Rocky Landing

I believe that "thoroughly disproven" is an overstatement and misrepresentative of Goddard's work. Certainly, his statements regarding scalps are in dispute, but that represents a small portion of his study, which includes well researched, and documented evidence of his history of the word. Be that as it may, by Goddard's account, regardless of the word's origin, the term had become disparaging by the early 1800s at the latest- predating the naming of the team by over 100 years. It should also be understood that Redskin press releases have often been knowingly misleading regarding the origin of the team's name, as well as the attitudes of George Preston Marshall, and supposed support from Native American communities. In my mind, lying about your own organization's history in an attempt to seize some moral high ground excludes you from that high ground.

Everyone knows our D is good, and from all accounts, improved from last season. So, for this team, I'd feel pretty good if the offense were winning.

Well, clearly that depends on what offends thee: racial slurs, or political correctness?

That's an interesting poll. I just checked it out on the ESPN site. It certainly doesn't change my mind in the slightest, though. I have no desire to jump on that bandwagon.

Oh, Kellyto83TD, you're always good for a laugh!

Conspiracy!!!

Judging from past Washington Skins' press releases on the subject of their name, I wouldn't assume they are definitive.

Care to make a wager on that?

Are you really trying to bait me into drawing a false comparison to the N-word by drawing your own false comparison to the N-word? I expect more from you.

Who says I'm protesting anything? We're debating here. And, if there was a team called the Hoboken Ni**ers, with a long history of "honoring African Americans," we'd probably be in agreement that it should be changed.

This has been an argument against a name change: are there enough Native Americans offended to warrant a name change, and how many is enough? Well, the National Congress of American Indians is, by far, the largest, oldest, and most recognized Native American organization there is. Their membership includes several hundred tribes. If they can't represent Native American issues, then who, on God's green earth, can? Here's a link to their website, for anyone who cares: http://www.ncai.org

I would have agreed with you, until I saw that this ad was appearing on prime time during an NBA final. I'm not sure if they aired the entire two minute spot (that's a long commercial!) or if was paired down to a minute, or 30 seconds, but regardless, the NCAI spent a significant amount of money. I doubt they're going to back off.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/letter-from-red-cloud-indian-school-on-the-washington-redskins-name/2013/10/11/e24044ba-32bc-11e3-8627-c5d7de0a046b_story.html

But, $10.50 for onion rings???

Wow. This thread immediately evolved into an SJ dog pile.

That bill contained a total of 26 Remy Martins (including 14 doubles), 4 Crown Royals, 17 kamikazes, 4 rum runners, 5 old fashioned, 21 assorted bottles of cabernet, and ONE ICED TEA.

He has always struck me as a player whose performance would swing wildly according to his motivation. Maybe that's a polite way of saying that he isn't always professional? But, certainly, during his last season here, he wasn't playing with 100% effort. Beast Mode appeared with a winning season. For a guy like that, retiring after after a Super Bowl win might make sense. For him, the rest of his career would feel "down hill."

Fair enough, and a good starting point. I believe that if the Native American community were to effectively argue that the term, while having a benign origin, is nonetheless rooted in racism, negative stereotyping, and even genocide, that a name change would rise above the level of mere political correctness. I do believe that is the underlying point behind the NCAI ad.

If you're going to cut-and-paste from another website, you should at least use quotations. Be that as it may, there is a distinct level of intellectual dishonesty in your sources. I won't get onto your first post, because all of the points, including the spurious stats, have been covered in the previous pages. But this particular cut-and-paste (taken directly from a Dan Snyder press release) is an especially interesting one. For example, it neglects to mention that the late coach George Allen created the Red Cloud Athletic Fund. It also neglects to mention that the primary beneficiary of the fund, the Red Cloud Indian School, has denounced the name "Redskins," and (according to a letter they wrote to the Washington Post), has accused Snyder of misrepresenting their role in developing the logo. I love debate. I truly do. And, I despise plagiarism. Mindlessly cutting and pasting off a biased website and passing it off as your own debate makes my blood boil.

Maybe you should read through the last nine pages of this debate...

I asked this question of another poster (who was unwilling to answer), who seemed to hold a similar view in this debate: What level of negative connotation would "redskin" have to possess before a name change became a question of common decency, and not of political correctness?

I keep changing my mind, too. Still surprised that Houston is winning the worst poll.

What I have maintained, is that the origin of the word was not a slur. The history of the word, in context, has been a slur for the last 200 years. If the Redskins Organization wants to say that it is a term of honor, they do so in contrast to history, as well as the several hundred Native American tribes represented by the National Congress of American Indians. That's the way I see it. I've always felt that history should be embraced, and acknowledged. It's just my perspective. This country has been responsible for some of the greatest accomplishments in the world. We have also been responsible for some travesties. I believe that to deny the latter does a disservice to the former.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/1933-news-article-refutes-cherished-tale-that-redskins-were-named-to-honor-indian-coach/2014/05/28/19ad32e8-e698-11e3-afc6-a1dd9407abcf_story.html A quote from George Preston Marshall, himself, in an interview from July 6th, 1933: “The fact that we have in our head coach, Lone Star Dietz, an Indian, together with several Indian players, has not, as may be suspected, inspired me to select the name Redskins.” The original term was one of respect over 200 years ago. It has been a derogatory term for 200 years since. In 1933, it referred to the negative stereotype of the Native American as an uncivilized, violent savage. I don't suspect that Snyder, himself, is actively disrespecting Native Americans. I suspect he does't really care. His words, and actions, IMO, would support that theory. But, the one thing that supporters of the name seem to have in common, is that they don't want to acknowledge the actual history of the word, or the history of genocide endured by Native Americans. As I have said before, it depends on which side of history you choose to stand. You can either acknowledge history, or ignore it.

I brought up the Hollywood stereotype because that was the connotation the name had when the team was named, in 1933. I think it's an important historical context to this discussion, because so many have pointed to the team name's origin as if it had been done out of respect. In 1933, Native Americans had no national voice, and were viewed largely as that negative stereotype, as evidenced by the overwhelming depiction in media from that time as uncivilized, savage, and violent. The only way Snyder could educate people to the favorability of the name would be for him to rewrite history (which, sadly, some people seem more than willing to do). I think this does a disservice to all parties involved.