The Redskins should consider changing their name (merge)

[Iron Colt]

Can you imagine any other race of people being called the color of their skin? The brown skins, pale skins, yellow skins, ect wouldnt fly.

Its really quite demeaning.

[SteelCityColt]

Shut in 5...4...3...

[BOTT]

At one time I agreed, but the name doesn't seem to bother the vast majority of Native Americans...according to polls anyway.

[Insert Colts Pun Here]

I think it's fine as long as it doesn't offend people, Native American or otherwise.

 

Language is arbitrary, especially when void of context. It's only a problem once people are offended by it and, like BLOODontheTRACKS mentioned, that doesn't seem to be the case.

[jvan1973]

Its really quite demeaning.

actually quite the contrary. most native Americans aren't bothered by it.

[Yehoodi]

Can you imagine any other race of people being called the color of their skin? The brown skins, pale skins, yellow skins, ect wouldnt fly.

Its really quite demeaning.

 

how about the "white people" or "white man"; similar names used at the time period of Redskins . . . perhaps they could of named it the Native Americans or something back in the day . . . . but the name carrier through and was used . .. the team started way back in the early 30s as the Boston Braves and played at Braves field with the baseball team of the same name . . . when they moved to Fenway Park they decided to change the name to Redskins, just an alternative name for native americans . . . as opposed to selecting a specific tribe . . .

 

I have never given it much thought to be honest, as it is generic to me . . .

 

Maybe people like Peter King should change his last name as the name "King" indicates monarchy and all of the oppression over the centuries and to this day Kings imposed on his subjects . . . but you would not find many people, including King himself, calling him Peter the Reporter . . .

[Gavin]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Redskins

 

 

 

 

Here is a little history on how it all came about and such

[DILLIGAFER]

In before..

[MTC]

[House]

At one time I agreed, but the name doesn't seem to bother the vast majority of Native Americans...according to polls anyway.

Polls?

[shakedownstreet]

they were going to change their name to the dead skins, but there was an uproar from the american psoriasis foundation

[Nobody]

I don't really have a problem with it.

[jvan1973]

they were going to change their name to the dead skins, but there was an uproar from the american psoriasis foundation

well done sir

[OffensivelyPC]

If the Natives don't care, why should anyone else?  No reason to stick your nose into a fight you have no interest in.  The argument against the name is so overblown its' not even funny. The term "Redskins" first known usage was by Natives themselves, to distinguish themselves from "White Skins," or Europeans.  Over time, it typically was used with an undertone of respect between Natives and European.  The last known usage of the term (other than by association with sports names) was the early 1920's and no one can really point to any historical basis as to how the term became offensive.

 

The common argument is that it was a derogatory term derived by white people to describe Natives who would scalp Europeans. But that counterpoint is undermined by the fact that Natives would present scalps as trophies several days later at the earliest (and usually weeks later), the point being that by the time the recipient would have seen the scalp, the blood would have oxidized and the blood losing its red appearance and instead taking on a more black-ish color.

 

And to be quite frank, we could argue the evidence all day long as to how or why the word "Redskin" is racist.  But the simple fact of the matter is, if a large group of Native tribes aren't sticking up for their rights, there's a good reason for it.  African Americans fought as a collective group for their rights and paved the way for equality and civil rights.  The precedent is already there and the Natives know it.  If this truly was racism to them, it would be a homerun in court...but they're not dissenting as a collective group.  In fact, it's only a very small portion crying racism.  Why let the 10% set the rules for the rest of them?  Let it be.

[GwinnettColt]

I had the political correctness terms (which change frequently) crammed down my throat in college in the early 90's, so much so that I no longer care if someone's offended.   If I'm offended, it's my problem and not someone else's. 

[OffensivelyPC]

Polls?

http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/downloads/political_communication/naes/2004_03_redskins_09-24_pr.pdf

[Vance]

How have you not heard about this? Just announced that they are changing their name.

 

http://www.theonion.com/articles/washington-redskins-change-their-name-to-the-dc-re,34161/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=Default:1:Default

[shakedownstreet]

if anything, the name raises awareness about native americans

[House]

http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/downloads/political_communication/naes/2004_03_redskins_09-24_pr.pdf

Lol wow that "study" is a science in how to use statistics misleadingly.

They got responses from 768 people who identified themselves as Native Americans. That represents 0.000261915090402% of the total Native American population .

You know what they say though, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

[crazycolt1]

Can you imagine any other race of people being called the color of their skin? The brown skins, pale skins, yellow skins, ect wouldnt fly.

Its really quite demeaning.

I been called a white boy all of my life and I have survived without it effecting me negative. 

[OffensivelyPC]

Lol wow that "study" is a science in how to use statistics misleadingly.

They got responses from 768 people who identified themselves as Native Americans. That represents 0.000261915090402% of the total Native American population .

You know what they say though, there are lies, darn lies, and statistics.

I'm not saying its exact science, but it's better than the typical conjecture by one indian tribe and a bunch of white guys.  If anything, its more than I've seen to the contrary.  And to be honest, it would seem rather consistent given that only one tribe currently is protesting the name and the rest are silent.  You see a few Natives pop up here and there with a lawsuit, but no action is "official" without the blessing of the tribe.  Tribes have consistently stood up for themselves and aren't afraid to take a battle to court.  So far, it hasn't happened.  Yeah, legal proceedings have begun, but how many tribal leaders have brought action?  That's my only point.

[House]

I'm not saying its exact science, but it's better than the typical conjecture by one indian tribe and a bunch of white guys. If anything, its more than I've seen to the contrary.

It's not any science .

I'm not saying Native Americans care one way or the other, but that "study" is crap lol.

Sample size is wayyyyyyyyy to small to make any generalizations on the larger population.

[OffensivelyPC]

It's not any science .

I'm not saying Native Americans care one way or the other, but that "study" is crap lol.

Sample size is wayyyyyyyyy to small to make any generalizations on the larger population.

Sorry for the ninja edit.

[House]

Sorry for the ninja edit.

I've just spent so much time in statistics classes, I just hate bad ones. Lol.

I'm not passionate about getting their name changed. I really could care less.

Though the Redskins Org should change their name because they would make so much money selling "new" merchandise .

[Luck2Wayne12]

Can you imagine any other race of people being called the color of their skin? The brown skins, pale skins, yellow skins, ect wouldnt fly.

Its really quite demeaning.

I see it all the time, everytime I've applied for a job or participated in census, I'm usually asked to select my race. Among the choices are: "White, Black, etc etc"

 

So its ok for people to be labeled as white or black... but red is completely offensive?

 

Just playing devil's advocate for a bit 

[BOTT]

Lol wow that "study" is a science in how to use statistics misleadingly.

They got responses from 768 people who identified themselves as Native Americans. That represents 0.000261915090402% of the total Native American population .

You know what they say though, there are lies, darn lies, and statistics.

Isn't that kind of the point of polling...to get a fairly adequate representation from a tiny sample size? Gallop generally uses responses of 1000 people.....out of 300m.

[seeblu]

I'm part Cherokee Indian.  That part of me doesn't care.  The other part of me doesn't care. 

 

This is just a sample poll. 

[Luck2Wayne12]

Also, I saw this on the comments section under one of the ESPN articles on the name.. not sure if it holds any validity:

 

Wellpinit (Wash.) High School -- where the student body is 91.2 percent Native American use the nickname the Redskins. I wonder if the Oneida Indian Nation knows this high school is using a name that is so offensive? I wonder if the Oneida Indian Nation knows the school response to the nickname is "I'd like to see somebody come up here and try to change it.".

 

[MAC]

It's not any science .

I'm not saying Native Americans care one way or the other, but that "study" is crap lol.

Sample size is wayyyyyyyyy to small to make any generalizations on the larger population.

Most survey's use an alarmingly small number of respondents. That alone isn't the issue - it's about the methodology used in gathering the sample.

 

I'm not a statistician by any stretch of the imagination, and frankly I constantly rant about how unlikely it is that tv ratings are an accurate reflection of the entire countries viewing preferences. However to the people that consider this a science, a few hundred people may be plenty.

[House]

Isn't that kind of the point of polling...to get a fairly adequate representation from a tiny sample size? Gallop generally uses responses of 1000 people.....out of 300m.

When you say "Most" and include a % of people surveyed less than 0% of the total Pop. It's intentionally misleading.

If they just said "Most of sampled population" then it's fine. But you can't generalize those results to a larger population. There's no reason to believe those results would be consistent as the sample size rose.

[OffensivelyPC]

I've just spent so much time in statistics classes, I just hate bad ones. Lol.

I'm not passionate about getting their name changed. I really could care less.

Though the Redskins Org should change their name because they would make so much money selling "new" merchandise .

lol I'd be curious to know of their profits for the year.  And I'm with you, I don't really care either.  But at the same token, I just don't think there's any point in fighting someone's legal battle on behalf of the Natives that doesn't appear to have the support of at least a majority of Natives.  If Natives stood as a collective group to demand a name change, they have my full support.

[House]

Most survey's use an alarmingly small number of respondents. That alone isn't the issue - it's about the methodology used in gathering the sample.

I'm not a statistician by any stretch of the imagination, and frankly I constantly rant about how unlikely it is that tv ratings are an accurate reflection of the entire countries viewing preferences. However to the people that consider this a science, a few hundred people may be plenty.

It's easy to extrapolate small sample sizes with more qualitative data, but when your talking about individual people it's just guess work.

Because if I sample 700 different Native Americans and they all say its offensive, that still isn't enough to make such a broad generalization. It sounds good, but there's too much variability.

Side note. I hate the Nielsen ratings. The only people who count towards the Nielsen ratings are those who have special Nielsen boxes. Those numbers don't tell crap lol.

[DILLIGAFER]

This Shawnee doesn't care.

[MAC]

I've never quite understood why this is an issue. The nature of a racist insult is in attempting to diminish someone by labeling THEM. It doesn't quite have the same effect when you label YOURSELF. It's the intent that causes pain, and the intent here is for millions of devoted fans to identify with the famously proud spirit of native Americans while rooting for their team to fight as determinedly as history said the Indians did. It's not an insult, it's a compliment.

 

And who here has EVER spat the word "Redskin" at someone as if trying to put them down? Plus if someone WAS to identify me by the color of my skin, I'd say "OK, and I have hazel eyes as well. What's your point?" It wouldn't exactly hurt my feelings. In other words, I don't consider "Redskins" to be an insulting term, just an archaic term. Anyone making a big deal about it likely has an agenda of some kind, perhaps involving the desire for attention or profit - including the politicians.

 

If you want to parse team names for political correctness, why stop there? I think that "Cowboys" is demeaning to all those in the cattle industry. They should change it to "Cowmen". I think that  "Bills" should be changed so as to differentiate the players from US currency - it's common usage is confusing and perhaps damaging to our fragile economy. At LEAST they should specify a denomination. Should the Cardinals or Saints be allowed to use those names without permission of the Catholic Church? And if we are going to talk about Redskins, what about Browns? BROWNS for crying out loud. That's offensive to fecal matter everywhere.

 

This issue is ridiculous.

[Poster X]

how about the "white people" or "white man"; similar names used at the time period of Redskins . . . perhaps they could of named it the Native Americans or something back in the day . . . . but the name carrier through and was used . .. the team started way back in the early 30s as the Boston Braves and played at Braves field with the baseball team of the same name . . . when they moved to Fenway Park they decided to change the name to Redskins, just an alternative name for native americans . . . as opposed to selecting a specific tribe . . .

I have never given it much thought to be honest, as it is generic to me . . .

Maybe people like Peter King should change his last name as the name "King" indicates monarchy and all of the oppression over the centuries and to this day Kings imposed on his subjects . . . but you would not find many people, including King himself, calling him Peter the Reporter . . .

Your last comment is one of the dumbest I've ever read regarding such an issue. Yehoodi, you are a true definition of a d-olt... I have a friend who is full blooded native american living on a reservation, and a vast majority of the native american people find the name to be disgusting. The term a derogatory one that is hurtful to an entire race of people.

Thankfully your only offensive to a number of posters on a forum.

[oldunclemark]

Can you imagine any other race of people being called the color of their skin? The brown skins, pale skins, yellow skins, ect wouldnt fly.

Its really quite demeaning.

I don't consider Redskins anymore offensive than rednecks..and redneck just means you work hard outdoors to me...Its only offensive if you want to be offended

....It depends on whether the name was meant to honor Indians and it was..

a large percentage of Indiana high schools have Indian nicknames

...

[Yehoodi]

Your last comment is one of the dumbest I've ever read regarding such an issue. Yehoodi, you are a true definition of a d-olt... I have a friend who is full blooded native american living on a reservation, and a vast majority of the native american people find the name to be disgusting. The term a derogatory one that is hurtful to an entire race of people.

Thankfully your only offensive to a number of posters on a forum.

 

 

Everyone is entitled to an opinion . . . and so are you . . . you obviously missed my point, so very sad . . . sometimes a name is just a name . . . and some aren't the ones that chose the name but receive it by purchase or birth right, it was not their choice in the matter just got it and have to deal with it one way or the other . . . its not like I decided to start a team and call it the Atlanta N-word(s), then you could come to me and blame me as the one who has done the wrong . . .  

 

my only point was, that you seemed to have missed, is there is a great deal of oppression in the history of our world and even in the present day, and some of it is based on Kings and Monarchys, who actually did and still kill and oppress their people . . .

 

. . . what happens if some of them seek and attain amnesty in this country and there are say several families that move into your neighborhood, and these family were oppressed and had family members killed.  Then one day they decide to take up a petition against Peter King or for that matter the Los Angeles Kings seeking them to change their name as it reminds them of the oppression and death of their families . . . and then come to your house . . . you going to call them names too? 

 

Gandaff, just because a cause fits one's person feeling or agenda, does not mean that others do not have a similar cause . . . you for one apparently just see what is immediately around you and can not step back and see things for what they are . . . had you done so you would of seen my point the first time around . . .

[bap1331]

The Redskins have been around for almost 80 years!!!!

 

Why is it all of a sudden offending people now?

 

It just sounds like the Congressman who introduced the bill for this was really bored or is a Cowboys fan...

 

Im sure Goodell wouldn't enforce Snyder to change the name, he was a Redskins fan all his life until he turned into a commissioner. As for Obama...hes a Chicago Bears fan!

[Fx Stryker]

What horse does the OP have in this race. Why does it offend you? Or do you just feel like being offended...

[stat2883]

I'm indifferent....but just for an article from the other side:

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