Rosenthal: Mayor wants to discuss changing Redskins nickname

[DM72]

HA!, I would actually like that name.

In todays world, no way will a team ever be called the bullets again.

[nemocystem]

Let me guess. You are 1/32nd Cherokee. Every young Republican I know says that.

this is the most directly offensive post of the entire thread. not only are you wrong, but you didn't even apply comprehension to your post. stating Cherokee, when in fact i stated Chiricawa Apachee. i don't need to prove my ethnicity to you, it's just a shame that you're racist enough to assume that anyone who takes intelligence & logic into the context of this argument can't possibly be Native American. i'm not even Republican...another non-Sherlockian presumption.

you're logic is severely flawed on those 2 points alone. & that's without delving into the why's or how's of the discussion...you simply can't even piece together the logic of my post in order to intelligently convey your counterpost.

surely the best way to defend your opinion is to wax & wane about how someone might be posing in an internet forum. certainly pertains to the subject at hand. furthermore....simply because you can't fathom the logic of reference & where history backs up opinion, you sir are incompetent to the point of offense. it's a shame & a wonder how you have so many posts on this forum & don't know the deep history of this proud franchise.

of course...as per you, telling me what to think...this is just a belief. no doubt you subscribe then, to the Socratic function that one will never truly know anything....at least for the purpose of your own advancement in this discussion, it is your purpose then to portray any contrarian point of fact in the debate as belief in the way that one might "believe" that the light will turn on when they flip a switch. of course, i am sure that i don't need to explain that dichotomy to you...as you appear willing to revel in it.

in the same path of logic then, how does one propose that using the factual name of one's skin to describe the person, much like they would a house or a car, in & of itself is offensive? & to that point...should one choose to represent their PROUD tradition in a non-mocking fashion. then contextually one should be able to logically (should one be equipped with such rational thinking) deduce that no offense is intended. offense should ONLY be derived from intent. if it is otherwise derived then we should simply dissolve language & speak to each other with signals & pictures like the Egyptians did.

context is the ONLY vehicle in which words MUST be represented to the only possible survival of language. if context is to be purposely disposed or misrepresented, or rather ignorantly done so, then you lose the sight of the facts within the argument & become lost in a whirlwind of semantics......& in your case...semantics based on euphemism which is not really an argument at all.......more like a escape or cop-out.

but no-no...far-be-it from me to disrupt anyone's fantastical world views.

but i ask.........are you capable of differentiating RACISM from CULTURALISM? i assume not...but apparently this logic is also way over the heads of the not so intellectually inclined.

[Predicto]

First off, that is cool as hell.

Being a geezer has its perks.

IMO, saying "Redskin" is an anachronism and has "outlived it's usefulness" is a far cry from "universally offensive racial epithet".

Of course it is. If it was a universally offensive racial epithet it wouldn't have lasted this long (I hope).

I'm doing a bit of devil's advocate in this thread because no one else is presenting the other side. We Redskins fans are horrible at considering this issue objectively.

I'm torn on the issue myself. I sang Hail to the Redskins at the top of my lungs in a sports bar in San Francisco just a couple of weeks ago. I have a Redskins jersey, a jacket, a sweatshirt, sweatpants. My screen saver at work is the Skins logo. My car keys are on a Redskins keychain. I don't like change either.

But I was taught the old racially insensitive lyrics to Hail to the Redskins as a kid, and I learned to change to the new lyrics, and it didn't kill me. Maybe this is just the next step.

[Mooka]

Eh... I don't really care anymore. Wouldn't bother me to change the name.

The only thing that bothers me would be a repeat of this:

Dragons

Stallions

Seadogs

Express

Wizards

Where the **** did they come up with those stupid ass names?

I think we should change the name to the Washington Bullets.

Winner! lol

[Predicto]

Sure it is... you poll the group. If it shows a majority think it needs to change then it needs to change. It's just that over and over again we have seen that Native Americans don't think it is offensive, so why would it need to change now?

I apologize if I came off as an *******. I am just very passionate about this issue and I do respect your opinion.

It's all good. I know you.

[Prototype]

Honestly, we could just change the name to Washington Natives

Keep the same logo and color scheme. Even our fight song can still be sung. "Hail To the Natives.... braves on the warpath...etc etc"

[Predicto]

this is the most directly offensive post of the entire thread. not only are you wrong, but you didn't even apply comprehension to your post. stating Cherokee, when in fact i stated Chiricawa Apachee. i don't need to prove my ethnicity to you, it's just a shame that you're racist enough to assume that anyone who takes intelligence & logic into the context of this argument can't possibly be Native American. i'm not even Republican...another non-Sherlockian presumption.

New to the internet?

Learn what smileys mean. It was a joke.

you're logic is severely flawed on those 2 points alone. & that's without delving into the why's or how's of the discussion...you simply can't even piece together the logic of my post in order to intelligently convey your counterpost.

surely the best way to defend your opinion is to wax & wane about how someone might be posing in an internet forum. certainly pertains to the subject at hand. furthermore....simply because you can't fathom the logic of reference & where history backs up opinion, you sir are incompetent to the point of offense. it's a shame & a wonder how you have so many posts on this forum & don't know the deep history of this proud franchise.

of course...as per you, telling me what to think...this is just a belief. no doubt you subscribe then, to the Socratic function that one will never truly know anything....at least for the purpose of your own advancement in this discussion, it is your purpose then to portray any contrarian point of fact in the debate as belief in the way that one might "believe" that the light will turn on when they flip a switch. of course, i am sure that i don't need to explain that dichotomy to you...as you appear willing to revel in it.

in the same path of logic then, how does one propose that using the factual name of one's skin to describe the person, much like they would a house or a car, in & of itself is offensive? & to that point...should one choose to represent their PROUD tradition in a non-mocking fashion. then contextually one should be able to logically (should one be equipped with such rational thinking) deduce that no offense is intended. offense should ONLY be derived from intent. if it is otherwise derived then we should simply dissolve language & speak to each other with signals & pictures like the Egyptians did.

context is the ONLY vehicle in which words MUST be represented to the only possible survival of language. if context is to be purposely disposed or misrepresented, or rather ignorantly done so, then you lose the sight of the facts within the argument & become lost in a whirlwind of semantics......& in your case...semantics based on euphemism which is not really an argument at all.......more like a escape or cop-out.

but no-no...far-be-it from me to disrupt anyone's fantastical world views.

but i ask.........are you capable of differentiating RACISM from CULTURALISM? i assume not...but apparently this logic is also way over the heads of the not so intellectually inclined.

I have to say, this is the first time in a long time anyone on the Tailgate has accused me of anti-intellectualism or ignorance of history.

It's kind of refreshing.

---------- Post added January-9th-2013 at 05:36 PM ----------

Honestly, we could just change the name to Washington Natives

Keep the same logo and color scheme. Even our fight song can still be sung. "Hail To the Natives.... braves on the warpath...etc etc"

That might work. I like the name Natives, or Native Americans.

Anything but the Wizards.

[penasquito]

a) as said before, REDskins is not in reference to skin color...PERIOD. if you believe that, you're being ignorant & uninformed & are making up reasons to be upset for people LIKE MYSELF who are of Native American descent & are not displeased with this moniker in any way, shape, or form.

http://anthropology.si.edu/goddard/redskin.pdf

Eighteenth-century records do, however, attest the emergence of the use of the color terms red and white by Native Americans as racial designations,

Whatever you think of the name, it ABSOLUTELY refers to skin color. Y'know, "red" being a color and "skin"... its kind of built in, wouldn't you say?

[aREDSKIN]

The recent contex of the the term "redskins" has only been used in connection with a football team.There isn't any other way in which this term is used IMO. I certainly haven't heard it. It isn't a perjorative as many of the PC crowd would like you to believe. There's ample demonstrative proof that many of the Native american persuation don't take offense to the name at all. I understand that that doesn't speak for all Native americans but should at least suffice to diminish those who continue to beat the "offensivness" of the term. There are many threads on this board alone that factually trace the history of the term and how it has evolved in meaning over the centuries. The PC crowd are yet again myopic in their narrative speak.

[Prototype]

Washington Warriors or Washington Natives. Best two options.

This was why I was always hesitant to get a Redskins tattoo... knowing that they could change their name at any given point due to the name controversy

[KDawg]

Washington Warriors or Washington Natives. Best two options.

This was why I was always hesitant to get a Redskins tattoo... knowing that they could change their name at any given point due to the name controversy

I'd say, "Skins" is the best name. *shrug*

Well, after Redskins... anyways.

[Jumbo]

It's largely true (myself excluded of course), but it's still hurtful.

I always envisioned you as a man of average height. I think you should take proper umbrage at lesser characterizations.

[Spaceman Spiff]

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.

I went to Guilford College (unfortunately, biggest mistake of my life). Their mascot, was indeed, the Fighting Quakers.

I was worried about this happening. We draft RG3, there's a return to prominence, a national spotlight on us for having an awesome rookie QB...win the division.

All of a sudden, the Redskins are more in the public eye, are more popular...and now, more articles like this are going to pop up.

[skinsmarydu]

When I get done worrying about my quarterback, I'll worry about the name of the team I've loved MY WHOLE LIFE.

[nemocystem]

Whatever you think of the name, it ABSOLUTELY refers to skin color. Y'know, "red" being a color and "skin"... its kind of built in, wouldn't you say?

if by "RED" you're referring to color & by "skin" you're referring to paint...then, sure.

but...according to some...we jews also shouldn't laugh at Holocaust jokes. i find many of them to be hilarious & frequently share them with my brother.

context is the main point needing to be discussed here. i don't care 1 iota if you're offended at my perceived intended meaning of a phrase or name. if you're offended because you think my word usage or my intent was offensive in nature...........****-off! conversely, if my or your intent was in-fact, to offend...then by all means, be offended.

it would hold more weight if there were some pointedly racist chanting (see tomahawk chop), or derogatory marketing that was purposely making a mockery or offending Native Americans with purpose. however, that is not the case. the Redskins franchise/business/team uses the moniker in order to represent their proud existence into battle. they use it to uphold their representation in honor, & to treat it with dignity & purpose.

if you or any other racialist can't see that side of the argument, then they are simply missing the boat, pure & simple.

in the words of Bernie Mac:

"jokes is jokes...the moment anyone says: check out this joke...you lose any & all right to be offended. it may be a bad joke, or one you don't find particularly amusing, the context was to make you laugh. if you can't get past that...then you have serious problems."

[Fat Stupid Loser]

There is a general distaste for color based racial terms.

History, American history included, is filled with these terms being used to disparage groups of people that are perceived as the "other".

So when people with an exposure to other color based racial terms see "Redskin", they automatically recoil. They assume that the name must carry with it a negative connotation of the subject.

That's it really.

Edit: For clarification, I'm not advocating the use of color based racial terms only that, like in all things, each word must be considered independent and evaluated as such.

So my vote for the Washington Fighting Whities wouldn't go far?

Unis could be flesh(with a pinkish hue) and off-white. A silhouette of William Shatner on the helmet, since he is the coolest white guy ever. Who could have a problem with that? Star Wars fans?

[Predicto]

I went to Guilford College (unfortunately, biggest mistake of my life). Their mascot, was indeed, the Fighting Quakers.

Was that where the awesome Quaker chant came from?

Fight Fight Inner Light

Kill Quakers Kill

Knock Em Out Beat Em Senseless

Do It Till We Reach Consensus!

My kids go to a Quaker school. When I coached basketball I taught them that cheer.

---------- Post added January-9th-2013 at 06:15 PM ----------

if you or any other racialist...

FYI - Any good points you might be making are being obscured by accusations like this.

[respectgibbs]

Wow,..just wow.

So, you're passionate about the name "Redskins". Not a potential winning football team that represents the city of Washington D.C.?

Good ****ing god,...

I used hyperbole to make a point.

[Commander PK]

Maybe an option, is to press someone in the media who is interested in the real truth of the issue...not what a hater or a reactionary type thinks....to interview a respected scholar who understands the historical significance of the term "Redskin." At least this would clear up a lot of the misinformation...at least I hope it would.

[nemocystem]

FYI - Any good points you might be making are being obscured by accusations like this.

interesting...because "you," followed by "or any other" does not necessarily intimate that i am referring to you as such. rather i am stating that you (the person of specified differing opinion), or people of a similar ideology (not necessarily the same, however a group of people representing a similar opinion) can perhaps be lumped into one group for the purpose of this discussion. if "you" was followed immediately by "racialist" then water could be held in this matter, as this would be labeling one under the same umbrella.

in fact...what i am doing is paraphrasing the several other opinions that may coincide with yours.

that said...i will proceed as though this request is mutual & go forward with a hearty HAIL. no disrespect intended.

[Predicto]

Maybe an option, is to press someone in the media who is interested in the real truth of the issue...not what a hater or a reactionary type thinks....to interview a respected scholar who understands the historical significance of the term "Redskin." At least this would clear up a lot of the misinformation...at least I hope it would.

Maybe. But I think it more matters what it is perceived to mean today.

Here's another analogy that will probably backfire like all my others:: In England a few hundred years ago, it was perfectly appropriate to call a young peasant girl a "wench" and you were not being insulting. Nevertheless, the term is considered insulting now and connotes sluttiness or even prostitution. :whoknows:

[burgundyrush]

Maybe we can go nameless. Just be Washington's team and change the logo to a W.

[Predicto]

Maybe we can go nameless. Just be Washington's team and change the logo to a W.

The Washington Anonymous.

New Logo:

[penasquito]

if by "RED" you're referring to color & by "skin" you're referring to paint...then, sure.

Well, keep in mind that I'm not referring to anything. What Dr. Goddard from the Smithsonian Institute is said is that the "skin" in "redskin" was referring to skin, not paint.

[Shiv]

I like warthogs or warriors. I'm fine with a name change.