• 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!

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

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


  • Total voters
    48
I think it should be changed and until it is the owner of the Redskins won't see one red cent of my money.

So I take it you don't purchase anything from the NFL or contribute to anything that would help justify their ability to sell advertising and television rights? Because the NFL engages in revenue sharing, which means support to the NFL is ultimately financially supporting it's teams...including the Redskins.
 
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.

Of course, the question isn't if the government should force them to change, but if they should change. Would it be right for them to do so?

If Snyder wants to continue to give everybody a big middle finger, that's his right. It is, however, damaging the very brand he wants to protect.
 
The only reason I'd like to see it changed is just because I'm ****ing tired of hearing about it. Should it be changed because it's wrong? No. This isn't a question of right and wrong.
 
Of course, the question isn't if the government should force them to change, but if they should change. Would it be right for them to do so?

If Snyder wants to continue to give everybody a big middle finger, that's his right. It is, however, damaging the very brand he wants to protect.

I think that's highly questionable. One could make just as strong, if not stronger, of an argument that changing a brand that's one of the most profitable in all of sports, and whose fan base rank "tradition" and "history" as some of it's most compelling factors for fandom, would actually be harmed FAR more by completely changing said brand than they are by continuing to push something that the vast majority of people, both in general and within the native american population, don't actually care about.

Not to mention, giving into that vocal minority may be no longer giving THEM the finger, but it WOULD be giving the finger to a whole different group of people that is significantly large and also does include a fair number of native americans as well (Who have actively suggested support for the name and offense over the notion of changing it)
 
The only reason I'd like to see it changed is just because I'm ****ing tired of hearing about it. Should it be changed because it's wrong? No. This isn't a question of right and wrong.

If it was "The Washington White People" and the logo was a soldier and the mascot was a soldier, and there's a 'fight song', you wouldn't see a problem with that?

Perhaps "The Washington Asians" and their logo can be "2+2 ftw"? Their mascot can be a math professor with a blackboard.
 
Last edited:
The only reason I'd like to see it changed is just because I'm ****ing tired of hearing about it. Should it be changed because it's wrong? No. This isn't a question of right and wrong.

And it's this response that the jackasses in the media are going for by attempting to push this again and again and again. It's why facts and correctness is of no importance to them. It's why the coverage is almost always slanted and idiotic arguments and conspiracies that don't make logical sense keep getting brought up. One such example is Chris Mortensen tonight suggesting that Snyder moved the team out of DC to stop dealing with DC law makers pushing him about the name; despite the fact that Dan Snyder didn't own the team when they left the DC area and the reasons for the move had nothing to do with the name in the least. But god forbid ESPN let FACTS dictate their agenda driven propaganda.

The goal is simple and two fold....wear down those who don't care or who do defend the name so that they just give in our of fatigue, or convince people that the name is bad through any means necessary no matter how logically inane, factually dishonest, or hypocritically inconsistent.
 
And it's this response that the jackasses in the media are going for by attempting to push this again and again and again. It's why facts and correctness is of no importance to them. It's why the coverage is almost always slanted and idiotic arguments and conspiracies that don't make logical sense keep getting brought up. One such example is Chris Mortensen tonight suggesting that Snyder moved the team out of DC to stop dealing with DC law makers pushing him about the name; despite the fact that Dan Snyder didn't own the team when they left the DC area and the reasons for the move had nothing to do with the name in the least. But god forbid ESPN let FACTS dictate their agenda driven propaganda.

The worst is people that think it's about someone being offended. That's a level or two of thinking below mine.
 
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?

Was there a team by that name? Didn't think so...
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1063711947 said:
Was there a team by that name? Didn't think so...

Nope. If so we would have had a lawsuit by now.
 
What say you?

While it's not an issue that I see as really a big deal, I voted no. I think, at this point, the negative connotations it had in the past are sort of diluted and meaningless now. And I think we have been past it for awhile. There are a lot of Redskins fans from my home town/region in Virginia, and really, for a long time (in my youth and even into early adulthood), I didn't think about the name much. At some point I realized, hey, that's actually kind of racist. But I think it's more of a historical thing now. The Redskins, as a team, have a long history and a very loyal fan base. And while I don't think that changing their name would be a bad thing, I also don't think it necessarily has to be changed.

And there is a pretty large concentration of Cherokee people and heritage here (of which I am partly descended from), and the general sense, at least in my area, is that they don't care or simply aren't offended by it.

Ultimately, if they choose to change their name, cool. If not, cool. To me, anyway.
 
I think that's highly questionable. One could make just as strong, if not stronger, of an argument that changing a brand that's one of the most profitable in all of sports, and whose fan base rank "tradition" and "history" as some of it's most compelling factors for fandom, would actually be harmed FAR more by completely changing said brand than they are by continuing to push something that the vast majority of people, both in general and within the native american population, don't actually care about.

Not to mention, giving into that vocal minority may be no longer giving THEM the finger, but it WOULD be giving the finger to a whole different group of people that is significantly large and also does include a fair number of native americans as well (Who have actively suggested support for the name and offense over the notion of changing it)

SOME Native Americans have supported the name. There are also those against it.

SOME slaves fought for the Confedracy too, but that doesn't make slavery OK.
 
They could always change it to the White Christian Males, and watch everyone switch sides.

Even better - the Crackers
 
Enlighten us oh wise one.

It's very simple. Say it slowly with me:

Racial stereotypes are bad for society.

6 words.

6 words that are true and it doesn't matter one ****ing bit who is or who is not offended by whatever.
 
There you go...Native Americans who don't agree with primarily a bunch of white people telling them what should be "offensive" to them is tantamount to supporting slavery. Nevermind that the argument that "some blacks fought for the confederacy" could equally be used to cast doubt upon those minority of native americans suggesting the name must be changed as it is to cast doubt on those that suggest it should remain.
 
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.


Judging from all those tribes and organizations that you posted it would appear they have banded together and in spite of your claims that they don't have a legal justification and bullying, the Indians have won a major victory in court. The Redskins franchise lost the patent rights to the name which could mean a loss of millions in merchandising.
 
There you go...Native Americans who don't agree with primarily a bunch of white people telling them what should be "offensive" to them is tantamount to supporting slavery. Nevermind that the argument that "some blacks fought for the confederacy" could equally be used to cast doubt upon those minority of native americans suggesting the name must be changed as it is to cast doubt on those that suggest it should remain.


"This idea that the fight against the mascoting of Native people is something new and led by white folks is ... yet another way of cutting Native people out of the American discourse about things that matter to us," Keeler says. "By reframing the issue this way the Washington NFL team continues to make real, modern Native people to disappear, much as their mascot does. It's a continuation of the extinguishment of the Native voice and the appropriation of our identity and lands."

Zirin says that Snyder will lose the debate because "he keeps arguing with ghosts: these imaginary white liberal politically correct sportswriting phantasms who in his mind are out to get him and his beloved brand. Meanwhile, he refuses to sit down across the table from the very Native Americans who are objecting to this name."


Read more at Palin's Redskins Rant: Using a Political Football to Silence a People - ICTMN.com
 
I voted yes. I never really thought about it much but I can see how it could be insulting or demeaning. Seems there are those that thinks its not offensive. My question is would you introduce a native Indian friend as a Redskin. Would you use it in normal conversation with a Native Indian. To tell the truth I might have before without thinking about it. I doubt I would do it now. Not of major importance, I'm not going to march on Washington or write my congressman. But I think having the name changed would show a sign of respect. We've kind of screwed them over from the beginning taking their land and all. Might as well make some amends.
 
Of course, the question isn't if the government should force them to change, but if they should change. Would it be right for them to do so?

If Snyder wants to continue to give everybody a big middle finger, that's his right. It is, however, damaging the very brand he wants to protect.

If polls mean anything, I'd say Snyder is engendering the exact opposite.
 
So I take it you don't purchase anything from the NFL or contribute to anything that would help justify their ability to sell advertising and television rights? Because the NFL engages in revenue sharing, which means support to the NFL is ultimately financially supporting it's teams...including the Redskins.

I happen to be a Raiders fan and we beat the Redskins on Black Sunday (SB XVIII), what I'd like to know is what are these twits going to do about the history of the team? Erase it? This team has won and lost Super Bowls, this is a storied team. They gona sweep all that under the rug? They gona photoshop all the films and pictures, and voice over all the game audio? How far do they intend to take this?
 
It's very simple. Say it slowly with me:

Racial stereotypes are bad for society.

6 words.

6 words that are true and it doesn't matter one ****ing bit who is or who is not offended by whatever.

Say these words with me, "It take's two people to communicate". "One to say the words, the other to hear them and accept them." Here's a little nursery rhyme. "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will NEVER hurt me." People who get a offended are just puppets. People who are easily manipulated by their betters.
 
False analogy. Indians can't change the color of their skin...but the KKK can change the color of their sheets.

False rebuttal. Native americans arent Indian or redskinned.
 
"This idea that the fight against the mascoting of Native people is something new and led by white folks is

It absolutely isn't "something new". It's been going on since the 70's at least. However, the FERVOR over it is absolutely something new and many of the more recent people coming out speaking out against it absolutely are "new". An example is Phil Simms, who has for years upon years said "Redskin" during games without a second thought but has suddenly just this year decided he won't say it. The "new" notion is in terms of the fervent and continual media attention given to it, not the movement itself.

The movement being "led" by white folks is a misnomer and few people suggest that. However, it's indisputable that the majority of the people who have came out in favor of changing the name ARE non-native americans. Indeed, every scientific poll taken on the matter shows the general population is routinely more offended by the name than the native american population.

Additionally, in terms of my comment about "white people telling them"; yes, absolutely I mean that. ProFootballTalk, a news outlet routinely running the stories telling people native americans should be offended is ran by a white person. Mike Wise, the biggest media proponent of the name change in the Redskins home location, is a white person who actively calls natives who disagree with him "Uncle Tomahawk". Many of those at ESPN running their consistent stories and outside the line pieces are white. The original person pushing this is absolutely a native american, but the reality is the main people MESSAGING THIS TO THE PUBLIC are absolutely white people.

... yet another way of cutting Native people out of the American discourse about things that matter to us," Keeler says.

And this is yet another ignorant Native American who egotistically believe they speak for "us", when in reality while native americans share an ethnicity there is substantial differences amongst various tribal and geographical lines. It's laughable how some people SCREAM about how horrible racial stereotypes is, and yet many of the native americans and others pushing for the name change are arguing from a foundation of STEREOTYPES by suggesting that inherently all native americans are or should be offended.

They aren't. There are groups and individuals across the nation of native american dissent that support the name, do not find it offensive or being used as a slur, and some have even expressed their offense at people falsely using "native americans" as some kind of broad group in an effort to change the name.

"By reframing the issue this way the Washington NFL team continues to make real, modern Native people to disappear, much as their mascot does.

And thus the egotistical and ignorant trend continues by this gentleman to declare that "real" Native people MUST agree with him. It's funny watching how liberals screamed bloody murder when Sarah Palin used the "real american" line, but have no seeming issue with this native american declaring that those who don't agree with him are not "real native americans". They scream about "extinguishment of Native voice" while purposefully and completely ignoring native voices themselves via their continual ignoring of polls and public statements showing of native americans, at times a vast majority, disagreeing with him over this issue.
 
Back
Top Bottom