Washington's NFL team's name should be changed

[sophie]

So (Owen), not actually derogatory or racist. You seem to be saying it's an unfair(?) continued economic exploitation.

Could, say, the Greeks (MSU Spartans) sue us for the same unfair copyright infringement?

I don't feel this way. I don't think my opinion matters anyway. I'm just presuming this is why Native Americans could have a problem with Indians/Seminoles/etc. And it's a concern I can understand perfectly.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Only it is apparently just 30% of them who don't like it. More Americans than that quite possibly think Obama should be impeached for various wacky reasons. That is barely above the general noise level in this country.

If a majority of native Americans found it offensive, I think it would be an entirely different matter.

 

[Gucumatz]

You live in DC Forma?
------

Also some of the names here mentioned in this thread really haven't been heavily protested against. Like the Seminoles ie - who have given their permission to the Uni under certain conditions. "Redskins" is offensive, but again its not worth protesting about for most people - including natives. It is a minor issue to bring light to bigger issues in the scheme of things, but that doesn't excuse its continued use or such public existence.

 

[Formaldehyde]

What a weird question to ask in this context. No, I live in Florida.

And you are completely wrong about the Florida State Seminoles not being "heavily protested against". The issues are actually quite similar and essentially the same group of Indians typically find both to be offensive. The difference is that the Seminoles are a specific native Indian group who have decided for themselves that an insufficient number of them find it to be offensive. That they find it perfectly acceptable that the state university where most of them live should continue to honor their proud heritage in such a manner.

 

[Gucumatz]

Its interesting how people against changing the name often point to the small population that natives are now here. Size in this case is pretty much irrelevant, its the context that matters and the use of "Redskins" falls in that unacceptable context

 

[spider1]

"Redskin" is a racial slur in popular public use in a nation which practiced government sponsored genocide against them. You can mentally justify that or not.

 

[salty mud]

I went shopping today and found a packet of 'redskin peanuts.' I was so offended and outraged I considered suing the shop in question.


Then I stopped being silly and walked away, perfectly fine.

 

[Gucumatz]

Good thing theres a thing called context .

 

[kramerfan86]

if its actually only 30% of the group this concerns that is offended, then i dont think the Redskins should be forced to change their name. If public pressure forces their hand so be it, but this isnt at a level where the NFL should just make them do it.

 

[Gucumatz]

If only 30% of African Americans openly stated usage of the word "N-[Censored]" was unacceptable - would that change cultural context? Would that change the history? Of course not

 

[Arwon]

It's also quite silly to think being full-on personally offended is the standard here. It's entirely possible to think something completely inappropriate without feeling personal offence.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

30% isn't enough? How many people have to be offended to be enough?

 

[Gucumatz]

Enough to be scared of crossing the street?











... but as population numbers thanks to the centuries of genocide and displacement make that practically impossible - context will have to do.

 

[kramerfan86]

If only 30% of African Americans openly stated usage of the word "N-[Censored]" was unacceptable - would that change cultural context? Would that change the history? Of course not

What a pointless hypothetical, the whole reason far more than 30% of african americans are offended by it IS the history behind it, if it were only 30% who were offended then that would suggest a much different history behind the word. The history and context are what drive how offended a given group are, you cant just sever the two apart to make silly hypotheticals.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Its interesting how people against changing the name often point to the small population that natives are now here. Size in this case is pretty much irrelevant, its the context that matters and the use of "Redskins" falls in that unacceptable context

How many people have stated that in this thread, or any of the other ones on this topic? Can you even find a single example on the internet?

And are you now claiming that I am against any name change, despite what I have posted in these threads? 70% of those who identify themselves as American Indians apparently have no problem with this name. I merely stated that the matter would be far more clear if a higher percentage claimed to be offended by this.

 

[Gucumatz]

What a pointless hypothetical, the whole reason far more than 30% of african americans are offended by it IS the history behind it, if it were only 30% who were offended then that would suggest a much different history behind the word. The history and context are what drive how offended a given group are, you cant just sever the two apart to make silly hypotheticals.

Except its far from silly. Natives make up less than 1% of the US population these days with high proportions not having strong ties with tribes and also high percentages of mixed race that only loosely define themselves as native.

Racial tensions between natives and whites has subsided quite a bit (that happens when more than 90% of the population is wiped out). If 90% of African Americans were to die off in the next 10 years, racial tensions would also decline and what would be left would be the history and context. The tensions would shift, making people focus on things more impactful on day to day lives - but the history, like it is with "Redskins" would still be there.

 

[Gucumatz]

Speaking of which the survey where 30% said it was offensive was a 10 year old sample that specifically asked if the name was "offensive to me" or "didn't really bother me".

Another study found that 67% of natives found Redskins as a "racist word and symbol" with 13% neutral by CSU. Again its not a surprise when the tensions aren't there, people aren't really outraged, since there is no need to be. But again - the history and the context is still there

 

[Pangur Bán]

I like DC Wasichus (though Washington Wasichus rhymes).