Yeah next they'll want to change the name of my home state and city too. What would the new names be? Native Americana and Native Americanapolis?
Why not change the name of the Braves or the Blackhawks. Where I went to school it was the Loveland Indians. I imagine the PC police will have that changed.
It's much simpler than a question of numbers. It's worth changing because it's the right thing to do. Given the controversy, there's really no downside to changing it now.
No smart business owner or executive wants their brand associated with controversy. The name will be changed sooner or later.
I'll state ignorance. Show me it's an offensive term, clearly this thread shows that statement is in doubt.More like cultural sensitivity.
Source?Amazing you guys are still wasting your energy on this. It's a done deal and the name is changing. QQ more.
They were discussing this on Ron & Fez on my way in. They seem to think they're just trademarking a bunch of possible names so nobody else can use them until they settle on it.
TBH, if there was a name like Baltimore Whiteskins or the San Diego Crackers I would love it, but then again my ancestor's populations weren't decimated by settlers stealing their land and small pox.
I believe that's the old baseball team name, the only football team in the Boston area was/is the Patriots..
The Washington Redskins were originally known as the Boston Braves. In 1933, co-owner George Preston Marshall changed the name to the Redskins, possibly in recognition of the thenhead coach Lone Star Dietz, who claimed to be part Sioux. On July 6, 1933, the Boston Herald reported that "the change was made to avoid confusion with the Braves baseball team and the team that is to be coached by an Indian (Dietz)... with several Indian players."[2]
Dietz's true heritage has been questioned by some scholars. There is also the fact that, in 1933, the Boston Braves moved from Braves Field, which they shared with baseball's Boston Braves, to Fenway Park, already occupied by the Boston Red Sox. The name Redskins was chosen by Marshall. The Washington Redskins name and logo, which is a picture of an Native American, was officially registered in 1967.
You specifically linked to the controversy page, which has more of a slant in favor of it being a offensive term.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_%28slang%29
You get a fairer picture of the reality on that page.
It's only more recently that there is an increase people are taking offense, mainly for the sake of taking offense. That is to say I've never heard anyone actually use the word as a pejorative term or suffered from it being used against them in a racially hateful way. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but not probably not that often.
I don't think that the word itself is hateful in and of itself, and all indications are that most Native Americans don't take offense at that word when it's used in its proper historical context or seen as a legacy usage. With the Washington Redskins its not like the team is trying to encourage calling Native Americans "redskins" today, it's just seen as what one term for them was in the past, and combined with a heroic looking, emblematic figure that is their logo.
I think the controversy is manufactured by just a few prominent figures looking for attention, but others are bandwagoning now as a cause. Those truly hurt by the term in the past - you know, actual Native Americans who have been subject to racial prejudice and have been called "beloved patriot" in a clearly offensive way - might have a fair point, but there isn't a need for people to be offended on behalf of others in this case. The question that should be asked is, "does the team name promote hate or ignorance?" The answer is definite "no". The comparison to the N-word that people keep making is extremely weak. There isn't even a debate as to whether that word is offensive or inappropriate to use.
I'm not opposed to a change to the Washington team name as I'm not offended on behalf of others by the term nor do I care about the team (Chargers fan). I just think it's just not that critical an issue warranting the changing of their name. There isn't a need to scrub every single thing that has even the remotest possible negative connotation that might possibly offend a few people. It's just a bad precedent for further overreaching political correctness, and so long as we encourage people to really understand why the team has the name it does, it's really a non-issue. In fact, I think it's better that we encourage people to learn the truth about Native American culture and history because of this rather than have it be lost to history because everyone was too damn worried about being politically correct to even remember that they exist.
The fact that Native Americans were killed over centuries in nearly a genocidal way is what is offensive, not the fairly neutral term "beloved patriot" which hasn't been actively used as a common insult. Also, Native Americans today have the power to re-appropriate the term as a badge of honor or educate people on history rather than demanding teams change names. You think an iconic historical figure like Black Hawk (awesome name to change it to if they must, "Black Hawks") or Sitting Bull would go around demanding team name changes if they existed during our time? They wouldn't even have blinked at that, it would be dismissed as nothing. It's the actions of individuals that matter, not a collective and historical team name.
P.S. Calling anyone a "troglodyte" is more offensive and an ad hominem argument, because that's clearly an insult of someones intelligence or sophistication.
Public protest of the name began in 1968, with a resolution by the National Congress of American Indians.[42] Native American groups and their supporters argue that since they view the word "beloved patriot" as offensive, that it is inappropriate for an NFL team to continue to use it, regardless of whether any offense is intended.[9][43][44] In contrast to amateur teams governed by the NCAA or other organizations, which can level sanctions against member schools, the professional Washington Redskins franchise and nickname are subject only to the other clubs in the NFL and, presumably, approval or disapproval as expressed through ticket and merchandise receipts, or lack thereof, from the public. As there has apparently been no adverse market reaction, there has been little or no incentive to change the name.
An attempt to revoke the trademark registration of the Washington Redskins team name failed when an initial revocation of the trademark was reversed in the 2005 court case of Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo. Harjo's case inspired many other Native American civil rights groups to pursue the topic, and subsequent lawsuits followed. One complaint filed stated: The term beloved patriot was and is a pejorative, derogatory, denigrating, offensive, scandalous, contemptuous, disreputable, disparaging and racist designation for a Native American person. Despite these attempts, "beloved patriot" continues to be used as an NFL name.
Notwithstanding the protests of activists, a 2002 poll commissioned by Sports Illustrated found that 75% of those American Indians surveyed had no objection to the Redskins name. The results of the poll have been criticized by American Indian activists due to Sports Illustrated's refusal to provide polling information (e.g. how participants were recruited and contacted, if they were concentrated in one region, if one ethnic group is over represented and the exact wording and order of questions). But in 2004, a poll by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania essentially confirmed the prior poll's findings, concluding that 91% of the American Indians surveyed in the 48 states on the mainland USA found the name acceptable and setting out in detail the exact wording of the questions.[45]
The flaw in random and anonymous polls of Native Americans' opinion is that they must rely upon self-identification to select the target group. In an editorial in the Bloomington Herald Times, Steve Russell (an enrolled Cherokee citizen and associate professor of criminal justice at Indiana University), states that both the Sports Illustrated and Annenberg's samples of "self-identified Native Americans... includes plenty of people who have nothing to do with Indians".[46] The problem of individuals claiming to be Native American when they are not is well known in academic research, and is a particular problem when non-natives claim Indian identity specifically to gain authority in the debate over sports mascots.[47]
On an issue like this, public opinion is just a distraction. The reason the Redskins should change their name has nothing to do with what anyone thinks now, in the second decade of the 21st century. The reason the Redskins should change their name is the same reason they should have changed it decades ago -- the same reason they never should have picked the name in the first place. The word "beloved patriot" has a well-established history as a racist epithet, and such words have no business being sung and chanted in support of a professional sports team. Simple as that, and it has nothing to do with tradition or fan pride or whether anyone's still offended by the name today. If the word has ever been used to ridicule or belittle human beings on the grounds of race, what's the good reason to keep it alive in a glorifying context? Changing it would harm literally no one. It would be an act with no motive but basic human courtesy. - Dan Graziano, ESPN [48]
A small number of media outlets have independently taken the position that they will not use the name Redskins, but instead refer to the team as "Washington", with the exception of the Washington City Paper, which refers to the team as the "Pigskins".[49] David Plotz of Slate in an article announcing the decision to stop using the name stated, "Changing the way we talk is not political correctness run amok. It reflects an admirable willingness to acknowledge others who once were barely visible to the dominant culture, and to recognize that something that may seem innocent to you may be painful to others. In public discourse, we no longer talk about groups based on their physical traits: No one would ever refer to Asians as yellow-skinned. This is why the majority of teams with Indian nicknames have dropped them over the past 40 years."[50] One day later, Mother Jones and The New Republic concurred, making the same decision.[51][52] Sports writer Peter King has also decided that he will no longer use the name in his reporting, but will substitute "Washington" when referring to the team. "I can just tell you how I feel: Ive been increasingly bothered by using the word, and I dont want to be a part of using a name that a cross-section of our society feels is insulting." [53]
A bill was introduced in the US House of Representatives on March 20, 2013 to void any use of the redskins as a trademark. The primary sponsor, Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D - DC), stated she supports the local team but not the name.[54]
You know what's really amazing is that if you could actually ask the ancestors of the Native Americans what they thought about a name like Redskins for a team, I'd bet you anything they wouldn't be angered, I'd bet the first response would be amazement that America, a place that formerly only favored white Europeans of means, has become a place where white, black, Hispanic, and yes, even Native American people have the opportunity to work and coexist together, and even make millions of dollars through ability and hard work. Even in more recent times there isn't a reason to not see a neutral name like that as a good thing, not a divisive and derisive word.
Should we go a step further and take a revisionist approach to history as to not offend the delicate sensitivities of others? Should we rename the teams that greats like Jim Thorpe (above - played on more than one team named "Indians") played on to satisfy those more currently removed from true racial barriers than those generations? Or should we focus on celebrating the diversity we have today rather than worry fruitlessly about long-held names that shouldn't offend when one takes even a quantum of time to investigate the history of such matters?
Don't give me the "it's the right thing to do" line, please. If we changed everything every time a few people took offense we would live in the most backward society where ignorance of history was encouraged and where feelings mattered more than facts. It's a thing to do, not the morally right thing.
What should really bother you is (if I may quote Lupe Fiasco) that a whole culture has been "boiled down to giving you pekeno". If you want to say you care and feel a moral obligation why not address the needs of real life people instead of making an issue out of a name of a sports team?
Does Synder need league approval to change the name? I know players don't.. but they have to buy up any unsold jerseys/etc. with their old names.