Are the Redskins Racist (an outsiders perspective)
by SoCalSteelerFan on May 19, 2009 7:42 PM EDT
72 comments
Ok so I've had enough with the babying of america. It is pure BS that the Redskins are, and have been getting crap for their name. I'm a Steelers fan over at BTSC and can't stand the fact that people want Washington to change their name to something less racist. Indians skin color is red, mines white, and Obama's is black. All this said coming from a color blind football fan. I just read an article by Micheal Silver on the situation and he thinks it's so offensive that people can't sleep at night. As someone who supports a team that singles out the steel industry, (steel doesn't have much to say except 'ting',) I don't know how you all feel about it. What's the latest word on changing the name? Let me know how you feel and come on over to BTSC and chat it up wth us. We love to mingle. Thanks, Socalsteelerfan.
1 recs |
72 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Time for these Babies to grow up
Silver is an awful writer any way. I am offended by the name Wizards because I belive in God and Wizards are witch craft which is very offensive to me. So there you go Wizards is also offensive if you want to take it that far.
Baseball is God's sport! All Truth Goes Through Three Stages 1.It is ridiculed 2.It is violently opposed 3.Finally, it is accepted as self-evident. kinesiologist
by E5 on May 19, 2009 8:44 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The Bullets
should have never changed their name. Neither should the Skins.
"The character of a person is in direct proportion to his commitment to excellence." -Vince Lombardi.
by VA_Skin on May 19, 2009 10:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I still
call them the Bullets anyway.
by RedskinCali63 on May 19, 2009 10:06 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
NO ONE
under the age of 150 should ever take offense at the term ‘redskin’.
"The character of a person is in direct proportion to his commitment to excellence." -Vince Lombardi.
by VA_Skin on May 19, 2009 10:40 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
+ 1
[IMG]http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y138/tj4eck/oregonsig.gif[/IMG]
by tj4eck on May 20, 2009 2:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
and anyone 150 or older probably has other things to worry about
"You will remember the night you were struck by the sight of [18] thousand fists in the air" -Disturbed
by snowburnt on May 21, 2009 11:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
My understanding is that the term was once commonly used and has taken on a negative connotation somewhat recently, somewhat analogous to the word ‘Negro’.
by David M. Getz on May 31, 2009 10:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This really sucks Skins fans...
There’s no reason logical reason to change the name. This is just a result of someone making a big enough crybaby deal about it. Sorry to see you all are getting this crap for your historic name…I would vote to keep the name, if my vote mattered.
"It means nothing to throw for 4500 yards, 25 touchdowns, and you dont win" -Brandon Marshall
by Joe Medina on May 19, 2009 11:43 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
PS I hate the Cowboys
and it’ll make me feel real good if you beat up all over them twice this season…
"It means nothing to throw for 4500 yards, 25 touchdowns, and you dont win" -Brandon Marshall
by Joe Medina on May 19, 2009 11:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
question
did or has anyone been making a fuss about the Cleveland INDIANS?
I'm to young to Die Danny...don't make me do it tomorrow....
by Rekka on May 20, 2009 9:21 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
no because
there name is the Cleveland INDIANS…. the term Indian is politically correct as is native american, REDSKIN is racist
now with that said i could give two shits if some indians want to get some money for their “hardships” over our name being the redskins
by travisjh86 on May 20, 2009 10:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Indians logo is 10x worse than ours
From Richmond to the District
by pas493 on May 20, 2009 10:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
ha very true, i didn’t think about that
by travisjh86 on May 20, 2009 10:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i fail to see
how Indian is a politically correct term for a group of people that have no connection whatsoever to India. I believe the term you were looking for was Native American.
I'm to young to Die Danny...don't make me do it tomorrow....
by Rekka on May 20, 2009 11:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
American Indian?
"The character of a person is in direct proportion to his commitment to excellence." -Vince Lombardi.
by VA_Skin on May 20, 2009 12:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
still doesn't explain
How Indian, is an acceptable term whether it’s the “American Indian” or not. People from India are Indian. they are Americans, the first ones here, hence Native American.
I'm to young to Die Danny...don't make me do it tomorrow....
by Rekka on May 20, 2009 2:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
take it up with Christopher Columbus
his bad
From Richmond to the District
by pas493 on May 20, 2009 3:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
columbus raped mad indian chicks, dude was wack
by travisjh86 on May 20, 2009 7:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
but I’m pretty sure that American Indian is politically correct.
"The character of a person is in direct proportion to his commitment to excellence." -Vince Lombardi.
by VA_Skin on May 20, 2009 3:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
good call
and people in America that are FROM India are Indian Americans.
Either way, the Indians logo is way more offensive than the Skins…but that’s if I were offended at all by either one.
"It means nothing to throw for 4500 yards, 25 touchdowns, and you dont win" -Brandon Marshall
by Joe Medina on May 21, 2009 12:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The new term that is supposed to be politcally correct is...
Amerindian
From Richmond to the District
by pas493 on May 21, 2009 1:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Columbus thought he was in India when he reached
He thought he had reached India, so he started calling people Indians
Welcome to Smashville, Tennessee.
Official Graphic Designer/Researcher of MCM.
by Aditya T (smashville) on Jun 10, 2009 6:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually their name is the Cleveland Indians.
Personally I’m tremendously confused. I have a lot of Indian friends. They’re from India. They are American Indians because they are now citizens. Their children are Native American Indians. They’ve never been called “Redskin” and they’re apparently the only ones that should be offended by the name. Several are fans.
"You will remember the night you were struck by the sight of [18] thousand fists in the air" -Disturbed
by snowburnt on May 21, 2009 11:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yea
They did they didn’t like Chief Wampum or something like that. And if you think back to the ATL Braves hey day people complained about the tomahawk chop. People will always find something to bitch about.
by RedskinCali63 on May 20, 2009 11:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i still tomahawk chop the hell out of people at skins games even though it has nothing to do with them
by travisjh86 on May 20, 2009 2:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I actually did a thesis on this in college a couple of years ago
30 pages about nicknames/mascots in MLB, NFL, NCAA, etc. This was my “final” project for graduation and basically you research over the semester, I even talked to a few tribes and organizations of native americans. The consensus was that they actually came up with the word “Redskin” to differentiate (sp?) themselves from others, and they found it not to be offensive in anyway.
The Cleveland Indian is a different story, I don’t know how they get by with a huge red guy with a cheesy smile, imagine if someone had a white or black guy like that on their cap.
From Richmond to the District
by pas493 on May 20, 2009 9:34 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
okay
so some people find it offensive and some people don’t. No one will every be in complete agreement over ANY issue in the World we live in.
How come people don’t say anything about the:
Chicago BLACKHAWKS (which has a close resemblance to the Redskins Logo)
New Jersey DEVILS
Kansas City CHIEFS
Oakland RAIDERS
Tampa Bay BUCCANEERS
Boston CELTICS
all those names could be create for “feelings” being hurt or people being rubbed the wrong way; at the end of the day it’s sports, and if the name was an issue 10-20-30 years ago, why is it today.
Maybe I’m biased because I was born a Redskins fan, but that’s just the truth.
by Kia.Area51 on May 20, 2009 10:14 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
how are any of those names offensive?
by travisjh86 on May 20, 2009 10:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yea you lost me when you got to Raiders and Buccaneers, what are old descendants of pirates going to be offended? ARRRGGGGHHH
From Richmond to the District
by pas493 on May 20, 2009 10:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
haha
haha I was just going off names that might have “negative connotations”
articles like this bother me sometimes lol
maybe we should put albert or london fletcher in that court room and see how much garbage columnists and people will bicker about.
by Kia.Area51 on May 20, 2009 11:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think the Somalians should sue Pittsburgh, Tampa Bay and Oakland.
Also Antarctica should sue Mario Lemieux.
"You will remember the night you were struck by the sight of [18] thousand fists in the air" -Disturbed
by snowburnt on May 21, 2009 11:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What
they should get rid of is that dumb ass star on the Cowpies helmets that whole team offends me. Is dumb ass one word or two?
by RedskinCali63 on May 20, 2009 11:33 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Hated cowboy fan here.
I agree with you that you should be able to keep your name. There is no rivalry like cowboys/redskins. Not cowboys/Native americans. We have to stop the pussification of America before it’s too late. We don’t want to end up like the French, do we? Besides, Slammin Sammie(cleveland indians) is way more racist than you guys.
by mutombo4life on May 20, 2009 1:30 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
It should probably be original americans or aboriginal americans rather than native americans. I was born here, in America. Therefore I’m a Native American. Give me a casino.
"You will remember the night you were struck by the sight of [18] thousand fists in the air" -Disturbed
by snowburnt on May 21, 2009 11:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
- Slammin’ Sammy is a nickname for Sammy Sosa, the Indians mascot is Chief Wahoo.
- What does “We don’t want to end up like the French, do we?” even mean? Anything? Or is it just an attempt to draw on a negative stereotype
- The idea that changing the name of a team somehow makes the country less manly is ridiculous. Manliness or toughness has nothing to do with being willing to be stubborn.
by David M. Getz on May 31, 2009 10:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What should our new name be?
if we had to change our name, what would you change it to?
my vote goes for the……
RECTUM REAPERS!!!
by travisjh86 on May 20, 2009 7:26 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Keep the Redskins name
but change the logo to a big red potato…
Or would vegans be offended?
"The character of a person is in direct proportion to his commitment to excellence." -Vince Lombardi.
by VA_Skin on May 21, 2009 11:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Skins
The name “redskin” was used by early americans as a derogatory term toward Native Americans. This is not a new issue. Native Americans have protested the name for decades. The term “Indian” was a mistake by Columbus as pas493 mentioned earlier and was never intentionally meant to be offensive. Again, the name “redskin” was made to be offensive. It is derogatory and the name should be changed. Why not just “Skins” which is what most people call them anyway. St.John’s changed the name of their mascot for this same reason. I would hate to see it happen, but some traditions should be changed. Many St. John’s alims complained about the name change when it happened. Now, nobody complains about the name Red Storm.
by Roastbeef on May 20, 2009 7:44 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
St.John’s didn’t have BILLIONS of dollars invested in the branding efforts of their nickname the Red Men. Totally different situation, and NCAA are faced with sanctions and penalties. It is completely erroneous and impossible to prove that early americans came up with the term Redskins, as I have said before many Native American Scholars, Leaders, and historians have attributed the term to themselves as Native Americans, its been written in hundred of scholarly journals.
The names not changing, it won’t happen. and why would we change to “Skins”? what are we a strip club? and what the hell would our logo be? If you go to a Redskins game there are no racist or irresponsible images of native americans. No official mascot, no irresponsible logos, no tomahawk chop, no songs, NOTHING.
From Richmond to the District
by pas493 on May 21, 2009 9:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well said.
"The character of a person is in direct proportion to his commitment to excellence." -Vince Lombardi.
by VA_Skin on May 21, 2009 10:22 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They should be offended by the term Indian. I’m guessing Indian’s might be offended by them being called Indian.
"You will remember the night you were struck by the sight of [18] thousand fists in the air" -Disturbed
by snowburnt on May 21, 2009 11:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
enough already
I’m so tired of hearing about this. The team has been around for decades, and is an integral part of American sports history. I don’t know anyone who even thinks about the actual meaning of the name ‘REDSKIN’ anymore. It’s synonymous with Washington football, nothing else. However, my favorite rebuke to this argument is to point to history. The first coach of the REDSKINS (once they changed their name) was one Lone Star Dietz, whom the owner at the time renamed them in honor of. So if he didn’t have a problem with the name, why should I?
by CJHutch on May 21, 2009 1:20 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
word meanings change
I have never met anyone who was offended by the term and that is from someone who grew up in the Dakotas (lived in both North and South) so it wasn’t like I was never around Native American Indians. The meaning of a word can change with time, for example the word ‘gay’ has an entirely different meaning than it did 100 years ago. So does the term Redskin. The team name is an homage to the Native American Indians not an insult.
by ZakInOmaha on May 21, 2009 3:55 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
What about the "N" word?
Yes, ZakinOmaha, American English changes over time. That is the nature of our language. I know many Native Americans who associate the term “Redskin” with the N word. You are correct in mentioning that word meanings change over time (the word “bad” is another good example"). Even the connotation of the N word has changed over time. So is it acceptable to use the N word because some people dont find it offensive? Because I know many African Americans, as I am sure you do as well, who dont find the N word offensive. CJ Hutch, just because you should not have a problem with a the name, that doesn’t mean nobody should have a problem with it. I have a friend, who went to DeMatha and Va Tech, who is a Native American. His entire family consists of Native Americans. He is a huge Skins fan, and so is his family. They have protested the name, and refuse to purchase Skins apparel, yet still support the team. I love the team and hate the idea of the name changing, but sometimes it makes sense to break from tradition. The name is historically offensive to a certain group of people. That is a fact. Not just some new PC protest. I saw hundreds of people outside RFK in 1986 protesting the name.
by Roastbeef on May 21, 2009 5:38 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Apples and oranges
Regardless of what the original intent and purpose for the creation and use of the term ‘redskin’, it is no longer used, or intended to be used, in an offensive and derogatory manner in mainstream society today. The minority within a minority who think otherwise are misguided and being overly sensitive.
The “N word” on the other hand is universally considered offensive and derogatory. Just because a minority within a minority think otherwise, doesn’t make it socially acceptable. In another 100 years, the “N word” may also lose it’s venom as the word ‘redskin’ has. But for now, it is culturally taboo.
Furthermore, take a second to look at our Washington Redskins’ logo…
There isn’t anything demeaning or insulting about it. Clearly, this is the image of a strong, proud, fierce warrior with his head held high. How is that racist? The Redskins’ name/symbol is not implying that the American Indian race is inferior. It is not discriminating or showing prejudice towards anyone because of their race. As fans, we would never accept or support a team name/symbol that represents or implies inferiority or weakness.
"The character of a person is in direct proportion to his commitment to excellence." -Vince Lombardi.
by VA_Skin on May 21, 2009 9:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
"The character of a person is in direct proportion to his commitment to excellence." -Vince Lombardi.
by VA_Skin on May 23, 2009 1:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Another outsiders perspective
I do not think the team, it’s fans or the logo are offensive. Unfortunatly, the name “Redskin” is the equivelent to the N-word. I’m not trying to pick a fight, you’re team is my fav in the NFC East and I love it when you guys thrash the Cowgirls, but for once, I agree with Silver on this. Maybe change the name to “Indians” or to a tribename that was native to your area?
by JazzyBBP on May 22, 2009 6:57 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
it is not the same
like VA_Skin said it is not used main stream society by any means. How many situations have you heard of the n word exciting anger, TONS. Now how many time have you heard Redskin blurted out at someone in a derogatory way in the past 150 years?
Heres another thing to chew on ladies, if the word “redskins” is indeed as hurtful, racist, and taboo as the N word, then why wont you say or type out the N word? or say the R word for Redskins, b/c you are saying they are equals right? Hmmmm…. so why are you afraid to spell out one and not the other if they are equally offensive?
From Richmond to the District
by pas493 on May 22, 2009 9:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
A valid point
we’ll have to agree to disagree. As far as typing out words, it shows VA_Skin is right that one has lost its shock value and maybe in a 100 years or so the other will, too. It’s the history and meaning of the words that are offensive. I think the logo is great, a proud strong warrior, but maybe a name change could be in order.
by JazzyBBP on May 22, 2009 10:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Have you even read the rest of this post?
“It is completely erroneous and impossible to prove that early americans came up with the term Redskins, as I have said before many Native American Scholars, Leaders, and historians have attributed the term to themselves as Native Americans, its been written in hundred of scholarly journals”
Do you want empirical evidence go to LexusNexus or any journal database.
From Richmond to the District
by pas493 on May 22, 2009 10:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not an outsider and I’m offended by myself as a fan.
Also you spelled equivalent wrong. That is equivelent to negating your entire argument
"You will remember the night you were struck by the sight of [18] thousand fists in the air" -Disturbed
by snowburnt on May 22, 2009 10:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry about the mis-spelling
BTW, it’s “10 thousand fists in the air”. I guess that negates you being a Disturbed fan…lol
by JazzyBBP on May 22, 2009 10:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
LOLLERSKATES! YOU GOT ME HARDCORE!!!
When I put the “18” in brackets like that it was to denote that I was taking liberties with the quote. Note the site that I have commented on the most and my icon. The verizon center holds a little more than 18 thousand people.
Need me to spell it out more for you?
"You will remember the night you were struck by the sight of [18] thousand fists in the air" -Disturbed
by snowburnt on May 22, 2009 10:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ya I know, dude
hence the lol at the end of the comment
by JazzyBBP on May 22, 2009 10:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah that worked for the Seminoles who have to pay everything to the Seminole tribe now.
A little history: the ’Skins were originally the boston braves. the first head coach after moving to washington was a “Native American Indian” and we changed the name of the team to the Redskins in his honor.
maybe you’re right, we could just change the name to the Slum Dogs
"You will remember the night you were struck by the sight of [18] thousand fists in the air" -Disturbed
by snowburnt on May 22, 2009 10:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am
done with this we won lets move on.
by RedskinCali63 on May 22, 2009 4:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Please
give me a break with this shit. A group of people sought to make some bucks off the team, and they lost.
A small group of people don’t like the name. Tough shit. Get over it. Root against them. whatever you need to do. but jesus.
Give this PC shit a rest already.
by jdubz on May 23, 2009 9:48 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
enough already, part deux
Locate the family of “Lone Star” Dietz. If they are offended, change the name to the Saltines, and let’s move on to actual football talk.
Now, anyone want to join me in my Class action suit against Cracker Barrel? I find myself utterly repulsed by their hateful moniker.
by CJHutch on May 25, 2009 3:24 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The real meaning?
While I don’t think the Redskins are a racist organization and they try to use the name in a respectful way, the word itself has another offensive meaning that I’ve seen no one in any of these articles or comments raise.
I don’t know if this has been cited in court but I imagine it has because the level of outrage at the name does not match the idea that it refers only to skin colour. One use of “redskin” refers to a means of collecting a bounty on a dead human being.
by Shadomon on May 26, 2009 12:48 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
many real meanings
Word meanings change…oh you misssed that part. Collecting bounties is no longer a policy and hasn’t been for decades it’s obvious that the term Redskin no longer refers to collecting bounties. Most words do not have only 1 meaning but have several and this is true with the term ‘Redskin’. The term Viking has just as many outdated bad connotations as Redskin but nobody blinks an eye. Raiders isn’t very friendly either. People can chose to be offended by any word – quit crying and get on with your life.
That being said I’d be fine with changing the name back to Braves and keeping the logo and uniforms. Don’t change to name to a specific tribe though – no reason to give someone free lawsuit material. In fact if anything the tribe should pay the football team.
by ZakInOmaha on May 27, 2009 8:35 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
uh...
Did you say collect a bounty on a DEAD human being? How exactly do you pull that off? What is this, “Underworld”?
There is no need to change the name. It’s like the judge said, the team has been around long enough that if anyone was really offended by it, they could have come forward decades ago.
Out of curiosity, do the Chiefs go through this same rigmarole annually? How come nobody is offended by the Browns?
Personally, the most offensive team name to me is the Knickerbockers. Who the hell names a team after a goofy pair of pants? Maybe we should change our name to the Washington Bellbottoms.
by CJHutch on May 27, 2009 3:45 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Browns is named after their first owners last name
so lets not go there
From Richmond to the District
by pas493 on May 27, 2009 3:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
>>>>Did you say collect a bounty on a DEAD human being? How exactly do you pull that off?
If you think for a moment it should come to you. Cattle herders paid bounties on skins from predatory animals like wolves and wildcats because the landowners wanted the predators eradicated. It’s been suggested that a similar thing was done to some native tribes, tho it was never an officially recognized practice.
I’m not advocating that as truth — it is what some tribal people claim happened. Knowing that might explain why passions run high against the word — tho I agree the team name was never intended to be offensive.
by Shadomon on May 30, 2009 7:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Apparently
the reason for the naming doesn’t matter. I know WHY the Browns are called the Browns, just like I know WHY the Redskins are called the Redskins. And neither has anything to do with offending anyone.
by CJHutch on May 28, 2009 1:04 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm offended by the New York Jets.
Planes and New York can’t be used in the same sentence anymore without offending someone.
by SSBlitz on Jun 1, 2009 3:54 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Plaintiffs
in suit against the Redskins ponder filing with Supreme Court.
"Sure it’d be great to be playing with 10 good fingers, but 8 will do just fine." – Jon Jansen
by VA_Skin on Jun 8, 2009 8:20 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
we're STILL talking about this?
Has anyone considered the Bungals being offensive to the feline community? Saints is offensive to the Vatican. Dolphins – I’m sure PETA has a problem with that. Packers is offensive to..uh..nevermind. And Cowboys? They’re just plain offensive. And the guy they got paralyzed should own that miserable franchise.
by CJHutch on Jun 11, 2009 3:25 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
