I don't see this happening. There is too much history behind the team and too big off a fan base. Even if the name is changed, it won't change people's perceptions of them. In the minds of everyone, they'll be the Redskins.
I don't see the bigotry in the name or even the team logo. They're not being used in a derogatory manner, but quite the opposite. The team bears the name as a tribute to the great skills of indian warriors. Political Correctness way out of control on this one.
I made that argument in my Indian Studies class last semester Denny, and the teacher was damn near in tears because of my "ignorance."
If your teacher says it's wrong, it must be wrong? I'm fully aware of our history with the indians, and it isn't a great story. That doesn't have anything to do with the team's name or logo. Illinois is an indian name. Change it! (Sheesh)
I think its definitely a bigoted name. Redskins isn't the name of a tribe or an Aboriginal figure or anything. It's a term that early settlers used for all Natives, referring to their skin colour. It has a long history of being used in the pejorative sense, too. I don't get what it's supposed to be honouring... all Aboriginal people? Why wouldn't you just call it the Washington Natives/Aboriginals instead of sticking with a word that's always been used as an insult? This isn't anything like the Chicago Blackhawks (named after a famous chief) or that college team that was named after an actual tribe (forgot which one it was). It's more like the Edmonton Eskimos of the CFL: named after an insulting reference in a time when they could get away with it.
I don't think it is that wrong. I look at mascots as something that people are proud to have represent them. The Redskins are obviously a very proud organization and are proud to have that as their logo.
Redskin has nothing like the history of the N word for black people. Skin color isn't being used in this instance (and never was by football) to imply the indians are an inferior race, but the opposite - fierce warriors and winners. One of the early greats in pro football was Jim Thorpe, an indian. Long before blacks were allowed in pro sports. The logo is no more offensive than the cartoon of Uncle Sam. If indians have red skins, so be it, but that is nothing like saying they're inferior or subhuman or anything else. It carries none of the distinction of white men in black face paint does. It's be offensive to call the team the Heathens (implied unenlightened) or something like that.
as a middle aged white man, denny crane is totally qualified to speak on the the feigned indignation over the term "redskins". if it offends natives ppl- it should not be used!!! political correctness is designed to protect ppl who cant protect themselves like the first nations ppl's who have been shitted on since 1492. others teams have changed their names, i dont know why the redskins cant do the same. imagine all the new marketing opportunities generated from their new moniker as the "washington scalping settlers"
I didn't make that connection, but honestly I don't see racism in such black-and-white terms (no pun intended). It doesn't have to imply that Aboriginals are naturally inferior. The simple act of bracketing out a people based on the colour of their skin and nothing else, and is offensive. It isn't honouring anything. "Redskin" was a term used insultingly towards all Aboriginals (women, children, civilians, etc.), and honestly, if they wanted to honour a people why would they use a word that has almost always been used pejoratively? Like I mentioned earlier, if they wanted to honour the entire Aboriginal race (because that's all this name refers to), why wouldn't they just call them the Aboriginals or Natives? The logo doesn't bother me at all. It's actually pretty similar to the Chicago Blackhawks logo and that's one of my favourites in all of sports. The name is what's offensive. It'd be like calling a team the "Washington Yellows" and justifying it by saying it's a way to honour the industrious, hard-working Japanese. No, that's still they're name (and that's another good example, though). The team I'm thinking of was more south (maybe in Florida or South Carolina or something).
You don't know history. Indians and the settlers for the most part got along quite well from 1492 to the mid 1800s. I know for a fact that most indians don't feel the way that those who sued the Redskins do about all this. If I had any indication that most indians felt this was a silght against them, I'd have a different POV.
u're completely ignorant!!! 95% of the natives were wiped out in the first 100 years after first contact (1492). and the american indian was treated so well by americans that they decided to fight with canada against u guys in the war of 1812.
The spanish massacred Indians, true. That would be in the Caribbean and Mexican areas of North America, though. The indians fought against the British with the French (white guys!) in the French and Indian War, too.
dude, did u even read the article? they wrote about the long history of settlers scalping indians. and everyone massacred the indians and most were actually unintentionally exterminated by disease. the 95% number represent an america's wide phenomena. and fyi- native peoples and more importantly their culture as well as language is much more intact in south america than in america or canada where the white man has committed cultural genocide against them. and that is an incontrovertible fact. for instance in peru and bolivia- the natives are politically vibrant (i.e. bolivia has a native president) and retain many of their customs. conversely, in the states- u guys gave them casinos and we gave them indian "status" in canada. and as for indians allying themselves with different factions- most historians will tell u that indians became opportunists because they were nationless.
That's probably what makes this issue more complicated. Sometimes I feel like I'm a pretentious dude getting offended for people who aren't offended, but the reality is that that Aboriginals have varying responses to this issue. I know for a fact though, that most Aboriginals who don't care about this issue take that stance because they feel that the real racism they face is far more pressing than this symbolic racism. While I can understand that viewpoint, I don't think it means that Washington's name is any more acceptable.
do you think the fact that you are canadian in any way effects your qualifications in regards to speaking about US politics? why is the fact that denny is white relevant here at all?
