• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Redskins = Racism?

Is the team name the "Redskins" racist?

  • Yes

    Votes: 4 13.8%

  • No

    Votes: 25 86.2%
  • Total voters
    29
Bodi

Bodi

Just waiting for my set...
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
123,468
Reaction score
27,922
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Does the Washington Redskins football team name represent racism?
 
Ever notice it's always white people bitching about how racist it is? Injuns just want to watch their damned football in peace.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Does the Washington Redskins football team name represent racism?
Click to expand...
I'm surprised they've gone this long without being forced to change their name.

How about Washington Native Americans as an alternate name? Or is that still too insulting? It certainly packs zero punch.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Does the Washington Redskins football team name represent racism?
Click to expand...

It's okay. They currently have, and have in the past, utilized black quarterbacks. So it cancels out.
 
Viktyr Gehrig said:
Ever notice it's always white people bitching about how racist it is? Injuns just want to watch their damned football in peace.
Click to expand...

Actually, some Native American groups have complained about it.
 
I'm still trying to understand why Chief Illiniwek, the Fighting Illlini mascot "creates a hostile environment for NativeAmericans," while the Florida Seminoles mascot (Indian on a horse), does not. In any event, it's a football game, people shouldn't get bent about minor stuff. If people want to hunt down racism, then find the real deal, and take care of it.
 
Acknoweldgement of a physical charateristic, say redheads, pale faces or round eyes, is not racism. The use of the term in a team name is perhaps considered degrading only if you note that it is typically an animal that is used as the team name/mascot. Is the WV use of "Mountaineers" racist? Is ND's use of the "Fighting Irish" implying that the Irish are inherently violent folks? What of the Atlanta "Braves"? Far too much "political correctness" is being read into this simple choice of a unique sports team name, IMHO.
 
How long will putrid political correctness last before it is laughed off the stage?
 
I think its more of a tribute really.
 
I think every sports mascot that is objected to in even a small way should be immediately jettisoned, so we can stop having these brain dead objections brought up every now and again when some pressure group gets its panties in wad.

Washington Whiteskins ftw.
 
It can be offensive. Native Americans have complained about it.

The Sioux have had a long-heated battle with the University of North Dakota, known as the "fighting Sioux".
 
Gipper said:
It can be offensive. Native Americans have complained about it.

The Sioux have had a long-heated battle with the University of North Dakota, known as the "fighting Sioux".
Click to expand...

I don't see how it is insulting. Should the Irish in this country complain about the "Fighting Irish?" Are they being insulted too?
 
Oh the UND thing isn't insulting, I didn't mean to imply that. I'm just saying that Native American tribes can get up in arms (no pun intended) about certain things involving their heritage.

If they can bitch about a school using "fighting Sioux" as a nickname, you can imagine that a historic pejorative like "redskins" may invoke some negative reaction.

They do the same thing with Florida State, as mentioned - just not as vocal. I think for them it's more about the stereotypical Indian that runs out on the field, all decked up in paint and feathers, and throws the ceremonial spear into the ground.
 
Gipper said:
Oh the UND thing isn't insulting, I didn't mean to imply that. I'm just saying that Native American tribes can get up in arms (no pun intended) about certain things involving their heritage.

If they can bitch about a school using "fighting Sioux" as a nickname, you can imagine that a historic pejorative like "redskins" may invoke some negative reaction.

They do the same thing with Florida State, as mentioned - just not as vocal. I think for them it's more about the stereotypical Indian that runs out on the field, all decked up in paint and feathers, and throws the ceremonial spear into the ground.
Click to expand...

I still don't see how that's insulting. It's celebrating a memory. Having Highland Games where people re-enact the Scots of old isn't insulting to modern Scots. It's remembering the past. Having Civil War re-enactors isn't suggesting that's the way Americans are now, it's just remembering. So it's not insulting. I don't doubt that some Native Americans have complained about the Fighting Sioux or the Seminoles. I just think they're going way out of their way to be insulted.
 
Well, how about if they renamed the team the Washington Niggers? D.C. is 95% black. Nigger has historical meaning as well.

Instead of a chief on the side of helmets, it'd be a noose.

You may scoff, but it's along the same lines. Redskins has a negative connotation to Indians. It's akin to calling Jews "kikes" or Italians "wops".
 
Gipper said:
Well, how about if they renamed the team the Washington Niggers? D.C. is 95% black. Nigger has historical meaning as well.

Instead of a chief on the side of helmets, it'd be a noose.

You may scoff, but it's along the same lines. Redskins has a negative connotation to Indians. It's akin to calling Jews "kikes" or Italians "wops".
Click to expand...

Exactly. I wouldn't go so far as to say the Braves or Chiefs needto change, but those aren't derogatory terms.

While I don't have a problem with the name "Braves" I do find the tomahawk chop thing they do in Atlanta disconcerting. Imagine if the team was called the Atlanta Slaves and to cheer them the crowd sang "Swing Low Sweet Chariot" and pantomimed picking cotton...

Interstingly, the Redskins were originally the Boston Braves, and shared a stadium with the baseball team. When they moved over to Fenway Park, they changed to the Boston Redskins to link themselves with the Red Sox.
 
rocket88 said:
Exactly. I wouldn't go so far as to say the Braves or Chiefs needto change, but those aren't derogatory terms.

While I don't have a problem with the name "Braves" I do find the tomahawk chop thing they do in Atlanta disconcerting. Imagine if the team was called the Atlanta Slaves and to cheer them the crowd sang "Swing Low Sweet Chariot" and pantomimed picking cotton...

Interstingly, the Redskins were originally the Boston Braves, and shared a stadium with the baseball team. When they moved over to Fenway Park, they changed to the Boston Redskins to link themselves with the Red Sox.
Click to expand...

That's basically how I see it. Braves and Chiefs aren't racist because people never used those in an insulting context. In fact, "brave" is a compliment in today's society.

However, as I mentioned before, "redskins" is a pejorative. Frontiersmen used that description as a method to mock. Therefore, it is much different than others.

As far as the "tomahawk chop" done by the Braves in MLB and Florida State in the NCAA, I guess you could take it as kinda iffy, if you so felt it. In addition, Florida State has that "Seminole yell".

Oooooooooh....oh oh-oh-oh...oh-oh-oh....oh oh-oh-oh.
 
Not worthy of any vote.
This is excessively silly.
But we do have people with nothing better to do.
 
Gipper said:
Well, how about if they renamed the team the Washington Niggers? D.C. is 95% black. Nigger has historical meaning as well.

Instead of a chief on the side of helmets, it'd be a noose.

You may scoff, but it's along the same lines. Redskins has a negative connotation to Indians. It's akin to calling Jews "kikes" or Italians "wops".
Click to expand...

I see where you're coming from, but it's not clear to me that this is a derogatory term anymore than calling someone "white" or "black." Certainly the usage in the case of the football team is not derogatory. Why would you deliberately nickname yourself with a demeaning term if that is how you meant it?

From Wiki (bold is mine):
"Redskin" is a racial descriptor for the indigenous peoples of the Americas and one of the color metaphors for race used in North America and Europe since European colonization of the Western Hemisphere. The term is controversial as it is considered to be offensive by some, and an affectionate sobriquet by others.
[...]
The word "Redskin" was never meant as a racial slang and actually came out of the necessity to survive warfare between the Taino people of Boriken (Puerto Rico) and the Spanish soldiers that inhabited the island as part of Spain's plan to maintain supremacy over the people that greeted Columbus in 1492. The Spanish soldier's constructed fortresses in the vicinity of the villages. The fortresses had several lookout posts that were used by the soldiers to be on the lookout for attacks by the Taino braves. They were always led into battle by their Caciques (chiefs). As part of the religious beliefs of the Taino people, they had to take part in Areyto (Pow-Ow)to request the blessing of the god of war and receive his protection during battle. The Areyto involved ritual dances and culminated with face painting. The coloring extracted from Achiote seeds, which produce a bright orange-reddish pigment, was used. The lookout soldiers' job was to look for this as it meant that the Taino's were attacking. The Spanish soldier's screamed, as loud as they could, "Piel Roja", which translates into "Red Skin". This became the "Battle Cry" for the Spanish. In doing so, the word became associated with Native Americans. Oddly enough, it was never meant as a racist word or to describe any people as others might insinuate, But instead, it became and should be known as a word of great pride to anyone who claims native American ancestry. It represents the great valor and courage of men, who knew their weapons were inferior and that death waited for them over the clearing, but still fought and gave their lives for freedom from the oppressors
Redskin (slang) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've personally been called "White," "Haoli," "Gaijin," and "Wasichu" by various peoples and never took offense because the terms were not used in a derogatory manner, only as a descriptor. If I desperately wanted to, I could have been offended, but I didn't because that was clearly not the intent of the speaker. I think the usage of "Redskin" in the case of the football team is not derogatory, but rather it is celebratory.
 
Rainman05 said:
I think its more of a tribute really.
Click to expand...

I was thinking along those lines as well. I mean none of the mascots are disparaging and represent warriors.
 
Viktyr Gehrig said:
Ever notice it's always white people bitching about how racist it is? Injuns just want to watch their damned football in peace.
Click to expand...

Who says I'm white?
 
WI Crippler said:
It's okay. They currently have, and have in the past, utilized black quarterbacks. So it cancels out.
Click to expand...

I heard they were initially going with this image as the mascot...

Blackface.jpg
 
Dooble said:
I'm surprised they've gone this long without being forced to change their name.

How about Washington Native Americans as an alternate name? Or is that still too insulting? It certainly packs zero punch.
Click to expand...

Forced? Who could force them and why?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom