This is a pretty amazing article about the name Redskins

[riggofan]

I'm sure a small percentage of fans will endure if it changes, but a majority (who live outside the DC area) will stop and go with another team or drop the sport entirely.

I think you have it backwards.

Totally agree, man. What are we, four year olds? We're going to stop enjoying our football team because of a mascot? I'm going to pick a team with a cool name like the Jets or the Eagles?

I like to watch football.

[DarthMonk]

I personally doubt anyone was trying to honor a group when the name got changed from the Boston Braves to the Boston Redskins.

I could be wrong but I doubt that name change had anything to do with bestowing honor.

That is not to say the name should be changed - just my take on the "honor" claim.

There’s an inconsistency in the story that the Washington team name was adopted to honor Native Americans. In 1933, when the franchise switched from “Braves” to “Redskins” to avoid confusion with the Boston Braves baseball team, the team had a Native American coach, Lone Star Dietz, and several Native American players. But team owner George Preston Marshall told the Associated Press at the time of the change that their presence “has not, as may be suspected, inspired me to select the name Redskins.”

Here is a multi-part piece that pretty much represents all sides.

http://mmqb.si.com/2014/04/03/washingto ... me-debate/

A few excerpts:

Neely Tsoodle of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation in Oklahoma: “My personal belief is completely different than anyone I know. But I don’t see the need to eliminate Native Americans as mascots. In fact, I don’t want to do that. At all. If we do, then we are erasing another part of our footprint in American culture. … Somewhere along the road it got out of hand, and became a caricature. Maybe it was lack of education, maybe it was society, but it turned into crazy, violent men running around beating drums with red paint on their face, and that’s not OK. But that doesn’t mean we should erase the name completely. We just need to make sure that the nickname is used in a tasteful manner and we are educating people about the meaning behind it. If we get rid of the name completely, we are erasing a part of our identity, and that’s something I know we have fought so hard to maintain.”

Jeremy Baker, 23, Creek and Seminole: “I think people my age and younger don’t have a problem with [the Redskins] near as much as the older people. I don’t necessarily have a problem with it. Now if you walked in here and called me a ‘redskin,’ I might have a problem. It would be different. People my age wear Redskins gear even. I don’t know why younger people don’t care. I think we’re just not as much into Native American culture, with the way we’re raised today. We’re Americanized, I guess.”

Herb Stevens, director of the San Carlos Apache Cultural Center: “It’s an honor to be recognized as being ‘Native,’ but not to be called a redskin.”

[Deadskins]

Do you really think the Raiders, and Buccaneers, and, to a point, Vikings want to honor those groups? Not really. Obviously, most mascots are chosen because they represent fierce opponents in battle, or some other enviable strenghts or qualities. That's what they mean when they say the name "honors" a particular group.

I know what you're saying, but those teams haven't published letters from their team owner and team president claiming their name "honors" Raiders or Buccaneers or whatever. Have they? They're also not groups that exist today, as far as I know. Either way, I'm not sure how any of this addresses that key question. How can you honor a group of people with a name that you wouldn't use to their faces?

It depends on how you are defining the word "honor." I thought I made it pretty clear. And I believe Dan and Bruce have used the word in the presence of Indians many times. When they speak with local tribe members they don't say " the Washington football team." They talk about the Redskins, so your argument really doesn't hold water.

PS There certainly are still pirates, and they murder, rape, and steal. Why should those groups be honored with a mascot?

[Deadskins]

I personally doubt anyone was trying to honor a group when the name got changed from the Boston Braves to the Boston Redskins.

I could be wrong but I doubt that name change had anything to do with bestowing honor.

That is not to say the name should be changed - just my take on the "honor" claim.

There’s an inconsistency in the story that the Washington team name was adopted to honor Native Americans. In 1933, when the franchise switched from “Braves” to “Redskins” to avoid confusion with the Boston Braves baseball team, the team had a Native American coach, Lone Star Dietz, and several Native American players. But team owner George Preston Marshall told the Associated Press at the time of the change that their presence “has not, as may be suspected, inspired me to select the name Redskins.”

Here is a multi-part piece that pretty much represents all sides.

http://mmqb.si.com/2014/04/03/washingto ... me-debate/

A few excerpts:

Neely Tsoodle of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation in Oklahoma: “My personal belief is completely different than anyone I know. But I don’t see the need to eliminate Native Americans as mascots. In fact, I don’t want to do that. At all. If we do, then we are erasing another part of our footprint in American culture. … Somewhere along the road it got out of hand, and became a caricature. Maybe it was lack of education, maybe it was society, but it turned into crazy, violent men running around beating drums with red paint on their face, and that’s not OK. But that doesn’t mean we should erase the name completely. We just need to make sure that the nickname is used in a tasteful manner and we are educating people about the meaning behind it. If we get rid of the name completely, we are erasing a part of our identity, and that’s something I know we have fought so hard to maintain.”

Jeremy Baker, 23, Creek and Seminole: “I think people my age and younger don’t have a problem with [the Redskins] near as much as the older people. I don’t necessarily have a problem with it. Now if you walked in here and called me a ‘redskin,’ I might have a problem. It would be different. People my age wear Redskins gear even. I don’t know why younger people don’t care. I think we’re just not as much into Native American culture, with the way we’re raised today. We’re Americanized, I guess.”

Herb Stevens, director of the San Carlos Apache Cultural Center: “It’s an honor to be recognized as being ‘Native,’ but not to be called a redskin.”

Neely Tsoodle of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation in Oklahoma: “My personal belief is completely different than anyone I know. But I don’t see the need to eliminate Native Americans as mascots. In fact, I don’t want to do that.

This, I believe, is really the central issue here. When I encounter someone who says the Redskins should change their name, I will ask them whether they are just against the word "Redskins," or Indians as mascots in general. Then you can have a real discussion about the name.

[riggofan]

It depends on how you are defining the word "honor." I thought I made it pretty clear. And I believe Dan and Bruce have used the word in the presence of Indians many times.

It depends on how I define the word "honor"? It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is? lol. This is kind of my point, man. If we're having to go through these great linguistic acrobatics to answer the question there's probably a problem.

The dictionary says "honor" means:

n. high respect, as for worth, merit, or rank:
v. to confer honor or distinction upon:

From what Snyder and Allen have said, by definition, Native Americans should feel highly respected if we call them Redskins. So, go prove it.

When they speak with local tribe members they don't say " the Washington football team." They talk about the Redskins, so your argument really doesn't hold water.

There's nothing wrong with my argument - you're just dodging the question. I haven't asked how team officials refer to Native Americans currently in everyday life. The question is would they be willing to address a group of Native Americans as "Redskins". If the name is intended to honor those people, then why not?

Its a simple question, but nobody can seem to answer it simply without paragraphs of explanation.

The answer is really simple. If you went out to a reservation and said, "What's up, Redskin?" you would get your a** beat. I wonder why that is?

[riggofan]

This, I believe, is really the central argument here. When I encounter someone who says the Redskins should change their name, I will ask them whether they are just against the word "Redskins," or Indians as mascots in general. Then you can have a real discussion about the name.

Its a good question. I'll just say, I could probably walk into a room of Seminoles and say, "Good evening, Seminoles." I may even be able to walk into a room full of chiefs and say, "Hello, Chiefs."

[Deadskins]

It depends on how you are defining the word "honor." I thought I made it pretty clear. And I believe Dan and Bruce have used the word in the presence of Indians many times.

It depends on how I define the word "honor"? It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is? lol. This is kind of my point, man. If we're having to go through these great linguistic acrobatics to answer the question there's probably a problem.

The dictionary says "honor" means:

n. high respect, as for worth, merit, or rank:
v. to confer honor or distinction upon:

From what Snyder and Allen have said, by definition, Native Americans should feel highly respected if we call them Redskins. So, go prove it.

When they speak with local tribe members they don't say " the Washington football team." They talk about the Redskins, so your argument really doesn't hold water.

There's nothing wrong with my argument - you're just dodging the question. I haven't asked how team officials refer to Native Americans currently in everyday life. The question is would they be willing to address a group of Native Americans as "Redskins". If the name is intended to honor those people, then why not?

Its a simple question, but nobody can seem to answer it simply without paragraphs of explanation.

The answer is really simple. If you went out to a reservation and said, "What's up, Redskin?" you would get your a** beat. I wonder why that is?

No linguistic gymnastics. They are honoring their fierceness and strength. As for your example, it all depends on the context. If you called an Indian a Redskin in a racist way I would expect them to react violently. But you might call your best friend that as a term of endearment, and get a hug in return. No one is saying the word has never been used in a racist way. They're saying they are not using it in a racist way in this context.

[SkinsJock]

I don't see the name changing until Dan Snyder is made to realize that the majority of Native Americans think the name of the Washington DC football franchise is offensive

AND - I just don't see that happening soon

the name Redskins may be offensive but it is not at this time offensive in the eyes of a majority of Native Americans when used in context

maybe in time that will happen but until then I'm kind of glad that a lot of people are so worked up about something that does not bother the majority of Native Americans

[riggofan]

As for your example, it all depends on the context. If you called an Indian a Redskin in a racist way I would expect them to react violently. But you might call your best friend that as a term of endearment, and get a hug in return. No one is saying the word has never been used in a racist way. They're saying they are not using it in a racist way in this context.

lol. Still dodging. You've written a lot and still haven't answered a very simple question. You keep trying to qualify it, and talk about context, and it depends on what the meaning of "honor" is. Like Ronald Reagan said: If you're explaining, you're losing. That's why Roger Goodell just avoided the question altogether.

Anyway, I didn't say you had to go say "Hello, Redskin" in a "racist way". Walk up to a group on a reservation and say "Hello Redskins" in the kindest, most charming voice you can muster. I'm sure you would be showered with hugs.

Incidentally, Dan Snyder is not best friends with the entire Native American population as far as I know. So, he probably shouldn't have reason to believe he is using the word as a term of endearment for his close friends.

[Deadskins]

As for your example, it all depends on the context. If you called an Indian a Redskin in a racist way I would expect them to react violently. But you might call your best friend that as a term of endearment, and get a hug in return. No one is saying the word has never been used in a racist way. They're saying they are not using it in a racist way in this context.

lol. Still dodging. You've written a lot and still haven't answered a very simple question. You keep trying to qualify it, and talk about context, and it depends on what the meaning of "honor" is. Like Ronald Reagan said: If you're explaining, you're losing. That's why Roger Goodell just avoided the question altogether.

Anyway, I didn't say you had to go say "Hello, Redskin" in a "racist way". Walk up to a group on a reservation and say "Hello Redskins" in the kindest, most charming voice you can muster. I'm sure you would be showered with hugs.

Incidentally, Dan Snyder is not best friends with the entire Native American population as far as I know. So, he probably shouldn't have reason to believe he is using the word as a term of endearment for his close friends.

I'm not dodging anything, but I am explaining, because you're not getting my point. I keep trying to explain to you why Dan, Roger, I, you, or anyone else wouldn't walk up to some Indian they don't know and say "Hello Redskin." It's asinine! Would you walk up to a white person and say "Hello White?" Or a black person and say "Hello Black?" I doubt it. You wouldn't even walk up to an Indian and say "Hello Indian." It's got nothing to do with how flowery you say it. The person receiving the greeting has no context for the usage, other than racism. But that doesn't make the word Redskin inherently racist, nor does it mean that the word can't be used to honor Indian heritage when used in a respectful way. Do you understand the point I am making now?

[riggofan]

Do you understand the point I am making now?

I understand that you're dodging the question. Moving on...

[hanburgerheel]

And, this notion of "Why can't you address living American Indians as Redskins?" is also wrong. Redskins are a fantasy, or at best an imaginary amalgam when in the context of a team mascot. Unless you have people dressing up as a character-version of them, they are never "real" in a tangible sense. Even then, when someone is dressed-up as any mascot and running around on the sidelines, those are caricatures and embellishments that are also not intended to offend. An argument could be made that anytime a Pirate mascot is allowed in sports, it is automatically advocating for Piracy to flourish in a society and for the actions of Pirates throughout history to be more accepted and praised.

[Deadskins]

Do you understand the point I am making now?

I understand that you're dodging the question. Moving on...

And I understand why you keep saying I'm dodging the question, even though I've answered it several times. You're not getting the answer you're trying so desperately to elicit.

Dan, Roger, I, you, or anyone else wouldn't walk up to some Indian they don't know and say "Hello Redskin."

[cowboykillerzRGiii]

Daaaaamn...
I feel like we are gettin as bad as the gov sho signed this crap... is this all there is to talk about?? Surely coach mentioned more then just Tanard after ota... how's RGiii s footwork looking?

Not talkin crap jus sayin this argument is dumb and is a good way to fill the air, nothing more.

Carry on.

[cowboykillerzRGiii]

BREAKING NEWS!!!!

ROBERT HAS GROWN A BEARD!!!!
-Kind of.

[Irn-Bru]

I'm not dodging anything, but I am explaining, because you're not getting my point. I keep trying to explain to you why Dan, Roger, I, you, or anyone else wouldn't walk up to some Indian they don't know and say "Hello Redskin." It's asinine! Would you walk up to a white person and say "Hello White?" Or a black person and say "Hello Black?" I doubt it. You wouldn't even walk up to an Indian and say "Hello Indian." It's got nothing to do with how flowery you say it. The person receiving the greeting has no context for the usage, other than racism. But that doesn't make the word Redskin inherently racist, nor does it mean that the word can't be used to honor Indian heritage when used in a respectful way. Do you understand the point I am making now?

Yes. This is the same point I was trying to make, but I don't seem to have gotten the message through either.

[emoses14]

I simply can't resist: Word usage and context matters, nothing is ever said in a vacuum. There is an entire manner of speaking, word choice and inflection I use with my kids; with my wife; with my boys; with my co-workers; with my bosses. Words I'd use in one setting I wouldn't dare in another, in part due in/appropriateness, but also because context matters. I feel like this isn't a difficult concept.

For what it's worth, a growing part of me (still small, though) fears that the message sent by caving to these demands and changing the name right now (maybe ever), sends a far more troubling message than not changing. Either way, I very much fear that people bring to bear on this situation their feelings at large about tangentially related topics (tyranny of the minority, privilege of the privileged, racism, etc.), without appreciating the unique nature of this question. For example, trying to make this "debate" about racismISM (that is, the codified, institutionalized form of oppression based on race) is setting up a strawman aimed to do what strawmen do, set the parameters of the conversation to fit one view.

[langleyparkjoe]

.. but how are they going to stop ME from saying "Redskins" is the question I'd like answered. lol

[DarthMonk]

.. but how are they going to stop ME from saying "Redskins" is the question I'd like answered. lol

Room 101, pal.

[riggofan]

I'm not dodging anything, but I am explaining, because you're not getting my point. I keep trying to explain to you why Dan, Roger, I, you, or anyone else wouldn't walk up to some Indian they don't know and say "Hello Redskin." It's asinine! Would you walk up to a white person and say "Hello White?" Or a black person and say "Hello Black?" I doubt it. You wouldn't even walk up to an Indian and say "Hello Indian." It's got nothing to do with how flowery you say it. The person receiving the greeting has no context for the usage, other than racism. But that doesn't make the word Redskin inherently racist, nor does it mean that the word can't be used to honor Indian heritage when used in a respectful way. Do you understand the point I am making now?

Yes. This is the same point I was trying to make, but I don't seem to have gotten the message through either.

No worries fellas. I get your message clearly. But you're just offering explanations for why you wouldn't normally do these things. That's not at all the question. This was basically a dare posed to Goodell. I'm not arguing whether or not its asinine to do this in everyday life.

I understand I wouldn't normally walk up to a person and say, "Hello, White Man." But if somebody said, prove to me that "White Man" is not an offensive slur, by walking up to the next caucasian on the street and saying "Hello, White Man" then I could do it.

Ok now I'm moving on for real.

[yupchagee]

Einstein said "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler". Keeping things simple, Polls show that 90% of Native Americans are fine with Redskins.

Why Change?

[Deadskins]

Einstein said "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler". Keeping things simple, Polls show that 90% of Native Americans are fine with Redskins.

Why Change?

I think it's pretty funny that a higher percentage of Indians are fine with the Redskins name than the percentage of the general public.

[Deadskins]

I understand I wouldn't normally walk up to a person and say, "Hello, White Man." But if somebody said, prove to me that "White Man" is not an offensive slur, by walking up to the next caucasian on the street and saying "Hello, White Man" then I could do it.

Probably so, but I doubt you would say the same thing if you substituted Black for White in that scenario. Does that make Black an offensive slur?

[DarthMonk]

I understand I wouldn't normally walk up to a person and say, "Hello, White Man." But if somebody said, prove to me that "White Man" is not an offensive slur, by walking up to the next caucasian on the street and saying "Hello, White Man" then I could do it.

Probably so, but I doubt you would say the same thing if you substituted Black for White in that scenario. Does that make Black an offensive slur?

From the sidelines I would say no ... That does not make black an offensive slur. On the other hand riggofan's original post along this line of reasoning suggested more the converse ... that were there no negative reaction that would prove the word in question is not an offensive slur.

[yupchagee]

Einstein said "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler". Keeping things simple, Polls show that 90% of Native Americans are fine with Redskins.

Why Change?

I think it's pretty funny that a higher percentage of Indians are fine with the Redskins name than the percentage of the general public.

So do I.