Do you think there could be a team named, say, the Detroit
Blackskins ? I doubt it very seriously. Messers Jackson and Sharpton would raise hell, and rightly so. But is there a difference in the two, Redskins, and Blackskins ?
2007-03-08 15:23:09 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Cultures & Groups ➔ Other - Cultures & Groups
of course its racist. And a pretty rediculous name.
But if you notice the NFL NEVER says redskins on tv.
They always say just "'skins"
I think the fact that the franchise is worth so much and has so much history, they are leery of messing with it for fear of losing money.
And lets face it, money is the most important thing to any corporation.
2007-03-08 15:26:30 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
The only difference is that native americans don't really have much political power, which of course translates into money.
If the team was called the Blackskins, then black owned businesses wouldn't buy advertising during their football games, or buy tickets to games or play for that team. They would boycott, and it would be extremely effective.
Native americans just don't have that kind of influence and impact.
That's too bad because they really have a very rich culture and I think the name is demeaning and if you look up the roots of the word "redskins" it's pretty violent as well.
2007-03-08 16:21:26 · answer #2 · answered by kimpetuous 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I am not a fan of the name 'Redskins', because many Native Americans have expressed that they are offended by sports team names such as the Washington Redskins and the Atlanta Braves...it seems to me that if the party in question is disturbed and offended by the use of the name, it overrides the marketing options that the NFL and MLB hold on the names...
2007-03-08 15:28:10 · answer #3 · answered by jgirl 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No there isn't. They need to change that name.
The Bullets became the Wizards to not associate team with violence...so why can't the Redskins get a better name? Redskins is so ignorant straight out of the 1930's or something.
2007-03-08 15:28:02 · answer #4 · answered by DaddyBoy 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I don't see the problem.....some might read into it a little and get mad.
There would have to be some root of the name "blackskins" that does not mean "black skin" as in skin color
(not that there anything wrong with that! We are beautiful in our many shades are we not?)
Go Blackskins!!!!
2007-03-08 15:29:12 · answer #5 · answered by ? 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Boy this is just a matter of rights. You too can create a group and call them as you wish. You can call them Indian Redskin American Blackskin, Naughty Boys, Bay boy of America, any name you like, okay
2007-03-08 15:30:11 · answer #6 · answered by Jesus M 7 · 1⤊ 4⤋
No, not really - and there would be holy hell to pay if there was a team called the Whiteskins (not that they could find enough white players to make a good team) - hey, I'm white and I'm right!
2007-03-08 15:27:23 · answer #7 · answered by Judy 2 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Well, when we had ***** League Baseball, teams included the New York Cubans, the Atlanta Black Crackers and the New York Black Yankees
2007-03-08 15:37:03 · answer #8 · answered by Experto Credo 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
I hate all sports and think sports are just a waste of time..but what do i know..red skins are only good on potatoes
2007-03-08 15:26:42 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
We have bigger issues to worry about if you ask me, but if the Native Americans feel that strongly about it then they have every right to say it.
2007-03-08 15:25:54 · answer #10 · answered by almasri 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋