Tweedr01 Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 That might be another use for the term Redskin, but in this case, it's to describe the color of indians. It's hard to argue considering the Redskins logo is an indian.Again, I'm not offended, but I'm not an indian. Uh, nope, redskin is what Native Americans were called when they put red paint on their face when they went to war. Redskins was never meant as a deragatory name, it was used to describe the war paint Native American's used, not their skin color. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 What's offensive about it? I've never heard the term used in a derogatory sense. People associate the term with the color of skin or scalping or some other wives tale that spread like gossip, but it is not.According to the Smithsonian Institute, the tern "redskin" refered to smearing red clay or red paint on one's face during war or for ceremonial purposes. A badge of honor so to speak. I've learned to doubt these kind of statements about these issues. A lot of "made-up" facts out there. Fact is, the word "Redskin" is kind of insensitive in modern times. Maybe not a huge deal in the abstract, but the fact that the owner of the team back then was a virulent racist, the worst in NFL history, makes it even more awkward. I don't think we need to change everything about the team and logo, but maybe there is a better word to describe a team with a Native American motif than the one we currently use. ---------- Post added January-9th-2013 at 02:17 PM ---------- I would rather this franchise be stuck in the muck and mire of another 30 years of mediocrity and bad football than change the name. I'm not passionate about much, but this is one thing I'll fight to the death on. That seems silly to me. ---------- Post added January-9th-2013 at 02:18 PM ---------- Uh, nope, redskin is what Native Americans were called when they put red paint on their face when they went to war. Redskins was never meant as a deragatory name, it was used to describe the war paint Native American's used, not their skin color. Yeah, maybe. But I doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Btubes18 Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 That might be another use for the term Redskin, but in this case, it's to describe the color of indians. It's hard to argue considering the Redskins logo is an indian.Again, I'm not offended, but I'm not an indian. Do you think if we change the logo it would suffice? Leads to another question would people rather keep the logo or the team name? Personally, I would rather see the name changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heavy Jumbo Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 First, the indigenous people of America are not called "Indians". They are called Native Americans. I find it ironic that people get offended by the name Redskins but then proceed to use an "offensive" name themselves. Secondly, as previous posters have stated we are not moving back to D.C anytime soon no matter how much some want to. What Mayor Gray thinks about our "nickname" is irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Hmmm....if I try really, really hard I can imagine a world in which there are teams called the Celtics, the Fighting Irish, the Eskimos, the Saxons, the Canadiens, the Seminoles, the Ragin' Cajuns, the Scots, the Quakers, the Gaels, etc... None of those are really the same, are they? The name isn't "Native Americans" or "Powhatans" or something. Its Redskins. :whoknows: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tweedr01 Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 None of those are really the same, are they? The name isn't "Native Americans" or "Powhatans" or something. Its Redskins. :whoknows: fighting irish is a stereotype that all irish are drunken, violent, wife beating midgets, yeah if we have to change our name they have to change theirs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Do you think if we change the logo it would suffice? Leads to another question would people rather keep the logo or the team name?Personally, I would rather see the name changed. I don't think hardly anyone is offended by the logo. It's the specific word Redskin that is viewed as a racial epithet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 I would rather this franchise be stuck in the muck and mire of another 30 years of mediocrity and bad football than change the name. I'm not passionate about much, but this is one thing I'll fight to the death on. Really!!!?! I don't feel near that strongly on the issue. Sure the name carries a lot of football history with it, but other pro teams have changed their names without the organization collapsing and the fan base falling to their knees in hysterics. And personally, given your hypothetical, if the choice is that RG3 leads the "Washington Warriors" to 3 Super Bowls and his son RG4 leads them to 2 more in the next 30 years, I'd take that in a heartbeat over 30 years of last place finishes by the "Washington Redskins." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 fighting irish is a stereotype that all irish are drunken, violent, wife beating midgets, yeah if we have to change our name they have to change theirs. I guess that one is the closest. Certainly "Canadiens" or "Quakers" or "Gaels" don't qualify. But even then, the word "Fighting" is a sports metaphor used with all sorts of different teams. As I recall, it was the "Fighting Quakers"- lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 and this just keeps coming up. I'm not sure where I stand on the issue anymore. We are so damn politically correct in this country...I'd rather change the name then allow it to become a distraction every season. http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000124151/article/mayor-wants-to-discuss-changing-redskins-nickname Washington D.C. mayor Vincent C. Gray suggested on Wednesday that he would like to discuss a possible name change with the Washington Redskins franchise.This could especially become an issue if the Redskins want to relocate within city limits with a new stadium. "I think that if they get serious with the team coming back to Washington, there's no doubt there's going to have to be a discussion about that, and of course the team is going to have to work with us around that issue," Gray said on Wednesday via The Washington Post continued at link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMUSkins Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 I'd rather stay in Landover than change our name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RVAbrendan Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 I would almost be okay with changed to the Skins. But then... The Washington Skins...just sounds dumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spjunkies Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Ummm what is Vincent talking about? his butt is about to be booted from office so this does not concern him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armstrong001 Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Maybe not a huge deal in the abstract, but the fact that the owner of the team back then was a virulent racist, the worst in NFL history, makes it even more awkward. I don't think we need to change everything about the team and logo, but maybe there is a better word to describe a team with a Native American motif than the one we currently use. So, you think a racist owner would willingly change his team's name to a racist term? Who would purposely name their professional sports team a derogatory name? Makes no sense at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benskins26 Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Sure, after they change the Indians, the Seminoles, the Braves, the Chiefs, the Blackhawks, etc. After all that is done, then come see us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Is there any reason to believe that he will still be mayor when we actually move back to DC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsfan07 Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 This will never happen. So dumb that it keeps getting brought up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbi3stix Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 If it were to be changed to the "Hampton Honkeys" there wouldn't be ANY issue.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike21 Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 I'd rather stay in Landover than change our name. Plus I don't want to pay PSLs. Stay where we are as the REDSKINS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCranon21 Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Looks like we are staying in good ole Raljon, MD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike21 Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Sure, after they change the Indians, the Seminoles, the Braves, the Chiefs, the Blackhawks, etc.After all that is done, then come see us. The Seminole Tribe are on the FSU payroll and have given their full support of the name FYI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
braindx Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 William Henry "Lone Star" Dietz (August 17, 1884 – July 20, 1964) was an American football player and coach. He served as the head football coach at Washington State University (1915–1917), Purdue University (1921), Louisiana Tech University (1922–1923), University of Wyoming (1924–1926), and Albright College (1937–1942) compiling a career college football record of 70–47–6. From 1933 to 1934, Dietz was the head coach of the National Football League's Boston Redskins, where he tallied a mark of 11–11–2.[...] George Preston Marshall, owner and founder of the Boston Braves in 1932, sought to rename the franchise in 1933 after leaving the stadium they shared with the baseball team of the same name. He chose the name Redskins in honor of Dietz, who is of the Sioux Nation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Henry_Dietz You would think if everyone had some context they would stop arguing every year to change the name. Plus, Snyder will never change the name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichmondRedskin88 Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 How about we ain't in your city so we don't have to listen? nana nana boobooboo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2cents Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 No. Discussion over. Next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMUSkins Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Plus I don't want to pay PSLs. Stay where we are as the REDSKINS Exactly. If the city gives us that ultimatum I say we just never move back. This ultra-PC crap is getting ridiculous. People don't take the time to understand CONTEXT any more... they just jump all over a single word or name. It's ****ing annoying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
![Tom [Giants fan]](http://content.invisioncic.com/Mnflwash/profile/photo-114388.png)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.