Should the Washington Redskins change their name?

[publicunofficial]

I'm sure this will be a fun topic.


Personally I think it should be changed. Redskins is and always has been a racist term, regardless of the context the organization says the name comes from.

[publicunofficial]

What is so bad about the term "Redskins"? Is it an offensive way of saying "Red Indians"?

It's like calling black people "Blackskins"

<slope class="slippery">Besides, if we don't nip this now, in a couple of decades, PETA will be going after sports teams named after animals.</slope>

Native Americans are not the same thing as animals.

[publicunofficial]

What is so bad about the term "Redskins"? Is it an offensive way of saying "Red Indians"?

No.  "Red Indians" is an offensive way of saying "Red Indians."

What about the term "Black African" which is in style equivalent to "Red Indian". Do you take offense to that too?
I refer to them as Red Indians. Simply calling them Indians as they like themselves to be described would create confusion, and in the UK Red Indians are easily identifiable through the name.

Native Americans don't like being called "Reds" or "Redskins" or "Redface" or "the redman"

Instead of "Black African", a more appropriate comparison would be "Yellow" in reference to Asians.

[publicunofficial]

We can start by ruling out the "Washington Generals", the basketball squad that predictably loses to the Harlem Globetrotters.

Superpredator and near-superpredator animals?

Bears, eagles, falcons, hawks, lions, tigers (Bengals), panthers, and jaguars are out of the question. Dolphins would be superpredators except for orcas and sharks in the open ocean, but they too are out of the question. Seals and walruses might fit. Pandas? Too closely associated with a country that isn't 100% reliable.

"Gators" and "wolverines" are heavily associated with some high-profile college teams.

Dogs are as deadly as any other carnivores of like size. They are either too small to hurt people badly (a Jack Russell terrier is a miniature tiger in many respects, much like a cat) or good behavior mutes their obvious lethality (you would still not want to get in a fight with a Great Dane). Problem is -- which dog?  There's so much variety. Wolves?

Snow leopard? Few people know what it is.

Komodo dragon? Giant salamander? Likewise.

A leopard would be a good idea -- for a basketball team. It's easily confused with a jaguar, so that would be a problem in the NFL. Maybe if pistons become technologically obsolete the Detroit Pistons could become the "Detroit Leopards", and I could just imagine a logo of a leopard slam-dunking a basketball while snarling. Cougars? In view of its sexual overtones I would not introduce that one now.

Giant otters are too cute in appearance even if they are big killers. Giant octopuses are too sinister in appearance.

Hyenas? Interesting.

Crocodiles? Probably the most dangerous man-eaters of all.

Sharks? Too sinister.

Pythons? Anacondas? Snakes inculcate as much revulsion as fear. But "snakes" describe many of our politicians all too well.

Whales? Now that would allow some alliteration -- "Washington Whales"?  At that "Washington Wolves" would do fine, too.

... If you still like "Washington Redskins", then ask yourself whether you would like "New York K**es", "New Orleans N****rs", "San Francisco C**nks", "Los Angeles G**ks", "San Diego S**cks", "Chicago P*l*cks", or Philadelphia W*ps".    

Washington Presidents and Washington Monuments are my favorite suggestions.

[publicunofficial]

What is so bad about the term "Redskins"? Is it an offensive way of saying "Red Indians"?

No.  "Red Indians" is an offensive way of saying "Red Indians."

What about the term "Black African" which is in style equivalent to "Red Indian". Do you take offense to that too?
I refer to them as Red Indians. Simply calling them Indians as they like themselves to be described would create confusion, and in the UK Red Indians are easily identifiable through the name.

Native Americans don't like being called "Reds" or "Redskins" or "Redface" or "the redman"

But I didn't suggest any of those as suitable.

And furthermore the term "Real American" sounds hardly intellectual. Do you identify as "European" as opposed to "American"?

Red Indians is just as offensive as any of the ones I mentioned.

Also no one calls them "Real Americans" except the occasional liberal activist.

[publicunofficial]

and was a Dallas Cowboys fan which in turn made me very unpopular at my middle school. 

As it should.

[publicunofficial]

Not particularly.

Personally, my main reason for opposing a name change is that if it occurs, they'll probably be targeting the Chiefs next, and I would be livid if we had to change. So I sympathize with Redskins' fans.

Chiefs is less offensive, because "Chief" is an actual title. If I call a Native American chief, "Chief", he won't be offended. It's a title of honor, not a slur.

[publicunofficial]

To all the yes voters, what alternative name should they use?

"Washington Monuments" has a cool ring to it.

[publicunofficial]

I'm sure this will be a fun topic.


Personally I think it should be changed. Redskins is and always has been a racist term, regardless of the context the organization says the name comes from.

Tough crap. That's the way it is. If you don't like it, leave. The end. No gray area.

Leave from where?