Thread: Mayor of D.C. wants Redskins nickname changed

How about The Fighting Irish?

It's essentially referring to drunk Irish people lookin' for a donnybrook.

If the natives view calling them Indian as a slur, which it obviously is, how would they feel about redskin? Instead of mistaking them for another race, its just branding them by stereotypical cartoon skin tone. Probably as offensive as whiteskin, blackskin, or yellowskin would be. Any of those would cause a good conversation, maybe a fight.

On the flip side I can't imagine an NFL team changing their name now, without a relocation. The league is such a big deal, and its so ingrained in people. Since Houston joined as an expansion team the league hasn't seen much change if any, as far as teams, divisions, uniforms ect. and that continuity makes it all the more legitimate. Remember how corny the Houston Texans sounded the first time you heard it?

Originally Posted by C Mac D

How about The Fighting Irish?

It's essentially referring to drunk Irish people lookin' for a donnybrook.

Or, it could refer to them fighting against the marauding Vikings as they did for a few hundred years...

Originally Posted by Mr Anderson

Another factor to consider is time. The genocide of the Indigenous American population was completed little more than a century ago. Historically speaking, those are pretty fresh wounds, which were never justly treated. The Viking age came to an end what, 8 or 900 years ago? And obviously came to an end in a much less destructive way, in terms of societal stability for the group they represented, than what happened to the Indigenous population in this country.

The name is especially offensive when the condition of the Indigenous American population is considered. They're the poorest racial and/or ethnic(depending on how you define it) group in the US. Rendering one of the arguments for maintaining the name, brand preservation, totally absurd. "We can't change it or we might only make $325 million next year!" While the real "redskins" have practically nothing, unless they're lucky enough to have gotten into the casino gaming business.

And the other reason to keep the name? Tradition: They're only called the Redskins because they played in Fenway for a few years in the 1930s. They were the Boston Braves before that. I contend, that if it were any other group in the US, the name would have been changed a long time ago.

It seems like the most common reasoning for continuing to call them The Redskins is, well, not a reason at all. "People are too concerned with political correctness." Though it's not usually expressed that way. "PC Police" "Who cares" etc. It's all bullshit. There is no good reason to continue calling them by this name.

Again, I'm not personally offended by it, as I am not of Indigenous American heritage, but it's very clearly inappropriate in this day and age.

As far as the word cracker or honkey goes... there's no weight behind it. I've never had it used against me in any way that wasn't obviously meant to be funny. Any racial epithet or slur against Indigenous or African Americans have centuries have a genocide or more than two centuries of enslavement worth of weight behind them. If the tables were turned, where white people in this country had been enslaved or massacred and called honkey or cracker all along then the words would pack much, much stronger punch.

I think I've exhausted this subject to the best of my ability. I don't think I would we would have gotten this productive, interesting discussion a few years ago. I guess lack of activity on these boards can have some upside.

Agreed

Originally Posted by MaxVike

Or, it could refer to them fighting against the marauding Vikings as they did for a few hundred years...

Which is why their mascot is wearing early 20th century clothing? Hmm...

Originally Posted by Mr Anderson

Another factor to consider is time. The genocide of the Indigenous American population was completed little more than a century ago. Historically speaking, those are pretty fresh wounds, which were never justly treated. The Viking age came to an end what, 8 or 900 years ago? And obviously came to an end in a much less destructive way, in terms of societal stability for the group they represented, than what happened to the Indigenous population in this country.

Historically when a race is conquered, for lack of a better term, they are pretty much eradicated or turned into servants. While I am in no way condoning that type of thing, I think if you are going to bring historical perspective into the topic my guess is many past losers would love to have been afforded the opportunity to build tax free casinos and get monthly payments from those who defeated them. Better than crucifiction.

The name is especially offensive when the condition of the Indigenous American population is considered. They're the poorest racial and/or ethnic(depending on how you define it) group in the US. Rendering one of the arguments for maintaining the name, brand preservation, totally absurd. "We can't change it or we might only make $325 million next year!" While the real "redskins" have practically nothing, unless they're lucky enough to have gotten into the casino gaming business.

My personal experience with the tribes is that they actually get a fairly decent amount of money, but do not do well with using it, saving it etc. It was not unusual for the ones that I know to flash me checks from the federal govt for amounts of 1000- 5000 dollars and that was in addition to what they drew every month. They got houses built for them and new appliances, cars etc. They just have a different value system than we do. Not judging them, just the way it is.

As I said, changing the name does nothing and any satisfaction they get from it being changed will be short and not too sweet. They need to change themselves and change the way they are seen by the rest of society if they want perceptions and steroetypes gone.

And the other reason to keep the name? Tradition: They're only called the Redskins because they played in Fenway for a few years in the 1930s. They were the Boston Braves before that. I contend, that if it were any other group in the US, the name would have been changed a long time ago.

What other group specifically?

It seems like the most common reasoning for continuing to call them The Redskins is, well, not a reason at all. "People are too concerned with political correctness." Though it's not usually expressed that way. "PC Police" "Who cares" etc. It's all bullshit. There is no good reason to continue calling them by this name.

I suppose not. And i am not defending the name. You are right, they don't NEED to name them anything

Again, I'm not personally offended by it, as I am not of Indigenous American heritage, but it's very clearly inappropriate in this day and age.

IDK. In some ways i think this has gone overboard with all of the PC stuff. Anyone and everyone seems offended by something.

Maybe they could call themselves the Foreskins for all the dicks in Washington DC. LOL

"While the real "redskins" have practically nothing, unless they're lucky enough to have gotten into the casino gaming business.

Assuming all or most Indians are poor & lumping them in with casino's is pretty stereotypical in of itself.

They're not poor because they are Indians. There are a lot of poor people in this country from every walk of life. If you don't work, you're going to be poor.

Originally Posted by Purple Floyd

Historically when a race is conquered, for lack of a better term, they are pretty much eradicated or turned into servants. While I am in no way condoning that type of thing, I think if you are going to bring historical perspective into the topic my guess is many past losers would love to have been afforded the opportunity to build tax free casinos and get monthly payments from those who defeated them. Better than crucifiction.




My personal experience with the tribes is that they actually get a fairly decent amount of money, but do not do well with using it, saving it etc. It was not unusual for the ones that I know to flash me checks from the federal govt for amounts of 1000- 5000 dollars and that was in addition to what they drew every month. They got houses built for them and new appliances, cars etc. They just have a different value system than we do. Not judging them, just the way it is.

As I said, changing the name does nothing and any satisfaction they get from it being changed will be short and not too sweet. They need to change themselves and change the way they are seen by the rest of society if they want perceptions and steroetypes gone.


What other group specifically?



I suppose not. And i am not defending the name. You are right, they don't NEED to name them anything


IDK. In some ways i think this has gone overboard with all of the PC stuff. Anyone and everyone seems offended by something.

Glad we can own a couple casinos...i mean who would want to own all of America... not I.

Washington Lobbyists. They already own the country anyway.