Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Should the Washington Redskins change their name?


  • Please log in to reply
137 replies to this topic

Poll: Should Washington change the their name? (48 member(s) have cast votes)

Should Washington change the their name?

  1. Yes (19 votes [39.58%])

    Percentage of vote: 39.58%

  2. No (29 votes [60.42%])

    Percentage of vote: 60.42%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#16 CarolinaCoolin

CarolinaCoolin

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,499 posts
  • LocationMaryland

Posted 27 September 2013 - 04:57 PM

The question is not, "Should the Washington Redskins Be Forced to Change Their Name?"

The question is, "Should the Washington Redskins Change Their Name?" meaning the team and its ownership makes the decision to change the name.

The quickest way to get them to change their name? At next year's draft, if their first round draft pick happens to be black, that draft pick does a John Elway and publicly refuses to play for the team, citing a name bearing racial overtones. Kind of curious no current member of the team who also happens to belong to a historically racially oppressed minority hasn't stood up and said something.... hmmm....


They still don't even have a first round pick.

#17 Doyle

Doyle

    Headed to the county line

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,168 posts
  • LocationRiverboat Rivera

Posted 27 September 2013 - 05:11 PM

OK so if they change their name do they also have to change their logo?  Could they shorten in to the "Skins" and then just have some feathers/spear or something like Florida State?



#18 Anybodyhome

Anybodyhome

    USN Retired

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,712 posts
  • LocationWherever I May Roam

Posted 27 September 2013 - 05:33 PM

OK so if they change their name do they also have to change their logo?  Could they shorten in to the "Skins" and then just have some feathers/spear or something like Florida State?

 

Foreskins would be my (obvious) choice, although I think posting logo ideas might get me banned.



#19 Doyle

Doyle

    Headed to the county line

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,168 posts
  • LocationRiverboat Rivera

Posted 27 September 2013 - 05:36 PM

Foreskins would be my (obvious) choice, although I think posting logo ideas might get me banned.

 

 

But unclipped guys my take offense to that name. 



#20 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,101 posts

Posted 27 September 2013 - 06:32 PM

Yes, they should. 

 

 



#21 NanuqoftheNorth

NanuqoftheNorth

    Frosty Alaskan Amber

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,501 posts
  • LocationAlaska

Posted 27 September 2013 - 06:40 PM

I simply find it uncomfortably ironic that there is a large number of African Americans on this football team who completely and utterly bristle at the notion of someone using a racial epithet toward them. But they seem to have no problem playing for an owner who, by the sheer nature of his attitude, seems to be okay with a team name that is considered by many as just that- a racial epithet. I guess as long as it's not directed at you, it's okay? And as long as said owner is signing their paychecks, it's okay as well

 

Pretty much nailed it.



#22 Matthias

Matthias

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,913 posts

Posted 28 September 2013 - 09:16 AM

To continue on from the conversation yesterday, I would like to see a new name and new logo/uniform.  With discussion from Daniel Snyder and native groups, I want this new name to teach me something about native americans that I didn't know.  Something precious to them, something they would want us to know about their ancestors.  Names like "Warriors" and "Braves" wouldn't really teach me anything new. (Of course I don't particularly know the full history behind the meaning of "Braves", but I heard it so many times already, I don't think it would encourage anyone to think of it's meaning)  So that would be my desire.



#23 Growl

Growl

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,024 posts

Posted 28 September 2013 - 09:20 AM

No.



#24 Happy Panther

Happy Panther

    Now even funnier.

  • ALL-PRO
  • 17,633 posts

Posted 28 September 2013 - 11:00 AM

I voted no only because I think it is debatable how derogatory and offensive the name is to American Indians. While congress has been up in arms about it and some of the American Indian political figures have been banging the drum, I suspect your average American Indian is not offended in the least. I am not suggesting none are, but it is hardly the slur that African Americans and Jews endure.

 

http://www.timesdisp...5e24bbfc0e.html

 

“It doesn’t bother me,” said Robert Green, 66 and chief of the Patawomeck Tribe in Virginia. “About 98 percent of my tribe is Redskins fans, and it doesn’t offend them, either.”
 
Kevin Brown, 58 and chief of the Pamunkey Tribe of Virginia, said, “I’m a Redskins fan, and I don’t think there’s any intention for (the nickname) to be derogatory. The majority of the people in my tribe don’t have a problem with it. There are a few who do, and we respect their feelings.
 
“I like the uniforms. I like the symbol (logo).”
 
G. Anne Richardson, chief of Virginia’s Rappahannock Tribe, had to stifle a laugh when asked her feelings on the Redskins’ nickname.
 
“I don’t have an issue with it,” she said. “There are so many more issues that are important for the tribe than to waste time on what a team is called. We’re worried about real things, and I don’t consider that a real thing.

 

 

 



#25 Matthias

Matthias

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,913 posts

Posted 28 September 2013 - 11:29 AM

The thing is, the name itself is inappropriate.  No one would call someone of native descent a redskin, and yet the team is essentially doing just that when you look at the meaning.  The whole thing is contradictory.  Even if those of native american descent didn't find it offensive for the team to be named the Redskins, I would still want it changed because it's just not an appropiate name.  As I said earlier, if the team was name the Washington Coloreds, the name would be changed. 

 

 

I also believe in this hypothetical.  Let's say there was never a team in the history of sports with the name Redskin.  Then let's say Los Angeles finally got a football franchise, and "Redskins" was a possible title choice for the new team.  How many people would find that inappropriate, how many would be okay with it?



#26 CarolinaCoolin

CarolinaCoolin

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,499 posts
  • LocationMaryland

Posted 28 September 2013 - 02:47 PM

This is more of an issue for political liberals than to actually native Americans. Seen by happy panthers post. The name should stay

#27 Anybodyhome

Anybodyhome

    USN Retired

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,712 posts
  • LocationWherever I May Roam

Posted 28 September 2013 - 02:58 PM

There's a small population of women who don't mind being called "bitches" also. Does that make it appropriate to call all women "bitches?"

 

And just how many Native Americans are required, what's the threshold, the tipping point number that would necessitate a change or recognition and admission the word is inappropriate?

 

Not sure we ever took that poll to make sure there was a vast majority of African Americans who disapproved the use of the "N-word" before deciding that was inappropriate.



#28 Guest_Spider Monkey_*

Guest_Spider Monkey_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 September 2013 - 03:04 PM

I am a Native American and I couldn't care less. It's just the name of a freaking team. If the owner wants to show his arrogance let him. There are uneducated, bigoted people everywhere, from all races. I pay none of them any attention. I think it's pure politics and stupid. However, the name is very racist and demeaning. I remember my late grandfather had a strong dislike for Washington because of their name and what it meant.

The word had as much racial hatred and meaning behind it as the N word. And Native Americans were mistreated just as bad, if not worse, as Africans. Trying to argue the name isn't racist shows your stupidity and lack of knowledge.


edit:

To what seems like every other person in NC who says, "I'm Native American. I'm part Cherokee."

No, you're not Native American. Just because your grandmother's sister's daughter slept with a man who was 1/4 Cherokee doesn't make you "part Indian." The Cherokee Indians are one of the smallest tribes around, but talking to people around here you'd think they were the biggest tribe in North America.

#29 Guest_Spider Monkey_*

Guest_Spider Monkey_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 September 2013 - 03:36 PM


I voted no only because I think it is debatable how derogatory and offensive the name is to American Indians. While congress has been up in arms about it and some of the American Indian political figures have been banging the drum, I suspect your average American Indian is not offended in the least. I am not suggesting none are, but it is hardly the slur that African Americans and Jews endure.

http://www.timesdisp...5e24bbfc0e.html


You might want to reread what you linked. None of what you linked had any quote saying the name is not offensive. They simply said it does not offend them. Words mean nothing to them. They do not give a fug what people say or think of them. But just because it doesn't offend them doesn't mean it is not a racial term.

#30 Happy Panther

Happy Panther

    Now even funnier.

  • ALL-PRO
  • 17,633 posts

Posted 28 September 2013 - 03:40 PM

None of what you linked had any quote saying the name is not offensive. They simply said it does not offend them. 

 

?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com