Washington's NFL team's name should be changed

daft

The fargone
Joined
Dec 19, 2013
Messages
1,398
Location
New World
Redskins? Come, on!
This team's name is not only offensive and insensitive but basically a racial slur.
For the naysayers I ask you, Would Whiteskins or Blackskins be ok as well?
Assuming that racism is only a 2 way street is simply wrong.
I suggest re-naming the team Warriors, keeping the old logo and catching on with the 21st century.
 
Whiteskins or Blackskins wouldn't bother me. You're being offended too easily.

It's not even as if people have red skin.
 
Salty...it's equivalent to calling an English football team the Wogs. The usage history of 'redskins' is about the same, and it's no surprise the people it was used on who are now part of the greater nation don't appreciate it being kept in usage.
 
Great name. I'm all for it.


Link to video.

Can you imagine an entire stadium chanting that every time they played an away game?
 
Salty...it's equivalent to calling an English football team the Wogs. The usage history of 'redskins' is about the same, and it's no surprise the people it was used on who are now part of the greater nation don't appreciate it being kept in usage.

If it was equivalent to "wog" it wouldn't have even been considered for a name, let alone accepted.
 
I recently read that about 30% of those who claim to be American Indians find it to be offensive. I wish it was either a bit higher or a bit lower.
 
If it was equivalent to "wog" it wouldn't have even been considered for a name, let alone accepted.

Look back at history of usage. There are references in the recent decision from the trademark and patent court. It's listed in every dictionary with the exact same "disparaging and offensive" description. It is absolutely rejected in polite company, or pretty much any company, which is the same.

The only thing keeping the word alive is the dwindling number of sports teams that haven't come around. Even the Native Americans who say they don't object to the team's name, if you said 'so I can call you a redskin and you won't be offended?' would very likely say 'as long as you don't mind getting punched in the head'.
 
Redskins? Come, on!
This team's name is not only offensive and insensitive but basically a racial slur.
For the naysayers I ask you, Would Whiteskins or Blackskins be ok as well?
Assuming that racism is only a 2 way street is simply wrong.
I suggest re-naming the team Warriors, keeping the old logo and catching on with the 21st century.

It's more like having a team called "The New Orleans Negros"
 
That story has been claimed to be "revisionist history".

And it probably is...however real history can be found in the newspapers from the time of the Indian wars...where the word 'redskins' was commonly found, often preceded by 'greasy' for some reason. Suffice to say those stories weren't of a 'redskins demonstrate courage and honor in recent battle with cavalry' variety.

That would be the era where the term originates, and the era when it was in common usage, so that is the era to look at for the basic intent of the word. Look there and you will find nothing pretty, I assure you.
 
You didn't read the article. Did you?

...It was the Native Americans who first used the term “red” in order to differentiate between indigenous, white, and black people. When not referring to their individual and other tribes collectively, why would they use Indian, Native, or other adjectives to describe their obvious skin differences back then? Ives Goddard is a senior linguist at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of History. Goddard wrote the book, I am a Redskin: The Adoption of a Native American Expression (1769-1826) and notes the earliest uses of “red skin” were in recorded statements from Natives by the French who generally traded amicably with them. The French were careful to denote the “red” distinction was made by Natives themselves. By the time of the Phips Proclamation, according to Goddard, “red” to describe Natives was used “by both French and English…. Although Europeans sometimes used such expressions among themselves, however, they remained aware of the fact that this was originally and particularly a Native American usage.” Also citing Goddard in the recent article, “Before The Redskins Were The Redskins: The Use Of Native American Team Names In The Formative Era of American Sports, 1857-1944,” Professor of Law and historian J. Gordon Hylton writes about the term, “…throughout the nineteenth century, the term was essentially neutral when used by whites, reflecting neither a particularly positive or particularly negative connotation.” Even Sitting Bull once remarked, “I am a red man. If the Great Spirit had desired me to be a white man he would have made me so in the first place.” Regardless, over the years, the scalp-equals-redskin theory has gained traction as well-meaning people took Harjo’s word on the matter as fact—including ICTMN. In Montana last year, a Gros Ventre friend of mine, Nona Main, was invited to speak at a high school as they debated the fate of the Red Lodge Redskins mascot. To support the successful bid to retire the mascot, she spoke eloquently, "We are not asking you to change your religious beliefs or the language you speak. The change we ask for is minimal compared to the changes we have gone through." A letter addressed to the mostly white Red Lodge High School was from Native American Public Communications, Inc. Executive Director Shirley K. Sneve. Attached to the letter was a photocopy of an ICTNM article highlighting the Maine Indian Tribal State Commission’s struggle to change the Sanford High School Redskins’ name. With the Penobscot Nation being in Maine, the Phips Proclamation/redskin-equals-scalp theory was of course repeatedly mentioned during heated debates. The Sanford Redskins name was eventually retired on May 7 of this year. But after seeing what happened in Washington state—and the former Red Lodge Redskins mascot aside—I can’t help but think how the banning of all Native American-related mascots would go over in my home state of Montana. It’d undoubtedly be ironic seeing as the reservation schools have names like the Browning and Lodge Grass Indians, the Heart Butte and Pryor Warriors, as well as the off-reservation but predominately Northern Cheyenne attended school of the St. Labre Braves just to mention a few. Go figure, the Navajo school in Teec Nos Pos, Arizona is called the Red Mesa Redskins, and there’s a 2002 Chris Eyre film that takes place on the Pine Ridge Reservation called “Skins.” However, I still respect opinions that are against the term redskin, as it’s hard to imagine a white person seriously saying it without at least some condescension. So protest if you feel it collectively demeans Natives. I’m also annoyed by shirtless white guys putting on fake war paint and headdresses while mockingly chanting ‘Whoo whoo whoo!’ And although I don’t believe the redskins and scalp theory was contrived with devious intent, remember, in the study of history, one should not let their own passions of today override existing facts of the past just because they don’t fit our own modern version of political correctness. A lifelong Montana resident, Adrian Jawort is a freelance journalist, writer, and poet. A proud member of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe, he is a contributor to Indian Country Today Media Network as well as Native Peoples, Cowboys & Indians, and many other publications.
 
You didn't read the article. Did you?

I skimmed it. I also read the recent court decision and looked up some of the references they based their decision on. While I agree that as the article says this isn't a 'black and white' situation, you seem inclined to take this article as some sort of 'truth' and opposing points of view as 'falsehoods'. However, courts are the way we as a nation determine 'truth', for legal purposes, and at present courts are determining against your version of 'truth'.

Once more...

Courts look at the term as it was meant when it was in widespread usage, and in doing so find that it was primarily a disparaging description of people who were at the time considered the enemy. In that regard they have found that 'redskins' falls in exactly the same type of usage as 'gooks', 'slants', 'yeller fellers', 'krauts', and any number of other terms from more recent wars that are now widely frowned upon and seldom used.

As to the 'redskins and scalps' theory, I find no basis for it at all myself, but can't say I've looked terribly hard. It has not been in any source that I have run down on the subject so I pretty much disregarded it from the gate.
 
It's actually staggering that it hasn't been changed yet. Utterly indefensible.
 
Considering that a large majority of American Indians don't find it offensive, maybe it's not a big deal?
 
Considering that a large majority of American Indians don't find it offensive, maybe it's not a big deal?
What on earth gives you that idea?

At the end of the day a significant enough group of people find it derogatory that the Patent Office revoked their trademark. That should tell us something.
 
Well the 'Patent Office' vote was 2-1 if I recall correctly. :mischief:

It is interesting that there is the sudden offensiveness to the word.
 
Sudden?
 

I always find it hilarious when someone crawls out from under their rock and says 'this is a sudden turn of events' about something that has been in litigation for decades.
 
Back
Top Bottom