Should The Redskins change their name and Logo?

[Jmustang1968]

I think the majority of people just have better things to do than try to find offense in a sports team name or mascot.

Like argue about video games online?

Also, look for the thread coming soon: "Should the Racketboy website (and/or podcast) change its name and logo?"

Yeah!

My grandfather was a lesbian. That makes me a quarter lesbian.

Yes joke but doesn't really succeed at commentary on the topic for obvious reasons that go without explanation.

[Luke]

My grandfather was a lesbian. That makes me a quarter lesbian.

JT, this really, really made me laugh out loud. Says so much in a teeny tiny joke.

[Johnodog]

Fighting Irish? Perfectly fine ya drunken mick. Redskin???RACIST you heartless cad. LOL I have always been of the mind that only certain people in life ever get offended, and it always seems like the same ones. Ray Halbriter ( the chief of the Oneida Indians)is not the man I would look to for a moral compass. He is a mega multimillionaire because of the Casinos built on his Tribe's land. His tribe, however, are not millionaires. I wonder why?Mr Halbriter has also long agitated to get New York to concede land they say was stolen and for a time I think they refused to pay taxes on their gas stations which had an unfair advantage over American gas stations. I say it like that because the Oneida tribe talks about themselves as a sovereign nation rather than Americans. Halbritier is all about the money and I suspect this redskin complaint is either to elevate Mr Halbriter in the Indian community or to help gr4ase the skids on another casino/ golf course/ hotel etc.

[Blu]

Yes very hilarious, I can't stop laughing...

Naming a sports team after a culture isn't oppressive. What was done to the natives during the US expansion was oppressive. Our society in general has become so thin-skinned by and large. If one were so inclined, you could spin most anything into being offensive.

What about a team like the raiders or buccaneers who have a team named for cruel people, thieves, and rapists? Should all victims of those crimes call out for those names to be changed? I am of course going over the top and ridiculous.

I am actually 1/8 native american but I also really don't identify with them or their culture. I just think there are numerous things more worthwhile to focus energy on than a team name that isnt even offensive to many of the group it is supposedly victimizing. And many even embrace it.

There is no 'self-preserving' view. That is just my outlook in general. And of course, no team name has any effect on the play on the field.

You cannot separate the distinctions between your first two statements I've bolded. There is a long, shaping history that is downright genocide and an atrocity in the history of Humanity. One that started far before the Western Expansion in the 1800's, and starts with Cristoforo Colombo. So while you might not identify with your Native American heritage, that's not to say that people whose Native American identity is very salient to them finds the "Redskins" naming a painful reminder of the past. It's but one of probably many micro-aggressions a person with Native American identity experiences.

The last bit of your post I highlighted is again, a flat-out assumption. Your point of view is still dismissive in the sense that you hold there are more "worthwhile" things to focus energy on. I'll name that this is a problem, Mustang; by maintaining this point of view only perpetuates the use of oppressive symbols in our culture. If it's not a big deal to you and you don't have much to lose or gain, why can't you support the notion for a change?

[brunoafh]

Our society in general has become so thin-skinned by and large. If one were so inclined, you could spin most anything into being offensive.

People from any given point in our history have been saying this in regard to different issues of varying extremes. It has never been a good "defense" and it never will be. There's nothing wrong with this kind of thing happening, it's called social progress.

[Luke]

oppressive

And that is the subjective part.

Is it oppressive that Superman isn't black? (there has been STEEL)

People are offended, not oppressed. French people may be offended by Pepe Le Peu, but they aren't being oppressed.

[Jmustang1968]

Yes very hilarious, I can't stop laughing...

Naming a sports team after a culture isn't oppressive. What was done to the natives during the US expansion was oppressive. Our society in general has become so thin-skinned by and large. If one were so inclined, you could spin most anything into being offensive.

What about a team like the raiders or buccaneers who have a team named for cruel people, thieves, and rapists? Should all victims of those crimes call out for those names to be changed? I am of course going over the top and ridiculous.

I am actually 1/8 native american but I also really don't identify with them or their culture. I just think there are numerous things more worthwhile to focus energy on than a team name that isnt even offensive to many of the group it is supposedly victimizing. And many even embrace it.

There is no 'self-preserving' view. That is just my outlook in general. And of course, no team name has any effect on the play on the field.

You cannot separate the distinctions between your first two statements I've bolded. There is a long, shaping history that is downright genocide and an atrocity in the history of Humanity. One that started far before the Western Expansion in the 1800's, and starts with Cristoforo Colombo. So while you might not identify with your Native American heritage, that's not to say that people whose Native American identity is very salient to them finds the "Redskins" naming a painful reminder of the past. It's but one of probably many micro-aggressions a person with Native American identity experiences.

The last bit of your post I highlighted is again, a flat-out assumption. Your point of view is still dismissive in the sense that you hold there are more "worthwhile" things to focus energy on. I'll name that this is a problem, Mustang; by maintaining this point of view only perpetuates the use of oppressive symbols in our culture. If it's not a big deal to you and you don't have much to lose or gain, why can't you support the notion for a change?

Freedom of choice and expression that should allow the owner of the team to name it anything he wants. Be it the redskins, panty raiders, or the presidents, I don't care. It would be bad for traditions sake as a team that name has been around a long time.

What would you say to the native americans who embrace the name and team and take pride in something trying to identify with their heritage and culture?

[oxymoron]

I understand where Jmustang's coming from. If all the Native tribes in America asked for a change that makes sense but if it's just a few, then it seems kind of unnecessary. It's sort of like American feminist groups. They live in the most female-friendly country in the WORLD (there's still differences but for the most part men and women are equal here) and they still cry about not having equality. Now should we make crazy reforms just because of one little group? I don't think so but if many women and groups asked for change, that makes sense. Majority rules. Not to mention how much money it would cost to change the name and guess who it's going to get passed on to? You and I.

[noiseredux]

[Jmustang1968]

Majority does rule, but to be productive you have to also protect the minorities to a degree and on some things.

A majority rules mindset allows for persecution and real oppression.