or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The 19th Hole › The Grill Room › Political Correctness - How Far Should it Go? Should the Washington Redskins change their name?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Political Correctness - How Far Should it Go? Should the Washington Redskins change their name?

Poll Results: Should the owners of the Redskins, Blackhawks, Indians be forced to change their teams name?

 
  • 41% (25)
    Yes, it's insensitive to American Indians
  • 41% (25)
    No, it's a non-issue
  • 16% (10)
    Who cares, this is a golf forum
60 Total Votes  
post #1 of 324
Thread Starter 

Seems society is all about political correctness these days.  Terms, jokes. ideas, team nick names in professional sports are suddenly being scrutinized to ensure we're being sensitive to the feelings of every special interest group that exists or might exist some day in this country.   I understand now some high brow media types like Bob Costas are refusing to use the word Redskin in their coverage of the team.  He'll still collect money for covering the Redskins, he just won't say the word, what a hypocrite :doh:

 

So should the owners of the Washington Redskins, Cleveland Indians, Chicago Blackhawks (only to name a few) be forced to change their team name or do people just need to get over themselves?

 

Before you ask, as an Italian American I'd be perfectly fine if a team had a nickname like NY Wops, Ginney's or Dago's for over 50 years and their owners didn't want to change it.   I also wasn't offended that the Soprano's portrayed Italians as having association with organized crime.

post #2 of 324
I think we need to be moving towards political correctness. But the name is not very high on the agenda. Let's begin with religion and politics. Then race
post #3 of 324

With all props to @k-troop because he is the one who told me about this on Sunday ... yes, they definitely should, their name is EXTREMELY offensive!!! ...

 

http://www.theonion.com/articles/washington-redskins-change-their-name-to-the-dc-re,34161/

 

:beer:

post #4 of 324
I dunno. Native Americans have gotten a pretty raw deal the past 500 years. I don't think it would be the worst thing in the world to not use their likenesses for our entertainment. Spreading around love and happiness and all that.

And give me a break with the "forced to change their team name" thing. Snyder will change names the moment he sees the name hurting his bottom line, and not a second before. No one's holding a gun to his head. Neither Mayland (where the team is headquartered) nor the U.S. Congress is passing a law banning the usage of the word "redskin."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

With all props to @k-troop
 because he is the one who told me about this on Sunday ... yes, they definitely should, their name is EXTREMELY offensive!!! ...

http://www.theonion.com/articles/washington-redskins-change-their-name-to-the-dc-re,34161/

c2_beer.gif

Heh, I saw that a few days ago. Funny stuff. b2_tongue.gif
post #5 of 324

Political Correctness run amok.

 

People spend waaaay too much time actively looking for reasons to be offended.

post #6 of 324

In all seriousness ... I would vote no.**  Not emphatically, because, after all, if they did change their name, who would they be offending?  And the name "Redskins" does sound potentially offensive, but I'd have to hear from some actual Indians who said it bothered them first.  (Not Bob Costas).

 

**Mid-post edit:  I just went and looked up the definition of redskin on dictionary.com.  It is referred to as a "noun; slang .. often disparaging and offensive."  I think I now am going to say yes.  Not terribly emphatically, because if Bob Costas is the only person bothered by it, then I'm not bothered by it.  But if there are native American Indians out there who are offended by it, then we should probably not be celebrating it.  Maybe an equivalent would be the "El Paso Wetbacks." Pretty sure nobody would go for that.  Or the "Mississippi Rednecks?"

 

We can all agree that political correctness goes too far in a lot of cases, but if Indians out there are hurt by us celebrating an old offensive moniker, is it really that much to ask us to stop using it?  Heck, they had no problem changing their basketball teams name from Bullets to Wizards, and I'm pretty sure there was no ammo crying over that one.  Harry Potter, on the other hand, is pretty pissed right now, I hear.  (Not because they are called the Wizards, but because they are called the Wizards and they suck. ;))

post #7 of 324

I always thought it odd when so many college teams decided, under pressure, to change their mascots that the Redskins were given a free pass. Stanford Indians, St. Johns Redmen, Seattle Univ. Chieftains, to name just a few. I don't have a problem with a mascot that denotes a positive or neutral image (Braves, Indians, Chiefs) but Redskins is such a derogatory term, I am surprised that it has stayed on. 

post #8 of 324
Thread Starter 

In 2004 American Indians were polled about the name and at that time they were okay with it.  It will be interesting to see if in 2013 they suddenly have a problem with it.

 

As for Snyder, he's a business man, so he's motivated by what makes financial sense and today he's not financially motivated to change the name and I really don't think Redskin fans are all that concerned about the nickname either especially since they would be the real losers if the name was changed.  All those $100+ jerseys and other fan related items that would be worthless if they change the name.

 

I personally find the Cleveland Indians logo more offensive than the Redskins name or logo but they don't seem to be under fire like the Redskins.

post #9 of 324
It's like calling African Americans black. Yet that stayed on. And about the above quote on non derogatory names, my highschool is the warriors and we run around in feathered chief hats.

Also, today while taking the past I noticed when you bubble in your race it has all the technical names and then for white it says white. Seems like reverse racism. I've always seen it as cacasian and African American or I've seen it as black and white. Seems weird
post #10 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harmonious View Post
 

I always thought it odd when so many college teams decided, under pressure, to change their mascots that the Redskins were given a free pass. Stanford Indians, St. Johns Redmen, Seattle Univ. Chieftains, to name just a few. I don't have a problem with a mascot that denotes a positive or neutral image (Braves, Indians, Chiefs) but Redskins is such a derogatory term, I am surprised that it has stayed on.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing.  Just regular old names aren't/shouldn't be offensive.  The ones you mention, also Utes, Sioux, etc, to me seem fine.

 

Heck, I think the Indians (Cleveland) did actually get rid of their somewhat condescendingly cartoonish "Chief Wahoo" mascot guy a few years ago, didn't they?  EDIT:  Based on @newtogolf 's latest post, apparently not. ;)

 

I'm 6'-3" 270 lbs, and I'm not at all offended by the San Francisco Giants. :)  (I am very offended by the New York Giants though!)

 

And I also agree with @jamo ... in the case of the Indians, we've been pretty much screwing them for, like, 500 years ... so it seems like if they're offended, then changing the name of the Redskins is, like, the least we could do.

post #11 of 324
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 

 

And I also agree with @jamo ... in the case of the Indians, we've been pretty much screwing them for, like, 500 years ... so it seems like if they're offended, then changing the name of the Redskins is, like, the least we could do.

Usually people that are on the losing end of a war get screwed.  You think if they had won the war and controlled the country they'd have set up reservations and casino's for us? 

 

Ask the PLO how well they are being treated over in Israel.  I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just pointing out that when countries are overtaken the population of the losing side isn't usually treated very well.  

post #12 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing.  Just regular old names aren't/shouldn't be offensive.  The ones you mention, also Utes, Sioux, etc, to me seem fine.

Heck, I think the Indians (Cleveland) did actually get rid of their somewhat condescendingly cartoonish "Chief Wahoo" mascot guy a few years ago, didn't they?  EDIT:  Based on @newtogolf
 's latest post, apparently not. ;)

They've used the Chief Wahoo logo less in recent years. They use the "C" logo on away hats and on their batting helmets home and away.
post #13 of 324

.........so what are we to do with the common variety of Redskin peanuts?

 

Maybe cover them with chocolate. Oh dear, can we say chocolate without offending people of East Indian origin?

post #14 of 324

The Redskin image if fine, but the word is not. The Cleveland Indians name is fine, but the image is not.

 

The origin of the term redskin is grisly, relating to "injun fighters" bringing in Native American body parts to collect an extermination bounty.

 

If the Washington owner changed the name from Redskins to a local Indian tribe, and kept the logo, I think everyone would be happy.

 

The Florida State Seminoles have survived, in part because a number of FSU students and alums are tribal members.

post #15 of 324

Times change.  Could anybody imagine the backlash if Disney tried to put this movie out today, rather than in 1953 ...

 

post #16 of 324

Anyone remember this?

 

 

Times change, yes, but sometimes political correctness goes too far.

 

I don't care enough to know how I feel about the Redskins. A part of me thinks it feels too much like people looking for a reason to be offended. And another part of me says "just change it" because I can't think of a good reason to dig your heels in on this fight. It's not like there's a moral high ground on which to stand here, or a principle.

post #17 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by nick1998bunker View Post

It's like calling African Americans black. Yet that stayed on. And about the above quote on non derogatory names, my highschool is the warriors and we run around in feathered chief hats.

Also, today while taking the past I noticed when you bubble in your race it has all the technical names and then for white it says white. Seems like reverse racism. I've always seen it as cacasian and African American or I've seen it as black and white. Seems weird

What term do we use when they live in Finland? African Finns?
post #18 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing.  Just regular old names aren't/shouldn't be offensive.  The ones you mention, also Utes, Sioux, etc, to me seem fine.

Heck, I think the Indians (Cleveland) did actually get rid of their somewhat condescendingly cartoonish "Chief Wahoo" mascot guy a few years ago, didn't they?  EDIT:  Based on @newtogolf
 's latest post, apparently not. ;)

I'm 6'-3" 270 lbs, and I'm not at all offended by the San Francisco Giants. :)  (I am very offended by the New York Giants though!)

And I also agree with @jamo
 ... in the case of the Indians, we've been pretty much screwing them for, like, 500 years ... so it seems like if they're offended, then changing the name of the Redskins is, like, the least we could do.

I would not say they have been getting screwed so badly. The federal government gives them quite a bit.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Grill Room
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The 19th Hole › The Grill Room › Political Correctness - How Far Should it Go? Should the Washington Redskins change their name?