Poll:( Hypothetical Question) Would you still support this team, if for whatever reason the name was changed?

[Conn]

Almost none of that is true. Ignorance doesn't make something racist. The scalping story is simply not true at all. Think about this... do you really feel like the courts would allow this name to continue to be so prominent if it were truly racist? There is absolutely no evidence that the Redskins name and logo are in any way meant as or derived from negative connotations. It isn't like the name is the Washington Whop Deigo's. Simply because some people are too ignorant to read/understand the actual meaning of the term does not suddenly transform it into something racist... it makes them ignorant, victim oriented people.

I'm not saying that you're wrong here. I'm looking for clarification, however.

You address his post, which gives examples of what the name Redskins could be based off of, and why that could be considered racist.

Instead of giving different meanings, which would not in any way be racist, you simply say that his reasons are ignorant.

Well, how about some "facts", if "none of that is true". You could easily be correct...I just want to know what you seem to be pretty sure you know.

[SkinsWarrior81]

I'm not saying that you're wrong here. I'm looking for clarification, however.

You address his post, which gives examples of what the name Redskins could be based off of, and why that could be considered racist.

Instead of giving different meanings, which would not in any way be racist, you simply say that his reasons are ignorant.

Well, how about some "facts", if "none of that is true". You could easily be correct...I just want to know what you seem to be pretty sure you know.

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002961.html

Independent studies by an ivy league school deem the term to be acceptable. Court cases against the name are thrown out due to technicality because they waited to long to even have it heard, however, federal regulations do not allow for discrimination in the workplace due to race etc... There would be a federal discrimination case against the organization if the name were in fact offensive. The point being is that you can decide that calling someone tall is offensive, but it doesn't make it so just because you find out that someone else happens to not like tall people in a completely unrelated context.

The point I had made earlier is that the Cleveland Indians mascot can definitely be seen as offensive as it makes Native Americans a caricature of themselves in a silly way.

[JPCreativelab]

"l have never seen an lndian family that's chilling out at Red Lobster..." - Chris Rock

I really have no political correctness feelings about our name, i personally have never really liked the name or the logo. i'd prefer something like "Braves" or "Warriors" or something similar. Its not that big a deal to me though, either way, just a preference, or in "my perfect world"...

but i will say that if the Native American population had more prominence in our society, i think the debate would be a lot bigger and out there more. Whether its racist or not, i think just to be on the safe side, it would be changed, if Native Americans had more of a voice in our society.

Who knows, like Mr. Rock said, I dont know any of them to ask them to their face what they think...

[stwasm]

There is absolutely no evidence that the Redskins name and logo are in any way meant as or derived from negative connotations. It isn't like the name is the Washington Whop Deigo's.

Just because something isn't "meant to be" racist doesn't make it any less racist. If I killed your mother, wife, or daughter, then came to you and said, "Well, I didn't mean to kill her," would it make it any less painful to you? Once again, this came from a Native American and I asked for her honest opinion. How do you know what she said isn't true?

And as for those independent studies, how many of them actually asked Native Americans? I go back to my earlier comment. You and I may not see the term as racist. But, then again, we're not Native Americans and we don't have their experiences. I am sure and I know as a fact there are Native Americans that aren't bothered by the name. But, to me, the fact that there are those groups that find the term racist shows that maybe we need to take a look at it and try to understand them instead of just dismissing it all as trying to be politically correct.

[SkinsWarrior81]

Just because something isn't "meant to be" racist doesn't make it any less racist. If I killed your mother, wife, or daughter, then came to you and said, "Well, I didn't mean to kill her," would it make it any less painful to you? Once again, this came from a Native American and I asked for her honest opinion. How do you know what she said isn't true?

And as for those independent studies, how many of them actually asked Native Americans? I go back to my earlier comment. You and I may not see the term as racist. But, then again, we're not Native Americans and we don't have their experiences. I am sure and I know as a fact there are Native Americans that aren't bothered by the name. But, to me, the fact that there are those groups that find the term racist shows that maybe we need to take a look at it and try to understand them instead of just dismissing it all as trying to be politically correct.

So what you are telling me is that The University of Pennsylvania is an unreliable and biased source, prone to misleading and uninformed decisions? "I didn't mean for it to be racist" does not apply. This term never was racist. It had nothing to do with negative connotation. Modern society decided that it had a negative connotation during the rash of PC coming across the US in the 90's. People did not look into the meaning of the name and popularized untrue fairy tales about it.

Studies have shown that 90% of the Native American population is not offended by this name.

Are you trying to tell me that because of one woman's opinion that the entire definition of a term should be changed?

[stwasm]

So what you are telling me is that The University of Pennsylvania is an unreliable and biased source, prone to misleading and uninformed decisions? "I didn't mean for it to be racist" does not apply. This term never was racist. It had nothing to do with negative connotation. Modern society decided that it had a negative connotation during the rash of PC coming across the US in the 90's. People did not look into the meaning of the name and popularized untrue fairy tales about it.

Studies have shown that 90% of the Native American population is not offended by this name.

Are you trying to tell me that because of one woman's opinion that the entire definition of a term should be changed?

I am simply asking the question if the unversity asked Native American groups in this study. If a study doesn't at least consider ALL sides of an issue, it's incomplete. And for you to say, "This term was never racist," shows that you ignored my examples of how it could be "construed" as racist. As I said before, at first glance, I didn't see the term as racist until I saw that episode of the Long Ranger and took into consideration that what the word "Redskins" means to you and me may mean something totally different to other groups.

I'm trying to tell you that if there are Native American groups out there -- whom, as MeastoftheEast pointed out, are VERY under-represented in society today -- who say that the term is racist, at the very least, we should be open-minded, listen to the whys and go from there. They ought to know what is and what isn't racist to them, not what society dictates is or isn't racist.

[SkinsWarrior81]

I am simply asking the question if the unversity asked Native American groups in this study. If a study doesn't at least consider ALL sides of an issue, it's incomplete. And for you to say, "This term was never racist," shows that you ignored my examples of how it could be "construed" as racist. As I said before, at first glance, I didn't see the term as racist until I saw that episode of the Long Ranger and took into consideration that what the word "Redskins" means to you and me may mean something totally different to other groups.

I'm trying to tell you that if there are Native American groups out there -- whom, as MeastoftheEast pointed out, are VERY under-represented in society today -- who say that the term is racist, at the very least, we should be open-minded, listen to the whys and go from there. They ought to know what is and what isn't racist to them, not what society dictates is or isn't racist.

You cannot simply rewrite history to fit personal opinion. That is why the term is not racist.

[Conn]

You cannot simply rewrite history to fit personal opinion. That is why the term is not racist.

What he's saying is that history doesn't necessarily matter anymore in this situation.

Perception can be just as powerful as intent, when it comes to labels and racism.

Is this one of those cases? I don't know, but you can't keep acting like stwasm doesn't have a point.

[mossomo]

Would you still support the team as you have the "Redskins"

Do I support the Wizards as I did the Bullets. No. Wizards, lamest franchise name ever. If you change the name or move the team, it will not be the same.

[stwasm]

What he's saying is that history doesn't necessarily matter anymore in this situation.

Perception can be just as powerful as intent, when it comes to labels and racism.

Is this one of those cases? I don't know, but you can't keep acting like stwasm doesn't have a point.

Thank you, Conn.

[SkinsWarrior81]

Thank you, Conn.

Sure he has a point.. I just do not feel it is a relevant one.

Majority perception is that the name is in fact not racist, that has been polled over and over. The overwhelming majority of Native Americans do not feel that the term is offensive. What more evidence do you need? Or is this another example of white guilt trumping reason in society?

(Quoted the wrong post here, but you get the idea.) (Also, I am not trying to be ornery or a jerk. Simply just debating.)

[stwasm]

Sure he has a point.. I just do not feel it is a relevant one.

Majority perception is that the name is in fact not racist, that has been polled over and over. The overwhelming majority of Native Americans do not feel that the term is offensive. What more evidence do you need? Or is this another example of white guilt trumping reason in society?

(Quoted the wrong post here, but you get the idea.) (Also, I am not trying to be ornery or a jerk. Simply just debating.)

First, I didn't think you were being snarky. I was only saying that if there are segments who do feel the term is racist, we should listen with open minds. Plus, I've heard it used in derogatory manors, which puts a question in mind. That's all.

[SkinsWarrior81]

First, I didn't think you were being snarky. I was only saying that if there are segments who do feel the term is racist, we should listen with open minds. Plus, I've heard it used in derogatory manors, which puts a question in mind. That's all.

Fair enough. The question I think it raises in my mind is whether, as I said previously, this is more about white guilt than a legitimate issue. I live in Montana for an extended period of time, all the while remaining a Redskins fan. I was very vocal about it and none of the indians I had met ever had an issue with the name, so in that respect, I do not see it as a universal issue among Native Americans.

[Hunter44]

I wouldn't like it, but I'd support them. They are my team.

Are the old Houston Oilers fans now fans of the Texans? I think if they change the name I no longer have a team.

[cphil006]

Are the old Houston Oilers fans now fans of the Texans? I think if they change the name I no longer have a team.

I wonder if they stuck with them when they moved to Tennessee and became the Titans.

---------- Post added December-2nd-2010 at 09:12 PM ----------

What he's saying is that history doesn't necessarily matter anymore in this situation.

Perception can be just as powerful as intent, when it comes to labels and racism.

Is this one of those cases? I don't know, but you can't keep acting like stwasm doesn't have a point.

For those that know the facts, it probably isn't perceived as racism. For those that call it racist, might be ignorant to the fact of the meaning. What it meant and what it means now. Do we change it for one person? A group of people? How is that justified? How many people have to say they don't like it? If they don't, why should the team be forced to change it? I'm proud to be a Redskins fan. I am sad/mad we lose many games right now, but I want it to stay. I know the meaning of it then, and now.

---------- Post added December-2nd-2010 at 09:17 PM ----------

First, I didn't think you were being snarky. I was only saying that if there are segments who do feel the term is racist, we should listen with open minds. Plus, I've heard it used in derogatory manors, which puts a question in mind. That's all.

I;ve heard "whites" used in a derogatory term, directed at me before. That doesn't mean the term "white" is racist. It can be how it's used. This is getting so repetative. I'm leaving this thread for now to finish a project for school.

I thought we've been over and shown how it's not meant to be offensive and explained the true meaining of "putting red clay and red paint on the face in war and for ceremonial purposes" as it states in the Press Guide from research done by the Smithsonian Institute.

People can believe what they want to believe, and believe anything, but before they call it offensive, know the intent and the true meaning.