2007-10-27 02:25:20 · 17 answers · asked by Tracy 1 in Sports ➔ Football (American)
yes they are they are how would you feil if someone named you for their ****, or your family name in some stupid stuff like football.
2007-10-27 03:48:48 · answer #1 · answered by hargurnek 1 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I don't think so, I mean- our local team used to be called the Indians but they were forced to change the name. Redskins would be more offensive than that, but I think in recent years, the people of that heritage have loosened up. I don't believe those names are meant as an insult in any way, in fact, it'd be more of honoring them. Chiefs- not at all.
2007-10-27 02:32:54 · answer #2 · answered by makeshift760 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In general, names given to sports teams that reflect upon our American Indian is not offensive. The name of Redskins might be termed racial, but all of us have colored or hued skin so people need to get over it.
Names such as the Chiefs, the Warriors, the Braves, the Apaches, et cetera, are names that give respect to the American Indian, not meant to demean them at all.
The politically-correct crowd are always the first to jump on the bandwagon of seemingly offensive names because their focus is bent out of shape.
I have the utmost respect for our American Indians and I wouldn't hesitate using certain names for sports teams and even pets. I call my black and white tail-less terrier Geronimo because he's a survivor.
2007-10-27 02:38:58 · answer #3 · answered by Guitarpicker 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is to a certain extent. I am of Native descent and do not find it offensive. but as bad as they were treated, they still have hostility towards the use of the names and nicknames. I really find Chiefs not bad, but the Redskins does need to possible change. Just my opinion.
2007-10-27 02:40:48 · answer #4 · answered by football fan in afghanistan 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
redskins sounds a little offensive but not chiefs..but I'm not native american
2007-10-27 02:33:08 · answer #5 · answered by daddio 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Everyone is different. They are not offensive to me and I am Navaho.
However, and for what it's worth, it has been suggested that the reason that such names were originally used is because at the time, only animal names were used for sports teams. The idea was to de-humanize the Amerindians.
2007-10-27 02:29:23 · answer #6 · answered by awakening1us 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Those names are better than being called the "Squaws"
What about Ole Miss Rebels. They can ban the stars & bars (Rebel Flag)
I agree with the person that said "some people just need a reason to complain"
2007-10-27 02:48:16 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Personally I think it is a great honor to have a team named after a people. Some just want to be offended.
2007-10-27 02:39:14 · answer #8 · answered by mad_mav70 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It never was thought to be offensive till this country went all politically correct & started worrying about offending everyone. Who the hell does the word "manhole" offend? Are women dying to work in the sewers, but won't till the name is changed to utility ports? We'll destroy this country just to not offend the last female, midget, half Asian, gay Mexican transvestite transsexual,sufferer of A.D.D./dyslexia.
2007-10-27 06:11:19 · answer #9 · answered by Toe Cutter 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
According to NCAA they are. The colleges are losing their names and mascots that they deem offensive and/or demeaning. University of ILL. Fighting Illini lost our mascot and now University Of ND has to change also.
2007-10-27 05:39:53 · answer #10 · answered by mnwomen 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No. Thats silliness. I am Irish and I'm not offended with Notre Dame.
2007-10-27 02:33:14 · answer #11 · answered by Tbone 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋