This has been bothering me. A sports comment on Native American names/mascots...

They can go with the Washington Warriors. I can get behind that.

I try to refer to my team as the 'Skins instead of Redskins, but that doesn't make me feel any better about it.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']They can go with the Washington Warriors. I can get behind that.

I try to refer to my team as the 'Skins instead of Redskins, but that doesn't make me feel any better about it.[/QUOTE]

As part indian and a redskins fan, I'm all for them keeping their name. It isn't offensive at all.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']As part indian and a redskins fan, I'm all for them keeping their name. It isn't offensive at all.[/QUOTE]

As part Indian and a former redskins fan, I'm all for them changing the name. It's quite offensive.

(I mean really, "part indian"? Do you think that makes your opinion more relevant?)
 
SFA3_Blanka.gif


That son of a bitch...
 
I can't really understand the argument that it's not offensive. It's a racial slur. If they were called the Washington N#$%rs you'd have a problem with it, wouldn't you? Maybe you wouldn't.

I believe UND is in the process of phasing out the "Fighting Sioux", and that is a good deal less offensive than the Redskins.

I live in DC, though I'm not a Skins fan, and I'd say feelings on it are pretty mixed among the people I know who are.
 
Would the "New England Whiteskins" be a racial slur for a team name? Would it offend anyone?

Tip: Indians often referred to themselves as "redmen" through most of the 1800's.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Would the "New England Whiteskins" be a racial slur for a team name? Would it offend anyone?

Tip: Indians often referred to themselves as "redmen" through most of the 1800's.[/QUOTE]

You're disputing that "redskin" is a racial slur? You're wrong. The fact that people of Native American heritage ARE offended by the team name should be all you need to know.

And yes, if "whiteskins" was a pejorative racial slur and someone tried to name a team that, I would have a problem with it.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Tip: Indians often referred to themselves as "redmen" through most of the 1800's.[/QUOTE]

If it's good enough for the 19th Century, it's good enough for me!
 
I'm not disputing that it isn't offensive. If it is offensive to enough people, like anything, it should be dealt with. I'm just pointing out the hegonomic double standard in the 'racism' aspect to this story that is usually found in many racism stories.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I'm not disputing that it isn't offensive. If it is offensive to enough people, like anything, it should be dealt with. I'm just pointing out the hegonomic double standard in the 'racism' aspect to this story that is usually found in many racism stories.[/QUOTE]

Do you mean hegemonic? If so, I don't think it means what you think it does.

I don't see how there is a double standard here. There just isn't a real-world counter example. If there was a team called the Detroit Darkies, I'd surely have a problem with it, as would most people.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']Nah, I don't really care if you think it's more relevant or not. Just felt like including it.

Edit: Former redskins fan? :([/QUOTE]

Meh, I had some redskins shit, but eventually not really caring about football took over.

And as far as "redmen" I'm pretty sure black people used to refer to themselves as "negroes" but I'm pretty sure you'd offend people if you went around doing it now.

And like bvharris said, there's no double-standard, there's simply no comparative white racial epithet, and I don't really see how there could be.
 
I do think having the name Redskins is offensive. Or having a ridiculous caricature of a Native American as the logo/mascot like the Cleveland Indians.

I think it's ok to have Native American mascots, but make the names and mascots respectful as a tribute to their culture. Like Florida State, or the Braves (after they got rid of the Chief Whatever mascot that was a caricature).
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I do think having the name Redskins is offensive. Or having a ridiculous caricature of a Native American as the logo/mascot like the Cleveland Indians.

I think it's ok to have Native American mascots, but make the names and mascots respectful as a tribute to their culture. Like Florida State, or the Braves (after they got rid of the Chief Whatever mascot that was a caricature).[/QUOTE]


The Braves had Chief Noc-A-Homa (see what they did there?) until 1986:

milbraves2.gif



The Indians have Chief Wahoo, which is still in use:

chief-wahoo.jpg
 
The problem isn't having a name that refers to some group of people, it's using offensive slurs and images and disregarding the people whom your name and image represent. I don't think there's a problem if you maybe use the tribe's name, a respectful, relevant image, and you actually, ya know, talk to the tribe whose representation you're using. The problem is when you use whatever name and image you want, regardless of what it actually means. They use references to entire people as if they're just objects for them to use, like "redskins" is comparable to the "knicks" and nobody should have a problem with it, it's just a name, just a thing, it doesn't mean anything because we say it doesn't, regardless of where it came from.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Exactly. Like the Florida State Seminoles and their mascot who rides out on a horse and throws a flaming spear in the ground at the start of games. That doesn't bother me, it seems like a reasonable tribute.

Unlike a slur name like Redskins, or caricatures like Chief Nok-a-Homa and Chief Wahoo above.
 
Yea they should change their name. Especially since the red skin on the scalp of a Native American was likely the identifying feature used to collect rewards for killing Native Americans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top