I'm sorry, which one of those other ones is a racial epithet? There would be a difference between a team called "Zulu Warriors" and one called the "Darkies".
Originally Posted by: OlHoss1884
I agree with your point about racial name aspect... at least if this is truly about a racial term.
But I believe the leaders of the change the Redskins name movement through the many different legal moves, have publicly gone on record saying the Redskins are just the first step in the movement... and that all the Native American mascots are to follow as they are offensive to them.
They went into detail against the Cleveland Indians mascot and fans in Kansas City wearing chief headdress. I believe they said, the headdress is apart of their religion and that fans wearing the headdress were making a mockery out of their religion and their ancestors, as well as all Native American mascots. And that their goal is to stop this "mockery" of their culture.
With the leaders of the moment openly admitting this, I feel like it's proof that they are NOT going after the Redskins for the racial name, but that they're just going after the Redskins FIRST, because they have been deemed the easiest target and the one they can get the most to rally for.... and they're attempting to just use it to build success before attempting to go after the others harder. Therefore this movement is NOT about any one term. The movement is about a culture being offending that a different culture is using their culture as a mascot... and they're using the term to gain followers/momentum in a larger attempt.
Also on a interesting (but maybe unrelated) side note: some sources have credit the original redskins term to the Delaware Indian Tribe, which would use red face and body paints. This is interesting because the Delaware tribe was located southeast New York, eastern Pennsylvania, all of New Jersey, most of Delaware and some small parts of Maryland... point being, it's pretty dang close to Washington. Of course it's also important to note that the Redskins team started in Boston. But if the change the name moment is citing negative history events (which they are), it should be noted about the historical tribes that were called the Redskins in that general area as well.
======================================================
And in another side note: P.E.T.A. wants the Packers to change their name because it was dated, offensive and that the Green Bay team should keep with the times and change their name either to Green Bay Pickers or Green Bay Six-Packers. And the Packers refused to change their name because of "tradition", just like the Redskins are now.
But PETA asserts that some traditions need to change, pointing out that when the Packers were named, back in 1919, women were denied the right to vote and Jim Crowe ruled the South.
"‘Tradition’ has never been a valid excuse for abuse," says PETA spokesperson and native Wisconsinite Sean Gifford. "Teams change their names for monetary reasons, when they are sold or move to another city. Why not change a name for ethical reasons? The Washington Wizards (formerly the Bullets) slam-dunked a bad name into the trash bin—now it’s Green Bay’s turn."
Article wrote:
Anyways, overall... I have no problem with saying that the term Redskins has been used in racist ways... but I strongest believe that is not the manor in which the Washington names is using it. Though I don't care if it is changed... but my biggest problem is that often times when an inch is given, the other side attempts to take a mile... and I feel like that certainly the case here based on the movement leaders own comments, and I feel like they'll take their inch and try to go way too far the other way with it.