The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

ANT7088 wrote:If they change the name it will be the "Washington Warriors"!

That's what I'm hoping they name the new baseball team when they get here

oafusp wrote:...damn liberals

I'm with you brother

In the end, I think everyone will agree the name Redskin, in the context in which it is offered, is meant to be a proud symbol of American heritage for this Nations capitol city football team. I also think we'd all agree that if taken out of that context and looked at as just a seperate word, maybe even inserting your own context, (like a racial slur) the word can be offensive. Just how many people and what evidence is needed, in this free nation, to legally name a term so offensive that it should be stripped from an organization entirely? There are people who find pastel colors offensive. People who find the menu at McDonald's offensive. (and have sued!) I think the best we can do is to admit that unless we are Native Americans, we cannot define what is offensive to Native Americans. And to try our best to reassure Native Americans that we revere their heritage and our proud to have it as a symbol of our teams excellence. I think, with just a smattering of common sense it becomes clear, we cannot turn the world upside down everytime someone is offended. The English language is full of words and slang with multiple meanings. Context is everything when deciphering the meaning of such words. Hail to the Redskins!

JansenFan wrote:I recall reading that the term Redskins referred to the Algonkians who painted their skin red with berry juice before entering battle. I think it is on the Washington Post website. I will see if I can find it again.

JansenFan, I remember an article just like that, and I've been looking through some ESPN pages a bit. This is just a hunch of mine, but a while back WP (or was it ESPN? ) put up an article about Lombardi's year with the Skins. For whatever reason, I believe that is where I originally read it.

Believe it or not, whether or not the name is offensive to some doesn't affect me too much. Those that are offended can not watch (or go to) the games, and not buy the merchandise. You don't have a right to "not be offended" in this country. . .but for whatever reason many people believe it to exist. Otherwise, oafusp and DieselFan (among others no doubt) could sue the crap out of the liberals taking the Skins to court because they are offended by their offense(!) I think the real question, if any (which is debatable), that could be brought up in court would be "so what damage has been done?"

No damage. Just offense. Hurt feelings (and here I'll give the offended a ). Play on, Washington Redskins, you can't make everyone happy.

And in the meantime, let's get that lawsuit going against the Cowboys, Saints, Giants (as a tall person I'm offended), Chiefs, and the others that curveball brought up.

FFA wrote:No damage. Just offense. Hurt feelings (and here I'll give the offended a ). Play on, Washington Redskins, you can't make everyone happy.

Oh, yeah ? Well, I'm offended because they named the old Stadium after RFK, when Dr. MLK died in the same manner a full two months earlier.
See ? I found something old that offends me ! Aren't I creative ?

A point that we consistently fail to address here is that "no offense meant" does not necessarily absolve the offender. I've read time and time again that the name is meant as a tribute to Native Americans but that very same group takes no pride and, in fact, finds offense in that name. So that argument holds no water.
A good place to find the meaning of any word is a dictionary: http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=redskin&x=0&y=0
Note the term is synonymous with Native American and is classified as "usually offensive". Thus, it is unfair to simply dismiss the complaints of those who find the term offensive as the whines of reactionary liberals.
Nor is it enough to say, the term does not offend me, ergo it is not offensive. If that were an acceptable standard we would have no common language as each person would be free to individually assign meanings to words. We have to make a point of distinguishing between an individual taking offense at some word and that word's meaning. The dictionary is the arbiter in this case.
For the record, I do not feel stronly one way or the other on this issue. If the team changes the name, fine, if not, fine. I'm of the belief that the world has much larger problems to tackle.
Personally, I like Michael Wilbon's solution which was to find a Native American word that means warrior and switch to that.

I think it is just another name for the Redskins that a couple fat guys in the owner's office thought of as an alternate to Braves.

Fios wrote:Personally, I like Michael Wilbon's solution which was to find a Native American word that means warrior and switch to that.

Personally, I think Wilbon takes that position because he knows the name will never change, and it's safe to do so. No public outcry, and he can be seen standing with those in the minority.
How's about we just let all this go the way of the dinosaur, since we don't feel strongly about it either way ?

We really don't know if the name is offensive or not. Most Native Americans don't seem to mind, but at the same time there are all these lawsuits.

That is why we should look at the more important issue. Does the name promote racism? Does the team being named "Redskins" condition non-Native Americans to treat Native Americans differently?

I would say no, but I'm sure people will disagree...

again,

FFA wrote:No damage. Just offense. Hurt feelings (and here I'll give the offended a ). Play on, Washington Redskins, you can't make everyone happy.

who has died because of the issue? how many natives have been banned at fedex field. what harm has been done by the name itself? do we drag natives onto the 50 yd line at halftime to beat the living #*$* out of him and "ridicule" him? you don't like it, don't support it, but don't ask the rest of us to change our views to suit yours.

the last i read the 1st went something like this:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

anyone need english lessons?

hailskins666 wrote:do we drag natives onto the 50 yd line at halftime to beat the living #*$* out of him and "ridicule" him?

I don't believe it. You stole my halftime show idea!

That's just Spurrier, man.
He PM'd me with that idea months ago.

the actual case, was that "redskins" has a US patent. under laws passed in the 60's(i think), you can't patent any item promoting racism. whether or not it is racism, remains to be seen. right now the courts say it isn't.
there can NEVER be a law thats states that snyder HAS to change the name. they can only lift the patent on the name, meaning anyone could sell a redskins shirt, hat, etc.
but no one is going to convince me that cheering for the redskins, promotes any negative thoughts. if we were indeed ridiculing natives by banning them at games, or beating them at halftime, i would say yes, this is a bad thing. but i will never be convinced that cheering, rooting, and pulling for something "ridicules" it in any way.