Should The Redskins change their name and Logo?

[Retrogamer0001]

Why? Why is it offensive to just even MENTION a minority?

It's not "mentioning" a minority, it's depicting a minority in the name of having a corporate mascot.[/quote

2524850-uncle_bens_logo.jpg (127.61 KiB) Viewed 668 times

AuntJemima-3.jpg (230.44 KiB) Viewed 668 times

So what's wrong with this? Btw, I hear they're married...

[AppleQueso]

Aunt Jemima actually has roots in blackface performers.

Also I was trying to clarify to ZeroAX what Blu was trying to say.

[Blu]

I didn't even use the word offensive at all, Zero AX. Farts are offensive.
Logos and names that depict a group/community that constitutes a social identity are oppressive. Even if the intention is using the logo as a way of paying homage, it's still very insulting and oppressive given the history of the Native Americans and receives no positive outcome. We as a collective society should use the creativity that we are gifted as sentient beings, to come up with some better names and logos and start being a little more progressive in how we choose to name things.

So, we do unspeakable atrocities to the Native Americans, and as "homage" we name our sports teams, automobiles, and helicopters after them? Hardly a "homage" at all. Sounds like White Man's guilt.

[Luke]

Hardly a "homage" at all. Sounds like White Man's guilt.

Lighten up.

If there was an NFL team called the Kansas Crackers with Opie as the mascot, I wouldn't care. Quakers certainly aren't up in arms over the Quaker Oats mascot, and video games are full of stereotypes (we have a thread for that).

I think "Redskins" should go, but I also think people need to not take everything so seriously. We're talking about overpaid grown men playing with balls. Tune it out if you don't like it. You don't like Johnny Depp playing Tonto? Don't see the movie.

Bottom line is if people drink the kool-aid, the owner of kool-aid can give any flavor the name he wants. If you think people will stop going to "Redskins" games (and paying $200 a ticket), you are kidding yourself.

[AppleQueso]

If there was an NFL team called the Kansas Crackers with Opie as the mascot, I wouldn't care.

Talk about apples and oranges. The number of white people who've actually been offended by the word "cracker" being used against them is slim to none. It simply does not carry the same kind of weight that other slurs might.

[Jmustang1968]

Then that is a double standard.

[Blu]

Hardly a "homage" at all. Sounds like White Man's guilt.

Lighten up.

If there was an NFL team called the Kansas Crackers with Opie as the mascot, I wouldn't care. Quakers certainly aren't up in arms over the Quaker Oats mascot, and video games are full of stereotypes (we have a thread for that).

I think "Redskins" should go, but I also think people need to not take everything so seriously. We're talking about overpaid grown men playing with balls. Tune it out if you don't like it. You don't like Johnny Depp playing Tonto? Don't see the movie.

Bolded is what I think is hard for people who have traditionally come from the majority or dominant narrative are ignorant of. You might not take offense to it, but you're also not the spokesperson of your race, believe it or not Luke. Just because you're fine with the Kansas Crackers existing, doesn't mean that others won't find it targeting.

And we're not talking about overpaid men playing with balls, we're talking about the representation of a name and logo and what racist connotations the name and logo carry. I know you're making it into a joke and making light, but it's not conducive to making any change. Tuning it out doesn't change the culture, it normalizes it.

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

Bottom line is if people drink the kool-aid, the owner of kool-aid can give any flavor the name he wants. If you think people will stop going to "Redskins" games (and paying $200 a ticket), you are kidding yourself.

For what it's worth, if you called the team Washington Honkies, Imperialists, WASPS, you'd be sure to see an outcry. And business sides of things, you'd still buy the tickets because it's the NFL and there's a market for it, and people are too much of schmucks to know otherwise, right?

And the bit about flavoring I see moreso as image. Look how a company tries to sell an image that is injust lately and how it's impacted different companies. Sure, Hooter's might have skated by, but Abercrombie sure as hell has had a PR disaster on how they branded their target demographic and the recent lawsuit concerning how they've tried to regulate dress.

But it is apples to oranges, the fact of the matter is there's not enough of a support-base to get the NFL/Other governing bodies. to heed some wise advice in changing the names of their racist sports team names.

Mustang: There's hardly a double standard at play. Just because one term is perceived to be more oppressive than the other doesn't mean they're not both oppressive in reality and should be used as a team name or logo.

[MrPopo]

You might not take offense to it, but you're also not the spokesperson of your race, believe it or not Luke. Just because you're fine with the Kansas Crackers existing, doesn't mean that others won't find it targeting.

What's the cutoff? I think it's fair to say that if there's one crackpot who finds the name "New England Patriots" offensive then we pay him no mind. Similarly, if there was a team called the "Hawaii Dry Anal Rapists" I think everyone would be offended and the name would be changed really fast. So there is some point between those two extremes where we say "this is enough people who are offended by this that we should change it". Where's that cutoff?

[mjmjr25]

I'm not sure a bunch of (mostly) white guys should be trying to determine who may or may not be offended by a term not directly offensive to white people.

I grew up in Northern WI, between the Fond Du Lac Ojibwe and Red Lake Chippewa reservations - there were many Native Americans in my neighborhood and in school. The predominant coat of choice was the Redskins NFL jacket - it was a sense of pride for this group of Native Americans. Of my best friends growing up and to this day, most are Native.

With all of that said - to dsh's point, it doesn't matter if many Natives are not offended, the fact is, many are, and a significant many at that. Ultimately we (the collective mostly caucasian "we") imo look silly debating what may be offensive when the truth is we can only indirectly make assumptions. It should be a Native American Group(s) conversation with Mr. Snyder and Mr. Goodell.

[J T]

Is it that hard to come up with a new mascot that isn't hugely offensive to a sizeable portion of the country?

It must be since after purchasing The Jazz from New Orleans, Utah still hasn't come up with a new name that has anything to do with Utah.