G
Gblock
Oct 31, 2013 11:15am
If there was a thread about this and i missed it i apologize.
How do you feel about this? Should it be changed or stay the same?
I keep going back and forth..on one hand some find it offensive, if i was native american i may absolutely want it changed. On the other hand i see it as honoring those native americans in the past. to ban the name almost feels like no one will ever really know that the they existed except for some lessons in school around thanksgiving.
Also why do the redskins get all the grief..is it more offensive than the cleveland indians or the kansas city chiefs because of the redskin reference??
Discuss
How do you feel about this? Should it be changed or stay the same?
I keep going back and forth..on one hand some find it offensive, if i was native american i may absolutely want it changed. On the other hand i see it as honoring those native americans in the past. to ban the name almost feels like no one will ever really know that the they existed except for some lessons in school around thanksgiving.
Also why do the redskins get all the grief..is it more offensive than the cleveland indians or the kansas city chiefs because of the redskin reference??
Discuss
justincredible
Posts: 32,056
Oct 31, 2013 11:17am
I think Dan Snyder should be free to do as he pleases with the name of the team.
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Oct 31, 2013 11:20am
Normally I would agree but when you are a franchise you also have to have the blessing of the franchisor.justincredible;1526546 wrote:I think Dan Snyder should be free to do as he pleases with the name of the team.
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.
sleeper
Posts: 27,879
Oct 31, 2013 11:20am
Redskins isn't offensive. These people need to grow up.
Raw Dawgin' it
Posts: 11,466
Oct 31, 2013 11:20am
The name doesn't honor native americans - it honors the boston tea party when americans dressed up as indians.
Most native americans don't find the name offensive, and i bet most people associate redskins with football, not a racial slur.
With that said, no team would name themselves the spooks, coons, camel jockeys, shylocks, queers etc. Native Americans do get shit on more than anyone else, but there have been polls showing most people do not find it offensive, including Native Americans.
Most native americans don't find the name offensive, and i bet most people associate redskins with football, not a racial slur.
With that said, no team would name themselves the spooks, coons, camel jockeys, shylocks, queers etc. Native Americans do get shit on more than anyone else, but there have been polls showing most people do not find it offensive, including Native Americans.
T
thavoice
Posts: 14,376
Oct 31, 2013 11:21am
Keep it the same and I think he will.
Now...when he sells it I could see it getting changed.
Now...when he sells it I could see it getting changed.
sleeper
Posts: 27,879
Oct 31, 2013 11:23am
Actually I'm pretty sure you could name a team "The Crackers" and it'd be fine. It's only offensive when it involves black people(like if the Redskins was called "the Monkeys" we'd never hear the end).Raw Dawgin' it;1526556 wrote:The name doesn't honor native americans - it honors the boston tea party when americans dressed up as indians.
Most native americans don't find the name offensive, and i bet most people associate redskins with football, not a racial slur.
With that said, no team would name themselves the spooks, coons, camel jockeys, shylocks, queers etc. Native Americans do get shit on more than anyone else, but there have been polls showing most people do not find it offensive, including Native Americans.
Raw Dawgin' it
Posts: 11,466
Oct 31, 2013 11:29am
I agree - black community looks for any reason to cry racism.sleeper;1526563 wrote:Actually I'm pretty sure you could name a team "The Crackers" and it'd be fine. It's only offensive when it involves black people(like if the Redskins was called "the Monkeys" we'd never hear the end).
Q
queencitybuckeye
Posts: 7,117
Oct 31, 2013 11:29am
The part that bothers me is the notion of news organizations not using the word. I thought they were supposed to report, not shape, the news.
T
thavoice
Posts: 14,376
Oct 31, 2013 11:30am
Which ones are refusing to say it?queencitybuckeye;1526582 wrote:The part that bothers me is the notion of news organizations not using the word. I thought they were supposed to report, not shape, the news.
Q
queencitybuckeye
Posts: 7,117
Oct 31, 2013 11:32am
I believe the SF Chronicle is the latest. Peter King is on board, which should tell people what side they should take.thavoice;1526584 wrote:Which ones are refusing to say it?
Raw Dawgin' it
Posts: 11,466
Oct 31, 2013 11:34am
Matthew Berry won't say it either. All these people who won't say it are asshole bandwagoners. Where were they when they first heard the name?
T
thavoice
Posts: 14,376
Oct 31, 2013 11:34am
Well hell, it is SF, that in itself should tell everyone how rediculous this is.queencitybuckeye;1526589 wrote:I believe the SF Chronicle is the latest. Peter King is on board, which should tell people what side they should take.
Didnt know PK was on board with it. Does he really believe it or just playing to his constituancy (sp?)
Heretic
Posts: 18,820
Oct 31, 2013 11:47am
I'm conflicted.
On one hand, I have no problem with the name, personally. And I do get annoyed as fuck when groups change long-time names just for the interest of being PC. Although this wouldn't be near as hilariously stupid of an issue as when the same city changed the Bullets to the (GHEY ALERT!) Wizards, I'd still find myself a bit annoyed.
On the other hand, Dan Snyder is a grade A incompetent douchenozzle of an owner and anything negative happening to him is great by me! If the end result is him sticking to his guns until an angry mob gets him and rips him limb from limb, that might be the perfect case scenario.
On one hand, I have no problem with the name, personally. And I do get annoyed as fuck when groups change long-time names just for the interest of being PC. Although this wouldn't be near as hilariously stupid of an issue as when the same city changed the Bullets to the (GHEY ALERT!) Wizards, I'd still find myself a bit annoyed.
On the other hand, Dan Snyder is a grade A incompetent douchenozzle of an owner and anything negative happening to him is great by me! If the end result is him sticking to his guns until an angry mob gets him and rips him limb from limb, that might be the perfect case scenario.
sleeper
Posts: 27,879
Oct 31, 2013 11:58am
To piggyback on this, should white people be outraged of the name "Cowboys" or "Yankees"? Those are both offensive to me; please change thanks.sleeper;1526554 wrote:Redskins isn't offensive. These people need to grow up.
But seriously, the Redskins should offer 1% of all ticket and merchandising sales to some tribe that speaks the loudest and watch how their outrage disappears. This is simply a money grab which is what these minorities truly care about.
OSH
Posts: 4,145
Oct 31, 2013 12:14pm
I am completely against team names and depictions of Native Americans like certain teams do: Washington (football), Cleveland (baseball), Atlanta (baseball), Chicago (hockey -- even though the name is based off of military, the mascot is not), and any number of others.
Florida State and Utah (colleges) are different, in my opinion, because they do have the "blessing" of the tribes that are depicted AND I do believe there is some given back to those tribes. I think it is completely unnecessary to utilize human beings in the context they are being used. There's no need to continue to racially stereotype Native Americans the way they are being depicted.
The term "redskin" isn't directed toward the pigment of the skin, like many believe. Its roots go much more heinous and cruel.
Florida State and Utah (colleges) are different, in my opinion, because they do have the "blessing" of the tribes that are depicted AND I do believe there is some given back to those tribes. I think it is completely unnecessary to utilize human beings in the context they are being used. There's no need to continue to racially stereotype Native Americans the way they are being depicted.
The term "redskin" isn't directed toward the pigment of the skin, like many believe. Its roots go much more heinous and cruel.
Raw Dawgin' it
Posts: 11,466
Oct 31, 2013 12:55pm
Didn't Vikings rape women and kill entire villages?sleeper;1526637 wrote:To piggyback on this, should white people be outraged of the name "Cowboys" or "Yankees"? Those are both offensive to me; please change thanks.
But seriously, the Redskins should offer 1% of all ticket and merchandising sales to some tribe that speaks the loudest and watch how their outrage disappears. This is simply a money grab which is what these minorities truly care about.
Raw Dawgin' it
Posts: 11,466
Oct 31, 2013 12:57pm
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.OSH;1526655 wrote:The term "redskin" isn't directed toward the pigment of the skin, like many believe. Its roots go much more heinous and cruel.
derek bomar
Posts: 3,722
Oct 31, 2013 12:57pm
What about The "Fightin Irish"?Raw Dawgin' it;1526556 wrote:The name doesn't honor native americans - it honors the boston tea party when americans dressed up as indians.
Most native americans don't find the name offensive, and i bet most people associate redskins with football, not a racial slur.
With that said, no team would name themselves the spooks, coons, camel jockeys, shylocks, queers etc. Native Americans do get shit on more than anyone else, but there have been polls showing most people do not find it offensive, including Native Americans.
Raw Dawgin' it
Posts: 11,466
Oct 31, 2013 12:59pm
Most Micks get hammered and fight so it's appropriate.derek bomar;1526708 wrote:What about The "Fightin Irish"?
Rotinaj
Posts: 7,699
Oct 31, 2013 1:03pm
I think every team should be called the Rainbows.
T
thavoice
Posts: 14,376
Oct 31, 2013 1:07pm
Didnt hawaii have to change their name away from Rainbows?Rotinaj;1526711 wrote:I think every team should be called the Rainbows.
vdubb96
Posts: 2,210
Oct 31, 2013 1:16pm
Don't know if they were forced too but I think they are the Warriors now?thavoice;1526715 wrote:Didnt hawaii have to change their name away from Rainbows?
The whole name change thing is stupid. It's about as dumb as my freshmen year at Wright State when they changed the "viking" looking Rowdy Raider to a freaking wolf!!! What the hell? The explenation from the president as to why they changed it to a wolf but kept the name "raiders" was unreal.
HitsRus
Posts: 9,206
Oct 31, 2013 1:42pm
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.There's no need to continue to racially stereotype Native Americans the way they are being depicted.
fish82
Posts: 4,111
Oct 31, 2013 2:35pm
If I were Dan Snyder, I'd change it to the Drunken Scalp Takers.