Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Washington Redskins to change their name
Comments
-
cafckev said:And here lies the problem.
everyone claiming it’s a good idea, and it’s about time etc. BUT does everyone actually know why they chose Redskins?
It was chosen to honour the Native Americans who believed (and still do) that the colour Red was a colour that represented power and strength. To believed it how the power to protect them that they in fact used the colour to paint their faces when going into battle (war paint as we know it).
So, far from being racist or anti something or other, it is in fact there honouring a minority group. The various organisation in the US who now represent Native Americans who said they see no problem with the name or logo and see it more as a honour of the memory.
So rather than making their oppression, it reminds them of their history, power, beliefs and security!
But, others seem to have forgotten the meaning of it, and are feeling offended on their behalf and objected.....and won
I thought they changed their name to the Redskins (from Indians or chiefs whatever it was before) when their franchise briefly moved to play at Fenway Park and were trying to engrataite themselves with Boston Red Sox fans and by including red in their name would mean the baseball team's fans would identify with them being their team. I'm guessing it didn't work because they moved to Washington shortly after.
Apologies if this is wrong here but that was the reason i was given.
0 -
a career as a 'woke' politician surely awaits you ((:>)Macronate said:Atlanta Falcons - many mice must have suffered at the claws of this bird of prey
Arizona Cardinals - too Roman Catholic, what about all the other religions?
Baltimore Ravens - known for shitting on the Tower of London, not good
Buffalo Bills - what about all the 'Toms', 'Bobs' and 'Daves' out there?
Carolina Panthers - scary big cat, too scary
Chicago Bears - scary animals, too scary
Cincinnati Bengals - offensive to lions
Cleveland Browns - what about all the other colours?
Dallas Cowboys - you can't just reference 'boys'. Where's the equality?
Denver Broncos - wild horses are no longer allowed. Only tame horses please.
Detroit Lions - offensive to tigers
Green Bay Packers - an important part of the warehousing process but what about all the other functions?
Houston Texans - too statist
Indianapolis Colts - a young, uncastrated male horse!!! Disgusting.
Jacksonville Jaguars - another scary big cat
Kansas City Chiefs - denotes a leader or ruler of people, hierarchy isn't good
Las Vegas Raiders - a person who attacks an enemy in their territory; a marauder. Just no
LA Rams - too male orientated. Try LA Ewes.
Miami Dolphins - countless schools of fish not happy
Minnesota Vikings - no, Vikings were bad
New England Patriots - can't be having any patriotic names
New Orleans Saints - connected to Christianity and doesn't acknowledge other religions or evil people.
New York Giants - offensive to small people
New York Jets - offensive to helicopters
Philadelphia Eagles - another bird of prey which upsets smaller mammals/animals
Pittsburgh Steelers - named after Pittsburgh's steel industry. Difficult to know what to get offended about but i'll think of something
San Francisco 49ers - name comes from the prospectors who arrived in Northern California in the 1849 gold rush. Lucky they didn't arrive in 1869.
Seattle Seahawks - another name for an osprey, a large fish-eating raptor in the hawk family, too scary
Tampa Bay Buccaneers - too piratey
Tennessee Titans - another physically large reference, offensive to littluns
Washington Redskins - no
6 -
Have a nice day xBig_Bad_World said:
Who doesn't give a fuck? Who said anything along those lines? Who said anything about caring either way? Don't worry, rad man, you frame it all your own way so it computes in your head properly.shine166 said:
For someone that don't give a fuck, you certainly jumped back on the thread quick enough to pretend you dont care. I bet you're an all lives matter kinda guyBig_Bad_World said:Weird how people think people are offended by others being offended, when they're clearly not
Another of those funny tactics deployed to rubbish any angle other than the one pushed by, mainly, white folk attempting to speak on behalf of a minority.
Ah, you've slung the all lives matter brush at me as well. Stay classy. Bellend
0 -
If even Dan Snyder has accepted that the name needs to change then arguing against it puts you in a very odd position to say the least.6
-
Yep, back in your box. xshine166 said:
Have a nice day xBig_Bad_World said:
Who doesn't give a fuck? Who said anything along those lines? Who said anything about caring either way? Don't worry, rad man, you frame it all your own way so it computes in your head properly.shine166 said:
For someone that don't give a fuck, you certainly jumped back on the thread quick enough to pretend you dont care. I bet you're an all lives matter kinda guyBig_Bad_World said:Weird how people think people are offended by others being offended, when they're clearly not
Another of those funny tactics deployed to rubbish any angle other than the one pushed by, mainly, white folk attempting to speak on behalf of a minority.
Ah, you've slung the all lives matter brush at me as well. Stay classy. Bellend0 -
Anti-Semitic, think again please.Leroy Ambrose said:Should change it to Foreskins, that'd be about appropriate for that franchise.
Didn't the Indians drop the highly offensive smiley faced Indian caricature (equivalent to a golliwog) from their logo and merchandise a couple of years ago now?0 -
Crystal Palace - insulting to the Queen as people might confuse the Selhurst lot with Buckingham PalaceMacronate said:Atlanta Falcons - many mice must have suffered at the claws of this bird of prey
Arizona Cardinals - too Roman Catholic, what about all the other religions?
Baltimore Ravens - known for shitting on the Tower of London, not good
Buffalo Bills - what about all the 'Toms', 'Bobs' and 'Daves' out there?
Carolina Panthers - scary big cat, too scary
Chicago Bears - scary animals, too scary
Cincinnati Bengals - offensive to lions
Cleveland Browns - what about all the other colours?
Dallas Cowboys - you can't just reference 'boys'. Where's the equality?
Denver Broncos - wild horses are no longer allowed. Only tame horses please.
Detroit Lions - offensive to tigers
Green Bay Packers - an important part of the warehousing process but what about all the other functions?
Houston Texans - too statist
Indianapolis Colts - a young, uncastrated male horse!!! Disgusting.
Jacksonville Jaguars - another scary big cat
Kansas City Chiefs - denotes a leader or ruler of people, hierarchy isn't good
Las Vegas Raiders - a person who attacks an enemy in their territory; a marauder. Just no
LA Rams - too male orientated. Try LA Ewes.
Miami Dolphins - countless schools of fish not happy
Minnesota Vikings - no, Vikings were bad
New England Patriots - can't be having any patriotic names
New Orleans Saints - connected to Christianity and doesn't acknowledge other religions or evil people.
New York Giants - offensive to small people
New York Jets - offensive to helicopters
Philadelphia Eagles - another bird of prey which upsets smaller mammals/animals
Pittsburgh Steelers - named after Pittsburgh's steel industry. Difficult to know what to get offended about but i'll think of something
San Francisco 49ers - name comes from the prospectors who arrived in Northern California in the 1849 gold rush. Lucky they didn't arrive in 1869.
Seattle Seahawks - another name for an osprey, a large fish-eating raptor in the hawk family, too scary
Tampa Bay Buccaneers - too piratey
Tennessee Titans - another physically large reference, offensive to littluns
Washington Redskins - no
0 -
limeygent said:Snyder is a crap owner and Fedex Field is a crap stadium. When I first came to the Washington area there was a ten-year wait for season tickets, and the only way to go to a game was to get lucky by being offered some spares. Leaving aside the issues of "The Offended Industry" that we have over here, the NFL is becoming more and more irrelevant and are desperate to keep "bums in seats", as half-empty stadiums don't make good television, and as with the Prem, that is what's most important.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dc-sports-bog/wp/2015/12/18/how-u-s-marshals-used-redskins-tickets-to-bust-fugitives-in-1985-sting/
The NFL is heading down the "Get woke, go broke" route. There are tons of blue collar football fans who are sick of the disrespect to the national anthem shown by millionaire players. People see it for the tiresome virtue signalling it really is. Nobody ever acts to make real changes that address disparities and inequality. The NFL still has a pitifully small number of black head coaches, less than 10% when 70% of players are black.7 -
Brilliant @Macronate2
-
cafckev said:And here lies the problem.
everyone claiming it’s a good idea, and it’s about time etc. BUT does everyone actually know why they chose Redskins?
It was chosen to honour the Native Americans who believed (and still do) that the colour Red was a colour that represented power and strength. To believed it how the power to protect them that they in fact used the colour to paint their faces when going into battle (war paint as we know it).
So, far from being racist or anti something or other, it is in fact there honouring a minority group. The various organisation in the US who now represent Native Americans who said they see no problem with the name or logo and see it more as a honour of the memory.
So rather than making their oppression, it reminds them of their history, power, beliefs and security!
But, others seem to have forgotten the meaning of it, and are feeling offended on their behalf and objected.....and wonI think the issue here is that you are missing entirely all of the facts, along with some bad faith arguing. To your first point, the term redskin has been seen as a slur for almost as long as it has existed. You can dig as far back into the original birth of a word as you like in order to ascertain where it comes from, but you can never apply developed context to it that way. Whatever the term initially came into existence for, it has been warped into a slur in the majority of people's eyes, it's as simple as that. Words evolve and develop meaning; the word negro literally means black as used by the Spanish and Portuguese and was the accepted term as far as the 1960s, but it's now seen as offensive. The swastika design was originally used 7000 years ago and denoted good luck. Try going up to a black person, calling him a negro and daubing a swastika on yourself and let me know how you get on. Except of course you wouldn't do that, because it would be wrong and offensive.You've also said that the various organisations who 'represent' Native Americans are fine with it. I'd love to see those sources because I can't find anything that says all representatives of Native Americans have given their blessing on behalf of the entire population. I did however find that a 2020 Berkeley study found that 49% of Native Americans surveyed find the name offensive, rising to 67% of those who regularly participate in native or tribal culture. Only 38% were not bothered by it. Sounds like these organisations you've described don't seem to be speaking for people at all. Of course, you can find individuals and groups who aren't offended by the name, and that's their right, but the fact is redskins is a word that many interpret as a slur, and if you're offending 49% of a population with your name then it's not unreasonable to change it. What you've done is lazily group all people of a certain ethnicity together, decide that they as a whole are not offended and that 'they' are proud of the name,and it must have been people getting offended on their behalf who have made the change. Good job.12 - Sponsored links:
-
It really won’t be long until there’s a push for us to have an emblem that hasn’t got a sword in.
I wouldn’t say the world has gone mad, but my god are we narrowing down the parameters of acceptability at an alarming rate.11 -
Different world.Chizz said:
Different WashingtonPeterGage said:The original peoples that settled in Washington State were the Suquamish Tribe, the most famous of their chiefs being Chief Seattle. I guess the NFL team could recognise the history of the area and honour the local tribe by incorporating some relationship to those facts in their name.
The few Native Americans that I have spoken to over the years consider the term Redskins" as being highly derogatory as is the term "squaw" for women Native Americans.
Whether that means that the reference to redskins should be changed because it offends some, is a matter of personal opinion. I personally am pleased.0 -
There really won't be, but again I don't get why people are willing to die on a hill to protect names like Redskins and Chiefs.AFKABartram said:It really won’t be long until there’s a push for us to have an emblem that hasn’t got a sword in.
I wouldn’t say the world has gone mad, but my god are we narrowing down the parameters of acceptability at an alarming rate.
As for Exeter Rugby, the movement in the last 90's for club nicknames in Rugby (both codes) was shit and if this ends them, then good11 -
I think a name change is overdue, personally. There are enough people - and enough Native Americans - offended by it that means a change should come about. Saying "well I know loads of people who see it as a good thing" or "Native Americans I know don't care" is a bit like the "I have a black friend" argument.
Does a name change to something that will be inoffensive do any harm? No. It might hurt Snyder's pockets to rebrand, but he is such a bastard (look up the cheerleader incidents for one) that that's a good thing.
That said, we know WHY it has happened and that is because corporations are trying to massage the narrative of BLM and "woke" culture and "being PC" and "we are listening and we are learning" and all that, for their own ends. It is cynical and while in some cases the ends justifies the means, this isn't one of them.
I look forward to a name change.12 -
Not dying on a hill in any way but these are sporting clubs named identities, for many it has been for many decades. The names are not being used in a derogatory way in an attempt to belittle or denigrate anyone. Probably the opposite in fact.Rothko said:
There really won't be, but again I don't get why people are willing to die on a hill to protect names like Redskins and Chiefs.AFKABartram said:It really won’t be long until there’s a push for us to have an emblem that hasn’t got a sword in.
I wouldn’t say the world has gone mad, but my god are we narrowing down the parameters of acceptability at an alarming rate.
As for Exeter Rugby, the movement in the last 90's for club nicknames in Rugby (both codes) was shit and if this ends them, then good7 -
Would it be ok for Exeter Chiefs to scrap the native american on the badge and replace it with an image of an executive?0
-
Exeter rebranded in 1999, so it's hardly years of history being trashed. And as for our badge, it was a 60s rebrand, if it went back to the traditional 40's crest and robin, then it'll just be history repeating.AFKABartram said:
Not dying on a hill in any way but these are sporting clubs named identities, for many it has been for many decades. The names are not being used in a derogatory way in an attempt to belittle or denigrate anyone. Probably the opposite in fact.Rothko said:
There really won't be, but again I don't get why people are willing to die on a hill to protect names like Redskins and Chiefs.AFKABartram said:It really won’t be long until there’s a push for us to have an emblem that hasn’t got a sword in.
I wouldn’t say the world has gone mad, but my god are we narrowing down the parameters of acceptability at an alarming rate.
As for Exeter Rugby, the movement in the last 90's for club nicknames in Rugby (both codes) was shit and if this ends them, then good
As for US franchises, those institutions can be lifted and moved from a city they've been in for years, like the Redskins were moved from Boston, and were known as the Braves. Names and cities change for commercial as well as societal reasons, the Washington name change is both commercial and societal2 -
AFKABartram said:
Not dying on a hill in any way but these are sporting clubs named identities, for many it has been for many decades. The names are not being used in a derogatory way in an attempt to belittle or denigrate anyone. Probably the opposite in fact.Rothko said:
There really won't be, but again I don't get why people are willing to die on a hill to protect names like Redskins and Chiefs.AFKABartram said:It really won’t be long until there’s a push for us to have an emblem that hasn’t got a sword in.
I wouldn’t say the world has gone mad, but my god are we narrowing down the parameters of acceptability at an alarming rate.
As for Exeter Rugby, the movement in the last 90's for club nicknames in Rugby (both codes) was shit and if this ends them, then good
To be honest, I don't think it really applies to the NFL when teams have moved city and discarded their past without a thought. NFL Owners only really care about where the money is. Any fan in any city will do as long as they spend money. The Cleveland Browns turned into the Baltimore Ravens, the Houston Oilers turned into the Tennessee Titans, once upon a time the Kansas City Chiefs were the Dallas Texans - they swapped sides from Cowboys to Indians!1 -
Green Bay Packers are the exception to that rule, a remarkable organisation.Missed It said:AFKABartram said:
Not dying on a hill in any way but these are sporting clubs named identities, for many it has been for many decades. The names are not being used in a derogatory way in an attempt to belittle or denigrate anyone. Probably the opposite in fact.Rothko said:
There really won't be, but again I don't get why people are willing to die on a hill to protect names like Redskins and Chiefs.AFKABartram said:It really won’t be long until there’s a push for us to have an emblem that hasn’t got a sword in.
I wouldn’t say the world has gone mad, but my god are we narrowing down the parameters of acceptability at an alarming rate.
As for Exeter Rugby, the movement in the last 90's for club nicknames in Rugby (both codes) was shit and if this ends them, then good
To be honest, I don't think it really applies to the NFL when teams have moved city and discarded their past without a thought. NFL Owners only really care about where the money is. Any fan in any city will do as long as they spend money. The Cleveland Browns turned into the Baltimore Ravens, the Houston Oilers turned into the Tennessee Titans, once upon a time the Kansas City Chiefs were the Dallas Texans - they swapped sides from Cowboys to Indians!1 -
All a bit busy ain’t it? Ultimately, does it really matter. If people are that bothered about it, change it.0
- Sponsored links:
-
Very loyal fans. Not much else to do in Green Bay during the football season.se9addick said:
Green Bay Packers are the exception to that rule, a remarkable organisation.Missed It said:AFKABartram said:
Not dying on a hill in any way but these are sporting clubs named identities, for many it has been for many decades. The names are not being used in a derogatory way in an attempt to belittle or denigrate anyone. Probably the opposite in fact.Rothko said:
There really won't be, but again I don't get why people are willing to die on a hill to protect names like Redskins and Chiefs.AFKABartram said:It really won’t be long until there’s a push for us to have an emblem that hasn’t got a sword in.
I wouldn’t say the world has gone mad, but my god are we narrowing down the parameters of acceptability at an alarming rate.
As for Exeter Rugby, the movement in the last 90's for club nicknames in Rugby (both codes) was shit and if this ends them, then good
To be honest, I don't think it really applies to the NFL when teams have moved city and discarded their past without a thought. NFL Owners only really care about where the money is. Any fan in any city will do as long as they spend money. The Cleveland Browns turned into the Baltimore Ravens, the Houston Oilers turned into the Tennessee Titans, once upon a time the Kansas City Chiefs were the Dallas Texans - they swapped sides from Cowboys to Indians!0 -
As an Essex Eagles fan, I wholeheartedly agreeRothko said:
There really won't be, but again I don't get why people are willing to die on a hill to protect names like Redskins and Chiefs.AFKABartram said:It really won’t be long until there’s a push for us to have an emblem that hasn’t got a sword in.
I wouldn’t say the world has gone mad, but my god are we narrowing down the parameters of acceptability at an alarming rate.
As for Exeter Rugby, the movement in the last 90's for club nicknames in Rugby (both codes) was shit and if this ends them, then good4 -
It's PC gone mad, bring back the Fernie Swastikas.
5 -
Got me thinking - which English League football club has the most #problematic name? WBA, BHA and Burton all have Albion in the name, which means 'white nation' - but it was originally a description of the cliffs, not the people, so they can be #uncancelled forthwith.
Then there's Leyton Orient. A whiff of appropriation! But in fact, named for the fact that one of their early players worked for the Orient Steam Line, and it was deemed an appropriate name for an East London club. They also get a pass.
Then we have the teams named for places they are not. We all know and lament the formation of MK Dons, but what of Grimsby (actually in Cleethorpes)? Both irksome, but perhaps not cancellable.
However, there's only one club in the entire Football League named after an unrepentantly colonialist, Anglo-supremacist Victorian exhibition. I think we all know who they are.14 -
Crewe Alexandra as well being named after the daughter-in-law of VickyLeuth said:Got me thinking - which English League football club has the most #problematic name? WBA, BHA and Burton all have Albion in the name, which means 'white nation' - but it was originally a description of the cliffs, not the people, so they can be #uncancelled forthwith.
Then there's Leyton Orient. A whiff of appropriation! But in fact, named for the fact that one of their early players worked for the Orient Steam Line, and it was deemed an appropriate name for an East London club. They also get a pass.
Then we have the teams named for places they are not. We all know and lament the formation of MK Dons, but what of Grimsby (actually in Cleethorpes)? Both irksome, but perhaps not cancellable.
However, there's only one club in the entire Football League named after an unrepentantly colonialist, Anglo-supremacist Victorian exhibition. I think we all know who they are.
Should Tottenham Hotspur be named after something thats used in cruelty to horses?
Disappointed in you Leuth1 -
I scrolled through the entire Wiki page of Princess (later Queen) Alexandra while writing that, couldn't find anything too bad! I mean, aside from being part of the parasitic Royal Family etc etc blah0
-
Pretty sure Spurs are named after the natural spurs on the heel of a cockerel though. EDIT: but is this a celebration of brutal bloodsport cockfighting? Now I'm wondering whether @JohnBoyUK has something to answer to! 1
-
Quite. The surprising thing is reading a load of people on this forum claiming it isn't offensive to native Americans. I'm willing to bet a large amount of money that they aren't American let alone Native American.ValleyGary said:All a bit busy ain’t it? Ultimately, does it really matter. If people are that bothered about it, change it.3 -
Somewhere on the interweb, there's a group of native Americans arguing about whether Charlton fans should hate Palace or Millwall more.colthe3rd said:
Quite. The surprising thing is reading a load of people on this forum claiming it isn't offensive to native Americans. I'm willing to bet a large amount of money that they aren't American let alone Native American.ValleyGary said:All a bit busy ain’t it? Ultimately, does it really matter. If people are that bothered about it, change it.12 -
Yes, of course Washington should change their name. But I've always found it a bit odd that so many US sports teams align themselves with some living entity that usually has nothing to do with their sport. The idea of a dolphin or whatever playing american football is plainly ridiculous. Then there's the Memphis Grizzlies. You have to drive about 1500 miles north west of Memphis to get anywhere near one! Why didn't they choose an animal that actually resides in Tennessee, like the box turtle?
It's an affectation the yanks need to get over. And the fact that Cricket and Rugby League have copied this irksome and unnecessary concept rankles. No, I've never seen a Rhino in Leeds either.8
