Re: This again
 

[QUOTE=BossHog]It's slightly offensive and that's all it takes. Change the name and keep the logo. How about The Washington Warriors? Just as the Cleveland Indians logo is slightly offensive (we would be in the midst of a civil war if the face of the logo was black) they should change the logo and keep the name. If you don't have a problem with it as it is, you shouldn't have a problem if it's changed. Just like the GEICO commercial, "... so easy, even a caveman could use it." Now try replacing the word 'caveman' for Jew, black man, or even woman. Not cool, huh? :oink:[/QUOTE]



if im not mistaken its the logo thats most offensive. The symbol on our helmet was used in trading posts to signify that that trading post sold skinned indian heads. Which is pretty offensive.

Re: This again
 

I haven't read where the logo is most offensive, but if what you say is true, I can understand.....if that was the case...then just change the logo back to the spear and feather that they used decades ago....

Re: This again
 

I'm African American, and never lived in Africa, so what should I be...just another black face

Re: This again
 

When your the Majority of course it doesn't matter, but when your the Minority, then Identy is very important, I love the Redskins too....but If they had a picture of a Blackman on a helment, and said....the Washington Blackskins, who out there think that Black Americans, wouldn't be offended.....so show some sensitivity to these people were not trying to beat them in the ground.....I say Spear and Feather is fine with me....or like one man said in hear set up a fund or scholarship to show we at least care........if someone came up to me and said hey Blackface....two in the forehead.....boom

Re: This again
 

all bullshit and jokes aside, if it is so offensive, then change it. We've all seen names changed for dumber reasons (Wizards). If it offends 1 or 1 billion it's still offensive and in some instances considered racist.

I think Chris Rock said it best with "its like if we changed the name of the New York Giants to the New York Niggers" its totaly offensive and derogatory to the members of the native american nation. I'm black and I can understand when people want understanding and they get lude and obnoxious comments from fans and staff alike.

Re: This again
 

[QUOTE=skinsguy]DJnemo65:

Are you really THAT upset over our team moniker, or are you just trying to be politically correct? To me, it seems logical to think if you are a fan of this team and have pulled for them over the years, then the name "Redskins" must not be that offensive to you. I mean, it's kind of like saying drinking beer is completely wrong while you're holding a big 'ol can of Miller lite in your hand!

Until my research proves otherwise, this is an activist issue not a majority issue. There are so many other things in this world to be concerned with than a football name.[/QUOTE]

You aren't really paying attention to what I'm saying. Yes I love the skins and haven't boycotted them because of their name (although I did point out in an earlier post that this is because they play in Washington, not because of their moniker). I have never suggested that the name offends [I]me[/I]. It really doesn't matter what I think. Instead, I'm just arguing that those of us positioned outside of that culture should try and be a little more sensitive towards the viewpoints of those within it who are offended. When people make arguments [I]for[/I] Native Americans as to why they shouldn't be offended by the name, that is what bothers me. I mean, if all we are talking about is a freaking sports team's name, why not try and accomodate those who claim to be offended by its mascot, even if we maybe don't agree with their grounds for taking offense? I just don't see what the big deal is.

Re: This again
 

djnemo65, I agree I just think most people in here think that some people should be happy they are not calling them worse....I don't want to affend anyone, just like I wouldn't want to be offended, it wasn't until about 5 years ago, I start hearing that Native Americans thought that was offensive and when they gave there reason, I said well if they feel that way I'm not going to argue with them....I'm Skin's fan....I wish we could work something out with them.....if your not senstive to their situation, then you just support the side that says call anybody anthing you want....this is not about beer bottles, and what people do and don't do....this about respecting a race and their feelings......BOTTOM LINE

Re: This again
 

SKINGUY......you mean like racism...

Re: This again
 

The first Redskins coach was a Native American I believe...or atleast one of the first...but maybe they were the braves then

Re: This again
 

Lone Star Dietz...their second coach, and they were the Redskins then...funny he didn't find it offensive

Re: This again
 

First Heart Surgeon was Black....so do they stop fling out racist words

Re: This again
 

This football team has been on actual notice from 1972 that Native Americans found this name offensive," attorney Thomas Morrison, representing the American Indian groups, told the U.S. Court of Appeals. "I don't think we'd be hearing this debate if it were a different ethnic group."

Terms such as "blackies" or "spics" would clearly be unacceptable for any team name, Morrison said in court.

enough said for me

Re: This again
 

The only team I would ever leave the Redskins for would be the Carolina Crackers....

This is idiotic. If you want to find a reason to find someone offensive, you can. It's not hard. I feel that a majority of the people in this country really aren't racist and wewhite - what have the Redskins done to hurt Native Americans? I've always thought of it as a tribute over a putdown. If the head is really what offends people, I actually prefer the spear, but I wouldn't change the name for anything.

Re: This again
 

someone please explain the difference between calling me white and the term "redskins?"

Re: This again
 

[QUOTE=wewhite3]SKINGUY......you mean like racism...[/QUOTE]

Huh? I don't follow?

I'm not trying to tell the Native Americans what to be offended by and what not be offended by. I just find it odd that even the majority of native americans (at least what it appears to be presently) don't find the team's name to be offensive...so since that seems to be the case according to what information I have read, it's pointless to argue that the minority (not in a racial sense but in a numbers sense) are the ones offended, but not the majority. So, if the majority doesn't find anything to be offensive, then I don't see the argument. I'm speaking of the majority of native americans.

Re: This again
 

[QUOTE=wewhite3]This football team has been on actual notice from 1972 that Native Americans found this name offensive," attorney Thomas Morrison, representing the American Indian groups, told the U.S. Court of Appeals. "I don't think we'd be hearing this debate if it were a different ethnic group."

Terms such as "blackies" or "spics" would clearly be unacceptable for any team name, Morrison said in court.

enough said for me[/QUOTE]
Before you start playing the race card, go back and read my post about what the term 'redskins' means in terms of the Redskins nickname. It is used in a totally different way as 'blackies' or 'spics'. I'm affraid that some people are trying to make this out into something that it totally is not.

Re: This again
 

This was on a tv special about a year ago. This involves just one lady who does not even watch or go to sporting events. She has nothing more to do with her time but to make a big deal over nothing. Most indians that were interviewed are proud of how the indian symbols are used in the sports world today. The use of the word offensive drives me crazy. What are we a nation of whimps.

Re: This again
 

[QUOTE=firstdown]What are we a nation of whimps.[/QUOTE]

We are certainly headed that way.

Re: This again
 

If it's continuing to be an issue, just change the name. What's the big deal? I'm used to calling the team the Redskins, but I could just as easily call them the Parrots or the Hucksters or the Insert Name Here (if Snyder sells the naming rights as I'm sure he'll want to do).

And to say that this is the work of a few Native Americans, well its not like there are millions of NAs walking the streets. I happen to be good friends with a Native American, and he's none too pleased with the Redskins name. To try and sugarcoat it by saying that its a reference to war paint, well that's just insulting. Look up redskin in the dictionary, according to Websters its a noun and its "usually offensive".

That's good enough for me, but then again I'm not one to dictate how someone else should feel. All my memories are of the team, not the nickname. Changing it hurts us how?

Re: This again
 

[QUOTE=cpayne5]We are certainly headed that way.[/QUOTE]

nah, we'll always have wars to wage around the world in the name of "freedom"

;)

Re: This again
 

[QUOTE=memphisskin] To try and sugarcoat it by saying that its a reference to war paint, well that's just insulting. Look up redskin in the dictionary, according to Websters its a noun and its "usually offensive".[/QUOTE]

It's not sugar coating it to say that the name came from the red war paint. That is absolute fact. The Redskins name is derived from that, so take it or leave it. As your websters reference implies, the term is not used 100% of the time in an offensive way.

Re: This again
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]nah, we'll always have wars to wage around the world in the name of "freedom"

;)[/QUOTE]
Actually, [for me] pacifism is a very very small part of this wimpy trend. For me, it revolves around the way the american citizen lives and they way they *believe* they should live.

Re: This again
 

[QUOTE=memphisskin]If it's continuing to be an issue, just change the name. What's the big deal? I'm used to calling the team the Redskins, but I could just as easily call them the Parrots or the Hucksters or the Insert Name Here (if Snyder sells the naming rights as I'm sure he'll want to do).

And to say that this is the work of a few Native Americans, well its not like there are millions of NAs walking the streets. I happen to be good friends with a Native American, and he's none too pleased with the Redskins name. To try and sugarcoat it by saying that its a reference to war paint, well that's just insulting. Look up redskin in the dictionary, according to Websters its a noun and its "usually offensive".

That's good enough for me, but then again I'm not one to dictate how someone else should feel. All my memories are of the team, not the nickname. Changing it hurts us how?[/QUOTE] The big deal is the millions of dollars that it would cost to change the name. If this was such a big issue that concerned so many Native Americans we would hear more about it . In the show I saw last year on this issue when they held a protest at the stadium ony one person showed up.To me that is not a stong show of support for all these so called millions it offends.

Re: This again
 

[QUOTE=cpayne5]Actually, [for me] pacifism is a very very small part of this wimpy trend. For me, it revolves around the way the american citizen lives and they way they *believe* they should live.[/QUOTE]

What exactly do you mean?

We're too PC?

Re: This again
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]What exactly do you mean?

We're too PC?[/QUOTE]
PC is part of it, but lifestyle is what I'm mostly referring to.

Re: This again
 

[QUOTE=memphisskin]If it's continuing to be an issue, just change the name. What's the big deal? I'm used to calling the team the Redskins, but I could just as easily call them the Parrots or the Hucksters or the Insert Name Here (if Snyder sells the naming rights as I'm sure he'll want to do).

And to say that this is the work of a few Native Americans, well its not like there are millions of NAs walking the streets. I happen to be good friends with a Native American, and he's none too pleased with the Redskins name. To try and sugarcoat it by saying that its a reference to war paint, well that's just insulting. Look up redskin in the dictionary, according to Websters its a noun and its "usually offensive".

That's good enough for me, but then again I'm not one to dictate how someone else should feel. All my memories are of the team, not the nickname. Changing it hurts us how?[/QUOTE]

Well, it costs the team millions of dollars for one thing...even if the only thing you have to change is the name and not the symbols or colors. Personally, after thinking about this, I could live with a name change as long as it was related...maybe something like the Warriors, Seminoles, or change it back to the Braves. I could live with the team changing the symbol back to the spear and feather.

Wewhite2: When I say more important issues in this world, I'm talking about American jobs leaving our country, the high cost of gas and oil, fighting diseases. If you're going to pull the racial card out, you'd better accept the fact that racism isn't completely spawn from white people. I have been a near victim of a racial crime in my lifetime through no fault of my own. Racism is an ignorant thing, no doubt...but it's just as ignorant to assume that only one race is guilty of it.

Re: This again
 

It admittedly does get increasingly difficult to pretend that the team's name does not have some other connotation. And the really cold fact is that, because Native Americans have been so marginalized in our society (once their society), that the offensiveness passes unnoticed because there is really no one around to hear the tree fall in the forest. Naturally, a name that gave that kind of depiction to Blacks or Puerto Ricans like me would get shouted down because there are enough people in that constituency with enough of a relevant voice sure to tell society that that is unacceptable.

Couple of ironies though. One is that the fact is that when you say the word "Redskins" in so-called mainstream U.S. society, what people think of first IS the football team, and NOT the ethnic group. Another is that research that an area law firm has done on behalf of the Danster reveals that Native Americans themselves throughout the years at all levels of sport have themselves named their teams Redskins. Plus there were the results of that Sports Illustrated poll I had posted earlier.

When people talked about "niggers" that word was laced with hatred and a misguided superiority at the time it was being said, with violence, lynchings, separate restrooms, back of the bus, you name it. But when we say the word Redskins today, there is no associated hatred or sense of supremacy vis a vis Native Americans; the word comes out of the mouth without any associated negative baggage. Sure, it is the same "word," but the substance is not the same at all. The prevailing argument is that we should dispense with the word because it is offensive and does not represent our society today. But since we know that it does not represent today's society, then the alleged offensive substance of the word has already been rendered meaningless ! Even on the team itself, I don't remember anyone thinking Mark Rypien was dumb or reviled as the quarterback because he was Native American; of course not. So, where is the real offensiveness? What was that we learned in school, "sticks and stones may break my bones..."

During the first Joe Gibbs era, and hopefully this one, as far as the Washington Redskins were concerned specifically to be called a "true Redskin" was a badge of honor in the sports world and in the local community, as it stood for humble guys who worked hard on the field with great teamwork and gave to the community off of it. It was hardly disparaging at all and really had nothing to do with offending Native Americans b/c again, Redskin conjured up the image of Darrell Green, not Sitting Bull.

As minority, I sometimes feel a bit perplexed that minorities in the U.S. would look so quickly to self-identify as hyphenated, and to marginalize themselves by choosing to direct their collective energy to take up the cause of being offended by labels and semantics.

There is oppression; there is discrimination; there is racism, yes yes yes, these are sad facts for which work still remains to be done. But for all the truly disadvantaged, it's guys like me, that through some dumb luck did happen to land at a good university, with all the same opportunities and advantages as those that are considered the not disadvantaged. And with that in front of us, placed on a level playing field, it just seems like the biggest disservice to the people that we claim to be outraged on behalf of, if what we did then is run ourselves off the road by grieving about offensive names, when we actually were being given the opportunity, not to protest outside the system or even grieve within it trying to advocate for our allotted "portion," but to truly become part of it, be the system itself, sit at the head of the table and reform and redefine it.

Re: This again
 

I have been a Redskin fan since 1967-68, when I was only 16 years old. I have lived long enough to see that the name is now considered by some to be Politically incorrect. I know that LDS owns the rights to the team name "Warriors". Do I want a change, no, but I see the point by those whose heritage is degraded. It has been argued well in here that the name is really potentially offensive to some!

It is all about heritage, and pride. Should we respect others wishes? Absolutely, 100% of the time. Even if it is only a few Native Americans who do feel dis-respected. Could the Washington Redskins lose this court battle? Possibly, but the Native Americans who are offended, would have to prove harm was intended by the Washington Redskins. Then, we would all have to buy products reflective of the new team logo. So marketing would be boosted. That would not be a bad thing, after all, money makes the NFL go 'round!

Would it be easy for me to get used to a new team name? No, after all, I'm not young, and old dogs don't usually learn new tricks. Would I try to adjust if the name did change? Yes. After all, the Browns became the Ravens, the Oilers became the Titans, and both the Chiefs and the cowroids were formerly called by a different name. So change has happened, and precedent has already been set!

So, the question really becomes: If the Redskins are forced to change their name, will you adapt?

Re: This again
 

[QUOTE=TAFKAS]It admittedly does get increasingly difficult to pretend that the team's name does not have some other connotation. And the really cold fact is that, because Native Americans have been so marginalized in our society (once their society), that the offensiveness passes unnoticed because there is really no one around to hear the tree fall in the forest. Naturally, a name that gave that kind of depiction to Blacks or Puerto Ricans like me would get shouted down because there are enough people in that constituency with enough of a relevant voice sure to tell society that that is unacceptable.

Couple of ironies though. One is that the fact is that when you say the word "Redskins" in so-called mainstream U.S. society, what people think of first IS the football team, and NOT the ethnic group. Another is that research that an area law firm has done on behalf of the Danster reveals that Native Americans themselves throughout the years at all levels of sport have themselves named their teams Redskins. Plus there were the results of that Sports Illustrated poll I had posted earlier.

When people talked about "niggers" that word was laced with hatred and a misguided superiority at the time it was being said, with violence, lynchings, separate restrooms, back of the bus, you name it. But when we say the word Redskins today, there is no associated hatred or sense of supremacy vis a vis Native Americans; the word comes out of the mouth without any associated negative baggage. Sure, it is the same "word," but the substance is not the same at all. The prevailing argument is that we should dispense with the word because it is offensive and does not represent our society today. But since we know that it does not represent today's society, then the alleged offensive substance of the word has already been rendered meaningless ! Even on the team itself, I don't remember anyone thinking Mark Rypien was dumb or reviled as the quarterback because he was Native American; of course not. So, where is the real offensiveness? What was that we learned in school, "sticks and stones may break my bones..."

During the first Joe Gibbs era, and hopefully this one, as far as the Washington Redskins were concerned specifically to be called a "true Redskin" was a badge of honor in the sports world and in the local community, as it stood for humble guys who worked hard on the field with great teamwork and gave to the community off of it. It was hardly disparaging at all and really had nothing to do with offending Native Americans b/c again, Redskin conjured up the image of Darrell Green, not Sitting Bull.

As minority, I sometimes feel a bit perplexed that minorities in the U.S. would look so quickly to self-identify as hyphenated, and to marginalize themselves by choosing to direct their collective energy to take up the cause of being offended by labels and semantics.

There is oppression; there is discrimination; there is racism, yes yes yes, these are sad facts for which work still remains to be done. But for all the truly disadvantaged, it's guys like me, that through some dumb luck did happen to land at a good university, with all the same opportunities and advantages as those that are considered the not disadvantaged. And with that in front of us, placed on a level playing field, it just seems like the biggest disservice to the people that we claim to be outraged on behalf of, if what we did then is run ourselves off the road by grieving about offensive names, when we actually were being given the opportunity, not to protest outside the system or even grieve within it trying to advocate for our allotted "portion," but to truly become part of it, be the system itself, sit at the head of the table and reform and redefine it.[/QUOTE]

I've tried to not touch this subject with a 10-foot pole, but you said it exactly how I was brewing it up in my mind. Even though I'm not a minority in the racial sense, I still know what you're talking about because everyone is a minority in some way, shape or form.

Indeed, there are more pressing issues that need to be resolved in the world without having to concetrate what TAFKAS very well stated "Sticks and Stones"

Re: This again
 

Cpayne....Nobodys playing the race card.....that quote came from the Washington post that I copied, those are not my words.....

Re: This again
 

[QUOTE=wewhite3]Cpayne....Nobodys playing the race card.....that quote came from the Washington post that I copied, those are not my words.....[/QUOTE]
It was clear that you didn't write it. But, by posting it (and from your other posts), you seem to be trying to relate the term 'redskins' as used in context of the Washington Redskins to the use of the terms "blackies" or "spics". That comparison just does not apply here.

I smell a nice big helping of question 3 cooking in the oven ...

Re: This again
 

Oh boy, here we go again...:party-smi

Re: This again
 

[QUOTE=wewhite3][size=1]First I don't have to play the race card because I am a minority, and second that quote that you so easily read came from your news paper, the Post...anything that offends a group of people is offensive, If you don't get that then your part of the problem now, why native americans are offended...[/size][/QUOTE]

For one thing, when you quote something or someone, you should properly cite them, but that doesn't have anything to do with what I originally said.

You are playing the race card because you tried to compare the Washington Redskins with 'blackies' and 'spics'. You can play the race card no matter if you are a minority/ majority or even what side of the fence you are on in this matter.

Anything can be offensive under your definition.

Re: This again
 

[QUOTE=skinsguy]Well, it costs the team millions of dollars for one thing...even if the only thing you have to change is the name and not the symbols or colors. Personally, after thinking about this, I could live with a name change as long as it was related...maybe something like the Warriors, Seminoles, or change it back to the Braves. I could live with the team changing the symbol back to the spear and feather.

Wewhite2: When I say more important issues in this world, I'm talking about American jobs leaving our country, the high cost of gas and oil, fighting diseases. If you're going to pull the racial card out, you'd better accept the fact that racism isn't completely spawn from white people. I have been a near victim of a racial crime in my lifetime through no fault of my own. Racism is an ignorant thing, no doubt...but it's just as ignorant to assume that only one race is guilty of it.[/QUOTE]The word Warriors is also offensive to this group. Any term our phrase reffering to Native Americans is offensive to them. They want to make it illegal to do the warrior chop at sporting events. If the name was truly offensive I would agee 100% to have it changed. I can not speak for Native Americans but I do not see Redskins as an offensive word. They had a demonstration at rfk years back and only one person showed up and if thats any indication then it must not be a big issue with Native Americans.

Re: This again
 

A few years ago my first day on the job the first guy I met I was somewhat interested about because he had a massive Redskins logo tatooed on his calf. Turns out he's 1/2 cherokee. He obviously didn't find it offensive.

Re: This again
 

It's quite funny we're talking about Native Americans.....if you are born in this country, aren't you Native to the country? Logic would say yes, therefore, all of us on this board who were born in these United States are Native Americans.

Re: This again
 

now were all equal...........LOL

Re: This again
 

[QUOTE=SeasonTicketHolder][url="http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-redskinsname&prov=ap&type=lgns"]http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-redskinsname&prov=ap&type=lgns[/url][/QUOTE]

If the Redskins want to keep thier name all they have to do is put a potato on the helmet!

Re: This again
 

[QUOTE=81forHOF]If the Redskins want to keep thier name all they have to do is put a potato on the helmet![/QUOTE]


LOL!!! I was thinking the samething this morning! I even pictured what the helmet symbol would look like! ROTFL! :lol:

Re: This again
 

[QUOTE=cpayne5]It's not sugar coating it to say that the name came from the red war paint. That is absolute fact. The Redskins name is derived from that, so take it or leave it. As your websters reference implies, the term is not used 100% of the time in an offensive way.[/QUOTE]

My bad, 99% of the time it's offensive. The other 1% is where we come in. Why are we so attached to this label?