One vote for changing "Redskins"

guppy wrote:The Washington Redskins should just change their name already and be done with it.  Its not a big deal, and its the right thing to do.

At this point, we just don't need to be keeping racist team names.

The University of Massachusetts used to be "The Redmen".  In 1972, for cryin out loud, they changed to "The Minutemen".  Guess what?  The world didn't end, and UMass survived.  I guess they were ahead of their time out there in Amherst.  And "Minutemen" is way more cool than "Redmen" anyway. 

Changing "The Redskins" to something else, say, "The Hogs", is not caving in to poltical correctness.  Its progress.

You think they should change their name because it offends a minority of a minority?
UMass Redmen was originally the based on the school colors, although they did adopt an Indian logo later. Do you think they did that because they thought Indians were weak, or ignorant, or dirty or somehow less? Of course not. They thought they were to be admired.
Anyway, as someone whose ancestor gained his freedom by fighting for the King against the colonial American terrorists, I'm offended by "Minutemen".
Patriots too for that matter.
If I make enough noise or get enough liberals on my side, would you think those should be changed?*
In all seriousness, it's Snyders team. If he wants to keep the name it's his right. Not sure why the President chose to pick on his team and not his "hometown" Blackhawks, but that's another issue.



[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

George1963 wrote:

guppy wrote:The Washington Redskins should just change their name already and be done with it.  Its not a big deal, and its the right thing to do.

At this point, we just don't need to be keeping racist team names.

The University of Massachusetts used to be "The Redmen".  In 1972, for cryin out loud, they changed to "The Minutemen".  Guess what?  The world didn't end, and UMass survived.  I guess they were ahead of their time out there in Amherst.  And "Minutemen" is way more cool than "Redmen" anyway. 

Changing "The Redskins" to something else, say, "The Hogs", is not caving in to poltical correctness.  Its progress.

You think they should change their name because it offends a minority of a minority?
UMass Redmen was originally the based on the school colors, although they did adopt an Indian logo later. I think you are thinking of St. John's in NY, who changed their name to The Red Storm, not UMass.  Do you think they did that because they thought Indians were weak, or ignorant, or dirty or somehow less? Of course not. They thought they were to be admired.
Anyway, as someone whose ancestor gained his freedom by fighting for the King against the colonial American terrorists, I'm offended by "Minutemen".
Patriots too for that matter.
If I make enough noise or get enough liberals on my side, would you think those should be changed?*  Only if you lived in England, and those were the names of your soccer team over there.  But here?  Don't think so.
In all seriousness, it's Snyders team. If he wants to keep the name it's his right. Not sure why the President chose to pick on his team and not his "hometown" Blackhawks, but that's another issue.  Well, he does spend more time in his "worktown" than his "hometown". 



[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

*There actually have been members of the PC police who want another name change because of the violent connotations of the Minutemen, not the least of which was that at the earliest settlements what they were formed to be ready to do in a minute was kill Indians.


"Colonial American terrorists"?  That's a term I have not seen used before........until now.  LOL.  So your ancestor was a slave of one of these "colonial terrorists" who themselves had fled the King's religious terrorism back in England in search of religious freedom in America?  And in order to "gain his freedom" from his "Colonial American Terrorist" master, he chose to fight "for the King", because given the choice between the two, your ancestor felt that the King's terrorism was preferable to the Colonial American's terrorism.  Got it.  I think.  


The Minutemen's "violent connotations"?  Hmmm.  Another unique take on history that one doesn't see written much about in the history books. LOL.   If you did a word association with 100 people and asked them to say the first thing that pops into their heads when you say the word "Minutemen", I think the number that would respond with "violent connations" would be zero.  LOL.  Maybe you just have "different" history books down there. 

So not only "Minutemen" offends you, but "Patriots" offends you too?  I actually glad we got that out on the table, because that explains a lot.

The "Minutemen" were like the Delta Force of the militia back then.  An elite group within the regular militia. 

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but you're the same guy who accused me of going out of my way looking for things to pick on?   LOL. 

In the spring of 1972, a group of American Indians from New York wrote a letter to the school's administration asking them if they were aware of "defamatory" connotations of the word Redmen and if they would curtail the use of the word. One portion of the letter referred to "undesirable racial connotations of the Redmen nickname."
The administration replied to this letter by asking all campus personnel and media to refrain from the use of the word Redmen as much as possible. The Student Senate resolved that the nickname connoted a stereotype of violence and savagery and created a "false picture of American history."


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

CatalinaMinx wrote:Ridiculous. I hope they don't cave in to pressure. They've had their name for how many decades now? All of a sudden its offensive? To who? 3 pr 4 people? Football teams don't usually go around choosing offensive names for their teams. Team names are carefully chosen with a lot of thought behind the name. Can we expect complaints in the near future about the Cleveland "Browns" too? Or maybe the UCLA "Trojans"? What about the Virginia Tech Hokies? How about the NC Tar Heels?    Good grief, give it a rest. 

Numb1Fan wrote:

CatalinaMinx wrote:Ridiculous. I hope they don't cave in to pressure. They've had their name for how many decades now? All of a sudden its offensive? To who? 3 pr 4 people? Football teams don't usually go around choosing offensive names for their teams. Team names are carefully chosen with a lot of thought behind the name. Can we expect complaints in the near future about the Cleveland "Browns" too? Or maybe the UCLA "Trojans"? What about the Virginia Tech Hokies? How about the NC Tar Heels?    Good grief, give it a rest. 

I think you meant the USC Trojans, not the UCLA Bruins. But I agree the name should be change to either the USC Condoms or USC Sexual Disease Prevention Items or USC Pregnancy Preventions (the peepees).

CatalinaMinx wrote:Ridiculous. I hope they don't cave in to pressure. They've had their name for how many decades now? All of a sudden its offensive? To who? 3 pr 4 people? Football teams don't usually go around choosing offensive names for their teams. Team names are carefully chosen with a lot of thought behind the name. Can we expect complaints in the near future about the Cleveland "Browns" too? Or maybe the USC "Trojans"? What about the Virginia Tech Hokies? How about the NC Tar Heels?    Good grief, give it a rest. 


You don't even know what the origin of the nickname Cleveland "Browns" is, or what "Browns" was intended to be named after.  Hint:  its not a reference to race.   Also, comparing "Tar Heels" and "Hokies", which are both not references to race, to "Redskins", which is a reference to a race of people, is also first-rate logic and convincing argument on your part.  [insert sarcastic look and rolling eyes here].  Good grief.

guppy wrote:

CatalinaMinx wrote:Ridiculous. I hope they don't cave in to pressure. They've had their name for how many decades now? All of a sudden its offensive? To who? 3 pr 4 people? Football teams don't usually go around choosing offensive names for their teams. Team names are carefully chosen with a lot of thought behind the name. Can we expect complaints in the near future about the Cleveland "Browns" too? Or maybe the USC "Trojans"? What about the Virginia Tech Hokies? How about the NC Tar Heels?    Good grief, give it a rest. 


You don't even know what the origin of the nickname Cleveland "Browns" is, or what "Browns" was intended to be named after.  Hint:  its not a reference to race.   Also, comparing "Tar Heels" and "Hokies", which are both not references to race, to "Redskins", which is a reference to a race of people, is also first-rate logic and convincing argument on your part.  [insert sarcastic look and rolling eyes here].  Good grief.

LRJets wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] 
Whomever posted the above, well, I think THAT'S racist.
Yes, traditionally there have been a lot of Jews that settled in New York.  Possibly because they wanted to feel comfortable with each other in a large city?   (They also made some pretty fair contributions there).
The same with San Fran.  A noted city of many Chinese people.  
So was Cleveland named the Redskins because of its disproportionate Indian population?
Since it's "no", your stupid, liberal theory has been blown.
If I had to bet, my money is on Guppy, resident of liberal Taxachusetts.

The origin of the above illlustration is actually a protest to the nickname Redskins.  The originator of it, whom I have no idea who it is, was attempting to portray the idea that, "Look how silly these hats are.  The same can be said for 'Redskins'.   They are all in the same category."  That was the message that was intended to be portrayed by the illustrator.   So, you are right, they ARE racist.  But that is exactly what the illustrator was intending.   Whether he or she was successful in getting his or her message across I guess is in the eye of the beholder.  So your post seems to miss the point completely.  There is no "liberal theory" here.  Only the bringing up of a discussion that was the subject of a New York Daily News opinion piece, and  also something that was commented on in NFL and political circles.   It was talked about, so I merely weighed in.  Personally, I feel the owver of a team has the right to call his team what he wants.  Its his team.  However, change does come eventually.  And when change does come, its not the end of the world.  I care little whether "Redskins" is changed or not.  I merely said if I had a vote -- which I don't --  I would vote to change it.  In the big picture this issue certainly does not rank up there anywhere near the important issues of the day.  So there is no sense in getting all up in arms about it.   But if St. John's (a New York school) and UMass can change their nicknamesw from "Redmen" to something else, it shows that changing your racial mascot to a non-racial mascot is not that earth shattering a thing to do - and it would likewise not be a big deal, even for the Washington Redskins.

Speaking of liberal states, did you see that it was a letter from a New Yorker to the President of the Uninversity of Massachusetts that ultimately prompted the change in the school's nickname from "Redmen" to "Minutemen"?  Damn meddling liberal New Yorkers interjecting themselves into the affairs of another state's university.

guppy wrote:

CatalinaMinx wrote:Ridiculous. I hope they don't cave in to pressure. They've had their name for how many decades now? All of a sudden its offensive? To who? 3 pr 4 people? Football teams don't usually go around choosing offensive names for their teams. Team names are carefully chosen with a lot of thought behind the name. Can we expect complaints in the near future about the Cleveland "Browns" too? Or maybe the USC "Trojans"? What about the Virginia Tech Hokies? How about the NC Tar Heels?    Good grief, give it a rest. 


You don't even know what the origin of the nickname Cleveland "Browns" is, or what "Browns" was intended to be named after.  Hint:  its not a reference to race.   Also, comparing "Tar Heels" and "Hokies", which are both not references to race, to "Redskins", which is a reference to a race of people, is also first-rate logic and convincing argument on your part.  [insert sarcastic look and rolling eyes here].  Good grief.

Admin wrote:

guppy wrote:

CatalinaMinx wrote:Ridiculous. I hope they don't cave in to pressure. They've had their name for how many decades now? All of a sudden its offensive? To who? 3 pr 4 people? Football teams don't usually go around choosing offensive names for their teams. Team names are carefully chosen with a lot of thought behind the name. Can we expect complaints in the near future about the Cleveland "Browns" too? Or maybe the USC "Trojans"? What about the Virginia Tech Hokies? How about the NC Tar Heels?    Good grief, give it a rest. 


You don't even know what the origin of the nickname Cleveland "Browns" is, or what "Browns" was intended to be named after.  Hint:  its not a reference to race.   Also, comparing "Tar Heels" and "Hokies", which are both not references to race, to "Redskins", which is a reference to a race of people, is also first-rate logic and convincing argument on your part.  [insert sarcastic look and rolling eyes here].  Good grief.

 Only a compelte moron would/could take a name given to a team... essentially a "Nickname"( look up the definition of nickname), and turn it into a debate about right & wrong. Jesus H Christ.... don't you people have better things to put your efforts to? I mean come on... you might actually be able to do something of consequence if you were to focus on something real vs trivial crap. How many Americans Indians are harmed by the Washington team being called "Redskins"? NONE!!!! Get a grip people. Holy fucksticks.... now y'all gave me a headache!


That "complete moron" Bob Costas did an interesting piece at halftime during the Sunday night game in which he basically said the term "Redskins" is different than other Indian nicknames like Chiefs and Warriors, and should be changed. 

This "complete moron" who happens to write for the New York Times did an interesting editorial in which she said the term "redskins" is never a compliment.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


The "complete morons" of the University of Miami of Ohio changed their mascot from "Redskins" to "Red Hawks" in 1998.

The "complete morons" of Stanford University changed from the "Indians" to the "Cardinals".

Those "complete moron" Ivy Leaguers up at Dartmouth College changed from the "Indians" to The Big Green.

The "complete morons" at St. John's in New York and UMass who dropped the term "Redmen" have already been mentioned, complete morons that they are. 

A lot of "complete morons" out there, ya know.  Once you start seenig how many there are you had better get yourself the Super Size of Tylenol for what I'm predicting will be a Super Size headache.

Dmounts wrote:I think they named them the redskins because of how hard the Indians fought not because of any racist point of view.


I agree.  Certainly no racist point of view was intended by any of the teams using Indian mascots, either pro or college.  However, the nickname is generally seen as not complimentary at this point in time.  The term "Redskins" is just different than "Warriors" or "Chiefs".  It just is.   

Miami of Ohio changed their name from "Redskins" to "Red Hawks" in 1998. 

But change wasn't easy, it was a 25 year process for the school.  Change comes slowly.  But it eventually comes around.

CatalinaMinx wrote:

guppy wrote:

CatalinaMinx wrote:Ridiculous. I hope they don't cave in to pressure. They've had their name for how many decades now? All of a sudden its offensive? To who? 3 pr 4 people? Football teams don't usually go around choosing offensive names for their teams. Team names are carefully chosen with a lot of thought behind the name. Can we expect complaints in the near future about the Cleveland "Browns" too? Or maybe the USC "Trojans"? What about the Virginia Tech Hokies? How about the NC Tar Heels?    Good grief, give it a rest. 


You don't even know what the origin of the nickname Cleveland "Browns" is, or what "Browns" was intended to be named after.  Hint:  its not a reference to race.   Also, comparing "Tar Heels" and "Hokies", which are both not references to race, to "Redskins", which is a reference to a race of people, is also first-rate logic and convincing argument on your part.  [insert sarcastic look and rolling eyes here].  Good grief.

People like you are a joke. Let me guess, you probably find it offensive that God is on our currency, and you probably are offended by the word God in our pledge of allegiance too. Some of my examples were presented in a sarcastic manner, I didn't expect you to catch that. If you truly think the Redskins name is offensive then you really are a fucking moron.


Two words for the logic of your arguments:  EPIC FAILURE. 

First sign of weakness of an argument:  You can't show reasoning in your argument, so you resort to name calling.   LMAO.  Weak.  Very weak. 

CatalinaMinx wrote:

 If you truly think the Redskins name is offensive then you really are a fucking moron.


Sister, if you actually do some research and look into it, what you'll find is there are one hell of a lot of fucking morons out there,  not just me.  And a lot of them happen to be Native Americans.  I'm actually glad and proud to stand with them on this issue.  I don't take your name calling as an insult at all.  Considering the source, I take it as a compliment.   

guppy wrote:

Admin wrote:

guppy wrote:

CatalinaMinx wrote:Ridiculous. I hope they don't cave in to pressure. They've had their name for how many decades now? All of a sudden its offensive? To who? 3 pr 4 people? Football teams don't usually go around choosing offensive names for their teams. Team names are carefully chosen with a lot of thought behind the name. Can we expect complaints in the near future about the Cleveland "Browns" too? Or maybe the USC "Trojans"? What about the Virginia Tech Hokies? How about the NC Tar Heels?    Good grief, give it a rest. 


You don't even know what the origin of the nickname Cleveland "Browns" is, or what "Browns" was intended to be named after.  Hint:  its not a reference to race.   Also, comparing "Tar Heels" and "Hokies", which are both not references to race, to "Redskins", which is a reference to a race of people, is also first-rate logic and convincing argument on your part.  [insert sarcastic look and rolling eyes here].  Good grief.

 Only a compelte moron would/could take a name given to a team... essentially a "Nickname"( look up the definition of nickname), and turn it into a debate about right & wrong. Jesus H Christ.... don't you people have better things to put your efforts to? I mean come on... you might actually be able to do something of consequence if you were to focus on something real vs trivial crap. How many Americans Indians are harmed by the Washington team being called "Redskins"? NONE!!!! Get a grip people. Holy fucksticks.... now y'all gave me a headache!


That "complete moron" Bob Costas did an interesting piece at halftime during the Sunday night game in which he basically said the term "Redskins" is different than other Indian nicknames like Chiefs and Warriors, and should be changed. 

This "complete moron" who happens to write for the New York Times did an interesting editorial in which she said the term "redskins" is never a compliment.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


The "complete morons" of the University of Miami of Ohio changed their mascot from "Redskins" to "Red Hawks" in 1998.

The "complete morons" of Stanford University changed from the "Indians" to the "Cardinals".

Those "complete moron" Ivy Leaguers up at Dartmouth College changed from the "Indians" to The Big Green.

The "complete morons" at St. John's in New York and UMass who dropped the term "Redmen" have already been mentioned, complete morons that they are. 

A lot of "complete morons" out there, ya know.  Once you start seenig how many there are you had better get yourself the Super Size of Tylenol for what I'm predicting will be a Super Size headache.

guppy wrote:

CatalinaMinx wrote:

 If you truly think the Redskins name is offensive then you really are a fucking moron.


Sister, if you actually do some research and look into it, what you'll find is there are one hell of a lot of fucking morons out there,  not just me.  And a lot of them happen to be Native Americans.  I'm actually glad and proud to stand with them on this issue.  I don't take your name calling as an insult at all.  Considering the source, I take it as a compliment.   

guppy wrote:

CatalinaMinx wrote:

guppy wrote:

CatalinaMinx wrote:Ridiculous. I hope they don't cave in to pressure. They've had their name for how many decades now? All of a sudden its offensive? To who? 3 pr 4 people? Football teams don't usually go around choosing offensive names for their teams. Team names are carefully chosen with a lot of thought behind the name. Can we expect complaints in the near future about the Cleveland "Browns" too? Or maybe the USC "Trojans"? What about the Virginia Tech Hokies? How about the NC Tar Heels?    Good grief, give it a rest. 


You don't even know what the origin of the nickname Cleveland "Browns" is, or what "Browns" was intended to be named after.  Hint:  its not a reference to race.   Also, comparing "Tar Heels" and "Hokies", which are both not references to race, to "Redskins", which is a reference to a race of people, is also first-rate logic and convincing argument on your part.  [insert sarcastic look and rolling eyes here].  Good grief.

People like you are a joke. Let me guess, you probably find it offensive that God is on our currency, and you probably are offended by the word God in our pledge of allegiance too. Some of my examples were presented in a sarcastic manner, I didn't expect you to catch that. If you truly think the Redskins name is offensive then you really are a fucking moron.


Two words for the logic of your arguments:  EPIC FAILURE. 

First sign of weakness of an argument:  You can't show reasoning in your argument, so you resort to name calling.   LMAO.  Weak.  Very weak. 

~Sheila~ wrote:

guppy wrote:

Admin wrote:

guppy wrote:

CatalinaMinx wrote:Ridiculous. I hope they don't cave in to pressure. They've had their name for how many decades now? All of a sudden its offensive? To who? 3 pr 4 people? Football teams don't usually go around choosing offensive names for their teams. Team names are carefully chosen with a lot of thought behind the name. Can we expect complaints in the near future about the Cleveland "Browns" too? Or maybe the USC "Trojans"? What about the Virginia Tech Hokies? How about the NC Tar Heels?    Good grief, give it a rest. 


You don't even know what the origin of the nickname Cleveland "Browns" is, or what "Browns" was intended to be named after.  Hint:  its not a reference to race.   Also, comparing "Tar Heels" and "Hokies", which are both not references to race, to "Redskins", which is a reference to a race of people, is also first-rate logic and convincing argument on your part.  [insert sarcastic look and rolling eyes here].  Good grief.

 Only a compelte moron would/could take a name given to a team... essentially a "Nickname"( look up the definition of nickname), and turn it into a debate about right & wrong. Jesus H Christ.... don't you people have better things to put your efforts to? I mean come on... you might actually be able to do something of consequence if you were to focus on something real vs trivial crap. How many Americans Indians are harmed by the Washington team being called "Redskins"? NONE!!!! Get a grip people. Holy fucksticks.... now y'all gave me a headache!


That "complete moron" Bob Costas did an interesting piece at halftime during the Sunday night game in which he basically said the term "Redskins" is different than other Indian nicknames like Chiefs and Warriors, and should be changed. 

This "complete moron" who happens to write for the New York Times did an interesting editorial in which she said the term "redskins" is never a compliment.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


The "complete morons" of the University of Miami of Ohio changed their mascot from "Redskins" to "Red Hawks" in 1998.

The "complete morons" of Stanford University changed from the "Indians" to the "Cardinals".

Those "complete moron" Ivy Leaguers up at Dartmouth College changed from the "Indians" to The Big Green.

The "complete morons" at St. John's in New York and UMass who dropped the term "Redmen" have already been mentioned, complete morons that they are. 

A lot of "complete morons" out there, ya know.  Once you start seenig how many there are you had better get yourself the Super Size of Tylenol for what I'm predicting will be a Super Size headache.

At first, I was one who thought, 'what's the big deal with the Redskin name?"  After reading some of what you have written, especially the above, yes, I can how maybe it is about time the name gets changed. 


I wouldn't change "Warriors" or "Chiefs" or "Braves".  I think those words connotate bravery and courage of the Indians.  But "Redskins"?  The only connation of that particular word is skin color.   That word is different. 

Big deal?  Its not.  I agree with you on that.  I only started this by saying if I had a vote - which I don't, cause I don't own the team -- I would change it, and I would even change it to something complimentary of the Indians, indicative of their bravery.   Just not their skin color.

CatalinaMinx wrote:

I know, truth stings and all that.


Agree with you on that point.

guppy wrote:

Admin wrote:

guppy wrote:

CatalinaMinx wrote:Ridiculous. I hope they don't cave in to pressure. They've had their name for how many decades now? All of a sudden its offensive? To who? 3 pr 4 people? Football teams don't usually go around choosing offensive names for their teams. Team names are carefully chosen with a lot of thought behind the name. Can we expect complaints in the near future about the Cleveland "Browns" too? Or maybe the USC "Trojans"? What about the Virginia Tech Hokies? How about the NC Tar Heels?    Good grief, give it a rest. 


You don't even know what the origin of the nickname Cleveland "Browns" is, or what "Browns" was intended to be named after.  Hint:  its not a reference to race.   Also, comparing "Tar Heels" and "Hokies", which are both not references to race, to "Redskins", which is a reference to a race of people, is also first-rate logic and convincing argument on your part.  [insert sarcastic look and rolling eyes here].  Good grief.

 Only a compelte moron would/could take a name given to a team... essentially a "Nickname"( look up the definition of nickname), and turn it into a debate about right & wrong. Jesus H Christ.... don't you people have better things to put your efforts to? I mean come on... you might actually be able to do something of consequence if you were to focus on something real vs trivial crap. How many Americans Indians are harmed by the Washington team being called "Redskins"? NONE!!!! Get a grip people. Holy fucksticks.... now y'all gave me a headache!


That "complete moron" Bob Costas did an interesting piece at halftime during the Sunday night game in which he basically said the term "Redskins" is different than other Indian nicknames like Chiefs and Warriors, and should be changed. 

This "complete moron" who happens to write for the New York Times did an interesting editorial in which she said the term "redskins" is never a compliment.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


The "complete morons" of the University of Miami of Ohio changed their mascot from "Redskins" to "Red Hawks" in 1998.

The "complete morons" of Stanford University changed from the "Indians" to the "Cardinals".

Those "complete moron" Ivy Leaguers up at Dartmouth College changed from the "Indians" to The Big Green.

The "complete morons" at St. John's in New York and UMass who dropped the term "Redmen" have already been mentioned, complete morons that they are. 

A lot of "complete morons" out there, ya know.  Once you start seenig how many there are you had better get yourself the Super Size of Tylenol for what I'm predicting will be a Super Size headache.

CatalinaMinx wrote:
Guppy ...are you even aware that after they were originally named the Boston Braves...they became the Washington Redskins after it was decided the team should be named after then coach, Lone Star Dietz, who was Native American. Gosh, I wonder if he was offended by that horribly racist name?


Probably not.  I think "Braves" is complimentary.  It brings to mind the image of a brave indian warrior.   But I think "Redskins", whose primary image is only one of skin color, is not.  The word "Redskins" is simply not complimentary.

I know change is a hard thing for some people.  Obviously. 

But change does happen.  Over time, attitudes eventually change.