Washington Redskins name

[nukes_da_bass]

I'm a big fan of doing the right thing for the right reason.

That said, I despise so called "rules of political correctness" which became so stringent as to be fascist.

I was driving a client downtown one day and they said "look at all these African Americans! ".

I replied "I see many cultures of brown skinned people. How do you know which ones are American citizens of African desent?".

Exactly.

 

[Marial]

Brain fart, meant 'fooled'. Oi.... You see a lot of Nordic pride in the Ballard area of Seattle, too. Visiting is one thing, living there is another matter, however.

 

[edpal]

Brain fart, meant 'fooled'. Oi.... You see a lot of Nordic pride in the Ballard area of Seattle, too. Visiting is one thing, living there is another matter, however.

That was my point, I just didn't lay it out there. I think Monday through Friday most of those people are living some sort of "USA average" lifestyle. Going to work at typical American jobs, eating typical American fast food, watching typical American shows, wearing typical American clothing. Unless they have a job that creates an opportunity to think and work with their cultural heritage on a daily basis it is really just a hobby to roll out periodically and not think about in between. I think clinging to cultural affiliations plays a big part in creating and continuing racist thoughts and behaviours. It is an intentional focus on what makes us different, dragged here from countries thousands of miles away - imo this would be a much better country if we could focus on what we have in common. #1 is that 99.5% of us are from somewhere else.

 

[Marial]

I think you make a good point, but clinging to cultural affectations doesn't have to contribute to racist thoughts and behaviors, and that's what bugs the crud out of me. For instance, I have no more problem with Irish 'pride' than I do with the skandahoovians in Ballard here in Seattle who fly Norwegian flags with their Stars and Stripes. Similarly, I have no problem anyone else, Italians, Kenyans, Portuguese, Brazilians, what-have-you, being into their heritage. The reason being their pride and their celebration of their otherness in no way diminishes me, who I am, or what I stand for.

So I ask you, why is it mostly white people who get their hackles up when someone different from them expresses some fondness and pride in their heritage? Why is that threatening? To me that is one more question that needs to be answered before racism becomes less of a problem.

 

[nutdog]

Washington Thickskins? No, that'll never happen. More likely the Washington Thinskins.

 

[ShoeManiac]

Ignorance, fear and disregard are what generally lead to racial thoughts and behavior. Various lines of heritage though? They're part of many people's identities. Language, cuisine and traditions are part of what makes people who they are. Assimilation is great and all. And having shared language, traditions and customs bring a larger community together. But we don't just spring out of nothingness as a blank canvas. Everyone has their own story about how they get to THIS particular place and point in time.

Native Americans have their own story. And over the past 200+ years there has been a lot of tragedy. Despite the fact that they were here long before any Europeans, Asians or Africans. I remember driving by a reservation in upstate New York near my college. There was a banner across the entry road. It read "Established 10,000 B.C." That made me think a lot about how insignificant the history of a country that's not even 250 years old is relative to the length of the history of humanity. And that perhaps our respect for that long history needs some re-examination.

As for the polls regarding the Washington NFL team's name? There seem to have been numerous polls conducted of the broader population as well as the some 500 recognized tribes in the United States. Those have come back with varying results. And I think those results are influenced by peoples individual perspective.

I also know that Dan Snyder, the team owner, has been involved in some outreach programs to segments of the Native American community. I don't know how to regard that. Is it a legitimate concern for financial development in those communities? Or is it a PR stunt to deflect away from the controversy surrounding the name?

Like I said earlier in the thread, Snyder's interest in keeping the name the same seems to be motivated primarily by money. In rankings of the value of NFL franchises from last year, Invalid Link Removed, with a value of $1.7 billion. And the perception is that the NAME of the team is part of that value. The average value of an NFL franchise is actually $1.17 billion. So what is it about the Washington team that is worth that additional half a billion dollars? Is it the name? The location of the franchise? The branding/logo? The history? I don't know. But I bet that Dan Snyder isn't willing to gamble on the value of his team by changing the name.

 

[Immigrant]

I'm a dummy, so please take that into consideration if you choose to answer the following question.

I've seen comparisons here that consider terms like "Fighting Irish" and "Redskins" to be similar in offensiveness, and I don't get it. I'd get it if the team was called the "Drunken Irish" or "Fighting Potato Eaters". How are they similar?

Thanks in advance.

 

[macaroni tony]

I don't know if Brave is a slur, but in any case it doesn't seem right to have mascots that are a nation of people. I know there's "The Fighting Irish" but that's a stupid one anyway. In this country you name teams Bears, Tigers, Earthquakes, Lazers, whatever BS... to use the name of a nation seems disrespectful.

The Sioux vs the Hornets! The Cherokee vs The Ducks! Doesn't seem right.

I've been thinking a lot about this lately. I tried to think of a parallel for black people...asking myself "what name that symbolizes African or African American heritage would I be OK with for a sports team? Zulu? Mandingo Warriors? Buffalo Soldiers (as it turns out, there are a few minor sports teams with that name)? Black folks?" As it turns out...I couldn't think of anything that didn't make me cringe a little. I asked my wife the same question when I get home, she looked at me crazy and said, "Uh....you can't name a sports team after a race of people. No, that's just nuts. I don't want to be a mascot." I rattled off a bunch of existing team names, she had no idea there were so many named after people (What's a Celtic? Oh.) Eventually she shrugged and said, "Well, if that's what people do, I guess there's nothing I can do about it."

That's how I figure most of the non-vocal Natives feel on the subject, "These team names have been around for 100 years, what can I do about it?" Even if I feel a name like "Chiefs" or "Braves" is a respectful one, putting the leaders and warriors in a regal light, really who am I to tell someone who would rather not have their folks be a mascot to "Get over it?"

There are a few schools around with "Aztecs" as the mascot. Those schools have a largely Mexican population, and I guess that has something to do with the fact that everyone is on board with it. I propose this novel idea when it comes to naming teams after people: If the group represented is OK with it, keep the name. If the group is not OK with it, change the name.

 

[BassyBill]

"I see many cultures of brown skinned people. How do you know which ones are American citizens of African desent?".

Well, the second part's easy - all American citizens are of African descent, just like everybody else.

Just sayin'.

 

[macaroni tony]

I'm a big fan of doing the right thing for the right reason.

That said, I despise so called "rules of political correctness" which became so stringent as to be fascist.

I was driving a client downtown one day and they said "look at all these African Americans! ".

I replied "I see many cultures of brown skinned people. How do you know which ones are American citizens of African desent?".

Exactly.

That's a funny one to me as well. It's not uncommon for someone to be talking to me, stumbling over what to call a black person before settling on "African American." I always say, "He's black. It's OK."

 

[Immigrant]

That's easy - all American citizens are of African descent, just like everybody else.

Just sayin'.

Same reason why I don't mock tadpoles about their heritage.

 

[Gravedigger Dav]

You're just choosing to be insensitive. I get it. I've been there, man.



I don't know if Brave is a slur, but in any case it doesn't seem right to have mascots that are a nation of people. I know there's "The Fighting Irish" but that's a stupid one anyway. In this country you name teams Bears, Tigers, Earthquakes, Lazers, whatever BS... to use the name of a nation seems disrespectful.

The Sioux vs the Hornets! The Cherokee vs The Ducks! Doesn't seem right.

So instead of offending People who might complain, offend animals that can't?

 

[Gravedigger Dav]

I agree...from where I stand "Braves" in itself was never a slur used against Natives.

Everything is racist anymore. It is what liberals use as a trump card. I'm tired of it.
I never intentionally offend anyone by anything I say and should I do so inadvertantly, I will apologize. Some of my information may be incorrect. I am not aware of the native americans that are offended. Could it be that white social activists convinced them they should be offended?
Has the NFL or the Management of the Washingto DC team offered to meet with any native american representatives and get their input? They should.

 

[Clark Dark]

Quoting Wikipedia:
"The team originated as the Boston Braves, based in Boston, Massachusetts, in 1932, under the ownership of George Preston Marshall. At the time the team played in Braves Field, home of the Boston Braves baseball team. The following year the club moved to Invalid Link Removed, home of the Boston Red Sox, whereupon owners changed the team's name to the Boston Redskins."

Let's blame the Bostonians The Washington Braves....hmmmm

 

[nukes_da_bass]

Quoting Wikipedia:
"The team originated as the Boston Braves, based in Boston, Massachusetts, in 1932, under the ownership of George Preston Marshall. At the time the team played in Braves Field, home of the Boston Braves baseball team. The following year the club moved to Invalid Link Removed, home of the Boston Red Sox, whereupon owners changed the team's name to the Boston Redskins."

Let's blame the Bostonians The Washington Braves....hmmmm

No wonder the Redskins are awful- curse of the Bambino!

 

[macaroni tony]

Everything is racist anymore. It is what liberals use as a trump card. I'm tired of it.
I never intentionally offend anyone by anything I say and should I do so inadvertantly, I will apologize. Some of my information may be incorrect. I am not aware of the native americans that are offended. Could it be that white social activists convinced them they should be offended?
Has the NFL or the Management of the Washingto DC team offered to meet with any native american representatives and get their input? They should.

Everything is "PC nonsense" anymore. It's what [fill in the blank] use as a trump card.

Yes, there are people who scream "racist! sexist! homophobic!" without looking at the details of any particular case. But that is not what's going on here in the least.

As was previously stated, there are links in this thread, as well as Google, if you are interested in knowing who is for a name change. And the answer to both of your questions!

 

[mellowinman]

Everything is racist anymore. It is what liberals use as a trump card. I'm tired of it.
I never intentionally offend anyone by anything I say and should I do so inadvertantly, I will apologize. Some of my information may be incorrect. I am not aware of the native americans that are offended. Could it be that white social activists convinced them they should be offended?
Has the NFL or the Management of the Washingto DC team offered to meet with any native american representatives and get their input? They should.

I have told you of Native Americans I know who are offended by it.

Now you are aware.

 

[Mysterion]

That was my point, I just didn't lay it out there. I think Monday through Friday most of those people are living some sort of "USA average" lifestyle. Going to work at typical American jobs, eating typical American fast food, watching typical American shows, wearing typical American clothing. Unless they have a job that creates an opportunity to think and work with their cultural heritage on a daily basis it is really just a hobby to roll out periodically and not think about in between. I think clinging to cultural affiliations plays a big part in creating and continuing racist thoughts and behaviours. It is an intentional focus on what makes us different, dragged here from countries thousands of miles away - imo this would be a much better country if we could focus on what we have in common. #1 is that 99.5% of us are from somewhere else.

Hmmm...Two points come to mind:

1--Homogeneity is not a universally-shared American goal. Though many people prefer to be surrounded by folk of similar background, others thrive on variety.

2--This argument always falls short because of a basic lack of empathy, or maybe imagination. For many people who stand somehow outside "USA average," there is no choice but to confront their difference--they are reminded of their otherness every day. Making that otherness a point of pride--'clinging to cultural affiliations'--seems like a pretty reasonable assertion of identity.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Ignorance, fear and disregard are what generally lead to racial thoughts and behavior. Various lines of heritage though? They're part of many people's identities. Language, cuisine and traditions are part of what makes people who they are. Assimilation is great and all. And having shared language, traditions and customs bring a larger community together. But we don't just spring out of nothingness as a blank canvas. Everyone has their own story about how they get to THIS particular place and point in time.

Native Americans have their own story. And over the past 200+ years there has been a lot of tragedy. Despite the fact that they were here long before any Europeans, Asians or Africans. I remember driving by a reservation in upstate New York near my college. There was a banner across the entry road. It read "Established 10,000 B.C." That made me think a lot about how insignificant the history of a country that's not even 250 years old is relative to the length of the history of humanity. And that perhaps our respect for that long history needs some re-examination.

As for the polls regarding the Washington NFL team's name? There seem to have been numerous polls conducted of the broader population as well as the some 500 recognized tribes in the United States. Those have come back with varying results. And I think those results are influenced by peoples individual perspective.

I also know that Dan Snyder, the team owner, has been involved in some outreach programs to segments of the Native American community. I don't know how to regard that. Is it a legitimate concern for financial development in those communities? Or is it a PR stunt to deflect away from the controversy surrounding the name?

Like I said earlier in the thread, Snyder's interest in keeping the name the same seems to be motivated primarily by money. In rankings of the value of NFL franchises from last year, Invalid Link Removed, with a value of $1.7 billion. And the perception is that the NAME of the team is part of that value. The average value of an NFL franchise is actually $1.17 billion. So what is it about the Washington team that is worth that additional half a billion dollars? Is it the name? The location of the franchise? The branding/logo? The history? I don't know. But I bet that Dan Snyder isn't willing to gamble on the value of his team by changing the name.

The value is in the fan base. Would a name change affect that? IME IMO not in the least. Two wins early in a season will still have these fans talking about "We're going to the Super Bowl!". It's like Charlie Brown Syndrome. Those fans will buy all new stuff to go with a new name. Gladly. New jerseys, new blankets, new headrest covers, new tattoos, new dog sweaters, new whatever the new name is on everything. That's what they do. Barring an apocalypse I don't see that changing.


So no, I see no reason why Snyder's stand is based on money. It's based on small minded arrogance, the same thing that propelled his team to the continued success it has had on the field.

Yeah, that was sarcasm.


As far as Snyder's outreach, if you couple that with his insensitivity to the complaints... chalk me up as a firm cynic. I don't think many are falling for it.

 

[macaroni tony]

The value is in the fan base. Would a name change affect that? IME IMO not in the least. Two wins early in a season will still have these fans talking about "We're going to the Super Bowl!". It's like Charlie Brown Syndrome. Those fans will buy all new stuff to go with a new name. Gladly. New jerseys, new blankets, new headrest covers, new tattoos, new dog sweaters, new whatever the new name is on everything. That's what they do. Barring an apocalypse I don't see that changing.


So no, I see no reason why Snyder's stand is based on money. It's based on small minded arrogance, the same thing that propelled his team to the continued success it has had on the field.

Yeah, that was sarcasm.


As far as Snyder's outreach, if you couple that with his insensitivity to the complaints... chalk me up as a firm cynic. I don't think many are falling for it.

agreed on all counts