Support NeoGAF

[Stet]

Nope, I'm not Indian.

Do you get off on using deprecated terms or are you making a statement? It sure seems like you went out of your way to do so.

 

[Brakke]

Just change the fucking name already. There's so much DC culture you could go with. The Washington Pork Barrels or The Bribesters or The DC Swamp.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Nope, I'm not Indian.

He asked if you were Native American, not Indian.

 

[Delta Assault]

Do you get off on using deprecated terms or are you making a statement? It sure seems like you went out of your way to do so.

It's really just that "Indian" is fewer letters to type.

 

[Particle Physicist]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_redskins#Controversy_regarding_the_name_and_logo



...Yeah, I don't care.

The most recent study in your quote is 10 years old (which also, by the way, did not even verify tribal status). Here is a more recent study from 2014:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/lindseyadler/native-americans-offended-by-racial-slur

A recent study by the California State University, San Bernadino reports 67% of Native Americans find the Washington Redskins name and imagery racist.

http://cips.csusb.edu/docs/PressRelease.pdf

 

[KingGondo]

I suspect that the goal is to bring down the biggest and more obvious perpetrator (Redskins), then use the victory as a platform to pursue the other franchises. I'm sure the other sports clubs are monitoring this situation carefully and worriedly.

The Indians have already started slowly phasing out Chief Wahoo. He's not used nearly as prominently any more.

 

[Arkos]

I disapprove of first post, 5/10, not horrible, not relevant enough though :|

Let me say my thoughts, as someone who has been a fan of teams with controversial mascots my entire life:

I grew up as a fan of the Gamecocks and the Braves. Both controversial nicknames. I have a lot of inner conflict about the Gamecocks; while I realize that it refers to the avian equivalent of dog fighting, there are also other names that glorify the brutal nature of their animal mascots, such as bulldogs, tigers, bears, etc, all of which have been exploited in the same way as cock fighting over the course of history. I have less of a problem with animal nicknames, despite what they may imply. Maybe that's just me being a diehard Gamecock, or I'm just insensitive to animals.

But when it comes to the people nicknames, I can see the problem. As much as I love the Braves, I wouldn't argue if people thought they should change their name. Growing up as a fan, I honestly did always see it as a kind of respectful thing, but it's not really my opinion that matters in the issue. I'm sure that Native Americans want to be viewed as more than just "warriors" ("braves"), and so I support any movement to change these names.

The funny thing to me is the crossover. Like being overly pc about (people) nicknames. For example, is pirates okay? Pirates kidnap and ransom lots of people every year, to this day. That's not cool. And Vikings. Vikings were fucking mean, I don't want my kid to idolize Vikings. Spurs? That's cruel to the horses brah. Grizzlies? Did you see that documentary??

I understand the difference, of course, it's just interesting to think that you could find fault with a lot of nicknames if you wanted to. Pretty soon we'll all be the New York New Yorkers It's all relative, but I definitely do think that it is time for the Native American nicknames to go. RIP my sweet Braves

 

[kehs]

During the finals? It'll probably flop.

It's not a heat forward.

 

[Stet]

It's really just that "Indian" is fewer letters to type.

There are a lot of things that are fewer letters to type than "Delta Assault" and yet I extended you the courtesy of not typing them.

 

[Mac the KNife]

The league never responded to my proposal to change Washington's mascot to a potato.

 

[cdyhybrid]

That depends on the activists' goals. If the Redskins change names, would the victory be used as a platform to pursue other sports franchises with similar name backdrops, including the Chiefs, the Seminoles, the ATL Braves, the Cleveland Indians, etc.

IIRC, Florida State actually has the blessing of the Seminole tribe of Florida to use the name and imagery.

 

[Delta Assault]

There are a lot of things that are fewer letters to type than "Delta Assault" and yet I extended you the courtesy of not typing them.

Well, you never did type "Delta Assault." You've just been referring to me as "you." Which is perfectly fine.

So ummm.

 

[santeesioux]

I'm not a mascot.

 

[Squalor]

Most people don't even know that the phrase "red-skin" comes from white people who were describing the red paint the natives wore on their bodies.

Native Americans weren't calling each other "red-skin" or anything close to that.

It's pejorative slang. It's pretty simple. You wouldn't refer to an actual Native American as a "red-skin" or "red Indian" in real life, so it's ridiculous that some stupid sports team has kept the name all these years because of "tradition."

 

[Kinyou]

Poor redskins getting attacked again and again. When will this persecution end. /s

 

[gutter_trash]

excellent advert, fuck the NFL and the Washington Redskins

there is lots of false equivillancy trying to compare the name to Spurs, Vikings and Patriots.

The Natives got majorly screwed during the installment of the colonies and majorly more-so during Western Expansion.

It's not like, hey we are part of history it's okay to use us as mascots, lol. They got seriously majorly screwed over.

 

[genjiZERO]

Do you run into a lot of Natives in your day to day life? Do you see a lot of them in the news or in popular culture? I can't imagine you do because they're a very marginalized people, so why should it matter whether or not you've seen it?

Maybe you're Native yourself or live on a reservation or in a place with a very heavy population, and if so, I do apologize, but I see this argument used a lot as if it's surprising that people are unfamiliar with Native American problems when they aren't ever exposed to the people themselves.

This conflates a different issue. The issue you are talking about is genocide of Native Americans by Europeans. So that topic would be the appropriateness of use of Native Americans at all as the names of sport franchises.

The issue here is whether the term "red skins" is racist. So it's a question of semantics.

I am not Native American, so I cannot speak for them, but if they as a group of people feel offended by the term today, it doesn't matter how the term was used in the past.

That's a good question. Do they? From what I've been able to tell (and the two Native Americans I talked to) whether they find the term offensive or not is a question of debate.

More like "black-skin" or "white-skin".

Yes. Exactly the same. Is Black skins or White skins offensive? Personally, I have no idea.

Or how about "whitey" or "darkie."

Not precisely. Possibly "whitey". But maybe not because that term is clearly pejorative. Saying someone is "white skinned" is not necessarily pejorative. Black people use the terms "brown skinned" and "light skinned" to describe darker and lighter black people, respectively.

On the other hand, "darky" has no meaning outside of a pejorative context.

Except that bounties were put on the scalps of redskins so...y'know...not really.

Regardless, naming a sports team a controversial racial epithet is just bizarre. Why would you ever do that in the first place.

Again, this conflates a question of normative judgement (if it's OK to names sports teams after ethnic groups) with one of semantics (if the term "red skins" is per se racist).

Anyway, to be clear I am not saying "red skins" is definitively not racist, nor am I saying Washington should not change their name. What I am saying is that there is ambiguity of the meaning of the term and its use as a racist word, and this is something that gets ignored in discussions on whether they should change their name. People just like to shout out, "It's racist!", but provide no context of the history of the term.

 

[David Incorporated Esq.]

Anyway, to be clear I am not saying "red skins" is definitively not racist, nor am I saying Washington should not change their name. What I am saying is that there is ambiguity of the meaning of the term and its use as a racist word, and this is something that gets ignored in discussions on whether they should change their name. People just like to shout out, "It's racist!", but provide no context of the history of the term.

Historical context isn't important if the term is now considered derogatory.

 

[samus i am]

Historical context isn't important if the term is now considered derogatory.

Of course you have a right to feel that way, but I disagree.

 

[Kano on the Phone]

This conflates a different issue. The issue you are talking about is genocide of Native Americans by Europeans. So that topic would be the appropriateness of use of Native Americans at all as the names of sport franchises.

The issue here is whether the term "red skins" is racist. So it's a question of semantics.

I didn't say anything about genocide as it pertains to the argument, I simply said "I don't see this every day" is a shitty argument for something that most people aren't around every day, which is true.

 

[Stet]

Well, you never did type "Delta Assault." You've just been referring to me as "you." Which is perfectly fine.

So ummm.

Literally the very post you are responding to is where I did...

 

[theignoramus]

Well, you never did type "Delta Assault." You've just been referring to me as "you." Which is perfectly fine.

So ummm.

alright, we get it. your input on this topic is not to be taken seriously

 

[genjiZERO]

Historical context isn't important if the term is now considered derogatory.

That might be true, but it seems to me it is because it's simply stated as a fact, and not because there is history behind the use of the term in a deragatory way.

Again, I'm happy to read anything outlining the history of the use of the term in a pejorative context.

I didn't say anything about genocide as it pertains to the argument, I simply said "I don't see this every day" is a shitty argument for something that most people aren't around every day, which is true.

OK, then I'm not sure what you are arguing. It seems to me that you are describing the marginalization of Native Americans. If that's the case - I agree. But that's still an issue of normative policy not semantics.

 

[gutter_trash]

Most people don't even know that the phrase "red-skin" comes from white people who were describing the red paint the natives wore on their bodies.

Native Americans weren't calling each other "red-skin" or anything close to that.

It's pejorative slang. It's pretty simple. You wouldn't refer to an actual Native American as a "red-skin" or "red Indian" in real life, so it's ridiculous that some stupid sports team has kept the name all these years because of "tradition."

The French called them ''Peau Rouge'' for the look of their skin. The English just borrowed the term as Red Skin.

It is about the color of the skin, and is derogatory

 

[Pollux]

Don't think the ad is going to do anything, but it'll get people talking at least

 

[Kabuki Waq]

This like me calling my hockey team Brampton Brownskins and have a picture of a Turban as a logo.

 

[samus i am]

This like me calling my hockey team Brampton Brownskins and have a picture of a Turban as a logo.

There is already a mascot with a similar theme:

 

[Kano on the Phone]

OK, then I'm not sure what you are arguing. It seems to me that you are describing the marginalization of Native Americans. If that's the case - I agree. But that's still an issue of normative policy not semantics.

I simply said "I don't see this every day" is a shitty argument for something that most people aren't around every day, which is true.

It's like me, living on the west coast, saying that water pollution in the Atlantic Ocean isn't a big deal because I don't run into it every day. Got it?

 

[genjiZERO]

It's like me, living on the west coast, saying that water pollution in the Atlantic Ocean isn't a big deal because I don't run into it every day. Got it?

Oh...... I see what you are saying now. Well let me clarify then because "I don't see this every day thus X is not a big deal" is not what I meant.

When I was talking about the use of the term "red" the statement was made on the basis of independent research I did (by reading various sources on the internet) on the history of the term*. The conclusion I came to based on this was that it seemed to be a fairly neutral term (used similarly to black and white) until fairly recently where people seem to be objecting to the term for reasons other than its use to suppress people. Furthermore, the term "skin" also seems fairly neutral, but is certainly antiquated.

But again, I am more than happy to read histories of the term as it was used as a tool of suppression.


*It was also tempered by conversations I had on race with two adult Native Americans, and observations made having taught high school for a year in a school that was 33% Native American (33% Native American, 33% black and 33% white. Racist comments were rampant, but "red skins" was never said of the context of the football team).

 

[Kano on the Phone]

Oh...... I see what you are saying now. Well let me clarify then because "I don't see this every day thus X is not a big deal" is not what I meant.

When I was talking about the use of the term "red" the statement was made on the basis of independent research I did (by reading various sources on the internet) on the history of the term*. The conclusion I came to based on this was that it seemed to be a fairly neutral term (used similarly to black and white) until fairly recently where people seem to be objecting to the term for reasons other than its use to suppress people. Furthermore, the term "skin" also seems fairly neutral, but is certainly antiquated.

But again, I am more than happy to read histories of the term as it was used as a tool of suppression.


*It was also tempered by conversations I had on race with two adult Native Americans, and observations made having taught high school for a year in a school that was 33% Native American (33% Native American, 33% black and 33% white. Racist comments were rampant, but "red skins" was never said of the context of the football team).

Ok, but some people who are Native find it offensive. If, in your studying, you found that only 5 percent of black people were offended by the word "nigger," would you just go ahead and use it anyway?

I don't understand quantifying peoples' feelings. It's a word that has obvious racial connotations that unarguably offends some people even if not all people, so I can't think of a single good reason not to just let it go.

 

[cyclonekruse]

Ok, but some people who are Native find it offensive. If, in your studying, you found that only 5 percent of black people were offended by the word "nigger," would you just go ahead and use it anyway?

I don't understand quantifying peoples' feelings. It's a word that has obvious racial connotations that unarguably offends some people even if not all people, so I can't think of a single good reason not to just let it go.

It is literally impossible to make sufficient concessions in language to appease everyone. Someone might be offended by "kumquat" because the first syllable sounds like a more vulgar word for semen. People have been offended by "niggardly" because it sounds too close to a certain other word even though its provenance is likely not racial at all. I, as a person of German descent, could get offended by someone calling me a "kraut." Where's the line?

I understand being sensitive to others' feelings to a certain extent. But at some point, people just need thicker skin, too. Where that line is, however, is up for debate. But that's why quantifying other people's feelings is important. If 1 in 10,000,000 people (in the group in question) are offended by something, you probably shouldn't need to alter your speech patterns simply to appease those rare few who take offense. If it's closer to 99%, then you might want to rethink your choice of words.

 

[Particle Physicist]

It is literally impossible to make sufficient concessions in language to appease everyone. Someone might be offended by "kumquat" because the first syllable sounds like a more vulgar word for semen. People have been offended by "niggardly" because it sounds too close to a certain other word even though its provenance is likely not racial at all. I, as a person of German descent, could get offended by someone calling me a "kraut." Where's the line?

I understand being sensitive to others' feelings to a certain extent. But at some point, people just need thicker skin, too. Where that line is, however, is up for debate. But that's why quantifying other people's feelings is important. If 1 in 10,000,000 people (in the group in question) are offended by something, you probably shouldn't need to alter your speech patterns simply to appease those rare few who take offense. If it's closer to 99%, then you might want to rethink your choice of words.

True, but we can definitely make concessions to appease large groups of people. For instance, it used to be okay to call someone with intellectual disabilities Retarded, people are shying away from that term because it is now considered hurtful. Calling someone gay who is not gay can be seen as insulting to the gay population. "That is so gay." It has a negative connotation towards the LGTB community even though it is perfectly fine to use the term for gay people. These examples may not offend everyone within those populations, but they certainly offend some, and yet as a community, people are attempting to move away from these terms.

If you are talking about random words that offend random people, I agree with you, but we are talking about words used to refer to a group of people that offend actually offend that group/community.

 

[User 100115]

I honestly don't understand how this is even up for debate.

A bunch of Native American's find it offensive, say it's a slur, and are actively campaigning for the name to be changed. People arguing that 'it's not a slur' don't really have a leg to stand on as it's not a slur against them.

It's like people trying to argue that 'wetback' is a term of respect for the struggle of Mexican immigrants.

 

[way more]

It is literally impossible to make sufficient concessions in language to appease everyone. Someone might be offended by "kumquat" because the first syllable sounds like a more vulgar word for semen. People have been offended by "niggardly" because it sounds too close to a certain other word even though its provenance is likely not racial at all. I, as a person of German descent, could get offended by someone calling me a "kraut." Where's the line?

Is there a national sports team called The Krauts? This isn't about some theoretical one-on-one discussion where a person called another person a Redskin. It's about a professional sports team with the name.

 

[cyclonekruse]

True, but we can definitely make concessions to appease large groups of people. For instance, it used to be okay to call someone with intellectual disabilities Retarded, people are shying away from that term because it is now considered hurtful. Calling someone gay who is not gay can be seen as insulting to the gay population. "That is so gay." It has a negative connotation towards the LGTB community even though it is perfectly fine to use the term for gay people. These examples may not offend everyone within those populations, but they certainly offend some, and yet as a community, people are attempting to move away from these terms.

If you are talking about random words that offend random people, I agree with you, but we are talking about words used to refer to a group of people that offend actually offend that group/community.

But what if they offend only a minority of members of those minority groups? Why would a relative few get to speak for the whole group? Saying "I'm gay and therefore my opinion on matters involving gay people should be taken as Gospel" strikes me as just as ridiculous as me saying "I'm German and therefore my opinion on matters involving Germans should be taken as Gospel." No one person speaks for an entire group like that.

 

[r3n4ud]

Man oh man. Being a Native Canadian myself, I could care less wtf they call a sports team. It's a damn name fellow natives, move along :/

 

[way more]

Man oh man. Being a Native Canadian myself, I could care less wtf they call a sports team. It's a damn name fellow natives, move along :/

Oh, it's a name. I didn't realize that you Canuck moron. It's a name!


http://www.canadaka.net/content/page/137-canadian-racial-slurs

Oooh, there is a good one on there that starts with a "P"

 

[genjiZERO]

Ok, but some people who are Native find it offensive. If, in your studying, you found that only 5 percent of black people were offended by the word "nigger," would you just go ahead and use it anyway?

I don't understand quantifying peoples' feelings. It's a word that has obvious racial connotations that unarguably offends some people even if not all people, so I can't think of a single good reason not to just let it go.

Sure, but there has to be a question of the reasonableness of those feelings. The term "masticate" sounds dirty, but it isn't. What it seems to me is that the term "red skins" sounds antiquated and passe to the way race is talked about in contemporary times. Consequently, it sounds racist. But I'm not convinced that actually makes it racist.

As far as the N-word, the difference is that there is a long history of the use of the n-word to suppress people. Native Americans were (are) certainly suppressed, but, as far as I can tell, the use of the term "red skins" hasn't really been done to do that.

So I'm fine with forcing Washington to change their name. There are just better arguments for doing so. For example, it's certainly insensitive to name a team after (questionable) characteristics of that race. The word "red skin" certainly fits that. Furthermore, you have to question the validity of naming sports teams after ethnic groups at all*

Personally, if it's OK to name a team after a Native American group I think they should change their name to the Powhatans. That's the major indigenous group to Virginia. Get their permission of course, but use it as a spring board to educate people about Native American culture.


*The counter argument to this is that there are white ethnic sports teams as well. For example, Celtics, Fighting Irish, Trojans, Vikings, etc. However, the difference is that white people are naming the teams after themselves. Teams like Red Skins, Indians, Seminoles are not being named after Native Americans.

I honestly don't understand how this is even up for debate.

A bunch of Native American's find it offensive, say it's a slur, and are actively campaigning for the name to be changed. People arguing that 'it's not a slur' don't really have a leg to stand on as it's not a slur against them.

It's like people trying to argue that 'wetback' is a term of respect for the struggle of Mexican immigrants.

Wetback is per se deragatory. The term was created for the sole purpose of being pejorative. "Red" is unpopular contemporaneously, but people are fine with describing people as "white", "black" or "brown". Actually, I think "brown" is super racist because it's a catch all phrase to lump disparate people who don't fit the strictest black, white paradigm into a single group.

 

[r3n4ud]

Oh, it's a name. I didn't realize that you Canuck moron. It's a name!

Come again?

 

[User 100115]

Man oh man. Being a Native Canadian myself, I could care less wtf they call a sports team. It's a damn name fellow natives, move along :/

I believe Native Canadians are treated a bit better than Native Americans? No clue though.

Also, just because you aren't offended by something racially upsetting doesn't mean no one else is allowed to be offended by it. I am sure many Asian folk aren't upset by people calling them a 'chink', while a lot of them are. Still doesn't make it right to call Asian people 'chinks'.

Edit: Saving the post beneath me for when people are all 'but in a poll for a few hundred Natives, only a few found it offensive!'

 

[Particle Physicist]

But what if they offend only a minority of members of those minority groups? Why would a relative few get to speak for the whole group? Saying "I'm gay and therefore my opinion on matters involving gay people should be taken as Gospel" strikes me as just as ridiculous as me saying "I'm German and therefore my opinion on matters involving Germans should be taken as Gospel." No one person speaks for an entire group like that.

That clearly is not happening here though. The term Redskin is obviously controversial and most definitely insults a significant amount of Native Americans.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washin...sy#Native_Americans_and_organizations_opposed

The following groups have passed resolutions or issued statements regarding their opposition to the name of the Washington NFL team:

Tribes
Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians[148]
Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma[148]
Comanche Nation of Oklahoma[148]
The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (Washington)[148]
Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians (Michigan)
Hoh Indian Tribe[149]
Inter Tribal Council of Arizona[150]
Inter-Tribal Council of the Five Civilized Tribes[151]
Juaneño Band of Mission Indians (California)[148]
Little River Band of Ottawa Indians (Michigan)
Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians, Gun Lake Tribe (Michigan)[152]
Menominee Tribe of Indians (Wisconsin)[148]
Oneida Indian Nation (New York)[153]
Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin[148]
Navajo Nation Council[92]
Penobscot Nation[154]
Poarch Band of Creek Indians[155]
Samish Indian Nation (Washington)[156]
Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians (Michigan)[157]
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (Idaho)[158]
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (North Dakota)
The Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation (North Dakota)[159]
United South and Eastern Tribes (USET)[160]

Organizations
Advocates for American Indian Children (California)
American Indian Mental Health Association (Minnesota)
American Indian Movement[161]
American Indian Opportunities Industrialization Center of San Bernardino County
American Indian Student Services at the Ohio State University
American Indian High Education Consortium
American Indian College Fund
Americans for Indian Opportunity
Association on American Indian Affairs
Buncombe County Native American Inter-tribal Association (North Carolina)
Capitol Area Indian Resources (Sacramento, CA)
Concerned American Indian Parents (Minnesota)
Council for Indigenous North Americans (University of Southern Maine)
Eagle and Condor Indigenous Peoples’ Alliance
First Peoples Worldwide
Fontana Native American Indian Center, Inc. (California)
Governor’s Interstate Indian Council
Greater Tulsa Area Indian Affairs Commission
Great Lakes Inter-Tribal Council (Wisconsin)
HONOR – Honor Our Neighbors Origins and Rights
Kansas Association for Native American Education
Maryland Commission on Indian Affairs
Medicine Wheel Inter-tribal Association (Louisiana)
Minnesota Indian Education Association
National Congress of American Indians (NCAI)
National Indian Child Welfare Association
National Indian Education Association
National Indian Youth Council
National Native American Law Student Association
Native American Caucus of the California Democratic Party
Native American Finance Officers Association (NAFOA)[162]
Native American Journalists Association[163]
Native American Indian Center of Central Ohio
Native American Journalists Association
Native American Rights Fund (NARF)
Native Voice Network
Nebraska Commission on Indian Affairs
Nottawaseppi Huron Band of Potawatomi (Michigan)
North Carolina Commission of Indian Affairs
North Dakota Indian Education Association
Office of Native American Ministry, Diocese of Grand Rapids (Michigan)
Ohio Center for Native American Affairs
San Bernardino/Riverside Counties Native American Community Council
Seminole Nation of Oklahoma
Society of Indian Psychologists of the Americas
Southern California Indian Center
St. Cloud State University – American Indian Center
Tennessee Chapter of the National Coalition for the Preservation of Indigenous Cultures
Tennessee Commission of Indian Affairs
Tennessee Native Veterans Society
Tulsa Indian Coalition Against Racism[164]
The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation
Unified Coalition for American Indian Concerns, Virginia
The United Indian Nations of Oklahoma
Virginia American Indian Cultural Resource Center
Wisconsin Indian Education Association
WIEA “Indian” Mascot and Logo Taskforce (Wisconsin)
Woodland Indian Community Center-Lansing (Michigan)
Youth “Indian” Mascot and Logo Task force (Wisconsin)

Individuals
These prominent Native Americans have put their opposition to the Redskins' name on the public record:

Sherman Alexie (author, Spokane)[165]
Notah Begay (Navajo, PGA pro golfer) called the Redskins' name "a very clear example of institutionalized degradation of an ethnic minority."[166]
Clyde Bellecourt (Ojibwe, co-founder of the American Indian Movement)[167]
Bob Burns (Blackfeet elder)[168]
Vine Deloria, Jr. (Sioux, historian/author)[169]
Ben Nighthorse Campbell (Northern Cheyenne, U.S. Senator)[170]
Kevin Gover (Pawnee, director of The Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of the American Indian)[171]
Suzan Shown Harjo (Cheyenne/Hodulgee Muscogee, author/activist)[172]
Litefoot (Cherokee/Chichimeca, rapper) ironically celebrates Native American team names as "recreational genocide" on the track 'Stereotipik'.[173]
Russell Means (Oglala Lakota, activist/actor)[174]
Billy Mills (Sioux, Olympic gold medal winner)[175]
Ted Nolan (First Nations Ojibway, NHL player and coach)[176]
Buford Rolin (Creek tribal chairman)[177]
Shoni Schimmel (Umatilla, Louisville Cardinals guard, class of 2015)[178]
Charlene Teters (Spokane, artist/lecturer)[179]
W. Richard West Jr. (Cheyenne) - President of the Autry National Center in Los Angeles: Redskin is "an openly derogatory term. It always is and it always has been.” West also characterizes the Original American's Foundation as an "attempt to divert attention from the fact that his team’s nickname is coming under increasing heat from people who think it’s an offensive racial term."[180]

 

[r3n4ud]

I believe Native Canadian's are treated a bit better than Native Americans? No clue though.

Also, just because you aren't offended by something racially upsetting doesn't mean no one else is allowed to be offended by it. I am sure many Asian folk aren't upset by people calling them a 'chink', while a lot of them are. Still doesn't make it right to call Asian people 'chinks'.

Sure, but where will it end? Are we going to change all the sports teams names that 'offend' people? C'mon...

 

[Acorn]

There is already a mascot with a similar theme:

Is that real?

 

[User 100115]

Sure, but where will it end? Are we going to change all the sports teams names that 'offend' people? C'mon...

When the names of the teams are racial slurs? Sure. Redskins is pretty much the last of the lot. And it is literally like having a team called the Washington Darkies. How is that in any way okay?

 

[Particle Physicist]

Sure, but where will it end? Are we going to change all the sports teams names that 'offend' people? C'mon...

If the names are a derogatory term for a group of people... yes. Otherwise, no.

 

[r3n4ud]

When the names of the teams are racial slurs? Sure. Redskins is pretty much the last of the lot. And it is literally like having a team called the Washington Darkies. How is that in any way okay?

Ah man, as others have mentioned - this is only the beginning. If they change the Redskins name, they'll be going after other franchises in other sports as well. This is not one and done here.

 

[Wazzy]

Why are people defending the name? It's offensive and needs to be changed.

And for the people saying they'll target other franchises, if the names are offensive than why not? or is it just a typical false assumption that they'll start a fight over nothing?

 

[Frolow]

Native American here, thought I'd chime in.

Eh, the name is offensive but I really don't give a shit and nobody I know gives a shit either. There are more pressing issues in life than the name of a sports team. Not to mention they'll probably change it to something stupid like what happened with the "Wizards."

 

[User 100115]

Ah man, as others have mentioned - this is only the beginning. If they change the Redskins name, they'll be going after other franchises in other sports as well. This is not one and done here.

Why does everything have to be some hopeless slippery slope argument? Why the hell would they be forced to change the Mustangs name? Or the 49ers?

Changing the name because it's a SLUR makes sense. Manufactured scare tactics about slippery slopes do not.

Native American here, thought I'd chime in.

Eh, the name is offensive but I really don't give a shit and nobody I know gives a shit either. There are more pressing issues in life than the name of a sports team. Not to mention they'll probably change it to something stupid like what happened with the "Wizards."

This is how most of the people I know feel as well. It's offensive, but they have more pressing concerns.

Still, it needs to be changed in my opinion.

 

[r3n4ud]

Why are people defending the name? It's offensive and needs to be changed.

And for the people saying they'll target other franchises, if the names are offensive than why not? or is it just a typical false assumption that they'll start a fight over nothing?

Ya, would suck if they wanted to change other team names as well. People love their team tradition and don't want to see it changed.