No, I mean the 80%+ Indians that are out there that really have No Problem with the name. Most look at it as an Honor.
Redskins name controvesy
- Thread starter TNGTony
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 304
- Views 36K
If Rush Limbaugh was still doing his Environmentalist Wacko Football Picks the Redskins would probably be favored every week unless they were playing the Dolphins.
Here is an e-mail sent to Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune after an article he
published about changing the Washington Redskins name.
Dear Mr. Page...
I always love your articles and I generally agree with them. I would suggest, as in an email I received, they change the name to the "Foreskins" to better represent their community, paying tribute to the dick heads in Congress.
I agree with our Native American population. I am highly insulted by the racially charged name of the Washington Redskins. One might argue that to name a professional football team after Native Americans would exalt them as fine warriors, but nay, nay. We must be careful not to offend, and in the spirit of political correctness and courtesy, we must move forward.
Let's ditch the Kansas City Chiefs, the Atlanta Braves and the Cleveland Indians. If your shorts are in a wad because of the reference the name Redskins makes to skin color, then we need to get rid of the Cleveland Browns.
The Carolina Panthers obviously were named to keep the memory of militant Blacks from the 60's alive. Gone. It's offensive to us white folk.
The New York Yankees offend the Southern population. Do you see a team named for the Confederacy? No! There is no room for any reference to that tragic war that cost this country so many young men's lives.
I am also offended by the blatant references to the Catholic religion among our sports team names. Totally inappropriate to have the New Orleans Saints, the Los Angeles Angels or the San Diego Padres.
Then there are the team names that glorify criminals who raped and pillaged. We are talking about the horrible Oakland Raiders, the Minnesota Vikings, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and the Pittsburgh Pirates!
Now, let us address those teams that clearly send the wrong message to our children. The San Diego Chargers promote irresponsible fighting or even spending habits. Wrong message to our children.
The New York Giants and the San Francisco Giants promote obesity, a growing childhood epidemic. Wrong message to our children.
The Cincinnati Reds promote downers/barbiturates. Wrong message to our children.
The Milwaukee Brewers. Well that goes without saying. Wrong message to our children.
So, there you go. We need to support any legislation that comes out to rectify this travesty, because the government will likely become involved with this issue, as they should. Just the kind of thing the do-nothing Congress loves.
published about changing the Washington Redskins name.
Dear Mr. Page...
I always love your articles and I generally agree with them. I would suggest, as in an email I received, they change the name to the "Foreskins" to better represent their community, paying tribute to the dick heads in Congress.
I agree with our Native American population. I am highly insulted by the racially charged name of the Washington Redskins. One might argue that to name a professional football team after Native Americans would exalt them as fine warriors, but nay, nay. We must be careful not to offend, and in the spirit of political correctness and courtesy, we must move forward.
Let's ditch the Kansas City Chiefs, the Atlanta Braves and the Cleveland Indians. If your shorts are in a wad because of the reference the name Redskins makes to skin color, then we need to get rid of the Cleveland Browns.
The Carolina Panthers obviously were named to keep the memory of militant Blacks from the 60's alive. Gone. It's offensive to us white folk.
The New York Yankees offend the Southern population. Do you see a team named for the Confederacy? No! There is no room for any reference to that tragic war that cost this country so many young men's lives.
I am also offended by the blatant references to the Catholic religion among our sports team names. Totally inappropriate to have the New Orleans Saints, the Los Angeles Angels or the San Diego Padres.
Then there are the team names that glorify criminals who raped and pillaged. We are talking about the horrible Oakland Raiders, the Minnesota Vikings, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and the Pittsburgh Pirates!
Now, let us address those teams that clearly send the wrong message to our children. The San Diego Chargers promote irresponsible fighting or even spending habits. Wrong message to our children.
The New York Giants and the San Francisco Giants promote obesity, a growing childhood epidemic. Wrong message to our children.
The Cincinnati Reds promote downers/barbiturates. Wrong message to our children.
The Milwaukee Brewers. Well that goes without saying. Wrong message to our children.
So, there you go. We need to support any legislation that comes out to rectify this travesty, because the government will likely become involved with this issue, as they should. Just the kind of thing the do-nothing Congress loves.
I know that the article/e-mail above was played for laughs, but you know all those examples are false equivalences. I actually referenced most of the examples in the original post of this thread. Chiefs, Braves, Indians, Warriors (with Indian ties), Tribal names are not offensive in and of themselves. When used in any context other than a team name, redskin is an offensive term.
If it were the Cleveland Darkies. that is equivalent. If it were the Cincinnati Krauts, that would be equivalent. If it were the San Fransisco Chinks, that would be equivalent. If it were the San Diego Wetbacks, that would be equivalent. If it were the New Orleans Frogs (with logos and references to foul french people), that would be equivalent. If it were the Boston Degos, that would be equivalent. If it were the Miami Spicks, that would be equivalent. If it were the Chicago Pollocks, that would be equivalent.
And fact-check alert to the Yankees... there are plenty of teams in college (UNLV and Ole Miss) and lower levels that carry the name "Rebels". I think there was once an indoor football or some-such minor pro league team with the Rebel moniker.
In other posts others keep on citing the poll taken in Pennsylvania from people who self-identify as native American (i.e. My Great-Grandmother on my second cousin's side was 1/64th Ute --- that make me a native american authority). It is a worthless poll. It is as scientifically accurate as a Satelliteguys forum poll.
If it were the Cleveland Darkies. that is equivalent. If it were the Cincinnati Krauts, that would be equivalent. If it were the San Fransisco Chinks, that would be equivalent. If it were the San Diego Wetbacks, that would be equivalent. If it were the New Orleans Frogs (with logos and references to foul french people), that would be equivalent. If it were the Boston Degos, that would be equivalent. If it were the Miami Spicks, that would be equivalent. If it were the Chicago Pollocks, that would be equivalent.
And fact-check alert to the Yankees... there are plenty of teams in college (UNLV and Ole Miss) and lower levels that carry the name "Rebels". I think there was once an indoor football or some-such minor pro league team with the Rebel moniker.
In other posts others keep on citing the poll taken in Pennsylvania from people who self-identify as native American (i.e. My Great-Grandmother on my second cousin's side was 1/64th Ute --- that make me a native american authority). It is a worthless poll. It is as scientifically accurate as a Satelliteguys forum poll.
Be careful using the name Ole Miss without doing your own fact check.
Especially how we know how you feel about southerners in general.
Especially how we know how you feel about southerners in general.
Last edited:
Not sure what you are saying about fact-checking Ole Miss. My point is strictly that the "joke" point about the "Yankees" being offensive to the South and the South not having an antonym is incorrect.
Also no sure what you mean by "how I feel about the south." I've had my share of bad experiences in the south, but I've experience just as many up north (Indiana). I love going down south, especially NC.
[video]
Also no sure what you mean by "how I feel about the south." I've had my share of bad experiences in the south, but I've experience just as many up north (Indiana). I love going down south, especially NC.
[video]
Why isn't Indians offensive in itself? Afterall, Indians are from India, and Native Americans are from America. Need to get with the new PC terminology.
And those names you mentioned have been brought up by the same people that are going after the Redskins at one time or another. They're focusing on the Redskins now because it's seen as low hanging fruit in order to set a precedent to go after the others.
Even then, Indians don't even have a consensus opinion as Naveho Nation has schools on their reservation that carry the moniker Redskins.
Don't like the Redskins name, then don't watch them or support them. Simple as that.
Indian has never been a derogatory term. It's just that simple. It's not PC to say redskins when referring to indians is, and has always been derogatory. It is just more recent that the people who are being maligned have had a voice to be heard complaing about it.
If you actually listened to the complaints, it was about the imagery associated with the name, not the name itself. Chief Wahoo is the problem with the Indians. Not the name itself. Same goes with the braves and the tomahawk chop and stereotypical indian chant.
On this thread, I have a long list of schools, including Indian schools in OK and other reservations that have changed their names going back to the 80s, again, as the affected population actually got a voice and control over their own schools.
And a little light reading http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwo...ly-joins-fight-against-redskins-mascot-154423
Would you say the same thing about a team named any of the names in my previous post?
None of this is scientific at all.I know that the article/e-mail above was played for laughs, but you know all those examples are false equivalences. I actually referenced most of the examples in the original post of this thread. Chiefs, Braves, Indians, Warriors (with Indian ties), Tribal names are not offensive in and of themselves. When used in any context other than a team name, redskin is an offensive term.
If it were the Cleveland Darkies. that is equivalent. If it were the Cincinnati Krauts, that would be equivalent. If it were the San Fransisco Chinks, that would be equivalent. If it were the San Diego Wetbacks, that would be equivalent. If it were the New Orleans Frogs (with logos and references to foul french people), that would be equivalent. If it were the Boston Degos, that would be equivalent. If it were the Miami Spicks, that would be equivalent. If it were the Chicago Pollocks, that would be equivalent.
And fact-check alert to the Yankees... there are plenty of teams in college (UNLV and Ole Miss) and lower levels that carry the name "Rebels". I think there was once an indoor football or some-such minor pro league team with the Rebel moniker.
In other posts others keep on citing the poll taken in Pennsylvania from people who self-identify as native American (i.e. My Great-Grandmother on my second cousin's side was 1/64th Ute --- that make me a native american authority). It is a worthless poll. It is as scientifically accurate as a Satelliteguys forum poll.
As I mentioned previously, you have a few Indians that are making a big deal of this while the other 90 % understand it's meant to be an honor.
Thats as bad as not being able to say the "Pledge of Allegiance" because it might offend someone.
STILL, it's a small few complaining making it sound like everyone is ...
The name Redskins was just fine till all this Political garbage came into it.
It has nothing to do with people finally speaking up ... where were these offended people when the Redskins name was 1st being used ?
It wasn't considered bad then ...
Don't tell me it was, thats just going to suit your opinion.
The Washington Redskins have been using that name since 1932, thats odd that they haven't had an issue with it till the last few years.
And No, it's not the same as the names you posted in the thread above.
And No, it's not the same as the names you posted in the thread above.
Again, it's not that people did not have an issue with it. It's that people did not have the VOICE to be heard! We now say the N-word. That word was NEVER okay, but it was used with impunity until recently. It didn't suddenly become Okay. There used to be a restaurant chain called Sambo's. It was NEVER okay. But it took many years before people gained the voice to complain and were heard.
And it is ALWAYS a small number of people who complain about anything at first. Why? Look up the word minority.
And it is ALWAYS a small number of people who complain about anything at first. Why? Look up the word minority.
Repeat the same bad stat and I will repeat the same thing: the poll you refer to was taken in Pennsylvania from people who self-identified as Native American/Indian (i.e. My Great-grandmother on my second cousin's side was 1/64th Ute so I am native american and I am not offended by the name).
There is also a difference between a person self identifying with a name and others using the same term.
I'm not referring to any damn poll. I've stayed quiet on this, but it's starting to piss me off. I am referring to first hand in person knowledge. You want a CDIB card because it will show I am a lot more than 1/64 or 1/32 and not on my great grandmothers second cousins wife's side or any other nonsense you want to refer to. I can guarantee know one around here gives a damn about the name Redskins. Now we have idiots trying to get on the news last month to get the State name changed from Oklahoma for meaning red people in Choctaw. These people are just wasting everyone's time and trying to get their names in the history books.
I agree ...
I also have mostly stayed out of this thread because I don't want to get into all this .... the number of people that disagree are voicing thier opinion, while the other 95% or more are fine with it.
Show me ONE, I mean ONE scientific poll that shows that 90 or 95% of bona-fide members of indian nations are okay with the term redskin and I will shut up about it. Because 100% of American Indians I know think it's as bad as the term sambo for blacks and spick for Hispanics.
show me 100 bonafide Indians..The vast vast vast majority merged with the White man a long time ago. I have American Indian blood from all 4 of my grandparents ancestry .Unlike other minorities the Indians merged with the majority..( yes I Know about the reservations)
There are plenty of polls out there, you will just find something else to nitpick about and call it baseless. Why don't the Oneidas conduct a new poll or the NCAI? Because they know they are an extreme minority!
Similar threads
