Should the Redskins change their name?

[htownfan32]

I think Snyder should change his football team's name to either something less controversial like....

or to the most derogatory name/mascot I can think of...

Washington
Politicians​

LGBT Muslim Communists...

I really wonder how many actually exist. Like... 5 in the whole world, maybe? Snyder could get one of them to be the live mascot.

 

[Double Barrel]

Yvette, it's much easier to paint the descendants of this country's indigenous population with a broad brush as caracatures. Once someone's culture has been subjegated and damn near eradicated many see them as fair game. I just learned that my maternal great grandmother belonged to THIS nation: http://www.atakapa-ishak.org/

Strangely enough even if I hadn't known that I would still have found the team name as offensive as New Orleans N:883rs, New Jersey J@ps, Cinicinati China-men. Those are extreme examples but there are people who no matter how much you simplify just won't get it.

If someone really wants to challenge themselves by looking beyond their own internal thought processes, consider this scenario:

The NFL grants an expansion team to San Antonio.

The owner/city decides to "honor" Hispanics (as a whole) by calling the team the San Antonio Brownskins.

The logo on the side of the helmet is a sombrero. Like this one:

And every created 'tradition' includes stereotyping ALL Hispanic and Latin American cultures into simple cartoonish caricatures.

I wonder how "honored" all Hispanics would feel with such a thing?

Then we could have the Portland Yellowskins, or the Ft. Worth Blackskins. You know, to "honor" all the racial diversity in this country.

Their name is the Cardinals because their uniform color they originally wore was "cardinal red". It wasn't because they liked a bird. Just saying

That's fine. You just answered Nitrofish's question:

Why would someone name their team after something they saw as weak and inferior to themselves?

 

[Dread-Head]

And every created 'tradition' includes stereotyping ALL Hispanic and Latin American cultures into simple cartoonish caricatures.

I wonder how "honored" all Hispanics would feel with such a thing?

That's fine. You just answered Nitrofish's question:
Why would someone name their team after something they saw as weak and inferior to themselves?

I got a few. Use the top one for: The Mobile Mexicans if Alabama ever gets an NFL team.

Let's take a look at the bottom ones: The Newark Negroes! New Jersey needs more football!

Let's give LA a new team and call the The L.A. Asians!
Waka Waka! I got a MILLION of 'em!

 

[StarStruck]

I got a few. Use the top one for: The Mobile Mexicans if Alabama ever gets an NFL team.

Let's take a look at the bottom ones: The Newark Negroes! New Jersey needs more football!

or

The Newark Coloreds!

 

[disaacks3]

If someone really wants to challenge themselves by looking beyond their own internal thought processes, consider this scenario:

The NFL grants an expansion team to San Antonio.

The owner/city decides to "honor" Hispanics (as a whole) by calling the team the San Antonio Brownskins.

The logo on the side of the helmet is a sombrero. Like this one:

And every created 'tradition' includes stereotyping ALL Hispanic and Latin American cultures into simple cartoonish caricatures.

I wonder how "honored" all Hispanics would feel with such a thing?[/I]

I wonder if 90%+ won't find it offensive. I wonder if the local LULAC chapters will write in voicing their approval of said franchise.

(for those that missed the thread in the NSZ, this comparison was tried with African Americans)

The unlikelihood of those two events happening should tell you all you need to know about the validity of the comparison.

 

[Double Barrel]

I got a few. Use the top one for: The Mobile Mexicans if Alabama ever gets an NFL team.

Let's take a look at the bottom ones: The Newark Negroes! New Jersey needs more football!

Let's give LA a new team and call the The L.A. Asians!
Waka Waka! I got a MILLION of 'em!

or

The Newark Coloreds!

Now y'all are getting the hang of it!

And as long as we insist these racial stereotypes are solely to "honor" these different ethnic groups (as well as provide some random ambiguous polls), then all is well.

And since historical connection seems to be very important for some folks to justify things, we have some deep history to pick from.

For instance, the The Newark Negroes! or The Newark Coloreds! could use this historically accurate adaptation for mascots:

It is all about "honoring" people, amirite?

And why is that any different than this?

"[Redskins owner Dan] Snyder and NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell have grandfathered in Chief Zee, tone-deaf to the caricaturing of an ethnic minority."
~ Mike Wise

p.s. Zema Williams seems like a really nice man, so this is not a personal attack on him. Image just used to illustrate a point.

 

[Double Barrel]

I wonder if 90%+ won't find it offensive. I wonder if the local LULAC chapters will write in voicing their approval of said franchise.

(for those that missed the thread in the NSZ, this comparison was tried with African Americans)

The unlikelihood of those two events happening should tell you all you need to know about the validity of the comparison.

Because 90 percent of women either do not want it or do not care.
~ Anti-Suffrage Women Fought Against the Vote

Did you know that many women were against universal suffrage? Did that make universal suffrage wrong?

A majority on the wrong side of an issue doesn't make it right.

There is a really good point made in this article:

Basically, for those of us who aren't Native American (which basically means the vast majority of the people who reading this), I don't think we have the right to use images of headdresses, tomahawks, tribe names, and so on. It's not a question of whether such symbols are offensive, or whether they perpetuate outdated stereotypes; it's that they don't belong to us. If a non-Jewish group used a menorah or a Star of David in its marketing, wouldn't that raise a few eyebrows? Ditto for a non-military group using a Purple Heart. And if those examples don't pass the smell test, neither does a sports team using Native American iconography.

 

[Dread-Head]

or

The Newark Coloreds!

No no...The CHARLSTON Coloreds!

 

[Dread-Head]

It is all about "honoring" people, amirite?
.

Starstruck... " [He'd] walk a million miles...for one of your smiles! "


Okay...for the sake of clarification I find this offensive. I'd be more offended at this were it happening NOW than I am by stuff done in the 20s and 30s. I can put that in context to where it irks me but I can find it funny. Part of the reason I found The Three Stooges funny (and Abbot and Costello) was because they would occasionally feature black actors/singers in a non stereotypical fashion rather than simply putting white actors in black face for a laugh.

 

[Hookem Horns]

.. or consider this scenario. Red Mesa H.S. that is predominately Navajo changing their mascot to "honor" white people instead?

 

[Playoffs]

.. or consider this scenario. Red Mesa H.S. that is predominately Navajo changing their mascot to "honor" white people instead?

This is what I was thinking...

Charleston Crackers
Birmingham Bubbas
Honolulu Honkies
Riverside Rednecks
Pittsburgh Peckerwood
Georgetown Gringos

 

[Vance87]

.. or consider this scenario. Red Mesa H.S. that is predominately Navajo changing their mascot to "honor" white people instead?

But that would only honor southern whites

 

[disaacks3]

Because 90 percent of women either do not want it or do not care.
~ Anti-Suffrage Women Fought Against the Vote

Did you know that many women were against universal suffrage? Did that make universal suffrage wrong?

A majority on the wrong side of an issue doesn't make it right.

There is a really good point made in this article:

Hmm, an issue that was denying fundamental rights that ended up getting a constitutional amendment vs. a Pro Football franchise name.

You can keep searching for a valid comparison, but I doubt one will be easy to find. This whole thing is fairly unique. It's what makes this issue fun to watch...on both sides.

 

[Hookem Horns]

This is what I was thinking...

Charleston Crackers

They can play indoors and call their stadium the "Cracker Box".

 

[Double Barrel]

Okay...for the sake of clarification I find this offensive. I'd be more offended at this were it happening NOW than I am by stuff done in the 20s and 30s. I can put that in context to where it irks me but I can find it funny. Part of the reason I found The Three Stooges funny (and Abbot and Costello) was because they would occasionally feature black actors/singers in a non stereotypical fashion rather than simply putting white actors in black face for a laugh.

I hope you know that I did not intend or mean for it to offend anyone. It was solely to illustrate a point of caricaturing the culture of an ethnic minority. I know (at least hope) you most likely know my intentions, but just wanted to clarify and make sure we're all good.

I do not think folks that are for keeping the name are bad people in any sort of way. I completely understand their perspectives and most likely would have agreed with them two decades ago. I think a lot of us are a bit calloused and a little insensitive to something that has always existed, so it can be tough to truly be objective about it. Especially when it does not impact me or offend me.

My change of heart over the years is based on principle. I think the disregard for other people's cultures happens with a so-called 'melting pot' society like the U.S. Everything gets melted down to lowest common denominator mentality and we lose sight of the depth and richness of various traditions within each culture and sub-culture. And we can also lose sight of basic ideas like cultural caricatures and how that impacts individuals within those cultures.

Quite a few folks have told me "it's just a word, get over it". My reply is that sure, it's 'just a word', so why do you defend it so passionately? That road goes both ways.

Hmm, an issue that was denying fundamental rights that ended up getting a constitutional amendment vs. a Pro Football franchise name.

You can keep searching for a valid comparison, but I doubt one will be easy to find. This whole thing is fairly unique. It's what makes this issue fun to watch...on both sides.

It was not an attempt to compare issues, but rather I deflated your assertion of support percentages as a way of justifying a given issue.

I found valid comparison, so no additional searching is required. Did you not see the blackface up there? I'm sure you will try to wiggle out of that one, but I do not see much difference.

Why is it okay for you to stereotype Native Americans but not all Asians like below?

Or how about this, which is directly applicable with the term Yellowface:

"Yellowface is another example of the racism prevalent in American culture."

But I suppose it is okay as long as we ACT like it is "honoring" all Asians.

 

[Hookem Horns]

Or how about this, which is directly applicable with the term Yellowface:

"Yellowface is another example of the racism prevalent in American culture."

Reminded me of Pekin high school in Illinois

 

[Double Barrel]

Believe it or not, it used to be.

There you go. And as long as we can show historical usage and a poll that Asians are okay with it, then it's all good, especially if we all ACT like it is "honoring" their cultures.

Amazing the stretches folks will reach for in justifying basic stereotypes. I guess whatever they need to do to make themselves feel better about being on the wrong side of an issue.

 

[Hookem Horns]

But that would only honor southern whites

Us southern whites are like our own tribe in some ways ..lol.

 

[Dan B.]

No, as that's nowhere near a valid comparison.

Annenberg didn't change their methodology just for this poll, it was a known limitation of their process. No hidden agenda, nothing nefarious.

The survey completely missed out on 4.5% of the Native American population, almost all of it in Alaska. The Inuit are far more likely to consider the word Eskimo derogatoary than Redksin.

I didn't say that they intentionally changed the methodology. I said that not polling Alaska affected the results. As did only polling land lines (which a majority of Indians living on reservations don't have). As did the poll being 10 years old. I don't feel the same about the issue today as I did in 2004. People change their minds in 10 years. You can surmise that an Alaskan Native is more offended by the term Eskimo than the word Redskin -- but you have no proof, because nobody polled them.


What the man who ran that poll thinks about it:

Do you think the issue was well-served in a survey of this size and nature, given all the variables involved regarding Native American identification, say, or lack of access to phones, or levels of disassociation from mainstream culture?

I don’t think there was anything wrong with our methodology. All pollsters ask for self-identification on demographics from age to education to ethnicity to religion.... When someone says they are married, you don’t ask for a marriage certificate. The question measured whether the respondents cared about the issue. The fault is in the interpretation given the poll by Dan Snyder and others. My answer when first questioned about this by Courtland Milloy of the The Washington Post stands; If you gave a dinner party for 20 and one person left unhappy because of something that was said or served and the other 19 had a jolly time, was your party a success? No, it was a failure.

Are you surprised by the team’s use of the poll?

I am surprised by the longevity of this poll. You don’t often see people quoting polls that are nine years old. But it’s the main thing that Snyder has to go on.

If you were the owner, would you change the name?

Of course I would change the name! It’s offensive—about as offensive as the way the team is playing today. I don’t call them by the name they use, I refer to them as the Washington Unmentionables.

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwo...dan-snyders-poll-course-id-change-name-152737

 

[Nitrofish]

Asians did not coin the phrase "Chinks" or use the word to describe each other. All of those lampoons are apples and oranges.

I am pretty sure however the Paleface team name and logo would be a huge hit with actual rednecks because they are in fact proud to be rednecks and would indeed be honored to have a team named after them, and a similar logo, only I did not see a bible in that logo so they would probably suggest that be added.

All of these extreme examples are nothing more than Daily Show theater that are not based in any kind of reality, because we know none of those team names would ever get passed the approval process. Even if by some miracle one did slip through, no fans would support, nor players play for them so it would be like throwing money in a fire. While these examples are mildly entertaining, they are far from helping. Just making a mockery of the discussion.

What solution do you guys have for the historical aspect of the Redskins team? Should all of their history be erased? No video footage should ever be played, nor articles be written that use the dreaded R word or the logo? I suppose in all fairness any wins the team has ever achieved or Super Bowls won should also be stripped?

Anyone caught wearing pre name change gear should not be allowed into the games, fined, jailed, or maybe scalped? What will the NFL do about throw back jerseys? Should fans ask for refunds for the Redskins gear they have purchased? How about trading cards that are valuable that contain the Redskins name and logo. Should card owners be forced to burn them, or perhaps better they should lose all of their value since no upstanding human being would ever own such a horrible item that denigrates Native Americans right?

If your answer is no to any of the above, and that the history remains intact, then the whole endeavor of changing the name is pointless. It's a good thing America does not have more pressing issues.

 

[Vance87]

If you gave a dinner party for 20 and one person left unhappy because of something that was said or served and the other 19 had a jolly time, was your party a success? No, it was a failure.

He just went full retard.

 

[disaacks3]

It was not an attempt to compare issues, but rather I deflated your assertion of support percentages as a way of justifying a given issue..

You didn't deflate any assertion as you compared dissimilar issues. Strawman much?

I found valid comparison, so no additional searching is required. Did you not see the blackface up there? I'm sure you will try to wiggle out of that one, but I do not see much difference.

I don't need to wiggle and you have yet to find a valid comparison. Show me those NAACP chapters signing up to endorse racist names. Show me them naming their school mascots using those names.

But I suppose it is okay as long as we ACT like it is "honoring" all Asians.

Here you go again, acting as if the Asian community somehow embraces the term.

:vincepalm:

"The whole issue is so silly to me," says Bob Burns, my wife's father and a bundle holder in the Blackfeet tribe. "The name just doesn't bother me much. It's an issue that shouldn't be an issue, not with all the problems we've got in this country."

And I definitely don't know how I'll tell the athletes at Wellpinit (Wash.) High School -- where the student body is 91.2 percent Native American -- that the "Redskins" name they wear proudly across their chests is insulting them. Because they have no idea.

"I've talked to our students, our parents and our community about this and nobody finds any offense at all in it," says Tim Ames, the superintendent of Wellpinit schools. "'Redskins' is not an insult to our kids. 'Wagon burners' is an insult. 'Prairie n-----s' is an insult. Those are very upsetting to our kids. But 'Redskins' is an honorable name we wear with pride. … In fact, I'd like to see somebody come up here and try to change it."

Cached link

 

[Vinny]

Honest question (since I'm such a smartass at times I'll make sure you know this is a serious question)...was the term "redskin" ever an insult? A bunch of the terms that we are comparing the name to was/is clearly an insult. For example I've been called a chink and it was always used in a way to insult me, so I know that's an insult. When it comes to the term 'redskin' I've never heard anyone casually in person, on TV, or in print ever call anyone a 'redskin' in a derog manner. Are we just making this an insult (for a cause) when it was never really ever used as one?

 

[disaacks3]

Honest question (since I'm such a smartass at times I'll make sure you know this is a serious question)...was the term "redskin" ever an insult? A bunch of the terms that we are comparing the name to was/is clearly an insult. For example I've been called a chink and it was always used in a way to insult me, so I know that's an insult. When it comes to the term 'redskin' I've never heard anyone casually in person, on TV, or in print ever call anyone a 'redskin' in a derog manner. Are we just making this an insult (for a cause) when it was never really ever used as one?

I asked the same question in the NSZ. One first-person result and a couple of second-hand positives.

Your experience is the same as mine (and my family). I was told it didn't count as I didn't grow up in/around a reservation, therefore the chance of me ever hearing it used was highly unlikely.

 

[Double Barrel]

You didn't deflate any assertion as you compared dissimilar issues. Strawman much?

Not a strawman at all. I have no desire to deceive in this discussion. You were attempting to support your position with a numbers poll.

I merely pointed out that many causes have been promoted and advance even though a majority of those affected might not agree at the time.

I'm sorry if you are unable to follow the logic, but I think you do and just choose an obtuse attitude to defend an antiquated and defined disparaging term. It's all good, though. I know how you roll.

I don't need to wiggle and you have yet to find a valid comparison. Show me those NAACP chapters signing up to endorse racist names. Show me them naming their school mascots using those names.

Now you're sailing the USS Goofy on the seas of cheese.

Validity is in the eyes of perception, I guess.

Please tell me how the word redskin is any different than yellowskin or blackface? Would you go up to a Native American and call him a redskin? Be honest here. Would you?

Many other derogatory racial names for teams have been dropped over time, and you keep ignoring basic history lessons that have been presented in order to defend the antiquated and defined disparaging term that you seem to love to embrace.

Its easy for a white dude like you to blow this stuff off. Just like Dan Snider.

History will ultimately show that you're on the wrong side of this one, my friend.

Honest question (since I'm such a smartass at times I'll make sure you know this is a serious question)...was the term "redskin" ever an insult? A bunch of the terms that we are comparing the name to was/is clearly an insult. For example I've been called a chink and it was always used in a way to insult me, so I know that's an insult. When it comes to the term 'redskin' I've never heard anyone casually in person, on TV, or in print ever call anyone a 'redskin' in a derog manner. Are we just making this an insult (for a cause) when it was never really ever used as one?

There's this: "A linguistic analysis of 42 books published between 1875 and 1930 shows that negative contexts in the use of redskin were significantly more frequent than positive usage". Source

Quick question, man: Would you go to up a Native American and call him a redskin without blinking an eye? Liike, "hey, what's up, redskin?"

This is what ultimately changed my mind. Why would I call someone something behind their back that I would not say to their face? This was respectfully explained to me by some Native Americans in the OA honor society when I tried to defend the name many years ago using the same attitude mentioned by many in this thread.

Ask Yvette, who you know well, about it. She has experienced it as a racial insult and has first hand experiences with the term as an offensive insult to her people. She will not participate in these threads because of the 'get over it' attitude. All from white dudes, too. Go figure.

Did you know the word "chink" originated in China? It was not originally an insult. Heck, look at Hookem's headline above. It was not used as a derogatory term at that time. What changed?

Same with the N-word and black people. It was not originally an insult.

Times change. What was okay yesterday slowly evolves into something antiquated and gets left in the dustbins of history. Some people take the low road and call it PC. Personally, I call it enlightened thinking.

 

[Vinny]

I'd probably not walk up to someone and call them a redskin but I wouldn't walk up to you can call you a whiteskin either. I've always looked at the Redskin logo and thought positive things. I've seen the name "Redskin" and it seems more like a description and have never seen this as a derog term so I have mixed feelings on this issue. I'm having to force myself to now make term to be insulting, then force myself to be offended. I'm having a hard time with that. Not really trying to argue your position either.

 

[Double Barrel]

I'd probably not walk up to someone and call them a redskin but I wouldn't walk up to you can call you a whiteskin either. I've always looked at the Redskin logo and thought positive things. I've seen the name "Redskin" and it seems more like a description and have never seen this as a derog term so I have mixed feelings on this issue. I'm having to force myself to now make term to be insulting, then force myself to be offended. I'm having a hard time with that. Not really trying to argue your position either.

I hear ya', man. Like I said many times, I'm not offended by it.

I used to feel the exact same way as you. Heck, during the '80's, I was a Redskins fan. They were the Cowboys rival, and the Oilers sucked so bad during the first part of the decade, that I jumped on the Joe Gibbs bandwagon for awhile.

My mind was changed by Native Americans. I had no answers to truly support what they perceived as offensive. What do you say at that point? My mind changed based on principle, not from being offended about it.

What I really want from these discussions is for someone to present a perspective that challenges me to think about it, to provide a supporting argument that I could take to Native Americans in order to justify the term and caricature of their culture. So far, nobody has given me anything substantial that I can sink my teeth into. It's the same old redundancies that I believed in years ago.

Modern dictionaries are not going to un-define the word as a racially offensive term. So we are either left with defending a disparaging term or not.

 

[Dan B.]

Cached link

The dynamic between ESPN columnist Rick Reilly, a defender of the Washington Redskins nickname, and his father-in-law, a Blackfeet elder, went from curious to awkward to just plain weird Thursday night.

Reilly, in an ESPN column last month, had written a defense of the Washington Redskins’ nickname based on comments from Bob Burns, who, Reilly wrote, had no problem with it.

On Thursday, Burns wrote a rebuttal column in which he said that not only did he have a problem with the nickname, but that his son-in-law had misquoted him and, even more surprisingly, had not set the record straight when asked to do so.

In an Indian Country Today Media Network essay, Burns wrote: “Let me be clear: The racial slur ‘redskins’ is not okay with me. It’s never going to be okay with me. It’s inappropriate, damaging and racist.”

Burns went on to describe the conversational disconnect he’d had with Reilly and finished by saying that it’s time to change the team’s name:

So you can imagine my dismay when I saw my name and words used to defend the racist Washington Redskins name. My son-in-law, ESPN’s Rick Reilly, completely misunderstood the conversation we had, quoting me as saying “the whole issue is so silly. The name just doesn’t bother me much. It’s an issue that shouldn’t be an issue, not with all the problems we’ve got in this country.”

But that’s not what I said.

What I actually said is that “it’s silly in this day and age that this should even be a battle - if the name offends someone, change it.” He failed to include my comments that the term “redskins” demeans Indians, and historically is insulting and offensive, and that I firmly believe the Washington Redskins should change their name.

When Rick’s article came out, it upset me to be portrayed as an “Uncle Tom” in support of this racial slur. I asked him to correct the record. He has not, so I must do it myself.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...misquoted-when-he-defended-redskins-nickname/

If 90% of Native Americans supported the name Reilly wouldn't have to misquote Indians on the issue. Snyder wouldn't have to bring in fake Indian Chiefs for support.

 

[disaacks3]

And I'm certainly not going to be spoon-fed some politically correct bull**** based upon misguided and ignorant political agendas.

I wonder who wrote that? Probably the same guy who (like myself) won't go out of his way to cause problems and attack others, yet can see the agendas...at least before now.

 

[Double Barrel]

I wonder who wrote that? Probably the same guy who (like myself) won't go out of his way to cause problems and attack others, yet can see the agendas...at least before now.

Whoever said that was obviously a brilliant mind.

However, that said, I do not see this specific issue as a misguided and ignorant political agenda, although I can understand why someone else might perceive it that way.

Like I said, I completely understand where you're coming from, even though I no longer agree with my past self.

 

[disaacks3]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...misquoted-when-he-defended-redskins-nickname/

If 90% of Native Americans supported the name Reilly wouldn't have to misquote Indians on the issue. Snyder wouldn't have to bring in fake Indian Chiefs for support.

Yeah, and Reilly's sort-of standing by his article sounded awfully weird.

As for whether Snyder called upon a "fake chief" himself, that's on him. (though even the deadspin article referenced him being 1/4 Aleut) You can bet your bottom $$ that the ones referenced in the Trademark suit are 100% real though.

Whoever said that was obviously a brilliant mind.

However, that said, I do not see this specific issue as a misguided and ignorant political agenda, although I can understand why someone else might perceive it that way.

Like I said, I completely understand where you're coming from, even though I no longer agree with my past self.

No telling if I'll see it that way eventually, but for now it seems like the personification of giving a word power it didn't otherwise have.

 

[Dan B.]

Yeah, and Reilly's sort-of standing by his article sounded awfully weird.

As for whether Snyder called upon a "fake chief" himself, that's on him. (though even the deadspin article referenced him being 1/4 Aleut) You can bet your bottom $$ that the ones referenced in the Trademark suit are 100% real though.

You think that was an even more awkward Thanksgiving dinner than normal?

 

[Hervoyel]

Honest question (since I'm such a smartass at times I'll make sure you know this is a serious question)...was the term "redskin" ever an insult? A bunch of the terms that we are comparing the name to was/is clearly an insult. For example I've been called a chink and it was always used in a way to insult me, so I know that's an insult. When it comes to the term 'redskin' I've never heard anyone casually in person, on TV, or in print ever call anyone a 'redskin' in a derog manner. Are we just making this an insult (for a cause) when it was never really ever used as one?

Maybe in the dialogue of some western movie. If I've ever heard it used as an outright insult (i.e. "Those dirty, good for nothing Redskins!" for example) then it was maybe in a movie portraying the old West.

Now people who live around Native Americans maybe have heard this. Probably have. I wouldn't doubt it a bit. Most people in the US don't however live near large concentrations of Native Americans and so it just doesn't resonate to us.

 

[CloakNNNdagger]

No matter which side of the argument you fall on now with the Redskins name, this next move has got to make one take pause.

Plaintif in Redskins Patent urges Chiefs to change their name
Posted by Michael David Smith on June 26, 2014, 12:20 PM EDT

The Washington Redskins aren’t the only NFL team whose name bothers some Native Americans.

The Kansas City Chiefs should also change their name to avoid giving offense, according to Amanda Blackhorse, the lead plaintiff in the case that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office just decided against the Redskins.

“I’m not sure there’s anything the [Chiefs] can do at this point other than look for another name,” Blackhorse told the Kansas City Star. “They could be the team that says, ‘You know what? We understand the issue and we don’t want to be Dan Snyder and fight this in court forever. We want to do the right thing and move forward and avoid this entire battle.’ I’m sure fans will be upset, but still, that’s doing the right thing. If they want to be sensitive to Native American people, that’s the thing to do.”

Blackhorse’s sister, Kristy Blackhorse, is part of a group of Native Americans in Arizona who plan to protest at two Cardinals games this season — not only when the Redskins come to town in October, but also when the Chiefs come to town in December.

There are fundamental differences between the Chiefs and the Redskins, especially that dictionaries define “chief” as a term of respect and “redskin” as a slur. The Kansas City Chiefs have kept a low profile during the debate, hoping that they can continue to use their team name without the controversy that has swirled around the Redskins. If Blackhorse has her way, the Chiefs won’t avoid controversy for long.

 

[Marshall]

No matter which side of the argument you fall on now with the Redskins name, this next move has got to make one take pause.

Just eliminate all teams because every name will offend someone for NO GOOD REASON. Just learn to live with being offended since it is inevitable.

 

[powerfuldragon]

call 'em the wizards. or the senators. or the house of representativeses.

 

[htownfan32]

I'd be cool with Senators. As a kid I grew up as a huge Ottawa Senators fan. Still am.

GO SENS GO!

 

[Marshall]

How about a new thread listing all 32 teams and the reasons those names offend someone and add any proposed name changes as they appear.

ie Senators offends Trojans because of their historic rivalry with Greece with it's ancient heritage including the ancient Senators.

Cowboys offends the Spanish and Mexican population because they were the true originators of the job and Anglos just STOLE a piece of their heritage and renamed it Cowboys instead of the vaqueros they were intended to be.

 

[htownfan32]

How about a new thread listing all 32 teams and the reasons those names offend someone and add any proposed name changes as they appear.

ie Senators offends Trojans because of their historic rivalry with Greece with it's ancient heritage including the ancient Senators.

Cowboys offends the Spanish and Mexican population because they were the true originators of the job and Anglos just STOLE a piece of their heritage and renamed it Cowboys instead of the vaqueros they were intended to be.

1) Iffy example because Troy is not in Greece, and senators refers to Roman senators, not Athenian assemblymen. Not to mention that if Troy was destroyed by the Greeks (big if), it was destroyed by the autocratic Mycenaeans and Argives, not by the Athenians.

2) Iffy example because cattle-herding and ranching is an old tradition that doesn't belong to any culture specifically.

 

[Double Barrel]

No telling if I'll see it that way eventually, but for now it seems like the personification of giving a word power it didn't otherwise have.

I truly wish that I could articulate the thoughts of the elders that explained it to me. I simply do not possess the ability to convey their perspective from the heart, because it's not my people's history or culture.

The best I can do is try.

I did ask why there is not more resistance from Native Americans in general. They said if we honestly look at history, indigenous peoples in this country have never had a voice, much less political power to change anything. They have been resigned to be voiceless for generations, accepting the fate that the U.S. government and American society has forced upon them. As a result, many of their people are lost from their roots and do not see themselves worthy of respect. Many of them were taught in public schools to act white and ignore their people's history. That is something that I cannot imagine, but it happened and has a direct impact on this subject today.

Our conversations were much, much deeper than what I can explain. However, I truly believe that quite a few people here would listen and at least be swayed to understand, even if they ultimately disagree. I respect a great many of you and know that you are capable of challenging your own belief systems.

For me, this is not about being offended by a word. But rather, it is the consistent caricature of indigenous peoples and the shallow presentation of their very rich and diverse cultures as a common thread throughout our nation's history.

They are not cartoons. They are not villains. They are humans whose ancestors have had to endure atrocities that almost made their cultures extinct. Why we feel the need to perpetuate a symbol of that history is where the rubber meets the road for me. Pro football is just not as important as our dignity and respect. It's just a game, where for many Native Americans, this is much, much deeper.

 

[Marshall]

1) Iffy example because Troy is not in Greece, and senators refers to Roman senators, not Athenian assemblymen. Not to mention that if Troy was destroyed by the Greeks (big if), it was destroyed by the autocratic Mycenaeans and Argives, not by the Athenians.

2) Iffy example because cattle-herding and ranching is an old tradition that doesn't belong to any culture specifically.

Just because the history is inaccurate is no reason someone would not be offended. Most offense has nothing to do with accuracy or the intent of those expressing what is offensive. It's just another case of people looking for an excuse to be offended so they aren't responsible for themselves. Blame it on someone or something else.

 

[ObsiWan]

Honest question (since I'm such a smartass at times I'll make sure you know this is a serious question)...was the term "redskin" ever an insult? A bunch of the terms that we are comparing the name to was/is clearly an insult. For example I've been called a chink and it was always used in a way to insult me, so I know that's an insult. When it comes to the term 'redskin' I've never heard anyone casually in person, on TV, or in print ever call anyone a 'redskin' in a derog manner. Are we just making this an insult (for a cause) when it was never really ever used as one?

Watch some old 40s/50s/60s era westerns; Redskin in a western had the same nasty, negative connotation and vibe that Jap or Kraut (sp?) did in WWI/WWII movies. Heard it ALL the time in those flicks.

 

[Hervoyel]

I truly wish that I could articulate the thoughts of the elders that explained it to me. I simply do not possess the ability to convey their perspective from the heart, because it's not my people's history or culture.

The best I can do is try.

I did ask why there is not more resistance from Native Americans in general. They said if we honestly look at history, indigenous peoples in this country have never had a voice, much less political power to change anything. They have been resigned to be voiceless for generations, accepting the fate that the U.S. government and American society has forced upon them. As a result, many of their people are lost from their roots and do not see themselves worthy of respect. Many of them were taught in public schools to act white and ignore their people's history. That is something that I cannot imagine, but it happened and has a direct impact on this subject today.

Our conversations were much, much deeper than what I can explain. However, I truly believe that quite a few people here would listen and at least be swayed to understand, even if they ultimately disagree. I respect a great many of you and know that you are capable of challenging your own belief systems.

For me, this is not about being offended by a word. But rather, it is the consistent caricature of indigenous peoples and the shallow presentation of their very rich and diverse cultures as a common thread throughout our nation's history.

They are not cartoons. They are not villains. They are humans whose ancestors have had to endure atrocities that almost made their cultures extinct. Why we feel the need to perpetuate a symbol of that history is where the rubber meets the road for me. Pro football is just not as important as our dignity and respect. It's just a game, where for many Native Americans, this is much, much deeper.

You know, I've said it before but I just don't get any of that as it relates to the name of the Washington D.C. franchise but it's just not even worth fighting over (IMO, from Snyder's perspective). I don't even agree that the name should be changed for the reasons stated but I'd change it. I'd be making a big deal out of picking a new name right now and even doing some kind of poll with the fans over the team colors. Should they stay? If we're changing should we change it all? NFL teams make so much money off of merchandise that I can't imagine one passing up an opportunity to sell their entire fanbase all-new gear. Then getting to come back later and sell throwback gear (which steering well clear of the hated epithet "Redskins") Maybe use the logo but not the name when going throw back? Who knows? Who cares? Just get that name changed, shut all these people up who are upset about it, and sell more crap to fans.

It's really a win-win for everyone. If I was the Commish I'd be doing the same thing to the Chiefs. Time to get out of the Native American symbolism business.

Just to end the topic if for no other reason.

 

[CloakNNNdagger]

I'd be cool with Senators. As a kid I grew up as a huge Ottawa Senators fan. Still am.

GO SENS GO!

All ready been taken. Back in the '20s, there was already a Washington Senators NFL team. Wasn't a name that had a disgusting connotation then.........but would definitely be one now.

 

[b0ng]

Honest question (since I'm such a smartass at times I'll make sure you know this is a serious question)...was the term "redskin" ever an insult? A bunch of the terms that we are comparing the name to was/is clearly an insult. For example I've been called a chink and it was always used in a way to insult me, so I know that's an insult. When it comes to the term 'redskin' I've never heard anyone casually in person, on TV, or in print ever call anyone a 'redskin' in a derog manner. Are we just making this an insult (for a cause) when it was never really ever used as one?

I doubt you would want to go into a bar on some tribal lands and start calling people redskin any more than you would want to go to a bar in downtown Detroit dropping N-bombs.

If it's not a racial slur (which, come on, you're smarter than that Vinny) what nation or tribe does "Redskin" refer to? If it's not a slur, then why are a bunch of Native Americans making a big fuss about it? Is this what white people thought about different n-words in the 20's and 30's when black people were pretty much subjugated?

 

[Marcus]

If it's not a racial slur (which, come on, you're smarter than that Vinny) what nation or tribe does "Redskin" refer to? If it's not a slur, then why are a bunch of Native Americans making a big fuss about it?Is this what white people thought about different n-words in the 20's and 30's when black people were pretty much subjugated?

Just to get back up to speed, what are the latest percentages of NAs that think it's a racial slur again?

And Herv, regarding just changing so everyone will STFU about it, Dan Snyder might not ever learn how to be an owner of a football team, but he doesn't need lessons on how to dig in his heels.

Now, if everyone else will STFU about it, later on down the line, he might do it on his own initiative. But he's not going to cave in with a gun pointing to his head. He'll move the team before he re-names it under those circumstances.

Personally, I hope he does. That'll fix everyone's little red wagon, won't it?

 

[Vinny]

I doubt you would want to go into a bar on some tribal lands and start calling people redskin any more than you would want to go to a bar in downtown Detroit dropping N-bombs.

If it's not a racial slur (which, come on, you're smarter than that Vinny) what nation or tribe does "Redskin" refer to? If it's not a slur, then why are a bunch of Native Americans making a big fuss about it? Is this what white people thought about different n-words in the 20's and 30's when black people were pretty much subjugated?

not exactly what I was saying but whatever. I said I've never heard anyone use that term to insult anyone. And I'm over 50 years old and have traveled all over the Americas. Now, I've heard the 'n-word' or the other terms many times but now I'm just repeating myself to clarify a straw man. And yes, I'm not that smart to boot.

 

[ObsiWan]

not exactly what I was saying but whatever. I said I've never heard anyone use that term to insult anyone. And I'm over 50 years old and have traveled all over the Americas. Now, I've heard the 'n-word' or the other terms many times but now I'm just repeating myself to clarify a straw man. And yes, I'm not that smart to boot.

Ever watch many 40s - 60s western movies?

 

[Vinny]

I'm not a big western fan guy, but I'll take your word for it and I'll say for the third time that I just have never heard it used like that. I don't think that's all that unusual either. Just keep in mind that I don't have a history of making sheet up so you'll have to just take my word for it as well. I'm not pimping the name and not taking sides, but it seems one side of this debate sure is trying hard to make the Redskins name sound mean-spirited all of a sudden. I've been posting here for a decade and this is the first time I've seen this come up as an issue with some of you guys...so why so pantiesinawaddy now? Is this just a way to say fu to Dan Snyder or have you guys just kept a hat on it since you were too emotional (I bet Dick Vermeil had a breakdown expressing his thoughts on this) to comment about it before the story 'came out of the closet' so to speak?

 

[Vance87]

I wonder if white people started saying white or other races started calling us white as an insult. I mean, NAs did call themselves "red men" and called us "white men". They're both colors.