British Parliament Tells NFL to Change Redskins Mascot

[RiverDog]

Despite your views on whether or not the "Redskins" mascot is offensive and whether or not it should be changed, I am pretty confident that most of you will agree that the British need to mind their own frigging business. This is an American team they are getting, good, bad, or ugly, and if they don't like the term "Redskins", then they should have never agreed to let teams with nicknames they deem as offensive to play on their soil. Their beef needs to be with whoever it was in their own country that signed the contract that allowed a team nicknamed "Redskins" to play on their soil, not with the NFL or the Washington Redskins.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/14838 ... ngton-name

[Hawktawk]

They really do need to STFU. Along with all the whining PC police over here politicizing this trivial matter. Yank the game out of England, its stupid anyway.

[Hawk Sista]

Surprised they don't want to change the name of the Patriots, too....seeing how our Pats kicked their asses.

I really think the name is horrible. Can you imagine a team called the black skins or yellow skins. How about the Beaners or the Ni##ers, the Gooks or whatever. One doesn't have to be too PC to realize that REDSKIN is pretty damned offensive. Why not just change to the Washington Warriors and keep the same logo? Problem solved.

[NorthHawk]

Despite your views on whether or not the "Redskins" mascot is offensive and whether or not it should be changed, I am pretty confident that most of you will agree that the British need to mind their own frigging business. This is an American team they are getting, good, bad, or ugly, and if they don't like the term "Redskins", then they should have never agreed to let teams with nicknames they deem as offensive to play on their soil. Their beef needs to be with whoever it was in their own country that signed the contract that allowed a team nicknamed "Redskins" to play on their soil, not with the NFL or the Washington Redskins.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/14838 ... ngton-name

I disagree. It's their country and they can dis-invite anyone who offends them, just like we can do here.
It's one of the tenets of a free society.

[c_hawkbob]

Despite your views on whether or not the "Redskins" mascot is offensive and whether or not it should be changed, I am pretty confident that most of you will agree that the British need to mind their own frigging business. This is an American team they are getting, good, bad, or ugly, and if they don't like the term "Redskins", then they should have never agreed to let teams with nicknames they deem as offensive to play on their soil. Their beef needs to be with whoever it was in their own country that signed the contract that allowed a team nicknamed "Redskins" to play on their soil, not with the NFL or the Washington Redskins.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/14838 ... ngton-name

I think that with as prominent an international presence as the US maintains as it pertains to human and civil right abuses abroad other countries are well within their rights express their opinions on our own shortcomings in that regard.

[RiverDog]

Surprised they don't want to change the name of the Patriots, too....seeing how our Pats kicked their asses.

I really think the name is horrible. Can you imagine a team called the black skins or yellow skins. How about the Beaners or the Ni##ers, the Gooks or whatever. One doesn't have to be too PC to realize that REDSKIN is pretty damned offensive. Why not just change to the Washington Warriors and keep the same logo? Problem solved.

Good one on the Pats, Sis!

I've said on many occasions that I'd advocate a name change so long as a clear majority of legitimate Native Americans in a legitimate poll felt it offense and wanted it changed. I don't think I have a right to tell another person what they should be offended by and what they shouldn't.

And who's to say that Warriors might also be deemed offensive somewhere down the road? The University of North Dakota had to change their name from "The Fighting Sioux" after a local Indian reservation approved it's use. If that nickname is offensive, then would not Warriors also be considered offensive?

But the point of the thread wasn't the pros and cons of a name change. The point was letting the British tell us that they want us to change the name. If they don't like it, then they can un-invite us. I don't like our game going over to their stinking country anyway.

So far, it's just two members of their Parliament that are advocating the legislation, so it's probably a moot point.

[RiverDog]

I disagree. It's their country and they can dis-invite anyone who offends them, just like we can do here.
It's one of the tenets of a free society.

Which was my point. Let them dis-invite us. But they won't. Our money is more important to them than their morals. No way this legislation gets out of their Parliament.

[monkey]

Surprised they don't want to change the name of the Patriots, too....seeing how our Pats kicked their asses.

I know if I were a Britt, that's the one that would bother me the most LOL! Having their butts kicked by a bunch of half starved, under armed, outnumbered rebels would really stick in my craw.

[burrrton]

Can you imagine a team called the black skins or yellow skins. How about the Beaners or the Ni##ers, the Gooks or whatever.

No, because nobody can argue those names *aren't* offensive (well, the first two are just awkward because there's no precedent for their use).

"Redskins" being an n-bomb-level slur is a recent, and by most estimations artificial, construct. Most of the people who think it's offensive are non-NAs looking for something to b**** about, usually the same ones who claim to be "triggered" by things and use the phrase "white privilege" un-ironically.

[edit]

And FTR, I don't give a crap if he changes it or not. Get a solid majority of Native Americans to agree it's an offensive term and I'm all for changing it- short of that, let's focus on the *actual* problems in the world.

[obiken]

Are they are right? Yes. Should be passing bills involving themselves in the internal affairs of an American Sports franchise? No.

[HumanCockroach]

I think that with as prominent an international presence as the US maintains as it pertains to human and civil right abuses abroad other countries are well within their rights express their opinions on our own shortcomings in that regard.

This sums it up nicely.

[c_hawkbob]

"Redskins" being an n-bomb-level slur is a recent, and by most estimations artificial, construct.

That the term is NOT an n-bomb level slur is a recent and artificial construct.

[RiverDog]

"Can you imagine a team called the black skins or yellow skins. How about the Beaners or the Ni##ers, the Gooks or whatever."

No, because nobody can argue those names *aren't* offensive (well, the first two are just awkward because there's no precedent for their use).

"Redskins" being an n-bomb-level slur is a recent, and by most estimations artificial, construct. Most of the people who think it's offensive are non-NAs looking for something to b**** about, usually the same ones who claim to be "triggered" by things and use the phrase "white privilege" un-ironically.

[edit]

And FTR, I don't give a crap if he changes it or not. Get a solid majority of Native Americans to agree it's an offensive term and I'm all for changing it- short of that, let's focus on the *actual* problems in the world.

That pretty much sums up my opinion.

[burrrton]

That the term is NOT an n-bomb level slur is a recent and artificial construct.

Uh huh. "So, Doug Williams, will you be back with the R-Words for the '89 season?" is something you remember being asked?

Just say you think it's negative on balance, or tacky, or inappropriate, or whatever- you don't have to overstate the case so severely.

[c_hawkbob]

Not overstated at all. 50, 100, 200 years ago redskin was absolutely a racial epithet completely on par with n***er. The fact that it was simply accepted as the way whites referred to "inferior races" does not lessen the truth of the statement. it has only been recently (historically speaking) that the justification of a holdover archaic team nickname has been argued as not an epithet. Just because it's the last really offensive one left doesn't mean it's any less offensive.

50 years they'll be saying "I can't believe it took till (inset appropriate date here) to get rid of that nickname".

[Hawktawk]

LOL Doug Williams. Thais rich the most racist franchise provided the first Black SB QB winner. LMAO wow what a strange coincidence.

The overwhelming majority of native Americans have no problem with the name. MOF the Potomac Indian tribe boosters came out in support of the name. They were referred to by these idiotic activists as "scouts riding with the cavalry".

Whats next. Indians? Braves, Chiefs? I guess it would be OK to have a team named the blacks but not the supposed "N"s. Where does this lunacy stop of focusing on a red herring like this while the native american community struggles with addiction and alcoholism and family dysfunction? And its in LARGE measure a result of government mandated permanent victim status and a free handout from the taxpayers to be able to afford to sit around the rez and drink booze and do drugs. Sound familiar??

So sick of the PC police, they are everywhere and society is more messed up all the time it seems.The reparations police are right behind too.

Jeez I better stay off this thread or I'm going to make people think I'm a redneck.....

[HumanCockroach]

To late.... lol.

[burrrton]

it has only been recently (historically speaking) that the justification of a holdover archaic team nickname has been argued as not an epithet.

So where was all the universal outrage in, say, 1988 (to pull from my earlier example)? Everyone knew it was a slur, but everyone was comfortable calling Native Americans "n***ers" because of historical momentum?

That's a ridiculous charge.

I think it's at least defensible to say it's arguably disrespectful, but trying to place it on the same level as "n***er" is silly and desperate.

[kalibane]

America was just more tolerant to overtly racist things and Native Americans had little if any voice in the national discourse.

Also in 1988 they still ran cartoons of Tom and Jerry with a "Mammy" character prominently displayed and when people got blown up with explosives they'd come out looking like Little Sambo. Go watch Eddie Murphy Delirious and try to not be jarred by how often he uses anti gay slurs. Even the N word itself was tolerated long after the end of slavery.

Society at large is always resistant to change and slow to come around to admitting the things they have been doing for years are fundamentally wrong headed.

[burrrton]

"Wrong headed" is a good sight different than knowingly calling people "n***ers".

Again, I don't think it's unreasonable to characterize it as disrespectful and maybe something we *should* move away from- but to characterize it as some egregious, N-bomb-level racial slur is simply nonsense when majorities of those ostensibly being slurred don't even agree.

[kalibane]

That so called "majority" is a spurious citation. I know where it comes from so you don't have to link it or anything but there has been a great deal of push back on that particular poll as being accurate.

And you may be correct that it doesn't rise to the same level as the "n word", but so what? Does it have to? Most slurs don't. We are talking about a bunch of people from different tribes from different parts of the country with different experiences. If even a sizable minority of them feel like it's a virulent slur then what is the reasoning for fighting so hard to hold onto it? In the absolute best case where you keep the name you have a lot of people angry and offended. In the absolute worst case if you change it. A lot of people don't care but you end up selling a lot of new merch with the new branding. What's the upside of keeping it? Makes no sense to me.

[burrrton]

That so called "majority" is a spurious citation. I know where it comes from so you don't have to link it or anything but there has been a great deal of push back on that particular poll as being accurate.

I don't take it as gospel, but I think it's pretty clear there is at least widespread disagreement among NAs about the nature of the word.

And you may be correct that it doesn't rise to the same level as the "n word", but so what? Does it have to?

Well, that's where my disagreement comes from, so yes.

One more time: if you simply want to call it "wrong headed", reasonable people can disagree and I'm content to let the argument play out. The problem comes when people aren't content to discuss it rationally, so run to mischaracterizing it as the equivalent of "n***er" to attempt to shut down the debate.

What's the upside of keeping it? Makes no sense to me.

I tend to agree. I get the impression he just got sick to death of the over-the-top PC gestapo and dug in.

[c_hawkbob]

As far as the word "Redskin"'s relation to the N-word; of course now there is not the same degree of reaction to the word, but 150 years ago one word was no more or less reviled than the other. They were both just part of the average white man's vocabulary, each describing a different group of what most then considered to be inferior people.That is where equivalence comes from.

Certainly over the last 80 years the word has become known less and less as a descriptor of American Indians and more and more as a descriptor of a team in the National Football League and certainly a lot of people, including a lot of Indians view it as more the latter than the former at this point, but none of that changes the fact that the word itself originated as a racial epithet.

I'm not pretending to speak for any tribe or people in general, so telling me what this or that survey says is really irrelevant.

I don't care if you agree with me or not either, I don't consider anything I just said to be opinion, it's just the truth about the origin of the word.

And I'm not the "PC police". I'm no more telling you what to say or what not to say than I am allowing you to tell me what to say or what not to say. I don't care if anyone gets pissed off about it either, it just is what it is, how you view it is totally up to you.

[Hawktawk]

Beyond the loathing I harbor for PC police in general no matter what the hell their cause is my annoyance with these in particular is as a selfish NFL fan.
The franchise has a storied history that I followed as a fan growing up and they were a team I enjoyed watching. John Riggins was one of my all time favorite backs. I give Snyder credit for holding the line against these whiners.
NOT ACCEPTABLE!!!! Banish it!!! It offends a few people...

So fast forward. What do we do about NFL classics? Do the films and records of the Skins or the no names or the crooked politicians or the PC wimps or whatever they come up with get expunged? No film of players with that evil logo on their helmet? Do they blur it out, Photoshop it? Do they bleep out the voice of the NFL films narrator when he talks reverently about the mighty Redskins?How about the Lombardi's? do they do a reissue?Put a new name tag on them? What about the players in the HOF?
Erase every vestige of the awful slur I say!!!!!Its unacceptable!!!!!

Its the name of a historic sports team.It harms nobody but the PC police and that is fine with me.

[burrrton]

As far as the word "Redskin"'s relation to the N-word; of course now there is not the same degree of reaction to the word, but 150 years ago one word was no more or less reviled than the other. They were both just part of the average white man's vocabulary, each describing a different group of what most then considered to be inferior people.That is where equivalence comes from.

The history of the term is much more complicated than you're implying- it being flatly equivalent to "n***er" at *any* point is highly debatable- and AFAICT it was *never* exclusively a white man's word for Native Americans, derogatory or otherwise.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_vall ... ectly.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_(slang)

but none of that changes the fact that the word itself originated as a racial epithet.

No it didn't. Its etymology isn't anything *close* to that simple.

I'm not pretending to speak for any tribe or people in general, so telling me what this or that survey says is really irrelevant.

The targets of the 'slur' telling you they don't find it offensive is irrelevant to you??

[HumanCockroach]

I HAVE to ask, WTF does it MATTER if a racial slur is to the level of another racial slur? It's STILL a racial slur is it not?

Along those same lines, why in the world does anyone feel the need to A) rank racial slurs B) defend the use of them ( regardless of how low or high they rank on a subjective list) C ) feel that ANY slur is defensible....???

I REALLY don't get it. Truth is, a word is simply put a word, but some words ARE offensive, just because there wasn't "focus" by large groups of people doesn't make it somehow less of a slur, it simply means that society didn't create the same type of outcry about it.

[burrrton]

some words ARE offensive

If you're using this given to argue "Redskins" should be done away with, you're begging the question- whether or not "Redskins" is offensive enough to be banned is what's up for debate.

[Hawk Sista]

One more time: if you simply want to call it "wrong headed", reasonable people can disagree and I'm content to let the argument play out. The problem comes when people aren't content to discuss it rationally, so run to mischaracterizing it as the equivalent of "n***er" to attempt to shut down the debate.

Give me a break!!! I was absolutely discussing this topic rationally. Your response suggests I tossed in the “N” word as some sort of illogical match toward a gas pond of enlightened debate. As has been suggested, a racial slur is in fact just that….a racial slur. I don't happen to have my slur calibrator handy to measure just which slur is more offensive, nor do I have data about when each slur came to be defined as a slur, and what percentage of people being slurred consider it offensive. The degree to which a slur is a slur is not at all the point. The point is that the mascot name IS offensive and it should be changed. Way too many people want to keep the name as it is simply because they fear that changing it will empower the "PC" crowd and will further pussify A'Merca. My making the connection to outlandishly offensive mascot names was to illustrate how offensive the term is. Hearing the term so often has desensitized us to its hateful origins.

Keeping the name, at this point, smacks of arrogance and sheer stubbornness. Whether a small group of Native Americans want to go on record as saying the name is not offensive to them is really irrelevant. It is offensive to a lot of people, Native Americans and others. Human beings “should” endeavor to evolve as we realize the mistakes of our past, not snuggle into an old racist mascot name just to stand firm against change.

My friend went to school in the Midwest (in Illinois). Their town was named after Peking (Pekin) and their mascot was the Chinks. Some Chinese people advised them in the 70's that it was racist so they changed the name to another mascot. Go figure. Please feel free to google the Pekin Chinks story; I'd hate to be accused of not discussing the situation rationally.

[Hawk Sista]

Not overstated at all. 50, 100, 200 years ago redskin was absolutely a racial epithet completely on par with n***er. The fact that it was simply accepted as the way whites referred to "inferior races" does not lessen the truth of the statement. it has only been recently (historically speaking) that the justification of a holdover archaic team nickname has been argued as not an epithet. Just because it's the last really offensive one left doesn't mean it's any less offensive.

50 years they'll be saying "I can't believe it took till (inset appropriate date here) to get rid of that nickname".

EXACTLY THIS! Here in the Fresno Area, there are several areas that have names that have been renamed for their offensive nature. It's taking people awhile, but slowly people are coming around. Thanks, Bob.

[burrrton]

As has been suggested, a racial slur is in fact just that….a racial slur.

Yes, that was suggested, and I broadly agree. However, it's been demonstrated that it's not at all clear that "Redskins" is the slur you apparently think it is.

Hearing the term so often has desensitized us to its hateful origins.

What "hateful origins"? I've read a bit about this (this isn't a new controversy) and the only consensus I can find is that nobody really knows where the hell it came from.

[RiverDog]

I don't think it's necessary for a term's shock value has to raise to a certain level in order for it to be deemed inappropriate for a sporting team's nickname, but that's not the point. The point is that in every credible poll I've ever seen done, including my own unscientific relationships with NA's, there is not a clear majority that deems the term "Redskins" it to be offensive. I am not defending the "Redskins" nickname, nor am I advocating a change.

I view this debate to be a similar to the debate about the confederate flag, of which I supported taking off government buildings/motto's, with the lone exception being that of certain cemeteries and memorials containing the graves or commemorating Confederate soldiers that had died in battle. The difference is that it seems to me that there was/is a substantial majority of African Americans that felt the Stars and Bars to be offensive, so I supported the movement to ban it. That is absolutely not the case in the Redskins debate

And Sis, don't think for a minute that all Snyder has to do is change the name to "Warriors" and everything will be hunky dory. If the University of North Dakota can be forced by the PC Holier Than Thou crowd to rid themselves of the "Fighting Sioux" mascot, what in the world would make you think that the term "Warriors" would be anymore acceptable to them?

[burrrton]

I don't think it's necessary for a term's shock value has to raise to a certain level in order for it to be deemed inappropriate for a sporting team's nickname

I think it helps when the vast majority can agree something is a "slur"- that's what I'm referring to when I say "N-bomb-level" and such. I'm not saying it's a sliding scale- I'm saying there's no significant disagreement about the nature of the word (although it's probably functionally the same- slurs are more universally regarded when they're more offensive, etc).

I'd say "chink" is on par with the N-bomb despite it not having the same 'shock value'. Nobody is hazy about where it came from or what it means, and you're not going to find any 98% Chinese high school sticking with (and defending!) "Chinks" as their mascot.

That's just not the case with "Redskins". I'm surprised how contentious pointing that out is to some people.

[NorthHawk]

Warriors, Chiefs, and Braves aren't objectionable simply because they are used in a manner such that the subject is honored.

A warrior could be from anyone who struggled valiantly, and has been used across cultures for centuries, a chief is a person of power or influence, and a brave is someone who has reached a position of respect within his community.
None of these are derogatory although the mascots of some teams using them could be considered as mocking a culture.

Redskin, on the other hand has been used as a slur only towards the indigenous peoples of North America. It doesn't cross cultures and only started when Europeans arrived.
Even if polls determined a majority don't think it's offensive (and we know how accurate polls are), why on earth would you want to offend the minority, or anyone for that matter? What's the point of that and why would you want to?

[Hawk Sista]

Well said, North. No offense to you and your very well stated opinion.... But that there is a need to explain the difference between "redskin" and "warrior" & to have to defend the use of the N word analogy in this discussion is so weird to me.

If I really need to explain that the term "redskin" has hateful origins, then I guess I'm just not going to see eye to eye w/ the someone who can't see it. I just can't comprehend why anyone needs to have the term "redskin" As a mascot name to remember John Riggins and all the lore of the franchise.... It's so bizarre, really and not worth my time to research factoids about the origin of a clearly bigoted mascot so y'all can continue a tradition steeped in racism. though Trump, who doesn't even denounce the KKK leads the anti PC team.

I know this as a truth: Native Americans in my area are outraged by the term - that's enough for me, though there are many (many) other reasons why I think the use of it is extremely inappropriate.

[Hawktawk]

Someone will always be offended by every perceived slight from here on out. More all the time.Were a nation of whiners, wimps. Super sensitive flower children.Group hugs and kumbaya.
Anyone heard of the FIRST AMENDMENT? No not this crowd running things anymore. That team logo hurts my feelings. Waaaaaaaaaa. Theres probably way more white PC police on the bandwagon than actual native Americans too.

DON'T WATCH THEM IF THEY OFFEND YOU!!!!!! VIOLA!!!!!

Oh and I loathe Trump Sister. Don't get that confused with a discussion about a GD sports mascot that has been just fine for decades.Its completely stupid in the grand scheme of things. Sort of BLM rioting and looting and blocking traffic while their sons are being killed in the streets by other blacks at a rate thousands of times that of usually justified police shootings.If black lives mattered they would be protesting in the ghetto.

These Redskins activists need to go to the rez if they want to help Native Americans. I've been on reservations and let me tell you they have a lot more problems than a frigging mascot most don't even give a damn about and some actually prefer.

There's a big difference between tolerance and overkill. We are there as a nation. Were moving away from peace and harmony, not towards it, because people are over protesting EVERYTHING now.Were are headed for anarchy and total chaos IMO. Its already happening.

[HumanCockroach]

This absolutely kind of shocks me. The slur "wop" doesn't "offend" me personally ( as I've discussed in other threads) but I wonder, if Snyder wanted to change the skins name to the wops if the same people here would be claiming the same thing? I kind of doubt it. Just because the slur is pointed at me, and it doesn't "offend" me, doesn't mean it's appropriate, or wouldn't offend others. It is a slur, and it will offend others of my nationality, while others wouldn't care. It doesn't magically become "not a slur" simply because some Italians don't get offended by the word.

As for you guys unscientific investigations, I recommend reading more than just the Redskins site. There's a LOT of information out there, referencing the payment for scalps of native Americans referred to as "redskins". Even IF the "origin" of the word wasn't meant as a slur, once it was being associated with those acts, it became one....

The actually definition of "fag" is a cigarette, however that word BECAME an unacceptable slur because of the use of it. This is simply no different. If the word is viewed as a slur, was associated negatively with Native Americans, it IS a slur regardless of whether the owner of a sports team "meant" it differently or not.

[NorthHawk]

I remember my grandfather when starting a fire would say he's going out to the woodshed for an armload of faggots, basically kindling to start the fire. The term fag for cigarettes was a natural progression, I suppose.

[c_hawkbob]

And Sis, don't think for a minute that all Snyder has to do is change the name to "Warriors" and everything will be hunky dory. If the University of North Dakota can be forced by the PC Holier Than Thou crowd to rid themselves of the "Fighting Sioux" mascot, what in the world would make you think that the term "Warriors" would be anymore acceptable to them?

Maybe not "warriors" but the Patawomeck tribal historian suggested in 2014 that if they were to name themselves the Washington Patomacs the tribe would officially endorse it (as have the Utes of the University of Utah's name and the Seminoles of Florida State University's name) and no opposition would have a leg to stand on. Doing that would completely defuse the situation, they'd get to keep the logo and rich history of the franchise and would then truly be honoring their namesakes (as they say they are now).

[obiken]

My dad always used the term "don't Jew me down on this" and he was NOT anti-Semitic.

[kalibane]

I think that the idea that the generic moniker of "warriors" being deemed offensive by someone is past the point of being a stretch. When someone is termed a warrior it's always in praise. And "warrior" is used interchangeably to describe men, women, people from all races, people from all countries, people spanning all times. Where as Redskin is only a term applied to Native Americans.

Then there is the fact that the defending champs and darlings of the NBA right now are the Golden State Warriors. If anyone wanted to make the specious case that "Warrior" was offensive as a mascot they'd be doing it right now while the biggest spotlight is on that team.


P.S. that's wonderful Obi, but I know a lot of Jewish people who would take issue with your Father's way of expressing his non anti-semitism.