Washington Redskins – Change the name, keep it, or who cares?

[Swerd]

Although there has been a football team named the Redskins since 1932, there has been an on & off controversy about that word being a racial epithet for American Indians.

Recently it made news when the US Patent Office decided that it would no long grant trademark protection for the team name because it was judged to be offensive to American Indians. I read that the Patent Office lawsuit was originally filed in 1992. It was granted in 1997, overturned in appeal, and refiled again. This is an old controversy that won’t go away.

There is little doubt that the word “redskin” is now widely considered an offensive racial epithet. But it is also true that this modern opinion came about much more recently than the naming of the team in 1932. At least in the Washington-Maryland-Virginia area, polls have shown that 75-80% of people don’t really care whether a football team’s name is offensive or not. And this result was similar among both football fans and non-fans.

I also recently learned that the word “redskin” was used in print as far back as the early 1800s, and probably was used in speech well before that. There is significant disagreement whether it was used as an insult back then, or if it was used to distinguish American Indians from white settlers of European descent.

Redskin (slang) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However, linguist Ives Goddard has stated, "When it first appeared as an English expression in the early 1800s, "it came in the most respectful context and at the highest level," Goddard said in an interview. "These are white people and Indians talking together, with the white people trying to ingratiate themselves." It was not until July 22, 1815, that "red skin" first appeared in a news story in the Missouri Gazette on talks between Midwestern Indian tribes and envoys sent by President James Madison to negotiate treaties after the War of 1812.

The term derives from the use of "red" color metaphor for race following European colonization of the Western Hemisphere, and one of the earliest known citations of its use is by a Native American called Chief Black Thunder [9] in which he stated: "My Father—Restrain your feelings, and hear ca[l]mly what I shall say. I shall tell it to you plainly, I shall not speak with fear and trembling. I feel no fear. I have no cause to fear. I have never injured you, and innocence can feel no fear. I turn to all, red skins and white skins, and challenge an accusation against me".

What do you think? Change the name, keep it, or I don’t care.

 

[Adam]

I don't care, but it's not a personal issue for me. I can understand why folks on both sides get upset, though. I was upset when the University of Illinois stopped using the Chief Illiniwek symbol. I grew up in Illinois, named after the Illini. To me, that symbol was always one of pride and respect, and not one of degradation or insult. It didn't bring me joy that some people didn't like the symbol, but I believe that there were far more people that did view it with a sense of pride and respect like I do.

 

[Steve81]

I know the university my wife attended, Miami U. of OH, used to run as the Redskins. They changed to the RedHawks in 1997; apparently the tribe for which the university was named withdrew their support over the name, which prompted the board of trustees there to consider a new one.

 

[Swerd]

I'm somewhere in the middle on this, halfway between I don't care and I might care if they were a better football team.

The best suggestion for a name change so far, is keep the name redskin, but change the logo, substituting a redskin potato.

 

[crossedover]

Well if they forced to change, what's to come of all the other sports teams with native American names? I just can't believe this something that should be legislated
IMHO if the skins were in any city other than DC, this would probably be a non issue

 

[j_garcia]

I don't care. Though I understand the reasoning, the name has been used for so long it really should not be an issue today.

 

[Lulimet]

The name was ok for 80 years but now it is not? Don't understand this logic.

 

[j_garcia]

 

[rojo]

As a redhead who sunburns easily, I find the name offensive. The team should be named to the Washington Featherheads. I have no problem with the Cleveland Indians or the Florida Seminoles.

 

[Rickster71]

My vote is, I don't care about the name. It's just the tip of the iceberg.
IMHO it seems to go much deeper than just a simple name change.

I guess this is what we've come to expect when most of our Politicians, Congress and Senate members are lawyers.
With all the issues we face today, this is what the focus is?
Don't they have better things to do, like vote themselves another pay raise?

Just some rambling thoughts:
Lawyers making more money by creating a legal claim based on being "offended."

Denial of a trademark registration is not the same as banning the use of a word.

Mobilizing the government steamroller in favor of even more political correct, feel good legislation.
Government coercion at its very best. Maybe the IRS will get on the case soon.

If enough people dislike the name, don't buy tickets or their stuff.

 

[jliedeka]

I think the name will eventually have to change. It isn't 1932 anymore. It's not really a question of if but when. I know there's a lot of tradition for the fans so I hope they can come up something that's cool.

 

[shadyJ]

The name was ok for 80 years but now it is not? Don't understand this logic.

There are a lot of names that were 'ok' 80 years ago but not today. In reality they were not OK 80 years ago, it's just that nobody cared enough to do anything about it because they were disregardful of people who were not white. For anyone who thinks Redskin is such a harmless name, try going up to a Chippawa or Iroqouis or Cherokee and call them a Redskin and see how they respond. The real problem here isn't that the Redskins are being forced to change their name, it is that they were not boycotted into bankruptcy years ago for choosing that name in the first place. In the year 2014 this is a disgrace.

 

[Swerd]

Leave it to you get this at a deeper level.

I guess this is what we've come to expect when most of our Politicians, Congress and Senate members are lawyers. With all the issues we face today, this is what the focus is? Don't they have better things to do, like vote themselves another pay raise?

The elected politicians have had almost nothing to do with this. And they will probably stay away from unless they smell blood in the water.

Lawyers making more money by creating a legal claim based on being "offended."

Oddly enough, the law firm representing the 5 Indians who filed the lawsuit, has worked pro bono since 1992 on this case.

Denial of a trademark registration is not the same as banning the use of a word.

True, but it hits the NFL where it really hurts – in the wallet.

Mobilizing the government steamroller in favor of even more political correct, feel good legislation.

As pointed out above. I actually do believe those who originally filed the lawsuit with the Patent Office were smart enough to realize they were unlikely to get any traction with politicians, and that they could only get what they wanted by hitting Dan Snyder (owner of the Redskins) and the NFL directly where they make their money.

Government coercion at its very best. Maybe the IRS will get on the case soon.

Doesn't the NFL already have some type of special tax exempt status?

If enough people dislike the name, don't buy tickets or their stuff.

Exactly!

My vote is, I don't care about the name. It's just the tip of the iceberg. IMHO it seems to go much deeper than just a simple name change.

I think my real objection to all this comes from something that few others notice or care about.

[/Begin Rant] Semantics – the word is not the thing – it's only a symbol for the thing. Banning the use of a word that symbolizes something wrong is not the same as banning the thing itself.

Racial discrimination is illegal, and various forms of actions based on racial prejudice have been made crimes. Words describing racial prejudice are not criminal, they're only symbols for it. Saying such words, although they may be considered distasteful or even provocative, is not the same thing as racial discrimination. Banning the use of such a word accomplishes nothing as long as the practice of discrimination continues. [/End Rant]

Thanks for all the comments .

 

[markw]

I read somewhere that a poll taken of Native Americans showed that n overwhelming majortiy had no problem with this.

Next up: The Kansas City Chiefs, Atlanta Braves, Cleveland Indians, not to mention the Cincinnati Reds.

An I can't wait until someone notices the Cleveland Browns

 

[rojo]

I'm offended by the Virginia Tech Hokies. I have no clue what a Hokie is, but the word offends me.

 

[Ponzio]

As long as Daniel Snyder keeps running the team, I'm OK with whatever decision is made.

I think I speak for all Philadelphia Eagles fans.

 

[GO-NAD!]

I read somewhere that a poll taken of Native Americans showed that n overwhelming majortiy had no problem with this.

Next up: The Kansas City Chiefs, Atlanta Braves, Cleveland Indians, not to mention the Cincinnati Reds.

An I can't wait until someone notices the Cleveland Browns

As a hockey fan, I'm offended that you didn't include the Chicago Blackhawks.

 

[Ponzio]

Logo wise, as a Native American, I'd be a hell of a lot more offended with Chief Wahoo of the Cleveland Indians that the D.C. depiction.

 

[Rickster71]

Leave it to you get this at a deeper level.

I finished all my work early and was staring at my belly button, had nothing else to do.

The elected politicians have had almost nothing to do with this. And they will probably stay away from unless they smell blood in the water.

Oh they smell something alright 'Racial Slur': 50 Senators Urge NFL To Change Washington Redskins' Name

Oddly enough, the law firm representing the 5 Indians who filed the lawsuit, has worked pro bono since 1992 on this case.

I was talking overall, about how being offended is a big money maker. We don't even have to show ID, or citizenship to vote.
All so no one gets offended.

I think my real objection to all this comes from something that few others notice or care about.

I agree.
They've turned it into a political football (pardon the pun) Politicians love feel good, do nothing issues.

[/Begin Rant] Semantics – the word is not the thing – it's only a symbol for the thing. Banning the use of a word that symbolizes something wrong is not the same as banning the thing itself.

Racial discrimination is illegal, and various forms of actions based on racial prejudice have been made crimes. Words describing racial prejudice are not criminal, they're only symbols for it. Saying such words, although they may be considered distasteful or even provocative, is not the same thing as racial discrimination. Banning the use of such a word accomplishes nothing as long as the practice of discrimination continues. [/End Rant]

I agree.
It's an easy opportunity for political hay to be made.

Thanks for the great discussion.

 

[tcarcio]

I read somewhere that a poll taken of Native Americans showed that n overwhelming majortiy had no problem with this.

Next up: The Kansas City Chiefs, Atlanta Braves, Cleveland Indians, not to mention the Cincinnati Reds.

An I can't wait until someone notices the Cleveland Browns

I have to agree. I actually have a native american friend who thinks it is fine and has no problem with the name. This is just another case of the minority making a mountain out of a molehill and because of out of control political correctness the few govern the many.