View Full Version : What is your take?
AVGWarhawk
03-07-13, 12:09 PM
The Redskins name has been a debated topic through the years that has heated up once again this offseason. Vincent Gray, the mayor of D.C., said there would need to be a "discussion" about a name change if the Redskins wanted to return to the district (they currently play their games in Landover, Md.) in January. The following month Native Americans held a daylong symposium at the National Museum of the American Indian in Washington, D.C. discussing the offensive nature of the Redskins nickname.
http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2013/3/7/4074566/redskins-name-trademark-case
Platapus
03-07-13, 12:27 PM
My take? Honestly? I don't care.
I really can't imagine anyone being offended by the use of the term "redskin" in such a positive context as the name of a major sports team.
Someone would have to demonstrate actual damages against Native Americans because of the use of the term Redskin. Is any NA being discriminated against because of the NFL team name?
The only negative context is when the Redskins suck, which they often do.
However, just because I am not offended does not mean that others are not offended.
But this does bring up the question: are there instances where people should not care whether other people are offended by the use of a word/phrase?
Is there a difference between not liking something and being "offended"?
Pretty much anything will offend someone. Is there a minimum number of objectors that will make the objection "legitimate"?
Are there categorizes of "objections" that are more important than others?
Basically, is there some instance where the appropriate response is "I realize that you find it objectionable but I am not changing it"?
Armistead
03-07-13, 12:44 PM
We can call them the Washington R word...
AVGWarhawk
03-07-13, 12:53 PM
Is there a difference between not liking something and being "offended"?
Yes, I think there is a difference. Offended seems somehow more forceful or colorful.
I think the word "offended" is sometimes overused.
AVGWarhawk
03-07-13, 12:56 PM
We can call them the Washington R word...
This is the road it is leading to. However, the Atlanta Braves, now that is a name some can be ok with? Cleveland Indians? Could a native American be offended as he is referenced to Cleveland. Possibly a city he does not like? It gets a bit tiresome to say the least.
Takeda Shingen
03-07-13, 01:21 PM
I can understand why a Native American would be upset with the name. A chief or a brave are generic terms, while a Redskin is a pejorative. I mean, you wouldn't name a sports team the N_ _ _ _ _ _, right? So, fine change the name to something else. NFL teams have done it before. Houston's franchise returned as the Texans. Tennessee dropped the Oilers mantle to be the Titans (which has a whole lot to do with the state of Tennessee). Baltimore went with the Ravens rather than trying to get back the name Colts. So, not a big deal in my eyes.
AVGWarhawk
03-07-13, 01:30 PM
Probably more so a big deal to the fans of the R-skins. A small minority in the larger scheme of things.
A name change might be good.
As for the Ravens/Colts, it was best the Colts keep that name in Indy. What a bad taste left in Baltimore's mouth when they loaded and left in the middle of the night. New team, new franchise, new name. Just worked for the best.
Takeda Shingen
03-07-13, 01:42 PM
Probably more so a big deal to the fans of the R-skins. A small minority in the larger scheme of things.
A name change might be good.
As for the Ravens/Colts, it was best the Colts keep that name in Indy. What a bad taste left in Baltimore's mouth when they loaded and left in the middle of the night. New team, new franchise, new name. Just worked for the best.
I've never been too attached to sports team names. The bald eagle is not indiginous to Pennsylvania, so if they were to change Eagles to something more apt, that would be fine. The Chokers would be a good choice; after all no one can blow a 4th quarter lead like Philly.
mookiemookie
03-07-13, 02:24 PM
I can understand why a Native American would be upset with the name. A chief or a brave are generic terms, while a Redskin is a pejorative. I mean, you wouldn't name a sports team the N_ _ _ _ _ _, right?
Agreed. The Stanford Indians? Marquette Warriors? Never should have been changed. FSU Seminoles, Utah Utes, Illinois Illini? Those are awesome names, and anyone offended by having a tribe's name as your team mascot (which are usually known for their positive traits of bravery, fearlessness, strength, power, etc.) should have their head examined.
Now Redskins is a different story. It's a slur. There's no two ways about that. And just because something has been around a long time doesn't mean it's ok. I think they should take a long hard look at changing their name.
Wolferz
03-07-13, 04:07 PM
The native Americans should be more offended by the name ol' Chris gave them. Indians. The idiot thought he had landed on the shores of east India, where actual Indians live.
As for the Redskins football team, I think they would be better served by removing the native American logo or pay some royalties for its use.
Besides, insult can't be given unless taken. If they take insult, too bad.
I'm part Iroquois and it doesn't bother me.
Every time I hear the word Indian I think of...
Would you like a slushie wid dat?
Takeda Shingen
03-07-13, 04:19 PM
The native Americans should be more offended by the name ol' Chris gave them. Indians. The idiot thought he had landed on the shores of east India, where actual Indians live.
As for the Redskins football team, I think they would be better served by removing the native American logo or pay some royalties for its use.
Besides, insult can't be given unless taken. If they take insult, too bad.
I'm part Iroquois and it doesn't bother me.
Every time I hear the word Indian I think of...
Would you like a slushie wid dat?
I don't think it is the logo that is the problem. They could probably even keep the Native American theme, but just drop the use of redskin. Call them something else. I know a lot of people of Irish ancestery that would be pretty pissed off if the Celtics were called the Boston Micks.
AVGWarhawk
03-07-13, 04:41 PM
"Mick" certainly has the negative connotation. Probably because of the use more over than redskin. I can not say I have heard anyone use "redskin" as a derogatory term. I did have a friend in college that was full Native American that did not like to be called chief.
Platapus
03-07-13, 04:42 PM
As for the Redskins football team, I think they would be better served by removing the native American logo or pay some royalties for its use.
I suspect that is the actual goal. Many years my Highschool, who used an "Apache" as the logo, had a complaint from a local Indian tribe (not Apache by the way). The school system ended up paying the tribe an undisclosed amount of money. Suddenly, their offense went away. :nope:
A little bit of money can do wonders for being offended, I guess.
AVGWarhawk
03-07-13, 04:44 PM
A little bit of money can do wonders for being offended, I guess.
Al Sharpeton can confirm this.
soopaman2
03-07-13, 04:49 PM
It is not being used in a disrespectful manner.
It is not like if they named a team the Detroit Negroes, which would be disrespectful. (No offense to anyone, just an example of a true stereotypical sports team name, that would be offensive, intended to contrast the sillyness)
Redskins, the fierce warriors that destroyed the bastard Custer. The cry from the front of the wagon train that invoked terror into every man woman and child.
I see it as respect for the warrior prowess they held, the resistance they gave in the face of superior firepower and manpower. Stalwart, brave, unwavering.
A fine name for a sports team.
RickC Sniper
03-07-13, 04:52 PM
As for the Redskins football team, I think they would be better served by removing the native American logo or pay some royalties for its use.
Pay a royalty to whom?
Which tribe?
Every tribe?
Everyone with .02% Indian ancestry?
The Crazy Horse monument under construction?
I see a legit gripe about the term Redskin. It is a slur.
Indians, Fighting Sioux, Seminoles, Utes........all good names in imo.
Takeda Shingen
03-07-13, 05:05 PM
It is not being used in a disrespectful manner.
The term itself is disrespectful. 'Redskin' was a term of disparegement used by those of European descent against native peoples. It is akin to the N word referring to African Americans. That one does not mean it offensively does not negate the offense of the word.
If you want stalwart and brave, call them the Washington Warriors. You can keep the Native American imagery, the big tough connotation and still not offend people. Done.
Wolferz
03-07-13, 05:19 PM
Drop the red and keep the skins.:haha:
mookiemookie
03-07-13, 05:30 PM
If you want stalwart and brave, call them the Washington Warriors. You can keep the Native American imagery, the big tough connotation and still not offend people. Done.
That wouldn't even work. Marquette University was the Warriors. Then their Board of Trustees decided that was offensive and changed the name to the Gold, then the Golden Eagles. :roll:
soopaman2
03-07-13, 05:41 PM
The term itself is disrespectful. 'Redskin' was a term of disparegement used by those of European descent against native peoples. It is akin to the N word referring to African Americans. That one does not mean it offensively does not negate the offense of the word.
If you want stalwart and brave, call them the Washington Warriors. You can keep the Native American imagery, the big tough connotation and still not offend people. Done.
I see your point, I just do not hold it in that context, at least in my own mind. The fans of that team do not either.
The Atlanta Braves came under the same scrutiny in the past, whats offensive about Braves. Besides someone looking to sue? Or try to cement a legacy by battling the big bad white man, who lord over them now.
Natives have taken a legacy from the ex enslaved, who wish to continually use our rotten history against us. Unlike the African slaves, they were at least givin reservations, where they govern as their own. Yet some activist jumps up, to talk about how many of their kin did not get free casino loans. Or free independant land.
The blacks oughta be angry about this. We really treated them like crap, we didn't trade with them, we traded them.
Takeda Shingen
03-07-13, 05:55 PM
I see your point, I just do not hold it in that context, at least in my own mind. The fans of that team do not either.
The Atlanta Braves came under the same scrutiny in the past, whats offensive about Braves. Besides someone looking to sue? Or try to cement a legacy by battling the big bad white man, who lord over them now.
Natives have taken a legacy from the ex enslaved, who wish to continually use our rotten history against us. Unlike the African slaves, they were at least givin reservations, where they govern as their own. Yet some activist jumps up, to talk about how many of their kin did not get free casino loans. Or free independant land.
The blacks oughta be angry about this. We really treated them like crap, we didn't trade with them, we traded them.
I think you need to read up on your American history.
mookiemookie
03-08-13, 06:44 AM
The Atlanta Braves came under the same scrutiny in the past, whats offensive about Braves. Besides someone looking to sue? Or try to cement a legacy by battling the big bad white man, who lord over them now.
As I understand it, the Atlanta Braves controversy was centered not so much around the name, but the imagery the team used. The Tomahawk chop and some of the cartoony stuff like Chief Noc-A-Homa. Same thing with the Cleveland Indians and Chief Wahoo.
Rats clacker. As in I couldn't give one.
Jimbuna
03-08-13, 08:29 AM
Rats clacker. As in I couldn't give one.
It looks to me like some of that Brit political correctness has moved across the pond.
AVGWarhawk
03-08-13, 08:41 AM
Let's call the team the Washington Paleface. Problem solved. :hmmm:
Platapus
03-08-13, 09:11 AM
We could call them the Washington Electrolux
After all, nothing sucks like an electrolux. :D
AVGWarhawk
03-08-13, 09:15 AM
Well, if we call them the Senators(like the old baseball team). They can sit and do nothing much like the Senators on Capitol Hill. :up:
Maybe they could call themselves "Custers Revenge"?
With everything else that is going on in this country, I am completely indifferent to what a group of professional ball players call themselves or who is upset about it.
AVGWarhawk
03-08-13, 09:39 AM
With everything else that is going on in this country, I am completely indifferent to what a group of professional ball players call themselves or who is upset about it.
I'm offended by this comment. :stare: No wait, your right!
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.