Mascot Issue (AGAIN)

[jdlea]

I know, I know, we've covered this a million times. However, tonight the Illinois Illini intend to retire their mascot, Chief Illiniwek (a chief in stereotypical Native American garb). At one point do the Redskins have to seriously consider dropping the moniker? I have always been very much against the idea because I grew up on the Skins, however, it seems like, more and more, teams around the country are becoming much more PC when it comes to the naming of their mascots and teams. The NCAA has forced a purge of Native American names.

Kornheiser and Wilbon have agreed that "Redskins" is absolutely the worst offense. They said Braves and Chiefs were borderline, Indians is really touchy and Redskins is clearly the worst. At this point it seems like only a matter of time before the Skins consider dropping the name. Not sure exactly how I feel about that. What about you all?

[Hail2theskins]

nope dont change it, who gives a rats ass. People need to chill out on the political correctness. Whats more offensive putting native americans on tiny reservations of the worst land the government could find and continues to put a completley blind eye to or a sports team that mainly white americans find offensive, as there are tribes that do say that the name envokes "a sense of pride." I mean the majority of people headwaying this kind of PC have nothing to do with it in the first place, instead of trying to change the name of a football team why dont you take some time and really try to help the native americans. Some freakishly scary number like, 70% of native americans become full blown alcoholics in adulthood, but hey, lets not try to fix a real problem lets make sure noone will be offended by a sports teams name or logo. I swear to god this country is getting dumber by the second.

[hooskins]

How about all those groups that voted that it was not offensive? I think that carries the biggest voice here.

I vote no. I don't care.

[Duffman003]

isn't there some high school mascot that is offensive to Irish people? that is government run and nobody seems to care about it

[skinsguy]

I'm sure if people dig enough, they can find offense in everything on this planet.

[sportscurmudgeon]

Don't you think "Crusaders" might be offensive to Muslims?

How about "Cardinals" to folks whose male offspring may have been improperly touched by members of the clergy?

How about "Jets" to people who lost relatives in the attacks on the World Trade Towers on 9/11?

How about ... I can give you another half dozen examples. Finding a reason that someone MIGHT be offended is not difficult by any stretch of the imagination.

There is no genius in being able to "be offended" by a nickname or mascot. Anyone can do it. Listen to the arguments for and against any change and do so after you have stripped away all the emotional/rhetorical bullsh*t. Then, make up your mind...

[Beemnseven]

Here's the question: Should anyone who claims to be offended for any reason automatically hold the position of superiority over the offender?

Should the offender be forced to acquiesce to the demands of the offended party?

See how far this can get? If I am offended by people who wear blue shirts, am I entitled to force someone into action simply by virtue of my being offended?

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

The name "Redskins" means a lot to me, as does the logo. The name and logo symbolize men like Sammy Baugh, Joe Gibbs, Charlie Taylor, John Riggins, et al. I've always thought that the logo was respectful towards Native Americans and simply cool.

Nevertheless, I would still love the team if they changed their name and logo. I don't think a name change would somehow cast off my memories or the team's affiliation with so many great games and great men.

Moreover, I do understand how people would be offended by the name. Surely a lot of people would be upset if a team was called the "Blackskins" and featured a Zulu warrior on the logo. I don't get particularly emotional about the issue because I think the people that attribute racist attitudes towards the logo and name are few in number and do not know much about the team. That said, I'm not Native American.

In any event, it's going to come down to money. If I recall correctly, according to federal law, trademarks that are racially derogatory are not subject to Intellectual Property Protections. If a U.S. Court determines that the "Redskins" name/logo are racially derogatory, the Redskins franchise will lose the exclusive right to license etc. its name/logo. That means that the team would lose a major source of revenue and, perhaps, be forced to re-name the team. However, I could honestly see Dan Snyder keep the name/logo and lose money just because he loves the team so much.

[sportscurmudgeon]

Sheriff:

When much of this controversy started about 8-10 years ago, I suggested to some colleagues that there was a simple solution to the problem:


Keep the name Redskins.

Change the logo on the helmet to a potato.


No one liked the idea then; I doubt lots of folks would like it now. But it might stop the focus on the team name and allow people to focus on the team performance - - which is a lot more important to me.

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

yeah it has been Redskins since 1937 so i dont think that name is going anywhere

[djnemo65]

My take has always been that its the Washington part of the name I root for, not the Redskins part.

What I have never understood is the passion with which predominantly white fans oppose a change. It clearly is the the most offensive moniker out there, so if in keeping with the zeitgeist they decide to go a more politically correct route, why is that such a tragedy? The Wizards name change was much worse - because the original name was not offensive and the new name and colors were so ridiculously stupid - and we all got over that pretty quickly.

To people who say I dont see what the big deal is with the name, isn't the inverse true as well? That its not that big a deal to change it?

[Hail2theskins]

Originally Posted by djnemo65

My take has always been that its the Washington part of the name I root for, not the Redskins part.

What I have never understood is the passion with which predominantly white fans oppose a change. It clearly is the the most offensive moniker out there, so if in keeping with the zeitgeist they decide to go a more politically correct route, why is that such a tragedy? The Wizards name change was much worse - because the original name was not offensive and the new name and colors were so ridiculously stupid - and we all got over that pretty quickly.

To people who say I dont see what the big deal is with the name, isn't the inverse true as well? That its not that big a deal to change it?

The thing is, washington is typically not a basketball town, while yes there are a lot of wizards fans, this is football country. Furthermore the bullets were not one of the most storied programs in the NBA, pretty far from it actually, there isnt nearly as big of a wizards following than that of the skins. As much as maybe you wouldnt like to admit it, people in numbers mean a lot, and so does history and tradition, and when you combine the two its pretty damn hard to change.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by djnemo65

It clearly is the the most offensive moniker out there, so if in keeping with the zeitgeist they decide to go a more politically correct route, why is that such a tragedy? The Wizards name change was much worse - because the original name was not offensive and the new name and colors were so ridiculously stupid - and we all got over that pretty quickly.

To people who say I dont see what the big deal is with the name, isn't the inverse true as well? That its not that big a deal to change it?

In your opinion it's offensive. In my opinion it's not. I always heard it referred to the face paint Indians used to apply before going into battle. I am aware that the phrase 'red skin' was at one time used as a derogatory term, but there could be two different meanings.

But here's the key -- why should one party who claims to be offended always be in the position to dictate over the offending party and force them to change or cease what they were doing based solely on the perception of the one who was offended?

It's the principle that would get people upset if the offended parties got their way and succeeded in forcing the Redskins to change their name and logo.

Can we all get together as Redskins fans and suddenly become offended at the name "Cowboys" and blue star logos? What would prevent the Cowboys from being obligated to conceed to our demands?

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by sportscurmudgeon

Sheriff:

When much of this controversy started about 8-10 years ago, I suggested to some colleagues that there was a simple solution to the problem:


Keep the name Redskins.

Change the logo on the helmet to a potato.


No one liked the idea then; I doubt lots of folks would like it now. But it might stop the focus on the team name and allow people to focus on the team performance - - which is a lot more important to me.

That's the same thing Tony Kornheiser says. Are you TK? By the way, I prefer to have an optimistic, cheery mood when it comes to sports. I find your username offensive

[SkinEmAll]

It IS a big deal to change it. All this pc crap is bullshit. I will never be in favor of changing the name. And its not ONLY the white fans who oppose. have you done a poll on the fans that are white, black, asian,hispanic, indian and whatever else there is out there? I dont buy that for one second that. The only people who oppose this should focus their efforts on something worth a shit. Everyone I have ever known as a Redskin fan, black, white ,phillipino,INDIAN, think of football only when they hear, read or say redskin. Im sick of it. There are truly soooooooooooooo many more things these people need to focus on, not this. I must step away from the computer now before I really say how I feel. Mic Light time out.