Washington Redskins Urged to Change Team Name

[Rich]

According to Wikipedia, this is the reason Joe Louis was called the Brown Bomber:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Louis

 

 

 

With the backing of major promotion, Louis fought thirteen times in 1935. The bout that helped put him in the media spotlight occurred on June 25, when Louis knocked out 6'6", 265-pound former World Heavyweight Champion Primo Carnera in six rounds. Foreshadowing the Louis-Schmeling rivalry to come, the Carnera bout featured a political dimension. Louis' victory over Carnera, who symbolized Benito Mussolini's regime in the popular eye, was seen as a victory for the international community, particularly among African Americans, who were sympathetic to Ethiopia, which was attempting to maintain its independence by fending off an invasion by fascist Italy.^[26][27][28] America's white press began promoting Louis' image in the context of the era's racism; nicknames they created included the "Mahogany Mauler", "Chocolate Chopper", "Coffee-Colored KO King", "Safari Sandman", and one that stuck: "The Brown Bomber".^[28][29]

 

I'm mixed on the Redskins name.  Is it racist?  Probably, however it doesn't conjure images of racism in my mind when I hear it.  It conjures images of a football team.  Not sure how native americans feel about it.  How long, or is it much of a stretch that this gets extended to the Bombers, who are essentially named after a racial slur on Joe Louis?   What about the Eskimos?  

[iso_55]

UP, I'm throwing out an olive branch here. There is no need for us to go at it negatively on every thread we're on. I can discuss things with you without it getting personal. Can we at least try to get along? 

[The Unknown Poster]

UP, I'm throwing out an olive branch here. There is no need for us to go at it negatively on every thread we're on. I can discuss things with you without it getting personal. Can we at least try to get along?

Absolutely. It's never personal. I get feisty but it's all in the spirit of debate. I'm sorry if I crossed he line.

[iso_55]

MBRG, my contention is this is not so much about racism & I side with Rich on this. The name Redskins to me isn't about looking at aboriginals negatively. I agree that when you think about it, it's not a great name. It's actually a very bad name. If you change the name of the Redskins to something else, then every name in sports that offend people will need to be changed as well because there'll always be someone or some organization that is upset or offended.

Like the Eskimos, Braves, Blackhawks, Fighting Irish, Seminoles, etc. They'll have to be changed. What if someone in Vancouver takes offense to the name Clansmen from Simon Fraser because they say it links the name to the KKK? Maybe someone gets offended when we use military nicknames like Warriors or Blue Bombers (named after a military plane, not Joe Louis) because they may find warfare offensive? What about animal names? Maybe PETA or some other group finds naming teams after animals offensive & will lobby to change names of teams who have them. I can go on & on. To me, it's about political correctness & trying to make everybody happy which is impossible to do. I do think the name Redskins is terrible & obviously came from a much different era than today but I'm not for changing it. If anything, I'd be for changing it just because it is a horrible & ugly name just on its own.

[The Unknown Poster]

Browns is a racist slur for East Indian people? Is that actually true? The only time I've ever heard a person of East or Mid East ethnicity referred to as "brown" is when they refer to themselves that way. I would legit be surprised to learn brown is a slur

Either way the word brown is not a slur. It's a colour. Does crayola have to change the name of their brown crayon?

Also "Indian" is not universally considered a slur. I'm open to that debate though.

But if your argument Brandon, is that other slurs exist so we should allow this slur to stand, I can't buy that.

[Rich]

MBRG, my contention is this is not so much about racism & I side with Rich on this. The name Redskins to me isn't about looking at aboriginals negatively. I agree that when you think about it, it's not a great name. It's actually a very bad name. If you change the name of the Redskins to something else, then every name in sports that offend people will need to be changed as well because there'll always be someone or some organization that is upset or offended.

Like the Eskimos, Braves, Blackhawks, Fighting Irish, Seminoles, etc. They'll have to be changed. What if someone in Vancouver takes offense to the name Clansmen from Simon Fraser because they say it links the name to the KKK? Maybe someone gets offended when we use military nicknames like Warriors or Blue Bombers (named after a military plane, not Joe Louis) because they may find warfare offensive? What about animal names? Maybe PETA or some other group finds naming teams after animals offensive & will lobby to change names of teams who have them. I can go on & on. To me, it's about political correctness & trying to make everybody happy which is impossible to do. I do think the name Redskins is terrible & obviously came from a much different era than today but I'm not for changing it. If anything, I'd be for changing it just because it is a horrible & ugly name just on its own.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnipeg_Blue_Bombers

 

 

 

In 1936, during a game against the University of North Dakota, Winnipeg Tribune sports writer Vince Leah remarked "these are the Blue Bombers of Western football". This phrase was referring to then heavyweight champion Joe Louis, known as the Brown Bomber. From that day forward the team has been known as the Winnipeg Blue Bombers. In that same year, the Blue Bombers, Calgary Bronks and Regina Roughriders formed the Western Interprovincial Football Union as the highest level of play in Western Canada.

 

 

http://www.cflapedia.com/teams/winnipeg.html

 

 

 

1936 sw the first use of the term Blue Bombers.  Credit for that goes  to Vince Leah, a writer for the Winnipeg Tribune. During a 1936 exibition game against the University of North Dakota, Leah called the Winnipeg team Blue Bombers in comparing them to the then heavy weight boxing chamption Joe Louis, who had the nickname "The Brown Bomber".  The name caught on and was officially adopted by the team in 1937.

[iso_55]

I've always thought the Bombers were named after a military plane so thanks for that Rich. Anyway, I think you get the gist of my point, though. 

[The Unknown Poster]

Were those names racist or racial. There's a different. The Italian Stallion is racial. Not racist

We had a basketball coach called chocolate thunder did we not? Something is racist if the overwhelming use is racially derogatory. I'm not sure Brown Bomber qualifies but I can't speak to whether Joe Louis was offended.

Redskins has no positive connotation.

[iso_55]

No, redskins is definetly not a positive but how can you change a name that is so integral with the history of the NFL going back to nearly it's beginning?

[Brandon]

Browns is a racist slur for East Indian people? Is that actually true? The only time I've ever heard a person of East or Mid East ethnicity referred to as "brown" is when they refer to themselves that way. I would legit be surprised to learn brown is a slur

Either way the word brown is not a slur. It's a colour. Does crayola have to change the name of their brown crayon?

Also "Indian" is not universally considered a slur. I'm open to that debate though.

But if your argument Brandon, is that other slurs exist so we should allow this slur to stand, I can't buy that.

And black people drop N bombs ALL the time it still doesn't mean it is not racist.

Yes Brown is a racial slur.

Redskin isn't universally a racial slur most people associate that with football.

My point was that if you change one name that isn't even racist then you should be changing them all.

You can't pick and choose.

[iso_55]

The Browns were named after Paul Brown. Not after Muslims or Indians (India). This is a great example of how ridiculous it could get if one team changes its name with people thinking the names Browns is racist when it's clearly not. If Paul Brown's last name was Green, they'd be the Greens. 

[mbrg]

MBRG, my contention is this is not so much about racism & I side with Rich on this. The name Redskins to me isn't about looking at aboriginals negatively. I agree that when you think about it, it's not a great name. It's actually a very bad name. If you change the name of the Redskins to something else, then every name in sports that offend people will need to be changed as well because there'll always be someone or some organization that is upset or offended.

Like the Eskimos, Braves, Blackhawks, Fighting Irish, Seminoles, etc. They'll have to be changed. What if someone in Vancouver takes offense to the name Clansmen from Simon Fraser because they say it links the name to the KKK? Maybe someone gets offended when we use military nicknames like Warriors or Blue Bombers (named after a military plane, not Joe Louis) because they may find warfare offensive? What about animal names? Maybe PETA or some other group finds naming teams after animals offensive & will lobby to change names of teams who have them. I can go on & on. To me, it's about political correctness & trying to make everybody happy which is impossible to do. I do think the name Redskins is terrible & obviously came from a much different era than today but I'm not for changing it. If anything, I'd be for changing it just because it is a horrible & ugly name just on its own.

I really don't care if they change the name or not.  It's ugly but the world is full of ugly.  If I'm making a checklist of things to change I doubt this ends up on it.  As for the arguement of where do you stop, who knows, but when it's this easy and obvious to figure out where to start...

 

As for your examples I suppose they would each be taken individually.  Context is the key.  Redskins is simply a derogatory name for native people.  It has no other context or definition in the english language, other than the football team that decided to name itself after that same derogatory word.  The Seminoles on the other hand are a tribe native to Florida.  If Seminole translated to "smelly jerks" and these people were given that name by Columbus and were really pissed off about it, that would be a different matter.  It is simply their name.  My understanding (and lord knows that doesn't count for much) is that Florida State has a good relationship with the Seminole people and they are fine with it.  The Fighting Irish (I hope they never win another game) has always been intended as a positive attribute, not negative.  Blackhawks is a tribe and the name is used by countless sports teams.  I'm sure they don't have relations with most of those teams.  The NHL team?  Who knows.  Not every tribe will get it's shorts in a knot over this kind of thing.

 

The Fighting Sioux is far more interesting to me.  I believe they intended the name in a mainly positive light and the "Fighting" aspect doesn't seem to be at issue, but whether or not the Sioux people are offended by the word Sioux is a different matter.  It's one of these words that has multiple origin stories, at least one of which is negative - that Sioux is a derogatory word used by a different tribe.  I know the people closest to here refer to themselves as Lakota, but do they get mad when someone calls them Sioux?  I have no idea.

 

Context is the only rule of thumb that is of any use.  The context of Washington's team is only negative and insulting.  There is no second choice or reasonable doubt.  At some point spending all our time apoligizing for hundreds of years of colonialism is a waste of everyone's time.  History unfolded the way it did.  But I also won't pretend that one of the NFL's 32 franchises has something other than a racial slur as a name.

 

And the Cleveland Indians have the most racist looking mascot in sports.  Just phase that thing out already.

[mbrg]

 

Brown is a racial name for east Indian people.

Fighting Irish is also a pretty harsh name that should be changed.

The Cleveland Indians not only have a racist logo, they aren't even depicting the correct people. It should be The Cleveland Natives.

Tonnes of teams can be looked at and scrutinized.

 

 

...and Doug Brown is a massive racist for not changing his name.

 

You can't remove the context.  The context is the whole point.

 

Redskins didn't exist as a term before it was invented as an insult.

 

I'm sure there are corners of the internet where people call some race "browns" to insult them.  I can assure you with absolutely no doubt at all that Cleveland's football team isn't a reference to this.

 

I can also assure you that a quick look at the logo on the side of Washington's helmets will remove any doubt that there is a second definition to "Redskins" that we're missing.

 

I find this all quite interesting and am enjoying digging thru word origins but you went very opposite day with your examples.

[The Unknown Poster]

"Brown" is not a racial slur

I have a brown shirt. That's not a racist statement.

My car is brown. That's not a racist statement

And to be honest, I've heard brown used to describe a person in the same way we'd use black or white and it was never derogatory.

So Ofcourse you can pick and choose. You pick the racist names to change. You choose not to change non racist names.

Redskins might have a long history but there are many examples of franchise name changes. Maybe not of teams as old as Washington but I don't see how it negatively impacts the nfl to lose a name whose tradition is racist.

[The Unknown Poster]

To be fair, I stumbled across a magazine devoted to Aboriginal issues (well it seems to proudly "showcase Aboriginal women in their semi-nude glory") called Redskin Magazine. 

[Brandon]

Redskins isn't racist to everyone though.

I find the Cleveland Indians logo to be extremely racist should that not also be changed?

Who is to say what is racist and what is not?

[The Unknown Poster]

Redskins isn't racist to everyone though.

I find the Cleveland Indians logo to be extremely racist should that not also be changed?

Who is to say what is racist and what is not?

 

I think the answer is a mix of common sense (we all know the N-word is racist even though it's used often) and taking into consideration input from the people impacted.  In the case of the Redskins, as someone else pointed out, the word has no other meaning other than as a derogatory remark.  Even going back a few hundred years, its usuage at its best was to refer to different ethinicites (ie. white skins and red skins).  And there are several Native American groups opposed to the name.

 

I pointed out the magazine to be fair since no one else had but to be honest I am disappointed they chose that name.  But what can you do.  Someone on their blog compared it to black people using the N word..."taking it back".  Why take back a racial slur?

 

Indians logo *is* offensive, I agree.  Im not sure the name is... but the logo is offensive.

[mbrg]

Loooooooooooooooooooong gone are the days when I engage in back and forth arguements on discussion boards.  If i've explained my opinion on something clearly and you feel no compulsion to change yours, even when moving into areas that are more factual than opinion based, oh well.  Prepare shoulders for shrugging annnnnd.....engage.  Now back to life.

[iso_55]

Loooooooooooooooooooong gone are the days when I engage in back and forth arguements on discussion boards.  If i've explained my opinion on something clearly and you feel no compulsion to change yours, even when moving into areas that are more factual than opinion based, oh well.  Prepare shoulders for shrugging annnnnd.....engage.  Now back to life.

[Brandon]

I've never heard the Redskins referred as the R word and its never bleeped out on TV.

Its not a bad word in 2014. People have to much time... Fighting Irish is way more offensive they should focus on that

[Goalie]

"Redskin" is a racial descriptor of disputed origin for Native Americans. Although by some accounts not originally having negative intent, the term is defined in current dictionaries of American English as "usually offensive","disparaging", "insulting", "taboo" ^] and is avoided in public usage with the exception of its continued use as a name for sports teams.

 

Some sports history here with the name "redskin"

 

 

• The University of Utah Redskins became the Utah Utes in 1972.
• The Miami University (of Ohio) Redskins became the RedHawks in 1997.
• The Southern Nazarene University Redskins became the Crimson Storm in 1998.

 

Wanna pretend it's not racist anymore? the darn dictionary basically defines it as being racist.. it basically says redskins is to native americans what the n word is to blacks. If the n word is racist, then so is redskin.

 

You know why you dont hear the word "redskins" any more as it relates to native americans? because it is indeed racist. Only racists use the word. It's pretty straight forward though, however a couple of fun facts.. there is a town in oklahoma, I cant remember the name, but it exits and its population is 41 percent native american, they have a theatre there called, wait for it... "the redskin theatre". In a town where 41 percent of the population is indeed native american. Makes you wonder at times actually if it is racist.... or if its just bitching for the sake of bitching.

 

I know its wikipedia but look up the term "redskin". Look at the definition in the dictionary, whether one or 2 people here dont want to believe its racist, society says it is.

[mbrg]

Fighting Irish is way more offensive they should focus on that

For the sake of discussion, because this has been interesting, I'll ask: how do you figure?

 

The student population used to have a lot of Irish decendents, I have no idea what ratio they make of the student body these days.  I'm guessing Golden Tate isn't purely Irish.

 

I'm reasonably confident that "fighting" is meant as resilient, as in to not give up.  Not fighting as in "these drunk irishmen constantly fight and should be sent back to potatoland and are of no use to society".  But have at er.  Your opinion is your opinion, I'm curious how you formed it.

[Brandon]

Its a deprecated term its not racist in 2014.

N bombs are bleeped on TV, Redskins is not.

Google search image Redskins and you will see a tonne of NFL logos.

Google search N***** and you will see tonnes of racist images.

Stop trying so hard. Redskins means football in 2014 its not racist at all.

New Jersey Devils has a horrible offensive name for religious folks so should they not change the name?

Redskins is far from thee worst team name. You would have to change dozens of names before that one.

[sweep the leg]

Edit: Deleted my post. I know better than to respond to Brandon in a topic like this.

[Rich]

Its a deprecated term its not racist in 2014.

N bombs are bleeped on TV, Redskins is not.

Google search image Redskins and you will see a tonne of NFL logos.

Google search N***** and you will see tonnes of racist images.

Stop trying so hard. Redskins means football in 2014 its not racist at all.

New Jersey Devils has a horrible offensive name for religious folks so should they not change the name?

Redskins is far from thee worst team name. You would have to change dozens of names before that one.

 

 

Just curious, by this rational if everyone stopped using the N word tomorrow, then in 20 years a pro sports team started up and called themselves that you would have no problem with it because it is a deprecated term?