yes we are being systematically indoctrinated. The first thing that college freshman are shunted to is a diversity class ...at Mount Union they actually call it "Liberal Studies"..or to a class of similar content...where kids of white European origin are taught to accept guilt for their ancestors' indiscretions, and oppressed minorities are taught how to take advantage of that. It comes in handy when those kids start asking questions like..." How come he gets more financial aid than I do, but my grades are better?" We all know the answer to that...and we willingly accept that, even though it flies in the face of "equality".

What college freshman really need is a course in critical thinking so they can sort out what is real and what is fluff and manipulative.

Things like equal pay for equal work is real. Anti discrimination laws in hiring is real. Going after sports team's names and mascots is manipulation and it should be recognized for what it is. No one really believes Native Americans are bright red skinned with big whites eyes and toothy grins, any more than they believe that descendants of Leif Errikson look and act like Hagar the Horrible. But it is an area where activists can gain political clout and legitimacy within their communities by winning trivial battles.( read: the activities of Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton and how they got their reputation of representives of the black community).

If the Redskins (or the Indians, or Braves or Blackhawks) change their name...absolutely nothing will change for Native Americans in real terms.

Now as an Indians fan, and a person who looks at the Wahoo logo with a great deal of affection, I can accept a name change....not because the arguements for it have any value, because in reality in is nothing but manipulation....but because, in reality, the political climate that allows such stuff is not going to change, and I'm sick and tired of hearing about it and giving them a forum. In other words, even though I recognize that I'm being manipulated (at least I recognize it)...I surrender because I'm out flanked.

OSH;1527781 wrote:I guess they do have a pretty controversial depiction of the people group...

So it's only about the logo, not the name? Then the Redskins can just change the logo and the name can stay?

Calling Native Americans "braves," "warriors," "chiefs," and the like are stereotypical terms that many want to get away from. Native Americans are just regular people and don't need to be used as mascots.

As a white person, I should demand all teams with white people logos change, because white people's ancestors were cowboys, vikings, yankees, patriots, 49ers, etc. And those all are stereotypical terms. I am just a regular white person and don't need to be used as a mascot.

Washington Dipshits has a nice ring to it.

Tiernan;1527978 wrote:Washington Dipshits has a nice ring to it.

Can you imagine how offensive that would be to congressmen. Have you no heart?

bases_loaded;1528090 wrote:Can you imagine how offensive that would be to congressmen. Have you no heart?

Reps.

Change the name, or if you want to "honor the Native Americans" change it to a war chief, like Red Clouds (look him up).
Otherwise, change it to reflect the city, use Senators maybe.

HitsRus;1527884 wrote:....yes according to the world of political correctness in which you have been thoroughly indoctrinated.

...and yes we are being systematically indoctrinated.

If the Redskins (or the Indians, or Braves or Blackhawks) change their name...absolutely nothing will change for Native Americans in real terms.

Go ahead and say what you want. I made up the decision on my own. I lived in a state that probably has the highest population of Native Americans (or at least real close to it). I've also been around a lot of people of different ethnicity...there's a lot that is said by everyone that just shouldn't be said. It has nothing to do with "having thicker skin." It's about respect. I want to respect what other people feel. I want to respect when discrimination and derogatory terms/depictions/etc. shouldn't be present. Again, the caricatures and/or language was present and that's exactly what the Nazis used to aid their "war" against Judaism.

I don't believe it's indoctrination. I believe it's treating people with respect. If 60% believe it's alright to name a team that...it only means 40% do not agree with it. That's 40% that are extremely disrespected and discriminated against. It's the same reason why I no longer say "Indian run" or "sit Indian style." It's stereotypical and unnecessary. The same can be said for ANY amount of terms used towards anyone of a different skin color or ethnic background. We all know what terms we should or shouldn't use...why then would it be okay to consistently give Native Americans red skin and caricature them as "braves," "warriors," or "chiefs?"

And...I am all for thickening of skin. I think it's getting to a point where the federal subsidies for Native Americans needs to be reduced OR stopped. We have come a long way and it's time where handouts need to stop -- but same can be said for Welfare, etc. That's another subject...

WebFire;1527901 wrote:So it's only about the logo, not the name? Then the Redskins can just change the logo and the name can stay?

Not at all. Where'd that come from? I've always stood up against logo and name.

OSH;1528233 wrote: Not at all. Where'd that come from? I've always stood up against logo and name.

It came from your reply to my post about the Yankees. So do you agree the Yankees need to change as well?

WebFire;1528235 wrote:It came from your reply to my post about the Yankees. So do you agree the Yankees need to change as well?

This is what my post about the logo was in reference to, as well. When used by any non-American or southerner, Yankee is almost exclusively an insult. If he thinks the Yankees name is fine because their logo doesn't create a caricature of the population it is referring to, then nothing is wrong with the Redskins.

Yankee and Redskin are not similar. Redskin was often a derogatory tem used to describe Native Americans in general terms as a negative. The name did not come from within that culture, whereas Yankee comes from within.

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1528308 wrote:Yankee and Redskin are not similar. Redskin was often a derogatory tem used to describe Native Americans in general terms as a negative. The name did not come from within that culture, whereas Yankee comes from within.

Does it matter? It offends someone therefore it needs to be removed. This is the logic of the world that we currently live in.

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1528308 wrote:Yankee and Redskin are not similar. Redskin was often a derogatory tem used to describe Native Americans in general terms as a negative. The name did not come from within that culture, whereas Yankee comes from within.

The northerners did not call themselves Yankees.

ptown_trojans_1;1528194 wrote:Change the name, or if you want to "honor the Native Americans" change it to a war chief, like Red Clouds (look him up).
Otherwise, change it to reflect the city, use Senators maybe.

"Inept Dbags" has quite the ring to it.

WebFire;1528235 wrote:It came from your reply to my post about the Yankees. So do you agree the Yankees need to change as well?

Ok. I see where you went with it then.

GOONx19;1528303 wrote:This is what my post about the logo was in reference to, as well. When used by any non-American or southerner, Yankee is almost exclusively an insult. If he thinks the Yankees name is fine because their logo doesn't create a caricature of the population it is referring to, then nothing is wrong with the Redskins.

Caricature is absolutely wrong. The term is just as racist as ANY other derogatory term used for any ethnic groups.

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1528308 wrote:Yankee and Redskin are not similar. Redskin was often a derogatory tem used to describe Native Americans in general terms as a negative. The name did not come from within that culture, whereas Yankee comes from within.

Yep. Very true.

WebFire;1528332 wrote:The northerners did not call themselves Yankees.

Maybe they do in places. I do know that many countries call ALL Americans "Yanks." That's not a derogatory term from them either. It's probably a way to differentiate these "US Americans" from Central Americans and South Americans (or even other North Americans) -- this is a speculation. Never really asked an international why "Yanks" for those that live in the United States.

OSH wants to live in a world where no one is offended. Basically he's a giant ***** and a pathetic human being.

The word "Yankee" is thought to have originated as a derogatory term for the English by Dutch settlers, but the first recorded sue of the word to descibe Americans came in the French and Indian War where the term was used both by the British and Indians (how's that for your PC world?) to describe colonists fighting in the war. The term resurfaced a few years later when the British used the term for the colonists during the Revolution. It is said to be slang 'dolt' or 'penis head'. The song Yankee Doodle originated and was played by British military bands as an insult to the revolutionaries, but as the war turned , the triumphant colonists co-opted and used the song to taunt the retreating British.

OSH;1528347 wrote: Maybe they do in places. I do know that many countries call ALL Americans "Yanks." That's not a derogatory term from them either.

Yes, it is.

Yan·kee
ˈyaNGkē/
noun informal

• 1.
  derogatory
  a person who lives in, or is from, the US.
• 2.
  an inhabitant of New England or one of the northern states.

Down South there are folks who call northerners Yankees and are specifically doing so in an effort to insult.

OSH;1528347 wrote: I do know that many countries call ALL Americans "Yanks." That's not a derogatory term from them either.

Wait...what??? That is so contradictory it isnt even funny.

I know PLENNNNTY of people who dont mean anything derogatory by the phrase indians, braves, chiefs, even redskins. I know TONNNS of people who use the term hick, guido, etc as just a way to describe. Its the same damn thing.

I went to Charlotte for a Nascar race many moons ago. When we checked into the campground, we had to show our driver's license. The guy looked at them, looked at us, laughed and said "damn yankees".

I equate it to the judge who said of pornography, "I know it when I see it.". I don't remember his name. Anyway, I don't suggest everyone in the world can be protected from offense. However when there is a critical mass of people of an affected group that reasonably judges something inappropriate, it warranets a hearing. Measured against the history of Native American culture on this continent, I can understand how 'Redskins' meets this definition.

HitsRus;1527884 wrote:....yes according to the world of political correctness in which you have been thoroughly indoctrinated. Thickening of one's skin to the realities of life..."sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me." ...has been replaced with heavy handed but limp-wristed 'self esteem' fluff....and of course, the laying of guilt on anybody of European origin and white skin.

...and yes we are being systematically indoctrinated. The first thing that college freshman are shunted to is a diversity class ...at Mount Union they actually call it "Liberal Studies"..or to a class of similar content...where kids of white European origin are taught to accept guilt for their ancestors' indiscretions, and oppressed minorities are taught how to take advantage of that. It comes in handy when those kids start asking questions like..." How come he gets more financial aid than I do, but my grades are better?" We all know the answer to that...and we willingly accept that, even though it flies in the face of "equality".

What college freshman really need is a course in critical thinking so they can sort out what is real and what is fluff and manipulative.

Things like equal pay for equal work is real. Anti discrimination laws in hiring is real. Going after sports team's names and mascots is manipulation and it should be recognized for what it is. No one really believes Native Americans are bright red skinned with big whites eyes and toothy grins, any more than they believe that descendants of Leif Errikson look and act like Hagar the Horrible. But it is an area where activists can gain political clout and legitimacy within their communities by winning trivial battles.( read: the activities of Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton and how they got their reputation of representives of the black community).

If the Redskins (or the Indians, or Braves or Blackhawks) change their name...absolutely nothing will change for Native Americans in real terms.

A voice of reason amid the progressive idiocy.

WebFire;1528430 wrote:Yes, it is.

Yan·kee
ˈyaNGkē/
noun informal

• 1.
  derogatory
  a person who lives in, or is from, the US.
• 2.
  an inhabitant of New England or one of the northern states.

Con_Alma;1528439 wrote:Down South there are folks who call northerners Yankees and are specifically doing so in an effort to insult.

Laley23;1528441 wrote:Wait...what??? That is so contradictory it isnt even funny.

I know PLENNNNTY of people who dont mean anything derogatory by the phrase indians, braves, chiefs, even redskins. I know TONNNS of people who use the term hick, guido, etc as just a way to describe. Its the same damn thing.

There are plenty of sources that can be quoted and personal stories by any amount of people who can tell of different usages. The fact of the matter, Yankee isn't really derogatory -- especially these days. No one really ever says, "Don't use that word." It is very similar to the term "Indian." Native Americans aren't saying the term "Indian" is what is derogatory, it's the caricatures of them and the symbolism that is being used. Native Americans aren't carrying around arrowheads, tomahawks, spears, or wearing feathers, headdresses, and deer skins. Nor do they have red skin. It's all stereotypical depictions. They are also the only people group that is used throughout sport for this sort of thing.

Okay, okay, I know...Fighting Irish, Spartans, Vikings, etc. etc. etc. Where is the plight of those people groups these days? Heck, where was it ever really at? The teams and/or schools that went with many of those mascots too, they celebrated themselves -- i.e., Minnesota was settled by Scandinavians, so they used Vikings. No Native Americans created the Washington football team, Cleveland baseball team, or Atlanta baseball team, to name a few. So, when Haskell Indian Nations University went with "Indians" as its mascot, they are celebrating themselves.

We all know people who use the term "*****" or "gay," but never intend on using it derogatory...but there are many that believe it is. Hence, why "gay" is never hardly used as meaning "happy" anymore. It would not be okay to use other racial imagery, so why should it be okay to use Native American imagery?

“What is completely unacceptable is the use of iconography that reinforces the ‘Myth of the Redman,’ instead of the actual people of this land. The Braves, the Redskins, and the Indians base their icons on the popular image of Native people that was fed to Eastern Americans in the late 19th century, through the Wild West Show. This Redman, of course, is a myth, whose culture and way of life is so far removed from the actual lives of native people that it’s hard to see that representation as anything more noble than the black-faced performers they replaced in Vaudeville shows.”