No, that's not my logic at all. What I'm trying to point out is that the word has never been exclusively used to refer to what you think the franchise is honouring. It's been a way to refer to the entire race. Just because people in the 1930's automatically went to the tribal warrior archetype from Western movies when thinking about Aboriginals, doesn't mean that we should completely ignore the history of the word. Why should we keep pretending we're as ignorant as they were? There are much better ways to honour Aboriginal warriors. Ways that don't spill into painful, insulting memories.
dont give me that. if your favourite team decided to re brand themselves some derogatory term directed towards jews, even if some disputed whether it was derogatory at all- do u think the "san diego hymie's" would ever see the field? of course not because jewish groups would demonstrate indignation by way of boycotts and lawsuits and i would totally back them 100%. but when indian groups do the same thing- no one takes them seriously. word of the day- disparity.
People of the 30s watched Jim Thorpe in the olympics and in pro football. The situation in that regard is quite different than blacks not being allowed to play in any of the major league sports until the late 1940s (or later if you consider when each team had at least one black player). And, FWIW, the mascot would be considered more offensive than the name, if there was any real offense to be taken.
The KKK beat the Hebrews. You asked if I would (or I suppose anyone would) be offended by that kind of name for a team. I have never heard of any complaints over it.
dude that was in 1927 if i remember correctly. i dunno but i like to think we're more sensitive about racial pejoratives today than in previous times and racial relations has improved appreciably since then
Duh. Political Correctness. The owner owns the team, he can name it what he wants. Don't go to the games if you don't like the name.
wtf are u taking about? look most ppl in the chocolate city arent bigots and i would speculate that 99.999% of redskins fans arent bigots who would support the team if they were re-branded something else. so why doesnt dan synder appease all involved and just change the goddam name?
If that's the approach he wants to take, it's his prerogative. But he shouldn't keep pretending that the name is a tribute or some bullshit like that. It's disingenuous and willfully ignorant.
No one has commented on why the team is called the Redskins. They started off playing in the same stadium as the Boston (later Milwaukee and now Atlanta) Braves. It was custom then to have the same name. Hence, they started off as the Boston Football Braves. It's why the Giants and the Cardinals have the same names in football and baseball. The Indianapolis Colts started off life as the New York Football Yankees. There was a conflict and the team moved to Fenway. They wanted to keep their American Indian identity, but wanted to let people know they were now affiliated with the Red Sox. Hence, the Redskins were born. It wasn't done as a slam or an insult, it was done to fit in with the baseball team in the stadium they shared. Intent is important. Frankly, I'm with Tony Kornheiser on this one. If the 'Skins lose the suit, they should replace the American Indian logo with a redskin potato. Hail to the Spuds!
doubt it is ever going to change, there are 1000's of high schools/middle schools/colleges/pro teams in every sport that have names referring to native americans in some way. just kinda sad because we basically wiped their race from the earth. only one of these is acceptable new york blackskins miami brownskins omaha whiteskins san fransisco yellowskins washington redskins
u've certainly not added to the discussion, it was more tangent than anything substantive. does it tackle the crux of the issue- are natives offended by the term and should dan synder continue to profit off the exploitation of a historically subjugated group?
Thank you for your opinion; I'll treasure it. Frankly, I could give a rat's ass at who is offended. Our First Amendment guarantees us the right to free speech, and that includes the right to offend. If you want to hurt Dan Snyder, then stop supporting the Redskins. Any other course is just trying to dictate thought.
