Officer Pete Malloy
Footballguy
That has nothing to do with people being "offended" (or at least it shouldn't). Apples and oranges here.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Do you think Snyder should change the name of the Redskins? (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter DBIsports
- Start date
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
I don't care about the history of the word. All I care about is how it's perceived now and in the future. If a decent number of people find it offensive, I don't see the harm in changing it, because I don't consider "I like the name!" or "I already have a jersey" or "I don't want to let the PC police win!" to be persuasive arguments. And that's it for me.There are a lot of fans who care. Why? You'll have to ask them. From a business perspective, it's a lot of money to change the team name, logo, all that stuff. You are certainly more sensitive to others choice to be offended than I am, especially here. I get that there's a period in history that this was a major insult. There's also a period in history where it was a compliment. Given the changing nature of the team, I struggle with the reality that one part of history is being ignored for another. I'm not a big fan of that kind of person in general. I don't like it when people take specific segments of time and use them exclusively to make a point. I think it's short sighted and lazy.No, it's a good question. I draw the line at basically anything other than a few crazy oversensitive nutjobs. If I had to put a number on it I'd say maybe 5-10% of the minority population. Enough so that it's not just a few people trying to be offended.I honestly don't know how many are actually offended.That's part of the problem. But I have always said I'd rely on the American Indians to be the guide on this. I don't have a specific number nor have I drawn a line. To me, if the general consensus among American Indians is that "redskin" is offensive, go for it...sue. I'll sign whatever document you want me to in order to help your cause. I don't get the impression that it's even close to that though. You seem to have a line drawn. Mind if I ask how you chose that line?
To the second part, I'm simply telling you how you are coming across in this thread. That's all. I don't need your defense of your position...it's not under attack. But the bold is a deciding difference between you and me. I don't care what people choose to be offended by. You do. If they want to be offended, fine. If they don't, fine. I learned several years ago, people go looking for ways to be offended. I can't imagine living that sort of life. To me, the intent of your team's name isn't malicious but I understand that some people may choose to be offended by it.
Part of the reason it's that low for me is that I don't really see the flip side. It's just a name of a sports team. Who cares? The Bullets changed their name to the Wizards, and I don't like the team any less for it. Don't get me wrong, if I had my choice I'd rather they go back to Bullets, but that's mostly because Wizards is silly, not because I had some deep emotional tie to the name Bullets. Pro sports teams change their names and logos and all sorts of other identifying characteristics all the time, and the world keeps on spinning. If it says Washington in front of the nickname and the players aren't a pack of rapists and murderers, I'm gonna cheer for them. And so would every other DC football fan.
I don't think Washington would lose fans over this, but I do believe they'd just be shifting animosity. Several sites out there have American Indians suggesting they'd be annoyed with a decision to change the name to appease a subset of their culture. "What about our perspective and what the name means to us?" kinds of questions/quotes are out there. So do we appease one subset at the risk of another? I don't know. If it's me and I know someone's going to be pissed off regardless, I'm struggling to see the motivation for changing the name. It's going to cost me money just to piss off another subset of my fan base. It's no win either way, but one way it's costing me less.
I don't get your "choose to be offended" argument at all, sorry. Either a reasonable number of a minority find it offensive or not. If they do (and I don't know for sure that they do, but it sure seems like it), I personally don't want to be party to offending them if I have another option. I'm not gonna tell them "hey, you're choosing to be offended, so that's on you, not me." That makes no sense to me.
The Commish
Footballguy
Offense isn't forced on anyone. Someone calls me a name, I make a choice to let it offend me or not. I mean nothing more than that. The bold is the most common problem I see in this whole issue. Folks choosing to pick and choose pieces of information to suit their argument. Even today there isn't a single meaning to the words. For a lot of folks, it's simply the name of a team they pull for. For a lot of folks (especially American Indians who are ok with the term) it's because they know the history of the term that allows them to be ok with it. However, most people who appear to be admittedly against it aren't concerned with the word's historical meanings.I don't care about the history of the word. All I care about is how it's perceived now and in the future. If a decent number of people find it offensive, I don't see the harm in changing it, because I don't consider "I like the name!" or "I already have a jersey" or "I don't want to let the PC police win!" to be persuasive arguments. And that's it for me.There are a lot of fans who care. Why? You'll have to ask them. From a business perspective, it's a lot of money to change the team name, logo, all that stuff. You are certainly more sensitive to others choice to be offended than I am, especially here. I get that there's a period in history that this was a major insult. There's also a period in history where it was a compliment. Given the changing nature of the team, I struggle with the reality that one part of history is being ignored for another. I'm not a big fan of that kind of person in general. I don't like it when people take specific segments of time and use them exclusively to make a point. I think it's short sighted and lazy.No, it's a good question. I draw the line at basically anything other than a few crazy oversensitive nutjobs. If I had to put a number on it I'd say maybe 5-10% of the minority population. Enough so that it's not just a few people trying to be offended.I honestly don't know how many are actually offended.
To the second part, I'm simply telling you how you are coming across in this thread. That's all. I don't need your defense of your position...it's not under attack. But the bold is a deciding difference between you and me. I don't care what people choose to be offended by. You do. If they want to be offended, fine. If they don't, fine. I learned several years ago, people go looking for ways to be offended. I can't imagine living that sort of life. To me, the intent of your team's name isn't malicious but I understand that some people may choose to be offended by it.
Part of the reason it's that low for me is that I don't really see the flip side. It's just a name of a sports team. Who cares? The Bullets changed their name to the Wizards, and I don't like the team any less for it. Don't get me wrong, if I had my choice I'd rather they go back to Bullets, but that's mostly because Wizards is silly, not because I had some deep emotional tie to the name Bullets. Pro sports teams change their names and logos and all sorts of other identifying characteristics all the time, and the world keeps on spinning. If it says Washington in front of the nickname and the players aren't a pack of rapists and murderers, I'm gonna cheer for them. And so would every other DC football fan.
I don't think Washington would lose fans over this, but I do believe they'd just be shifting animosity. Several sites out there have American Indians suggesting they'd be annoyed with a decision to change the name to appease a subset of their culture. "What about our perspective and what the name means to us?" kinds of questions/quotes are out there. So do we appease one subset at the risk of another? I don't know. If it's me and I know someone's going to be pissed off regardless, I'm struggling to see the motivation for changing the name. It's going to cost me money just to piss off another subset of my fan base. It's no win either way, but one way it's costing me less.
I don't get your "choose to be offended" argument at all, sorry. Either a reasonable number of a minority find it offensive or not. If they do (and I don't know for sure that they do, but it sure seems like it), I personally don't want to be party to offending them if I have another option. I'm not gonna tell them "hey, you're choosing to be offended, so that's on you, not me." That makes no sense to me.
I'm the first to admit, I had no idea of the history of the word before I stepped foot in this thread. I knew what the derogatory meaning was and I knew that a lot of people associated the name to the team and didn't know what the meaning was. After this thread, I'm now wondering the intentions of those making a big deal out of it knowing that there are multiple meanings of the course of time.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
It's not just that I personally don't care about the history of the word. It's that I don't understand how it's relevant. Is f##### (derogatory word for gay man) somehow less offensive because it used to refer to a bundle of sticks? Of course not- a slur is a slur regardless of the etymology.
The Commish
Footballguy
It's a slur if you take it that way...one of the tough things for me to get used to while in London was "". It's no big deal to them because they use the term differently with a completely different intent. In cases where terms go from bad to good or vice versa, I don't see how it's NOT relevant to understand the context. Seems short sighted not to take into consideration/context the way the word's being used.
Hang 10
Footballguy
Very offensive to folks with elephantiasis.
What's wrong with elephanttitties? Oh wait, read that wrong. Nevermind.
Sidewinder16
Footballguy
For whatever you think it's worth:
Tribal leaders in Virginia not offended by Redskins nickname
Tribal leaders in Virginia not offended by Redskins nickname
I thought this was funny.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
I know a guy who'd 6'9" that's offended by the NY Giants...
Last edited by a moderator:
pollardsvision
Footballguy
If he's not going to grow another 7 inches and is 475 lbs., please tell him he's an idiot for me.I don't know what defines a giant, or if such a term even applies to humans, but if we pretend it does, you ain't no Giant if you'd have been looking up at Andre, may he rest in peace.
Don Quixote
Footballguy
Wonder how well this will sell... http://misterirrelevant.com/index.php/2013/05/17/washington-football-team-t-shirt/
Don Quixote
Footballguy
squistion
Footballguy
And among those 10 were the leaders of the Congressional Native American Caucus, which would suggest that probably most Native Americans indeed do find this name offensive, contrary to what the proponents of keeping it are telling us
Swing 51
Footballguy
Retired Patawomeck chief says he’d be offended if Redskins change name"I think that first of all, you have to make a decision whether you consider it offensive or not,” Green said. “And frankly, the members of my tribe — the vast majority — don’t find it offensive. I’ve been a Redskin fan for years. And to be honest with you, I would be offended if they DID change it.”
“Well, I think that first of all, our country has become too politically correct,” he said, as 73 percent of my commenters threw up their arms in praise. “And you can find it in any number of areas. Little League, where everybody has to get a trophy now, or otherwise the poor child that doesn’t get a trophy will have his psyche hurt.
“And I think what you have to do is look at where the name Redskins originated,” he continued. “There are some that give the term Redskin a negative connotation — to indicate that it was created by the white man to offend the Indians — but in reality the term Redskins came from the Indians. And they referred to themselves oftentimes — in treaty negotiations, in meetings with the early settlers – as Redskins. So it’s not a term that the white man created; it’s actually a term that the Indians themselves created.
“So I just believe we have people in this country that try and gin up problems where problems don’t exist,” Green said. “Now, our investigation into the term goes back pretty far, to 1608, when John Smith was traveling from Jamestown to meet with the Indian people. And he remarked in his diary that when they’re born they’re as white as we are; it’s only as they age that their skin darkens. And we believe that there was a reason for that. We use a bug repellant, for lack of a better term, that was made up of animal fat and the dye of the Pocoon (?) plant. And coincidentally, the Pocoon dye, when it’s crushed and dried, is red. And so for years, the Indian people were rubbing this red dye into their skin. And some of the other early settlers remarked that their skin turned red. So was that a comment made to denigrate the Indian people? I don’t think so.
“I don’t think the name was created by George Preston Marshall to be offensive,” Green concluded. “And if you look at the logo, there’s nothing offensive about the logo. I think one of the great things about the logo is that it’s an Eastern Indian, and they didn’t go to the full war headdress and things. So it was never intended to be offensive. I think sometimes we’re a little too touchy in our society these days”.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/wp/2013/05/29/retired-patawomeck-chief-says-hed-be-offended-if-redskins-change-name/
“Well, I think that first of all, our country has become too politically correct,” he said, as 73 percent of my commenters threw up their arms in praise. “And you can find it in any number of areas. Little League, where everybody has to get a trophy now, or otherwise the poor child that doesn’t get a trophy will have his psyche hurt.
“And I think what you have to do is look at where the name Redskins originated,” he continued. “There are some that give the term Redskin a negative connotation — to indicate that it was created by the white man to offend the Indians — but in reality the term Redskins came from the Indians. And they referred to themselves oftentimes — in treaty negotiations, in meetings with the early settlers – as Redskins. So it’s not a term that the white man created; it’s actually a term that the Indians themselves created.
“So I just believe we have people in this country that try and gin up problems where problems don’t exist,” Green said. “Now, our investigation into the term goes back pretty far, to 1608, when John Smith was traveling from Jamestown to meet with the Indian people. And he remarked in his diary that when they’re born they’re as white as we are; it’s only as they age that their skin darkens. And we believe that there was a reason for that. We use a bug repellant, for lack of a better term, that was made up of animal fat and the dye of the Pocoon (?) plant. And coincidentally, the Pocoon dye, when it’s crushed and dried, is red. And so for years, the Indian people were rubbing this red dye into their skin. And some of the other early settlers remarked that their skin turned red. So was that a comment made to denigrate the Indian people? I don’t think so.
“I don’t think the name was created by George Preston Marshall to be offensive,” Green concluded. “And if you look at the logo, there’s nothing offensive about the logo. I think one of the great things about the logo is that it’s an Eastern Indian, and they didn’t go to the full war headdress and things. So it was never intended to be offensive. I think sometimes we’re a little too touchy in our society these days”.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/wp/2013/05/29/retired-patawomeck-chief-says-hed-be-offended-if-redskins-change-name/
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
So it appears that some Native Americans are offended, and some aren't. Is that really news to anyone?
I am confused about his position that he'd be offended if they changed the name, though. Isn't that the same touchiness he seems to be complaining about? As I said before, it's just the name of a sports team. Who gives a #### if they change it? Teams change their names all the time. IMO people who think it would be some kind of horrible tragedy if they changed it are being just as whiny and oversensitive as the people who demand that it be changed.
I am confused about his position that he'd be offended if they changed the name, though. Isn't that the same touchiness he seems to be complaining about? As I said before, it's just the name of a sports team. Who gives a #### if they change it? Teams change their names all the time. IMO people who think it would be some kind of horrible tragedy if they changed it are being just as whiny and oversensitive as the people who demand that it be changed.
nittanylion
Footballguy
Finally, the voice of reason...and from a Native American Chief, no less.
/thread
/thread
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
I guess you missed the post directly above that one, with the quote from the chief of the Penobscot nation calling it "not just a racial slur" but also a painful reminder of the mass murder of his tribe. Oops!
PatsFanCT
Footballguy
PatsFanCT
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
Now we are getting somewhere...I agree with all this. It's the name of a sports team. People "offended" by this are LOOKING to be offended.
The Commish
Footballguy
I have to admit, when I heard Congress had jumped in on this "issue" it put me squarely in the "this isn't the issue people are making it out to be" camp. Any time our government's getting involved, I pretty much bank on it being a pointless endevor.
squistion
Footballguy
Because they are the leaders of the Congressional Native American Caucus. If they are not speaking for the sentiments most Native Americans we would probably have heard about it by now, which we haven't. (Can't find any link to outcries of numerous other Native Americans that these members of Congress are misrepresenting their views on the subject and that most Native Americans really have no objection to the Redskins name).
The Commish
Footballguy
Who's listening? I know I wasn't until I started participating in this thread. If there's anything I've learned about our government, it's that "we" really aren't represented. I suppose that the CNAC could be different in that regard, but I wouldn't assume it. Any actual polling I've seen doesn't come close to suggesting that "most" are offended. At best it's closer to 50/50.
squistion
Footballguy
Link to any recent actual polling of Native Americans that shows they are evenly split on the name? And please don't trot out that one discredited SI poll done over a decade ago. A more recent poll done by the Indian Country Today newspaper didn't find that it is 50/50 for Native Americans on this issue.
http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/ready-for-a-redskins-name-change/
Last edited by a moderator:
jonessed
Footballguy
Interesting. Do you have the poll results?
Da Guru
Fair & Balanced
Serious question...has anyone ever heard "redskin" used as a slur for Indians? I think I have heard pretty much every perceived slur but can honestly say in my life I have never heard that used. Growing up we had a couple familes of American Indians that lived near us and attended the same schools..never once did I hear anyone refer to them as "Redskins".
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
I'm not sure why it matters. I could give you a list a mile long of slurs against various minorities that I've never personally heard used, but that you'd never ever dream of using as the name of a sports team because they're offensive.
GoFishTN
Footballguy
http://www.thenativepress.com/sports/mascots.php
Sounds very scientific.
Edit: Just to clarify, it sounds to me like it was 81% of people that chose to respond to their survey that found the name offensive. Not 81% of a random poll.
Last edited by a moderator:
Oink Oink the Pig
Footballguy
No way
The Commish
Footballguy
We had a discussion around polling earlier in the thread and it was conceded that it was terribly flawed and tough to use as evidence. I understand that. So we have two dubious pieces of evidence. One in the form of these polls and one in the form of politicians. Neither is close to being enough to suggest "most" are offended. If you ask me...a national poll by a well known/respected group needs to be done and we can go from there. Blogs, Joe Schmoo poll, and random opinion really isn't the way to determine the consensus (if one can even be reached).
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Who gives a ####? Why do you need most people being offended to think they should change it? Isn't some people being offended enough? It's just a name of a sports team, not the Bill of Rights. Don't get me wrong, obviously nobody should really care if it's just some handful of nutjobs with a bizarre cause. But that's clearly not the case here, no matter what data you look at.
The Commish
Footballguy
The most racist thing I've ever heard regarding indians of any kind was someone asking "dot or feather indians?" Regardless, it won't matter here. Intent seems to get in the way so it's ignored. The reality is we are talking about a term that's changed several times in it's history. There are some who choose to fixate on the negative part of the history. Nothing's going to change that.
jonessed
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
You've said this multiple times and I'm not sure why. I don't give a #### if the name is changed or not. It's a very bizarre position you have here. You're standing on the rooftops saying the name should be changed (at least that's how it comes across here) and then say "it's just the name of a team". Which is it? Is it a big deal or just the name of a team? The question is then asked of you why you care that it needs to be changed and your answer is "because people are offended by it". You're not going to please everyone in life. This would be no different. People are going to be offended if you don't change it and people will be offended if you do change it. As you stated earlier (and I agreed with you then) they seem to be of the same kind, so why do you care what that type of person thinks?
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Wut?
The argument that "it's just a ________" doesn't work both ways. For those arguing that they want to keep it, the counter-argument is that it's just the name of a sports team. For those arguing that it's offensive, the fact that it's just the name of a sports team is irrelevant to the argument.
To be honest it's kinda weird that you don't get that instinctively, but here's a hypo to hopefully illustrate the difference:
Say someone wrote the N word on a billboard over a highway. some years ago. People want to take it down, but other people are opposed to it because they think the billboard has historical value or something (remember it's just a hypo). The people who want to take it down could fairly argue that the people who want to protect it for some reason are being idiots because "it's just a billboard." That's a reasonable argument. But the people who want to keep it could NOT argue that the people who want to take it down are being unreasonable because "it's just a billboard." That argument doesn't cut both ways on questions like this
I'm not using this to compare the N word to Redskin. The point is that there's no contradiction in what I've said. People who want to change the name can say it's just a sports team name because that's what the other people are trying to protect. But the other side can't say that, because the fact that it's a sports team has nothing to do with whether and how it's offensive. They're two totally different questions.
Last edited by a moderator:
PatsFanCT
Footballguy
So apparently, Redskin isn't so offensive you don't have to abbreviate it as "the R word". List all the racial slurs here that you don't feel you have to abbreviate. Here is the list...
Redskins
PatsFanCT
Footballguy
Really? Mexicans and Latin Americans have some real doozies, as does asian and the middle east. You think you could list those here?
The Commish
Footballguy
If you understand the context of the term to determine "it's just the name of a sports team", then I really struggle to see how "Washington Redskins" is offensive in the first place. You clearly see the intent of the word is not offensive otherwise you'd never come to the conclusion that it's "just the name of a sports team".
What it sounds like you are saying is this:
"Washington Redskins as a term isn't offensive, but redskins CAN be offensive by itself. I don't want to offend anyone so I want to change the name". Is that a fair characterization?
The Commish
Footballguy
Can you ask a follow up question about what's offensive about Washington Redskins please?? TIA...I'd really like to understand the whole thing.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
No. If Redskins is offensive, Washington Redskins is offensive. Intent has nothing to do with it. Results are all I care about.
Enough people have said the result is offensive that I'd rather it be changed, because I really don't see any significant argument against changing it . End of analysis. You're overthinking it.
Last edited by a moderator:
The owner of the team doesn't want to change it. The last time I checked this is America. If you want it changed that badly I suggest you purchase the team and then you can do what you want with it.
The Commish
Footballguy
Actually, you're the first person I've heard in this entire argument saying you feel "Washington Redskins" is offensive to you. So I'll leave that with you. Best I can tell, your threshold for "enough" is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY less than mine which is fine. However, it brings up another question. There are going to be as many, if not more folks "offended" by the name being changed, so what do you do then?
GregR
Footballguy
I do think it is an important topic. Public discussion around this is far more important even than whether the team ever makes that change.
If as a society we want to combat racism, then kids need to grow up seeing that using racial slurs or pushing racist views aren't acceptable in our society. The use of 'redskins' as a slur may be greatly on the decline, and so maybe the importance in 2013 of changing that particular team name isn't as big as it would have been X years ago when it was more in use.
But the effect such a discussion has by highlighting this type of issue is, I think, a good thing.
Similar threads
