Do you think the Washington Redskins NFL team should change their name?

What say you?

If native Indians are offended by the name, "redskins" then perhaps the football team should change it.





"...In point of fact, a wide variety of Native American groups and tribes have come out against the name, including the National Congress of American Indians, the United South and Eastern Tribes, the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, the Comanche Nation of Oklahoma, the Fort Peck Tribal Executive Board, the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, the Great Lakes Inter-Tribal Council, the Gun Lake Band of Potawatomi Indians, the Inter-Tribal Council of the Five Civilized Tribes, the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, the Juaneno Band of Mission Indians, the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, the Menominee Tribe of Indians, the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin, the Oneida Indian Nation, the Poarch Band of Creek Indians, the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, the Sault St. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation, the United Indian Nations of Oklahoma, and so on, according to leaders of the protest movement."

Gary Clark says if Native Americans cared about the Redskins name they would march on Washington - The Washington Post

Moot said:

If native Indians are offended by the name, "redskins" then perhaps the football team should change it.

Click to expand...

Generally speaking I couldn't give a ****.

But if Native Americans want the name change, I think it should.

We wouldn't have kept the Washington Niggers would we?

Jetboogieman said:

Generally speaking I couldn't give a ****.

But if Native Americans want the name change, I think it should.

We wouldn't have kept the Washington Niggers would we?

Click to expand...

lol Good point.

CLAX1911 said:

Click to expand...

That's the funny thing about this and one of the strategies being employed by those that seek to continually keep this in the sports media and thus talked about.

You've got Redskins fans, for example, who are so SICK AND TIRED of hearing about this damn story and all the griping and whinging by a very vocal small minority of native americans and by a bunch of menstrating guilty white liberals that they're basically going "yeah, change the name". Not because they think they're right but simply because they're tired of hearing about it.

Jetboogieman said:

Generally speaking I couldn't give a ****.

But if Native Americans want the name change, I think it should.

We wouldn't have kept the Washington Niggers would we?

Click to expand...

Welp, that didn't take long.

First, the only way one can compare "niggers" to "redskins" is if one suggests that all slurs are exactly equivilent. Opening up a whole host of other potential issues with it.

Second, if you're acknowledging that slurs can have degrees then it begins to fall apart. Nigger was not a term originally created and used by blacks as a means of refering to themselves. Nigger has never been used as the mascot/nickname for predominantly black schools, let alone voted to be such in the modern times. They say "we wouldn't have kept a Washington Niggers would we"? My retort, would people have actively continued to support a LEAGUE where one of it's members was that. There were talks of boycotts of the NBA becasue an owner said racist things that were recorded in privacy...we're supposed to believe there wouldn't be mass protests and boycotts and indignation towards the NFL if a team had that name? But there's not as it relates to Redskins. Why? Because socially it's not viewed as anywhere near the same level or degree.

Nor should it.

Redskins history is one where it was not created as a slur. Redskin's use throughout history has in numerous cases not been used as a means to slur. In the modern day, the term "Redskin" is far more associated with a Sports Team then it is associated with a derogatory term for native americans. None of this is comparable to the realities resolving around the word nigger, so attempting to compare what would happen with a team named as such is ludicrous.

Nothing against you Jet, as I know you're just jumping in giving your opinion. But this is one of those standard, routine, continual talking points regarding this issue that is just infuriating in how blase it's tossed out there without any deeper thought than it sounding like a reasonable arugment on the surface because people have heard others say it.

America is a wonderful, wacky place.

In one corner, you have strong support for a guy who refuses to stand during the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance although it offends every other member in the audience and a vast majority of Americans and he's trumpeted as a free speech hero, defender of the first amendment, and an all around saint for taking a stand by sitting on his ass.

In another corner, you have Daniel Snider, a guy who defends to the death his right to retain a century old name for a team he alone owns and a team whose fans love the tradition and history of the name, and many of the same people who support the free speech rights of the previously mentioned Chief Sit on My Ass are in high dudgeon over another stance that offends far fewer.

Jetboogieman said:

We wouldn't have kept the Washington Niggers would we?

Click to expand...

Actually there are plenty on this forum that would vote to keep that name.

Zyphlin said:

Welp, that didn't take long.

First, the only way one can compare "niggers" to "redskins" is if one suggests that all slurs are exactly equivilent. Opening up a whole host of other potential issues with it.

Second, if you're acknowledging that slurs can have degrees then it begins to fall apart. Nigger was not a term originally created and used by blacks as a means of refering to themselves. Nigger has never been used as the mascot/nickname for predominantly black schools, let alone voted to be such in the modern times. They say "we wouldn't have kept a Washington Niggers would we"? My retort, would people have actively continued to support a LEAGUE where one of it's members was that. There were talks of boycotts of the NBA becasue an owner said racist things that were recorded in privacy...we're supposed to believe there wouldn't be mass protests and boycotts and indignation towards the NFL if a team had that name? But there's not as it relates to Redskins. Why? Because socially it's not viewed as anywhere near the same level or degree.

Nor should it.

Redskins history is one where it was not created as a slur. Redskin's use throughout history has in numerous cases not been used as a means to slur. In the modern day, the term "Redskin" is far more associated with a Sports Team then it is associated with a derogatory term for native americans. None of this is comparable to the realities resolving around the word nigger, so attempting to compare what would happen with a team named as such is ludicrous.

Nothing against you Jet, as I know you're just jumping in giving your opinion. But this is one of those standard, routine, continual talking points regarding this issue that is just infuriating in how blase it's tossed out there without any deeper thought than it sounding like a reasonable arugment on the surface because people have heard others say it.

Click to expand...

Again for me personally, it really doesn't matter if it's changed or not.

But like anything, it means different things to different people.

If an overwhelming amount of Native Americans said you know what? We don't like the name and we want it changed, then I would support that.

Otherwise leave it alone, but to that end I'm South African, someone could call me a dutchman, I wouldn't be offended but some South Africans would so, I think it is an individual experience for many.

Im in those who are in favor of changing it. I however dont think the government should step in to make them change the name. Activist should just lobby the **** outta the team until they change it.

Jetboogieman said:

Generally speaking I couldn't give a ****.

But if Native Americans want the name change, I think it should.

We wouldn't have kept the Washington Niggers would we?

Click to expand...

Says it all for me.

Jetboogieman said:

Again for me personally, it really doesn't matter if it's changed or not.

Click to expand...

Understand. I wasn't disagreeing with your stance in that manner. I simply took issue with the comparison of it to "nigger", which spoke in a very general fashion and not in a specific "different things to different people" fahsion.

If an overwhelming amount of Native Americans said you know what? We don't like the name and we want it changed, then I would support that.

Click to expand...

Ditto for the most part actually. I've said before, the moment I change the mind is the moment I'm convinced the a clear majority of the native american population in this country are significant offended by it and want it to change.

Despite all the drum beat and hoopla made about this by the media however, that doesn't seem to be the case. And you have some of the prominent media figures who have been condemning the name and calling for it to be changed coming out and calling native americans who actually speak out in SUPPORT of the name things like "Uncle Tomahawks", showing that at least for some it's not about being offended...but being offended by that which they personally deem should be offensive.

Its up to the owner of the team.

I really don't care. The team will do what it's going to do and at the end of the day we have bigger issues to worry about.

Jetboogieman said:

Generally speaking I couldn't give a ****.

But if Native Americans want the name change, I think it should.

We wouldn't have kept the Washington Niggers would we?

Click to expand...

Why dont we force the KKK to change their name then, or their uniforms? They are far more offensive than Redskins. Oh, but if they start playing football, then its no longer acceptable. Free speech is free speech.

jonny5 said:

Why dont we force the KKK to change their name then, or their uniforms? They are far more offensive than Redskins. Oh, but if they start playing football, then its no longer acceptable. Free speech is free speech.

Click to expand...

False analogy. Indians can't change the color of their skin...but the KKK can change the color of their sheets.

"Redskins" in this context is not offensive and therefore should not be changed nor should the team owner be forced to change it.

The question had nothing to do with forcing the owner to change the name of the team. If I owned the team, I'd rename it.

Would that be good business? Maybe or maybe not. I just believe it's good to teach children - many of whom follow the game - not to lump people in with one another just because their skin color looks similar.

Zyphlin said:

That's the funny thing about this and one of the strategies being employed by those that seek to continually keep this in the sports media and thus talked about.

You've got Redskins fans, for example, who are so SICK AND TIRED of hearing about this damn story and all the griping and whinging by a very vocal small minority of native americans and by a bunch of menstrating guilty white liberals that they're basically going "yeah, change the name". Not because they think they're right but simply because they're tired of hearing about it.

Click to expand...

It's just football.

Navy Pride said:

What say you?

Click to expand...

Yes but shouldn't be required to change it.

Moot said:

"...In point of fact, a wide variety of Native American groups and tribes have come out against the name, including the National Congress of American Indians, the United South and Eastern Tribes, the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, the Comanche Nation of Oklahoma, the Fort Peck Tribal Executive Board, the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, the Great Lakes Inter-Tribal Council, the Gun Lake Band of Potawatomi Indians, the Inter-Tribal Council of the Five Civilized Tribes, the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, the Juaneno Band of Mission Indians, the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, the Menominee Tribe of Indians, the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin, the Oneida Indian Nation, the Poarch Band of Creek Indians, the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, the Sault St. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation, the United Indian Nations of Oklahoma, and so on, according to leaders of the protest movement."

Click to expand...

Maybe I'm a boring pragmatic but wouldn't it be more useful for these organizations to band together and assist the Washington Redskins with the name change? I'm sure they could raise sufficient funds to help the owner with some of the necessary costs associated with this change. They could also assist with a Washington DC area Campaign to rename the team and find out what other names would be acceptable to Redskin fans.

When a highly successful person feels like he is getting pushed around he isn't going to submit to any of your demands even if they are reasonable and good. This could be worked out if one side was willing to swallow their pride with the understanding that the other side will never swallow their pride. That's how you get things done. You get more flies with honey than with vinegar.

Since neither the National Congress of American Indians, the United South and Eastern Tribes, the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, the Comanche Nation of Oklahoma, the Fort Peck Tribal Executive Board, the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, the Great Lakes Inter-Tribal Council, the Gun Lake Band of Potawatomi Indians, the Inter-Tribal Council of the Five Civilized Tribes, the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, the Juaneno Band of Mission Indians, the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, the Menominee Tribe of Indians, the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin, the Oneida Indian Nation, the Poarch Band of Creek Indians, the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, the Sault St. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation or the United Indian Nations of Oklahoma have any legal justification for their case I would suggest they be the side that compromises in order to get this accomplished. The owner won't be bullied around. If you bully him more he'll be even less inclined to reason. If you bully him a little bit more than that he'll be even less likely to listen to reasonable request. If you bully him more than that he could just quit listening altogether and nothing will ever get accomplished.

This can only be accomplished if one side is willing to chose action over winning. Winning feels good but it should be about more than just winning. The name probably does need to be changed but you have to be willing to do what it takes to make that happen.

I think it should be changed and until it is the owner of the Redskins won't see one red cent of my money.

I don't think the government should force the guy to change he's team's name, but neither would I be too upset if they did. There are certainly worse uses for government than bullying idiots.

soot said:

I think it should be changed and until it is the owner of the Redskins won't see one red cent of my money.

Click to expand...

He doesn't care about your money. He gets enough money through other fans. Try a different approach. That won't work.

Navy Pride said:

What say you?

Click to expand...

Hell no.I wish these butt hurt effeminate ******s whining that the redskins should change their name would find better things to complain about. The idea that it is used as a racial slur is absurd.I have heard people use the term prairie nigger as a racial slur for Indians, but I have never heard someone use the term redskin as a racial slur.