Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Redskins Offsensive?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Redskins Offsensive?

    This again

    http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/93...ns-change-name



    Will they ever change their name?
    79
    Yes
    35.44%
    28
    No
    64.56%
    51

  • #2
    No they won't ever change their name and quit being so damn touchy people.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Jetmeck View Post
      No they won't ever change their name and quit being so damn touchy people.
      The term Redskin came from when a white would kill an Indian and then peel off his/her face with a knife to prove they killed an Indian they would then turn in their redskins to get a bounty. **** yeah that is offensive. Its offensive as hell.

      But that is not what it means today. Today they try to make it honor Indians. I don't know. The name doesn't offend me but I don't offend easily as the political correctness police on this board.

      In all honesty they should change the name but they never will.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Bacchus View Post
        The term Redskin came from when a white would kill an Indian and then peel off his/her face with a knife to prove they killed an Indian they would then turn in their redskins to get a bounty. **** yeah that is offensive. Its offensive as hell.

        But that is not what it means today. Today they try to make it honor Indians. I don't know. The name doesn't offend me but I don't offend easily as the political correctness police on this board.

        In all honesty they should change the name but they never will.
        So is this the same as scalping?

        Comment


        • #5
          I voted No and hope they do not change the name. Politicians should be more concerned with things like..... Getting a freekin budget and not crap like this.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Tombstone RJ View Post
            So is this the same as scalping?
            Who knew Indians were the first ticket brokers

            Comment


            • #7
              Would it be cool to have a team called The Wetbacks? How about The Gooks?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by CBF1 View Post
                I voted No and hope they do not change the name. Politicians should be more concerned with things like..... Getting a freekin budget and not crap like this.
                Just because there are bigger political issues in existence doesn't mean this isn't something that at least the NFL and Washington organization shouldn't be made to address.

                It's a racist name. You would not call a Native American a redskin to their face. Even avoiding the "should Native/Indian mascots be used at all" question, the Redskins are clearly the furthest over the line. Yes, you will find polls of Native Americans who say they don't care. But there are also polls / petitions from plenty of them who find it equivalent to the n-word.

                Do we need total consensus from any ethnic community to establish that a controversial word with, at the very least, a very racist history to it maybe shouldn't be used for one of the biggest sports teams in the country? I would say no.

                It's not being overly PC or touchy to say maybe the team in our nation's capitol shouldn't be branded with a racial slur for a group of people who were nearly massacred out of existence in that area of the country. It's just a gross anachronism, a name they got back in the 1930s when you could also freely call blacks, asians, and other minorities any number of slurs without controversy. Times have fortunately changed. Why keep celebrating an ugly relic of that era?

                Comment


                • #9
                  it could be argued D Snyder could make EVEN MORE money on a new branding

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Bacchus View Post
                    The term Redskin came from when a white would kill an Indian and then peel off his/her face with a knife to prove they killed an Indian they would then turn in their redskins to get a bounty. **** yeah that is offensive. Its offensive as hell.

                    But that is not what it means today. Today they try to make it honor Indians. I don't know. The name doesn't offend me but I don't offend easily as the political correctness police on this board.

                    In all honesty they should change the name but they never will.

                    redskin:

                    Redskin is first recorded in the late 17th century and was applied to the Algonquian peoples generally, but specifically to the Delaware (who lived in what is now southern New York State and New York City, New Jersey, and eastern Pennsylvania). Redskin referred not to the natural skin color of the Delaware, but to their use of vermilion face paint and body paint. In time, however, through a process that in linguistics is called pejoration, by which a neutral term acquires an unfavorable connotation or denotation, redskin lost its neutral, accurate descriptive sense and became a term of disparagement. Red man is first recorded in the early 17th century and was originally neutral in tone. Red Indian is first recorded in the early 19th century and was used by the British, far more than by Americans, to distinguish the Indians of the subcontinent from the Indians of the Americas. All three terms are dated or offensive. American Indian and Native American are now the standard umbrella terms. Of course, if it is possible or appropriate, one can also use specific tribal names (Cheyenne, Nez Percé, etc.).

                    http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/def...skin?q=redskin

                    Only thing that sounds similar to the bolded is when the king of England issued a proclamation ordering the removal/destruction of the Penobscot Indian, offering reward money for their capture or their scalps, not faces. The term redskin is not found in that document.

                    http://abbemuseum.org/research/waban...clamation.html

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by TheReverend View Post
                      I find the Harlem Honkeys and Compton Crackers to both be in good taste.

                      the mascot:

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Jetmeck View Post
                        No they won't ever change their name and quit being so damn touchy people.
                        you probably don't want to hear this, but it is generally people who are of the "liberal" persuasion who are the "touchy" people pushing these "political correctness" issues...

                        I mean after all, according to the vast majority of liberals, conservatives are nothing but a bunch of rich racist bigoted homophobic caucasians who would name all our sports teams derogatory names if we could.
                        Last edited by errand; 05-29-2013, 10:25 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by TheReverend View Post
                          I find the Harlem Honkeys and Compton Crackers to both be in good taste.
                          Yes. And that is exactly the same.


                          Okie dokie.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I think all Native Americans should just assimilate. We should get rid of all reservations and they should just join the general populace. This insistence on keeping themselves separated from society is racist. Everything about it is nationalist and racist. I'm technically native American since I was born in America. Their whole premise is similar what black people try to argue with reparations saying "your great-great-grandfather screwed my great-great-grandfather and by bloodline you owe me."

                            They should be assimilated. Resistance is racist.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Kaylore View Post
                              I think all Native Americans should just assimilate. We should get rid of all reservations and they should just join the general populace. This insistence on keeping themselves separated from society is racist. Everything about it is nationalist and racist. I'm technically native American since I was born in America. Their whole premise is similar what black people try to argue with reparations saying "your great-great-grandfather screwed my great-great-grandfather and by bloodline you owe me."

                              They should be assimilated. Resistance is racist.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X