Where are you at on this whole team name change thing?

[riggofan]

red·skin
[red-skin]
noun Slang: Often Disparaging and Offensive.
a North American Indian.

[StorminMormon86]

Who said I agree with Costas? I actually don't agree that the team should change its name. But I can listen to Bob Costas express his opinion about the name of a freaking football team without feeling that he needs to "burn in hell".

He can go to hell. He doesn't have to burn there. The point being, how long has he been in sports broadcasting? And he just now decides that the term is offensive and a slur? Not for the previous thirty years though? And he doesn't need to express his opinion on the name of a football team. He needs to report about what just transpired during the game before the 2nd half starts.

If the whole political correctness part of this debate is annoying, I can assure you that the insane and ignorant overreactions by the other side of the debate are just flat out disturbing.

I agree.

And btw claiming that the only thing people used the term Redskins for was "to describe the type of paint Native Americans from Delaware" has to be one of the STUPIDEST things I have ever heard. Like some rancher in Texas who called a pack of comanches "redskins" was really just thinking about the facepaint of the Delaware native americans. lol. Give me a freaking break. The reason the word is an issue is because at some point it has been used as an ethnic slur. End of story.

The term WAS originated because of that. The origins of the word was not derogatory in any way. Over time it began to be used as a slur. But while we're at it, why don't the Cleveland Indians have to change their name? Why not change the NAACP to the NAAEP? What about the United Negro College Fund? When does the nonsense all end?

[riggofan]

The term WAS originated because of that. The origins of the word was not derogatory in any way.

That doesn't really MEAN anything though, man. The N word was not originally a slur. It came from the Spanish and Portuguese word negro and just meant black-skinned. A couple hundred years later you have slave owners beating slaves and using that word and it takes on a different meaning.

Over time it began to be used as a slur.

Exactly. So therefore, Bob Costas was expressing a fact about the word. Whether the team name needs to be changed or not is his opinion. Either way, Costas is just another guy on tv. Take his opinion or don't.

[Irn-Bru]

I agree with SM86 that what was particularly annoying about Costas's "weighing in" is its timing. The whole bandwagon atmosphere around the name change right now it just obnoxious. At least with Snyder in charge we know the Skins can just ride out this particular fad. I'm not so sure we'll survive the next one 5-10 years down the line.

[StorminMormon86]

I agree with SM86 that what was particularly annoying about Costas's "weighing in" is its timing. The whole bandwagon atmosphere around the name change right now it just obnoxious. At least with Snyder in charge we know the Skins can just ride out this particular fad. I'm not so sure we'll survive the next one 5-10 years down the line.

Eventually someone (be it Snyder or the next owner) will cave in. I'm surprised Snyder hasn't changed it, honestly. Think of the money to be made with all new apparel, etc.

[SkinsJock]

what a bunch of crap this is ...

I sincerely hope that Dan does not give in ...

[chiefhog44]

I agree with SM86 that what was particularly annoying about Costas's "weighing in" is its timing. The whole bandwagon atmosphere around the name change right now it just obnoxious. At least with Snyder in charge we know the Skins can just ride out this particular fad. I'm not so sure we'll survive the next one 5-10 years down the line.

Eventually someone (be it Snyder or the next owner) will cave in. I'm surprised Snyder hasn't changed it, honestly. Think of the money to be made with all new apparel, etc.

I can tell you first hand that if this team changes its name, I am out. I live in Chicago and have no tie to DC except for the Skins. Snyder would lose me a many several thousand like me. I cheer for them because of the name. I cheer for them because I grew up loving them, but just like the Bullets who I dropped for the Bulls, I would move on. He knows how much money he would lose. This fan base is not just in DC, it's world wide, and many would not follow with a name change.

[hanburgerheel]

Here is an excerpt from an op-ed of a former 82nd Airborne vet:

During WWII a Canadian Native American named Tommy Prince was a member of the 1st Special Services Brigade..better known as the Devil's Brigade...better known as the founders of the US Army Special forces, was a scout, sniper, and a downright badass. He would sneak into German camps and slit the throats of every 3rd man, then scalp them and hang their scalps in the treeline around the camp and never made a word...why? BECAUSE HE WOULD GO BAREFOOT AND NAKED in the snow of Italy's ALPS. That is part of the reason how the "Devil's Brigade" got its name was because of him and the "devils that would scalp a man"

The 82nd Airborne has the 504th Parachute Infantry regiment...also known as the "Devils in Baggy Pants" During the jump into Salerno, Italy and the battle of Anzio, the 504th PIR Scouts where made up of Sioux, Chippewa and Cherokee Natives (and others) These SOB's TERRORIZED the German lines and wouldn't wear helmets...they wore traditional warpaint, with shaved heads and would "whoop" their battle cry when attacking. the rest of the Brigade started following their lead and a dead german officer wrote in his diary about how he couldn't sleep at night, never knowing where and how they would attack. those black hearted devils are everywhere. They also would scalp Germans, use the blood off the german to paint the famed AA logo of the division patch and leave an ace of spades on the body. The brigades Red Devils battalion is where the scouts were located at the time, thus they decided on the color red to signify them. (trust me, I am a former member of the Red Devils)

Also during WWII, the 501st Parachite Infantry Regiment "Geronimo's" (named after...yep that guy Geronimo since they were founded at Ft Sill, his resting place), use the image of the War Chief in their logo, even yelled it when they jumped out of the airplane to pay tribute to the man (it wasn't Bugs Bunny who did it first...trust me on that) During the Operation Overlord aka D-Day, the scouts from the 501st, mostly made up of Apache and Seminole's) Jumped into D-Day with NO HELMET, heads shaved, blacked out faces with war paint, and carrying Tomahawk's on their side were some of the first troops on the ground and I mean first troops..like first planes to leave England for the 101st...HOURS prior to anyone else. There job, to help setup the drop zones and take out any threats around them. How did they do? well..one of their snipers managed to put 10 notches into his rifle, and other managed to get around 10 scalps. They SCARED THE EVERY LIVING S**T out of the Germans because they would sneak up and ambush the Germans with nothing but their knifes, bayonettes, or that Tomahawk they jumped in. They would kill em, scalp them, and leave them TIED to the trees for the next patrol to find. One unnamed soldier, a Seminole, was so good...he would ambush the last soldier in a patrol, kill him, scalp him, and write "Geronimo" in blood on the body, so when the patrol would backtrack, they found them.

Trust me on this ..Native Americans are ruthless warriors, amazing soldiers, always respected. When teams where getting mascot names back then, they never used them as an insult to a nation of warriors...Only issue I have is this when it comes to oppression, my ancestors were oppressed for a much longer time, forced from their homes, and murdered to this nation could expand. But over time, they remained proud of who they where and what they are and still are. Proud AMERICANS.

[StorminMormon86]

I agree with SM86 that what was particularly annoying about Costas's "weighing in" is its timing. The whole bandwagon atmosphere around the name change right now it just obnoxious. At least with Snyder in charge we know the Skins can just ride out this particular fad. I'm not so sure we'll survive the next one 5-10 years down the line.

Eventually someone (be it Snyder or the next owner) will cave in. I'm surprised Snyder hasn't changed it, honestly. Think of the money to be made with all new apparel, etc.

I can tell you first hand that if this team changes its name, I am out. I live in Chicago and have no tie to DC except for the Skins. Snyder would lose me a many several thousand like me. I cheer for them because of the name. I cheer for them because I grew up loving them, but just like the Bullets who I dropped for the Bulls, I would move on. He knows how much money he would lose. This fan base is not just in DC, it's world wide, and many would not follow with a name change.

I think it's stupid to even have a discussion about changing the name. But if Snyder does in fact cave in, I'll still be there supporting the team, regardless of name.

[oj]

I find it offensive and it should be changed to 'The Redskins' leaving 'Washington' out.

[riggofan]

I can tell you first hand that if this team changes its name, I am out. I live in Chicago and have no tie to DC except for the Skins. Snyder would lose me a many several thousand like me. I cheer for them because of the name.

lol. That's devotion.

[SkinsJock]

The Indianapolis Colts are NOT the Baltimore Colts ...

The Cleveland Browns moved to Baltimore and the name was changed .. the Browns fans did not cheer for the Baltimore Ravens even though that was the same 'team - AND even though, at the time, they did not have a team

The Washington Redskins are not the same team if they change their name


THANKFULLY - Snyder will not let the name be changed

[StorminMormon86]

The Indianapolis Colts are NOT the Baltimore Colts ...

The Cleveland Browns moved to Baltimore and the name was changed .. the Browns fans did not cheer for the Baltimore Ravens even though that was the same 'team - AND even though, at the time, they did not have a team

The Washington Redskins are not the same team if they change their name


THANKFULLY - Snyder will not let the name be changed

I think it's dumb that all of a sudden this has become a pressing issue for everyone, yet it was perfectly fine 5, 10, 15 years ago. But, being that I have no control over any of this, I honestly could give two poops less if they were to change the name. They would still be my team, week in and week out. Anyone who says otherwise needs to go to hell with Costas...

[SkinsJock]

The team name is the Washington Redskins

a team named the Washington whatevers is NOT the Washington Redskins

thankfully Snyder will not let that happen

[langleyparkjoe]

.. it'll be funny to see @ fedex everyone still saying Redskins even if the name changes.. i know for dag gone sure i'll still be saying it and singing our corny song.

[Krusheasy]

I'm ok with a name change as long as we can keep the NA imagery. Wise wants all NA imagery removed & I strongly disagree with him on that

I like the Washington Redclouds ...

@MikeTanier Name change article that makes sense http://miketanier.sportsonearthblog.com ... ed-clouds/ … …

[StorminMormon86]

Our mascot is not offensive at all, as compared to the old Cleveland Indian one.

[DaSkinz Baby]

Personally if we are forced to change the name, I would hope we can be something close, like the Washington Braves, personally I think a name change is ridiculous and some people are just consistent whiners that need to complain about things that make no sense. Welcome the America 21st century. This country should worry about the mass killings against the Indian's and Columbus having a Federal Holiday and he massacred how many Indians? How many Indians were killed when they were forced onto reservations? America should stop this crazy campaign and compensate them better than worrying about a football name. Heck one of the greatest Indians was named Crazy Horse, what's next a campaign to change that because it insults horses??

[riggofan]

Heck one of the greatest Indians was named Crazy Horse, what's next a campaign to change that because it insults horses??

Good one.

[riggofan]

Wow, what a reasonable, well thought out article from Charles Krauthammer of all people today.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... rc=nl_most

I'd cut out some quotes, but the whole thing is a must read.

In re the (Washington) Redskins. Should the name be changed?

I don’t like being lectured by sportscasters about ethnic sensitivity. Or advised by the president of the United States about changing team names. Or blackmailed by tribal leaders playing the race card.

I don’t like the language police ensuring that no one anywhere gives offense to anyone about anything. And I fully credit the claim of Redskins owner Dan Snyder and many passionate fans that they intend no malice or prejudice and that “Redskins” has a proud 80-year history they wish to maintain.

The fact is, however, that words don’t stand still. They evolve.

Fifty years ago the preferred, most respectful term for African Americans was Negro. The word appears 15 times in Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech. Negro replaced a long list of insulting words in common use during decades of public and legal discrimination.

And then, for complicated historical reasons (having to do with the black power and “black is beautiful” movements), usage changed. The preferred term is now black or African American. With a rare few legacy exceptions, Negro carries an unmistakably patronizing and demeaning tone.

If you were detailing the racial composition of Congress, you wouldn’t say: “Well, to start with, there are 44 Negroes.” If you’d been asleep for 50 years, you might. But upon being informed how the word had changed in nuance, you would stop using it and choose another.

And here’s the key point: You would stop not because of the language police. Not because you might incur a Bob Costas harangue. Not because the president would wag a finger. But simply because the word was tainted, freighted with negative connotations with which you would not want to be associated.

Proof? You wouldn’t even use the word in private, where being harassed for political incorrectness is not an issue.

Similarly, regarding the further racial breakdown of Congress, you wouldn’t say: “And by my count, there are two redskins.” It’s inconceivable, because no matter how the word was used 80 years ago, it carries invidious connotations today.

I know there are surveys that say that most Native Americans aren’t bothered by the word. But that’s not the point. My objection is not rooted in pressure from various minorities or fear of public polls or public scolds.

When I was growing up, I thought “gyp” was simply a synonym for “cheat,” and used it accordingly. It was only when I was an adult that I learned that gyp was short for gypsy. At which point, I stopped using it.

Not because I took a poll of Roma to find out if they were offended. If some mysterious disease had carried away every gypsy on the planet, and there were none left to offend, I still wouldn’t use it.

Why? Simple decency. I wouldn’t want to use a word that defines a people — living or dead, offended or not — in a most demeaning way. It’s a question not of who or how many had their feelings hurt, but of whether you want to associate yourself with a word that, for whatever historical reason having nothing to do with you, carries inherently derogatory connotations.

Years ago, the word “retarded” emerged as the enlightened substitute for such cruel terms as “feeble-minded” or “mongoloid.” Today, however, it is considered a form of denigration, having been replaced by the clumsy but now conventional “developmentally disabled.” There is no particular logic to this evolution. But it’s a social fact. Unless you’re looking to give gratuitous offense, you don’t call someone “retarded.”

Let’s recognize that there are many people of good will for whom “Washington Redskins” contains sentimental and historical attachment — and not an ounce of intended animus. So let’s turn down the temperature. What’s at issue is not high principle but adaptation to a change in linguistic nuance. A close call, though I personally would err on the side of not using the word if others are available.

How about Skins, a contraction already applied to the Washington football team? And that carries a sports connotation, as in skins vs. shirts in pickup basketball.

Choose whatever name you like. But let’s go easy on the other side. We’re not talking Brown v. Board of Education here. There’s no demand that Native Americans man the team’s offensive line. This is a matter of usage — and usage changes. If you shot a remake of 1934’s “The Gay Divorcee,” you’d have to change that title too.

Not because the lady changed but because the word did.

Hail Skins.

[emoses14]

Wow, what a reasonable, well thought out article from Charles Krauthammer of all people today.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... rc=nl_most

I'd cut out some quotes, but the whole thing is a must read.

In re the (Washington) Redskins. Should the name be changed?

I don’t like being lectured by sportscasters about ethnic sensitivity. Or advised by the president of the United States about changing team names. Or blackmailed by tribal leaders playing the race card.

I don’t like the language police ensuring that no one anywhere gives offense to anyone about anything. And I fully credit the claim of Redskins owner Dan Snyder and many passionate fans that they intend no malice or prejudice and that “Redskins” has a proud 80-year history they wish to maintain.

The fact is, however, that words don’t stand still. They evolve.

Fifty years ago the preferred, most respectful term for African Americans was Negro. The word appears 15 times in Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech. Negro replaced a long list of insulting words in common use during decades of public and legal discrimination.

And then, for complicated historical reasons (having to do with the black power and “black is beautiful” movements), usage changed. The preferred term is now black or African American. With a rare few legacy exceptions, Negro carries an unmistakably patronizing and demeaning tone.

If you were detailing the racial composition of Congress, you wouldn’t say: “Well, to start with, there are 44 Negroes.” If you’d been asleep for 50 years, you might. But upon being informed how the word had changed in nuance, you would stop using it and choose another.

And here’s the key point: You would stop not because of the language police. Not because you might incur a Bob Costas harangue. Not because the president would wag a finger. But simply because the word was tainted, freighted with negative connotations with which you would not want to be associated.

Proof? You wouldn’t even use the word in private, where being harassed for political incorrectness is not an issue.

Similarly, regarding the further racial breakdown of Congress, you wouldn’t say: “And by my count, there are two redskins.” It’s inconceivable, because no matter how the word was used 80 years ago, it carries invidious connotations today.

I know there are surveys that say that most Native Americans aren’t bothered by the word. But that’s not the point. My objection is not rooted in pressure from various minorities or fear of public polls or public scolds.

When I was growing up, I thought “gyp” was simply a synonym for “cheat,” and used it accordingly. It was only when I was an adult that I learned that gyp was short for gypsy. At which point, I stopped using it.

Not because I took a poll of Roma to find out if they were offended. If some mysterious disease had carried away every gypsy on the planet, and there were none left to offend, I still wouldn’t use it.

Why? Simple decency. I wouldn’t want to use a word that defines a people — living or dead, offended or not — in a most demeaning way. It’s a question not of who or how many had their feelings hurt, but of whether you want to associate yourself with a word that, for whatever historical reason having nothing to do with you, carries inherently derogatory connotations.

Years ago, the word “retarded” emerged as the enlightened substitute for such cruel terms as “feeble-minded” or “mongoloid.” Today, however, it is considered a form of denigration, having been replaced by the clumsy but now conventional “developmentally disabled.” There is no particular logic to this evolution. But it’s a social fact. Unless you’re looking to give gratuitous offense, you don’t call someone “retarded.”

Let’s recognize that there are many people of good will for whom “Washington Redskins” contains sentimental and historical attachment — and not an ounce of intended animus. So let’s turn down the temperature. What’s at issue is not high principle but adaptation to a change in linguistic nuance. A close call, though I personally would err on the side of not using the word if others are available.

How about Skins, a contraction already applied to the Washington football team? And that carries a sports connotation, as in skins vs. shirts in pickup basketball.

Choose whatever name you like. But let’s go easy on the other side. We’re not talking Brown v. Board of Education here. There’s no demand that Native Americans man the team’s offensive line. This is a matter of usage — and usage changes. If you shot a remake of 1934’s “The Gay Divorcee,” you’d have to change that title too.

Not because the lady changed but because the word did.

Hail Skins.

Well, hmm. I. . . I'm good with that. But I don't want to change the logo, nor H.T.T.R. (though HTTS isn't much different), nor the song. So long as the "we're so offended by this, now, ignore the fact that we never ever brought it up, ever before 5 months ago" folks are good with that, I'm on board.

[SkinsJock]

I also thought that article was very informative ...

I agree with his premise and realize that over time the name Redskins may become a term that, in my estimation, is not a word I would be comfortable with, like the word negro

until that time I am going to continue to use the term Redskins because at this time I am comfortable using it with the understanding that this is a name for a sports team that I support

like I said - I could see a time when the term Redskins might not be used but until that time I hope that Snyder keeps the name in all of it's glory

Hail to the Redskins - Hail victory

[Kilmer72]

Wow, what a reasonable, well thought out article from Charles Krauthammer of all people today.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... rc=nl_most

I'd cut out some quotes, but the whole thing is a must read.

In re the (Washington) Redskins. Should the name be changed?

I don’t like being lectured by sportscasters about ethnic sensitivity. Or advised by the president of the United States about changing team names. Or blackmailed by tribal leaders playing the race card.

I don’t like the language police ensuring that no one anywhere gives offense to anyone about anything. And I fully credit the claim of Redskins owner Dan Snyder and many passionate fans that they intend no malice or prejudice and that “Redskins” has a proud 80-year history they wish to maintain.

The fact is, however, that words don’t stand still. They evolve.

Fifty years ago the preferred, most respectful term for African Americans was Negro. The word appears 15 times in Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech. Negro replaced a long list of insulting words in common use during decades of public and legal discrimination.

And then, for complicated historical reasons (having to do with the black power and “black is beautiful” movements), usage changed. The preferred term is now black or African American. With a rare few legacy exceptions, Negro carries an unmistakably patronizing and demeaning tone.

If you were detailing the racial composition of Congress, you wouldn’t say: “Well, to start with, there are 44 Negroes.” If you’d been asleep for 50 years, you might. But upon being informed how the word had changed in nuance, you would stop using it and choose another.

And here’s the key point: You would stop not because of the language police. Not because you might incur a Bob Costas harangue. Not because the president would wag a finger. But simply because the word was tainted, freighted with negative connotations with which you would not want to be associated.

Proof? You wouldn’t even use the word in private, where being harassed for political incorrectness is not an issue.

Similarly, regarding the further racial breakdown of Congress, you wouldn’t say: “And by my count, there are two redskins.” It’s inconceivable, because no matter how the word was used 80 years ago, it carries invidious connotations today.

I know there are surveys that say that most Native Americans aren’t bothered by the word. But that’s not the point. My objection is not rooted in pressure from various minorities or fear of public polls or public scolds.

When I was growing up, I thought “gyp” was simply a synonym for “cheat,” and used it accordingly. It was only when I was an adult that I learned that gyp was short for gypsy. At which point, I stopped using it.

Not because I took a poll of Roma to find out if they were offended. If some mysterious disease had carried away every gypsy on the planet, and there were none left to offend, I still wouldn’t use it.

Why? Simple decency. I wouldn’t want to use a word that defines a people — living or dead, offended or not — in a most demeaning way. It’s a question not of who or how many had their feelings hurt, but of whether you want to associate yourself with a word that, for whatever historical reason having nothing to do with you, carries inherently derogatory connotations.

Years ago, the word “retarded” emerged as the enlightened substitute for such cruel terms as “feeble-minded” or “mongoloid.” Today, however, it is considered a form of denigration, having been replaced by the clumsy but now conventional “developmentally disabled.” There is no particular logic to this evolution. But it’s a social fact. Unless you’re looking to give gratuitous offense, you don’t call someone “retarded.”

Let’s recognize that there are many people of good will for whom “Washington Redskins” contains sentimental and historical attachment — and not an ounce of intended animus. So let’s turn down the temperature. What’s at issue is not high principle but adaptation to a change in linguistic nuance. A close call, though I personally would err on the side of not using the word if others are available.

How about Skins, a contraction already applied to the Washington football team? And that carries a sports connotation, as in skins vs. shirts in pickup basketball.

Choose whatever name you like. But let’s go easy on the other side. We’re not talking Brown v. Board of Education here. There’s no demand that Native Americans man the team’s offensive line. This is a matter of usage — and usage changes. If you shot a remake of 1934’s “The Gay Divorcee,” you’d have to change that title too.

Not because the lady changed but because the word did.

Hail Skins.

I agree with all of that but since this is about a Football team it makes no sense. For example if some people in the congress were born in Norway would you say... And by my count, there are two Vikings? Of course not. See how silly this really is? This is the part people have trouble grasping.Then you have to ask yourself where does this end? It is like introducing a temp tax to the government. Once you roll over and let the minority voice rule then you are going to have chaos. No one group or groups of people will agree 100%

[grampi]

Personally if we are forced to change the name, I would hope we can be something close, like the Washington Braves, personally I think a name change is ridiculous and some people are just consistent whiners that need to complain about things that make no sense. Welcome the America 21st century. This country should worry about the mass killings against the Indian's and Columbus having a Federal Holiday and he massacred how many Indians? How many Indians were killed when they were forced onto reservations? America should stop this crazy campaign and compensate them better than worrying about a football name. Heck one of the greatest Indians was named Crazy Horse, what's next a campaign to change that because it insults horses??

You know, this whole thing isn't about changing the name so much for me (though it has been the team name for over 80 years now and is now a tradition) as it is about principle. It seems the thing to do these days if you don't like something and you're part of a fringe/minority group, all you have to do is protest it, and eventually they'll get their way...I hate the whole notion of the few forcing the many to make concessions just to please them, and every time these groups are successful, it only serves to fuel the fire for other fringe groups to do the same...it's the same thing with these people who either don't celebrate or believe in Christmas complaining every year about nativity scenes being displayed on public property...complain loud enough and long enough and it will be taken down...majority be damned!

[Kilmer72]

Personally if we are forced to change the name, I would hope we can be something close, like the Washington Braves, personally I think a name change is ridiculous and some people are just consistent whiners that need to complain about things that make no sense. Welcome the America 21st century. This country should worry about the mass killings against the Indian's and Columbus having a Federal Holiday and he massacred how many Indians? How many Indians were killed when they were forced onto reservations? America should stop this crazy campaign and compensate them better than worrying about a football name. Heck one of the greatest Indians was named Crazy Horse, what's next a campaign to change that because it insults horses??

You know, this whole thing isn't about changing the name so much for me (though it has been the team name for over 80 years now and is now a tradition) as it is about principle. It seems the thing to do these days if you don't like something and you're part of a fringe/minority group, all you have to do is protest it, and eventually they'll get their way...I hate the whole notion of the few forcing the many to make concessions just to please them, and every time these groups are successful, it only serves to fuel the fire for other fringe groups to do the same...it's the same thing with these people who either don't celebrate or believe in Christmas complaining every year about nativity scenes being displayed on public property...complain loud enough and long enough and it will be taken down...majority be damned!

+1

Even though it is principle, it also seems personal. I don't own the team but it feels like I am being robbed. It's coming. It will just take a while.