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

Posted: **Wed Jan 05, 2011 9:13 am**

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 05217.html

It's time for the annual "Change the Redskins" article calling for the home town team to ditch their racially insensitive name and start fresh. We all know the story of how the "Redskins" moniker was selected as a way of honoring Native Americans (namely their coach Lone Star Dietz.) Today some find the name offensive.

Still, I don't think it's any more objectionable than Braves, Chiefs, or Warriors.

Do people of Nordic decent get offended by the Minnesota Vikings? What about ranch hands and cattle drivers? Are they up in arms about the team in Dallas being called the Cowboys. Do pirates and their descendants take offense to the Raiders and Buccaneers? What about people in the meat packing industry (Green Bay), Steelworkers (Pittsburgh) or descendants of miners (San Fransisco)? Are animal rights groups up in arms about all the animal themed names?

A poll done in 2004 by the Annenberg Public Policy Center showed that a whopping 91% of Native Americans found nothing objectionable about the name. I went to college in the southwest that gives Native American students free tuition so there was a HUGE Native population and I sure didn't hear anything about changing the Redskins. Believe it or not, the Redskins have a large following of Native American fans.

On one hand, I could see modernizing and changing the name (it would be a HUGE moneymaker for Dan Snyder as he would sell enormous amounts of new merchandise) but it's simply not that offensive. The word Redskin doesn't even have history as being used as a racial slur, or as an pejorative term. It's just descriptive. It's not like they are called the Washington Savages which would undoubtedly be offensive.

I think this is a whole lot of noise about nothing, and I don't see them ever changing.

Posted: **Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:43 am**

Danny Snyder WOULD NOT MAKE PLENTY OF MONEY if he changed the name. You wanna know why? It's because fans like me, you, and probably 80% of THN members wouldn't purchase it. Instead we'd go on the internet and try to buy all the remaining REDSKINS stuff we could find, I know for sure that's what I'd be doing.

Now as for the name itself.. I think our team has completely devasted the racial aspect of the Redskin name. However if we were to change it I'd agree with Warriors.. that way we could keep the colors/logo the same and those 9% of Natives that have a problem maybeeee would say "hey, that's right, we are warriors.. good stuff". I think?

Posted: **Wed Jan 05, 2011 12:13 pm**

Skinsfan55 wrote: Do people of Nordic decent get offended by the Minnesota Vikings? What about ranch hands and cattle drivers? Are they up in arms about the team in Dallas being called the Cowboys. Do pirates and their descendants take offense to the Raiders and Buccaneers?

I think you're right that the Redskins will never change their name, but your argument is off base. The problem with the name is not that it refers to a PROFESSION of people like Cowboys, Pirates, Raiders, Cheifs, Braves, etc; Its because, unlike the Chiefs or the Braves or whatever, the name Redskins is an ethnic slur. I know people don't intend it that way anymore, maybe they never did, but it is what it is.

You can yell about it all you want, but that is just a fact. Don't believe me? Look it up in the freaking dictionary:

red·skin
/ˈrɛdˌskɪn/ Show Spelled[red-skin] Show IPA
–noun Slang: Often Disparaging and Offensive .
a North American Indian.

Now if you want to argue that a team could name themselves the honkeys, chinks, japs, negroes, spics, etc; etc; and that would be ok, go right ahead. But that is unfortunately where our team name fits.

Personally I think it was an ignorant name that we've just all gotten used to, and I guess that is ok. There is too much money wrapped up in the name now, and native Americans are not a big enough group of people to do anything about it. I wish we would at least go back to the spear/arrowhead helmet.

The real reason I would be worried about changing the name though is that we would end up with something like THE WIZARDS!!! hah. Man I will be first in line to buy a jersey if they would just go back to the BULLETS!

Posted: **Wed Jan 05, 2011 12:18 pm**

riggofan wrote:
Skinsfan55 wrote: Do people of Nordic decent get offended by the Minnesota Vikings? What about ranch hands and cattle drivers? Are they up in arms about the team in Dallas being called the Cowboys. Do pirates and their descendants take offense to the Raiders and Buccaneers?
I think you're right that the Redskins will never change their name, but your argument is off base. The problem with the name is not that it refers to a PROFESSION of people like Cowboys, Pirates, Raiders, Cheifs, Braves, etc; Its because, unlike the Chiefs or the Braves or whatever, the name Redskins is an ethnic slur. I know people don't intend it that way anymore, maybe they never did, but it is what it is.

You can yell about it all you want, but that is just a fact. Don't believe me? Look it up in the freaking dictionary:

red·skin
/ˈrɛdˌskɪn/ Show Spelled[red-skin] Show IPA
–noun Slang: Often Disparaging and Offensive .
a North American Indian.

Now if you want to argue that a team could name themselves the honkeys, chinks, japs, negroes, spics, etc; etc; and that would be ok, go right ahead. But that is unfortunately where our team name fits.

Personally I think it was an ignorant name that we've just all gotten used to, and I guess that is ok. There is too much money wrapped up in the name now, and native Americans are not a big enough group of people to do anything about it. I wish we would at least go back to the spear/arrowhead helmet.

The real reason I would be worried about changing the name though is that we would end up with something like THE WIZARDS!!! hah. Man I will be first in line to buy a jersey if they would just go back to the BULLETS!

As a my-nore-ity.. I don't see "negro" as a slur compared to spics, japs and chinks.. so it would be "nigger".. but your point is right on Riggo and I agree 100%.

Also the Wizards name is just a joke and to make it worse they gave us a God-Awful mascot who looks like a stupid happy alien

Posted: **Wed Jan 05, 2011 12:23 pm**

As long as I own this football team and long after I'm gone, they will always be the Washington Redskins.
Jack K. Cooke

Posted: **Wed Jan 05, 2011 12:48 pm**

For one thing, you are wrong about the name not being a racial slur. The term redskin(s) and/or as seen in the movies is "dirty redskin", or some variation thereof, was used as a very derogatory name for a Native American. Take a look at most wertern movies and see how it is used. It is/was never used as a term of endearment.

Whether it was intended as a honor at the time the name was chosen or whether it is now is irrelavent. I know and talk to many Native Americans and most do not even think about it, one way or another. (The discussion usually takes place when I wear my Redskins jacket to dinner when it is cold.) That does not mean they do not find it offensive, it just means that they have more important things to deal with than a name of a football team 3,000 miles away.

Posted: **Wed Jan 05, 2011 1:13 pm**

I always thought they should just drop the "red" and go with Skins. That's what most people call them anyway like "where are you watching the Skins game?"

That said, I would be ok if The Danny sold the team and the new owner renamed it.

Posted: **Wed Jan 05, 2011 1:16 pm**

Skinsfan55 wrote:It's time for the annual "Change the Redskins" article calling for the home town team to ditch their racially insensitive name and start fresh

I'm confused, first you argue for the name pointing out it's insensitive, then you argue against it by saying we should start fresh. So which side are you on?

Posted: **Wed Jan 05, 2011 1:40 pm**

You know, if it were so offensive then the "Native Americans" or "American Indians" or whatever the politically correct term for an Indian is now would have complained when the name was changed from Braves to Redskins back in 1937 or in the 55 years between there and the 1992 SB when it first became an issue, maybe I would be sympathetic.

This is such a small issue when compared to how royally we have screwed these fine people through this nation’s history that it doesn't even amount to a hair on their heads.

"Redskin" may and I repeat may have been a negative slur to an Indian (or whatever I can call them now - they aren't Native Americans in my book, because so am I (of mostly Irish decent)- I was born here, so were my parents and their parents and their parents... the only difference is length of time and mode of transportation of our ancestors).

I know this sound callous, but terms change over the years from good to bad or the other way around. Try and use retarded, or gay, or fag, or ass, or any number of other terms that once were not offensive and are now considered bad and see how people react. The same goes the other way for offensive terms like MILF, SNAFU, FUBAR, or Bugger. As times change, the connotation of a word changes and what is politically correct in one period is offensive in another and same goes the other way around.

The simple fact is the word Redskins has lost any offensiveness it once had. If someone there is a Redskin in a store, you look for a big athletic looking African American or big fat white guy (both stereo types), not an American Indian. The word Redskin now mean professional football player, not “dirty Injin”!

I am mostly Irish and I think Paddy Wagon and Fighting Irish make all Irish people out to be drunks. Should they be changed?

I need a drink

Posted: **Wed Jan 05, 2011 2:30 pm**

skinsfan#33 wrote:The simple fact is the word Redskins has lost any offensiveness it once had. If someone there is a Redskin in a store, you look for a big athletic looking African American or big fat white guy (both stereo types), not an American Indian. The word Redskin now mean professional football player, not “dirty Injin”!

I think you're almost right about that except it apparently still bothers some actual Native Americans. You could probably test this theory by visiting an indian casino and saying, "Hey redskin! Get me a drink!"

Anyway, I have no doubt the name is here to stay. I just think instead of breaking out that lame "What about all of the pirates who are offended by Tampa Bay???" argument, we should just admit that yeah we have a racially offensive name, but its not so offensive that we're going to change it.

Posted: **Wed Jan 05, 2011 2:53 pm**

skinsfan#33 wrote:The simple fact is the word Redskins has lost any offensiveness it once had. If someone there is a Redskin in a store, you look for a big athletic looking African American or big fat white guy (both stereo types), not an American Indian. The word Redskin now mean professional football player, not “dirty Injin”!

You are really stretching it here. If you yelled "hey redskin" in a store, I don't think that any big athletic looking African America or big fat white guy would respond other that to look for the Indian.

This is a useless argument anyway. Until a court makes a final ruling, and it will probably be the Supreme Court, there is no real answer for this.

Posted: **Wed Jan 05, 2011 3:00 pm**

aswas71788 wrote:This is a useless argument anyway. Until a court makes a final ruling, and it will probably be the Supreme Court, there is no real answer for this.

There is no Constitutional basis for the Supreme Court to grant a Writ Of Certiorari to hear such a case. If there were, the Court would have heard cases about far more offensive terms than "Redskin."

Posted: **Wed Jan 05, 2011 3:37 pm**

If they changed the name to anything other than Skins, I think I would change teams, and I think that's how us fans have to start thinking. That way, one of the arguments would be the monitary damage it would be to change, and thus it would stay the same.

Posted: **Wed Jan 05, 2011 3:39 pm**

aswas71788 wrote:
skinsfan#33 wrote:The simple fact is the word Redskins has lost any offensiveness it once had. If someone there is a Redskin in a store, you look for a big athletic looking African American or big fat white guy (both stereo types), not an American Indian. The word Redskin now mean professional football player, not “dirty Injin”!
You are really stretching it here. If you yelled "hey redskin" in a store, I don't think that any big athletic looking African America or big fat white guy would respond other that to look for the Indian.

This is a useless argument anyway. Until a court makes a final ruling, and it will probably be the Supreme Court, there is no real answer for this.

If he yelled "hey Redskin" and I was around, I'd turn around and be like "YO WUSSUP?"

Posted: **Wed Jan 05, 2011 3:55 pm**

riggofan wrote:we should just admit that yeah we have a racially offensive name, but its not so offensive that we're going to change it.

There is nothing racially insensitive about it. A good rule in life is to not take offense where none is intended. Redskins fans mean no offense and actually do mean a lot of positive things. We have to stop catering to political correctness. None of the people who care are offended for any reason other then they are looking for things to be offended about. We didn't offend them with their name, but if they want to be offended that's fine.

To the idiots who whine about the name. You are a bunch of fat, lazy self race baiting slugs who have too much time on your hands. You are too stupid to realize you are being led by the nose by a bunch of hate mongers looking for contrived issues to champion to bring attention to themselves and are manipulating you because you're a moron. You are an idiot with no sense of perspective. You are a waste of skin and a waste of space.

There, if they're going to be offended, let's give them an actual reason.

Posted: **Wed Jan 05, 2011 4:00 pm**

riggofan wrote:I think you're almost right about that except it apparently still bothers some actual Native Americans. You could probably test this theory by visiting an indian casino and saying, "Hey redskin! Get me a drink!"

Wow, that post is probably the most stupid test possible to make that determination. Think about this, is the term engine block offensive to you? Try your test there and see if anyone takes it as a slur. Hey, engine block, get me a drink! You came up with a situation where almost anything you put in there sounds like an insult. Even a positive word could sound sarcastic and like an insult.

Posted: **Wed Jan 05, 2011 4:36 pm**

Intent matters but at the same time I take issue with terms when they are acceptable for one group but not for everyone. Native Americans do not typically refer to one another as "Redskins." There is another term far more frequently used both to refer to a group and by a group to refer to itself and I doubt the team will be changing its name to that moniker. Redskin is a term rarely used in any context outside of the Washington Redskins professional football franchise. Suzan Shown Harjo has been arguing for 20 years or thereabouts that the term is disparaging, to no avail:

Redskins Name

Posted: **Wed Jan 05, 2011 4:42 pm**

How many football teams are called the redskins?? I played for the redskins when iwas young .. We were the redskins and had the same helmets as Washington..

Posted: **Wed Jan 05, 2011 4:58 pm**

TCIYM wrote:Suzan Shown Harjo has been arguing for 20 years or thereabouts that the term is disparaging, to no avail:

Redskins Name

Wow, six Indians want the name changed. There's an overpowering argument. Can you imagine if these losers lived anywhere in the rest of the world and had to deal with real problems? They'd just curl in a ball and suck their thumbs. OK, they do that now. I guess it's be the same really wherever they lived. Someone would have to feed them or they'd die.

Posted: **Wed Jan 05, 2011 5:00 pm**

redskins14ru wrote:How many football teams are called the redskins?? I played for the redskins when iwas young .. We were the redskins and had the same helmets as Washington..

Miami OH, used to be called the Redskins. They changed their name to Redhawks. St Johns used to be the Redmen and they changed their name to the "Red Storm." I think both those were in the 90s.

Posted: **Wed Jan 05, 2011 5:08 pm**

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
TCIYM wrote:Suzan Shown Harjo has been arguing for 20 years or thereabouts that the term is disparaging, to no avail:

Redskins Name
Wow, six Indians want the name changed. There's an overpowering argument. Can you imagine if these losers lived anywhere in the rest of the world and had to deal with real problems? They'd just curl in a ball and suck their thumbs. OK, they do that now. I guess it's be the same really wherever they lived. Someone would have to feed them or they'd die.

That's just it. It's impossible to prove that the term is usually and customarily used in a disparaging manner in present day society. It isn't the public interest that takes issue with the term but rather a very small faction with an incredibly limited self-interest. I have little doubt that if a court ever decided the football franchise could no longer use the name Suzan Shown Harjo would be the first to copyright and trademark it under the guise that she is a "Redskin" and it is therefore acceptable for her to market the term in a non-disparaging manner.

Posted: **Wed Jan 05, 2011 6:24 pm**

langleyparkjoe wrote:
aswas71788 wrote:
skinsfan#33 wrote:The simple fact is the word Redskins has lost any offensiveness it once had. If someone there is a Redskin in a store, you look for a big athletic looking African American or big fat white guy (both stereo types), not an American Indian. The word Redskin now mean professional football player, not “dirty Injin”!
You are really stretching it here. If you yelled "hey redskin" in a store, I don't think that any big athletic looking African America or big fat white guy would respond other that to look for the Indian.

This is a useless argument anyway. Until a court makes a final ruling, and it will probably be the Supreme Court, there is no real answer for this.
If he yelled "hey Redskin" and I was around, I'd turn around and be like "YO WUSSUP?"

If someone yelled "hey redskin" in a store, I doubt that I would look up other than to see who responded and I am one. I have always believe that the intent is what is important rather than the word. My secretary calls me chief and I know it is a nick name. When my wife calls me chief, I know I am in serious trouble.

Posted: **Wed Jan 05, 2011 7:27 pm**

TCIYM wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:
TCIYM wrote:Suzan Shown Harjo has been arguing for 20 years or thereabouts that the term is disparaging, to no avail:

Redskins Name
Wow, six Indians want the name changed. There's an overpowering argument. Can you imagine if these losers lived anywhere in the rest of the world and had to deal with real problems? They'd just curl in a ball and suck their thumbs. OK, they do that now. I guess it's be the same really wherever they lived. Someone would have to feed them or they'd die.
That's just it. It's impossible to prove that the term is usually and customarily used in a disparaging manner in present day society. It isn't the public interest that takes issue with the term but rather a very small faction with an incredibly limited self-interest. I have little doubt that if a court ever decided the football franchise could no longer use the name Suzan Shown Harjo would be the first to copyright and trademark it under the guise that she is a "Redskin" and it is therefore acceptable for her to market the term in a non-disparaging manner.

You have tremendous confidence in the same Federal Court system that has validated the complete perversion of the Commerce Clause, and has ignored the existence of the 10th Amendment.

I hope you are right... but I have no such faith in these courts.

Posted: **Wed Jan 05, 2011 7:58 pm**

Countertrey wrote:
TCIYM wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote: Wow, six Indians want the name changed. There's an overpowering argument. Can you imagine if these losers lived anywhere in the rest of the world and had to deal with real problems? They'd just curl in a ball and suck their thumbs. OK, they do that now. I guess it's be the same really wherever they lived. Someone would have to feed them or they'd die.
That's just it. It's impossible to prove that the term is usually and customarily used in a disparaging manner in present day society. It isn't the public interest that takes issue with the term but rather a very small faction with an incredibly limited self-interest. I have little doubt that if a court ever decided the football franchise could no longer use the name Suzan Shown Harjo would be the first to copyright and trademark it under the guise that she is a "Redskin" and it is therefore acceptable for her to market the term in a non-disparaging manner.
You have tremendous confidence in the same Federal Court system that has validated the complete perversion of the Commerce Clause, and has ignored the existence of the 10th Amendment.

I hope you are right... but I have no such faith in these courts.

I have no confidence in the court system. It's just that this case in no way serves their own limited interests or agendas and no amount of loopholes on a law pertaining to the use of "Redskins" gives them benefits or entitlements not given to the likes of you and I. Elasticizing the rubber band that is the Commerce Clause and ignoring enumeration of what is left to the States and to The People directly benefits the federal court system, and their overly-stuffed coffers.

Posted: **Wed Jan 05, 2011 8:39 pm**

As we say every year . . . must be the offseason . . .

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

New Column For an Old Argument: Change the Name

New Column For an Old Argument: Change the Name

Re: New Column For an Old Argument: Change the Name

Re: New Column For an Old Argument: Change the Name

Re: New Column For an Old Argument: Change the Name