Should the Washington Redskins name be changed?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RosslynV
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No. Might as well throw in the Atlanta Braves and Cleveland Indians while were at it.
 
Octarine said:
As a general rule I don’t think anyone should be referred to as a “-skin”.

Blackskins?

Whiteskins?

Yellowskins?

Brownskins?

Purpleskins?

If you wouldn’t actually refer to a person like that why would you accept it as a logo.
Click to expand...
Purpleskins? Not in my neighbourhood. :dts:

Gotta draw the line somewhere…
 
RosslynV said:
The name has been around for 80 years. Society has been able to function during that time period because of this “offensive” name.

There’s been a recent push to get to get the skins owner to change the name. So far he’s being stubborn. There has also been a recent development at the patents and trademarks office which came out with the decision that the redskins name is disparaging to native Americans. If the decision holds on appeal, this would mean that anyone can sell redskins merchandise.
Click to expand...
You have posed a very deep and ponderous question.

But I am wondering, at times like these, if so much concern should be given to a subject like the name of a football team.

I mean to say that we have not heard much about the Kardashian girls or Miley Cyrus These are important considerations. Where are our values…our standards.

Come on folks…let’s get to the real meaty stuff.
 
St Johns indeed changed their name over lawsuits very similar, I can’t even remember what they were called before. 🤷

What would be interesting to see is actually how many native americans weighed in on this.
 
Isca said:
If he’s not persuaded now to come into the 21st century, he’ll change the name fast enough when he finds how much his marketing revenue goes down.
Click to expand...
Yep. That’s his choice. Is holding onto the out-dated 20th century concept of free speech and standing up for ones rights more important than bringing in the revenue? Does he make a stand over changing any and everything in response to someone taking offense, or does he follow the 21st century path of allowing some group to perceive anything as offensive regardless of the intent?

From the business end, is he going to lose a greater percentage of his customer base from changing the name, or from keeping it? How is he going to fund the core mission of his business-- funding a winning/entertaining team for the fans if his revenue drops to the point he can’t attract/hire good players?
 
GaryTaylor said:
What would be interesting to see is actually how many native americans weighed in on this.
Click to expand...
That is, I think, the most important piece of the equation, and one that I’m not convinced is being placed at the forefront. I’m not to keen on changing things for those who are offended on another person’s behalf. But if Native Americans are truly offended by it, that’s a different story.

I’m trying to come up with something similar that would apply to me for comparison sake. “Whiteskins”? “Crackers”? Honestly, neither of those would really offend me. 🤷 But then, my ancestors didn’t go through what the Native Americans went through. So I’m sure it’s much different.
 
Isca said:
If he’s not persuaded now to come into the 21st century, he’ll change the name fast enough when he finds how much his marketing revenue goes down.
Click to expand...
I know people make these arguments, but I find it very difficult to believe that the marketing revenue will go down substantially by keeping the name. It is far more likely to go down by changing the name. The people buying the merchandise right now probably aren’t the ones who want to change the name. And the ones who want the name changed are probably not likely to run out and buy a bunch of Washington New-Name merchandise. But those who currently buy stuff and resent the name change might very well refuse to buy the new stuff.

But really, this isn’t about economics. The argument is that is offensive to the dignity of a certain portion of the population. If that’s true, it should be changed regardless of financial considerations.

Though, in reality, the name probably will not be changed until it makes economic sense for the owner or until he is forced to by court and/or NFL order. Perhaps down the road if more and more of the fan base comes around to that way of thinking, then it will hurt their merchandising bottom line. I doubt they are at that tipping point right now, though.
 
Yep. That’s his choice. Is holding onto the out-dated 20th century concept of free speech and standing up for ones rights more important than bringing in the revenue?
Click to expand...
So now free speech and standing up for one’s rights are outdated 1900s concepts?

That bothers me more than anything connected with this non-issue.

If any large numbers think like that, this country is lost, pants-kicking military or not.

ICXC NIKA
 
Yes, I believe they should change their name.

What if a team were called the “Darkies”? The “wetbacks”?

Simply calling respect “PC” doesn’t cut it folks. Throwing out “leftist, secularist, communist, relativist, socialist” doesn’t either.
 
GEddie said:
So now free speech and standing up for one’s rights are outdated 1900s concepts?

That bothers me more than anything connected with this non-issue.

If any large numbers think like that, this country is lost, pants-kicking military or not.

ICXC NIKA
Click to expand...
Here’s the thing about free speech— it includes things you find offensive, that you don’t agree with, can’t remember the source whether it was a founding father or a court case but:

The answer to speech you don’t agree with isn’t censorship it’s more speech.

Or the line attributed to Voltaire, “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”

Now, as I said. Snyder has a decision to make. A team with a long history in the NFL dating back to their rivalry with the Bears, 'Slinging Sammy Baugh etc. You don’t name a team after something you despise or have contempt for, it’s a source of identity for your team. The intent in the team name was never to insult anyone. Yet now folks are insulted.

He has a business decision to make. He can change it or not. I really don’t care. I’m tired of the manufactured outrage, taking offense where none is intended. The censorship, trying to stifle free speech, labeling everyting you disagree with as ‘Hate speech’.

I’m very worried when at many college campuses the reaction to having a speaker on campus isn’t to hear them out, then discuss their ideas. If they’re stupid, bigoted, or biased that becomes apparent very quickly by listening to them. Instead our universities cater to whatever loud mouth groups screams, shouts, stomps their feet to censor the speaker instead.
 
Joe_5859 said:
…

I’m trying to come up with something similar that would apply to me for comparison sake. “Whiteskins”? “Crackers”? Honestly, neither of those would really offend me. 🤷 But then, my ancestors didn’t go through what the Native Americans went through. So I’m sure it’s much different.
Click to expand...
How about ‘racist’? I find that incredibly offensive. Especially when its used to avoid discussing serious issues by dismissing someone. We disagree, you must be racist.

Here’s an idea for the name change, how about ‘The Team Formerly Known as The Redskins’ a la the singer formerly known as Prince. Or is he back to being Prince or something else now?
 
“Free speech” is guaranteed by the First amendment. By law, the government cannot prohibit the Washington Redksins from using the name “Redskins” no matter how distasteful or offensive some may consider it to be.

The thing is, the *government *cannot squelch them but private organizations can do whatever they want.

Like what? If you are a business owner who sells NFL memorabilia, you can stop selling Redskins-branded items. If you manufacture those items, you can stop making them.

Other NFL teams could simply refuse to play the Redskins. Charter airline companies can refuse to fly the team to away games.

People can stop buying tickets to the games.

Boycotting anything and everything Redskin would do more that anything the government can do. Hit them where they are most vulnerable (the wallet).
 
Lost_Sheep said:
“Free speech” is guaranteed by the First amendment. By law, the government cannot prohibit the Washington Redksins from using the name “Redskins” no matter how distasteful or offensive some may consider it to be.

The thing is, the *government *cannot squelch them but private organizations can do whatever they want.

Like what? If you are a business owner who sells NFL memorabilia, you can stop selling Redskins-branded items. If you manufacture those items, you can stop making them.

Other NFL teams could simply refuse to play the Redskins. Charter airline companies can refuse to fly the team to away games.

People can stop buying tickets to the games.

Boycotting anything and everything Redskin would do more that anything the government can do. Hit them where they are most vulnerable (the wallet).
Click to expand...
Well, I don’t think the NFL teams could refuse to play them unless there’s something in the NFL contracts which support it. However, there probably is a codicil in the contract covering issues which affect the NFL as a whole. If the other team owners are concerned how this will affect the league- than they could take the appropriate action.

Players could refuse to sign contracts with them. For draftees, that would mean a choice between playing in the NFL and not playing at all. For established players they could try to get hired by other teams at the end of their contracts.

I absolutely agree with the concept that your speech is free, but you than must deal with the reactions of the folks to that speech and the consequences. Snyder is the team owner, and its up to him. What does his fan base want? Which route will they be more supportive of?
 
GEddie said:
If the pressure for change were coming from Native Americans, they would have a point.

But enough with the sensitivity police already.

IMNAAHO.

ICXC NIKA
Click to expand...
The pressure is coming from a bunch of whiny progressives who get offended at everything except overt displays of sexuality, unless the people involved pray before beginning the sexual acts, in which case saidprogressives get offended.

That said,
  1. private organizations should not be under the arbitrary thumb of a heavy handed federal government that already has been shown to selectively target certain groups of people with their power. It is a distraction for the feds, and people even discussing the pros and cons shows it is working.
  2. The name has retained the support of around 90% of Native Americans polled.
  3. For those unfamiliar with the history of the name and the team (which is most people who offer their opinion on the matter, not surprisingly), it was a nick name given in honor of the original coach, who was a white guy. In the context of the team, it was an honorific, not a slur.
  4. When it was used as a slur by some people, it was 50+ years ago. It’s like being offended at the term scalliwag. “Umm, William Randolph Heart called; he’d like his pejoratives back.”
  5. Discussing whether it is offensive today is not admissable in the hearings anyway. The hearings address 1967-1990. How people feel today is irrelevant. And as i have said before in topics on this, the evidence submitted is the SAME stack of evidence as when the appeal was over turned the last time. Literally, the eaxct same stack of papers.
Frankly, points 2-5 are even just noise, since number one is the main thrust of the argument. Anyone who is willing to arbitrarily hand over freedom to a government and allow them to capriciously decide when they can and cannot exercise certain rights is going to find themselves in internment camps if they aren’t careful, and rightly so. Certainly they do not think they, as private citizens, should be forced to change their names because someone with a vendetta and some power decides they have to, in the sake of not offending someone, somewhere?
 
It’s a derogatory term.

It’s not like the “Braves,” or the “Fighting Irish,” or any number of other ethnic mascots (“The Vikings”).

It is a uniquely, deeply offensive term that has no real substantive positive connotation. It’s the only mascot that uses this type of taboo word.

Think of it this way: if you are Irish, and someone said to you, “Hey, go Irish!” in reference to the Fighting Irish Notre Dame mascot, would you be offended? Likely not. Similar if you were of Norse descent, and someone said, “Hey, go Vikings!”

But if you are American Indian and calls you “redskin,” that’s extremely offensive.

In any case, the name should be changed.
 
Aelred_Minor said:
Not that bigotry against majority ethnicities is a good thing either but it’s hard to compare it to the concerns of a historically persecuted minority.
Click to expand...
This was essentially my point. Where I live the controversy is over high school mascots, and the governor brushes it aside with cries of “free speech.” It may or may not be, but free speech isn’t an excuse to be a jerk.
 
josephback said:
This was essentially my point. Where I live the controversy is over high school mascots, and the governor brushes it aside with cries of “free speech.” It may or may not be, but free speech isn’t an excuse to be a jerk.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but once you start defining what kind of speech makes someone a jerk you’ve opened an ugly path-
  • Opposition to gay marriage is offensive to some, described as hate speech, I’ve certainly been called worse than a jerk for opposing gay marriage. Lately Pelosi and other politicians were trying to discourage Bishops from attending a march/rally in support of marriage.
  • MMGW proponents have also tried to get folks who oppose them to shut up. Calling them much worse than jerks.
  • My opposition to abortion makes me a jerk in some folks eyes. To them I’m part of a war on women, a misogynist, a part of the oppressive patriarchy etc. etc.
Once you start censoring the speech you don’t like, you have established an extremely dangerous precedent.
 
styrgwillidar said:
Yeah, but once you start defining what kind of speech makes someone a jerk you’ve opened an ugly path-
  • Opposition to gay marriage is offensive to some, described as hate speech, I’ve certainly been called worse than a jerk for opposing gay marriage. Lately Pelosi and other politicians were trying to discourage Bishops from attending a march/rally in support of marriage.
  • MMGW proponents have also tried to get folks who oppose them to shut up. Calling them much worse than jerks.
  • My opposition to abortion makes me a jerk in some folks eyes. To them I’m part of a war on women, a misogynist, a part of the oppressive patriarchy etc. etc.
Once you start censoring the speech you don’t like, you have established an extremely dangerous precedent.
Click to expand...
There is a clear and measurable difference between political and hate speech. While I agree that the distinction is often lost on the public, that doesn’t mean the distinction isn’t real.

Calling an American Indian a “Redskin” is borderline hate speech in nearly every context.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top