U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Pro Football
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-16-2013, 02:17 PM
 
2,478 posts, read 4,873,809 times
Reputation: 4489

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by e_coli View Post
There may be nothing that Native Americans can do about it, but that's pretty weak justification for keeping the name. And you're wrong -- it's offensive to Native Americans who still exist. You don't hear about it because few Native Americans ever appear on television. There's no Native American Congressional Caucus in Congress. There's no National Association for the Advancement of Natives. Just because they don't have the numbers or the political clout to make noise about it doesn't change the fact that the name offends a lot of people. Even if you accept that people don't use the term as an epithet today, the fact lays bare that it was once used in that way, or at the very least, as a crude way to refer to this non-White population. Again, this is not to compare the use of the word Redskin to the use of the word n***er. Let's just say it has the same effect as 'coloreds' or 'Negroes' or 'darkies.' It's no better.
Or maybe they have better things to do than to sit around stressing about some sports mascot that doesn't hurt them or effect them in any way. I'm amazed at the energy people waste on things that don't effect them. Everyone is offended by something. You can't please everyone, grow thicker skin.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-16-2013, 02:33 PM
 
Location: Born & Raised DC > Carolinas > Seattle > Denver
9,349 posts, read 5,574,293 times
Reputation: 9446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ankhharu View Post
Or maybe they have better things to do than to sit around stressing about some sports mascot that doesn't hurt them or effect them in any way.
Quoted for emphasis.

I wish people that are so concerned about the name of a sports team would channel that energy into some other, more useful cause....like helping the homeless or something LOL.

They've been the Redskins for over 75 years, and the case has been to the supreme court several times and lost. Get over it, especially if you're not Native American.

Of course, as a Redskins fan, I might be biased.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2013, 06:59 AM
 
Location: Greensboro, NC
5,756 posts, read 4,240,099 times
Reputation: 3829
Quote:
Originally Posted by skins_fan82 View Post
Quoted for emphasis.

I wish people that are so concerned about the name of a sports team would channel that energy into some other, more useful cause....like helping the homeless or something LOL.

They've been the Redskins for over 75 years, and the case has been to the supreme court several times and lost. Get over it, especially if you're not Native American.

Of course, as a Redskins fan, I might be biased.
Me too! I think it's pretty silly to keep beating a dead horse on this issue. The only reason why it was ever brought in the first place was the Harjo wanted to sue over the trademark in hopes of gaining some financial leverage, just like the major of D.C. brought it up because he wants political leverage and he thinks forcing the Redskins to change their name will be a popular move. I can almost bet it does the exact opposite for him. I've been to a coupe online newspaper sites that placed polls on their websites about the name being offense, and both had around 80% as saying it wasn't offensive.

I think it's time to move on. Hail to the Redskins!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2013, 07:14 PM
 
270 posts, read 214,884 times
Reputation: 166
In Minnesota there have been many attempt to protest Washington R_Skins. No NAs have given up. It was implied that NAs only filed a lawsuit for naming rights and a cut which is dead wrong. They want no money from naming rights. Wabasha Clan directly told me.

Hoka Heh!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2013, 11:06 PM
 
518 posts, read 341,596 times
Reputation: 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ankhharu View Post
Or maybe they have better things to do than to sit around stressing about some sports mascot that doesn't hurt them or effect them in any way. I'm amazed at the energy people waste on things that don't effect them. Everyone is offended by something. You can't please everyone, grow thicker skin.
If you're not a Native American, then you really shouldn't be speaking for them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2013, 11:10 PM
 
518 posts, read 341,596 times
Reputation: 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by skins_fan82 View Post
I wish people that are so concerned about the name of a sports team would channel that energy into some other, more useful cause....like helping the homeless or something LOL.
Right, because we have to solve poverty first before we can even begin to think of removing a racial epithet from a team's name.

Quote:
Originally Posted by skins_fan82 View Post
They've been the Redskins for over 75 years, and the case has been to the supreme court several times and lost. Get over it, especially if you're not Native American.
The issue isn't what's legal; it's what's sensitive and decent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2013, 07:26 AM
 
Location: Born & Raised DC > Carolinas > Seattle > Denver
9,349 posts, read 5,574,293 times
Reputation: 9446
Ugh....

The media and fans that are so hardcore about this issue that even refuse to say the name "Redskins" crack me the hell up! Several radio stations and newspapers across the country refer to the Skins as "that team in Washington." Hilarious.

Oh well, some folks will always complain about it I guess. At the end of the day, it feels good to know that the Redskins will never change their name, so folks that keep bickering about it are fighting a lost cuase.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2013, 09:07 AM
 
882 posts, read 1,782,266 times
Reputation: 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_coli View Post
If you're not a Native American, then you really shouldn't be speaking for them.
Agreed, 1000%. Please don't assume to know what I believe.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2013, 09:56 AM
 
Location: Bella Vista, Ark
72,064 posts, read 83,719,346 times
Reputation: 41838
Quote:
Originally Posted by X-Greensboro Resident View Post
In short, it's well documented that I am a Washington Redskins fan. Over the last few years, there has been a lot of talk about the name being offensive which I totally understand but I never even thought about it that way...It's a football team from my hometown, it's the Redskins, no big deal.

But within the last week, there was an article in the Kansas City Star about this issue and there has been a lot of chatter about this on Sports Talk radio shows among other places, so I started to really think about it and researched the word and found all kinds of history behind it. I'm really starting to feel that it is offensive! I'm even feeling a little wierd having a license plate on my car that reads "Redskins" with the team logo! I am just starting to feel like it has such a brutal, negative meaning that goes WAY beyond football.......

What are you thoughts? Anyone else offended by this?
I think people put way to much into a name; We are so concerned about being politically correct we have to examime everything we say, walk on ice and God forbid (oh wait, I used the word God) we always have to worry about insulting someone. No, the name doesn't faze me and I hope like heck it never gets changed, but it will: just wait and see. Gee, next we will hear, the KC Royals need to change their name: it sounds like they think they are kings or something: oh no, now what about the Kings? Are they insulting those below them?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2013, 12:41 PM
 
Location: The "Rock"
2,551 posts, read 2,415,713 times
Reputation: 1322
Quote:
Originally Posted by skinsguy37 View Post
There's a huge difference between comparing "redskin" to the N-word. The n-word has always been, by definition, an insulting word. At no time was it ever a harmless term. Redskin, on the other hand, does not have a harmless origin. At least, there is no factual, historical documentation to back up any indication of such allegation. So, if you change the name of the Redskins, might as well change the name of the other NFL teams that bring a negative condentation.

Actually this is not true.. the N-word started off as neutral term.

The N-Word wikipedia page:
"N***** is a noun in the English language. The word originated as a neutral term referring to black people, as a variation of the Spanish/Portuguese noun negro, a descendant of the Latin adjective niger ("color black").[1] Often used slightingly, by the mid 20th century, particularly in the United States, its usage had become unambiguously pejorative, a common ethnic slur usually directed at people of Sub-Saharan African descent."

I wont post the link to keep from writing the word.



And Redskins is considered negative...

This is from the first two sentences of the wikipedia page on the term Redskins.

"Redskin" is a racial descriptor for the indigenous peoples of the Americas and one of the color metaphors for race used in North America and Europe since European colonization of the Western Hemisphere. The term is controversial as it is considered to be the equivalent to "n*****" by some[1], but equivalent to "black" by others.[2] The current consensus falls somewhere between these two extremes as having "usually negative" connotations.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_(slang)

Finally... The historical documentation and facts you speak of for either word is up for interpretation because they are descriptors. There is nothing that proves either word is more negative or more harmless from an origin perspective. Therefore the interpretation of the words are up to individuals, not the masses and therefore cannot be proven either way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Pro Football
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top