Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

What should the Washington Redskins change their name to?

page: 9
21
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 07:24 AM
link   
the Frogs

they're used to getting pushed around...




posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 08:35 AM
link   
a reply to: dukeofjive696969

Uhhhhhhhhhh. . . it was the Native Americans who did the scalping.



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 03:52 PM
link   
it should be the Washington Redskins, and people should quit being so ignorant.



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer The washington sunbaked epidermal layers



posted on Jun, 21 2014 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

They should add a hyphen, and change it to the Washington Red-Skins.



posted on Jun, 21 2014 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick




The washington sunbaked epidermal layers


Lol, clever...



posted on Jun, 21 2014 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer
The Washington Redskins!



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 01:19 AM
link   
They should keep the name the same, but if they have to change it, might as well be the Washington Cronies.



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

The NFL should move out of D.C. and keep the name. These jackwads in D.C. have a lot more pressing things to deal with.

Washington Turncoats would be propper!! Or Washington inmates lol. Soon to be in a jail or the ground I hope.



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Since most of the players are probably black, the team should be renamed The Washington LynchedNiggers. It's part of their heritage, after all, so they should be proud to be called that.



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

it should be ........"Washington Redskins" without the "THE" in the beginning.

or

the Redskins of Washington

or

Washingtonian Redskins

or they should just stop with the BS already.

Unless a large majority of native americans from Washington have a problem with it they should just leave it alone.

edit on 6 22 2014 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

I kind of like the Washington Lobbyists.

1. The team is owned by millionaires (like the govt).
2. They make ungodly money.
3. They run around for a living.



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 12:25 AM
link   
Washington Red Clouds. The name still honors the natives, and the fight song still works with only a minor change.



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 12:48 AM
link   
a reply to: beezzer
Pay the fee to the WWF and call it NEW WORLD ORDER!



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 02:26 PM
link   
National Redskins...
"Washington" is an insult....from a quarter Cherokee boy.



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 10:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Bone75, Buster2010, and Kali74, I suppose.

Dear ladies and gentlemen,

I saw an article in The Daily Caller that made me think that an attempt is beginning to fight back against stupidity and error. That encouraged me greatly. There might even be a way to bring that idea to ATS. It will be a challenge, of course, one might say monumental, but it is worth trying.

I'll get to that article in a new thread, unless someone has already posted it, but for now let's look at the non sequitur which keeps popping up in this thread.

Would you call them the Nazis? How about the Noosemakers? How about the abortionists? Or any of the other misdirected examples. If those questions have been thought about, it shows that the people behind them are racist and hate Indians.

Why? Noosemakers, Nazis, Death Camp, or Gas Chamber, all indicate the group did unspeakably horrible things. By comparing the Redskins to the Nazis, the claim is being made that the Redskins did unspeakably horrible things. Nobody is saying that the Redskins are doing terrible things, the only people who seem to take that position are those coming off with this strange comparison.

If you had asked me I would be offended by calling them "The murdering savages," of course I would. But note well. I said I would be offended. Just offended.

Show me that, before the last 6 months, either the American people, or the subset of Indians, were offended by the name. Not the number of leadership groups. The percentage of people. Show me that it was 51%. Heck, show me honest figures saying that 1/3 of either group thought the team should change it's name because it was offensive. You can't. Try for 1/4?

We're dealing with manufactured outrage for two reasons. One, if society thinks you're a victim, you can try for special bonuses (maybe even some cash). Notice that about 1/3 of America is white male (36%). Take away the youth, the Gays, Muslims, and any other group that is a victim and we have, what 4 victims for every one victimizer? Keep this up and everybody will be a victim making claims on everybody else. Ooops! I forgot the poor, they're victims. I haven't run the stats, but it looks like 90% of the country are victims.

Secondly, it is both a convenient distraction and a way to reintroduce the word "Racism" into the national discussion. People have given up defending Obama on the grounds that attacks on him are "Racist." If this keeps up we'll be a people who aren't sweating over race any more. That would put Sharpton, Farrakhan, in short, the whole racism industry out of work and they'd have to find jobs writing for The New York Times, or hosting on MSNBC.

Yes, Love is absolutely essential. I will not change my signature. But, you can not love based on lies.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 11:02 AM
link   
The whole thing is just ridiculous.

The Washington Black, White, and Red all over Skins.



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: charles1952


Why? Noosemakers, Nazis, Death Camp, or Gas Chamber, all indicate the group did unspeakably horrible things. By comparing the Redskins to the Nazis, the claim is being made that the Redskins did unspeakably horrible things. Nobody is saying that the Redskins are doing terrible things, the only people who seem to take that position are those coming off with this strange comparison.


You're right Charles. Those are not good examples. A better example would be the one I suggested a few posts above. That example includes a racial slur that is obvious, and implies victims whom had something unspeakable done to them.

If you don't like that example, how about another word used to describe black people during the slave era - "darkies". During that time, the term darkie was just slang for a darker skin person. Even blacks used it during those days. It wasn't considered derogatory in and of itself. But, try calling a black person that now. Why would a term that simply means dark skin person be considered offensive? Probably because it harkens back to a time when blacks were not thought of as equals.



Show me that, before the last 6 months, either the American people, or the subset of Indians, were offended by the name. Not the number of leadership groups. The percentage of people. Show me that it was 51%. Heck, show me honest figures saying that 1/3 of either group thought the team should change it's name because it was offensive. You can't. Try for 1/4?


Try calling one of the indigenous people of America (someone you don't know very well) a "redskin", and see their reaction. I dare you. Don't ask them if the name of the Washington team bothers them. Just call them that in passing. I'd be willing to bet they wouldn't like it too much. Heck, you'd probably be uncomfortable calling them that. If you'd be uncomfortable, imagine how they'd feel.



We're dealing with manufactured outrage for two reasons. One, if society thinks you're a victim, you can try for special bonuses (maybe even some cash). Notice that about 1/3 of America is white male (36%). Take away the youth, the Gays, Muslims, and any other group that is a victim and we have, what 4 victims for every one victimizer? Keep this up and everybody will be a victim making claims on everybody else. Ooops! I forgot the poor, they're victims. I haven't run the stats, but it looks like 90% of the country are victims.

Secondly, it is both a convenient distraction and a way to reintroduce the word "Racism" into the national discussion. People have given up defending Obama on the grounds that attacks on him are "Racist." If this keeps up we'll be a people who aren't sweating over race any more. That would put Sharpton, Farrakhan, in short, the whole racism industry out of work and they'd have to find jobs writing for The New York Times, or hosting on MSNBC.


These are some pretty inadequate arguments, and you know it. Are there bigger problems in this country than the name of a football team? You bet. The thing is, this shouldn't even be a debate today. I understand having the name Redskins in 1933. It was a different time when all kinds of slurs were used on a regular basis, without too much guilt or thought put into it. But 1964 is the time when we started thinking about the effects of some of those slurs. That's when the term "Redskins" should have gone away, but the indigenous people just weren't loud enough, I guess.

Bottom line: if you would be uncomfortable calling a stranger a specific slang term to their face, it's probably not a good idea to name a team after that term.





new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join