Smithsonian Museum - yet another thread on team name

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Son Of Man

Unless you are Native American, your feeling on the matter (either way) is irrelevant. Borderline self-serving.

The very nature of a Skins website is to discuss topics relevant to the Skins. Since this is about the name of the team, I would think it is a relevant discussion. And having vested nearly 40 years of my life as a Redskins fan, I think that I have a right to express my opinion. And that brings us back to the question, at what point does a word go from a dispersion to an honorable name. I wasn't around when the name was changed, I grew up thinking of the term Redskins as a good thing, and as a side note - Cowboys as a bad thing. I am pretty sure many if not most in my generation grew up with the same view, or if it was a negative it was because you didn't like the team - not because of any racial overtones.

Bottomline for me, if the whole of the collective native american tribes were demonstrating, picketing, and letting it be known that this was an offense against their race, then I would not have a problem with changing it. But if it is a group of lawyers, and a small non-representative sampling, then they need to move on. In my view, it is the latter.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

The very nature of a Skins website is to discuss topics relevant to the Skins. Since this is about the name of the team, I would think it is a relevant discussion. And having vested nearly 40 years of my life as a Redskins fan, I think that I have a right to express my opinion. And that brings us back to the question, at what point does a word go from a dispersion to an honorable name. I wasn't around when the name was changed, I grew up thinking of the term Redskins as a good thing, and as a side note - Cowboys as a bad thing. I am pretty sure many if not most in my generation grew up with the same view, or if it was a negative it was because you didn't like the team - not because of any racial overtones.

Bottomline for me, if the whole of the collective native american tribes were demonstrating, picketing, and letting it be known that this was an offense against their race, then I would not have a problem with changing it. But if it is a group of lawyers, and a small non-representative sampling, then they need to move on. In my view, it is the latter.

This I agree with this. Let it be known that some of the nationalities that are represented by NFL teams were known to cause violence against other groups of people: The Vikings and the Buccaneers just to name a couple. Both have either caused death or larceny. We can expand into other sports and look at names like "Pirates", who have committed terrorist attacks on civilian ships at sea, even in the recent few years. Yet, nobody complains about the glorification of those names and how they are represented in the NFL and other pro leagues.

This is where I think such arguments are pretty silly. Considering the fact that you don't have to really look that hard to find fault in half the other NFL team names. I'm sure Atheists think New Orleans' moniker is silly and might even find offense with it. The Raiders? The Vikings? The Buccaneers? I mean, really? Then you can dig further into college and I'm sure people would find offense to using "Blue Devils" which has a devil as a mascot. Demons? The fighting Irish? So, are Irish people violent?