Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Washington Warriors? Washington Wolves? Anyone?

Ugh, please no. I'm still not over the Bullets name change to the Wizards. Just awful for those of us who grew up here.

Really. Just awful, how do you endure such awfulness? It's way worse to have to endure the name change of your bullshit basketball team than to have to have your children hear a racial slur casually used? After all, casual racism is casual. And yeah, it's Black people who seem to be the ones who are most opposed to the name change--how ironic. There, I said it.

Not everyone interprets it as racist. Sounds like YOUR issue.

How can you not interpret it as racist. Redskins. The skin of Native Americans is, historically, of a reddish color. Negro, which morphed to N*gger, from the word negro or negre for black. A black skinned person. I just don't get how you can argue that it isn't racist. I get people saying they don't want the name to change. I disagree, but I hear that. But to say it isn't offensive and derogatory and racist, that's just ignorant.

It is all in how you use the word. Use it in a derogatory manner, then it is derogatory. Use it respectfully, and it is respectful. Describing one by their skin color is no more disrespectful than describing one by one's hair color (blondie, etc). The original intent of the word/mascot was not disrespectful.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Washington Warriors? Washington Wolves? Anyone?

Ugh, please no. I'm still not over the Bullets name change to the Wizards. Just awful for those of us who grew up here.

Really. Just awful, how do you endure such awfulness? It's way worse to have to endure the name change of your bullshit basketball team than to have to have your children hear a racial slur casually used? After all, casual racism is casual. And yeah, it's Black people who seem to be the ones who are most opposed to the name change--how ironic. There, I said it.

Not everyone interprets it as racist. Sounds like YOUR issue.

How can you not interpret it as racist. Redskins. The skin of Native Americans is, historically, of a reddish color. Negro, which morphed to N*gger, from the word negro or negre for black. A black skinned person. I just don't get how you can argue that it isn't racist. I get people saying they don't want the name to change. I disagree, but I hear that. But to say it isn't offensive and derogatory and racist, that's just ignorant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Washington Warriors? Washington Wolves? Anyone?

Ugh, please no. I'm still not over the Bullets name change to the Wizards. Just awful for those of us who grew up here.

Really. Just awful, how do you endure such awfulness? It's way worse to have to endure the name change of your bullshit basketball team than to have to have your children hear a racial slur casually used? After all, casual racism is casual. And yeah, it's Black people who seem to be the ones who are most opposed to the name change--how ironic. There, I said it.

Not everyone interprets it as racist. Sounds like YOUR issue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Washington Warriors? Washington Wolves? Anyone?

Ugh, please no. I'm still not over the Bullets name change to the Wizards. Just awful for those of us who grew up here.

Really. Just awful, how do you endure such awfulness? It's way worse to have to endure the name change of your bullshit basketball team than to have to have your children hear a racial slur casually used? After all, casual racism is casual. And yeah, it's Black people who seem to be the ones who are most opposed to the name change--how ironic. There, I said it.

Think Native Americans were trying to cancel the federal trademark for Redskins because it is offensive to the plaintiffs. If they win or have won and the mark has been cancelled, I think the mark owner would still have state rights to the mark. What they should do is get it cancelled everywhere, register the mark themselves and then charge a super high licensing fee for usage. That might get the team to change its name since that would mean hundreds of millions in fees for all the apparel, paraphernalia and tv appearances where the mark is shown.

Whoops, time=team.

If it ever changes, it will be to the Washington Warriors. Snyder has had the rights to that name for years, supposedly for an arena league time that has never materialized.

Anonymous wrote:Washington Warriors? Washington Wolves? Anyone?

Ugh, please no. I'm still not over the Bullets name change to the Wizards. Just awful for those of us who grew up here.

Washington Warriors? Washington Wolves? Anyone?

Anonymous wrote:Should we also rename the Browns, Indiands, Seminoles, Braves, Chiefs....

Who else?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sports_team_names_and_mascots_derived_from_indigenous_peoples#mw-mf-search

These names are not slurs ( the mascots are another story). The privilege on here is amazing. Even the Washington City Paper won't call them by their name http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2012/10/18/hail-to-the-pigskins/ and the NCAA has better sense http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_mascot_controversy

And under the logic of "there are other things to worry about" you can worry about more than one thing at a time.

Should we also rename the Browns, Indiands, Seminoles, Braves, Chiefs....

Who else?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sports_team_names_and_mascots_derived_from_indigenous_peoples#mw-mf-search

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is "redskin" offensive? Isn't it from the ritual face painting? Couldn't one argue that the name was given as a recognition of the Native American history in this country? Supposedly the head coach at the time of the team naming claimed to be of Sioux ancestry. Although the owner at the time (Marshall I think) WAS a well known racist...

Are you kidding me? Face painting? Seriously?

You can't be this dumb. No one can.

Then please, post a credible etymology of the word. Here is one take (from 2005 WaPo): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/02/AR2005100201139.html

just a sports team name to us...go 'skins!

Native American. And it doesn't bother me in the least.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is "redskin" offensive? Isn't it from the ritual face painting? Couldn't one argue that the name was given as a recognition of the Native American history in this country? Supposedly the head coach at the time of the team naming claimed to be of Sioux ancestry. Although the owner at the time (Marshall I think) WAS a well known racist...

Are you kidding me? Face painting? Seriously?

You can't be this dumb. No one can.

You haven't spent much time around here, have you?