A change to the Washington Redskins name and Logo?

[DrunkenMonkey]

Will Green Bay Packers fans stop referring themselves as "Cheeseheads", as this was a derogatory term for the Dutch?

Have the Dutch complained about it? Is it actually offensive to anyone? Or are you really really reaching?

[DrunkenMonkey]

I think when your arguments get to the point where you're comparing 'redskins' to 'cheeseheads', which is, by the way, not the name of the Green Bay football team, or Ken's 'slippery slope' argument that if you give in to this, next thing animals will be lobbying for the Bears to change their name (Ken, just to point out, bears aren't people, so that's just one difference; it's hard to imagine Bears being offended. Native Americans are actually people, and they can read and understand when they're being mocked.). Anyway, I think when you get down to using arguments like these two, maybe it's time to throw in the towel?

[Fuzz]

So the people insulted by the name are so small in number, and such a tiny minority, that their point should be ignored, right? After all, democracy, right?

Have the Dutch complained about it? Is it actually offensive to anyone? Or are you really really reaching?

By your own statement, if a small group of Dutch find it offensive, then what?

[DrunkenMonkey]

Oh, one other thing: the word 'bear' isn't a racist insult. So there's also that.

[DrunkenMonkey]

By your own statement, if a small group of Dutch find it offensive, then what?

Do they? If so, then I think the Packers should resist all efforts to change their name to "Green Bay Cheeseheads"

[Fuzz]

I think when your arguments get to the point where you're comparing 'redskins' to 'cheeseheads', which is, by the way, not the name of the Green Bay football team, or Ken's 'slippery slope' argument that if you give in to this, next thing animals will be lobbying for the Bears to change their name (Ken, just to point out, bears aren't people, so that's just one difference; it's hard to imagine Bears being offended. Native Americans are actually people, and they can read and understand when they're being mocked.). Anyway, I think when you get down to using arguments like these two, maybe it's time to throw in the towel?

I never said team, I said fans.I just want to know where you will draw the line.

[Fuzz]

Do they?

Who knows? However it is or once was a derogatory term.

[DrunkenMonkey]

Who knows? However it is or once was a derogatory term.

Then they shouldn't change their team's name to 'cheeseheads'.

[Fuzz]

Then they shouldn't change their team's name to 'cheeseheads'.

Again, I never said team. I am referring to the fans.

[DrunkenMonkey]

Again, I never said team. I am referring to the fans.

Again, this isn't about how individuals refer to themselves. This is about the team name of an NFL franchise.

[DrunkenMonkey]

If an individual wants to refer to himself as anything, racist or not, however stupid it might be, that's his issue. The name of a multimillion dollar company that is tied to a multibillion dollar industry, and represents the capital of the US in the NFL is different than what individuals call themselves. I'm not sure how to explain that any clearer.

[Fuzz]

Granted Though, would a multimillion dollar company tied to a multibillion dollar industry, wish to be associated with a fan base that uses a once derogatory term?

[DrunkenMonkey]

Granted Though, would a multimillion dollar company tied to a multibillion dollar industry, wish to be associated with a fan base that uses a once derogatory term?

I guess we'll find out when all of the offended Dutch people file a complaint with the city of Green Bay. And if that never happens, then I guess we would know what a silly comparison this has been.

[ptrthgr8]

If an individual wants to refer to himself as anything, racist or not, however stupid it might be, that's his issue. The name of a multimillion dollar company that is tied to a multibillion dollar industry, and represents the capital of the US in the NFL is different than what individuals call themselves. I'm not sure how to explain that any clearer.

I don't understand why you're drawing a distinction between one private entity (an individual fan or an entire fanbase) and another private entity (the ownership of the Redskins). Why does the ownership of the Redskins, a privately owned sports franchise, lose all of its rights to use whatever name they want simply because they're a company of some sort? Where is it written that the right to use a given name is dependent upon one's business status? You mentioned "multimillion dollar company." If the Redskins were dirt-poor and making no money would you change you mind? Also, it's not like the Redskins organization is being funded solely by tax payer dollars. I suppose if that were true then there might be a case for forcing them to change the name - I'd still disagree with the change, but at least then I would see the point a little better.

I guess I just need help understanding your perspective here.

Cheers,

~ Greg ~

[DrunkenMonkey]

I don't understand why you're drawing a distinction between one private entity (an individual fan or an entire fanbase) and another private entity (the ownership of the Redskins). Why does the ownership of the Redskins, a privately owned sports franchise, lose all of its rights to use whatever name they want simply because they're a company of some sort? Where is it written that the right to use a given name is dependent upon one's business status? You mentioned "multimillion dollar company." If the Redskins were dirt-poor and making no money would you change you mind? Also, it's not like the Redskins organization is being funded solely by tax payer dollars. I suppose if that were true then there might be a case for forcing them to change the name - I'd still disagree with the change, but at least then I would see the point a little better.

I guess I just need help understanding your perspective here.

Cheers,

~ Greg ~

It's not that they're a company, it's that they're an NFL franchise, and so they can't just do whatever they want without regard to what anyone else thinks. The rest of the NFL owners can force them to change their name, if they think, as I do, that it's an embarrassment to the league.

[ptrthgr8]

It's not that they're a company, it's that they're an NFL franchise, and so they can't just do whatever they want without regard to what anyone else thinks. The rest of the NFL owners can force them to change their name, if they think, as I do, that it's an embarrassment to the league.

Can the owners actually do that, though? I don't know how the League contracts/agreements are written up. I suspect it's not like a home owners association, though - I would suspect that there's probably very little enforceability to any demands from others owners, particularly when the issue involves one of the more storied teams in the League. (As opposed, say, a new franchise starting up.) If there was some serious level of obligation to bend to the will of the other owners/league officials, wouldn't that have happened already? Others have stated that the Redskins owner isn't going to buckle any time soon because he's not buckled in the past. But I don't know who's made those pushes in the past - advocacy groups of one form or another, other owners, all of the above?

Cheers,

~ Greg ~

[Marker]

The stance of the very vocal minority saying they are offended, therefore you need to be offended as well. Because if you are not offended you are insensitive, a bigot, racist or worse.

The vocal minority comes out with a circumstantial report or pity case that tugs at the heartstrings of people with no rational thought process. So the vocal minority is now recruiting the mindless sheep majority to their cause, even though the circumstantial evidence they use is picked apart by logic or science. The sheep have now completely been absorbed into the vocal minority because they feel it is right. They feel good and want all the really hurt minority to feel good too. It is time to gang up on the rational, logical and bully racist bigots.

The vocal minority has now become the kind and well meaning majority through manipulation of facts through the media. There are a thousand things they can do for a better impact on society. Instead they take the easy path and pick on low hanging fruit. (remind anyone of anti smoking laws that go well past reasonable?)

Spend your time and energy cleaning up your hellhole slums in DC, helping homeless find homes and jobs, volunteering at your gang riddled schools. Instead you go find something easy to pick on to verbally barf onto society.

Go deal with a real cause that needs dealing with. The redskins name isn't hurting you directly or indirectly. The negative connotation isn't hurting you directly or indirectly. It hasn't hurt anyone since before you were born. Well before you were born.

Come pick this fight back up after you have taken care of number 1-500 of things more noble to fight about.

Drunkenmonkey - Picking up the redskins cause 100 years late is like saying we need to still apologize for slavery with special grants and societies for people who were wronged. We don't need to pay for the sins of our grandforefathers 100 times over. That particular issue was dealt with years before you and I were born. If you keep bringing it up over and over and over again, you are only reopening the wounds. Not letting them heal.

[SCgarman]

The stance of the very vocal minority saying they are offended, therefore you need to be offended as well. Because if you are not offended you are insensitive, a bigot, racist or worse.

The vocal minority comes out with a circumstantial report or pity case that tugs at the heartstrings of people with no rational thought process. So the vocal minority is now recruiting the mindless sheep majority to their cause, even though the circumstantial evidence they use is picked apart by logic or science. The sheep have now completely been absorbed into the vocal minority because they feel it is right. They feel good and want all the really hurt minority to feel good too. It is time to gang up on the rational, logical and bully racist bigots.

The vocal minority has now become the kind and well meaning majority through manipulation of facts through the media. There are a thousand things they can do for a better impact on society. Instead they take the easy path and pick on low hanging fruit. (remind anyone of anti smoking laws that go well past reasonable?)

Spend your time and energy cleaning up your hellhole slums in DC, helping homeless find homes and jobs, volunteering at your gang riddled schools. Instead you go find something easy to pick on to verbally barf onto society.

Go deal with a real cause that needs dealing with. The redskins name isn't hurting you directly or indirectly. The negative connotation isn't hurting you directly or indirectly. It hasn't hurt anyone since before you were born. Well before you were born.

Come pick this fight back up after you have taken care of number 1-500 of things more noble to fight about.

Drunkenmonkey - Picking up the redskins cause 100 years late is like saying we need to still apologize for slavery with special grants and societies for people who were wronged. We don't need to pay for the sins of our grandforefathers 100 times over. That particular issue was dealt with years before you and I were born. If you keep bringing it up over and over and over again, you are only reopening the wounds. Not letting them heal.

Thank You!! Very Well Said!!

[Orion21]

Politically correct, liberal white guilt, don't have a job and looking for things to be offended by . . . this is the crowd pushing this nonsense. Why don't we just sterilize the entire world so that no person, group, society, culture or religion is identifiable or linked to anything having to do with their past because MAYBE someone may be offended. How about this - I am offended by the complete waste of human capital and time being put towards this crazy idea that it's you're right NOT to be offended. Why aren't they complaining about the name of the Kansas City Chiefs or Cleveland Indians. Why don't we as a society just erase all Indian names from the face of the earth so that they can just be referred to as the group of people formally known as Native Americans. Prince could refer them to his graphic artist so that we wouldn't even have to say a word, just draw the logo. God, this is just surreal. Oh sorry, I probably should have referred to one of the God's they believe in because bringing up the God of the white man may offend someone. . .

[canadianbeaver]

That particular issue was dealt with years before you and I were born. If you keep bringing it up over and over and over again, you are only reopening the wounds. Not letting them heal.

In Canada, we have a huge Aboriginal population. We do not even refer to these people as Indians any more. Indians is a derogatory term here. The Aboriginal population has a strong voice and brought many lawsuits and demonstrations against the Canadian government for land claims and past horrifying treatment.

The movement of the Aboriginal population issues is also growing in the United States. To think that this is simply a PR move by a sports team or private company is ignoring the population who pays for tickets to these events and lets them continue to stay in business. If the name was the The Alabama Pickers or the California Refugees, the principle would be the same.

Just my 2 cents and the other arguments are valid too.

[Colt45]

God I am glad I started this

You do good work, Captain Sparrow (Edward J) Smith.....

Iceberg dead ahead!

[khomeinist]

I love some of these over the top responses.

If you are white and have a job you are not easily offended.

If you are white and don't have a job, you are sad and resentful.

If you are not white, you may or not be trouble. Depends on whether you shut up about historical injustices.

haha. not trying to take this in the gutter but c'mon guys. You can present more balanced arguments.

[perfectform]

Ptrthgr8-Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't two ND Sioux tribes split in their support of the ND fighting Sioux name?

What if they named the team negros? Or the wetbacks? Or the wasps? The name Redskin being applied to a sports franshise is not honoring or complimenting Native American fighting spirit like the names "braves, chiefs, seminoles or fighting Sioux". Plain and simple. It is derogatory and downright offensive to native americans.

Not to mention the fact that George Preston Marshall deliberately named them Redskins because he was an extreme racist douchebag who continued his ignorant, hate filled will even from the grave by donating money to charity, but stated explicitly that it was not to be used for anything that went towards "racial integration".

[SCgarman]

That particular issue was dealt with years before you and I were born. If you keep bringing it up over and over and over again, you are only reopening the wounds. Not letting them heal.

In Canada, we have a huge Aboriginal population. We do not even refer to these people as Indians any more. Indians is a derogatory term here. The Aboriginal population has a strong voice and brought many lawsuits and demonstrations against the Canadian government for land claims and past horrifying treatment.

The movement of the Aboriginal population issues is also growing in the United States. To think that this is simply a PR move by a sports team or private company is ignoring the population who pays for tickets to these events and lets them continue to stay in business. If the name was the The Alabama Pickers or the California Refugees, the principle would be the same.

Just my 2 cents and the other arguments are valid too.

The population who pays to go see Redskins games are not the native American crybabies crying foul. I can assure you of that. I live in the DC area and have not heard one complaint from any Redskins fan about the name needing to be changed. Instead we have folks like our President and the Mayor of DC complaining about the Redskins name instead of worrying about doing the jobs they were hired to do and are failing miserably at!!

[canadianbeaver]

The population who pays to go see Redskins games are not the native American crybabies crying foul. I can assure you of that.

That is not what I meant. I meant the public paying for tickets. Calling Native Americans crybabies is not helping your argument. I also was not speaking about Washington Redskins specifically, although this topic here is relevent.