The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Every newspaper, radio, and TV show is all over this topic. Everywhere you turn this is being discussed. Just wonder where you all stand on the "REDSKINS" name and should Daniel Snyder change it.

I don't really care either way.  Hate the team so they could call them the Washington Willy Wankers for all I care.

I spent most of my childhood either on or near the Yavapai Indian reservation in N. AZ, and the majority of the Native Americans that I knew were fans of the Redskins. If it isn't offensive to them, why should it be offensive to me?

I agree. But you have some native americans now saying it is offensive to them

Rick Reilly wrote a piece on this topic about a month ago that I really enjoyed...

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9689220/redskins-name-change-not-easy-sounds (http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9689220/redskins-name-change-not-easy-sounds)

In that piece, Reilly supposedly quoted his father-in-law (a Blackfeet Elder) as someone who didn't have an issue with the name.  The problem?  He does, and wrote an article (http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/10/10/blackfeet-elder-says-rick-reilly-misquoted-him-wants-redskins-banned-151696) asking for it to be changed:

"So you can imagine my dismay when I saw my name and words used to defend the racist Washington Redskins name. My son-in-law, ESPN’s Rick Reilly, completely misunderstood the conversation we had, quoting me as saying “the whole issue is so silly. The name just doesn't bother me much. It's an issue that shouldn't be an issue, not with all the problems we've got in this country."

But that’s not what I said.

What I actually said is that “it’s silly in this day and age that this should even be a battle -- if the name offends someone, change it.” He failed to include my comments that the term “redskins” demeans Indians, and historically is insulting and offensive, and that I firmly believe the Washington Redskins should change their name.

When Rick’s article came out, it upset me to be portrayed as an “Uncle Tom” in support of this racial slur. I asked him to correct the record. He has not, so I must do it myself.

I grew up seeing store signs in the nearby town of Cutbank that read “No dogs or Indians allowed.” Our Indian families who live on reservations continue to feel the sting of racism. I could never support the term “redskins” because we know first-hand what racism and ignorance has done to the Blackfeet people. Our people grew up hearing terms like nits, dirty redskins, prairie n*****, savages, heathens, lazy Indians and drunks -- all derogatory terms used to label us. It is better today, but the underlying mentality is still there or obviously people would change the name."

When even the people being prominently cited as evidence that the name is fine have to come out and say that they DON'T approve of the name and want it changed, it's not a good sign.  On a side note, the fact that Reilly wouldn't even correct his article (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/10/12/rick-reilly-i-felt-i-quoted-my-father-in-law-accurately-he-disagrees/) when his own father-in-law publicly refuted it evinces a "I don't want the name changed, no matter what they say" mentality.

The article would have been fine without using his father-in-law as an erroneous example...or did you miss all of the other instances of Native Americans who aren't offended by it in your quest to find a sticking point?

Some people are easily offended, and some aren't. I can show you an African-American who takes offense to being called "Black," and a Black man who takes offense to being called "African American." It's just part of the ongoing PC pussification of our world.

I will admit to being ignorant on the issue. I do not know anyone with enough Native American blood in them that has an opinion (I know one person who was raised on a reservation but he isn't interested in football much). I will say that the people I see bringing up this discussion are white sportscasters.

Given that the author lied about what his own father-in-law said I don't see any reason to conclude he didn't just make up all the other examples.  There are Native Americans who are not offended.  But this particular author has zero credibility.

Personally I feel that the term "Redskins" is offensive. If the team was named after an actual tribe, then I wouldn't have an issue. At least a tribal name would be unique to that tribe.

Guys the name redskins is cool. I'm 1/16 Cherokee.

I don't think there was any Native American in Reilly's article who said, "I don't mind being called a redskin."  It's obviously a racial slur and for you compare it to "African-American" vs. "black" is silly.

The question is not whether redskin is a racial slur (because it clearly is).  The question is (apparently?) whether Native Americans are "offended" by the use of this racial slur in the name of a team.  And I don't think that's even a particularly valid question to ask; it smacks of excuse-making.

Either redskin is a racial slur, or it isn't.  If we agree that the term is inappropriate to apply to a person, we shouldn't be using it for a team mascot.

I think this whole thing is overblown.  Why did it take 81 years for someone to get offended?

It seems to me that nowadays its just trendy to feign offense to something just for attention, or the financial benefit of legal action.  And, even if the supposedly-offended people claim to not be offended, someone else (i.e. the posters on this forum) will be surrogate-offended for them.

Its silly.  Its not even a real word at this point, its the name of a team.  I hope they never succumb to the pressure to change the name, as 81 years of history should rank higher than some imaginary person getting their feelings hurt.

This didn't pop up last week.

There was a lawsuit, years ago.  Plus 81 years ago Native Americans were subject to so much racism in all aspect that a protest would have just gotten them shot. 

You probably shouldn't use the argument of historical tradition as a defense against racism-related charges.

I honestly don't have a dog in the fight so I really don't care but I think changing the name for a select few is kind of dumb. Unfortunately in this watered down pussified version of America if a couple of people get offended we have to change everything so I am sure their hand will be forced. Not sure why the president feels the need to comment on this especially with so much other BS going on currently but anytime the government gets involved you can bet their will be a change. Most polls and stories I have seen show a majority of the Native Americans are not offended and are not asking to have the name changed. The media needs to let this die.....and Bob Costas needs to shut the fuck up!!!!!

^^^^Totally agree. Calling someone redskin or black is basically the same thing. It's referring to their color. After like 80 years and now it's a big deal says a lot about the motivations. At one time colored was accepted and now it's not. Guess it's time to change the name of the NAACP. At one time negro was accepted and now it's not. Guess it's time to change the name of the United Negro College Fund. How long before African American is being complained about? I say keep the Redskins name and to hell with anyone that doesn't like it. If you get your feelings hurt by a name then that's no one's fault but your own!

You deserve this AZ:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v693/lordthundergod/Random%20pics/applause2uf3.gif)

Bet 60 years ago you would have said that 'just because Rosa Parks and couple of other uppity n*****s don't like the bus system is no reason to change that' either.

 

Really? You're comparing the Redskins name change debate to the Civil Rights movement?

What's next...comparing the guy who fishes the stream in his back yard to supporting commercial whaling?

Just change it. 

It's going to have to happen anyway.

It wasn't an issue 60 years ago, because the way this country treated Native Americans (and other races, in general) was different.  The "why is it an issue now" argument is a TERRIBLE argument, especially considering the things that this country has done to its minorities 60 years ago. 

I don't care, personally, and I'm not offended -- but realistically, you just can't have a team named for a racial-slur that has a negative slant.   Period.  I get that it's tradition, but it's going to be a PR shit-storm eventually, so just do it now and get it behind you and move on.

Both are rooted in racism.

Both the argument by the other side is basically, "its always been that way"

While I will agree the degree of wrongfulness is different, it doesn't make the smaller wrong right. 

Is it the word "red" that is offensive, or the word "skin?" What is the negative slant associated with the term that you're referring to?

Should I be offended when someone calls me a white man? Should I demand that they refer to me as a caucasian instead? I think I prefer "Moderately-Tan-American."

Somebody get me a petition, because this Moderately-Tan-American is on a mission!

The "watered-down pussification" of America started in the '60s and continues today.  Who cares whether you have your own drinking fountains or bathrooms?

As I said, it's been fine this way for years can be used to justify all sorts of nonsense.  If you wouldn't think it's OK to call a Native American a "redskin", then you shouldn't be defending the team name.

And for the record:  I'm a lifelong Cleveland Indians fan, and Chief Wahoo was specifically the reason why I (as a 9-year-old) chose the Indians as my favorite team.  That being said, if (say, 20 years from now) "Cleveland Indians" becomes the equivalent of "Seattle Chinamen" or "Boston Coloreds", I'll support a change.  I realize Chief Wahoo is probably not long for this world.

It goes back further than that.

Ever since Susan B. Anthony and bunch of other bitches that defied Gods will that a women's proper place is the kitchen and bedroom and started demanding that their opinion count this country as been on a downward spiral of pussification. 

 >:D >:D >:D

Is it the word "wet" that is offensive, or the word "back?" What is the negative slant associated with the term that you're referring to?

Shall we break down the etymology of other racial slurs?

The part of this that gets me is that the people who are supposedly offended are, for the most part, not.  Its some vocal minority who are making it a big stink.  There have been polls. 

Why should we be sensitive for something that the supposedly-offended people don't find offensive?

Dude, it's a racial slur.

It doesn't matter if a majority of people find it offensive or not.  You can't have a team named after a racial slur in this day and age.  I wish that was always the case, but it was not and someone made an insensitive decision a long time ago.  Correct it and move on.

Exactly correct. If calling someone a black man or a white man is ok, then accordingly calling someone a red man shouldn't be any different or more offensive. It describes the pigment of one's skin. How something negative or racist is derived out of that is perplexing. It's a simple descriptor and implies nothing negative at face value. This has nothing to do with civil rights. This is a private organization that has every right to use the name they have. Having the name "Washington Redskins" doesn't restrict or deny anyone anything. It doesn't tell anyone that they "can't" do or have something. The owner of the team shouldn't change the name unless he wants to change it, he has every right to use the name. If the small minority of people it offends doesn't like it, they have every right to boycott the team. What about the Native Americans that would get offended by the team changing their name? You can never please everyone. So in the end as the owner, do what "YOU" want to do. It's your money.


I guess next, some clown is going to be offended by a pouch of chewing tobacco. Oh the horror

(http://s24.postimg.org/l0cd30kg1/index.jpg)
Some people have nothing better to do in life than be "offended" about something. Petty childish shit!

Is it?  Or is that just a buzzword to incite outrage?

slur

noun
1.
an insinuation or allegation about someone that is likely to insult them or damage their reputation.

By definition, the word "Redskin" ceases to be a slur if people aren't insulted by it.  Why isn't the baseball team from Cleveland being asked to change their name to the Cleveland Native-Americans? 

"Redskin" is a racial descriptor of disputed origin for Native Americans. Although by some accounts not originally having negative intent,[1] the term is now defined by dictionaries of American English as "usually offensive",[2] "disparaging",[3][4] "insulting",[5] "taboo" [6] and is avoided in public usage with the exception of its continued use as a name for sports teams.


As for Indians, that's a different debate, considering that they aren't Indians at all and it was mistaken identity.  But if Indian was a racial slur for Native Americans, I would understand that, as well.  And to Pondwater, I'm not saying that they should be forced to change it legally.  They should be willing to change it, morally.

I mean....would you call a native american a redskin?  It's not the same as calling an African American "black."

It's very similar to the term "wetback."  It'd be like if there was a Texas team from the 40s called the Wetbacks that just never changed.  It's not something that I'm sensitive about, but I certainly understand why others might feel put off by it. 

I said the same thing Brian. If it was slander then the team wouldn't want to be called it. No one is fighting to be called the Washington Honkeys, Coons, Spics, Waps or Wetbacks.

By definition, the word "chink" ceases to be a slur if people aren't insulted by it.

You're reaching hard, Brian.  You mean to tell me that you would see no problem with, say, your mayor referring to a Native American as a "redskin"?

Imagine if the Washington Redskins never existed and there was a new team called the New Mexico Redskins.  There's no way that would fly.

I'm saying that the word "redskin" is not used in everyday vernacular and, thus, has no meaning other than a football team from Washington.

What is they renamed themselves the Washintgon Hoodlywoggles, and then 50 years from now, they decided that Hoodlywoggle is offensive to hamsters and they should change their name for the sake of the hamster sensitivity movement?

Just think, at some point, when words are no longer used, they lose meaning and become nothing more than a collection of letters that make a word.

Yes because I don't have any grasp on the concept of basic human rights as opposed to a word that a select few choose to be offended by. Go ahead and take that bet.....It is one you will lose.  ::)

Wellpinit (Wash.) High School - 91.2 percent Native American
Kingston (Okla.) High School - 57.7 percent Native American
Red Mesa (Ariz.) High School - 99.3 percent Native American

Are any of those schools new, or have they been around for decades?That's kind of an important point, given Dave's post. Interesting that you didn't point out the 28 high schools that dropped that particular name. -EK

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9689220/redskins-name-change-not-easy-sounds (http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9689220/redskins-name-change-not-easy-sounds)

Doesn't really matter. If the overwhelming majority of those schools are Native American and using and wearing the name proudly then there is no problem. If you or anyone else don't like it, don't go to the games or buy popcorn, simple enough in a free society.

Are you comparing Native Americans to hamsters?  Sounds pretty similar to the "if we let two men get married, then next a man can marry a turtle" argument.

It's difficult to accept that this is not an issue of a racist slur when the defenses you keep trotting out are the classic excuses used to defend bigotry.

Actually, there IS a problem- it's just not with those 3 schools. With the 28 schools who changed the name, the problem was great enough that they made the change. Even in a fake demacracy like the US, sometimes the "majority rules" approach does actually create change. 28>3. -EK

just a small tangent .. because people seem to have a misconception quite often about this.

the US isn't a democracy .. in fact it has never been a democracy and our constitution doesn't establish a democracy.

We live in a representative republic .. we use a democratic method in elections. Originally the founders even restricted that to being JUST the house of representatives. the senate was designed to be state appointed (governor or legislature) and the president is elected by electors which are what is voted on during a presidential election.

So we aren't a fake democracy .. we aren't one at all and have never been.

^^ That's why I used that exact and specific expression- because an overwhelming number of people think the US is a democracy, and do not understand that it is a republic. It's an old George Carlin quote about our gov't. It's very hard to "read" sarcastic tone in print, so I get why it came across as it did. -EK

You guys really are splitting hairs here a bit. A republic is just a represntative democracy. It is hybrid form of the system.

But we should split this off if we continue

It is this line of thought that led Carlin to adopt the phrase, and I to steal it from him. -EK

I guess in a way a constitutional republic could be considered a "fake" democracy seeing as how we are not a democracy. Unlike a pure democracy, in a constitutional republic, citizens are not governed by the majority of the people but by the rule of law. Furthermore, even if we were a democracy, your "majority rules" approach wouldn't apply to a private or sovereign entities.

Beat me too it, haha. However, my point to EK is that republic, democracy, majority or not. None of that has any bearing on this topic.

Yes, but I started with my statement "Imagine if the Washington Redskins never existed"...which, by my last check, they do.

Secondly, it wouldn't surprise me any schools on a local level -- people do all kinds of stupid racist crap in small towns.  I was referring more to a national team.

Are schools private or sovereign entitites?

Either way, I don't understand what the debate is. The term is offensive. If it offends enough people that there have been multiple attempts to remove/change it, that's good enough for me. What possible benefit do you get from leaving an offensive term out there? What good does that bring? -EK

the civil rights act applies to private entities

It is well established that the author blatantly lied in that article.

If the Washington Redskins never existed then the Kingston (Okla.) High School would still be named the redskins, since according to the article, they have been wearing the Redskins name for 104 years. Even being politically correct and all sensitive, 104 years is still larger than 81 years.


With the percentage of Native American students and their parents and families in those small towns, then they would be doing the stupid racist crap to themselves. Self inflicted racism is neato ;)

You twisting my words, I never said civil rights. I said "majority rules" approach wouldn't apply to private or sovereign entities. But more to your point. What civil rights are being broken? Hurt feelings? Being offended? Gladly, those don't qualify.

What civil rights were broken when blacks had to ride at the back of the bus?  Hurt feelings?

if 'majority rules' results in a new law being passed .. it applies to a private entity  .. no question about it

and i wasn't implying there were any laws being broken.

This is purely a public pressure event currently. When it starts to hurt the NFL business bottom line, the name will be changed faster than you can blink.

Don't be a douche...wetback refers to the negative connotations of many Mexicans' illegal immigration to the USA. The term "redskin" is simply a physical description, and an accurate one.

^ What about a team called "the darkies" which is also accurately covers skin color?

I don't think the wetback comparison is at all douchey, but very accurate.  Redskin has a negative connotation.

What is that negative connotation? That their skin is red?

^ It's the way that it's historically used.

It's not the actual words red or skin, clearly.   Likewise, you wouldn't have a team called the slant-eyes for Asians.  ...even though, yes -- they do have slanty eyes.  Slant-eyes is a slur, historically speaking.

You say this as if racial slurs can somehow be explained away if they are actually kind of accurate; like it's probably okay to refer to a Jew as a "hooknose" if their nose is kind of hook-shaped, or it's just fine to refer to a Hispanic as a "wetback" if that particular person literally immigrated into the US via swimming through a body of water.

I ask again: if your mayor referred to a Native American constituent as a "redskin," would you think that's OK?

And I'll once again ignore an irrelevant question. We aren't talking about a Mayor addressing a constituent. We're talking about the name of a football team.

You're trying to claim that "redskin" is innocuous and not at all a racial slur.  That claim is highly suspect.

It's one thing if you're arguing that WSH should keep their name Because Tradition, or something.  But to try to say that "redskin" is really just an accurate description of the complexion of Native Americans so what's the problem? blithely ignores the entire point of racial slurs.

It doesn't matter if a particular black person really does look like a gorilla or if a specific Mexican actually eats beans every day or what the first three letters of Japan are.  That doesn't somehow make monkey or beaner or jap OK.

I don't consider "Jap" to be a racial slur either, any more than "American" or "Swede" or "Filipino."

...and if you don't see the inherent differences between "redskin" and "beaner," then the problem is in your basic understanding of the English language.

Last post on this topic. I've expressed my point adequately enough, and lack the interest in another long. drawn out Spidey semantics debate.

You had me at hello.

I do think how this will ultimately end is Daniel Snyder will write a big fat check....these Indian Nations will split up the money among themselves and this whole thing will go away.  I might be dead wrong but I think if Snyder throws enough money at this problem everyone complaining will go silent.

I see each sides point of view and this will be interesting to see how it plays out.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/10/25/nfl-to-meet-with-oneida-indian-nation-next-week/

Meeting next week in NYC. Oneida Indian nation sending reps to meet with the NFL. Call me cynical but this will be the meeting where some numbers will be bounced around to see how much it will cost the NFL/Redskins to make this entire matter just go away.

I understand that throwing money at problems is a popular disposal method, but for the life of me, I can't see why Daniel Snyder would be willing to pay a penny of his own money here. That team was called the Redskins long before Snyder was even born.

Because I am guessing this "issue" is tying up a lot of his time. To the point even the President of the United States has weighed in on this matter. Snyder I would think (and the league) just want this all to go away as soon as possible. If that means paying off some people to shut them up....I think they will write some checks.

That's the thing though...I just don't think that writing a check makes this go away. The only thing that will make this situation "right" with the people who are offended by the team name is to change the team name.

Hell, I'd think that the offended parties accepting money without forcing a team name change would be seen as a betrayal of sorts; a selling-out on their principles.

I could be wrong, but that's how I see this situation.

I saw some leak somewhere about the name Bravehearts.  It was on PTI, but I was only half paying attention.

If the NFL and Snyder write the Indian Nations a check for enough money. Set up some scholarship fund to help native american kids to go to college every year, nice little PR move.....then the Indian Nations could go back to their people and say after talking to the league and the Redskins organization we have found common ground. We understand there is no ill will with them keeping the name and their intent is pure....blah blah blah. They also understand our point of view and have stepped up to help our Indian Nation communities ....blah blah. They could spin this very very easily if some money crosses hands.  And this whole thing will be forgotten of within a week and on to the next news cycle story

I don't see how this solves the problem.  In fact it would only result in more protests. 

Some Native Americans are protesting the name not all.  Of those who are not some aren't bother by the name, others are bothered by it but not to the point it is worth protesting.

If the NFL or Snyder pays those who are protesting to stop, you can bet those who don't get paid, will start protesting the name.

Only way to end the problem is change the name. 

Yep...there is only one correct answer to the question "how do you stop people from being offended by the name?"

Change the name.

Also, how do you cut checks to every American Indian tribe? At last count, there were 562 of them. (http://tribaldirectory.com/ (http://tribaldirectory.com/))

Well I'm not sure you have to cut a check to each of them. But I am sure the more vocal ones in this process would get paid and the others who haven't been saying anything would get nothing. Will be interesting to see how this plays out but I still think t the end of the day some money changes hands and this all goes away. We shall see

So how much money would Augusta National have had to pay to make their "no women allowed" issue go away?  And who would they have paid it to?

A payout would not only fail to solve the issue, it would likely make it worse.

Exactly the point I was making above. Now, anything is possible, and I make no claims to clairvoyance, but no matter how creative I get with writing an ending to this story, a payout just doesn't add up to anything that seems like it could exist in the really-real world.

Suddenly me and my Creek great-grandmother are offended by the "Redskin" name.  I've never been so offended in all my life!!!!

^^^ Ch-ching!!

Nothing came of the meeting this week. The Oneida Indian Nation left the meeting and said they are disappointed and now wants to meet with all 32 owners (good luck with that) and the league and Redskins are standing strong over not changing the name.

This might drag out a while

Why? We aren't applying it to a person, but rather a team mascot. My wife grew up in a town called Frisco Tx. Her highschool had a raccoon as a mascot and they were called the Frisco 'Coons for years and then someone got the idea that 'Coons was racist even though it wasn't because it was short for raccoons, but they made a big enough fuss about it that they eventually changed the official name to Frisco Raccoons although many still call them the Frisco 'Coons. In my opinion if you see "racist" where there isn't any, then it's you that has the problem, not the other way around.

Won't stop people from just finding something else to be offended by. It doesn't really solve the problem, it just kicks the problem down the road a bit.

I didn't say that changing the name would stop everyone from being offended by anything... Just this particular offense, and just these particular people offended by it.

Why change the name? Just change the logo, changes the meaning completely. Problem easily solved!
(http://s21.postimg.org/rzqk0u8yb/1392745_10153510261935515_288895628_n.jpg) (http://postimg.org/image/rzqk0u8yb/)

Thats a great logo if Boise ever gets an NFL franchise

I know that this was meant as a joke, but honestly, if the Redskins originally was a potato reference, then I'd have no problem with it at all.  I think that there will always be someone who is offended about something.  But I think you have to look at if the case is legitimate or intentional or rooted in some other racism and make smart decisions.  You can't be afraid to make a change one-direction or another because of a slippery slope.

Instead of me re reading the entire thread. From this post, I take it that you have a problem with the name. Is that a safe assumption?

No, I don't personally have an issue with the name, but I certainly understand why people would.  I just think that if you are named after a racial slur and it offends people, it's a foregone conclusion that the name will have to go away, tradition or not.  ...just do it now and move on.  That's more of a business opinion than anything.