This again
 

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

Re: This again
 

What a waste of money and time. Show of hands, who thinks the name is offensive?

:rolleyes:

Re: This again
 

Not offensive.

In this world of political correctness, does that mean that New York GIANTS is offensive to short people?
New York JETS is more offensive in regard to 9/11.

Re: This again
 

i think senor smack and i should sue the browns for their name.

Re: This again
 

It's kind of funny how the name wasn't considered all that offensive really until the team hit it big and became popular

Re: This again
 

lol. Yea it should be the NY 'we respect you no matter how big or small you are' team.

And the 49ers are disrectful to those that prefer gold over silver.

The Saints should change their name to non denominational

The Texans should change their name becuase Texans get on my nerves

And the Cowboys should just burn their uniforms

Re: This again
 

It is a little late to worried about the name Redskins. Kind of silly at this point.
I found this interesting....
In July 1932, when George Preston Marshall was awarded the inactive Boston football franchise, he originally named the team "Braves" because it used Braves Field, home of the National League baseball team. It wasn't until 1936 when Preston moved the team to Washington (because nobody in Boston went to the games) that he changed the name to Redskins.
The ironic part of it of all of this is Preston Marshall was described by many, most notably Shirley Povich, as a pompous racist. Marshall kept the Redskins segregated until 1961, despite getting bombarded by Povich and the national media. We were by far the last team to sign a black player. It wasn't until the Kennedy administration, that Secretary of the Interior Stewart L. Udall warned [George] Marshall to hire black players or face federal retribution. The reasoning was that since the Redskins’ new stadium was being built in the District with federal funding; the Department of the Interior had final say on decisions surrounding it. Udall notified Marshall that the Interior Department had approved regulations prohibiting job discrimination by any party contracting to use ‘any public facility in a park area. If Marshall continued his ban on blacks he would be denied use of D.C. stadium The Redskins would have no place to play and could not survive financially without the use of D.C. stadium. So his hand was forced after years of defying the NFL and the Goverment.

Re: This again
 

if it is so direspectful to a nation of people then i say change the name its not that big of a deal.
the warhogs would fit with me

Re: This again
 

hmm, mabye for fun we should throw out some suggestions of to a cool new name. I know most of us do not want to change the name, im not saying we should. But there isnt much going on right now so this is somethign to ponder.

Warhogs has been mentioned.

Ill say...hmmm.... Canes...heh, I guess that doesnt fit the area. I dont really like it, but they should just be the Indians. Then it will be the cowboys vs indians game. Lol

Re: This again
 

if they take offense to that then they should take offense to..........
The chiefs, giants, cowboys, browns bucs(that old symbol! what was that pirate's name?), saints, and vikings. and possibly to the pats for the patriots that don't want to be representated by a team.

Re: This again
 

If they make us change the name I wanted the new name to be the Whiteskins!!!! I have NO problem with it being a white guy!!!!!!

Re: This again
 

Hell we should just buy them out of the lawsuit for 5 bucks... As a wise man once said, "these people sold long island for ten bucks, they have no idea what things are worth!"

On a serious note, I was raised a skins fan by my family, and one of my great grandmothers was a cherokee indian and her daughter, my grandmother is the biggest skins fan I've ever met in my life. I think they're just mad 'cause we keep losing to the cowboys and its starting to stir up a little emotion, so I say, dont lose the name...
just dont lose to dallas.

Re: This again
 

Why don't these people sue the Cleveland Indians? Their mascot is way more offensive the the term "Redskins." I think that our logo is a noble one one and in no way denigrates Native Americans. But I'm not Native American and I can't tell people what should offend them. This whole issue does bother me, though.

Would it be helpful or offensive for The Redskins organization to do something like set up a scholarship for Native Americans? I'm not sure...

Re: This again
 

my grandfather was full blooded cherokee and never had a complaint.... it was his favorite team lol

Re: This again
 

How 'bout the Washington Whitebread? I don't care...let's play football!! People need to stop being so impetuous and overly PC.

Re: This again
 

I am Mexican and when i see a commercial with a white guy and his family on TV dancing around in the kithcen to this ridiculous "Mexican Jingle" saying ole waiting for their echiladas do you hear me complaining? Is this how us Mexican/Americans cook? Dancing in the kithcen with music going? If anything i should be pissed and trying to sue someone, you know? Hey somewhere down the line there are stereotypes that are associated with all people, its a fact of life.

Ole'

I mean Ya!!!

Re: This again
 

Monk-Fan...you are talking about advertising. American television especially commercials and advertising are insidious pandering. People in advertising are evil and use little to no discretion as far as what they put on tv. Commercials such as the one you mentioned are meant to target weak minded couch potatos obsessed with reality television and medical dramas. Atleast you are not taking things like that seriously. I think our name/logo if anything is meant to honor native americans and their courage. I would MUCH rather be a redskin than a cowboy.

Re: This again
 

I'm not Native American either, but I'm not sure what the fuss is over the moniker, "Redskins." I have never known that to be racist slur. I thought I remember reading somewhere where the owner changed the name to Redskins in honor of the coach at the time...which was a Native American? If the coach thought of it as an honor, then why are these people in such a fuss? Maybe it's a screen to grab the trademark for the name so they can make money off of team apparel? Either way, it doesn't seem right when considering they should change the name of every pro team that has an indian or something realated to indians as a gimmick. Actually, calling them indians isn't correct either, because they didn't live in India.

Hhhmmmm The Washington Native Americans? The Washington Indians? The Washington Redskins sounds the best to me!

Re: This again
 

My attitude is this: Native Americans say the name is offensive and I don't think anyone who is not of that ethnicity is really in a position to disagree with them. In fact, it is incredibly patronizing for those who are not Native American to offer arguments as to why the name is not offensive. I'm Jewish and if someone who was not Jewish attempted to tell me what I should and should not be offended by I would be a little perturbed.

So far the only argument proffered here has basically been, "im part chinese and i wouldn't care if there was a chinamen team" or whatever. That's fine, but the American Indian nation is still overwhelmingly against having its identity appropriated for sports mascot use and it is inappropriate and insensitive for any of us to argue with them as pedestrians - especially when our real motivation is our own sports fandom. Also, as to the Giants offending short people, short people are not a historically oppressed group that have been subjected to systematic genocide over two centuries, so they are not really in the same position to complain. Still, if they ever did launch any organized concerted effort to change the Giants name based on perceived offensiveness, I wouldn't argue with them as a six footer. I would respect their complaints.

I feel that Native Americans have suffered so much over the last 200 years and change that maybe we should just give them this one. Besides, its the Washington I root for, not the redskin.

Re: This again
 

[QUOTE=skinsguy]I'm not Native American either, but I'm not sure what the fuss is over the moniker, "Redskins." I have never known that to be racist slur. I thought I remember reading somewhere where the owner changed the name to Redskins in honor of the coach at the time...which was a Native American? If the coach thought of it as an honor, then why are these people in such a fuss? Maybe it's a screen to grab the trademark for the name so they can make money off of team apparel? Either way, it doesn't seem right when considering they should change the name of every pro team that has an indian or something realated to indians as a gimmick. Actually, calling them indians isn't correct either, because they didn't live in India.

Hhhmmmm The Washington Native Americans? The Washington Indians? The Washington Redskins sounds the best to me![/QUOTE]

"In the Native American mascot controversy, the nickname "redskins" is particularly controversial and offensive. Historically, the term was used to refer to the scalps of dead Native Americans that were exchanged for money as bounties, or cash rewards. When it became too difficult to bring in the bodies of dead Indians to get the money (usually under a dollar per person), bounty hunters exchanged bloody scalps or "redskins" as evidence of the dead Indian." [url]http://www.njsbf.com/njsbf/student/respect/winter03-1.cfm[/url]

Re: This again
 

[QUOTE=djnemo65]My attitude is this: Native Americans say the name is offensive and I don't think anyone who is not of that ethnicity is really in a position to disagree with them. In fact, it is incredibly patronizing for those who are not Native American to offer arguments as to why the name is not offensive. I'm Jewish and if someone who was not Jewish attempted to tell me what I should and should not be offended by I would be a little perturbed.

So far the only argument proffered here has basically been, "im part chinese and i wouldn't care if there was a chinamen team" or whatever. That's fine, but the American Indian nation is still overwhelmingly against having its identity appropriated for sports mascot use and it is inappropriate and insensitive for any of us to argue with them as pedestrians - especially when our real motivation is our own sports fandom. Also, as to the Giants offending short people, short people are not a historically oppressed group that have been subjected to systematic genocide over two centuries, so they are not really in the same position to complain. Still, if they ever did launch any organized concerted effort to change the Giants name based on perceived offensiveness, I wouldn't argue with them as a six footer. I would respect their complaints.

I feel that Native Americans have suffered so much over the last 200 years and change that maybe we should just give them this one. Besides, its the Washington I root for, not the redskin.[/QUOTE]

Nice take.

That's the thing I have a problem with. If someone finds the name offensive, that's their opinion and they have a right to feel that way. We shouldn't sit here and say, you shouldn't feel that way. Who are we to say??

In this time of political correctness it's too easy to brush off other's feelings and say bah, you're being too sensitive.

We should at least respect where these people are coming from. It's ok to agree to disagree, but someone's opinion shouldn't be dismissed just because you don't agree.

Re: This again
 

[quote]That's fine, but the American Indian nation is still overwhelmingly against having its identity appropriated for sports mascot use and it is inappropriate and insensitive for any of us to argue with them as pedestrians - especially when our real motivation is our own sports fandom.[/quote]

A small minority of American Indians find the name offensive:
[quote] Ninety percent of American Indians say the name Washington Redskins does not offend them, according to a new national survey.
Only 9 percent of polled Indians say they find the name of Washington's professional football team "offensive," according to the results of the University of Pennsylvania's National Annenberg Election Survey. The other 1 percent did not respond.[/quote]
[url]http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040925-121238-9407r.htm[/url]

Small minorities get upset. I've heard people complain about UPS's "what can brown do for you" slogan. People like the have a reason to complain, but saying that a whole race overwhelmingly feels that way is out and out wrong.

More links:
[url]http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6093796/[/url]

I feel this is also a good point:
[quote]How can it be that communities honor such groups as patriots, padres, angels, packers, rangers, and Forty-Niners by naming beloved teams after them, but when they name their teams after ethnic groups it constitutes an insult?[/quote]
[url]http://www.ethicsscoreboard.com/list/redskins.html[/url]

Re: This again
 

[QUOTE=djnemo65]"In the Native American mascot controversy, the nickname "redskins" is particularly controversial and offensive. Historically, the term was used to refer to the scalps of dead Native Americans that were exchanged for money as bounties, or cash rewards. When it became too difficult to bring in the bodies of dead Indians to get the money (usually under a dollar per person), bounty hunters exchanged bloody scalps or "redskins" as evidence of the dead Indian." [url]http://www.njsbf.com/njsbf/student/respect/winter03-1.cfm[/url][/QUOTE]

I know that polls never tell the whole story, but what do you make of these results from the same link you posted?

"According to the Sports Illustrated survey, 87 percent of American Indians who lived off Indian reservations did not object to Native American mascots or nicknames. Of the Indians who lived on reservations, 67 percent were not bothered by the nicknames, while 33 percent opposed them."

Re: This again
 

Survey says:

"The mascot issue is most controversial at the local level. Although numerous schools have voluntarily taken action to cease using Native American symbols, (see sidebar) many school boards have refused to do so. Supporters of Native American mascots and nicknames point to surveys, such as the one published by Sports Illustrated in March 2002, which found that although most Native American activists found Indian mascots and nicknames offensive, the majority of non-activist American Indians were not disturbed by them."

As far as the political part of this, it sounds to me like an extremist thing. Now, if the large majority of Native Americans were opposed to the name, then for one thing, the name would have been changed decades ago, and two I would say if the majority find it offensive, change the name. However, this does not appear to be the case, and why should the team change the name to satisfy a small portion of the activists when it appears that the large majority is not offended?

Re: This again
 

I don't get upset about the team nickname. Change it or leave it as it is; I really don't care.

I agree that one's persepctive and upbringing and ethnicity colors how one reacts to certain words and images. I also think that there is a cottage industry out there of people who are spring loaded to take offense at just about anything and make a stink about it. Those are the people who bother me.

PETA protested that the Packers should change their name because it glorified what happened in slaughterhouses. That's an example of being spring loaded to be pissed off about anything.

Several years ago, I did an article on how easy it was to be offended by words if all you were doing was trying to find a way to take offense. I think it is important to separate - if at al possible - people who are genuinely offended from the professional "offense-takers" and deal with them very differently.

Re: This again
 

If one could truly seperate those who are actually offended by the name from those who as you put are the "professional-offense takers," we would probably find an even smaller group of individuals who are offended by the Redskins name.

Re: This again
 

The 'Redskins' moniker didn't come from the actual skin color of the native americans any way. The term came from the red war paint that the Algonquians sported in battle.

It just seems to me that the NAs in this suit aren't really going back and looking at their own history objectively. They can see that they look like the mascot on the helmets and that their skin color may, under the right light, have a reddish tint to it and believe that they are being made fun of, which at this point in time, they most certainly are not.

If they win a pile of money from the NFL, or Daniel Snyder, I'm gonna be first in line to claim my check. After all, my skin turns more red than their's whenever I'm in the sun too long, so they must be making fun of me too.

Re: This again
 

Doesn't intent play a major part in a slur, racial or otherwise?

Re: This again
 

[QUOTE=RedskinRat]Doesn't intent play a major part in a slur, racial or otherwise?[/QUOTE]
You would think.

Re: This again
 

i am a patriot and don't feel that the patriots are representing me fairly so i definately want them to change their name

Re: This again
 

I live extremely close to a cherokee reservation in western North Carolina and this whole thing kind of cracks me up. I wish you guys could see this place. Their whole town is a giant mockery of their culture. Every other building sells rubber hatchets and fake moccasins. Most of them have places to get your picture taken with a chief in a headdress. One specifically says "get your picture taken with Big Chief Bear"...and they're saying the name Redskins is disrespectful? Frankly, they need to stop dragging their own culture down before they start attacking organizations like the Redskins.

Re: This again
 

could it happen?

that would be bullshit

we could keep the name w/o a trademark though....... right?

Re: This again
 

I am suprised by these numbers and fully concede that I was wrong in arguing that an overwhelming majority oppose these names. But there still exists a sizable group that I think clearly extends beyond an "activist minority," and I do not think its appropriate to mock their intentions.

But whatever, that wasn't my point. Rather, I just can't understand how people from outside the Native American culture think they have any right to argue what should and should not be offensive for people within the culture, which is essentially what this thread has done. And I fail to understand the fervor with which so many insert themselves into this debate. Why argue against Native American advocates, even if they are a minority? Why not let the have this one? I mean, if the worst case scenario happened and the skins had to change their name to the magicians or something what it would really be that big a deal? I know everyone would have to go get a new Mark Brunell jersey, but we would get over it right?

Even if only one hundred thousand Native Americans are offended by the name (and I'm pulling a number out of thin air here) why would anyone object to satisfying their demands. Of course the answer is not rooted in any question of offensiveness, but instead revolves around people liking the colors and tradition of their favorite sports team.

It may well be the case that the name is not offensive, and I have confidence that that will be fleshed out in court. But in the meantime I will not tell any representative of the Native American nation that they are wrong for objecting to a mascot, Redskin or otherwise.

Re: This again
 

[QUOTE=flyfischer]I live extremely close to a cherokee reservation in western North Carolina and this whole thing kind of cracks me up. I wish you guys could see this place. Their whole town is a giant mockery of their culture. Every other building sells rubber hatchets and fake moccasins. Most of them have places to get your picture taken with a chief in a headdress. One specifically says "get your picture taken with Big Chief Bear"...and they're saying the name Redskins is disrespectful? Frankly, they need to stop dragging their own culture down before they start attacking organizations like the Redskins.[/QUOTE]

Who is they? Do the owners and operators of those vendors represent the entire Native American population. And who do you think you are to have any opinion about what they do within those reservations? If some otherwise impoverished entrepenurial Native Americans choose to cash in on the mainstream's love affair with kitsch, that's not the same as a multi-billion dollar revenue sports team appropriating their likeness. Also, I'd like to alert you to the last couple hundred years of history, and the material conditions that have prompted tribes to resort to activities not otherwise deemed culturally respectful by people like you, e.g. the operation of casinos and tobacco stands.

But again, I really have only one point to make and that is this. If you are not Native American you have no right, in my opinion, to argue what is and isn't "respectful" of Native American culture. And that's pretty much all I have to say about this.

Re: This again
 

[QUOTE=djnemo65]Who is they? Do the owners and operators of those vendors represent the entire Native American population. And who do you think you are to have any opinion about what they do within those reservations? If some otherwise impoverished entrepenurial Native Americans choose to cash in on the mainstream's love affair with kitsch, that's not the same as a multi-billion dollar revenue sports team appropriating their likeness. Also, I'd like to alert you to the last couple hundred years of history, and the material conditions that have prompted tribes to resort to activities not otherwise deemed culturally respectful by people like you, e.g. the operation of casinos and tobacco stands.

But again, I really have only one point to make and that is this. If you are not Native American you have no right, in my opinion, to argue what is and isn't "respectful" of Native American culture. And that's pretty much all I have to say about this.[/QUOTE]

Well, as I recall, the reservations are in America so I can have an opinion on them if I want to. This particular one doesn't represent the entire Native American population, but it does represent an aspect of that population. Furthermore, I am not responsible for the plight of the Native Americans. Its history buddy, it happens. I'm not saying it was right. Infact many times on this subject, I am the only one who condemns what our ancestors did to them, but if you're suggesting that the Native Americans can sit around and blame their problems on what whoever's great great grandpa did to them...then how do you expect them to survive much longer? The truth is, I don't care what they do on their reservations, but when they start affecting aspects of MY life ie the Washington Redskins then I care. Don't say I don't know either. Heck, I should take offense to the Ole Miss Rebels shouldn't I? Many of my ancestors fought and died for Virginia in the name of the Confederacy only to be made a mockery later by a D I school using their name as a mascot. What about the 49ers, the Cavaliers of UVA, the Appalachian Mountaineers, the Notre Dame Fighting Irish. Anyone could take offense to any of these. COME ON MAN! This is complete crap, and if we're not careful it won't be long till we're watching the Washington non denominationals take on the Dallas non violents, both wearing non offenseve grey uniforms and partaking in a game of two hand touch where score isn't kept!

Maybe we should just change the name to the Washington Native Americans...no one could say anything then!

Re: This again
 

How about the Dallas "Cowpeople?"

Re: This again
 

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.

Re: This again
 

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:

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]

Let's change the name to the Washington Palefaces?! :oink:

Re: This again
 

Looking at this from a legal standpoint, I don't see how the petitioners can win this case. Sure, a small percentage of Native Americans say they are offended by the name, but that carries no weight in court whatsoever. The only way the offensiveness of the name could come into play is if a very large percentage of Native Americans were offended by it, in which case the franchise might encounter pressure from the public to change the name; the court will not act on the grounds that someone feels offended. The only exception to this is if the name has been used deliberately in a derogatory manner, and we can all agree that is not the case for our team name.

In order for them to win, the petitioners have to prove that the name 'Redskins' is somehow damaging to their people and/or their culture. I don't see how they can prove this. What are they going to say, that this team name has contributed to the degradation of their culture over the past 50 years? How so? Are they going to argue that had the name been changed long ago, that Native Americans would be more respected as a minority in this country? What proof do they have?

This lawsuit makes no sense to me. I hope it finally gets put down for good this time. If I were a betting man, I would put big money on the Skins winning this case.