@kuonphobos: Nah, based on the way you're defining it, I'd agree completely. I was thinking of those other names as culture, because they are certainly part of a culture. I guess it's just that protesting a sports team name seems silly to me. I could understand if it was the government changing the name of the Indian Affairs Bureau to the Redskins Affairs Bureau- then yeah, that might be something to protest. For a sports team? Dang, just don't support that team.

With the exception of Vikings and perhaps Texans all of the above mentioned mascots are actually descriptions of vocations not ethnicities or "cultures" as I was using the term. It is simple enough just to ask whether a cowboy, a 49er, a buccaneer, a patriot or a raider can decide to quit being any of those things? Now ask whether a Native American can quit being such?

Probably not too many Vikings running around anymore and obviously a Texas based team calling itself Texan is a no brainer.

Regarding the Kansas City Chiefs, they did change their mascot which was a depiction of a Native American in full headdress riding a Pinto to that of a wolf. So they are not pristine in this debate.

HERE

But since your core thought is that protesting a name is stupid then I wouldn't expect any agreement on this issue.

A friend of mine who is of African descent raised what I thought was a good point: just because I can say the word "chink" doesn't mean others won't be offended. I should respect their wishes, so long as they are reasonable.

I would be glad to have a team named after my race.

I wasn't really taking a side either. I just think the detractors to the name have more to do with being isolationists than with being offended. In the case of the Richmond Braves outcry, I actually don't think that was the same group, as I had said- I think that was just political grandstanding by attention-seekers in the city, who have nothing to do with Native Americans.

"Cowboys? 49ers? Vikings? Texans? Buccaneers? Patriots? Raiders?" All drawn from primarily white culture (although a couple of those terms have since expanded to be more inclusive of varied cultures), and nobody is offended about that.

How come nobody seems to care about "Chiefs?"

***

I just think protesting a team name is stupid.

@doomguy: I do agree..But a person likes a team more than its name.Of course I can see people getting upset if the name changes.But if you're a loyal fan then you go roll with it..

That wouldn't stop it. Because then the hundreds of thousands of Redskins fans would raise hell. Probably to the point of not buying tickets or merchandise of the team.

It would cause a bigger problem if they changed the name to satisfy a few.

@kuonphobos: I think that the term Redskin actually does apply to a group of warriors though, not just to a group of people (though it evidently has a double meaning). In that sense it does have about as much offensive value as a lot of sport teams names (for instance the Crusaders). In a broader sense though, it can be taken out of context easily, because so much of sport relies on myth anyway.

It is interesting to hear the discussion surround the terminology and whether the terms and their underlying concepts are offensive or not. I think the overall issue in this debate is whether or not it remains offensive in the 21st century to utilize any ethnic group as a team mascot no matter what terminology is used. The act of reducing a culture and ethnicity into a caricature is in itself offensive. Just take a moment and try it with any other culture/ethnicity and it will hopefully become clear.

@cbishop: I didn't necessarily mean to take a particular side in this discussion, only that I had found a golden age comic which would indicate that at one point that the term was very much meant as an insult. That it is not so much intended as such today may be the case, but there is a sense of historical revisionism when it comes to justifying the name.

@doomguy: I'm a Lions fans so I don't care about the their name.But people are going to make a big deal about it.And to stop it is to change the name.

I am saying that person is just as much of a Native American as I am. The person is a descendant of a group of a certain people just like everyone in the world is.

A word being derogatory is also a based on its connotations. Redskin is referring to the color of someones skin, Its like if you called a person whitey. By today's standards, its not that offensive, in fact, as someone mentioned already, they polled people of the aforementioned descent and a dominant 90% claimed it wasn't offensive.

@razzatazz: @kingares109: @doomguy: The same folks who took offense to "Redskins" as a team name for Washington also took offense to "Braves" as a team name for Atlanta, and "brave" is what they called one of their warriors- in no way offensive. They even went so far as to protest the giant Brave statue placed in The Diamond stadium of the then-farm team Richmond Braves, in Virginia, causing the statue to be removed. So as someone who is part Cherokee, it seems less that the group found the term to be a slur, and more that they prefer to be isolationist about their people.

I think the world it's self shouldn't be thought of as offensive, it should be how the word is used. Otherwise:

Why in the world would you be offended?? First of all if anything, you are descended from those people, and second, its more along the line of calling someone a "blackskin or whiteskin".

As a native myself I'd get a little peeved if someone called me a redskin (and by a little peeved I mean punch them). It's pretty much the exact equivalent of calling someone a darky or slope.

@razzatazz: Well dang. I really didn't know that. I have read though that the name was changed from Boston Braves to the Redskins because of the then time coach claiming to be Native American. But also read that there were suspicions to how true that claim was.

@doomguy: It is complicated too by the fact that the long time owner was an avowed racist.

@kingares109: I get what you're saying.. I mean.. It's not that big of a deal to me, I just think they should keep it. If they change it, so be it, I'm a Packers fan anyways, lol.

@razzatazz: Ah, I get what your saying. I reckon it kind just went over my head.

@doomguy: I suppose the point of what I wrote is lost upon you. It is not that it is not considered as a slur by those receiving it, but that it was once intended as a slur by those speaking it. The former might exonerate the offense, but the latter absolutely does not.

@doomguy: Well,I do agree with you.But even if a small number of them find it to be a slur,then it must be one.I read before where some people think hon*y or crac*er is a slur.Its the same as ni**a..Some blacks think its not,and some do.

So maybe they should just change it.I don't care,but it would stop all the whinning.Its like saying whiteskins or blackskins..Would that bother you!??

@razzatazz: and only about 9% of the interviewed Native Americans think it's a slur. The Native Americans who are against the name are pretty small in numbers. I don't think it's such a big deal to where they need to change a name that has stuck with a team for a looooooooong time..

Nice!

@doomguy: It is considered as a slur though, evidently to some comic writers in the 1940s.

In a study in 2004 a bunch of Native Americans were asked if the name was offensive. Over 90% said no.

However would you name a team after a slur and disrespect? That doesn't make sense. You are suppose to respect and honour the team not disrespect it.

They should rename themselves. Change it to the name of a tribe that has a historical connection to the Washington area.

Or do what some of us Mississippians tried to do when we had to change are mascot due to racially offensive reasons.