What should the Skins change their name to.

[Catfish]

Actually, from the Native American's perspective, that is precisely why they want the named changed. The word "Redskins" was used the same as the N word was used to humiliate blacks. In fact, the Native Americans have a strong argument that it does reflect a negative tone given our history.

 

We have a history of disrespect when it comes to Native Americans. I remember a Chief that fought admittedly against a damn being placed on one of the rivers his people live. He fought the damn for his people all the way to the Supreme court, In the end, not only did they build the damn, but they named the damn after the Indian Chief who fought against it. How's that for fkeed up.

 

 

yep, that was my point

[buddahj]

Bring back the Bullets.

[Mr Bad Example]

Actually, from the Native American's perspective, that is precisely why they want the named changed. The word "Redskins" was used the same as the N word was used to humiliate blacks. In fact, the Native Americans have a strong argument that it does reflect a negative tone given our history.

 

 

 

 

Yeah, exactly. I'm amazed at how many people don't get this. But people just wander along going "well, we don't MEAN any offense" - which, sure, I'll take that statement at face value. But I grew up in a place without any minorities (really, my hometown, to my knowledge, had like 6 Hispanics, a few Jews, an Asian family and like 1 black person), and I didn't even realize that "Automatic ban" was a bad word until I was 10.

 

Of course, once I realized it was offensive, I stopped using it. Duh, common sense - unless you're the NFL.

 

 

Now, is it a burning, "important" issue? Nah, not really. But considering that the franchise was founded as the Braves, and the depiction of the Indian in their logo is basically OK, a change back to that would be sensible enough. Again, unless you're the NFL.

 

 

 

As to the LARGER issue of ALL Indian team names/mascots, I think it's one of those case-by-case basis things - names like "Chiefs" or "Braves" or a specific tribe (Seminoles, Illini, etc) are more-or-less equivalent to "Generals" or "Minutemen" or "Fightin' Irish"/"Spartans" etc., with the caveat that most of the latter didn't have a systematic genocide perpetrated on them by their current government. Still, I'd consider them in the bounds of good taste, DEPENDING on how the mascot is depicted - Chief Wahoo is the example here. Again, I'm sure about 99% of the people who sport the logo aren't thinking "Indians are big-nosed buffoons"; they probably see it as just a comic caricature of a person, and with that view it's no worse than any other caricature used to represent a team. But then there's that pesky history of Indians being dehumanized and marginalized, and it should become at least slightly uncomfortable when you see it out there.

 

 

The equivalents to Redskins/Chief Wahoo just DON'T EXIST, because they'd be considered reprehensible - imagine teams named the "Slopes" or "Kikes" or "Jigaboos" with logos like a slant-eyed, bucktoothed Chinaman picking rice ("me pray footbarr!"), or a hook-nosed guy in a yarmulke sitting on a pile of cash, or some midnight-black, fat-lipped thug drinking a 40. At the very least there'd be a nationwide reaction of "what in the chives are you thinking?"; but for some reason the Indian mascots get a pass.

[otis29]

The equivalents to Redskins/Chief Wahoo just DON'T EXIST, because they'd be considered reprehensible - imagine teams named the "Slopes" or "Kikes" or "Jigaboos" with logos like a slant-eyed, bucktoothed Chinaman picking rice ("me pray footbarr!"), or a hook-nosed guy in a yarmulke sitting on a pile of cash, or some midnight-black, fat-lipped thug drinking a 40. At the very least there'd be a nationwide reaction of "what in the chives are you thinking?"; but for some reason the Indian mascots get a pass.

 

 

It doesn't even have to be that complicated of a comparison. Just put a black faced mascot on the helmet and change the name to "Blackskins". Or an Asian character and change it to the "Yellowskins". Or a Hispanic mascot and change it to the "Brownskins". Hell, how about the "Whiteskins" with a charicature of Larry the Cable Guy? Would those names have been changed by now?

 

Fact is, if the American Indian population wasn't less than 1% in this country, this issue would have been reconciled years ago. It's a victimless crime in the eyes of Americans who care more about the names of their sports teams than the minimization of an entire race.

[Mr Bad Example]

Fact is, if the American Indian population wasn't less than 1% in this country, this issue would have been reconciled years ago. It's a victimless crime in the eyes of Americans who care more about the names of their sports teams than the minimization of an entire race.

 

 

Not to mention a huge chunk of that less than 1% is squirreled away on reservations - out of sight, out of mind. Probably the only contact most US citizens have had with an actual, live Native American is, what....going to a casino?

 

 

And I am not trying to look at everyone who roots for a team/school that has a Native American mascot and cry "RACISTS!!" - it's more along the lines of "hey, THINK about this a little bit, rather than immediately getting defensive"

[Dcat]

"Snyder's Skid Marks"

[slambo]

Bring back the Bullets.

 

 

That's what I was thinking as well. But if they actually did change I think the Warriors is a good option.

[Papajohn]

The Washington Thinskins

[frenzal rhomb]

 

 

Yeah, exactly. I'm amazed at how many people don't get this. But people just wander along going "well, we don't MEAN any offense" - which, sure, I'll take that statement at face value. But I grew up in a place without any minorities (really, my hometown, to my knowledge, had like 6 Hispanics, a few Jews, an Asian family and like 1 black person), and I didn't even realize that "Automatic ban" was a bad word until I was 10.

 

Of course, once I realized it was offensive, I stopped using it. Duh, common sense - unless you're the NFL.

 

 

Now, is it a burning, "important" issue? Nah, not really. But considering that the franchise was founded as the Braves, and the depiction of the Indian in their logo is basically OK, a change back to that would be sensible enough. Again, unless you're the NFL.

 

 

 

As to the LARGER issue of ALL Indian team names/mascots, I think it's one of those case-by-case basis things - names like "Chiefs" or "Braves" or a specific tribe (Seminoles, Illini, etc) are more-or-less equivalent to "Generals" or "Minutemen" or "Fightin' Irish"/"Spartans" etc., with the caveat that most of the latter didn't have a systematic genocide perpetrated on them by their current government. Still, I'd consider them in the bounds of good taste, DEPENDING on how the mascot is depicted - Chief Wahoo is the example here. Again, I'm sure about 99% of the people who sport the logo aren't thinking "Indians are big-nosed buffoons"; they probably see it as just a comic caricature of a person, and with that view it's no worse than any other caricature used to represent a team. But then there's that pesky history of Indians being dehumanized and marginalized, and it should become at least slightly uncomfortable when you see it out there.

 

 

The equivalents to Redskins/Chief Wahoo just DON'T EXIST, because they'd be considered reprehensible - imagine teams named the "Slopes" or "Kikes" or "Jigaboos" with logos like a slant-eyed, bucktoothed Chinaman picking rice ("me pray footbarr!"), or a hook-nosed guy in a yarmulke sitting on a pile of cash, or some midnight-black, fat-lipped thug drinking a 40. At the very least there'd be a nationwide reaction of "what in the chives are you thinking?"; but for some reason the Indian mascots get a pass.

 

Actually, I really like the Washington jigaboos, it may not catch on at my house but I will use it for many local teams

[HowboutthemCowboys]

The Washington Thinskins

 

[PPIchamp]

Keep the name, just change the logo to a potato?

 

I'm Irish (mostly), and I'm ok with that.

[darin3]

 

 

Yeah, exactly. I'm amazed at how many people don't get this. But people just wander along going "well, we don't MEAN any offense" - which, sure, I'll take that statement at face value. But I grew up in a place without any minorities (really, my hometown, to my knowledge, had like 6 Hispanics, a few Jews, an Asian family and like 1 black person), and I didn't even realize that "Automatic ban" was a bad word until I was 10.

 

Of course, once I realized it was offensive, I stopped using it. Duh, common sense - unless you're the NFL.

 

 

Now, is it a burning, "important" issue? Nah, not really. But considering that the franchise was founded as the Braves, and the depiction of the Indian in their logo is basically OK, a change back to that would be sensible enough. Again, unless you're the NFL.

 

 

 

As to the LARGER issue of ALL Indian team names/mascots, I think it's one of those case-by-case basis things - names like "Chiefs" or "Braves" or a specific tribe (Seminoles, Illini, etc) are more-or-less equivalent to "Generals" or "Minutemen" or "Fightin' Irish"/"Spartans" etc., with the caveat that most of the latter didn't have a systematic genocide perpetrated on them by their current government. Still, I'd consider them in the bounds of good taste, DEPENDING on how the mascot is depicted - Chief Wahoo is the example here. Again, I'm sure about 99% of the people who sport the logo aren't thinking "Indians are big-nosed buffoons"; they probably see it as just a comic caricature of a person, and with that view it's no worse than any other caricature used to represent a team. But then there's that pesky history of Indians being dehumanized and marginalized, and it should become at least slightly uncomfortable when you see it out there.

 

 

The equivalents to Redskins/Chief Wahoo just DON'T EXIST, because they'd be considered reprehensible - imagine teams named the "Slopes" or "Kikes" or "Jigaboos" with logos like a slant-eyed, bucktoothed Chinaman picking rice ("me pray footbarr!"), or a hook-nosed guy in a yarmulke sitting on a pile of cash, or some midnight-black, fat-lipped thug drinking a 40. At the very least there'd be a nationwide reaction of "what in the chives are you thinking?"; but for some reason the Indian mascots get a pass.

 

 

Frickin' awesome post.

 

But there'll always be the fist-shakin' "get off my lawn you damn kids" types that will say you gotta "stick with tradition", racist epithets be damned.

[dope man]

Actually, from the Native American's perspective, that is precisely why they want the named changed. The word "Redskins" was used the same as the N word was used to humiliate blacks. In fact, the Native Americans have a strong argument that it does reflect a negative tone given our history.

 

We have a history of disrespect when it comes to Native Americans. I remember a Chief that fought admittedly against a damn being placed on one of the rivers his people live. He fought the damn for his people all the way to the Supreme court, In the end, not only did they build the damn, but they named the damn after the Indian Chief who fought against it. How's that for fkeed up.

 

 

"In 2004, the National Annenberg Election Survey asked 768 people who identified themselves as Indian whether they found the name “Washington Redskins” offensive. Almost 90 percent said it did not bother them."

 

Seems to me that if it is a slur now it would have been a slur in 2004...... It was intended as a sign of strength and honor when the team chose this name....intention does not need to be lost in everything.

[BA Baracus]

"In 2004, the National Annenberg Election Survey asked 768 people who identified themselves as Indian whether they found the name “Washington Redskins” offensive. Almost 90 percent said it did not bother them."

 

Seems to me that if it is a slur now it would have been a slur in 2004...... It was intended as a sign of strength and honor when the team chose this name....intention does not need to be lost in everything.

 

 

This.

 

Also, everyone should go read this week's Commentary from the Edge.

[PPIchamp]

I never knew their origional name was Braves, I think I wouldn't mind if they went back to that name.

 

The Redskins name is from the red paint a tribe of Indians in Newfoundland would put on their face when battling the newly arriving Europeans. So it's origins were never based in a demeaning context as a refernce to their actual skin, it's about war paint. The name was created out of a respect for them as fighters.

This is just the PC Police on neverending patrol.

Edited October 16, 2013 by PPIchamp

[HowboutthemCowboys]

I never knew their origional name was Braves, I think I wouldn't mind if they went back to that name.

 

The Redskins name is from the red paint a tribe of Indians in Newfoundland would put on their face when battling the newly arriving Europeans. So it's origins were never based in a demeaning context as a refernce to their actual skin, it's about war paint. The name was created out of a respect for them as fighters.

This is just the PC Police on neverending patrol.

 

[MTSuper7]

The Washington Penile Implants has a nice ring to it.

[Joessfl]

ooof...

 

 

With a team named the "Redskins", of course native indians have reservations.

 

ETA: How about "The Washington Tatankas"

Edited October 16, 2013 by Joessfl

[Bronco Billy]

JHC, next the Vikings will have to change their names to the Minnesota Lutefisks because 3 Norweigans were offended and filed a complaint with the UN.

 

I always thought people named their team because the image had traits they considered admirable.

[stevegrab]

Fighting Irish - offensive to Irish people, they're not always fighting and drunk

Cowboys - offensive to real cowboys

Browns - offensive to people with brown or dark skin

Pirates/Bucs/Raiders - offensive to real pirates like Somali pirates

Broncos/Bears/Tigers/any other animal - offensive to the animals, the real animals are poorly portrayed by teams (heck what Suh does to people would be mild by a real lion's standards)

and on and on

 

May as well just get rid of all team names and mascots, each will simply be called "the city/location/school sport (football, baseball) team". Just like some of those bozos in the media using "Washington DC football team" instead of Redskins.

 

Makes me wonder if the Browns would even be given that name today. Based on what I read and understand they had a contest to pick a name, fans selected Panthers but there was already a team with that name playing football. So they had another contest and Browns was selected, not after coach Paul Brown but a shortened version of Brown Bomber, the nickname of Joe Louis (who was black). So had he been nicknamed the Black Bomber, the Browns may have been called the Blacks. Would that have survive to today?

[DMD]

One of the things that I am not really clear on - is the term Redskins ever used in present day as a derogatory term? I have never heard it used as such in my life and I live in N. Texas and go to Oklahoma often and my son goes to school there as well. While the N***** word is quite often thrown around, I have never heard anyone ever say "look at those Redskins". I have never heard it used as anything but for the football team. Honestly - is this a term that is ever used in that way?

[Papajohn]

JHC, next the Vikings will have to change their names to the Minnesota Lutefisks because 3 Norweigans were offended and filed a complaint with the UN.

 

I always thought people named their team because the image had traits they considered admirable.

 

 

I am offended that the Norweigans gets all the viking credit.

[Mr Bad Example]

I invite everyone who thinks the term "redskins" is fine to go to the middle of the nearest res and start yelling it.

[darin3]

One of the things that I am not really clear on - is the term Redskins ever used in present day as a derogatory term? I have never heard it used as such in my life and I live in N. Texas and go to Oklahoma often and my son goes to school there as well. While the N***** word is quite often thrown around, I have never heard anyone ever say "look at those Redskins". I have never heard it used as anything but for the football team. Honestly - is this a term that is ever used in that way?

 

While I certainly see what you're saying.... the "N" word is now used as a non-derogatory fashion as well, even outside of the African-American community. Does that mean we should go and name a team after that historically-racially-insensitive term? I mean, seriously, imagine the uproar for that!

 

I'm part Native American. That said, I couldn't care less what the Washington football team is called. But I can see how some (as "overly PC" you may think they're being) could take offense to it based on their history.

[PPIchamp]

It's not the owners fault or problem if people are ignorant (willfully or not) to the origins of his team's name and choose to be offended.