Red Mosquito

daft twat wrote:I'm white. The term redskins doesn't offend me personally.

So, what you're saying is, "No white-guilt here." You fucker!

ok let's rename the Redskins the Fighting Non-Irish

problem solved

darth_vedder wrote:Who has ever said "redskins" in a derogatory way? By that I mean over the last 50 fucking years? No one. When people say Redskins, they think of an NFL Football team, that's it. To me it's a bunch of white people who think they should be offended. No one ever says redskins in any fucking context other than talking about a football team. There is no racism there, there is not derogatory meaning, it's people talking football. That's it. Jesus, this is so damn overblown.

Anyway, as much as I think this is a fabricated bullshit argument, the name is probably gonna change once it affects Danny's pockets. With that in mind, fuck a mascot. Keep the colors and all that shit and just call the team the Washington Football Club. Mascots are stupid anyway.

I don't think anyone outside of the 1800's really uses the term in a "racist" manner, I just don't see it as a PC issue either. As a Braves fan it's bothered me for years that collectively we're trivalizing an entire group of humans as if they were a deserved characature. Fighting Irish and Demon Decons are essentially self deprecating. We're basically mocking another group of humans with our mascots and in my case the chop chant. That's my problem with it. The Redskins have a great tradition and cool logos etc, I definately understand defending the tradition of the brand, and I don't think I even need to use the word offensive. I just feel like for something as trivial as a mascot of a football or a baseball team, we should seek to do better.

Hogs, Warthogs, Hell keep Skins and make the mascot a $100 bill, that'd be perfect for a team right outside of Washington DC.

I'm not standing on a corner or holding a sign or anything like that, I just think we should seek to do better.

.

I actually know of a Native American (Menominee) who took his son to a Green Bay vs Washington game years back, only to hear Packer fans yelling out all sorts of standard football taunts, which is perfectly fine when your playing the Bears, Lions, Eagles, Falcons, or any other animal name, but when a 10 year old Native American hears "you dirty fucking redskins" well it no longer makes the game enjoyable for the father or son.

the R word is racist, period, would you walk up to a Native American and say "hey are you a redskin?" nope

and the Braves chop is just as bad, especially when they are losing to the Dodgers in the playoffs and the entire LA crowd breaks into a mocking chop.

as someone else said, if they change the name, everyone goes out and buys the new merchandise, and the team makes billions.

CHANGE THE NAME

darth_vedder wrote:This got bottom paged, but seriously, everyone jumping on the bandwagon to change the name should read this:

http://www.greatfallstribune.com/story/ ... e/5528647/

Irrelevant if you ask me. I think the logo is fine and respectful as is (Unlike Chief Wahoo).
The term "redskins" on the other hand is completely unnecessary and somewhat vulgar. There are a million different names, terms, labels that can be used to properly "pay tribute" to the Native American people/heritage, if that is indeed why they are holding on to this term so strongly.

You guys realize that the term is often associated (and has its earliest written origins) with the scalps of Native Americans on which the governors of the colonies placed bounties, right? It's in association with a government-backed complete eradication of an entire race of people. So there's that too.

The fact that this is even being debated is pretty fucking disgusting.

Might as well change it.. everyone is offended by everything anymore..

Chris_H_2 wrote:You guys realize that the term is often associated (and has its earliest written origins) with the scalps of Native Americans on which the governors of the colonies placed bounties, right? It's in association with a government-backed complete eradication of an entire race of people. So there's that too.

I'm guessing one of darth's links disputes that, so if others want to have discussions on that line, be my guest. What troubles me far more is that the person who gave the Redskins their name, George Preston Marshall, was a confirmed racist who kept a color line on his team well beyond any other teams. So while the grand majority of people do not associate the Redskins' mascot with racist intent, there's a good chance that one responsible for the name in the first place did.

Green Habit wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:You guys realize that the term is often associated (and has its earliest written origins) with the scalps of Native Americans on which the governors of the colonies placed bounties, right? It's in association with a government-backed complete eradication of an entire race of people. So there's that too.

I'm guessing one of darth's links disputes that, so if others want to have discussions on that line, be my guest. What troubles me far more is that the person who gave the Redskins their name, George Preston Marshall, was a confirmed racist who kept a color line on his team well beyond any other teams. So while the grand majority of people do not associate the Redskins' mascot with racist intent, there's a good chance that one responsible for the name in the first place did.

Excerpt from The Daily Republican newspaper in Winona, Minnesota from Sept. 24, 1863:

The Daily Republican wrote:The State reward for dead Indians has been increased to $200 for every red-skin sent to Purgatory. This sum is more than the dead bodies of all the Indians east of the Red River are worth.

See also Phips Proclamation of 1775

End thread

I think we should close all of their casinos too because it reminds us of all the negative stereotypes associated with native Americans

The casinos are the absolute LEAST we can do, well other than nothing at all... for the senseless brutality and pain that our ancestors caused theirs. Our nation was founded on their genocide, FFS!

I'm not proud to be a White Male American... I'm lucky to be one.

Oh, and K is right... This shouldn't even be a debate.

changing gears

how about this question instead:

Will the name actually be changed?

Please note that this question is not meant to either support or discredit the merits of either side of the Should the name be changed debate. This is mean to gauge opinions on whether the name will actually be changed, irrespective of whether it should be or not.

My bet is on "No" it won't, because apparently:
-the owner Dan Snyder told Al Michaels he would change it 'over my dead body'
-this trademark thing happened once before and it was appealed in favor of the football team

96583UP wrote:changing gears

how about this question instead:

Will the name actually be changed?

Please note that this question is not meant to either support or discredit the merits of either side of the Should the name be changed debate. This is mean to gauge opinions on whether the name will actually be changed, irrespective of whether it should be or not.

My bet is on "No" it won't, because apparently:
-the owner Dan Snyder told Al Michaels he would change it 'over my dead body'
-this trademark thing happened once before and it was appealed in favor of the football team

I think your "will" question needs a time span attached to it. Within 5 years? 50 years?

With that qualifier, I would agree that Snyder is not going to willingly change it. And the only way I think of that he would be forced to change it is if the broadcasters teamed up together to protest.

Blueskins

The Washington Hoodies seems uncontroversial.

Green Habit wrote:

96583UP wrote:changing gears

how about this question instead:

Will the name actually be changed?

Please note that this question is not meant to either support or discredit the merits of either side of the Should the name be changed debate. This is mean to gauge opinions on whether the name will actually be changed, irrespective of whether it should be or not.

My bet is on "No" it won't, because apparently:
-the owner Dan Snyder told Al Michaels he would change it 'over my dead body'
-this trademark thing happened once before and it was appealed in favor of the football team

I think your "will" question needs a time span attached to it. Within 5 years? 50 years?

snyder will sell to someone else who equally will never change the name. once the economy tanks again in 2-3 years, few will have the luxury to care about this suburban white guilt crafted twitter fad non-issue anymore

muahahahahahahahahaha

HTTR!!!!

hail to the REDSKINS
HAIL VICTORY
BRAVES ON THE WARPATH
FIGHT FOR OL' DC

muahahahahahahahahahaha