The team is being celebrated through the vessel of the mascot, which is a slur. The reason Native American figures are commodified into mascots is because of the racist assumptions people make about those figures' savagery and fierceness. There's no point in calling a team the Redskins if it doesn't celebrate that sense of savagery.
Redskin will always be made up of two words that have immutable meanings--the notion that you can simply wipe away the historical roots of the word is just silly.
This used to be their theme song:
Hail to the Redskins! Hail, victory!
Braves on the warpath!
Fight for Old D.C.!
Scalp 'em, swamp 'um
We will take 'um big score
Read 'um, Weep 'um, touchdown
We want heap more
Fight on, fight on, till you have won
Sons of Washington
Rah! Rah! Rah!
Do we really still need to discuss whether the name was rooted in racism and a lack of empathy for mocking Native Americans?
I don't know how you can admit to the problem with the iconography of the logo and not see the problem with the name. The symbolic weight of each is the same. Again, it's not like Redskin is some nonsense word, that only acts as a slur, the name is offensive because it refers to a person literally by the color of their pelt.
Nope, the internets doesn't filter the word out.
Maybe in N. Korea it would.
Because the word only gains a racial connotation with the association to a misrepresentation of an American Indian. if you showed a child a Redskin football player with the term Redskin on their jersey but no image of an American Indian the child would, i assume, conclude that they are named that because their jersey is red. The term itself can only be considered offensive when represented with a misrepresentation of an American Indian. Otherwise it could refer to somebody blushing, or angry, or too warm.
Skol Vikings, let's win this game,
Skol Vikings, honor your name,
Go get that first down,
Then get a touchdown.
Rock 'em . . . Sock 'em
Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight!
Go Vikings, run up the score,
You'll hear us yell for more. . .
Skol, Vikings, let's go!
What do they have in common? They both cheer the team to fight, they both focus on scoring touchdowns, they both praise the team (Hail Redskins, Skol Vikings), So you're issue is with the word scalp. I would classify the use of that word as a stereotype but not as racist. I'd also like to address again that I don't dispute the roots of the word. I believe that people vastly associate the word with a football team, not a race of people. Therefore, the definition of the word has undergone/is undergoing a dramatic change and the issue lies not in the word but in the association to an incorrect image. The image should be the target, not the word.
What the fight songs have in common is that they are fight songs, what they don't have in common is relying on racially charged phrases and images to rally that fight. The second and fourth lines of the Redskins depicts the very savagery that people find demeaning.
If the Vikings fight song had a line about force-feeding someone with lutefisk or raping and pillaging the villages of Greenland, you might actually have a point.
I see no good reason for preserving the image or the word. Without the image, the word seems meaningless and therefore not a good team nickname. It seems to me that a clean slate makes the most sense.
I appreciate how everyone has been following TD policy in this thread.
In response to Glunn, the benefit in retaining the word after the severing of connection to the image is monetary. There is a considerable amount of merchandise in circulation which has the word Redskins on it with no logo which would remain valid.
If you think the only issue with that song is "scalp" then you need to brush up on your Native American stereotypes. It's rife with more.
Its ample evidence of the utter indifference to mockery the whole concept is. We should want to be better than that.
That was an unnecessary shot as well regarding the price tag. I've stated before that I will not be remorse if the name is changed. Glunn wanted a reason and I offered a financial incentive. You cannot argue that it woudn't be a financial incentive which means your basis is on the morals which we were arguing already anyway.
Actually, I'm going to put an end to my part in this argument and ask the most basic question possible. Do you feel that the term Redskins still calls to mind the image of American Indians for people? My entire argument is based on that I don't feel that it does anymore. If people are in agreement that Redskins is still associated with American Indians and not the football team in their mind then I recant my argument and agree that the name should be changed.
We thought Africans so physically impressive we enslaved them and worked them to death. Want to rename any teams the "Negros"? Your position is getting less and less rational with every post.Quote:
How would it be mocking to name a team after a group of people who were considered physically elite?
Not at all. Financial windfalls shouldn't even be a consideration. It's insulting and shows just how trivial you treat the issue that you equate human dignity with price tags.Quote:
That was an unnecessary shot as well regarding the price tag.
How many people does it take to be offended by the nickname and how many people does it take to associate the nickname to American Indians for you to change your mind? Because there's plenty of people in both categories.