[–] Maskedsaturn 0 points 9 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago
Nope, I have said this once, I will say it again, change the logo to a potato. It offends no one that can file a lawsuit.
[–] Maskedsaturn 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Don't! We are all terrible people sometimes!
[–] give-it-a-try 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
I don't think they should change it. If they need to, however, I think a tribe name would be appropriate. The Cherokees or something. Preferably a tribe once indigenous to the DC area.
Edit- The Iroquois wouldnt work though, no one could spell it.
[–] pizza_mine 1 point 3 points 4 points (+4|-1) ago
No: it's not a derogatory term, it's descriptive, nothing more. It refers to the natives living in the Americas. There is nothing insulting to have the color of your skin described or addressed. It's just a fact.
Yes: The Savages or The Primitives, The Backwards People. Or The Redskins, who where the people found here who thrived and survived and where doing quite well until Europeans arrived.
[–] feedingofthe5000 2 points 6 points 8 points (+8|-2) ago
Inncorect, it's a descriptive derogatory term. Would any of these team names fly? The Yellows The Blacks The Jews Just because you are used to hearing "The Redskins" doesn't mean it's not derogatory. Things like Braves, Chiefs, Seminoles on the other hand I think are fine.
[–] Maskedsaturn 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
THE BROWNS!? Oh crap... Watch out Cleveland!
[–] pepepepepe 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago
The New York Jews has a nice ring to it. I'd totally get behind that. The headlines and banter would be hilarious.
Jews reign in spending, stay far below salary cap for free agent hunt
Jews crash the Jets in New York rivalry, 43-14
Jewgate? Leaked document exposes NY Jews' collusion with Patriots organization
[–] pizza_mine 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago (edited ago)
I see your point, but there is inconsistency in your rebuttals "the Reds" fits in the list of what you said is derogatory yet it isn't. What about "the blues?" Definitely refers to a certain race, but no one is offended by the term. I think the real solution is how about we start thinking "the Redskins" is not derogatory, guess what happens? It is no longer derogatory. Lets rein in the political correctness and stop trying to find offense in everything.
[–] dualplains 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
I think it'll pass. This isn't the first time that name has been an point of controversy and it won't be the last, but I think it'll blow over.
[–] [deleted] 2 points 0 points 2 points (+2|-2) ago
[–] dualplains ago
but for purely economic reasons they need to change it.
Agreed. I keep hearing people trying to make an argument that they'll make a killing selling replacement gear and memorabilia to fans, but people don't seem to understand that many if not most of those fans wouldn't buy the new stuff. Loyalty doesn't work that.
[–] onesidedsquare 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
The Capitals, Monuments, or ..i dunno Stags?
[–] mikron2 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago
I want the Monuments so bad, but for unrealistic reasons. I'd want their logo to be the Washington Monument in the center, with two domes, one on either side representing the White House dome, and say the Capitol dome. Whichever of the domes you prefer from buildings in DC really, so it would look like a cock and balls. but with monuments. That way it would really get people's panties in a wad and I would laugh hysterically because I'm not really a nearly 30 year old man.
[–] thegoldenboy 0 points 9 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago
Nope, I don't think they should, but I think they will be forced too.
[–] BloodPool [S] 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
I'm starting to think it's leaning that way as well. First the Washington "Bullets" had to change their name because "Guns are bad.", and now the DC area has to change another name. Soon, they'll think the "Wizards" is too Satanic of a name, and have that changed. This sucks.
[–] DrunkenGoblin 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
The Washington Bullets weren't forced by anyone to change their name. Owner Abe Polin made the decision on his own to drop the Bullets name from his team.
[–] uncletootie 2 points 1 point 3 points (+3|-2) ago
Wooo, I'm going to disagree with the party line and say YES I think they should change it.
Unless you are a part of a minority group, I think it's difficult to know what certain terms mean to that group. I am not Native American, but it seems like some Native American groups have taken offense to the team name, and I can see why: "Redskin" (or "yellowskin" or "brownskin") has a derogatory connotation ("Your skin is different than the dominant skin color, which is white, so you are going to be called a "redskin."). I think there are plenty other names out there that don't carry this connotation (e.g. "Senators," "Redtails," "Federals," "Renegades.")
One thing I don't understand is why Dan Snyder doesn't change the name. It's erroneous to say the name has positive connotations for people, or that he has any personal connection to it. Why not change it and make some good publicity out of "wanting to respect to Native Americans." He could have come out as the good guy.
[–] dualplains ago (edited ago)
Actually looking into the etymology of the term 'redskin' leads down a really interesting road. It was first adopted by a gathering of tribal chieftans as a way of identifying all the tribes in their dealings with the colonists. They had no term for themselves as a race, just as individual tribes and nations. Everyone assumes that it must be a derogatory term because it was used on bounty boards in the west, but it was literally being used as a descriptor. The bounty boards themselves are horrible, sure, but the term was accepted and used at the time in the same way that native american is now. If we change the name of the football team, then we need to take a look at Ohlahoma which translates to 'Red People' in Choctaw.
And Dan Snyder's been a lifelong Redskins fan. He doesn't want to change the name because he grew up watching the Redskins same as a lot of the rest of us fans. Not sure why you wouldn't think he had a personal connection to the name. I hate him for what he's done to my skins, but I respect that he's got a connection to the team as a lifelong fan.
[–] BloodPool [S] 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
You must not be a Redskins fan. :-P
I'm not trying to be coy. My wife, as I stated before is part Apache, as are her parents. They take no offense to the name and agree that if the Redskins were winning more, there probably wouldn't be as much of a controversy. The symbol for the Redskins is this, the symbol for the Cleveland Indians is this. Which is worse?
[–] uncletootie 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
No I'm not a Redskins fan, and I can understand individuals' allegiance to a name they know, or grew up with. I would not like it if the Niners were renamed as the "BAYS" or "COMPUTER CHIPS" or something.
But to me, contrasting the images/logos for two teams and asking which is worse doesn't necessarily mean that the "less worse" (however you would decide such a thing) logo is acceptable. Can't they both be offensive? I guess the question is, at what point is something so offensive--and to whom--that it should be changed. If the team was named after a derogatory name for a dominant social group, would it still be standing? For example, "The Washington White Trash" or "Honkies" or (some people claim Jewish people control finance/media in the U.S. so) "The Washington Kikes."
Also, just because your family does not take offense to the name, doesn't mean others--and possibly a great deal of others--don't either.