Do you think the team name "The Redskins" is offensive?

Doesn’t really matter whether or not I find if offensive since I am not Native American.

I think it’s mostly white guilt.

The word’s origins and connotations are subject to much debate. Interestingly, several predominantly Native American schools use the name for their athletic teams, and some Native American nations are on record as saying that the word’s inoffensive.

But, if the term “Redskin” is disparaging, insulting, and hurtful to some people, I guess I’m on board with changing it. I say this as a resident of the D.C. area and committed Redskins fan.

No, but the porpoise population is well pissed at those Miami Dolphins, or so the rumour goes.

Who finds it offensive? 67% of Native Americans, the Native Indian Gaming Association, the Navajo Nation Council, Saint Regis Mohawk Tribal Council of New York; Oren Lyons, a member of the Onondaga Council of Chiefs in New York; and the five Native American plaintiffs who sued for this ruling, and assuredly others past the first page of google results, though the ‘67% of native americans’ covers most. Also it’s rather interesting to note in that study that “60% of whites reject the term Redskins as racist, while more than 60% of Indians see the term Redskins as racist”. I’m sure we can trust the white people saying it’s respectful, though.

And if ‘white guilt’ is driving people to finally listen to a group that has been repeatedly disenfranchised, so be it. Though it’s generally just considered ‘being a decent person’ to listen to others.

So should the KC Chiefs change their name too?

Dunno. Are there Native Americans saying it’s offensive? It’s not originally a slur so maybe not, but I’d have to ask the people affected.

A quick search shows me no one taking issue, so why is it a question?

Well, I don’t hang out with many native Americans so I don’t know if anyone is saying it’s offensive.

How about the New Orleans Saints, confirmed by the Pope? I don’t bloody think so.

@BhacSsylan Who’s suggesting that “white guilt” is a bad thing? The abolitionist movement; women’s suffrage; civil rights…good changes can happen when people of European descent listen, learn, and get on board. Despite growing diversity in this country, about 70% of Americans are considered or consider themselves to be “white.”

Dan Snyder, the weasel who owns the Redskins, has publicly and repeatedly stated that he won’t change the name. But, as any Redskins fan can tell you, Snyder’s a greedy man who squeezes every imaginable penny from the franchise. If he doesn’t change the team’s name, anyone will be able to manufacture and sell Redskins merchandise. Snyder won’t let that happen.

I still vote for changing the mascot to a potato.

A potato! Ha ha!

One thing I’ve learned from all of this is that as a WASP I get to decide what is offensive and to whom.

That’s a point, for sure @Darth_Algar.

Since I am part Sioux, let me state unequivocally that the name Redskins is racist. Imagine if the team was named the Blackskins and their mascot was Al Jolson, or the Yellowskins, and their mascot was Japanese Tojo.

That said, I demand the team should change its name to the Wagon Burners.

LOL! But…what if the team was named the Blackskins and Denzel Washington was their mascot? :D

@SadieMartinPaul I’m sorry, I see white guilt thrown around a lot as a way of minimizing issues or allies. And I think I still disagree that’s a major driving force. But sorry for misunderstanding and I agree with everything else you’ve said.

I’m maybe 20% serious when I recommend adopting a potato as the team’s mascot. And, yelling “Go Skins” will no longer be allowed; everyone has to say “Go Spuds.”

On a more serious note, it’s really not such a catastrophe when a sports franchise changes its name. When D.C. was the murder capital of the country, the late, great Abe Pollin, who owned the city’s NBA team, decided that the name Bullets could no longer be tolerated. Not that I’m so fond of Wizards (I think it’s a silly name), but I’m glad that nobody cheers “Yeah Bullets!” anymore. I mean, really, if you think about it…

@BhacSsylan We’re good. No bad feelings at all.

For me, guilt is powerful motivation, and I’d never use that word to trivialize anything. When I feel guilty, I know that my conscience is telling me I’ve done something wrong or failed to be receptive to someone else’s needs. Mass, collective guilt is how meaningful social change begins; it can move mountains.

Hey, here’s a good way to rename the Redskins – find a creative word or phrase for This Team Sucks.

absolutely not.

The Washington Thinskins.

The Washington Foreskins.

Yes, Redskins is extremely offensive and the Chiefs should change their insensitive name too.

I’VE BOYCOTTED THE WHITE STRIPES.

How is the Chiefs offensive @Dan_Lyons? I mean, I can see how the Redskins could be seen as offensive, because it was often used in a derogatory manner to describe the Indians, but the Chiefs? Or the Braves?

One of the nastiest ways to insult Native American Indians is and has always been to sneeringly call one “Hey Chief!”

As for the Braves, once again this is a direct reference to a Native American Indian Brave. The White Man’s establishment all but wiped out the Native American Indians. Do they have to rub it in by naming major sports teams and/or automobiles after this vanquished nation?

I’m surprised there isn’t a women’s team in the US called the Squaws. By the way, a Squaw is not a female Indian, but rather a reference to a female body part.

So…

Political correctness.

Where does it’s boundary lie so that it doesn’t ultimately make communication so burdensome as to be futile.

@SadieMartinPaul

White guilt. LOL.

I’m as immune as I’m exempt.

@Dan_Lyons A small group claims that “squaw” means vagina, though why that would be bad is beyond me. I mean, isn’t it a compliment to a guy if you say, “Man, he’s got some balls!” ?

I dunno @Dutchess_III Do you like to be referred to as a vagina or as a woman?

No. And I wonder why that is. Why referring a part of male anatomy can be considered a compliment, but referring to any part of a woman’s private anatomy, or even a woman in general (as in “bitch”) is insulting.

@Dutchess_III “Why referring a part of male anatomy can be considered a compliment”

Maybe some parts… Calling a guy a d*ck or a pr*ck is hardly complimentary.

And saying “he has balls” is also very different than “he is balls”, which is also not complimentary. Though I would like to say I dislike all those terms as well, though female-gendered terms have more issues behind them. And in general, it is true that a much larger proportion of gender-based put-downs are calling someone feminine.

Why shouldn’t we allow women to corner the market on oppression?

@Dutchess_III is right here. For some reason women get derogatory remarks for doing exactly what a guy gets complimented for.

NB: He is a stud while she is a slut.

He is a confident go-getter. She is a bitch.