OT: What if the Redskins change their name?

[earthsci]

Washington Senators

 

[Redheart]

The "indians" I know prefer the name of their tribe: Hopi, Navaho, Apache, Ute, etc.

The Indians I know prefer to identify themselves with the state or territory (consists of 28 states, 6 union territiries and 1 National capitol territory, New Delhi) they came from.

 

[Southpaw]

It seems, to me, that the defenders of the name in "Redskin" fans nation have got a skewed sense of false pride getting in the way of decency.

 

[Brian in Mesa]

I have no problem with the name. I don't care if they change it, but I don't think they should be required to do so.

On the other hand, if it is so offensive that a pro team needs to change the name - make everyone everywhere using the name change it. Can't have selective censorship, IMHO.

Also - if it is truly deemed "offensive" - stop sales of their NFL merchandise immediately. Can't have that slur on clothing, right? Furthermore, do not allow anyone into the stadium wearing their old "Redskins" merchandise since it is so offensive.

Next - get rid of all other Indian themed names so no one else can be offended.

 

[Dback Jon]

I have no problem with the name. I don't care if they change it, but I don't think they should be required to do so.

On the other hand, if it is so offensive that a pro team needs to change the name - make everyone everywhere using the name change it. Can't have selective censorship, IMHO.

Also - if it is truly deemed "offensive" - stop sales of their NFL merchandise immediately. Can't have that slur on clothing, right? Furthermore, do not allow anyone into the stadium wearing their old "Redskins" merchandise since it is so offensive.

Next - get rid of all other Indian themed names so no one else can be offended.

So you don't see a difference between a slur like Redskins and a non-slur like Braves or Chiefs? Hmmmm

 

[Mulli]

Why can't you have selective censorship? Happens all the time.

 

[Brian in Mesa]

So you don't see a difference between a slur like Redskins and a non-slur like Braves or Chiefs? Hmmmm

I have talked to Indians about it many times over the years and the people I have discussed it with have had no issue with it and looked at it as a positive rather than a negative. When we were in the NFC East we used to see many Indians decked out in their Redskins' gear at SDS cheering the team on. Never saw any protesters. Again, if it is deemed offensive - get rid of it everywhere.

 

[Mulli]

I have talked to Indians about it many times over the years and the people I have discussed it with have had no issue with it and looked at it as a positive rather than a negative. When we were in the NFC East we used to see many Indians decked out in their Redskins' gear at SDS cheering the team on. Never saw any protesters. Again, if it is deemed offensive - get rid of it everywhere. Some of my best friends are Indians.

Woot!

 

[Dback Jon]

I have talked to Indians about it many times over the years and the people I have discussed it with have had no issue with it and looked at it as a positive rather than a negative. When we were in the NFC East we used to see many Indians decked out in their Redskins' gear at SDS cheering the team on. Never saw any protesters. Again, if it is deemed offensive - get rid of it everywhere.

And many that I know that aren't fans of the team find it offensive.

Yes, every non-Indian Redskin team name should be changed. But, since the NFL team is the most visible, it makes sense to start there.

 

[john h]

They would change their name if the league forced them to, which is unlikely.

Name Identification is a substantial component of the value of a business.
The Redskins probably have more name familiarity than, "Obama."
The Redskins have been, or are the #1 rated team on the cash valuation list of NFL teams.

People have been complaining for a long time about various Indian named team. It seems to always blow-over after a while and I do not recall of any team that has changed their name due to complaining.

If these people wanted to do something real, then they should give the country back to the Indians and shut-up about team names.

You bet the name and logo is a big asset to most large organizations. In the case of the Redskins I would guess the name alone is valued in the millions. Personally I am fed up with political correctness. It is a case of the tail wagging the dog in most cases. Brent Mussberger almost made me get ill with his long commentary on TV as to why Snyder should change the name of the Redskins. It seems the "intent" of a name should come into play on a whole host of political correctness. Snyder does not use the name in vain. The fact that "some" may look at this as a bad thing should not cause the whole world to change. There will always be people objecting to such things as names like Redskins.

 

[Mulli]

Intent? for "redskins?" Heh? And I haven't talked to any of these folks:

http://www.ncai.org/

But I am thinking, if I did, it would be quite a few...

 

[Brian in Mesa]

So you don't see a difference between a slur like Redskins and a non-slur like Braves or Chiefs? Hmmmm

I work with a guy that calls every Indian he sees - including a co-worker - "chief." I guess you could say that might be offensive to some. Not a word intended to offend, but depending on how it is used/directed it could be.

Using that line of thinking - I am sure there are Indians out there offended by the use of Braves, Chiefs, Indians, etc. Especially when non-Indian fans wear headdresses or war paint to games or use chants or dances mimicking Indian dances or have a mascot like Chief Wahoo.

Here is an article that goes after the Indians and Wahoo too.

http://www.news-herald.com/general-news/20130505/chief-wahoo-caricature-controversy-still-hot-topic

 

[Dback Jon]

I work with a guy that calls every Indian he sees - including a co-worker - "chief." I guess you could say that might be offensive to some. Not a word intended to offend, but depending on how it is used/directed it could be.

Using that line of thinking - I am sure there are Indians out there offended by the use of Braves, Chiefs, Indians, etc. Especially when non-Indian fans wear headdresses or war paint to games or use chants or dances mimicking Indian dances or have a mascot like Chief Wahoo.

Here is an article that goes after the Indians and Wahoo too.

http://www.news-herald.com/general-news/20130505/chief-wahoo-caricature-controversy-still-hot-topic

Wahoo seems offensive. Generic Indian not as much.

 

[Rivercard]

I work with a guy that calls every Indian he sees - including a co-worker - "chief." I guess you could say that might be offensive to some.

That seems like a douche move right there. Not many folks have the personality to pull that one off.

 

[Rivercard]

Wahoo seems offensive. Generic Indian not as much.

I'd like to see the Indians change the logo on their hats to just a simple round red dot. That would ruffle a few feathers.

 

[BigRedRage]

I'd like to see the Indians change the logo on their hats to just a simple round red dot. That would ruffle a few feathers.

touché

 

[Southpaw]

I'd like to see the Indians change the logo on their hats to just a simple round red dot. That would ruffle a few feathers.

or change the helmet to

You must be registered for see images attach

 

[BigRedRage]

or change the helmet to

You must be registered for see images attach

Not as
touché

 

[Mulli]

Wait, I thought this was about feather indians, not magic carpet indians.

/s/ Tony Soprano

 

[john h]

If 90% of the world thought it was appropriate to use the N Word for an NFL team would that make it ok?

it's an insult, the word was adopted by white men to be an insult, theres tons of evidence and research on the subject. The dispute is because it appears the early origins were actually Native Americans using it to differentiate different tribes but like many words, it got "taken" over the years and became an insult.

I doubt there are more than 1 or 2 people on this board who ever gave a thought to the word Redskins or that it implied anything until someone who looks for trouble made a big deal out of it.

 

[Mulli]

I doubt there are more than 1 or 2 people on this board who ever gave a thought to the word Redskins or that it implied anything until someone who looks for trouble made a big deal out of it.

incorrect

 

[ajcardfan]

Again, if it is deemed offensive - get rid of it everywhere.

Actually, if you read this document, the NCAI agrees with you. It is very extenstive in detailing the history of the word, and tears apart Snyder's argument for not changing the name.

http://www.ncai.org/resources/ncai-publications/Ending_the_Legacy_of_Racism.pdf

 

[Russ Smith]

I doubt there are more than 1 or 2 people on this board who ever gave a thought to the word Redskins or that it implied anything until someone who looks for trouble made a big deal out of it.

THis is probably the 20th time this debate has come up on theboard in the time I've been here so I would submit you're incorrect.

 

[Russ Smith]

Actually, if you read this document, the NCAI agrees with you. It is very extenstive in detailing the history of the word, and tears apart Snyder's argument for not changing the name.

http://www.ncai.org/resources/ncai-publications/Ending_the_Legacy_of_Racism.pdf

Yep but why take the word of people actually impacted by it when Snyder can just listen to a 12 year old poll of 768 people that agree with him?

 

[Brian in Mesa]

Actually, if you read this document, the NCAI agrees with you. It is very extensive in detailing the history of the word, and tears apart Snyder's argument for not changing the name.

http://www.ncai.org/resources/ncai-publications/Ending_the_Legacy_of_Racism.pdf

I don't believe in their history of the word and their source - Phips Proclamation of 1755 (http://abbemuseum.org/research/wabanaki/timeline/proclamation.html) - never mentions the word, just scalps.

Historic use

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_(slang)#Historic_use

Some claim the term is a particularly egregious racial epithet that represents a bloody era in American history in which Indigenous Americans were hunted, killed, and forcibly removed from their lands by European settlers.[13] The claim often centers around a proclamation against Penobscot Indians in 1755 issued by King George II of Great Britain, known commonly as the Phips Proclamation.[14][15] The proclamation orders, “His Majesty’s subjects to Embrace all opportunities of pursuing, captivating, killing and Destroying all and every of the aforesaid Indians.” The colonial government paid 50 pounds for scalps of males over 12 years, 25 pounds for scalps of women over 12, and 20 pounds for scalps of boys and girls under 12. Twenty-five British pounds sterling in 1755, worth around $9,000 today —a small fortune in those days when an English teacher earned 60 pounds a year.[14] However, since the proclamation itself does not use the word redskin, citing it as the origin of "redskin = scalp" has also been called "revisionist history".[16]

------------------------

Here is an Indian source on the origin of the word:

Redskins Not So Black and White

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/opinion/redskins-not-so-black-and-white-145172

The person that tied "Redskins" in with "scalps" is Suzan Harjo, the same woman that incorrectly linked "squaw" with "vagina." She is an activist that was on Oprah several times.

------------------------

Here is where the word really came from:

Historic use

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_(slang)#Historic_use

The first use of red-skin or red Indian may have been limited to specific groups that used red pigments to decorate their bodies, such as the Beothuk people of Newfoundland who painted their bodies with red ochre.[10] Redskin is first recorded in the late 17th century and was applied to the Algonquian peoples generally, but specifically to the Delaware (who lived in what is now southern New York State and New York City, New Jersey, and eastern Pennsylvania). Redskin referred not to the natural skin color of the Delaware, but to their use of vermilion face paint and body paint.[11]

A Linguist's Alternative History of 'Redskin'

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/02/AR2005100201139.html

Smithsonian Institution senior linguist Ives Goddard spent seven months researching its history and concluded that "redskin" was first used by Native Americans in the 18th century to distinguish themselves from the white "other" encroaching on their lands and culture.

When it first appeared as an English expression in the early 1800s, "it came in the most respectful context and at the highest level," Goddard said in an interview. "These are white people and Indians talking together, with the white people trying to ingratiate themselves."

------------------------

Be against the word, that is fine. but know the true etymology. Trying to tie it in to scalping without proof is disingenuous and weakens their argument, IMHO. Just call it offensive because they feel it is offensive.