Anti-Redskins add to run during game 3 of NBA finals

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

I spoke of the context before. I agree the name is contextual, hence why changing the logo to a football would be appropriate if you want to keep the name.

[Coach]

Sunburnt person?

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

The list of Native American tribes is enough to convince me.

I spoke of the context before. I agree the name is contextual, hence why changing the logo to a football would be appropriate if you want to keep the name.

My bias is that of a Redskin fan. They are our local team, and the name has a lot of tradition, and tradition is important in sports. The context for us, is that of being proud of the team and logo (even if they have sucked lately). While I agree, it is not what we think that necessarily matters, it does go to explain our mindset.

I don't think there would be a large resistance to changing the logo, but that doesn't seem like it would satisfy anyone.

So I guess the next question is:

Can you define a racial slur? What evidence would you need to agree that
"Redskin" is a racial slur?

I think that most everyone agrees that it is not a slur that is ever used today. And 3-4 years ago, no one was calling it a slur. At some point during the last few years, people started saying it was a slur from the 1800s, and my take is that it got repeated enough that people started accepting it as fact. So point out any literature, or anything credible that shows that people were using it as a slur during that time and I would be satisfied.

[Trumbull]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

My bias is that of a Redskin fan. They are our local team, and the name has a lot of tradition, and tradition is important in sports. The context for us, is that of being proud of the team and logo (even if they have sucked lately). While I agree, it is not what we think that necessarily matters, it does go to explain our mindset.

I don't think there would be a large resistance to changing the logo, but that doesn't seem like it would satisfy anyone.



I think that most everyone agrees that it is not a slur that is ever used today. And 3-4 years ago, no one was calling it a slur. At some point during the last few years, people started saying it was a slur from the 1800s, and my take is that it got repeated enough that people started accepting it as fact. So point out any literature, or anything credible that shows that people were using it as a slur during that time and I would be satisfied.

lol they weren't, that's the thing.. out of the blue this is suddenly a big deal. Hence why the name should stay the same and let very few people who want to throw fits about it all of a sudden whine all they like.

[terminator]

Can't wait till the name is changed, it'll be fun watching Trumball cry about it.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Trumbull

lol they weren't, that's the thing.. out of the blue this is suddenly a big deal. Hence why the name should stay the same and let very few people who want to throw fits about it all of a sudden whine all they like.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

In fairness this has been going on since at least the early 1990's

http://m.washingtonpost.com/local/us...789_story.html

Therefore this isn't "out of the blue"

Redskin has been a slur dating back to 1755 according to: http://firstpeoples.org/wp/controver...ensitive-name/

It's always been a racial slur, this isn't out of the blue. It might seem it because of how little a voice Native Americans traditionally have had.

Regardless, if the Native American community is saying it's a slur, and it was traditionally used as a slur, what "most people" think is irrelevant.

In terms of changing the logo, it's a step in the right direction. Look at Cleveland. Small steps toward the right thing is better than digging in to support racism on any level.


I don't think that Redskins fans are racist, and I understand the team's history. You can honour the team and it's past, but making a change.

In a day and age where professional sports is becoming more inclusive and accepting, the Redskins are taking an active step against that.

Change the name to a local tribe, honour the team's history with the proud history of the local Native Americans.

Change the logo.

In my mind they should take small steps moving forward to fix this.

I realize that it seems like an attack on the team. It seems like the fans are being told that they're racists and bad people. They're not.

Change is difficult. Our association with our sports teams is strong. Changing the name of the Flames would seem like a change to the team as a whole. But really, sports teams change all the time. They change jerseys, logos, and even names.

If they dropped the skins from the name and changed the logo, the team and it's history would be the same. Tampa Bay did it with the Rays. Now its weird to hear them referred to as the Devil Rays.

This isn't a unilateral attack on the fans. It's righting a decades old, inherently prejudicial wrong.

I agree that the purpose has shifted, but that doesn't mean that the slur itself has.


So I have a better understanding, what would you, as a Washington fan do if the team moved?

Would you cheer for the team in a new city? Would the team keeping it's name make a difference then?

What if they changed the name to the DC Redskins? Or Washington DC Redskins?

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Peanut

But... You're so obviously strombad.

Although his posts are laced with the same smug arrogance, ignorance and general aggressiveness that strombad is famous for, strombad was a bit of a bleeding heart and probably wouldn't be trashing Obama.

[19Yzerman19]

I don't understand why people think he's Strombad when he has views that are the polar opposite of Strombad's.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

I don't understand why people think he's Strombad when he has views that are the polar opposite of Strombad's.

Because Strombad was an opinionated dick?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

My bias is that of a Redskin fan. They are our local team, and the name has a lot of tradition, and tradition is important in sports. The context for us, is that of being proud of the team and logo (even if they have sucked lately). While I agree, it is not what we think that necessarily matters, it does go to explain our mindset.

I don't think there would be a large resistance to changing the logo, but that doesn't seem like it would satisfy anyone.

This is actually an interesting (and valid) viewpoint to me. But the argument on tradition is also curious since the Washington Bullets were renamed after 34 years. Of course, the big difference in that case is that it was the team owner who initiated the call for a change, making it a fait accompli.

Unfortunately for supporters of the current name, I don't think this issue is going away.

I think that most everyone agrees that it is not a slur that is ever used today. And 3-4 years ago, no one was calling it a slur. At some point during the last few years, people started saying it was a slur from the 1800s, and my take is that it got repeated enough that people started accepting it as fact. So point out any literature, or anything credible that shows that people were using it as a slur during that time and I would be satisfied.

I don't have the 19th century research, but the concern over the name is not a problem that has existed for only 3-4 years. There have been protests against the use of Native American nicknames (The Redskins name was a focus then too) since at least the 1960s, including significant ones in 1988 and the early 1990s. The controversy has certainly become pointed in recent years, but this is a long running dispute. Of note, the Univeristy of Utah dropped its "Redskins" nickname 40 years ago because it was viewed as derogatory.


I will also add this story to serve as a counterpoint to Erick Estrada's Slate article from the first page of this thread: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/news/true-redskins-meaning

And the follow-up: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/news/redskin-name-update

“I’m really not that interested in where the word comes from,” Gover said. “I know how it was used. And it’s been used in a disparaging way for at least a couple of centuries. Up to and including the time I was growing up in Oklahoma.”

[calumniate]

Agree it's not really congruent to what Strombad was arguing before, although the style is similar. Eerily moon-ish though..

[corporatejay]

How would people feel If they changed their name to the Washington warriors and kept the logo?

Much like the Cleveland Indians (where I think they should keep the name and change the logo) I would be ok with this.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

I don't understand why people think he's Strombad when he has views that are the polar opposite of Strombad's.

10+ posts per day. The poster's viewpoints are meaningless when you know they're just trying to be disruptive. They'll take the side of whatever provokes the most results.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

How would people feel If they changed their name to the Washington warriors and kept the logo?

Much like the Cleveland Indians (where I think they should keep the name and change the logo) I would be ok with this.

Personally, I would have no problem with the Redskins logo if they changed their name to the Warriors. It'd be no different than Moosejaw or the Braves, and the name combined with the Native imagery would be more of a reference to their heritage than the outright racist name. I would put it more inline with names like Knights, or Blue Jackets.

I also personally think that BOTH the Indians' name and logo should be changed. Indian was a name given to them by someone confused about where he was.

But I am not a Native person, so it doesn't really matter. If they are fine with Indians but not Redskins that's up to them. But that image with the hats really hits home how bad the Indians' logo is.

Here is a question though: Let's say the Canucks change their logo to Johnny Canuck or the lumberjack that Luongo hasdon his mask. I can see how some Canadians would find it offensive to be grouped into lumberjacks, although it may seem ridiculous to some. Because I look at the Johnny Canuck logo and the Indians' logo and don't see a lot of difference. A characature that is meant to represent a whole group of diverse people. That doesn't mean I find it offensive, just comparable style and intention. That is to say, I don't know that the Indians' logo is meant to be racist (taht doesn't mean it's not), it's a cartoon drawing of a Native person. If someone was tasked to come up with a cartoonish image of a Native, seems reasonable to come up with something like that (again, that doesn't mean it's not racist), but how else do you do it? It's the name that brings that issue about. If you change the name, the issue is avoided.

[Daradon]

Yeah, I would change the name 'Indians' too. It's funny, listening to sports radio in the States you can tell that term doesn't have the same connotation it does here. There's still a lot of people there that don't know any better or think there is nothing wrong with it. We've been taught it's incorrect here in Canada for quite some time. And in being incorrect, it's slowly become pejorative. Or, perhaps more correctly, we've realized it's pejorative.

The funny thing is, it's probably pejorative to TWO ethnic groups. First Nations groups, and actual Indians (or East Indian's as we called them for a long time.)

[19Yzerman19]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Because I look at the Johnny Canuck logo and the Indians' logo and don't see a lot of difference.

Neither Canadians nor lumberjacks are a historically oppressed group.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

I would change the name Indians too, and I think the writing is on the wall that they are headed in that direction.

They're slowly removing themselves from the Cheif Wahoo logo. They are now using a stylized C for the most part



Their jerseys have Cleveland in leiu of Indians written across them (only 1 of 4) and I think you'll see that become 2 or 3 next year with the C cap being made permanent.

That's how I'd do it. Slowly, so you don't really notice. Just that you show up to the ironically named Progressive Field and there's no mascot or offensive logo. Have sports networks call them Cleveland and refer to the team by city only. For example, "The Toronto Blue Jays are hosting Cleveland tonight at the Rogers Centre". Once that's all done then changing the name isn't a shock to the system.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

Neither Canadians nor lumberjacks are a historically oppressed group.

Native people are Canadian, so are French, British, Acadian and Metis people. A couple of those groups have seen their share of oppression/subjectation.


Either way, you kind of cherry picked one sentence that wasn't really my point. My point is if the name opens up the logo to be racist, it should probably be changed. But the logo itself, what else is a designer supposed to do when tasked with making a cartoon Native person? If you changed the Indians' logo to a feather or a tomahak (both of which I beleive they use as well), it's still racist. So just change the name - especially since it's not even a real name anyways.

If they were the Indians' and had a guy with meditating with a dot on his head as the logo, it would still be racist, if not moreso.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Here is a question though: Let's say the Canucks change their logo to Johnny Canuck or the lumberjack that Luongo hasdon his mask. I can see how some Canadians would find it offensive to be grouped into lumberjacks, although it may seem ridiculous to some. Because I look at the Johnny Canuck logo and the Indians' logo and don't see a lot of difference. A characature that is meant to represent a whole group of diverse people. That doesn't mean I find it offensive, just comparable style and intention. That is to say, I don't know that the Indians' logo is meant to be racist (taht doesn't mean it's not), it's a cartoon drawing of a Native person. If someone was tasked to come up with a cartoonish image of a Native, seems reasonable to come up with something like that (again, that doesn't mean it's not racist), but how else do you do it? It's the name that brings that issue about. If you change the name, the issue is avoided.

When the Canucks are owned by someone whose racial ancestors brutally murdered and dispossessed Canadians solely on the grounds that they were Canadian, then I might be concerned.