British Parliament Members don't approve of the Washington Redskins Name
-
As a person of Native American descent, I don't find the name "redskin" endearing but I'm not really offended by it either.
However, to put things into perspective lets turn the tables and call them the Washington Blackskins.
Then we can see how fast that name would change.
Not that I have any credibility left in this topic but it's good you weighed in on this. You brought up some good points. Back when Marion Motley was the Jackie Robinson of Pro Football in an era of segregation, our favorite team was called the Browns even if that was more irony than reason for the name. If that was done on the other side of civil rights - there would have been some hyper-sensitives protesting the name even if they knew skin color had nothing to do with the name of the franchise. Then again, we're still trying to get Ghoolie to understand the math of how Jim Brown had nothing to do with why this franchise was originally named the Cleveland Browns.
My 2 cents here. When you get right down to it, Indians used to battle against greater numbers when land was being taken from them. Sports competitions like to battle to win so most of the time the idea of using anything to do with Indians or their traditions/cultures should be seen as honoring them. Therefore, I don't think pro sports franchises want to use logos and names of dishonorable/shameful things. For example, Braves. Maybe Atlanta just used better judgment on the name? KC chose Chiefs. Golden State went with Warriors - also a good choice. Columbus (minor league - chose clippers).
On the other hand, the skin color origins tend to tap more negative reactions. Cincy has the Reds and I'm told that had a lot to do with a rich history of Indian culture there. I'm guessing there's been people there that didn't dig the name either. Redskins? Keep the logo - and get more intelligent with the name. Then again, we are asking an owner dumb enough to pay the empty inner-chest of Albert Haynesworth 100 million $ to understand this. Stay tuned...
Agree 100% Flugs.Not that I have any credibility left in this topic but it's good you weighed in on this. You brought up some good points. Back when Marion Motley was the Jackie Robinson of Pro Football in an era of segregation, our favorite team was called the Browns even if that was more irony than reason for the name. If that was done on the other side of civil rights - there would have been some hyper-sensitives protesting the name even if they knew skin color had nothing to do with the name of the franchise. Then again, we're still trying to get Ghoolie to understand the math of how Jim Brown had nothing to do with why this franchise was originally named the Cleveland Browns.
My 2 cents here. When you get right down to it, Indians used to battle against greater numbers when land was being taken from them. Sports competitions like to battle to win so most of the time the idea of using anything to do with Indians or their traditions/cultures should be seen as honoring them. Therefore, I don't think pro sports franchises want to use logos and names of dishonorable/shameful things. For example, Braves. Maybe Atlanta just used better judgment on the name? KC chose Chiefs. Golden State went with Warriors - also a good choice. Columbus (minor league - chose clippers).
On the other hand, the skin color origins tend to tap more negative reactions. Cincy has the Reds and I'm told that had a lot to do with a rich history of Indian culture there. I'm guessing there's been people there that didn't dig the name either. Redskins? Keep the logo - and get more intelligent with the name. Then again, we are asking an owner dumb enough to pay the empty inner-chest of Albert Haynesworth 100 million $ to understand this. Stay tuned...
I think of all of the pro sports teams the redskins name is the most offensive.
In baseball, the Cleveland Indians in itself isn't derogatory but the Chief Wahoo character can cross the line for some.
-
Agree 100% Flugs.Not that I have any credibility left in this topic but it's good you weighed in on this. You brought up some good points. Back when Marion Motley was the Jackie Robinson of Pro Football in an era of segregation, our favorite team was called the Browns even if that was more irony than reason for the name. If that was done on the other side of civil rights - there would have been some hyper-sensitives protesting the name even if they knew skin color had nothing to do with the name of the franchise. Then again, we're still trying to get Ghoolie to understand the math of how Jim Brown had nothing to do with why this franchise was originally named the Cleveland Browns.
My 2 cents here. When you get right down to it, Indians used to battle against greater numbers when land was being taken from them. Sports competitions like to battle to win so most of the time the idea of using anything to do with Indians or their traditions/cultures should be seen as honoring them. Therefore, I don't think pro sports franchises want to use logos and names of dishonorable/shameful things. For example, Braves. Maybe Atlanta just used better judgment on the name? KC chose Chiefs. Golden State went with Warriors - also a good choice. Columbus (minor league - chose clippers).
On the other hand, the skin color origins tend to tap more negative reactions. Cincy has the Reds and I'm told that had a lot to do with a rich history of Indian culture there. I'm guessing there's been people there that didn't dig the name either. Redskins? Keep the logo - and get more intelligent with the name. Then again, we are asking an owner dumb enough to pay the empty inner-chest of Albert Haynesworth 100 million $ to understand this. Stay tuned...
I think of all of the pro sports teams the redskins name is the most offensive.
In baseball, the Cleveland Indians in itself isn't derogatory but the Chief Wahoo character can cross the line for some.
Agree 100% Flugs.
I think of all of the pro sports teams the redskins name is the most offensive.
In baseball, the Cleveland Indians in itself isn't derogatory but the Chief Wahoo character can cross the line for some.
I think the
Richmond Flying Squirrelsgives Rocky a bad rap.

-
Agree 100% Flugs.
I think of all of the pro sports teams the redskins name is the most offensive.
In baseball, the Cleveland Indians in itself isn't derogatory but the Chief Wahoo character can cross the line for some.
I think the
Richmond Flying Squirrelsgives Rocky a bad rap.

I think the
Richmond Flying Squirrelsgives Rocky a bad rap.

Says Mr. Know-it-all...

-
We should call people what they want to be called just to be respectful. They need to do some polling and find out if this is just an issue being pushed by a small minority or if there is a lot of support for changing the name among Indian people. I just would not like to see it be done because of a small vocal minority.
What Canton Dawg posted makes me want to take another look at it because if it is genuinely offensive then we need to find a better name. i had resisted the name change before because as a sports fan I know we don't have mascots to make fun of but to rally around and the intent of the name Redskins was one of honor.
-
Agree 100% Flugs.
I think of all of the pro sports teams the redskins name is the most offensive.
In baseball, the Cleveland Indians in itself isn't derogatory but the Chief Wahoo character can cross the line for some.
I think the
Richmond Flying Squirrelsgives Rocky a bad rap.

Posted Today, 09:55 AM
TexasAg1969, on 27 Feb 2016 - 08:46 AM, said:

I think the
Richmond Flying Squirrelsgives Rocky a bad rap.

Says Mr. Know-it-all...

***************************************************************************
I've always favored Rocky and Bullwinkle as my favorite
cartoons ever.
Now I'm offended. Need to sue Richmond for $$$$$$. Nobody mocks Rocky.
-
I think the
Richmond Flying Squirrelsgives Rocky a bad rap.

Says Mr. Know-it-all...

-
Where have you been?If you're going to be offended, don't wait decades to do it.
I'm not from the DC area, but there's been protests since the '80's about their name.
Here in Cleveland, there are protests on opening day for the Indians game since the '70's.
This is nothing new.
Where have you been?
I'm not from the DC area, but there's been protests since the '80's about their name.
Here in Cleveland, there are protests on opening day for the Indians game since the '70's.
This is nothing new.
I am from the DC area and still live 10 minutes outside the city. This is not a big deal down here. The only outrage I've seen has been in the media. Not saying people shouldn't be offended, I don't care about the name one way or another, I'm just saying I haven't seen any of these protests or heard anyone argue against the name here.
-
Where have you been?If you're going to be offended, don't wait decades to do it.
I'm not from the DC area, but there's been protests since the '80's about their name.
Here in Cleveland, there are protests on opening day for the Indians game since the '70's.
This is nothing new.
Where have you been?
I'm not from the DC area, but there's been protests since the '80's about their name.
Here in Cleveland, there are protests on opening day for the Indians game since the '70's.
This is nothing new.
That's cute. Theyve had the name since 1933.
-
Where have you been?
I'm not from the DC area, but there's been protests since the '80's about their name.
Here in Cleveland, there are protests on opening day for the Indians game since the '70's.
This is nothing new.
That's cute. Theyve had the name since 1933.
That's cute. Theyve had the name since 1933.
And how long has political correctness been around?
-
Even though the name Washington Redskins originated in 1933 which seems like a long time ago if you google search racial stereotypes in the 1930's I was stunned at the blatant open racism that existed during that time which was in cartoons, movies, toy products, commercials etc... So that name being coined in the 30's doesn't hold so much water as an argument as to why we should keep it.
My reason for wanting to keep the name was I believe that name was to honor the Indians as most mascot names are used to honor their schools. Let the people whose name is being used here decide it. If there are a large number of people of Indian descent who find the name offensive then get rid of it.
-
Even though the name Washington Redskins originated in 1933 which seems like a long time ago if you google search racial stereotypes in the 1930's I was stunned at the blatant open racism that existed during that time which was in cartoons, movies, toy products, commercials etc... So that name being coined in the 30's doesn't hold so much water as an argument as to why we should keep it.
My reason for wanting to keep the name was I believe that name was to honor the Indians as most mascot names are used to honor their schools. Let the people whose name is being used here decide it. If there are a large number of people of Indian descent who find the name offensive then get rid of it.
Even though the name Washington Redskins originated in 1933 which seems like a long time ago if you google search racial stereotypes in the 1930's I was stunned at the blatant open racism that existed during that time which was in cartoons, movies, toy products, commercials etc... So that name being coined in the 30's doesn't hold so much water as an argument as to why we should keep it.
My reason for wanting to keep the name was I believe that name was to honor the Indians as most mascot names are used to honor their schools. Let the people whose name is being used here decide it. If there are a large number of people of Indian descent who find the name offensive then get rid of it.
I remember as a kid, there was a commercial "Help Keep American Beautiful - Don't Litter." What happened in the commercial was a car was driving by an Indian on the side of the road and threw a bunch of litter at his feet. He had a tear going down his cheek with a look that said - I can't believe how many of my ancestors/relatives died fighting to keep and preserve our land from this complete lack of appreciation. Powerful message.
-
Of course it turned out that "Iron Eyes Cody" was an Italian immigrant actor named Espera Oscar de Corti...
-
The Washington Scalpers? No?
-
I got an idea since it's Washington DC.
First, what is the opposite of progress? Congress.
Change the name of the team Snyder has devoured over the years to Congress.
Then change the logo to a spear facing a rifle.
-
Of course it turned out that "Iron Eyes Cody" was an Italian immigrant actor named Espera Oscar de Corti...
Of course it turned out that "Iron Eyes Cody" was an Italian immigrant actor named Espera Oscar de Corti...
I remember those anti littering commercials and I thought they were very well done and made a great point. What surprises me is I thought the American Indian in those commercials was genuine and had no idea he might be someone of Italian descent who identified as being American Indian. If true it puts me in mind of the white woman who pretended to be black and was head of a local NAACP and said she identified as being black.
*Although the public who knew him from the movies and television thought of Cody as an American Indian, a 1996 story by The Times-Picayune in New Orleans questioned his heritage, reporting that he was a second-generation Italian-American. This was based on an interview with his half-sister, and documents including a baptismal record. Cody denied the claim.[2][3]
Cody died on January 4, 1999, at age 94.[2]
-
Of course it turned out that "Iron Eyes Cody" was an Italian immigrant actor named Espera Oscar de Corti...
I remember those anti littering commercials and I thought they were very well done and made a great point. What surprises me is I thought the American Indian in those commercials was genuine and had no idea he might be someone of Italian descent who identified as being American Indian. If true it puts me in mind of the white woman who pretended to be black and was head of a local NAACP and said she identified as being black.
*Although the public who knew him from the movies and television thought of Cody as an American Indian, a 1996 story by The Times-Picayune in New Orleans questioned his heritage, reporting that he was a second-generation Italian-American. This was based on an interview with his half-sister, and documents including a baptismal record. Cody denied the claim.[2][3]
Cody died on January 4, 1999, at age 94.[2]
I remember those anti littering commercials and I thought they were very well done and made a great point.
That they did, but this one was much, much cooler...
-
French and Indian war still stings much?

French and Indian war still stings much?

The British/Americans won that war FYI
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login