Quote:
Originally Posted by JD10367
I'm not sure why anyone has an issue with this (although it's humorous watching white people try to defend it). This isn't a flattering name, like "braves". It doesn't denote leadership, like "chiefs". It doesn't denote a group nationality, like "indians" (which, sure, is technically incorrect, but it's not our fault the dumbasses who first landed here thought they'd made it to India... so, "Indians" it is, for Native Americans, like it or not). The word "redskins" is literally nothing but a derogatory term for their skin color. Why don't we have a southern team called the Blackskins or Darkies, doesn't that sound good? Hey, San Fran has a huge Asian population, how about we change their name to the Yellows or Chinks? There is not one good brain cell of a reason to defend the name "Redskins". Change it back to Braves, change it to Nationals, whatever. ****ing team's only been around since 1937 and some of you act like they want to tear down Confederate war statues...
|
As RainMan said, for those people defending this it's not really about the name so much as it as about not giving in to what they believe is a slippery slope that could eventually affect teams like the Chiefs.
I understand that concern. I get it. Because their WILL be some bitch from some organization that claims to be offended. And yeah, maybe "they" will try to go after the Chiefs once the Redskins cave.
But my hope is that common sense will prevail for the majority, and the nuance we've pointed out regarding the names would be understood.
Redskins SHOULD be changed. But teams like the Braves, Chiefs etc shouldn't. Hopefully society can tell the difference.