washington "REDSKINS"

LAKESHOW · Post #1 » by **LAKESHOW** » Tue Oct 8, 2013 3:35 pm

"And the nation’s capital is still home to the Redskins, the most offensive mascot of all. The term dates to the colonial era, when bounties were offered for killing Native Americans. Bounty hunters presented bloody skins and scalps as evidence of an Indian kill."....hence the term "REDSKINS"

http://primarya.washingtonpost.com/opin ... story.html

Bleeding Blue · Post #2 » by **Bleeding Blue** » Tue Oct 8, 2013 5:26 pm

Why is this is an issue now, but not 10-15 years ago? People just want attention....leave the name as is.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

Higga · Post #3 » by **Higga** » Tue Oct 8, 2013 5:47 pm

Bleeding Blue wrote:Why is this is an issue now, but not 10-15 years ago? People just want attention....leave the name as is.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

Exactly.

I hope the name never changes. Redskins is a brand name. First thing you think of when you hear Redskins is the football team.

All these people whining about how it's "offensive to Native Americans" don't seem to give two **** about any of the other issues Native Americans have.

Hail to the REDSKINS, forever.

Dry_Fish · Post #4 » by **Dry_Fish** » Tue Oct 8, 2013 5:49 pm

This falls somewhere between the N word and the Q word

The N word just can't be use and is universally offensive except in movies and if blacks use it

The Q word used to be offensive and has been claims/accepted by the gay community

Redskins turns some people off but other don't see an issue with it.....it's really how you want to define the word and the way english words are

LikeABosh · Post #5 » by **LikeABosh** » Tue Oct 8, 2013 10:45 pm

The whole sequence of this name change process is ridiculous. Sure, there's no problem 20 years ago...but today, when the meaning of the name is almost exclusively recognized as the washington football team, it's a problem. Let it go....stop giving power to its awful origins

Post #6 » by **Celtics_Champs** » Tue Oct 8, 2013 11:36 pm

Were you guys taught this word was offensive growing up? Teachers, Parents, whoever? I sure as heck wasn't. So when things like this pop up, I just scratch my head.

Bleeding Blue · Post #7 » by **Bleeding Blue** » Tue Oct 8, 2013 11:50 pm

I would bet a small percentage of people have any clue what the word roots from and even a smaller percentage of those people are offended. If it offends you don't support the team, pretty simple to me.

Pirates killed people all the time years ago, should we rename the Buccaneers too?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

NeedsMoreCheese · Post #8 » by **NeedsMoreCheese** » Wed Oct 9, 2013 12:26 am

They should just change their logo to that and be all like, what now bitches?

Would be one of the best troll jobs ever.

LikeABosh · Post #9 » by **LikeABosh** » Wed Oct 9, 2013 12:38 am

Is "chiefs" also offensive?

Pharmcat · Post #10 » by **Pharmcat** » Wed Oct 9, 2013 1:11 am

its the only racist word you can say in the office without getting canned

its so ridicolous

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_(slang)

protests started in 1968 per wiki, so its not something new

Post #11 » by **Worm Guts** » Wed Oct 9, 2013 1:37 am

It's been an issue as far back as I can remember, so I'm confused by those saying it's something recent. Unlike Chiefs or Warriors it's an inherently racist term. It needs to be changed.

MindOnTheBall · Post #12 » by **MindOnTheBall** » Wed Oct 9, 2013 7:02 am

I think most people are just misinformed. I would have been also if I didn't grow up with some Native American friends. Their parents would talk about things like this. Redskins to me wasn't anything harmful but they got me to understand that it just wasn't taught to us that it is wrong. The way they see it, it isn't like you are calling them the N-Word (if they were black) but rather like you were calling them a Towelhead (Not saying it, just using the word as comparison if they were middle-eastern) since you are characterizing them by features. Again, if I didn't have Native Americans as friends, chances are I would see nothing wrong with it.

WashWiz54 · Post #13 » by **WashWiz54** » Wed Oct 9, 2013 7:16 am

White America has spoken. You aren't offended, so we'll be offended for you.

Same story with the Red Mesa (Ariz.) High School Redskins. They wear the name with fierce pride. They absolutely don't see it as an insult. But what do they know? The student body is only 99.3 percent Native American.

And even though an Annenberg Public Policy Center poll found that 90 percent of Native Americans were not offended by the Redskins name, and even though linguists say the "redskins" word was first used by Native Americans themselves, and even though nobody on the Blackfeet side of my wife's family has ever had someone insult them with the word "redskin," it doesn't matter. There's no stopping a wave of PC-ness when it gets rolling.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9689220/redskins-name-change-not-easy-sounds

Why do "progressive" White people (and "progressives" as a whole) love to be offended by things that have no barring on them? Especially when the group it is "offensive" to isn't even offended. In fact, many use it as a source of pride. I seriously don't get it.

LikeABosh · Post #14 » by **LikeABosh** » Wed Oct 9, 2013 7:33 am

Worm Guts wrote:It's been an issue as far back as I can remember, so I'm confused by those saying it's something recent. Unlike Chiefs or Warriors it's an inherently racist term. It needs to be changed.

It's recently gotten a lot of traction with Obama's comments. The point we're making is that this "movement" seems to take a break every few years and then suddenly a group of activists try to stir **** up. Most Native Americans aren't even offended by the name so I see no reason why we'd have to change it

If we leave "Redskins" as the football brand name then...that's exactly what it will be. Ban it, then congratulations. You've given power to its original derogatory meaning

Post #15 » by **Celtics_Champs** » Wed Oct 9, 2013 8:32 am

LikeABosh wrote:
Worm Guts wrote:It's been an issue as far back as I can remember, so I'm confused by those saying it's something recent. Unlike Chiefs or Warriors it's an inherently racist term. It needs to be changed.

It's recently gotten a lot of traction with Obama's comments. The point we're making is that this "movement" seems to take a break every few years and then suddenly a group of activists try to stir **** up. Most Native Americans aren't even offended by the name so I see no reason why we'd have to change it

If we leave "Redskins" as the football brand name then...that's exactly what it will be. Ban it, then congratulations. You've given power to its original derogatory meaning

This post rocks. Summarizes it all.

Post #16 » by **Worm Guts** » Wed Oct 9, 2013 12:01 pm

You can't rebrand a frontally offensive word. People have mentioned it's origins, but that's really irrelevant. It's offensive just by reading it.

Devilzsidewalk · Post #17 » by **Devilzsidewalk** » Wed Oct 9, 2013 2:30 pm

I don't want them to change it simply on the basis that there are so many tangible causes that would greatly benefit from a concerted group effort to change things, but of all things, this is what a significant group of people has decided to burn their calories on.

People want to make a difference, great. You want to focus on Natives even, also good.
But you decide on this:

instead of this?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqhLO3SRyXU[/youtube]

LAKESHOW · Post #18 » by **LAKESHOW** » Wed Oct 9, 2013 2:51 pm

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell says ... Redskins' ... stands for strength, courage, pride and respect."

Mr. Goodell, that is absurd. The term stands for genocide, to the Indian people.

Higga · Post #19 » by **Higga** » Wed Oct 9, 2013 4:48 pm

LAKESHOW wrote:
Mr. Goodell, that is absurd. The term stands for genocide, to the Indian people.

No it doesn't.

LikeABosh · Post #20 » by **LikeABosh** » Wed Oct 9, 2013 4:57 pm

Worm Guts wrote:You can't rebrand a frontally offensive word. People have mentioned it's origins, but that's really irrelevant. It's offensive just by reading it.

It's already been rebranded so I don't know what you're talking about. Nobody uses it as a slang term; its association is almost entirely with football.