Smithsonian Museum - yet another thread on team name

Unless you are Native American, your feeling on the matter (either way) is irrelevant. Borderline self-serving.

The very nature of a Skins website is to discuss topics relevant to the Skins. Since this is about the name of the team, I would think it is a relevant discussion. And having vested nearly 40 years of my life as a Redskins fan, I think that I have a right to express my opinion. And that brings us back to the question, at what point does a word go from a dispersion to an honorable name. I wasn't around when the name was changed, I grew up thinking of the term Redskins as a good thing, and as a side note - Cowboys as a bad thing. I am pretty sure many if not most in my generation grew up with the same view, or if it was a negative it was because you didn't like the team - not because of any racial overtones.

Bottomline for me, if the whole of the collective native american tribes were demonstrating, picketing, and letting it be known that this was an offense against their race, then I would not have a problem with changing it. But if it is a group of lawyers, and a small non-representative sampling, then they need to move on. In my view, it is the latter.

I think when the name finally does change it wont be in reaction to a lawsuit or court case because the team and the NFL will not want it to look like they have been forced into the change, they will want it to appear that the change was made on their own terms. Much like women members at Augusta National, one morning we are going to wake up one morning and hear hear the announcement. It will get a lot of play for a day and then be no big deal. Augusta did it on their terms and so will the Skins & the NFL.

As for team names I'd really like Americans or or maybe Hogs.

Why don't they run a poll with different Native American tribes and ask what they would rename the Redskins to. It would be an interesting test.

Actually this did happen, and the largest % of Native Americans who were polled showed that they did not think the name "Redskins" was derogatory. In fact, some of the NAs that were polled said that they were Redskins fans and that they were honored to have a team represent them.

USATODAY.com - Poll finds few Indians offended by Washington Redskins name (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/redskins/2004-09-24-redskins-indians-poll_x.htm)

It's oldish but what would have happened in the last 8 years to really make the name offensive? Shouldn't, in this day and age, things like the n-word and the r-word be getting LESS offensive? Haven't we figured out as a society that giving weight to terms as derogatory is the only thing that makes them derogatory?

What part of the country did you grow up? I spent a majority of my childhood out West. Yes, I did hear it as a negative term used to describe people, just like I heard the N word.

So your telling us people went around calling other people Redskins?

Unless you are Native American, your feeling on the matter (either way) is irrelevant. Borderline self-serving.

Well if you looked at the pannell discussing the isue Friday you would have seen it was like 3 Indians and the rest of the 15 some speakers were either white or black. So the Indians that have an issue with the name didn't have an issue with different races speaking for them.

What part of the country did you grow up? I spent a majority of my childhood out West. Yes, I did hear it as a negative term used to describe people, just like I heard the N word.

Which N word did you hear the one ending with an A an H or an ER?? Ill let this English teacher explain the proper usage.

Teacher uses the N word - YouTube

Actually this did happen, and the largest % of Native Americans who were polled showed that they did not think the name "Redskins" was derogatory. In fact, some of the NAs that were polled said that they were Redskins fans and that they were honored to have a team represent them.

There you go, end of discussion. There's always going to be whiners in this world with their own agendas (Florio) they are the ones that want to be different. **** them!!

The very nature of a Skins website is to discuss topics relevant to the Skins. Since this is about the name of the team, I would think it is a relevant discussion. And having vested nearly 40 years of my life as a Redskins fan, I think that I have a right to express my opinion. And that brings us back to the question, at what point does a word go from a dispersion to an honorable name. I wasn't around when the name was changed, I grew up thinking of the term Redskins as a good thing, and as a side note - Cowboys as a bad thing. I am pretty sure many if not most in my generation grew up with the same view, or if it was a negative it was because you didn't like the team - not because of any racial overtones.

Bottomline for me, if the whole of the collective native american tribes were demonstrating, picketing, and letting it be known that this was an offense against their race, then I would not have a problem with changing it. But if it is a group of lawyers, and a small non-representative sampling, then they need to move on. In my view, it is the latter.

This I agree with this. Let it be known that some of the nationalities that are represented by NFL teams were known to cause violence against other groups of people: The Vikings and the Buccaneers just to name a couple. Both have either caused death or larceny. We can expand into other sports and look at names like "Pirates", who have committed terrorist attacks on civilian ships at sea, even in the recent few years. Yet, nobody complains about the glorification of those names and how they are represented in the NFL and other pro leagues.

This is where I think such arguments are pretty silly. Considering the fact that you don't have to really look that hard to find fault in half the other NFL team names. I'm sure Atheists think New Orleans' moniker is silly and might even find offense with it. The Raiders? The Vikings? The Buccaneers? I mean, really? Then you can dig further into college and I'm sure people would find offense to using "Blue Devils" which has a devil as a mascot. Demons? The fighting Irish? So, are Irish people violent?

USATODAY.com - Poll finds few Indians offended by Washington Redskins name (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/redskins/2004-09-24-redskins-indians-poll_x.htm)

It's oldish but what would have happened in the last 8 years to really make the name offensive? Shouldn't, in this day and age, things like the n-word and the r-word be getting LESS offensive? Haven't we figured out as a society that giving weight to terms as derogatory is the only thing that makes them derogatory?
Sorry but no. This line of thinking is akin to what happens in schools when the history of our country is taught as a 'transition' from the Native Americans to European settlers and that slavery was an 'unfortunate period' historically and the Civil War was fought over economics.

There should be no 'day and age' when demeaning and derogatory terms are 'less offensive' or acceptable in any form. The whole notion of 'giving weight' to things makes them bad is sticking your head in the sand and wishing they and their history don't exist.