This again

[skinsguy]

It's quite funny we're talking about Native Americans.....if you are born in this country, aren't you Native to the country? Logic would say yes, therefore, all of us on this board who were born in these United States are Native Americans.

[ST21]

now were all equal...........LOL

[81forHOF]

Originally Posted by SeasonTicketHolder

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slu...v=ap&type=lgns

If the Redskins want to keep thier name all they have to do is put a potato on the helmet!

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by 81forHOF

If the Redskins want to keep thier name all they have to do is put a potato on the helmet!

LOL!!! I was thinking the samething this morning! I even pictured what the helmet symbol would look like! ROTFL!

[memphisskin]

Originally Posted by cpayne5

It's not sugar coating it to say that the name came from the red war paint. That is absolute fact. The Redskins name is derived from that, so take it or leave it. As your websters reference implies, the term is not used 100% of the time in an offensive way.

My bad, 99% of the time it's offensive. The other 1% is where we come in. Why are we so attached to this label?

[memphisskin]

Originally Posted by TAFKAS

When people talked about "niggers" that word was laced with hatred and a misguided superiority at the time it was being said, with violence, lynchings, separate restrooms, back of the bus, you name it. But when we say the word Redskins today, there is no associated hatred or sense of supremacy vis a vis Native Americans; the word comes out of the mouth without any associated negative baggage. Sure, it is the same "word," but the substance is not the same at all. The prevailing argument is that we should dispense with the word because it is offensive and does not represent our society today. But since we know that it does not represent today's society, then the alleged offensive substance of the word has already been rendered meaningless ! Even on the team itself, I don't remember anyone thinking Mark Rypien was dumb or reviled as the quarterback because he was Native American; of course not. So, where is the real offensiveness? What was that we learned in school, "sticks and stones may break my bones..."

Wait, and I'm a minority myself, because Native Americans have been marginalized and are not a powerful political force then it's ok to continue to use the word Redskins because when we say it we don't mean it to demean Native Americans its more of a tribute?

I can't say what Redskins means to Native Americans, because I'm not a Native American. However, the fact that the word was used to describe the scalps of dead Indians, well that's enough for me. The bottom line is that money talks and everything else runs the marathon, so in the end I expect no change at all. But since everything is relative, lets change the name to the Washington Coons. Its no longer offensive, I think the expiration date on it was 1984.

As for sticks and stones breaking bones, nice one TAFKAS.

[Daseal]

memphis - There's a reason why you can walk down the street shouting REDSKINS if you want and besides people thinking you're nuts, they won't also think of you as a racist. I'm sorry but the term Redskin doesn't have the hatred intended like the racial slurs you mention (or TAFKAS mentioned.)

I'm going to come out and say it. The Native Americans filing charges have a very slight chance of winning this case, nearly none. They know this, I'm sure it's just someone who wants their face in the paper. Snyder will hire lawyers, smack this out of the air, and we'll continue to be the Redskins. Screw the small minority of Native Americans (9% of Native Americans) who find it offensive. They have no legitimate case -- the name will stay. It's a tradition and they were called the Redskins for how many years before someone got mad?

[memphisskin]

Originally Posted by Daseal

memphis - There's a reason why you can walk down the street shouting REDSKINS if you want and besides people thinking you're nuts, they won't also think of you as a racist. I'm sorry but the term Redskin doesn't have the hatred intended like the racial slurs you mention (or TAFKAS mentioned.)

I'm going to come out and say it. The Native Americans filing charges have a very slight chance of winning this case, nearly none. They know this, I'm sure it's just someone who wants their face in the paper. Snyder will hire lawyers, smack this out of the air, and we'll continue to be the Redskins. Screw the small minority of Native Americans (9% of Native Americans) who find it offensive. They have no legitimate case -- the name will stay. It's a tradition and they were called the Redskins for how many years before someone got mad?

I agree that the NA's filing this case have no real shot at winning, and I'm sure they know that as well.

But my question to everyone is why are we so attached to this name? If it was changed, aside from the initial costs (which will quickly be recouped in new merchandise sales) what else would it mean? Instead of looking at it as the death of tradition, why not see it as an opportunity to forge a new tradition, one that doesn't offend anyone? It doesn't change what it means to play for this franchise, it just changes the label that we use to describe the team in general.

[cpayne5]

Originally Posted by memphisskin

My bad, 99% of the time it's offensive. The other 1% is where we come in. Why are we so attached to this label?

No, I would say that 99% of the word's usage is not derogatory, while 1% is. In fact, I've never, ever heard someone use the term in a derogatory way.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by memphisskin

I can't say what Redskins means to Native Americans, because I'm not a Native American.

What country were you born in?

[memphisskin]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

What country were you born in?

Sorry to confuse u, just go back and insert Indian whenever I used Native American. Hope that helps.

Quick question, since the argument was used that there doesn't appear to be a lot of Indian protests regarding team nicknames. Do you hear a lot about Indian protests about anything? Do you think that means that everything is fine and dandy with Native Americans (Indians for u skinsguy)?

[81forHOF]

Unfortunately, the simple fact of the matter is if we as a society are going to be politically correct towards race we have to be towards ALL races.

In my heart I'm against changing the name because I've loved this team and name for as long as I remember. I like to think of this as an opportunity for Native Americans (and I do have some Native American heritage) to show they are bigger than all the other pc fools in the world trying so hard not to offend each other that they have lost sight of what is really important - that we are all basically the same. And I believe that they have done just that by lending so little support to this cause.

I belive that all Americans need thicker skin, regardless of the color.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by memphisskin

Sorry to confuse u, just go back and insert Indian whenever I used Native American. Hope that helps.

Quick question, since the argument was used that there doesn't appear to be a lot of Indian protests regarding team nicknames. Do you hear a lot about Indian protests about anything? Do you think that means that everything is fine and dandy with Native Americans (Indians for u skinsguy)?

Indians would be incorrect as well. They're not from india.

If these people are not protesting, then why sit around looking for something to be offended by? The Washington football team is not using the term "Redskins" to offend anyone but to honor the tribal people of America. Nobody has suffered any damages because this team happens to be called the "Redskins."

[ST21]

cpayne....yea that's it you got it....and why we at lets start calling blacks negro's and colored, because if it only offended less that 10% who gives a damn........ R B S

[TheMalcolmConnection]

What it all comes down to is a matter of percentages. By saying that just because it is offensive to someone, we should change it would cause complete turmoil in the country. With that line of thinking where do you draw the line? There are some words that I'm offended by, and I'm a minority of one, so why not change those words? I'm not a proponent of either changing or keeping the Redskins name. I'd love to have it forever, but if it were to change I'd be just fine because as someone else said, I have an attachment to the team and not the name.

I'm just putting it in perspective for those who say that if a small group of people are offended by something it should change. If that is the case, why shouldn't it be the case for one person?

The answer is because it is just not feasible.

I don't have to answer to how many people it should take before a change should take place on a name or something to that effect. I just don't think it's rational to say that if SOMEONE is offended, something should be done.