Should the Washington Redskins be compelled to change their name?
Comments
-
Does the image in the logo have red skin ?MrOneLung said:The origins of the word Redskins may be offensive to to Native Americans, but the usage in this situation refers to their strength, fighting spirit, and bravery and as something to be proud of. The teams logo is a picture of a Native American and is not being used derogatorily.
0 -
I don't think it is that small. According to the last census there are 3 million Native Americans and another couple of million mixed race NAs.soapboxsam said:
The native American population now is so small that,
do we know what they think or have they assimilated into the main stream.
That question is for that young chap over there ?
Just across the water ?
Rossman92
Their advocacy groups seems to be pretty much opposed to the name redskins.
0 -
It's pretty racist. Franchises move whole cities so it's not like it's as much drama as a soccer team having to switch its name0
-
We've just had a vote and are now going to call ourselves the Gulidford Gringos insteadsoapboxsam said:
I would think so as Guildford is just so Surrey.PL54 said:Does the team I play for, The Guildford Gypos, need to change name as well ?
1 -
Why don't we completely re-write all history and leave out all the bad stuff - just in case someone, somewhere, gets offended.
Just like ISIS are doing in Palmyra and elsewhere.
Let's start with Hamilton Academicals - which offends anyone who is "educationally challenged", before moving on to Corinthian Casuals - which offends anyone without a full wardrobe range.2 -
Reddy BrownPL54 said:
Does the image in the logo have red skin ?MrOneLung said:The origins of the word Redskins may be offensive to to Native Americans, but the usage in this situation refers to their strength, fighting spirit, and bravery and as something to be proud of. The teams logo is a picture of a Native American and is not being used derogatorily.
0 -
In the more important and interesting American sport, Baseball, this has long been an issue with the Cleveland Indians.
Not so much about the name but the Chief Wahoo logo http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/cleveland-indians-marginalize-chief-wahoo-logo-081024357--mlb.html
And it is Native Americans campaigning so the usual "being offended on other people's behalf" nonsense can be put to bed http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/apr/11/native-americans-protest-chief-wahoo-logo-at-cleveland-indians-home-opener
And someone brilliantly put the logo into context
4 -
Where's the New York Yankees mock up0
-
Not sure Native Americans asking that their conquerors not use a pejorative epithet about them as a name for their sports team is quite the same as a load of murdering religious zealots destroying historical sites out of spite.Valiantphil said:Why don't we completely re-write all history and leave out all the bad stuff - just in case someone, somewhere, gets offended.
Just like ISIS are doing in Palmyra and elsewhere.
Let's start with Hamilton Academicals - which offends anyone who is "educationally challenged", before moving on to Corinthian Casuals - which offends anyone without a full wardrobe range.
But maybe that's just me13 -
As we move into a more pc world, it does seem that the terminology of "redskin" is derogatory to the Native Americans and as such should be dropped, IMO. More sadly, the native peoples as a whole are extremely deprived, in a relatively rich country. Suicide rates, alcoholism, unemployment, divorce are much higher than the national average. Pine Ridge reservation (Oglala Sioux) is one of the very poorest and crime ridden areas in the whole of America (to where I am returning next year as part of a drive holiday in the American "Far West").0
- Sponsored links:
-
The team's owner has said he's not changing the name, period.0
-
Why don't they change their name to Mabel?1
-
Washington Pigskins
Washington Warriors
Washington Wildmen0 -
Washington Woodenteeth? That would offend white American history pedants.sam3110 said:Washington Pigskins
Washington Warriors
Washington Wildmen0 -
I do not and have never followed USA sport, however with my peripheral awareness I have heard of Washington Redskins, and that is it. I have heard of them, the name or term Redskins has never concerned me nor have I ever considered it offensive.2
-
It seems that one of the dichotomies with the U.S. is they care enough about each other to avoid employing insulting language that may hurt sensitivities, whilst at the same time tolerating the right for people to carry automatic rifles and handguns that allow bigots, racists, and other nutters to blow innocent people away.0
-
Seems plenty of evidence that the term is indeed pejorative and on those grounds it needs to be changed.
It would take a few generations for the change to be wholly accepted but in the end it would.
Change it.0 -
Lots of historical facts that were once commonplace and acceptable are not considered so today. We used to routinely force children up chimneys without a second thought to it being right or wrong.Valiantphil said:Why don't we completely re-write all history and leave out all the bad stuff - just in case someone, somewhere, gets offended.
Just like ISIS are doing in Palmyra and elsewhere.
Let's start with Hamilton Academicals - which offends anyone who is "educationally challenged", before moving on to Corinthian Casuals - which offends anyone without a full wardrobe range.
Society and some of the world has moved on. We don't and shouldn't tolerate bad things from the past purely because they are from the past.
History doesn't need to be re written. What is there needs to be learned from.
3 -
Would it be offensive if they called a potential London franchise the London Red Coats? Cause that's what I'd call them.0
-
Well that's that then !Riviera said:I do not and have never followed USA sport, however with my peripheral awareness I have heard of Washington Redskins, and that is it. I have heard of them, the name or term Redskins has never concerned me nor have I ever considered it offensive.
1 - Sponsored links:
-
-
I think Charlton need to change there badge.
Someone holding a knife is offensive in a city that suffers si much knife crime.
And whilst we are at it the term.'addicts' is inappropriate in a country where so many people have drug problems.
'Reds' is offensive to anyone who lived under the tyranny of communism.
Using eagles or lions as mascots demeans animals.0 -
Can we not start with you instead?Valiantphil said:Why don't we completely re-write all history and leave out all the bad stuff - just in case someone, somewhere, gets offended.
Just like ISIS are doing in Palmyra and elsewhere.
Let's start with Hamilton Academicals - which offends anyone who is "educationally challenged", before moving on to Corinthian Casuals - which offends anyone without a full wardrobe range.0 -
Another case of do-gooders getting offended on other people's behalf.0
-
-
I think that kills the notion that people are being offended on someone else's behalf.Henry Irving said:
1 -
Unfortunatly not. It will be trotted out every time regardless.ShootersHillGuru said:
I think that kills the notion that people are being offended on someone else's behalf.Henry Irving said:0 -
It seemed to me that old Samuel Wounded Knee didn't need anyone else to be offended for him.0
-
Too bloody right it will! One of my favourites to get the liberals going.Henry Irving said:
Unfortunatly not. It will be trotted out every time regardless.ShootersHillGuru said:
I think that kills the notion that people are being offended on someone else's behalf.Henry Irving said:0 -
It's all about Impact rather than Intent. Whilst there is no intention to cause grief by using the term, the negative impact that it has on the indigenous population inherently means that it is a derogatory term (to them).MrOneLung said:The origins of the word Redskins may be offensive to to Native Americans, but the usage in this situation refers to their strength, fighting spirit, and bravery and as something to be proud of. The teams logo is a picture of a Native American and is not being used derogatorily.
0
