"Washington Federals" (Now Redskins name discussion)

[JohnnySeoul]

Not when you combine the logo with the name. I grew up with the Redskins too, but gotta call a spade a spade, the name is offensive, and it should be changed.

It's 2011....get over it. Do you tie yourself up to a tree in order to save it as well?

[Don]

No, I just refuse to watch a product when it no longer becomes entertaining to me. I dont purchase anything related to the Redskins anymore, so my voice doesnt matter, which is cool, I will continue to ignore them and throw my money at the Caps, Nats, and DC United. No problem to me.

[JohnnySeoul]

No, I just refuse to watch a product when it no longer becomes entertaining to me. I dont purchase anything related to the Redskins anymore, so my voice doesnt matter, which is cool, I will continue to ignore them and throw my money at the Caps, Nats, and DC United. No problem to me.

Not entertaining because football no longer interestes you or just because of the classic name/logo?

[Gothamite]

The point I bring up always is that today, right now, in 95% of America, if somebody was to say the word Redskin, everybody around would think of a football team, not a native american. Language changes over time

Probably, but that same 95% who thought of the football team would also realize that it's a slang word for a Native American.

This isn't a case of "language changing" at all. Quite the contrary, we're talking about language not changing; a relatively obscure and shameful term has almost disappeared from common parlance but is being kept alive largely because of its association with the football team.

[Don]

Ive been a Redskins fan my whole life, but since I got older I felt the name was offensive. Football no longer entertains me, so I will not buy anymore Redskins stuff and I wont have to compromise my own beliefs about the name by throwing my money behind it.

[DC in Da House w/o a Doubt]

The point I bring up always is that today, right now, in 95% of America, if somebody was to say the word Redskin, everybody around would think of a football team, not a native american. Language changes over time

Probably, but that same 95% who thought of the football team would also realize that it's a slang word for a Native American.

This isn't a case of "language changing" at all. Quite the contrary, we're talking about language not changing; a relatively obscure and shameful term has almost disappeared from common parlance but is being kept alive largely because of its association with the football team.

If there was a team called the "Crackers", "Honkys","Whitebreads" or something similar, they would probably be my second favorite team. Just saying.

And the team name originally came from when they were in Boston and owned by a bean company. Technically the name refers to beans. If the indian logo was removed and we just had something else, would it still be offensive?

[JohnnySeoul]

Ive been a Redskins fan my whole life, but since I got older I felt the name was offensive. Football no longer entertains me, so I will not buy anymore Redskins stuff and I wont have to compromise my own beliefs about the name by throwing my money behind it.

Does the team name, Cleveland Indians and their Cheif Wahoo logo offend you too?

[Don]

Chief Wahoo is a little stereotypical, not necessarily offensive, but Indians is not an offensive name, or term for Native Americans.

[Milo Meningocele]

And the team name originally came from when they were in Boston and owned by a bean company. Technically the name refers to beans.

Citation needed.

Does the team name, Cleveland Indians and their Cheif Wahoo logo offend you too?

I know the question wasn't directed at me, but...yes. And I'm far from alone.

[JohnnySeoul]

The Washington (Boston) Redskins and Cleveland Indians names may be somewhat questionable in the "tree-hugging" society that we have sadly evolved into, but they also have a deep tradition that should never change. The Redskins were established in 1932 (called the Braves first) and the Indians were established in 1915 (the franchise has been around since 1894). After that many years, they are just now a typical teeam name and no different than the Bears, Packers, or any other. Plus, the Redskins first head coach was a Native American named Lone Star Dietz and the Indians were renamed out of respect to Native American, Louis Sockalexis (though this story has changed from time to time). In today's society, Redskins isn't slang for an American Indian, it's just a team name...period. As for the logos, the Redskins logo is a very traditional and respectful picture of a Native American...nothing racist about it at all. As for the Indians' Cheif Wahoo...it is a cartoon character and therefore it has ZERO ethnic background. Plus, I've never come across a human in my entire life who's skin color is that of Cheif Wahoo. So who's to say that cartoon character is even human? People need to chill out and enjoy sports for what it is...pure entertainment.

[Milo Meningocele]

The Washington (Boston) Redskins and Cleveland Indians names may be somewhat questionable in the "tree-hugging" society that we have sadly evolved into, but they also have a deep tradition that should never change. The Redskins were established in 1932 (called the Braves first) and the Indians were established in 1915 (the franchise has been around since 1894). After that many years, they are just now a typical teeam name and no different than the Bears, Packers, or any other. Plus, the Redskins first head coach was a Native American named Lone Star Dietz and the Indians were renamed out of respect to Native American, Louis Sockalexis (though this story has changed from time to time). In today's society, Redskins isn't slang for an American Indian, it's just a team name...period. As for the logos, the Redskins logo is a very traditional and respectful picture of a Native American...nothing racist about it at all. As for the Indians' Cheif Wahoo...it is a cartoon character and therefore it has ZERO ethnic background. Plus, I've never come across a human in my entire life who's skin color is that of Cheif Wahoo. So who's to say that cartoon character is even human? People need to chill out and enjoy sports for what it is...pure entertainment.

Please, stop posting. It's not even noon EST, and you've already had two excellent candidates for Idiotic Post of the Day.

[Gothamite]

Yeah, John. I like you, but you're not having a very good morning.

And the (Redskins) name originally came from when they were in Boston and owned by a bean company. Technically the name refers to beans. If the indian logo was removed and we just had something else, would it still be offensive?

Um, I'm afraid that you are demonstrably wrong on that one.

The team was originally named the "Boston Braves", after the local baseball team. This was a common occurence at the time, as the young upstart league tried to borrow some of the credibility and prestige of baseball for its sport. The New York Giants, Pittsburgh Pirates (now Steelers) and Chicago Bears (after the Cubs) are remnants of the practice, and the NFL's history is littered with defunct franchises who also did so (Detroit Tigers, New York Yankees, Brooklyn Dodgers, Cincinnati Reds, Cleveland Indians).

Now, having two teams in one city share a name can be confusing. So a year after George Preston Marshall bought the team, he changed the name to "Redskins." What reasons did he give for the new name? Sure wasn't about beans.

[DC in Da House w/o a Doubt]

Yeah, John. I like you, but you're not having a very good morning.

And the (Redskins) name originally came from when they were in Boston and owned by a bean company. Technically the name refers to beans. If the indian logo was removed and we just had something else, would it still be offensive?

Um, I'm afraid that you are demonstrably wrong on that one.

The team was originally named the "Boston Braves", after the local baseball team. This was a common occurence at the time, as the young upstart league tried to borrow some of the credibility and prestige of baseball for its sport. The New York Giants, Pittsburgh Pirates (now Steelers) and Chicago Bears (after the Cubs) are remnants of the practice, and the NFL's history is littered with defunct franchises who also did so (Detroit Tigers, New York Yankees, Brooklyn Dodgers, Cincinnati Reds, Cleveland Indians).

Now, having two teams in one city share a name can be confusing. So a year after George Preston Marshall bought the team, he changed the name to "Redskins." What reasons did he give for the new name? Sure wasn't about beans.

Ok yeah that makes sense. I remembered someone saying the name's origin had to do with beans, but now I remember it was just that the Braves were owned by a bean company, they got their name from the indian on the can of beans. The Redskins got their name from that name. So yeah the team name is still referring to an indian. I'm gonna back away now slowly.

[Gothamite]

Look, I understand not wanting to give up a beloved decades-old name or logo. It's tough, especially when a great part of the allure of sport is its history.

Plus, when you're referring to any broad group of people, that group will have differing opinions on it. Some natives undoubtedly like and feel honored by these sorts of tributes. Others feel the opposite, and both are entitled to that. Doesn't make it right, but it does inform the discussion.

There are no easy answers in cases like these.

[DC in Da House w/o a Doubt]

The Washington (Boston) Redskins and Cleveland Indians names may be somewhat questionable in the "tree-hugging" society that we have sadly evolved into, but they also have a deep tradition that should never change. The Redskins were established in 1932 (called the Braves first) and the Indians were established in 1915 (the franchise has been around since 1894). After that many years, they are just now a typical teeam name and no different than the Bears, Packers, or any other. Plus, the Redskins first head coach was a Native American named Lone Star Dietz and the Indians were renamed out of respect to Native American, Louis Sockalexis (though this story has changed from time to time). In today's society, Redskins isn't slang for an American Indian, it's just a team name...period. As for the logos, the Redskins logo is a very traditional and respectful picture of a Native American...nothing racist about it at all. As for the Indians' Cheif Wahoo...it is a cartoon character and therefore it has ZERO ethnic background. Plus, I've never come across a human in my entire life who's skin color is that of Cheif Wahoo. So who's to say that cartoon character is even human? People need to chill out and enjoy sports for what it is...pure entertainment.

Please, stop posting. It's not even noon EST, and you've already had two excellent candidates for Idiotic Post of the Day.

Woo alright Milo! Way to insult someone because they don't agree with you! Ah youuu, my little Milo,...you and you're insults...

they're in Da House w/o a Doubt.

[Gothamite]

DC, please note that Milo is not insulting Johnny personally. He's offering his opinion of Johnny's posts.

There is a world of difference - the first is not acceptible, the second part and parcel of any conversation.

We can't make these conversations personal. They're loaded enough already. Please, guys, let's stick to criticizing each others' opinions.

[Buster]

I think the only acceptable change is back to the Bullets, but Federals is far better than Wizards, one of the worst team names in pro sports history.

[Buster]

Just for the record, these are my beans of choice when making chili. I grew up in Hanover, so I like supporting the local company...but it's the "REDSKIN" text that looks close enough to the Redskins wordmark that really swayed my purchase, and I'm being 100% serious.

[JohnnySeoul]

The Washington (Boston) Redskins and Cleveland Indians names may be somewhat questionable in the "tree-hugging" society that we have sadly evolved into, but they also have a deep tradition that should never change. The Redskins were established in 1932 (called the Braves first) and the Indians were established in 1915 (the franchise has been around since 1894). After that many years, they are just now a typical teeam name and no different than the Bears, Packers, or any other. Plus, the Redskins first head coach was a Native American named Lone Star Dietz and the Indians were renamed out of respect to Native American, Louis Sockalexis (though this story has changed from time to time). In today's society, Redskins isn't slang for an American Indian, it's just a team name...period. As for the logos, the Redskins logo is a very traditional and respectful picture of a Native American...nothing racist about it at all. As for the Indians' Cheif Wahoo...it is a cartoon character and therefore it has ZERO ethnic background. Plus, I've never come across a human in my entire life who's skin color is that of Cheif Wahoo. So who's to say that cartoon character is even human? People need to chill out and enjoy sports for what it is...pure entertainment.

Please, stop posting. It's not even noon EST, and you've already had two excellent candidates for Idiotic Post of the Day.

I'm sorry that logit and common sense does not apply to you.

[JohnnySeoul]

Just for the record, these are my beans of choice when making chili. I grew up in Hanover, so I like supporting the local company...but it's the "REDSKIN" text that looks close enough to the Redskins wordmark that really swayed my purchase, and I'm being 100% serious.

If only the Redskins would come out and say the Boston redskin beans is the name origin and all of this would be done with. Even if it wasn't true, who could prove they were lying? There's always a gray area to everything in life.