Yes, it's absolutely racist and the NFL should be doing more to make them change the name. The team will still exist if they change the name as will all of the team's history.
Poll: Is the Washington Redskins team name racist?
- Thread starter tippy2k2
- Start date
In my neighborhood, Roxborough, there was an Italian immigrant who sold produce. He was rather popular and was known under the moniker "Dago Louie". And, after becoming quite successful, he bought a parcel of land and dedicated it to be a baseball/soccer field [https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0462431,-75.2175388,3a,75y,132.02h,80.04t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s5pNRUDxRLgxgfBlN9j4U2A!2e0]. To the locals, these fields were known as "Dago Louie's", in honor of the man that did a service to his community. However, in the 70's, when Mayor Rizzo sought to officially name the fields after the man's birth name, Salvatore Pachella. But, screw that. We're not gonna let some guy from South Philly tell us how we should refer to, and honor the memory of, one of our residents.
So, when it comes to the Washington Redskins, I'm a bit conflicted. I can see how it might offend some, but isn't just fitting when they stomp the Cowboys? Cause, seriously, screw the Cowboys. Or, us that just a Philly thing?
So, when it comes to the Washington Redskins, I'm a bit conflicted. I can see how it might offend some, but isn't just fitting when they stomp the Cowboys? Cause, seriously, screw the Cowboys. Or, us that just a Philly thing?
Honestly? I don't really find it offensive and I am part indian. The word hasn't really been used in a negative context in so long that I feel its lost any negative connotations. If the guy wants to keep it, I say let him keep it. Plus the mascot is kinda cool to me, but eh there is always going to be at least one person for everything that would find it offensive whether said thing is targeting them or not
Basically this but more polite. People are always looking for things to be offended by and demanding things be changed because they disagree. Well I disagree with those people disagreeing so they should be forced to stop disagreeing with me.spartan231490 said:
It's absolutely a harmful name. It's a racial slur, and we really shouldn't making sport team names out of marginalized cultures.
I'm a bit torn on whether we should force them to change it or not. I'd like to think they'll come to their senses and realize it themselves. If they were capable of that though, they probably would have done it already? I am undecided on this.
I'm a bit torn on whether we should force them to change it or not. I'd like to think they'll come to their senses and realize it themselves. If they were capable of that though, they probably would have done it already? I am undecided on this.
That's... no. When your out in the sun, you get a sun burn, and that's what people call it. 'Redskin' is a derogatory term for Native Americans.GamingBlaze said:
The only reason many people don't think its offensive is because its fallen out of usage, like 'spook.'
I wouldn't call the name racist, however I would call it insensitive possible offensive depending on the person. As far as their changing it, I don't think they should be forced to, but I also wouldn't object to people not supporting them anymore due to their name.
Consumer power is a real thing.
Consumer power is a real thing.
The word is literally a racial slur. How is it you don't think somethin that is literally a racial slur isn't racist?Shock and Awe said:
Is it intended to be a racial slur? Nope, but at the end of the day the intent doesn't matter when its somethin so blindingly obvious.
How so? We refer to those of African descent as black and those of European descent as white. Why is it that when applied to Native Americans it is a slur? Is it a politically correct term? Hell to the no, but that doesn't make it a slur.shintakie10 said:
Have you never actually seen a person of Native American decent and noticed what skin color they are? Last I checked, they weren't red.Shock and Awe said:
I'm still on Team Washington Russets. Or Team Washington Yukon Gold.
Alternatively, http://www.theonion.com/articles/washington-redskins-change-their-name-to-the-dc-re,34161/
Alternatively, http://www.theonion.com/articles/washington-redskins-change-their-name-to-the-dc-re,34161/
Black and white and closer to the respective colors than red ever was. Aside from that, outside of ridiculous usages like blackie the color of a black persons skin wasn't the target of racial stereotypes when it came to names.Shock and Awe said:
If you want to get into the how so question though, I don't really have an answer for you. I understand how wetback became a racist term because of the literal use of the word at the time. They used it to degrade people crossin the Rio Grande to come to the US. That makes sense. Others? Not so much.
At the end of the day, how and why don't really matter. What matters is the honest truth. The word is a racial slur. It's is on par with callin a Latino a wetback, or a black person a ******. The only difference between them is that redskin isn't used all that often in current speech.
The hilarious part about this is that I mostly see white people getting pissed off about this on the behalf of Native Americans(Who mostly don't give a shit). I think it is mostly about people feeling guilty and getting offended on behalf of others, as they often do.
I put down other, because ＼(＾O＾
／I DON'T FUCKING CARE!＼(＾O＾／ Really the whole issue of racism is this, "Is what is being done out of hate?" If the answer is yes then it's racism, if no then it's, at worst, ignorance. Is this being done out of hate? No. Is it ignorant? Yeah I could go with that. Is it going to cause any negative repercussions towards the native Americans? No. At worst it'll cause the homogenization of their culture. To which I say, welcome to the club motherfuckers! Grab a kilt, put on some clogs, laugh at the leprechaun, sneer at the queen, dance awkwardly to polka, and embrace the entropy, because it's coming for us all.
／I DON'T FUCKING CARE!＼(＾O＾／ Really the whole issue of racism is this, "Is what is being done out of hate?" If the answer is yes then it's racism, if no then it's, at worst, ignorance. Is this being done out of hate? No. Is it ignorant? Yeah I could go with that. Is it going to cause any negative repercussions towards the native Americans? No. At worst it'll cause the homogenization of their culture. To which I say, welcome to the club motherfuckers! Grab a kilt, put on some clogs, laugh at the leprechaun, sneer at the queen, dance awkwardly to polka, and embrace the entropy, because it's coming for us all.
Actually, they were. Black has been used as a negative term and white as a positive one. This may or may not be the origin of the term "that's mighty white of you," but it is how it became colloquially used in the US. Negative associations with both "black" and "negro" are why we came up with so many terms to describe black folks in the US. This includes ones that have fallen into disuse, but also African-American. Simon Amstell even paralleled this on Never Mind the Buzzcocks:shintakie10 said:
(I think the quote is slightly wrong, but the video of it was pulled from YouTube. BARROWMAN! *shakefist*)
Not to mention the "Curse of Ham" sort of stuff, and the Mormon's belief that black skin was the result of sin.
"black" is still a somewhat touchy term to some people in the US. I can't speak for anywhere else or speak for black people specifically, but it can be an issue. Republicans have been bitching about this at least as long as I've been alive (what? you mean we have to be considerate of people? Isn't not calling you negroes anymore enough?), and, as a side note, I don't think it's horribly unreasonable to let black people define the terms they wish to be called (not aimed at you, just saying). Also, I'm aware I said black, and I default to black--I just don't take umbrage if some black person doesn't want to be called black.
That said, to my knowledge, there is no sports team in America known as the Blacks, at least not in the context of a team whose name clearly derives from people of African descent. Were there a team called the Baltimore Blacks, with a black person as their mascot (possibly a blackfaced individual or a stereotypical lazy negro from antebellum times or a spear-chucking tribesman with a bone through his nose), we would probably hear about it, so in this context, I think there's actually a parallel to the issue at hand.
I'm not trying to divert from your overall point, though, that the Redskin name is a slur, just saying that if we were to parallel this with a team based around a caricatured black person, there would likely be the same issues. It's not to say "redskin" isn't a slur, merely that "black" can also be a slur.
And honestly? I think it's only not a thing because people know better. Which I think sort of bolsters your point, the long way 'round.