I agree with you. I"m not overly bothered with the name, but I think it'd be better to change their name. Washington Senators or something might be interesting. You don't really have to change the logo a whole lot in that case. Just the skin color and maybe make it light red instead of deep red.
I agree. Keep the logo, colors, and everything the same, just change the last name to something else... Senators, Generals, Americans, what would really be the big deal? Use Washington Americans (or something), keep the same logo, ad move on.
Keep the logo but change the name? It's a fucking Indian head. Here's an idea, lets keep our logo and everything but change the name to the sailboats. Yea that makes sense.
clearly, if the name is going to be changed, the only option that should considered should be the Washing Gofuckyourselfyoufuckingpussies.
I think it's a fair point that the Natives weren't skipping through the forest playing patty-cake with each other before the Europeans got here. That is a FACT. His team, his decision.
So your conclusion is that the name shouldn't be changed because you can't find anything in our history books about the name specifically being used to degrade. Meanwhile, you completely undercut your own argument by stating that the history books on what happened were written by the white men, who wouldn't put things like that in there, and that the other side always differs with their interpretation of history. So, how do you expect to find what you're looking for in the books you openly acknowledge wouldn't have what you're looking for?
Collin Cowherd was talking about this this morning so I figured I would add it to the discussion: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/02/AR2005100201139.html
It amazes me how some people just can't get their brain around how offensive this name is to the people it's describing. I wonder if all these posters who think the name is just fine, would have the same opinion if we were opening the 2013 season against the Lazy Niggers, or the Greasy Murdering Wops, or the Lowlife Drunken Micks, or the Hook Nosed Jews, or the Bean Eating Wetbacks, or the Dumbass Pollacks ... have I hit it yet guys?? Do you have a problem with any of those? I hope not, since every fucking one of them is the equivalent of "Redskins". If you can't see how the name Redskins is offensive and racist you need to take your head out of your ass. I'm not a member of the Political Correctness Police and in most cases I can't stand the political correctness in this country ... But Jesus Christ, some things are just common sense. Use your fucking head. This isn't rocket science ... It's 2+2 = 4. If you want to say the guy has the right to name his team whatever he wants, that's a different argument, but let's not act like the term Redskins isn't a racial slur because it sureasfuck is. EDIT -- and I find it almost comical that people on here think Redskins is ok, but everyone is VERY careful to make sure they say "N-word" so they don't offend anyone.
Those names you described aren't the equivalent to Redskins. If they were the Washington Savage Bastard Redskins then maybe. But they aren't. It might be a little offensive and it's certainly not the best choice for a team name, but you shouldn't try to make it out to look worse than it is just to make your argument seem better, that's a little exaggeration. We can argue this up and down but it doesn't matter because they aren't changing the name of one of the oldest, most lucrative, and most popular franchises in all of sports. That's simply bad business.
The bad business argument is a completely different argument and money usually wins, so you'r probably right. Did I exaggerate? Maybe ... But the point still stands. Let's not try to pretend that the name isn't a racist slur. That's exactly what it is ... And if it isn't, walk up to the first Native American you see and say "hey, what's up Redskin!" ... You think he might be offended? And if he's tough enough you think he might punch your lights out? Or do you actually think he'll be totally cool with it? Feel free to give me your honest answer.
the problem isn't whether someone is offended by a name; I could be offended by being called white person, that doesn't mean that the term white person is offensive and my complaint has merit. the question is whether the term's usage is based on a discriminatory, offensive or demeaning motivation and thus its use continues to discriminate, offend or demean. that is why the linguistic study I posted above is relevant, and if you are going to take the position that people are somehow lacking intellectually because they don't believe the term is offensive, than you have to dispute the study that supports the assertion that it does not have an offensive meaning. if it was a term used by the Indians themselves, and was merely a descriptive equivalent of white skin (which is no different than white person), than their is nothing inherently offensive about the term and anyone whining about it is being as irrational as I would be to claim the term white person is offensive and should not be used. so either validate your argument with facts that the term is a term whose historic usage was meant to offend or you have no ground to question anyone's intellectually ability that supports its usage. in fact, you would be the one that would be having the trouble getting your brain around the argument that it is not offensive just because someone now wants to claim it as.
While they're at it I'd appreciate it if they changed the Notre Dame Fighting Irish to the Notre Dame Molesting Priests. I find the term fighting irish extremely offensive. It's just like calling a team the "Lazy Niggers" as another poster suggested. or not.
Randomly walking up to someone you don't know and calling them a "redskin" is much different than "The Washington Redskins" though.. At this point in time the Washington brand has exceeded the connotation. A Native American would probably find a random guy calling him a redskin to his face offensive but I'm willing to bet that same guy doesn't find The Washington Redskins offensive. Hell, maybe he likes the name?
I've noticed this argument by a few posters in this thread and it is not even in remotely the same class/ballpark as what we're talking about. Changing the name Redskins isn't about just changing any and all names that someone claims is offensive. It isn't about that. It is about changing names that were once used to degrade, belittle, and suppress people. So you can't just go around claiming "oh, well, this offends me, or that offends me." It doesn't work like that. None of those names have the same connotation as Redskin, negro, dago, chink, spick, or anything else in that category.
and now you have to present the evidence that supports your position that the term Redskin was used to degrade, belittle and suppress. without it, you have no basis to claim Redskin belongs grouped with words like negro, dago, chink or spick. whether the article I posted is true or not I don't know, but it is written by someone who has taken an academic and historical approach to the subject and claims to have evidence that disputes your assertion.
Didn't the name redskin stick because they put red paint on their face, not just the color of their skin? I usually can't stand Cowherd, but he made some really good points today. We have a team named the Hurricanes, when thousands of people died from hurricanes in recent times. Shouldn't that be offensive? What about the Katrina and Sandy victims? Giant is an offensive word used to describe tall people. Guess we should ban that. Bills is offensive to poor people. Redskin isn't a slur, nobody uses it that way. If anything, it's a tribute to the native americans to have a football team named after them. To me, it suggests honor, courage, fortitude and mental toughness. Football players are warriors battling in the trenches. There is no negative connotation associated with that and when was the last time you heard anybody even describe a native american as a redskin? Whenever I hear that word I think of football and 99% of people probably are the same way.
A bunch of words that add up to nothing. The only validation required is the fact the the very people you're describing clearly ARE offended by the word, and they've let it be know in no uncertain terms that they're offended. If people continue to use it after being told that, at worst they're insensitive and at best let's just be kind and call it oafish behavior. Seriously ...listen to how ridiculous that sounds: "Hey JetBlue ... Don't call me a Redskin. I'm offended by it" "Oh no ... Don't be offended. I looked up a linguistic study and it says the term isn't offensive, so you don't have the right to be offended. I'm just going to keep calling you a Redskin until you can find a study that proves to me the term was used in a derogatory manner. In fact, I'll say it again right now" Cut to a fist flying towards your chin, and a trip to the local emergency room or the nearest dentist. Look ... There are plenty of reasons not to change the name, and they have a lot of zeros behind them. But claimng that the name isn't offensive isn't one of them.
