Tuesday, May 20, 2014

Sometimes a name is more than just a name...

"History is littered with people who have vowed never to change something -- slavery, immigration, women's rights -- so we think one thing that's really great about this country is when many people speak out, change can happen," ~ Ray Halbritter, Spokesman for the Oneida Indian Nation

In the last 20 years there has been an ongoing debate about the appropriateness of the National Football League's Washington Redskin's team nickname. Many people feel that it is blatantly offensive, while others feel that it is simply a team nickname and that those taking offense to it are taking political correctness too far.

The team's owner, Daniel Snyder, has repeatedly said that he will not change the team nickname - no matter how much public pressure he comes under. He has echoed this sentiment in several nationally televised interviews during the past year. In defending the team's name, he cites the fact that eight out of 10 Americans polled do not find the name offensive.

So is that the standard by which we view something as right or wrong? National public opinion? Would we have relied on national polls when President Lincoln passed the Emancipation Proclamation? If that were the case it would've never passed. Just because the majority favors something does not make it right. In a true democracy, the minority should have an equal voice, not just a representative voice.

The term "Redskins" refers to the stereotypical red skin of Native Americans. Is it really okay for a team's nickname to be describing an ethnicity's skin color? Are we really saying that that is okay? What if a team's nickname was the Boston Blacks, or the Chinatown Yellows, or the New Mexico Brownies? Would that be okay?

Several teams have changed their derogatory Native American nicknames in the past few years (St. John's University, Miami University of Ohio, and Syracuse University to name a few). It's simply the right thing to do.

I sincerely hope that Mr. Snyder will join the right side of history here.

I realize I was very outspoken in my opinion on this topic, so I wish no disrespect to anybody who disagrees with me on this. It's just something I feel very passionate about.

What are your thoughts on this controversy?

131 comments:

  1. Why did you choose the term New Mexico Brownies in lieu of Browns? Just curious. I do really believe people look for reasons to be offended today.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was going to use the term Browns for the example, but that's already the team nickname for Cleveland's NFL team - named after the team's founder (Paul Brown) and not referring to a skin color.

      Delete
  2. I agree with you. Referring to any ethnic group by a derogatory nickname is offensive. And even during the time period in which the term "redskins" was common, it WAS derogatory. I am betting Mr. Snyder's "polling" consisted of primarily white people, many of whom are shaky on this country's history.

    (I can say that with good authority, because for the decade or more, teaching American history has declined in schools because it was not a "tested" subject by NCLB.)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Change the name. In 20 years (10 even) people will barely remember what the name used to be. They need to just change it, end the controversy, and move on.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I certainly agree that I don't want a Nation ruled by the majority! Like Mob Rule. We are so often wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I don't believe a minority should have an equal voice, but all voices should be heard and considered.

    I agree with Pudge, but also with Jessica. Change and move on, it is not that important.

    ReplyDelete
  6. You're right that just because the majority agrees that doesn't make it right.
    Oddly enough, it's not enough the Indian nation that is screaming loudest for the change.
    It's just a name. If they change it, it will be to something that no longer signifies an Indian anyway. I say leave it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. A class mate of mine actually wrote his thesis about the online comments concerning this team name. The thesis dealt about language and discourse analysis, but I think it definitely showed that derogatory names foster derogatory language in a discourse. As a personal note, I think it would be awesome to actually see an original name of a tribe as a team name, but we're probably far from it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I agree, the team name has to go...I wonder if Mr Snyder would be so outspoken in defence of the team name if it was somehting like 'the Washington Whitey's'? Really it's time we dropped the name!

    ReplyDelete
  9. i dunno...hard to think of the NFL without the redskins...do i think negatively of the first nation when i see it, no...it is interesting the comments as well...i think people have an emotional attachment to the name...if people disagree with the name they should stop supporting the team...actions more than words, you know....but they will keep buying tickets and merch...and still crow about the name being a problem.

    ReplyDelete
  10. There is no place in our society for such a reductive and derogatory name; if the people to whom it refers find it offensive...it's offensive; no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
    Totally with you on this Keith.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I am really not sure about this situation but I somehow connect this to my country...
    We say that our country is secular, yet we have reservations for all minor religions, we say everyone is equal, yet certain scheduled tribes and castes enjoy privileges and benefits and the best one is that we say women are equal to men, yet we have different queus and train boxes for women. So is this hypocrisy or is this the actual definition of being secular and equal....?
    I guess America too is a secular, equality, democratic nation with human rights. So... What I mean to say is just by keeping a name Redskin, does not really mean that some kind of discrimination is being made. Its just a name! This discrimination is in our minds which we are putting on to the name. Now the owner's intention might not have been to promote skin color, but we think it is, why? Bcz this discrimination is in our own minds!

    I hope it makes some sense, basically what I am saying is that we see what we want to see and we believe what we want to believe... Its nvr what we are shown or made to believe, but what we actually see and believe...
    Ok I really hope this made some sense!

    ReplyDelete
  12. I can see your point. I can only talk from a British POV, and we don't have controversial names, but the names of our teams are pretty sacred. Like I say, though, we don't have these controversial names, so my opinion is pretty moot.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Was the name chosen to be offensive to the Indian Nation? No? Why are they complaining now? Is it a trend started by other "minority" and now they decided to jump the wagon? Which they're entitled; just trying to understand the pattern -when and why the idea arose?!

    The only ones that should be heard it's them... if they find it offensive, indulge and change. If they don't, leave it.

    For reasons too complicated and long for a comment I find this trend a bit disturbing and not really making right what was wrong.

    Take Care,
    Teresa

    ReplyDelete
  14. I am 1/4 Native American and it has never bothered me ... I guess I never really took nick names of teams to heart -- I always am thinking of their team mascots and what exactly they were thinking of the similarity between the team name and the mascot they chose ... like the AZ Diamondbacks ... that's a SNAKE ... and their mascot is a BOBCAT .. sooooooooo ... um ... that's where my thoughts are ... who comes up with the mascots that don't make any sense for the teams they represent .... lol :)

    ReplyDelete
  15. Very interesting post Keith. This same controversy happened over the use of the university of IL using Chief Illiniwek. They finally got rid of the Chief.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I don't think a team name is offensive but if you say it specifically to a person or race then it is wrong in my opinion...

    ReplyDelete
  17. It brings to mind the old saying, "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me" which is not true because words go deeper than a two edge sword. Words, once spoken can't be unspoken.

    In an age of ignorance, it was OK but now we know better and should do everything in our power to not be offensive to others. I would say Change the name.
    Hugs,
    JB

    ReplyDelete
  18. I never thought about it. I guess the name of the team has been around for so long, it just seems like a title to me. Now that you bring it up like that, I guess it's not right. They should change it, or start making teams that make fun of every race, so it evens out a bit. Then the Native Americas won't get the brunt of the name calling. I wonder how Crazy Horse would feel about this topic?

    ReplyDelete
  19. I hope Mr. Snyder finds it in his heart to do what's right. Stereotypes of any kind, and that includes names, is wrong and sends the wrong message. Thanks for your thoughts on this, Keith.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Outspoken is a good thing in my book.
    How about the Washington Crackers or better still Washington White Bread?
    I guess that says where I stand. :)

    ReplyDelete
  21. I appreciate your firm stance on stereotyping people Keith. In my own life, when I have used the word never, I almost always change my opinion, so "never" is a clue to me there is emotion and defensiveness there. I hope we evolve out of judging other people as different and begin to see each others' similarities and strengths. Have an inclusive day my friend!

    ReplyDelete
  22. Hello Keith,

    We have to say that we have no interest at all in football. However, it always seems to us to be a source of trouble one way or another. So, what is in a name may be really significant but, in the UK at least, it is the behaviour of the fans that is of greatest concern to us.

    ReplyDelete
  23. We are the same, so I'm one of those, everybody is one, thanks Keith.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Well said. I live my life accepting all humans, no matter their sexuality, their race or their religion or political views. My life is richer for it :)

    ReplyDelete
  25. I feel that it stands as a testament to the racism that existed and still exists. In a way, I wonder if we'd be hiding from ourselves to get rid of it...

    ReplyDelete
  26. No matter what name it is people always seem to find a way to get offended by something now a days. All this PC crap can go piss up a rope. Do I think it should be changed? If it offends the people who it is portraying, sure. But if they don't care, then why the heck should anyone else? Unless you name things Team A , Team B or Team 1, Team 2, then it will always offend someone.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Keith~my great grandfather was on the Trail of Tears..he was full blood Choctaw and his was was 1/2. My family heritage is full of Native American blood and I can tell you honestly...this is not offensive to me AT ALL, nor to anyone in my family that I am aware of. For some reason the examples you gave me were offensive, but this just isn't the same and I'm not sure why. I get what you're saying...but afterall, some people are redskin, some are black and some are white...it just is what it is...I hate to be crazy but what if PETA decides Miami Dolphins is cruel? I love opinions! Have a great day my friend...you will find this on the HPO and I might even make a poll!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for sharing. I loved hearing it from your perspective

      Delete
    2. I agree with this perspective

      Delete
  28. Unfortunately, we live in a hyper-sensitive society in which everybody seems to be offended by everything. Changing things that are deemed offensive has eroded our society, our customs, and our rights. In my humble opinion, I find absolutely nothing wrong with the term Redskins. As someone with a Hungarian heritage, I was often called a "Hunky" and I survived. There are far more important things to worry about.

    ReplyDelete
  29. They really need to change it to something like another Native American-inspired name for a team; The Atlanta Braves. A brave was a kind of warrior, the same way many teams use the name Viking without upsetting Scandinavia. If they were upset over the name Brave I would say it's too much of political correctness, but it's reasonable to be upset over the name Redskins.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I'm with you Keith - this is definitely an outdated and offensive stereotype.

    ReplyDelete
  31. People do look for any excuse to be offended. About everything.

    Jon said it best. There are indeed more important things to worry about.

    Have a fabulous day. ☺

    ReplyDelete
  32. Not sure where I stand on this - political correctness goes a bit too far sometimes - it is only a name - have any native Americans complained?

    ReplyDelete
  33. I've never heard any Native Americans being offended...just a lot of white people. I think the Bible has it right: love takes no offense. Not a single Native American I know is upset. Until I see some real Native American outrage here I think we should well and truly settle down.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I think people keep the negativity of it alive by making a big deal about it. Like the whole NBA/Silver thing, he's just an old, fat, white guy who got way too much publicity and attention. Ignore the asshole and move on. People like controversy.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I'm curious too as Elaine has asked above, is it mainly white people who think this should be changed? Native Americans are red skinned, just as as white people, are white skinned. It's not what I'd call a great choice for a team name but I really don't know enough about this to comment.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I wish they would just change it. It bothers me that so many might think it inconvenient to add a little kindness to the social mix. I suspect that Mr. Snyder is more concerned about the costs related to changing his established brand than anything else not that he isn't already making gazillions in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I don't feel informed enough to be able to state an opinion on this, Keith. Thank you for sharing, though. :)

    ReplyDelete
  38. I honestly don't see the big deal about naming the team Redskins - I doubt that it was meant to be offensive to anyone. There is just too much PC these days - IMO! Have a great week ahead.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Do the people the nickname refers to find it offensive? I've heard this argument tossed around on different sites. I have an opinion, but I prefer to keep it to myself. Everyone is so sensitive these days.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Washington Redskins IS the name of the team - NOT a nickname. "Reds" might be considered a nickname. A nickname is a name used in place of the real name. "Yankees" is not a nickname for the NY Yankees but "Yanks" could be considered a nickname - I could go on and on with this.

    ReplyDelete
  41. There's an infinite number of names to choose from. If a name is hurtful to someone, why not pick another?

    ReplyDelete
  42. In the Midwest, many towns are Indian names, along with the HS football teams. Come on...PC can go only so far.

    ReplyDelete
  43. I agree with you. The general opinion doesn't really matter on this one. They need to poll only Native Peoples to ask what they think about it. What matters is how they feel about the name.

    ReplyDelete
  44. I think that while the name, the Redskins, may be an offense to some, naming the football team this was not meant to be derogatory. After all, who would name a team after something they felt was not to be respected? That would miss the whole idea about naming a team. I don’t know if that means they should keep it, I just think that no offense was intended.

    ReplyDelete
  45. You can't please everyone. Someone will always be offended. It is a no win situation, in my humble opinion. I always enjoy learning pros and cons, so this has been interesting reading...

    ReplyDelete
  46. My husband's family on his dad's side is 100% American Indian. None of them take offense to the name, but they have all noted at one time, my husband included, the irony of it being permitted when other similar names (like the examples you mentioned) would create an outrage.

    I'm the white one in the family, and I don't like it. Then again, I don't like anything that could potentially hurt my kiddos, and stereotypical name calling fits right in w/that category for me, though Indians are not really ostracized anymore (thank goodness!), or at least not in my area. I have heard there are other parts of the US where the old prejudices and hate still exist...and those are areas I would have thought would embrace the Am. Indians but I'm getting off topic, I know. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  47. The early use of the term "redskins" was definitely not complementary and was used scathingly. While I don't particularly like that name and wouldn't mind them changing it. I have less of a problem with the Florida State Seminoles. That is the accepted name of an American Indian tribe, not a slang or derogatory term. We are all on slippery slopes these days.

    ReplyDelete
  48. I feel that showing proper respect to one another is good basic behavior. Not too certain this nickname actually does that. As a student at Clinton High School in the fall of 1956 when we had court-ordered integration, I have seen and heard, to my sorrow, far too many expressions of disrespect.

    ReplyDelete
  49. It's a hard one
    I guess if it still insults the people, race, etc in general then it should be changed
    If not?
    Well leave well aloneTHERE IS NOTHING MORE PATRONISING THAN liberals getting " hurt" on behalf of someone else

    ReplyDelete
  50. I have repeatedly declined to play on Washington's football team because of its name. I am only 64 years old and it's their loss.

    ReplyDelete
  51. I had no idea about this topic. I didn't even know there were names like that for sports teams. Our soccer teams for example are mostly named after the city they're from and the ice-hockey teams have animal names for some strange reason. I'm not sure what to think here. If the Native Americans feel offended and say so it should be changed out of respect. It makes me wonder though why the name was chosen. If it was chosen because some people felt particularly proud of Native Americans - why not leave it then? I guess I don't know enough about the background. But it's a very thought-provoking post!

    ReplyDelete
  52. I like Jane and Lance's and Geo.'s comments. :)

    ReplyDelete
  53. Hmmm, Phil is a Redskins fan. I think the name should be changed, for sure!

    ReplyDelete
  54. This is a very insightful post! I would definitely find it offensive if a team called themselves the "Yellowskins" or something like that (since I'm Asian). There should be change.

    www.modernworld4.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete
  55. I had not thought about this but if lots of other teams changed their names ... why not this team too... ? I don't watch a lot of sports but I totally agree that if it is derogatory to certain people, they might want to think of changing it...

    I wanted to thank you for the comment Keith... I felt like others are trying to rewrite the past and I wanted to make it clear that although I don't live in the past... the past cannot be rewritten, it is what is ...

    One another note, I adore you and Beate together, you two are so sweet and adorable <3

    ReplyDelete
  56. Our children's high school newsletter was called the Tomahawk". A lot of people did not like it but could not do much about it.

    P.S. I have been reading postings from Beate, but I have not been able to comment. I like the latest one. It is full of pictures and entertaining.

    ReplyDelete
  57. So towns should go next? Stores, delis? What have you? If native americans aren't offended, which they don't seem to be, then let things alone.

    ReplyDelete
  58. It's very easy to become familiar with these terms and see no offense in using them. It takes a lot to change. But as you say it's the right thing to do. I hope they will change it.

    ReplyDelete
  59. I don't understand why the name can't be changed, especially if it's offending people.

    ReplyDelete
  60. They should change the name :)

    ReplyDelete
  61. What do the Native Americans think? If they aren't offended, why push the issue? Sometimes I think some people get riled up over being too PC. Like when a gay comment is made and non gay people are screaming the loudest about the injustice of it all, or situations along that line. Honestly, I am not big on sports, so I don't think much on this one. However, if the Native Americans do say it offends, then I hope they will do the right thing and change it.

    ReplyDelete
  62. I say change it out of respect.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Keith,
    I have a bit of Native American heritage myself on my mom's side, and the name doesn't offend me at all, but that is just me. I do, however, appreciate that you are very passionate about a topic that means a lot to you and want to discuss it with your blog friends. Letting people hear your voice is a great trait to have, I believe.

    ~Sheri

    ReplyDelete
  64. I don't know what to say Keith as we don't have this issue ~ I suggest that you resolve it with the best intentions for everyone ~ In Canada, we have and maintain names and its fine with us ~ I guess it depends ~

    ReplyDelete
  65. I never liked the name to begin with. At this point, there's so much negativity associated with the name, what's the harm in changing it? A real fan should love the team no matter what the name. I love how you just put your opinion out there knowing there would be plenty of people in disagreement.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Here in India, we let the judiciary decide on such issues. Someone or the other simply files a PIL (Public Interest Litigation: does not need the concept of locus standi), and the courts decide after hearing. It is nice to read about proceedings in the newspapers because mostly the judiciary explains everything and takes a balanced and futuristic viewpoint. Mostly, that is. And we need to start showing judicial proceedings live on TV. Like they do in the UK form what I have heard.

    ReplyDelete
  67. I have written quite passionately on this subject. Our kids' alma mater, the University of Illinois had Chief Illiniwek who would prance around the field during sports games. Our kids were with the movement to end using the "Chief" as a mascot. Still, some older Alumni insist they are honoring "The Chief" despite the fact that some Native American groups have asked them to stop. The University of Illinois finally did stop having the Chief dance, but there are those Alumni that persist in wanting to maintain the tradition. The Native Americans in Illinois had been treated shamefully, tragically during early European settler times.

    So yes, I'm against using stereotypical, degrading mascots for any sports teams. So much of it is offensive and unfortunately the hidden racism inherent in it is still pervasive in our culture.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Interesting post - I wrote some lines about names and power in the latest post on my Wordy blog. The names we give things depend on power relations - the powerful pick the names, the weak remain silent.

    Cheers - Stewart M - Melbourne

    ReplyDelete
  69. Well never thought of it not being into sport or being Canadian, but considering that there is the name Redskins as well as a Photo of A Native American, I say they have every right to have it changed,Heaven knows everything was taken away from them their culture, their homes, their beliefs, taking their children to make them assimilate to the Amercian way what right do they have to now show the original Redskins as their team....it is when you think about it totally absurd and insulting,so I'm with you there change the name, change the design....they don't belong to them, they never did...

    ReplyDelete
  70. Eskimos is technically an offensive term too, strange that I haven't heard any outcries over that.

    ReplyDelete
  71. I think Washington Sidewinders might be a better name :)

    ReplyDelete
  72. I don't think I would find the name offensive...it is, after all, just a name.
    I think, perhaps, there has been too much emphasis on words in recent years. If you delve into anything deeply enough, you could conceivably find something to cause someone offence.
    So come on guys...a name is just a name! :)

    ReplyDelete
  73. The world has gotten far to uptight in many respects

    ReplyDelete
  74. How do Indians feel about it? If the majority of them are offended, then it should be changed. If they don't care, then leave it.

    ReplyDelete
  75. There is a lot in a name and names change and then hopefully attitudes. There are a lot of campaigns here about not using the word gay as synonymous with negative things. Kids esp need to be aware of that. If Redskins gives offense as I can see it does, it should be changed

    ReplyDelete
  76. Derogatory names should go away.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Keith, I think u slightly misunderstood my comment..... When I talk about liberals...I am talking generally and not about you at all....
    In society in the Uk there is a certain middle class " liberal type" who seems to delight in getting angry on someone elses's behalf
    We see it all the time..... Especially in the press ( the newspaper the daily mail)

    ReplyDelete
  78. Truthfully, if it bothers the people it refers to, I would vote for changing it. For all we know, native Americans see it as a compliment. I do tire of people forcing their opinions on others for the sake of political correctness though. I mean, that's how religiously based Christmas songs got banned from one high school entirely. How do you celebrate Christmas without songs of Christ?

    ReplyDelete
  79. it comes down to property rights. should they change it? probably.. should they be forced to? i dont think so

    ReplyDelete
  80. Is this name really derogatory? How about Packers or Raiders - or maybe the Saints are too religious? Sorry - I don't get it. Maybe because I'm "white" - although in reality I'm kind of peachy colored...

    ReplyDelete
  81. Righto ... I so agree with you ... nothing should be hurting to anybody ... even if in minority ...

    ReplyDelete
  82. Hey Keith,

    I'm very aware of this controversy, even while living in England. I do think the name "Redskins" can be construed as derogatory. A new name may well be in order. How far do we go with this, I wonder. The name, Cleveland "Indians" is not correct when we realise that they are actually meaning First Nation's People. Of course, you will recall another Washington team that did change its name. The Baltimore Bullets aka the Washington Bullets, became the Washington Wizards. And we know why that happened.

    Take care, dude.

    Gary

    ReplyDelete
  83. "Just because the majority favors something does not make it right. " I totally agree with that!

    I don't know much about how and why your country has chosen particular names for their sports teams, so I hesitate to comment. But if it offends the individuals the name refers to, I'd say it's time to change it.

    ReplyDelete
  84. We all must try to think beyond the color of a skin. Though I don't know much about the above mentioned scenario, but I believe we must not use anything which may or will hurt the sentiments of a person, group or countries.

    ReplyDelete
  85. I have mixed feelings about this issue. The Marquette Warriors changed their team name to Marquette Golden Eagles. I do wonder if Native Americans really were offended by Warriors.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Hi Keith - I have mixed feelings too .. my emotions tend to endear me to the name of Redskins ... yet I can quite understand that people think we should respect the Indian.

    Cheers Hilary

    ReplyDelete
  87. This was an interesting discussion on your topic. for me all this "political correctness" has gone way too far.
    everyone preceives things in their own way, and I don't believe there was ever malice in the beginning when names were chosen-why would they do that?
    if we go around changing names like this, then I agree what someone said the animal rights groups will be going after the Miami dolphins, and the Chicago bulls cause now the animals are being offended.
    with this kind of thinking-what ever name is chosen is bound to offend someone- no matter what new names are thought to not offend
    this has all gone too far in my opinion-there are more pressing issues in the world that need attention

    ReplyDelete
  88. Dear Keith
    You have such a good heart my friend. I totally get why you feel the way you do, and I also think that just because something is in the magority, it doesn't make it right.To define something by a skin colour is just wrong, and if a name offends, or causes hurt, it should be dropped.

    I'm not back blogging just yet Keith,...just came by to say hello, and thank you for your caring comment on my last post.
    Take care.

    ReplyDelete
  89. You know... I can't really say anything about the Redskins name in particular, but coming from a country where more money is spent on changing names in the name of "restitution" instead of actually changing the plights of the people supposedly being insulted by said name, I have to say it's a bit ridiculous that people are taking things this far (especially when I recently read that the team's owner pledged to improve native americans' lives).

    That said, it might just be me, since, like I said, we have to live with almost 50% unemployment in my country while MILLIONS are spent on changing names for the sake of being politically correct.

    ReplyDelete
  90. I think the name is perhaps inappropriate.

    On the other hand....

    I once worked with someone who told me she yelled at her kids once when they were playing 'cowboys and indians' and had told them they should say native americans. i pointed out to her that she maybe should have been more concerned about the fact her kids were fighting then about the words they used.

    ReplyDelete
  91. It's appalling to me how much racism/bigotry/hate is at the top tiers of professional sports teams. As far as I'm concerned, nobody's opinion on the offensiveness of a term is more important than the population at issue. If one single Native American Indian is offended by the term, perhaps Snyder should change the name.

    ReplyDelete
  92. I wanted to add, having perused your comments (sorry, bleeding heart liberalism is seeping out now) to the folks who complain about political correctness going to far. I actually agree, to some extent. BUT we are talking about perhaps the most brutalized group in American history, the people to which our country belonged and belongs - were we not so vicious to them. Let's change a few letters, at minimum, to start.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Nice post. It depends on how Indians feel about other people referring to them as "red skin.

    Greetings from London.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Keith,

    An interesting topic, with which I was not familiar. I did not realise the significance of some of the team names, and their origins.
    I can appreciate that some of the names are perhaps offensive and suggestive of other eras, when those names were acceptable. Akin to the use of the word, 'golliwog,' which is now discontinued here in the UK. It used to be on morning jam pots, as part of a branding.
    I think some consideration is required, in future name selections.

    Best wishes, Eileen

    ReplyDelete
  95. Im agree with you Keith but is really dificult maybe is time to change some things.....like names.
    xo

    ReplyDelete
  96. Beautiful post. It depends on each ones mind!

    ReplyDelete
  97. Absolutely ridiculous. In the Midwest, many cities-states are based on the Indian's names for them: Chicago, Kentucky, Minnesota.etc.
    Our high school football/basketball teams were the Saukees. Our local state university mascot is the Aztecs. Where will this all end?
    Political Correctness has run over the edge and then some.

    ReplyDelete
  98. I don't know what I think on this one. I don't really think about the name, but perhaps that is because I am not Native American. I think if it offends Native Americans, then it should be changed. I don't understand the strong resistance to changing it.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Hi Keith, is this a problem? Here during years the names of teams, towns, cities, shops(!), streets etc. have been changed and now people do not remember what the previous name was. I don't understand why the name can't be changed.

    ReplyDelete
  100. We have had similar rows here. One radio presenter played the childrens’ song 'eenie meenie minie mo' which has the n----r word in it. He was made to resign his post although the version he played was very old and he wasn’t aware of the n-word in it.

    I dont like offending any person, but it is often done, deliberately and accidentally. Perhaps each case has to be judged on its merits.

    I don’t have an opinion about r------s. Is the word still used in any other context?

    ReplyDelete
  101. I totally understand your view here. Honestly I rarely give much of a care about a lot of things like this, but I'd really like to know what the real Americans, the Native Americans think of this. I mean, if it's offensive to them and "redskins" is really a derogatory or mostly derogatory name in any way, then that's never cool.

    ReplyDelete
  102. I've written about this on my own blog and feel like it really shouldn't even be an issue. I don't see a problem with it. I read an article that said more 'white' Americans are troubled over this type of debate than Native Americans are. Now is they don't care...why should the rest of us?

    ReplyDelete
  103. I think if the term is hurtful to a portion of the population, it should be changed. I know the fans wouldn't like that because of the history, but I could use the same argument with them that they're using against the people who are offended: "It's just a name." They'll still be the same team if they have a different name.

    ReplyDelete
  104. This is a hard one. It comes up every so often. Our Australian Aboriginals happily call themselves 'blacks' and laugh at white Australians' shock as we would regard it as a racist term. They have their own names for whites, not all of them complimentary. There's a whole lot of terms that'd need to be changed if we went down the politically correct route.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Thoughtful post. It was good to read you!

    Short Poems

    ReplyDelete
  106. I agree, we have come a long way as the years have past, we have become more clever in many ways, showing respect for the first residents of our countries is way over due,

    ReplyDelete
  107. Seeing your post is making me think of the school my oldest daughter graduated from. They were the Harlandale Indians and their colors were gold and Maroon. She was a majorette but something that was outstanding was the long head dress down to the ground that the Drum Major wore. Just brought back memories.

    ReplyDelete
  108. My question on the issue is, "Who is objecting to the name?" If native American's find it offensive, the name should be changed ASAP. If it doesn't bother them, who cares what other people think?

    ReplyDelete
  109. Interesting post - and yes, I agree sometimes change does need to happen if people are not happy with how things are.

    Enjoy the weekend
    Carolyn

    ReplyDelete
  110. It is a very controversial topic and one that has been debated quite a bit. I went to Southeast Missouri State University, and while I was there, they changed from the Indians to the Redbirds. I remember a lot of people were upset at the time because of the tradition and long history of the mascot, but now I think people feel like it was a good change. Any kind of change after many years is usually hard to take for some people!

    PS - Hope all is going well! Have a great weekend :)

    ReplyDelete
  111. I have recently changed my view on this. My high school was the Bountiful Braves referring to Native American Indian Braves. The college I attended were the U of U Utes - referring to the Ute Indians. I now think that both of these names are far less offensive than the term Red Skins. To be a "Brave" is very positive, and the term "Utes" is a name like the Viking, but the term "Red Skins" is, like you said, a negative connotation referring to skin color and should be changed. Some traditions are just not good ones and should be done away with.

    ReplyDelete
  112. I agree with you, the definition of right and wrong should not and cannot be defined by public opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  113. It depends on who finds it offensive. If Native Americans want it changed then it should be changed asap..it is the respectful thing to do.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Oh Yes, do go to the Greek festival the next time you get a chance. I think you'll enjoy it. Some of their food is really good, and you should try the Greek lasagna,,,,,, and don't forget the Baklava.

    Have a good week, Keith.

    ~Sheri

    ReplyDelete
  115. Keith, I am not really into football or the teams names.. But if the majority think the name is offensive it should be changed.. Have a happy week ahead!!

    ReplyDelete
  116. I personally think it's silly PC nonsense. But I'm a white dude. Still, I don't get offended by the term "tighty-whitey" or want to stage a boycott of Cracker Barrel. The movies "White Chicks" or "White Men Can't Jump" didn't bother me, either. There's enough real problems in the world. Like I said, though, I'm a white guy. Who wishes they'd change the name for "Honky Tonk."

    ReplyDelete
  117. Well said Keith. It is not for someone else to say what is offensive or not. If someone is offended then they are offended. Full stop. It reminds me a bit of the Charlie Chaplin quote: "my pain my be a cause for your laughter, but my laughter should never be a cause for your pain." The same can be said for offensiveness.

    ReplyDelete
  118. i'm so glad that you wrote about this. i do hope that there will be a name change. i find it very distasteful and disrespectful to be using native indian mascots and names.

    ReplyDelete
  119. I agree with you. It's time for change.

    ReplyDelete
  120. If it's offensive to the Indians than maybe they should just change it. In reality we could all find something offensive that relates to each of us.
    I agree with Al, there is so many real problems in the world.

    ReplyDelete
  121. I couldn't agree more with you, Keith.
    We have a park here named after the city's European 'founder', Edward Cornwallis. He was notorious for his treatment of the aboriginal indigenous peoples that were here before him for thousands of years. City council is now in the process of changing the park's name. Sometimes history has to be 'adjusted' a bit to suit present times and mores.

    ReplyDelete
  122. I agree. I grew up in the Washington DC area and I know fans feel loyalty to the name, but it's time to change it. Or else change the logo to a red potato!

    ReplyDelete
  123. The team was originally named the Boston Braves and the name was changed to Redskins in 1933 in recognition of the then head coach who claimed to be of Sioux decent. The term Redskins was originally benign in meaning, and reflected positive aspects of early relations between Native Americans and whites, with native Americans identifying themselves as red-men or red skin. The term is mean to symbolize the Native American heritage of bravery, courage, and a stalwart spirit.

    ReplyDelete