Redskins "Name" debate

[MikeO]

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.

[Tenshot13]

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

[Sunstroke]

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?

[MikeO]

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

[Sunstroke]

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

[Spider-Dan]

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 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 when his own father-in-law publicly refuted it evinces a "I don't want the name changed, no matter what they say" mentality.

[Sunstroke]

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.

[Phishfan]

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.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

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?

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.

[el diablo]

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.

[Tenshot13]

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

[Spider-Dan]

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 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.

[Brian Fein]

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.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

  Why did it take 81 years for someone to get offended?

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. 

[Spider-Dan]

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

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.

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