What side of the debate do you stand on? Keep the mascot name "Redskins", or dump it? I'm not necessarily a Redskins fan, but I don't hate them either, but I am giving serious considertaion to buying a Redskins' tee-shirt. I don't feel it is a pajorative term in the least bit. Opinions?
I think it can easily be considered pejorative by native Americans. If you want to buy the t-shirt it will most likely be worth a lot of money a few decades from now as a collectors item.
I'm cool with name and my father is 1/8 Nansemond indian. The ame, as currently used, is not meant to demean anyone. It's just a reference to a football team.
Just don't mess with the Shiner Comanches. Germans in war paint is worth 3 points per game. In regards to Washington Redskins, I would say this is still America and the owner should be able name his team whatever he wants.
I am not going to tell anybody who is actually offended by it that they are too uptight. If their feelings are sincerely hurt by it, then I honestly sympathize with them. But I think that the actual percentage of those who are truly offended are way less than the percentage of those who are just itching for another politically correct bandwagon to jump on or rally to scream about because it is after all the cool thing to do these days. As far as I go, my heritage is primarily Comanche. Yet I find the whole thing to be ridiculous.
I think a lot of sticky precedents are on the verge of being set that could cause far more future chaos than the actual rights they are intending to protect. With Sterling being illegally taped in a private convo causing loss of his company control. Now they want to ban the use of a mascot name used in a way meant to symbolize pride and the warrior spirit of the Indians. And after many decades of honorable use not intended to disrespect anyone, but the exact opposite. The latter may open the flood gates of mascot scrutiny across the country and many frivolous lawsuits. Once precedents are set, they open Pandora's box. This one goes far beyond changing a name. It means changing an entire brand. Excessive losses in merchandising value to both the company and previous consumers. To me the WWE will always be a cheap, watered down spin-off of WWF Wrestling. Funny how the product appeal actually went down not too long after the name change.
I can understand if someone is offended but that does not mean the name should be changed. I do not believe their is discrimination resulting from the use of the "R" word. Those offended have to right to not patronize the team and the NFL. If enough are offended and they impact the revenues, then the name will change. I would like an honest poll showing how many are offended and what the ethnicity breakdown is. My cynical side believes it is a bunch of non-American Indian instigators. What if the owner changes the name to the "Red Devils" ? Will Satanists be offended? Will more American Indians be offended? There are numerous groups using this name currently including a breast cancer support group. Much ado about nothing IMHO.
Stuff offends me every so often. If a few folks are offended by it, they'll get over it. I'll bet they aren't offended enough to quit watching football on their TV though. I was a Chief in the U.S. Navy (until my retirement) and I can only hope that doesn't offend somebody. Lordy, we are amazing aren't we?
I've got no problem with names after American Indians such as the Seminoles or Utes. Hell, even Indians or Warriors is okay by me. Redskins is not okay, just like the Indians need to retire their Chief Wahoo caricature.
My Grandmother was full blood Cherokee, so I guess I'm diluted enough to not have my opinion voiced. Those protesting seem to be the "look at me" crowd. No group has ever been screwed over by the US government as badly as the Indians - NO IT IS NOT NATIVE AMERICANS! Indigenous Species perhaps. If the public only knew the truth behind the BIA and its operation. How the hell can an agency justify allowing a tribe to set up a business and then disburse only 9% of the profits to the tribe while "managing" the remaining 91% without accountability or intent to ever disburse? Then they turn around and want to bend over for the FDIC and lose all the funds. Fortunately, the tribes sought help and the FDIC doesn't know its own rules and regulations otherwise the BIA would have lost hundreds of millions of dollars in the S&L debacle. "Injun" would be totally offensive but seems to have been lost from the vocabulary except in a few small areas of Oklahoma. FWIW, The Port Neches Groves Indians have an agreement with the Cherokee Nation to use the name.
I too am part Cherokee, grandma born on a reservation. That said, I don't know I have a voice to say whether I am offended by it or not. Here is the kicker. I AM A WASHINGTON REDSKINS fan, very much so. That said, if the name is offensive to some, change it. Chris Rock mentioned in a skit awhile back about how blacks feel they are owed something for slavery and felt persecuted over time. He said something like go tell it to the next Native American you see...oh, that's right, you don't see any now, do you. Not often depending on where you live. Point being, they were treated very harshly, many dying before white eyes ever saw them. The BIA, as stated above, and treaties (if you want to call them that) are insult to injury. If the name changed I am all for it. I won't stop rooting for the team but I will admit that I made a decision 3 years ago to not buy any more merchandise or logo items. I am in need of a refresh but I won't do it. I also won't travel back to D.C. to watch a game (partly due to missing RFK Stadium). I just hope that if they do change the name they have better choices than when they changed the NBA team from Bullets to Wizards. An alternative under consideration was SeaDogs. I kid you not.
I find it amusing that for over 400 years, they were called "Indians" and that now a bunch of brainwashed people who feel inadequate because they have no control over their own lives want to tell the rest of us what we can say, what we ought to think, how we should behave, and what the name of an NFL franchise should be. "Redskins" is a perfectly fine name, and the emotional weaklings in our society should bug out of trying to control every bit of its minutia. Just because you don't like something doesn't give you the right to force others to bow to your point of view. But those who demand that the Washington Redskins change their name seem to think they have the right to take others' freedom of expression from them by sheer force. Whatever happened to free choice? Oops! A bunch of idiots (idoits) think they have the moral higher ground, but in reality, they are no better than any others in the history of the world who would trample others' rights and freedom of expression. Some guy in Germany in the 30s, the guy in Italy that his countrymen finally hanged, the guy in Russia in the 30s. Those people displayed the same disregard for freedom of expression.
Keep the name, they are not trying to disrespect anyone. Are the braves next? Then the Seminoles? No longer can the dude slam the flaming spear in the ground. Give it 5 years. They will be the Florida State giraffes
100p... also Cherokee here... my father's mother, 1/6th Pericles.... tend to think & feel more as you've outlined, in general.
I can only speak for my two cents in this but the term Redskin was the equal to the N word for blacks. That is not an issue of personal expression to most people. I wonder if due to there not being as many Natives/Indians around it lost its punch somewhere? Who knows. I also think there is a line to draw. Just in my opinion, the name of a tribe, The Seminoles should be okay. Chiefs, Braves, sure, no problem. It's an interesting debate no matter how you look at it and for the most part, people can come up with a cogent argument. I will cheer for the team regardless of their name and am fine if the change it. I won't sign a petition for it nor stop rooting for them. The sentiment of hate was not likely present when the team was named...in a different era with different tolerances. But my personal decision to not buy the current logo is one I thought about to make sure I was not making a gut reaction rather a thought out one. I am truly afraid of any alternate names being horrendous, however. Perhaps a local tribe to the area in need of help and donate some cash to their small business fund or something. So many possibilities and they will find a dumb one, watch. Is it football season yet?
If he were honoring his own ethnicity, perhaps the Redskins owner would choose the name Maccabees instead of Kikes or Hymies? Braves is roughly equivalent to the former, while Redskins is needlessly perjorative. If I owned the team, I'd change the name, which is not the same as saying the government should force the name change. It's not in any desire to please the politically correct that I don't refer to people as "Krauts" "Dagos" "Wops" "Spics" "Hymies" or "Crackers. " Why use an offensive term when there are wholesome alternatives?
probably time to change the name... no one would start a new franchise in Salt Lake City and name it the Whiteskins...
My wife is half blood Choctaw and she doesn't like it at all. Her opinion is people shouldn't be used as mascots. I agree with l00p that Redskins is detrimental name, there isn't a New York Kikes or Philadelphia Guineas. There could've been a Bandera Polaks team but there wasn't.....
LC has a good point. The term Redskins was used in a derogatory manner way back in the days. Before most of us were born. But for several decades now it's been portrayed in modern society in a proud, positive light. No one walks around calling someone a Redskin in a derogatory manner to offend them nowadays. Not Native Americans nor any other American culture. So often words completely change meanings over time and in different societies, and are largely understood to have different context when used in that society by the masses. Doesn't mean words should revert back to their outdated context when someone chooses to view it against the modern grain. Think about it...Akron Zips. Yeah it's used by them to portray a kangaroo and not a person of Japanese heritage now...but the term "zip" was a hugely derogatory word towards Japanese back in World War 2. By the way "zip" is also a derogatory word used by Sicilians and Italians towards new immigrants. Like I said this precedent would create a very slippery slope in regards to current mascots and alternate interpretations of the names. Another example of words changing in context...if you were to say "wow you are so GAY" 50+ years ago it would mean you are calling a person excessively happy. Now it would offend the hell out of many people. Not me but those sensitive to homosexual type references. America is well aware the context of the term "Redskin" is no longer directed as a slur in any way towards Native Americans. People need to chill out on their delicate sensitivities. Smile and get on with your life. If Grambling changed their mascot to the honkies, crackers, or even white trash...I'd laugh my *** off and go on living.
I'll admit that probably 990 of the last 1,000 times I've heard the term "Redskins" it is in connection with the football team. But if I lived in proximity to more rednecks and Native Americans I might have a much different experience.
several decades now it's been portrayed in modern society in a proud, positive light. I'm almost 60 and I've never thought of the word "redskin" as anything other than a derogatory term. Never have I heard it used in a proud, positive fashion. Perhaps you can enlighten me.
