Power Pros Forum

I say no. If someone says the word Redskins, when do you not think of football?

I don't really see why they should either. When I see the Redskins logo it looks badass it's not like they're making fun of Native Americans. No one is really clamoring for the Cleveland Indians or the Atlanta Braves to change.

er, yeah, they are.

I'm indifferent myself, but if it offends so many people, they should at least consider it. Snyder saying "We'll never change the name. It's that simple. NEVER — you can use caps." came off as incredibly douchey and insensitive.

Well for the record, they don't really care, so no.

Well, first off, Dan Snyder is kind of a douche regarding the team as is, so there's that.

My opinion is of Paul and Skittle's. I'm going to say no. The team shouldn't change the name unless the team really feels the need to.

Oh... k, then. Still, don't really think they should change there name. Then no more native american stereotypes, no more this freaking song,

Also, didn't mean to be intolerant towards Native Americans just wanted to post that freaking song. But seriously are they really losing any sleep over this name. It'd be worse if they were the "Washington Andrew Jackson is the best president of all time" or something like that.

Is it the reference to a race as a mascot that makes it offensive, or is it because of the particular circumstances surrounding this race's past in this country?

Should the Notre Dame Fighting Irish change their name? Is that any different? If so, how?

Isn't the term "Brave" a form of reverence? How is calling a group of people brave offensive?

Respond to these questions in 3-5 sentences each, explaining each answer, and hand this worksheet in to your teacher at the end of the hour.

---

Anyway, I can see how the caricatures would be seen as offensive (Redskins logo and Chief Wahoo), but I don't think any outside force (i.e. not the team itself or the NFL/MLB) should be able to force them to change.

It's not the fact that it's referring to Native Americans, like Braves or Chiefs, but that Redskin was traditionally a derogatory term for them. Y'know, like how you don't see any teams called the Wetbacks or something.

That said, I vote no unless there's a larger dissent... and the change doesn't involve them becoming the Senators instead or something.

s-jax makes a good point, the Redskins name is much more offensive than "Indians", "Braves", or "Chiefs". Don't be surprised if we see the name change in the next decade or so.

I hate the name, it's offensive, and I don't see how it's important how just because you think of a football team when you hear "Redskins". Makes it socially acceptable.

It's unacceptable. I have Native American relatives and friends and I sure as hell don't appreciate it.

/end rant

I don't think so. I feel the same as most of you. Yes, I see why it is offensive, but it's not as if people are saying it in an offensive way any more, the majority of the time. I see no problem with it, but I definitely understand if some groups want it changed.


s-jax made a good point about how it is different than Braves, Indians, and Chiefs, etc...

I'm gonna say no.

Well does that mean they'll change the name of the confectionary lolly 'redskin' as well?
Or the Aussie term for twisting the skin on the arm of a red head?
Should Montreal consider renaming from the Canadians because some may see 'Canadians' as derogatory? Or the NZ rugby national team renaming from the 'all blacks'. If Washington is forced to change its name it could force a landslide in changes for nearly every team. Even 'Yankee' could be derogatory to some. I think it should remain the same, but I think it will happen given the political correctness and freedom of speech etc that exists now will force the Redskins to change names.

1. I think you're being a bit extreme there with the Canadien example. I'm pretty sure nobody is really all that insulted to be called a Canadien, much less an actual Canadian person.

2. The name "All Blacks" actually isn't offensive at all in its origins, from what I've read. Though when I was in a rugby store in NZ this summer, a guy told me a story of him wearing his All Blacks jersey around in Detroit... something he would never do again.

3. The 'slippery slope' ideology you're using is, as it pretty much always is, very much speculatory and flawed. If anything, this is probably in the middle of a very slow slope, what with several teams on varying levels having to change their names for similar reasons. I mean, I can see your point, but you're taking it waaaaaaaay too far.

And there's no way in hell that the Yankees would ever change their name. Not with that legacy.

Sorry S-jax and others that may have misinterpreted my comment. It was only a 'tongue in cheek' (joke) hypothetical that I raised. It was in no way meant to offend.