Washington Redskins keep their name

Redskins is an offensive name, Eskimos isn't.

We used to say sticks and stones may break my bones, etc.

That no longer applies - everybody is offended by everything.

Greg wrote:

There is nothing wrong with associating with native heritage.

Seems like some people may not be entirely familiar with history and sociology. Maybe I can help.

"Redskin" is not native heritage.

In the year 1500, there were hundreds of tribes in the Americas, with many different languages, cultural traditions, and ways of living. They had names for themselves. Each native language also had names for the other tribes that lived nearby.

None of these names translates to "redskin".

The term "redskin" was a pejorative term used by northern European, esp. English-speaking settlers. "Redskin" was a way of lumping all non-European people who already lived in the Americas into one generic category, as "other than" and "less than".

"Redskin" is an ugly racial epithet, roughly on par with "darky" or "wetback".

If we as a society choose to continue using this word, we should at least know what we are saying when we say it.

Dan Snyder was one of the first, and most successful, owners to monetize every aspect of the stadium. Any flat surface (including the turnstile arms!) was covered in advertising. When major sponsors start withdrawing their financial support he'll change the name but not until then. In fact, he'll probably extract a premium from a sponsor in exchange for being associated with the name change. Think of the virtue signaling if FedEx were to sign a new stadium deal with the newly named Washington [fill in the blanks].

I just saw a headline stating Snyder will consider changing the name.

JahWobble wrote:

Dan Snyder was one of the first, and most successful, owners to monetize every aspect of the stadium. Any flat surface (including the turnstile arms!) was covered in advertising. When major sponsors start withdrawing their financial support he'll change the name but not until then. In fact, he'll probably extract a premium from a sponsor in exchange for being associated with the name change. Think of the virtue signaling if FedEx were to sign a new stadium deal with the newly named Washington [fill in the blanks].

Washington FedEx's ? Washington Nikes? Washington Pepsis?

It's funny though. There was a time when ego's had to have their name on the stadium (e.g. Jack Murphy Stadium, Hughbert H Humphrey Metrodoome, Joe Robbie Stadium and of course Jack Kent Cooke Stadium). Now they sell it to other ego's!

Snyder and Jerry Jones have got a lot to answer for in how the heritage of the NFL has gone downhill. Fortunately neither of them has sniffed a Lombardi in 25-years which is satisfying to know money can't buy you everything.

The "Washington" part should also be changed.

DC Decimators

Capitol Crushers

Beltway Bruisers

guyyy dude wrote:

Redskins is an offensive name, Eskimos isn't.

Offensive to who? You? Are you Native American?

The fact that people are offended by something that does not impact them is baffling to me.

Not sure this is an association that is a good one.

That said, a few years back the Washington Post had a poll showing something like 95% of Native Americans did not care about this issue at all. I doubt their lives on the reservations will be changed one bit when the NFL team's name is changed.

Luv2Run wrote:

Not sure this is an association that is a good one.

That said, a few years back the Washington Post had a poll showing something like 95% of Native Americans did not care about this issue at all. I doubt their lives on the reservations will be changed one bit when the NFL team's name is changed.

Yeah but it's the "Washington" part that's offensive now

Good call dweeb

The Washington Redskins are likely to change their name, a source told ESPN's Adam Schefter, after the team announced Friday it will "undergo a thorough review" of the nickname amid renewed pressure.

guyyy dude wrote:

Redskins is an offensive name, Eskimos isn't.

Offensive to who exactly?

.InjuryProne. wrote:

guyyy dude wrote:

Redskins is an offensive name, Eskimos isn't.

Offensive to who? You? Are you Native American?

The fact that people are offended by something that does not impact them is baffling to me.

Yes.

Because we cannot possibly have any empathy for human beings who are not members of the tribe we associate with.

Spoken like a true psychopath

Giles Corey wrote:

.InjuryProne. wrote:

Offensive to who? You? Are you Native American?

The fact that people are offended by something that does not impact them is baffling to me.

Yes.

Because we cannot possibly have any empathy for human beings who are not members of the tribe we associate with.

Spoken like a true psychopath

Wait, are the American Indian's offended by this? I didn't see that anywhere? Can someone show me?

"redskin" is not offensive because it is used to distinguish native americans from other races, that's it.

anyone finds the term offensive should also find native americans themselves offensive.

The Invasion wrote:

Giles Corey wrote:

Yes.

Because we cannot possibly have any empathy for human beings who are not members of the tribe we associate with.

Spoken like a true psychopath

Wait, are the American Indian's offended by this? I didn't see that anywhere? Can someone show me?

You speak for the native peoples now do you? Gee, why would anyone be offended by the term "Redskins"?

Redskin is a slang term for Native Americans in the United States and First Nations in Canada. The term "redskin" underwent pejoration through the 19th to early 20th centuries[1] and in contemporary dictionaries of American English it is labeled "usually offensive",[2] "disparaging",[3][4] "insulting",[5]

You are a psycho

The Predictor wrote:

"redskin" is not offensive because it is used to distinguish native americans from other races, that's it.

anyone finds the term offensive should also find native americans themselves offensive.

I agree, but who exactly is saying this is offensive? I haven't seen anything? Please someone give me some factssss.

Giles Corey wrote:

The Invasion wrote:

Wait, are the American Indian's offended by this? I didn't see that anywhere? Can someone show me?

You speak for the native peoples now do you? Gee, why would anyone be offended by the term "Redskins"?

Redskin is a slang term for Native Americans in the United States and First Nations in Canada. The term "redskin" underwent pejoration through the 19th to early 20th centuries[1] and in contemporary dictionaries of American English it is labeled "usually offensive",[2] "disparaging",[3][4] "insulting",[5]

You are a psycho

I am part native american actually, but for sure, I wouldn't want to speak for a race, that would be racist anyways.

But you haven't actually told me WHO is offended by this? It is a simple question my Giles Corey guy.

The Invasion wrote:

Giles Corey wrote:

You speak for the native peoples now do you? Gee, why would anyone be offended by the term "Redskins"?

Redskin is a slang term for Native Americans in the United States and First Nations in Canada. The term "redskin" underwent pejoration through the 19th to early 20th centuries[1] and in contemporary dictionaries of American English it is labeled "usually offensive",[2] "disparaging",[3][4] "insulting",[5]

You are a psycho

I am part native american actually, but for sure, I wouldn't want to speak for a race, that would be racist anyways.

But you haven't actually told me WHO is offended by this? It is a simple question my Giles Corey guy.

Gee. Who do you think is offended by the term Redskins? Any guesses?

A little background for you