General Discussion

Iggo

(48,160 posts)

34. Red. Skins.

Reply to CreekDog (Original post)

Wed Mar 26, 2014, 08:59 AM

Mar 2014

It's amazing thinking people keep asking this question.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

83 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Is the name "Washington Redskins" in any way insulting, derogatory or offensive? [View all] CreekDog Mar 2014 OP

That's a no-brainer. Smarmie Doofus Mar 2014 #1

If the name evokes prowess and courage, I think it's ok. Maedhros Mar 2014 #18

Chomsky has a view: I think the correct one: Whisp Mar 2014 #20

to whom and how? In my tiny home town we were the Sanford Redskins. we were little kids, dionysus Mar 2014 #2

The word "redskins" has always been derogratory... Jeff In Milwaukee Mar 2014 #5

i get it i, i just mean, growing up, we never saw or meant anything malicious by it. it's for the dionysus Mar 2014 #36

I have a guitar... Jeff In Milwaukee Mar 2014 #54

guitar polish. works wonders for sticker goo... dionysus Mar 2014 #70

This message was self-deleted by its author CFLDem Mar 2014 #53

Not sure where you're getting your information... Jeff In Milwaukee Mar 2014 #57

I stand corrected. CFLDem Mar 2014 #60

To the people mounting a campaign to get Snyder to change it? Recursion Mar 2014 #15

I thought we were the Peoples Front of Laconia?? SQUEE Mar 2014 #65

Of course it is, don't be stupid. flvegan Mar 2014 #3

derogatory terms are not "everything" CreekDog Mar 2014 #4

Milk is not "a chimney" flvegan Mar 2014 #6

have your say CreekDog Mar 2014 #7

True, but... pipi_k Mar 2014 #43

ALL human beings have breasts joeglow3 Mar 2014 #52

That's true, but... pipi_k Mar 2014 #58

I cannot imagine how my User Name, for example, could be offensive to anyone. Maedhros Mar 2014 #19

That's an interesting, subjective and unsupported allegation... LanternWaste Mar 2014 #76

Dan Snyder is never going to change the name, unless NFL forces him npk Mar 2014 #8

Well, Snyder is known for making sensible, well-thought-out decisions, right? Recursion Mar 2014 #14

Brownskins Blackskins otohara Mar 2014 #9

Exactly n/t. Feral Child Mar 2014 #32

Offensive? technotwit Mar 2014 #10

Let us think on it and plug in some alternatives in. TheKentuckian Mar 2014 #11

There wasn't this hand-wringing when the Bullets became the Wizards Recursion Mar 2014 #13

Nope, some folks just love to dig in and maintain as much nasty offense as possible. TheKentuckian Mar 2014 #82

I always wanted a "Fighting Whities" tee shirt.... MADem Mar 2014 #29

Did they have Fighting Whities tighty whities? pintobean Mar 2014 #39

I doubt it, but if they put them on the market, they'd sell out, I'm sure. nt MADem Mar 2014 #42

They could call the practice squad the diapers TheKentuckian Mar 2014 #83

Yup. Shadowflash Mar 2014 #80

Dan Snyder is more concerned with keeping an offensive mascot than recruiting an offensive line Recursion Mar 2014 #12

Cownboys tie-in: The Washington Steers KamaAina Mar 2014 #48

Suppose the name was Washington Rednecks... HooptieWagon Mar 2014 #16

Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 2014 #17

Just sayin' defacto7 Mar 2014 #21

That didn't sound like what I had heard, so I double checked. Behind the Aegis Mar 2014 #24

I think "Redskins" is offensive, though "Seminoles" is not eridani Mar 2014 #22

What does President Obama think? Aerows Mar 2014 #23

The day is young, but I'll nominate this for best response of 3-26-14. n/t Smarmie Doofus Mar 2014 #33

... bullwinkle428 Mar 2014 #46

Obama has weighed in, I'm surprised you missed it. CreekDog Mar 2014 #50

Oh, okay Aerows Mar 2014 #66

Dan Snyder has already admitted that the name of his NFL team Jenoch Mar 2014 #25

It certainly is to some. bluedigger Mar 2014 #26

. XemaSab Mar 2014 #27

+1 CreekDog Mar 2014 #40

I wish the Indians would do away with Chief Wahoo altogether ok_cpu Mar 2014 #55

Not in the slightest, if they'd only change their LOGO. MADem Mar 2014 #28

16% indian & i am and always was offended. pansypoo53219 Mar 2014 #30

"Redskin" has ALWAYS been derogatory Scootaloo Mar 2014 #31

Apparently, that's not so. Proud Public Servant Mar 2014 #64

Red. Skins. Iggo Mar 2014 #34

To some of course it is. To others it isn't. The dividing line is the question whatthehey Mar 2014 #35

majority of whom needs to be offended? Native Americans? CreekDog Mar 2014 #38

The former would make the most sense whatthehey Mar 2014 #49

I don't need to be NA to be pissed off at deragatory and racist terms for NA. Iggo Mar 2014 #61

I refer you to the first sentence of the post to which you are indirectly responding whatthehey Mar 2014 #63

I'm not saying it's offensive to Indians. I'm saying it's offensive to me. Iggo Mar 2014 #67

Fair enough, but would you not give more credibility to the intended target nonetheless? Why not? whatthehey Mar 2014 #69

Surprised it lasted this long nt treestar Mar 2014 #37

How much pipi_k Mar 2014 #41

This message was self-deleted by its author CreekDog Mar 2014 #44

why don't you do your own work? CreekDog Mar 2014 #45

This isn't something pipi_k Mar 2014 #62

you're more offended at being ASKED if the name is offensive CreekDog Mar 2014 #68

Is that all pipi_k Mar 2014 #72

you are more offended at simply being asked, it's obvious from this and a previous poll/thread CreekDog Mar 2014 #73

Again, being asked pipi_k Mar 2014 #77

You are offended at being asked, it's why you've complained about this poll and the previous one CreekDog Mar 2014 #78

It most certainly is! KamaAina Mar 2014 #47

Unless you're talking about potatoes, it's offensive. Orrex Mar 2014 #51

Yes, not because I find it offensive (my belief doesn't count) rock Mar 2014 #56

This message was self-deleted by its author Proud Public Servant Mar 2014 #59

Quite offensive. Glassunion Mar 2014 #71

I think there are bigger fish to fry. DefenseLawyer Mar 2014 #74

No shit...agree totally... pipi_k Mar 2014 #75

well you think they shouldn't be offended anyway CreekDog Mar 2014 #81

Yes-- it should been changed years ago nt ismnotwasm Mar 2014 #79