Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

The Redskins Commercial the NFL does not want us to see

nctarheel0619

By nctarheel0619,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

Matthias Proficient

Matthias

Posted
Posted

What I find even more unbelievable than people being "offended" by the name is people trying to defend keeping the name.  There's no question this name was used as a derogatory term.  Who really knows if it's actual origin was non-derogatory, I doubt it, but it has a derogatory past.  I'm surprised at the amount of people who keep saying "it's just a name get over it".  It's not just a name.  In all actuality, it would be more respectable if the team was named the Washington Black Men.  "Black man" is not derogatory, but it probably wouldn't take much at all to remove this type of name.  Yet a name with a derogatory past takes a political war to remove?  Come on people, why don't you do the right thing from the get go?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
imminent rogaine Proficient

imminent rogaine

Posted
Posted

Fairly effective video.

 

I am a registered member of the Creek (muscogee) tribe.  It might be a combination of my age(27) or the fact that I don't identify strongly with current native American culture, but I don't find the mascot name offensive. I understand that it is a slur but it is a slur that I've never actually heard anyone use toward natives. Also, I think that choosing something as a mascot highlights its ferocity and integrity...you don't pick something weak as your mascot. That said, I'd be way more offended if they paired the Redskin name with the Cleveland Indians logo. That logo seems more demeaning and belittling.

At the same time, current culture has set the precedent that if a certain demographic is upset by the use of a slur, then we make an effort to stop using it.

 

I don't think that any complainants against the name are looking for money but more likely looking for someone to pay attention to the plight of natives in terms of numbers and culture. Maybe getting the team to conceded would affirm Native American relevance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
imminent rogaine Proficient

imminent rogaine

Posted
Posted

 

would you call a native-american "redskin" to his face?

no?

good, change the name. sports team names should not be offensive to any reasonable percentage of a population.

 

I think you've hit on why it hasn't been changed. Since Native Americans don't make up that high of a percentage of the population, some think that Natives and their opinion/feelings don't matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mav1234 Grand Master

mav1234

Posted
Posted

so you're suggesting we change absolutely anything that offends people, no matter how insignificant the cry? lol

If 90% of native americans either support/are neutral on the name, they are disregarded? should we apply this to everything?

 

i dunno you tell me, you're the one that is apparently 100% okay with racial epithets being used and thinks such things are A-Okay as long as some percentage of people remains unoffended.

 

I don't think the crucial point here is "how many people" are offended by a racial slur, but the fact it's a racial slur at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mav1234 Grand Master

mav1234

Posted
Posted

Some people think there are no more Native Americans today.  That you'll only find them in history books.

 

some people are wrong, then, considering the genes and culture live on in many tribes.  while those tribes have undoubtedly changed, the ancestors of the people that were here prior to european settlement are most definitely still here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ricky Spanish Grand Master

Ricky Spanish

Posted
Posted

i dunno you tell me, you're the one that is apparently 100% okay with racial epithets being used and thinks such things are A-Okay as long as some percentage of people remains unoffended.

 

I don't think the crucial point here is "how many people" are offended by a racial slur, but the fact it's a racial slur at all. 

 

The main argument I have gathered from the Pro-Redskin side is they don't see Redskin as a slur and apparently numerous Native Americans don't either. That's honestly why I'm on the fence for the whole thing. If the Majority of Native Americans believe it to be a slur against their race, then hell yeah, change it, that's not cool. If they don't, then why is this a big deal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...