Should the Washington Redskins change their name?

[Хahar 🤔]

Even recently, the Browns fired our only African American Quarterback Jason Campbell while they kept Brian Hoyer, a white, who sat at home and lounged off of compensation for most of the season.

Yes, because Brian Hoyer suffered an injury on the job that made him unable to work. That's the whole point of worker's compensation.

[Napoleon]

Maybe our beloved Senators could hush up about an NFL team's name and worry more about the federal government honoring Andrew Jackson by placing him on our national currency. What a joke.

[SWE]

Maybe our beloved Senators could hush up about an NFL team's name and worry more about the federal government honoring Andrew Jackson by placing him on our national currency. What a joke.

Particularly hilarious because Jackson himself opposed the idea of paper money

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Maybe our beloved Senators could hush up about an NFL team's name and worry more about the federal government honoring Andrew Jackson by placing him on our national currency. What a joke.

Particularly hilarious because Jackson himself opposed the idea of paper money

Not quite, but he did think that since there were coins for denominations ranging from ½¢ to $10 that the smallest banknote should be a $20 bill.  So if he is to be on our money, there is no better denomination for him to be on than the one he is on.

(The $20 double eagle was not minted until a few years after Jackson died.)

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

To all the yes voters, what alternative name should they use?

[Comrade Funk]

They don't need to be forced to do anything. I really don't care either way.

[publicunofficial]

To all the yes voters, what alternative name should they use?

"Washington Monuments" has a cool ring to it.

[7,052,770]

To all the yes voters, what alternative name should they use?

Just about anything. "Washington Warriors" has a nice ring to it and they could keep using tasteful Native American imagery.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

To all the yes voters, what alternative name should they use?

Just about anything. "Washington Warriors" has a nice ring to it and they could keep using tasteful Native American imagery.

The people pushing for a name change generally deny that there is such a thing as tasteful Indian imagery when it comes to sports mascots.

[Cincinnatus]

They should move to Buffalo and call themselves the Buffalo Nickels.

One awful team is plenty, thanks.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Warriors would be pretty good actually. That was what the local high school on the Reservation where I initially grew up called their sports teams.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

To all the yes voters, what alternative name should they use?

Just about anything. "Washington Warriors" has a nice ring to it and they could keep using tasteful Native American imagery.

The people pushing for a name change generally deny that there is such a thing as tasteful Indian imagery when it comes to sports mascots.

There's certainly such a thing as 'less tasteless [than, by implication, the Cleveland Indians]'.

[Simfan34]

To all the yes voters, what alternative name should they use?

Just about anything. "Washington Warriors" has a nice ring to it and they could keep using tasteful Native American imagery.

Not that I care either way, but that sounds nice.

[traininthedistance]

The Washington football team really is offensive in a way that other Native American names, or names of any other ethnicity, aren't.  It's in a class by itself.

How is Redskin any more offensive a term than White, Black, Brown, or Yellow?  I just don't see it being anywhere near the level of N****r that some opponents of the term would argue it is.  About the only thing beyond beyond "it's offensive because it's offensive" that I've seen opponents of the name bring up is that the term has connotations of savage warriors.

There isn't any Platonic form of offensiveness out there; the fact that people find it offensive in our culture at large is, in fact, a main part of what makes it offensive.  It's a legit argument.  And as far as I can tell it's pretty universally acknowledged that it's more offensive and/or derogatory than other terms for Native Americans, so I don't really think this objection really holds water.

To all the yes voters, what alternative name should they use?

I've said it before, I'll say it again: the Washington Senators.

[Reaganfan]

I'm sure this will be a fun topic.


Personally I think it should be changed. Redskins is and always has been a racist term, regardless of the context the organization says the name comes from.

Tough crap. That's the way it is. If you don't like it, leave. The end. No gray area.

[publicunofficial]

I'm sure this will be a fun topic.


Personally I think it should be changed. Redskins is and always has been a racist term, regardless of the context the organization says the name comes from.

Tough crap. That's the way it is. If you don't like it, leave. The end. No gray area.

Leave from where?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I'm not in favor of them changing their name, but the Washing Senators idea proposed by traininthedistance is a very good alternative. Plus the name change will require fans to buy new jerseys and memorabilia, which is good for business. If I had a voice in the process, I'd be supportive of that idea.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm sure this will be a fun topic.


Personally I think it should be changed. Redskins is and always has been a racist term, regardless of the context the organization says the name comes from.

Tough crap. That's the way it is. If you don't like it, leave. The end. No gray area.

Leave from where?

murrica

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I'm sure this will be a fun topic.


Personally I think it should be changed. Redskins is and always has been a racist term, regardless of the context the organization says the name comes from.

Tough crap. That's the way it is. If you don't like it, leave. The end. No gray area.

Leave from where?

murrica

If you dawn't like it, you can giiiit out!

[Reaganfan]

I'm sure this will be a fun topic.


Personally I think it should be changed. Redskins is and always has been a racist term, regardless of the context the organization says the name comes from.

Tough crap. That's the way it is. If you don't like it, leave. The end. No gray area.

Leave from where?

murrica

If you dawn't like it, you can giiiit out!

Damn right.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm sure this will be a fun topic.


Personally I think it should be changed. Redskins is and always has been a racist term, regardless of the context the organization says the name comes from.

Tough crap. That's the way it is. If you don't like it, leave. The end. No gray area.

Leave from where?

murrica

If you dawn't like it, you can giiiit out!

Damn right.

I'm not leaving the country over the Washington Redskins' intransigence about changing their name. I'm sorry to disappoint you.

[7,052,770]

Thing is, people like Naso are going to whine the loudest when the NFL and Redskins inevitably make a private, free-market business decision to change their name.

[Deus Naturae]

Thing is, people like Naso are going to whine the loudest when the NFL and Redskins inevitably make a private, free-market business decision to change their name.

So, by your logic, free-market supporters have to support any business decision made by a private company? If a company decided to reduce the quality of their goods, free-market supporters who complain about it are hypocrites? If a company decided to make a terrible investment, free-market supporters would have to support it because it was done by a private business?

Criticism of and reaction to business decisions are just as much a part of the free market as the decisions themselves.

[7,052,770]

Thing is, people like Naso are going to whine the loudest when the NFL and Redskins inevitably make a private, free-market business decision to change their name.

So, by your logic, free-market supporters have to support any business decision made by a private company? If a company decided to reduce the quality of their goods, free-market supporters who complain about it are hypocrites? If a company decided to make a terrible investment, free-market supporters would have to support it because it was done by a private business?

Criticism of and reaction to business decisions are just as much a part of the free market as the decisions themselves.

...

No, obviously that's not my point. (...)

When the Redskins change their name, it will be because the free market determines it's the best solution. The Redskins will definitely not change their name without the bottom line saying they need to.

However, Naso will be whining about liberals destroying America again when that day arrives, rather than saying something like "I didn't want the government forcing this, but since it was a smart business decision, I applaud them."

If the Redskins change their name when the market prefers they not, and then the Redskins lose money, fans of the free market should cheer. If the Redskins change their name because the market prefers it, free market fans should cheer. But mark my words, most people who usually love the free market won't be cheering.

[Deus Naturae]

Thing is, people like Naso are going to whine the loudest when the NFL and Redskins inevitably make a private, free-market business decision to change their name.

So, by your logic, free-market supporters have to support any business decision made by a private company? If a company decided to reduce the quality of their goods, free-market supporters who complain about it are hypocrites? If a company decided to make a terrible investment, free-market supporters would have to support it because it was done by a private business?

Criticism of and reaction to business decisions are just as much a part of the free market as the decisions themselves.

...

No, obviously that's not my point. (...)

When the Redskins change their name, it will be because the free market determines it's the best solution. The Redskins will definitely not change their name without the bottom line saying they need to.

However, Naso will be whining about liberals destroying America again when that day arrives, rather than saying something like "I didn't want the government forcing this, but since it was a smart business decision, I applaud them."

If the Redskins change their name when the market prefers they not, and then the Redskins lose money, fans of the free market should cheer. If the Redskins change their name because the market prefers it, free market fans should cheer. But mark my words, most people who usually love the free market won't be cheering.

First off, if the Redskins do change their name, it won't necessarily mean that it's a good business decision. Private companies make poor business decisions all the time. If a name change does occur, only time will tell whether it will actually pay off.

As a consumer who likes the Redskins name (or at the very least dislikes the idea of changing it), it makes some degree of sense for Naso to bitch and moan about a hypothetical name change. If every consumer just accepted every business decision as the "preference of the market," the market wouldn't be able to "prefer" anything, because market "preferences" are simply the preferences of a majority of consumers.