"Washington Federals" (Now Redskins name discussion)

[dgnmrwrw]

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.

I don't buy that the age of the nickname does anything to affect its offensiveness. I'll grant you that it's easier to understand how it could have been chosen in a certain era versus today, but just being established for a long time doesn't erode its offensiveness.

The problems I have with Redskins--and to me, a non-"tree hugger", it is offensive--are that it's clearly derogatory, has no other possibly construable meaning by any educated person, and isn't even truly descriptive of the peoples it's trying to demean (i.e. their skin isn't red). I think appropriate analogies would be teams with the nickname Coloreds, Darkies, or Chinamen.

To me, Indians is a trickier situation. I'm not sure it's clearly derogatory; it does have another potential meaning (albeit a stretch); and it isn't really descriptive of the peoples it's describing (though it's worth noting that "American Indians" has seemingly crept back into the culture as an acceptable alternative to "Native Americans"). Personally, I don't think Indians is a great name for a American team for those reasons. (Which is not to say I would be for long-established teams like Cleveland making a change. I just couldn't see naming a new team the "Indians".) But I can't say I find it offensive.

Nicknames such as Fighting Souix or Seminoles are, to me, clear-cut cases of names that aren't offensive. They are not (in and of themselves) derogatory and they clearly describe a certain people. The analogies here would be Quakers or Hoosiers, which are obviously not offensive.

[Billy B]

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.

You can't just say they're named after a bean and have an Indian on the helmet.

[The Six]

It's not like the name Redskins or their logo is that good to begin with, either.

[Gothamite]

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?

The historical record.

And please, everyone, let's keep the attacks restricted to posters' opinions, not the posters themselves.

[JohnnySeoul]

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?

The historical record.

And please, everyone, let's keep the attacks restricted to posters' opinions, not the posters themselves.

But the fact that the team came from Boston is a good way of covering this up. They can also say their logo isn't a Redskin, but it pays respect to their 1st head coach under the Redskins names (William "Lone Star" Dietz), a Native American. Yea, it's 100% BS, but why not. Regardless, the Redskins name and the Indians' Chief Wahoo are not going away.

[DeFrank]

There isn't an easy answer, but I couldn't bear to see the name change. We have such a rich history and tradition. And most people don't realize this, but our fan base is solid. It's just one of those things....

[JohnnySeoul]

There isn't an easy answer, but I couldn't bear to see the name change. We have such a rich history and tradition. And most people don't realize this, but our fan base is solid. It's just one of those things....

Their team name isn't going anywhere. I admit I rather enjoy getting a few tools fired up over it though. But the fact of the matter is that those that consider the Redskins team name and logo offensive are in the extreme minority (even to Native Americans). There will always be people upset at just about anything...hell, there are people out there that want the Georgia Bulldogs to ban having a bulldog on the football field. You can't make everyone happy.

Here's a good article concerning Native Americans and their thoughts on the team name Redskins: "Most Indians Say Name of Washington 'Redskins' Is Acceptable While 9% Call It Offensive"

[Buster]

There isn't an easy answer, but I couldn't bear to see the name change. We have such a rich history and tradition. And most people don't realize this, but our fan base is solid. It's just one of those things....

Don't worry, it won't happen. The crybabies have tried and failed in numerous attempted lawsuits.

The backlash would be huge too.

[Buster]

It's not like the name Redskins or their logo is that good to begin with, either.

It's unique enough to cause people to cry about it.

A common, generic name like the Eagles or Cowboys won't inspire anything, but boredom.

The same goes for the Seahawks...people talk about it, trying to figure out what a Seahawk is. Ditto for the Browns.

[IceCap]

There isn't an easy answer, but I couldn't bear to see the name change. We have such a rich history and tradition. And most people don't realize this, but our fan base is solid. It's just one of those things....

Their team name isn't going anywhere. I admit I rather enjoy getting a few tools fired up over it though. But the fact of the matter is that those that consider the Redskins team name and logo offensive are in the extreme minority (even to Native Americans). There will always be people upset at just about anything...hell, there are people out there that want the Georgia Bulldogs to ban having a bulldog on the football field. You can't make everyone happy.

Here's a good article concerning Native Americans and their thoughts on the team name Redskins: "Most Indians Say Name of Washington 'Redskins' Is Acceptable While 9% Call It Offensive"

So someone's a racist if they don't like black uniforms, but the name "Redskins" is ok.

[DeFrank]

It's not like the name Redskins or their logo is that good to begin with, either.

It's unique enough to cause people to cry about it.

A common, generic name like the Eagles or Cowboys won't inspire anything, but boredom.

The same goes for the Seahawks...people talk about it, trying to figure out what a Seahawk is. Ditto for the Browns.

you have to be from washington to understand what the name means to the team and the fans. It's a great identity.

[IceCap]

Not another "you have to be from ______ to get it" argument.

[JohnnySeoul]

There isn't an easy answer, but I couldn't bear to see the name change. We have such a rich history and tradition. And most people don't realize this, but our fan base is solid. It's just one of those things....

Their team name isn't going anywhere. I admit I rather enjoy getting a few tools fired up over it though. But the fact of the matter is that those that consider the Redskins team name and logo offensive are in the extreme minority (even to Native Americans). There will always be people upset at just about anything...hell, there are people out there that want the Georgia Bulldogs to ban having a bulldog on the football field. You can't make everyone happy.

Here's a good article concerning Native Americans and their thoughts on the team name Redskins: "Most Indians Say Name of Washington 'Redskins' Is Acceptable While 9% Call It Offensive"

So someone's a racist if they don't like black uniforms, but the name "Redskins" is ok.

Nice try. I know all you do is invoke arguments on these threads, but do not put words into my mouth. I never said that if you don't like black uni's you're a racist..NEVER typed that. Go back and re-read what I was actually saying. I was stating that a lot of the BFBS negativity has disturping undertones against the urban lifestyle....but that tpoic is over and done with.

I will give you credit for attempting another arguement...kudos, young man.

[Milo Meningocele]

It's not like the name Redskins or their logo is that good to begin with, either.

It's unique enough to cause people to cry about it.

A common, generic name like the Eagles or Cowboys won't inspire anything, but boredom.

The same goes for the Seahawks...people talk about it, trying to figure out what a Seahawk is. Ditto for the Browns.

*facepalm* What an abysmal post. People aren't crying because it's unique, they're upset because the nickname is a racial slur. Don't make it sound like people are hating on it for its mere uniqueness.

As for the Eagles and Cowboys, you almost couldn't have picked more rabid fanbases, who love everything about their teams. Dallas especially; they eat that Old West up, in Texas.

And do you really think it's that hard to figure out what a Seahawk is? FYI, it's a nickname for an osprey, but even the more generic name gives the picture clearly enough. Also, enough NFL fans know the story of the Browns nickname...it's rooted in the same type of tradition many of you cite as a reason to keep the Redskins name and logo.

[IceCap]

There isn't an easy answer, but I couldn't bear to see the name change. We have such a rich history and tradition. And most people don't realize this, but our fan base is solid. It's just one of those things....

Their team name isn't going anywhere. I admit I rather enjoy getting a few tools fired up over it though. But the fact of the matter is that those that consider the Redskins team name and logo offensive are in the extreme minority (even to Native Americans). There will always be people upset at just about anything...hell, there are people out there that want the Georgia Bulldogs to ban having a bulldog on the football field. You can't make everyone happy.

Here's a good article concerning Native Americans and their thoughts on the team name Redskins: "Most Indians Say Name of Washington 'Redskins' Is Acceptable While 9% Call It Offensive"

So someone's a racist if they don't like black uniforms, but the name "Redskins" is ok.

Nice try. I know all you do is invoke arguments on these threads,

I've been here, what, eight years? I've done more on these forums then you could shake a Wiki page at.

but do not put words into my mouth. I never said that if you don't like black uni's you're a racist..NEVER typed that. Go back and re-read what I was actually saying. I was stating that a lot of the BFBS negativity has disturping undertones against the urban lifestyle....but that tpoic is over and done with.

All you said here was "I didn't say you're a racist for not liking black uniforms, just that if you don't like black uniforms you may be a racist."

No, you never said that someone was a racist if they disliked black uniforms. You implied it by saying everything short of that though.

I will give you credit for attempting another arguement...kudos, young man.

I only start arguments with people who say things that warrant disagreement. Like people who try to link peoples' personal feelings regarding black uniforms to their feelings on race, or people who try to claim that the name "Redskins" and logos like Chief Wahoo aren't incredibly offensive.

[Mac the Knife]

I have another thought on this - keep the "Washington Redskins" name, but deliberately rebrand the team to honor not native Americans, but the mighty REDSKIN POTATO.

[BawlmerOreos]

How on Earth can you NOT think the Wahoo logo or the term Redskins is offensive???

[mania]

Holy this is an awful thread WHY DID I CLICK ON THIS THREAD.

It's like DC IN DA HOUSE, JohnnySeoul, Buster, and DeFrank are all trying to out-buffoon each other. Jesus Christ.

[Gothamite]

Their team name isn't going anywhere.

We don't know that. SCOTUS refused to hear the last suit on a technicality, which was already being addressed. I'm not so sure that another suit, with different plaintiffs, won't work its way through the courts soon. And if that one succeeds, which it might on its merits, the Redskins will lose the trademark.

Nobody's going to make them change it, but they may lose the ability to profit from it.

I admit I rather enjoy getting a few tools fired up over it though.

Anybody I know?

[Milo Meningocele]

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?

I know I already ripped this guy, but in reviewing the thread I found this portion extremely laughable. Since both logos are illustrations, I take it Johnny is saying the difference is that Wahoo is an exaggerated caricature? And what is a caricature, but a parody of a likeness using exaggerations of actual features? And ZERO ethnic background? What about the nose shape and Native American feather? The red skin color? Again, caricature. And are you truly serious in debating that Wahoo is supposed to be human? No, you can't be...