Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Washington Redskins to change their name

245

Comments

  • Redskin said:
    Er...
    change that name AT ONCE ((:>)
  • edited July 2020
    Bilko said:
    What’s next? Are they going rename the The dog pound at the Browns because cats don’t like it and also stop fans wearing cheeseheads at the Packers because it offends vegans.
    Minnesota glorifying a murderous, slave owning civilisation is probably a little higher on the activists agenda. Maybe the Vikings will be the NFL's next sop.
  • How about Washington Redcoats?
    Would be a constant reminder of when we gave the White House a makeover during the War of 1812!
  • Bilko said:
    What’s next? Are they going rename the The dog pound at the Browns because cats don’t like it and also stop fans wearing cheeseheads at the Packers because it offends vegans.
    Minnesota glorifying a murderous, slave owning civilisation is probably a little higher on the activists agenda. Maybe the Vikings will be the NFL's next sop.
    and the vegans object to the cowboys, rams, tigers and the dolphins, the catholics to the cardinals, and the Indians to the bengals 
  • Who is offended? The people that people think should be offended, or the people offended on their behalf?

    Have a debate and do the right thing. The process of discussion and review would result in the right outcome. Instead, it seems like a response to virtue signalling multinational purse string holders. Changing stuff like this without a considered process simply creates more division. 
    Far too reasoned a comment for the hysteria thirsty masses that encompass these sorts of 'issues'.

    I'm just waiting for the usual overly emotive post to be added that rules out any reason and tells everyone exactly how they should be thinking on such topics. It will also seek to demonise anyone that doesn't jump straight behind the message.

    I feel deeply offended that you are not offended. Moreover, I am deeply offended that you should consider a poster on CL capable of demonising anyone who didn't feel offended (oh hang on a minute - allow me the opportunity to reconsider that last point).

    Having considered the last point I will now retire to the naughty step to await the justified criticism for the offence I may have inadvertently (or otherwise) have caused.

    Please accept my abject apologies.
  • Sponsored links:


  • edited July 2020
    Snyder is a crap owner and Fedex Field is a crap stadium. When I first came to the Washington area there was a ten-year wait for season tickets, and the only way to go to a game was to get lucky by being offered some spares.  Leaving aside the issues of "The Offended Industry" that we have over here, the NFL is becoming more and more irrelevant and are desperate to keep "bums in seats", as half-empty stadiums don't make good television, and as with the Prem, that is what's most important.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dc-sports-bog/wp/2015/12/18/how-u-s-marshals-used-redskins-tickets-to-bust-fugitives-in-1985-sting/
  • Who is offended? The people that people think should be offended, or the people offended on their behalf?

    Have a debate and do the right thing. The process of discussion and review would result in the right outcome. Instead, it seems like a response to virtue signalling multinational purse string holders. Changing stuff like this without a considered process simply creates more division. 
    Snyder in 2013: “We’ll never change the name. It’s that simple. NEVER — you can use caps.”

    So it has been debated since at least 2013. Personally I think that is plenty of time, though you are entitled to disagree, of course.   
  • colthe3rd said:
    Who is offended? The people that people think should be offended, or the people offended on their behalf?

    Have a debate and do the right thing. The process of discussion and review would result in the right outcome. Instead, it seems like a response to virtue signalling multinational purse string holders. Changing stuff like this without a considered process simply creates more division. 
    Snyder in 2013: “We’ll never change the name. It’s that simple. NEVER — you can use caps.”

    So it has been debated since at least 2013. Personally I think that is plenty of time, though you are entitled to disagree, of course.   
    Longer than that. A Native American council had been calling for change in the seventies. Literally the only thing left to debate on this matter is how long it took for change and how that change came about. Rather than doing what was right long ago it seems the ownership have just buckled to pressure from the public and from Nike's actions.
    Fed-Ex's pressure was apparently the tipping point.
  • limeygent said:
    colthe3rd said:
    Who is offended? The people that people think should be offended, or the people offended on their behalf?

    Have a debate and do the right thing. The process of discussion and review would result in the right outcome. Instead, it seems like a response to virtue signalling multinational purse string holders. Changing stuff like this without a considered process simply creates more division. 
    Snyder in 2013: “We’ll never change the name. It’s that simple. NEVER — you can use caps.”

    So it has been debated since at least 2013. Personally I think that is plenty of time, though you are entitled to disagree, of course.   
    Longer than that. A Native American council had been calling for change in the seventies. Literally the only thing left to debate on this matter is how long it took for change and how that change came about. Rather than doing what was right long ago it seems the ownership have just buckled to pressure from the public and from Nike's actions.
    Fed-Ex's pressure was apparently the tipping point.
    Missed that one but again goes to prove my point, won't change an offensive name towards a historically persecuted minority until their income is likely going to be hit.
  • edited July 2020
    The original peoples that settled in Washington State were the Suquamish Tribe, the most famous of their chiefs being Chief Seattle. I guess the NFL team could recognise the history of the area and honour the local tribe by incorporating  some relationship to those facts in their name.

    The few Native Americans that I have spoken to over the years consider the term Redskins" as being highly derogatory as is the term "squaw" for women Native Americans.

    Whether that means that the reference to redskins should be changed because it offends some, is a matter of personal opinion. I personally am pleased.
  • PeterGage said:
    The original peoples that settled in Washington State were the Suquamish Tribe, the most famous of their chiefs being Chief Seattle. I guess the NFL team could recognise the history of the area and honour the local tribe by incorporating  some relationship to those facts.

    The few Native Americans that I have spoken to over the years consider the term Redskins" as being highly derogatory as is the term "squaw" for women Native Americans.

    Whether that means that the reference to redskins should be changed because it offends some, is a matter of personal opinion. I personally am pleased.
    unless i'm mistaken but i think you are mixing up Washington DC with Washington state which has the city Seattle in it. named after the Indian Chief that you refer to. 
  • edited July 2020
    I've worked with quite a few native Americans in the Washington area, and have yet to meet one who was offended by the Redskins' name. As a matter of fact, several have been avid fans. 
  • Sponsored links:


  • PeterGage said:
    The original peoples that settled in Washington State were the Suquamish Tribe, the most famous of their chiefs being Chief Seattle. I guess the NFL team could recognise the history of the area and honour the local tribe by incorporating  some relationship to those facts in their name.

    The few Native Americans that I have spoken to over the years consider the term Redskins" as being highly derogatory as is the term "squaw" for women Native Americans.

    Whether that means that the reference to redskins should be changed because it offends some, is a matter of personal opinion. I personally am pleased.
    Different Washington
  • edited July 2020
    PeterGage said:
    The original peoples that settled in Washington State were the Suquamish Tribe, the most famous of their chiefs being Chief Seattle. I guess the NFL team could recognise the history of the area and honour the local tribe by incorporating  some relationship to those facts.

    The few Native Americans that I have spoken to over the years consider the term Redskins" as being highly derogatory as is the term "squaw" for women Native Americans.

    Whether that means that the reference to redskins should be changed because it offends some, is a matter of personal opinion. I personally am pleased.
    unless i'm mistaken but i think you are mixing up Washington DC with Washington state which has the city Seattle in it. named after the Indian Chief that you refer to. 
    Oops, if the NFL team are situated in DC rather than Washington State, then I am indeed wrong. Thanks for pointing that out to me!
  • I'm all for changing names and logos of things that are offensive, but I'm struggling to see how this one is. 

    The indians' logo was an offensive and cartoonish portrayal of native American stereotypes, so that had to go, but the redskins name and logo is no more offensive than the Blackhawks logo, is there mass clamouring to change that?
  • RUN, here come the

    1. Quiyoughcohannocks
    2. Redskins

    I think 2 would roll off an English tongue a lot easier.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!