Should The Redskins change their name and Logo?

[EvilRyu2099]

For Native Americans it is the same.. Maybe for the majority of the population it's not.. The fact is there are more blacks who can cry for outrage on certain slurs.. There isn't nearly enough NAs left.. And tell me the Cleveland Indians logo isn't pretty much an Indian version for black-face of an African American? Come on..

[noiseredux]

No, calling a native american a redskin is like calling a 'black guy' black, or blackskin which is what black is referring to...

I will agree that it isn't very PC. But the connotations on those 2 names or slurs aren't near the same.

from Wiki:

"Redskin" is a racial descriptor for Native Americans, the origins of which are disputed. Although by some accounts not originally having negative intent,[1] the term is now defined by dictionaries of American English as "usually offensive",[2] "disparaging",[3][4] "insulting",[5] "taboo" [6] and is avoided in public usage with the exception of its continued use as a name for sports teams.

and

In the contemporary United States, "redskin" is often but not universally regarded as a racial epithet.[18] The term is considered by some to be extremely offensive (an r-word for Native Americans equivalent to the n-word for African-Americans),[19] but neutral by others.[20] The American Heritage style guide advises that "the term redskin evokes an even more objectionable stereotype" than the use of red as a racial adjective by outsiders,[21] while others urge writers to use the term only in a historical context.[22] The consensus based upon a comparison of current media usage and dictionary definitions is that the term has negative or disparaging connotations.[23]

[EvilRyu2099]

And there we have it, I remember researching this a few years ago.. So I know damn well nothing that I read then has changed.. Proven by noiseredux..

[Jmustang1968]

I knew it was more swayed on the negative side of the scale, but didn't think it was historically used as a disparaging term as was for blacks. I also think when the team was first named it wasn't considered or meant to be a slur at the time.

Obvious terms like savage and 'injun' were.

A lot of it to me is intent. I think the intent was to honor these heritages who were done wrong, perhaps misguided in some ways, but not to disparage.

[EvilRyu2099]

I voted "yes", BTW. I think that the Redskins should change their name and logo. (Likewise, the Cleveland Indains should also change their name and much more offensive logo.) I do not have a problem with the Chiefs or Seminoles, however.

Chief and Seminole are not offensive at all.. In fact I believe the FSU name has actual historical reference in Florida and is sanctioned by the Seminole Tribe..

[EvilRyu2099]

I knew it was more swayed on the negative side of the scale, but didn't think it was historically used as a disparaging term as was for blacks. I also think when the team was first named it wasn't considered or meant to be a slur at the time.

Obvious terms like savage and 'injun' were.

A lot of it to me is intent. I think the intent was to honor these heritages who were done wrong, perhaps misguided in some ways, but not to disparage.

So if there was a team called the Los Angelas Niggas, representing a different context from the original term, would you not find it as offensive?

[Blu]

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.

Luke, both you and JMustang are very esteemed in the community, and I bear no malice in my posts. However, I cannot let this sit unchallenged, because in reality this is still oppressive and the history of it does not speak otherwise.

Systemically people and communities of people are oppressed. It's hardly subjective at all.
Oppressed: unjustly inflicting hardship and constraint, esp. on a minority or other subordinate group.
Offensive: causing someone to feel deeply hurt, upset, or angry.
It's a simple cause and effect, the use of this language of "Redskin" and its logo has caused and does cause harm.
In turn, it only further solidifies the long standing history of oppression their people has experienced, whether they embrace the term or not.

And you seriously attempted to draw a parallel with a Pepe Le Pew? Are you just trolling or have you lost all semblance of what's being discussed? But since you brought it up, there's plenty of harmful, stereotypical cartoons that were produced during that era, which have been shelved because of their negative stereotyping. Speedy Gonzales for example, pretty racist no? Funny that Cartoon Network and Warner Brothers pulled them. Even on retail releases of the cartoons, there's this disclaimer:

"The cartoons you are about to see are products of their time. They may depict some of the ethnic and racial prejudices that were commonplace in American society. These depictions were false then and are still false today. While the following does not represent the WB view of society, these cartoons are being presented as they were originally created, because to do otherwise would be the same as to claim these prejudices never existed."

Food for thought: Would an expansion team entering the NFL be given a name that could be racially charged and be well received? Just as Speedy Gonzales was pulled, why don't we follow the same logic and apply it to the Redskins?

[EvilRyu2099]

In response to Blu I remember seeing old Loony Tunes cartoons where the black people were literally monkeys.. Which is incredible.. They even had a Nazi cartoon, which were later banned along with the monkey ones...

[Jmustang1968]

I knew it was more swayed on the negative side of the scale, but didn't think it was historically used as a disparaging term as was for blacks. I also think when the team was first named it wasn't considered or meant to be a slur at the time.

Obvious terms like savage and 'injun' were.

A lot of it to me is intent. I think the intent was to honor these heritages who were done wrong, perhaps misguided in some ways, but not to disparage.

So if there was a team called the Los Angelas Niggas, representing a different context from the original term, would you not find it as offensive?

But it already has that connotation so you can't really separate it. The fact that it has the historical context it does is what makes it the slur it is.

I wouldnt personally be offended as it offers no direct insult to me, but I could see others being offended of course. I would agree it was named in bad taste. But if they want to name it so it is their choice and their own ship to sink.

[oxymoron]

Please tell me what falls through the cracks for you.

Between steps 2 and 3, you seem to be making the incorrect assumption that the NFL or the Redskins team owner would give a flying fuck about the poll results.

The thing is that currently this situation does not have any awareness. If the Natives hold a poll and argue the results w/ the NFL, then maybe they'd get more attention. Thus gaining awareness of the mainstream population. With things like FB, Twitter, Youtube and other forms of social media that would become platforms for activism, it would mainly be smooth sailing. This is a country of change. If you ask enough it will happen. Mind you, this is all considering that a majority of Americans side with the Natives. Or Maybe I am thinking too simplistically.