[tag460]

Why pick on The Washington Redskins when there are more than 500 teams with native-American derived names. And that doesn’t even count “Warriors,” “Savages,” “Chiefs,” or names derived from specific tribes such as “Cherokees,” “Mohawks,” or “Mohicans.
500 high schools use 'Redskins,' 'Indians,' or 'Braves' as team name - The Tell - MarketWatch

[bowlik]

Being a Catholic, I am very offended by the Arizona Cardinals as well as St. Louis. I also believe that Cincinnati and Philadelphia should change their nicknames from Queen city and Brotherly love, just to be more diverse. Forward!!!.

[ilovetv]

So. Are meat-packing plant workers insulted or demeaned by Green Bay calling themselves the "Packers"????? Or has the team suffered because of their name based on one of the most unglamorous jobs in the country?

I think not.

GREEN BAY PACKERS -
The name was a natural since the team was sponsored first by the Indian Packing Company and later the Acme Packing Company. Although both companies went out of business, the team prospered under the name Packers.

- See more at: Nicknames

[TexaninVA]

Originally Posted by blueash

I don't understand why it seems difficult for some people to grasp that the continuing use of the nickname Redskin may offend people who, amazingly, aren't on the team. Even if only some Native Americans object there is no reason for a professional or college or high school.. team to offer offense to anyone when it can easily be avoided. To even suggest that the name Redskins has nothing to do with the larger question of anti-Native American racism and this nation's ugly history is amazing.

At least one can argue that the names Cleveland Indians or Atlanta Braves are somewhat neutral or positive. One cannot however suggest the cartoonish Chief Wahoo is in any way something other than a demeaning stereotype.. feather in his hair, big boney nose, eyes that never look straight ahead. It is no different than depicting a black man as a caricature of a shuffling Step 'n Fetchit.

Unless you are a member of a group which has been victimized by the group in power it may be difficult to understand and sympathize with those who simply ask that words that don't convey messages of pain and degradation be substituted for those that do. I fail to see how hurting peoples' feelings and using epithets is an appropriate topic for the humor page.

You need to get your empathy under control ... this is truly a non-sensical issue and if someone's offended, guess what? Too bad. This county has a whole lot of other issues to worry about ... we're broke, the economy is slipping and our leadership is inept. And someone wants to get in a wad over the name of a pro football team?

[Russ_Boston]

Originally Posted by Indydealmaker

Redskins...RedSox...Red...Never mind. You are too serious.

Yep that's me - no sense of humor. Or maybe having to explain a joke means it's no joke? To each his own. Obviously by the nearly 3 dozens responses no one really thought the original attempt was humor. Guess I'm not alone.

[mrfixit]

Originally Posted by bowlik

Being Catholic, I am offended by the Arizona Cardinals as well as St. Louis. !!!.

..clipped quote..
ABSOLUTly.....it is about time we stand up for what is only right.

What about those CLEVELAND INDIANS.......

..the NERVE of then Club Owner Charles Somers......
...who in 1915 named the team The INDIANS
.....to HONOR the MEMORY of Louis Sockalexis who died the year prior.

Louis Sockalexis was a Penobscot INDIAN who had played
for the team 1897-99 when they were called the Spiders.

Mr. Sockalexis was the FIRST Minority to ever play major league baseball.

The Cleveland team is named INDIANS TO HONOR an INDIAN.
....SO.....Is it Politically Correct to call themselves the INDIANS ?

I sure hope so...The CLEVELAND SOCKALEXIS' would be non politically correct...
...at least to those named Alexis....... "Sock Alexis" is too brutal.

[Polar Bear]

Originally Posted by BarryRX

I disagree. There are only about 3 million Native Americans in the country, and not many of those are in the Washington D.C. area where this marketplace is. Just because they are a small demographic does not remove their right to demand basic respect as a human being.

You're assuming all 3 million are offended. If so, I'd say you may have a point. But I seriously doubt they are. My guess (and I don't have any facts to base this on) is that a very small percentage are.

[DougB]

The Native Americans haven't been shown respect for the last 500 years, why start now?

[Yung Dum]

Originally Posted by DougB

The Native Americans haven't been shown respect for the last 500 years, why start now?

This is the only post on this thread that makes any sense.

[Golfingnut]

Thinking the term Redskins fits in the category on just for fun is hard for me. Unfortunately most jokes are at the expense of someone else. Comedy is made up using the actions of others missteps and shortcomings. When I was a boy there was a little girl we kids referred to as the RETARD. Even adults did not seem to find the reference offensive. Thankfully we have came a long way in the elimination of hurtful words, but sadly we still have a few left to deal with.

[Indydealmaker]

I started out to make a simple joke comparing the use of the word redskins to red sox to make the point that identifying some thing, anything by a word that describes its color is impossible to be denigrating unless there is such an intent.

When the team name was changed to Redskins it did so with the intent of honoring their coach and several of their players who were native american indians. Now because the media tells us that the term is racist, we have been instructed to toss aside our long-held beliefs and apologize for being racist.

This is no different than the media now telling us that it is wrong to consider ourselves a christian nation and that doing so offends non-christians and atheists.

To me, most of non-native americans, and most american indians the use of the word Redskins to name a team of sporting warriors is an honorable one. (a 2004 survey of indians showed that 90% were not offended by the name Redskins) and I am not going to be directed by politically correct social engineers to feel otherwise particularly when I am convinced there is, and never was, a racist intent.

[Hawss]

Httr!

[Golfingnut]

I congratulate those that use racist terms "but have no racist intent". That is certainly the right attitude but, does not negate the effect the offensive words have on the feelings of those that it hurts.

[DonH57]

I tryed to quote your post Indy by it wouldn't let me. Our media trys to be good at placing intent and malice where it didn't exist to begin with. Unfortunately there are those that just accepts what they are told and blindly comply.

[Indydealmaker]

Originally Posted by Golfingnut

I congratulate those that use racist terms "but have no racist intent". That is certainly the right attitude but, does not negate the effect the offensive words have on the feelings of those that it hurts.

The point is that absent the "intent to espouse that a given race is inferior" there is NO racism. There are words that are purely derogative without dispute. Then there are words that a minority have chosen to label as racist without regard for the actual use in context. The mere acknowledgement of the difference in color of a person's skin is not racist. If you believe and promote such a belief that that color difference proves an inferiority, then THAT is racism.

I have had many a conversation with my black brother-in-law as well as my hispanic son-in-law about the perceived racism in this country. They agree that most people who cry "racism" are simply attempting to profit in some fashion from the politicization thereof.