Bob Costas ... (1 Viewer)

[TheFanatic]

Always take polls with a grain of salt, but if most Native Americans don't find this offensive, what does it matter what white people think?

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/08/how-many-native-americans-think-redskins-is-a-slur/

There was a time when most African Americans didn't find "negro" to be offensive.

Can you imagine an NFL team called The Negroes?

Sometimes, doing the right thing means going against the majority.

Over time, the black community changed the vocabulary of their culture themselves, without the help of whites. Other than the vocal minority, mostly activists, and the few who show up at FedEx Field to protest, this issue just doesn't seem to have much traction among most Native Americans. So, why the white cause? Perhaps this is simply white progressives patronizing another minority group with:

1) We will be offended for you.

2) We will let you know when you should be outraged.

Exactly. This is some white people guilt pouring out to make themselves feel better. The people they are outraged for don't care...

 

[RBM]

This is miserable WHITE PEOPLE making a big issue of something that really isn't one.

Exactly. The overly PC types are miserable and will always find some bull#### to ##### about.

 

[ragnarok628]

so if somebody wants to buy something at a reservation, and doesn't refer to a native american indian as a redskin, it isn't because it is an inherent racial slur... it is because of white progressive patronizing?

would YOU refer to an attendant at a reservation with the words... "hey redskin!"... if you would, what is wrong with you? and if you wouldn't, ask yourself, why not? because you are employing misplaced offense and outrage for others? or because it is in fact a slur...

there could have been a team called the pasty faced crackers... the team could cite polls that 90% of people didn't care... would that make it the right thing to do to leave it?

It is not a slur. I wouldn't say 'hey redskin' for the same reason i wouldn't say 'hey white guy' or 'hey african american'... it's rude to reduce someone you don't know to being nothing more than example of a particular race. You say, "excuse me, sir/ma'am" to any one of any race. unless you feel 'white' and 'african american' are slurs, your hypothetical does not actually demonstrate your intended point.

The name used by the team in Washington is not and never has been derogatory. I agree that this would be irrelevant if the name were in fact largely deemed by the group referred to to be offensive but this does not seem to be the case. This is manufactured outrage, enabled by ignorance of the word in question and it's origins.

 

[Neofight]

Always take polls with a grain of salt, but if most Native Americans don't find this offensive, what does it matter what white people think?

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/08/how-many-native-americans-think-redskins-is-a-slur/

There was a time when most African Americans didn't find "negro" to be offensive.

Can you imagine an NFL team called The Negroes?

Sometimes, doing the right thing means going against the majority.

Over time, the black community changed the vocabulary of their culture themselves, without the help of whites. Other than the vocal minority, mostly activists, and the few who show up at FedEx Field to protest, this issue just doesn't seem to have much traction among most Native Americans. So, why the white cause? Perhaps this is simply white progressives patronizing another minority group with:

1) We will be offended for you.

2) We will let you know when you should be outraged.

Exactly. This is some white people guilt pouring out to make themselves feel better. The people they are outraged for don't care...

This is miserable WHITE PEOPLE making a big issue of something that really isn't one.

Exactly. The overly PC types are miserable and will always find some bull#### to ##### about.

Exactly. ####### liberal crackers.

 

[oswizzle]

Why are some of you getting so offended that this comment bothers ethnic natives? it's pretty messed up to reference any human being by a skin color...

What happened to Native Americans in this country is on par with the biggest genocides in human history...its not all about pilgrims and apple pie... those that know history... would be disgusted at the name Redskins..

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

I love watching right wingers whine. PC....liberal media.... More important things to worry about....

Guess what dinosaurs... The world is changing, you don't get to set all the rules anymore.

Thanks for dumbing down the Shark Pool even more

 

[ragnarok628]

Why are some of you getting so offended that this comment bothers ethnic natives? it's pretty messed up to reference any human being by a skin color...

What happened to Native Americans in this country is on par with the biggest genocides in human history...its not all about pilgrims and apple pie... those that know history... would be disgusted at the name Redskins..

Offended isn't the word. People get very annoyed when PC BS attempts to force them to change. I guess in a perfect world i might be called a 'person of mostly european descent', but it's just easier to say 'white' and it's not offensive to me or afaik 99.99% of other white people so why change it? Likewise, afaik most 'persons of mostly african descent' don't mind being referred to as 'black'. Personally i'm all for calling people whatever they want to be called, and wouldn't go out of my way to offend them.

and everyone's rational disgust with historical dealings with native americans is not linked to the name 'redskins'.

 

[Dizzy]

Why is this thread even here?

No one cares what Bob Costas has to say. Boggles my mind how much energy Americans waste discussing opinions. Bump Finley.

3 pages in, to what figures to be a 10+ pager (before it eventually gets locked)... I think it's safe to say that a LOT of people care what Costas has to say.

 

[Jewell]

A better question is "Why didn't Costas say one bad word about "Redskins" for the past 40 years?"

Because times change and things that were acceptable become unacceptable and this has actually been talked about quite a bit by media for at least three years (openly and more adamant).

If the name Redskins is offensive today than it was also offensive forty years ago. The meaning of the word redskins hasn't changed over the past forty years.

Which raises the question -- if the name was always offensive and should be changed then why didn't opponents of the name have enough strength of conviction to take such an ardent stand earlier and on their own? To wait for a critical mass to form on the issue before speaking out gives the appearance that people are merely jumping aboard a cause célèbre because it's currently fashionable. I think it's that appearance of fashionable cause célèbre that is repulsing many people as much as it is the thought of actually changing the team name.

 

[Dizzy]

A better question is "Why didn't Costas say one bad word about "Redskins" for the past 40 years?"

Because times change and things that were acceptable become unacceptable and this has actually been talked about quite a bit by media for at least three years (openly and more adamant).

If the name Redskins is offensive today than it was also offensive forty years ago. The meaning of the word redskins hasn't changed over the past forty years.

Which raises the question -- if the name was always offensive and should be changed then why didn't opponents of the name have enough strength of conviction to take such an ardent stand earlier and on their own? To wait for a critical mass to form on the issue before speaking out gives the appearance that people are merely jumping aboard a cause célèbre because it's currently fashionable. I think it's that appearance of fashionable cause célèbre that is repulsing many people as much as it is the thought of actually changing the team name.

Really? What about the word "gay"? Same word/meaning/weight that it held 40 years ago?

Like it or not (and quite honestly, other teams have survived name changes), the Redskins will eventually change their name. And about 2 minutes afterwards all of this - pro and con - goes away faster than Tim Tebow.

 

[Jewell]

A better question is "Why didn't Costas say one bad word about "Redskins" for the past 40 years?"

Because times change and things that were acceptable become unacceptable and this has actually been talked about quite a bit by media for at least three years (openly and more adamant).

If the name Redskins is offensive today than it was also offensive forty years ago. The meaning of the word redskins hasn't changed over the past forty years.Which raises the question -- if the name was always offensive and should be changed then why didn't opponents of the name have enough strength of conviction to take such an ardent stand earlier and on their own? To wait for a critical mass to form on the issue before speaking out gives the appearance that people are merely jumping aboard a cause célèbre because it's currently fashionable. I think it's that appearance of fashionable cause célèbre that is repulsing many people as much as it is the thought of actually changing the team name.

Really? What about the word "gay"? Same word/meaning/weight that it held 40 years ago?

Pretty simple -- gay has changed meaning over the past forty years, and redskin hasn't. I'm not sure how gay changing meaning suddenly means redskin has changed meaning as well.

 

[Fat Nick]

Oklahoma, you're next...Better start thinking of new state names.

The name Oklahoma comes from the Choctaw phrase okla humma, literally meaning red people.

 

[Bob Magaw]

so if somebody wants to buy something at a reservation, and doesn't refer to a native american indian as a redskin, it isn't because it is an inherent racial slur... it is because of white progressive patronizing?

would YOU refer to an attendant at a reservation with the words... "hey redskin!"... if you would, what is wrong with you? and if you wouldn't, ask yourself, why not? because you are employing misplaced offense and outrage for others? or because it is in fact a slur...

there could have been a team called the pasty faced crackers... the team could cite polls that 90% of people didn't care... would that make it the right thing to do to leave it?

It is not a slur. I wouldn't say 'hey redskin' for the same reason i wouldn't say 'hey white guy' or 'hey african american'... it's rude to reduce someone you don't know to being nothing more than example of a particular race. You say, "excuse me, sir/ma'am" to any one of any race. unless you feel 'white' and 'african american' are slurs, your hypothetical does not actually demonstrate your intended point.

The name used by the team in Washington is not and never has been derogatory. I agree that this would be irrelevant if the name were in fact largely deemed by the group referred to to be offensive but this does not seem to be the case. This is manufactured outrage, enabled by ignorance of the word in question and it's origins.

so its not a slur, but it is rude?if i heard others refer to people by their skin color (whitey, blackie are variations i have heard), i would consider that not only rude, but a slur.

it would be rude to refer to an individual by alluding to skin color, but referring to a group that way makes it OK?

if it is manufactured outrage, why did the oneida nation group that snyder referenced in his letter as being supportive of the name (without their knowledge or consent), quickly denounce him...

* some of the polls cited (that are ten years old) show something like 10% are offended... you used the word "largely"... what percent are you comfortable with or consider permissable to be offended (20-30-40%?)... you are talking about manufactured outrage and ignorance of the term... are the native american indians that are troubled and disturbed by the reference ignorant... is their outrage manufactured? maybe this isn't a case of you seeing things more clearly or being more eloquent, but of you being more willing to allow some segments of the population be outraged... and that enables you to profess the ignorance of others.

** if they were the Washington Blacks instead of Redskins (not African Americans as in your hamhanded switchy changey transposition - was that intentional to not be as offensive and make the position more palatable and defensible?), would that be an acceptable team name?

would it make it OK if you can cite polls or focus groups in which a majority don't dissent... do you need to refer to them to make a personal judgement of this nature?

 

[Dondante]

Meh...Just libs trying to impress other libs. Same as day one.

 

[Limp Ditka]

Oklahoma, you're next...Better start thinking of new state names.

The name Oklahoma comes from the Choctaw phrase okla humma, literally meaning red people.

#nohoma

 

[mad sweeney]

so if somebody wants to buy something at a reservation, and doesn't refer to a native american indian as a redskin, it isn't because it is an inherent racial slur... it is because of white progressive patronizing?

would YOU refer to an attendant at a reservation with the words... "hey redskin!"... if you would, what is wrong with you? and if you wouldn't, ask yourself, why not? because you are employing misplaced offense and outrage for others? or because it is in fact a slur...

there could have been a team called the pasty faced crackers... the team could cite polls that 90% of people didn't care... would that make it the right thing to do to leave it?

It is not a slur. I wouldn't say 'hey redskin' for the same reason i wouldn't say 'hey white guy' or 'hey african american'... it's rude to reduce someone you don't know to being nothing more than example of a particular race. You say, "excuse me, sir/ma'am" to any one of any race. unless you feel 'white' and 'african american' are slurs, your hypothetical does not actually demonstrate your intended point.

The name used by the team in Washington is not and never has been derogatory. I agree that this would be irrelevant if the name were in fact largely deemed by the group referred to to be offensive but this does not seem to be the case. This is manufactured outrage, enabled by ignorance of the word in question and it's origins.

at redskin being equal to aa. That's the whole point. American Indian is equal to aa, redskin is equal to _ igger. What a horribly stupid comparison. Destroyed your own argument.

 

[mad sweeney]

Oklahoma, you're next...Better start thinking of new state names.

The name Oklahoma comes from the Choctaw phrase okla humma, literally meaning red people.

Why don't you quote the rest if that paragraph? The one where it says the Choctaw made that name for themselves. That doesn't even get into the difference between a derogatory phrase using 'skin' instead if people. Some of you outraged-by-the-outrage people are showing how i'll informed and horribly inept you are. Mx must've been giving a lesson in bad analogies online.

 

[CowboysHomer]

I love watching right wingers whine. PC....liberal media.... More important things to worry about....

Guess what dinosaurs... The world is changing, you don't get to set all the rules anymore.

But an "enlightened" group of progressives get to tell everyone what they should be offended about, right?

 

[CowboysHomer]

Why are some of you getting so offended that this comment bothers ethnic natives? it's pretty messed up to reference any human being by a skin color...

What happened to Native Americans in this country is on par with the biggest genocides in human history...its not all about pilgrims and apple pie... those that know history... would be disgusted at the name Redskins..

The history of tribal leaders in the 1800s referring to themselves as redskins in discussions with outsiders?

That history? Or the new "progressive", white guilt laced version?

 

[Soulfly3]

What could possibly piss a Native off more than a phoney white guy telling people they should be offended about the team name "Redskins" ?

The major issue in all this is, whites have NO right to voice what they think is right/wrong with the term, on national TV. None.

If NBC had ANY brains, and wanted an ounce of credibility, bring in a pissed of Native Chief to voice his disgust...

Issue there is, where the hell would they find one? Cuz you know... there really aren't any

 

[Heatman]

Can't stand Costas and never watch a game he's involved in. Happened to be in the break room at work during his latest liberal rant. Just confirmed why I think he should not be on any sports program period. He should go work for CNN and rant there.

 

[spider321]

Today, it's Redskins.

What will tomorrow's liberal cause du jour be?

 

[Concept Coop]

Damn liberals!

 

[Dizzy]

Damn liberals!

Yeah, the Tea-baggers are up in arms now!

Hey, there's a name...

 

[ragnarok628]

so its not a slur, but it is rude?

yes. those do not mean the same thing.

it would be rude to refer to an individual by alluding to skin color, but referring to a group that way makes it OK?

well, again, yes. If you are talking about a group of people sharing a particular trait, it is reasonable to reference that group by their common trait.

* some of the polls cited (that are ten years old) show something like 10% are offended... you used the word "largely"... what percent are you comfortable with or consider permissable to be offended (20-30-40%?)... you are talking about manufactured outrage and ignorance of the term... are the native american indians that are troubled and disturbed by the reference ignorant... is their outrage manufactured? maybe this isn't a case of you seeing things more clearly or being more eloquent, but of you being more willing to allow some segments of the population be outraged... and that enables you to profess the ignorance of others.

I suppose that's a good question. Where DO you draw the line? I don't have a real answer for that. definitely somewhere above 10% though... but then i've never been a big believer in anyone's right not to be offended. Regardless, for the purposes of THIS "controversy" all we have been hearing from are those offended *on behalf* of others. I think If there were some real issue with the term, there'd be more actually offended people involved in the discussion. The ignorance, to me, lies with those offended on another's behalf not understanding the term and making assumptions about the intent behind the word.

But this is really just all so that some white folks can feel like they're 'better' than other white folks. so, good job, person on the message boards, you're better than me!

 

[ChiefD]

Damn liberals!

Yeah, the Tea-baggers are up in arms now!

Hey, there's a name...

That would be one hell of a logo. :X

 

[Bracie Smathers]

Yeah, don't let Bob Costas speak.

Nobody should have the right to speak and that goes for me right?

Err wait a second, their couuld be a problem with that but I'm too stupid and lazy to figure that out.

Who I want to censor should be censored and that suits me just fine.

I'm the ego king of my ego world and you all live in my ego domain.

Let me start enother ego thread and I'll tell you who to listen to and who not to listen to and who should speak and who shouldn't.

Power, give me MORE POWER!!!!!

ME...

MEE....

MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE..........

It's all about MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.......

I was offended and I DEMAND that no-one offend MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

Lol.

You can go #### yourself if you want to try and tell people who can or can't voice an opinion.

You do have the option to not listen so I choose to not listen to any more of this thread, lol.

Oh and for anyone offended by my post?

Go #### YOURSELF, LOL.

 

[KellysHeroes]

The whole thing is a joke; he had millions of viewers watching last night and instead of discussing the issue of our country about to hit default or something else thats truly important he takes a shot at the Redskins.

I know Synder is not very well liked but hes a business man, hes not going to change the name of his product 'just because'. You have to make it worth while for him to do it, either the people protest to the point it hits his profits or the NFL pony up and pay for the cost to change the name of the product with some extra as an incentive to do so. Synder seems like hes a little stubborn ( ) and the more you antagonise him the more its going to take for him to agree to do it.

 

[TheFanatic]

so if somebody wants to buy something at a reservation, and doesn't refer to a native american indian as a redskin, it isn't because it is an inherent racial slur... it is because of white progressive patronizing?

would YOU refer to an attendant at a reservation with the words... "hey redskin!"... if you would, what is wrong with you? and if you wouldn't, ask yourself, why not? because you are employing misplaced offense and outrage for others? or because it is in fact a slur...

there could have been a team called the pasty faced crackers... the team could cite polls that 90% of people didn't care... would that make it the right thing to do to leave it?

It is not a slur. I wouldn't say 'hey redskin' for the same reason i wouldn't say 'hey white guy' or 'hey african american'... it's rude to reduce someone you don't know to being nothing more than example of a particular race. You say, "excuse me, sir/ma'am" to any one of any race. unless you feel 'white' and 'african american' are slurs, your hypothetical does not actually demonstrate your intended point.

The name used by the team in Washington is not and never has been derogatory. I agree that this would be irrelevant if the name were in fact largely deemed by the group referred to to be offensive but this does not seem to be the case. This is manufactured outrage, enabled by ignorance of the word in question and it's origins.

at redskin being equal to aa. That's the whole point. American Indian is equal to aa, redskin is equal to _ igger. What a horribly stupid comparison. Destroyed your own argument.

No it isn't...

 

[mad sweeney]

The whole thing is a joke; he had millions of viewers watching last night and instead of discussing the issue of our country about to hit default or something else thats truly important he takes a shot at the Redskins.

I know Synder is not very well liked but hes a business man, hes not going to change the name of his product 'just because'. You have to make it worth while for him to do it, either the people protest to the point it hits his profits or the NFL pony up and pay for the cost to change the name of the product with some extra as an incentive to do so. Synder seems like hes a little stubborn ( ) and the more you antagonise him the more its going to take for him to agree to do it.

He's speaking during halftime of a football game, so he addressed an issue related to football. It's not that hard.

 

[TheFanatic]

The whole thing is a joke; he had millions of viewers watching last night and instead of discussing the issue of our country about to hit default or something else thats truly important he takes a shot at the Redskins.

Or maybe not talk about any of that and stick to sports. Olberman is a laughing stock because he let his political views get in the way of what he did. Costas does it much more artfully and less often, but let's keep that discussion to the political shows so we know they are coming when we tune in. When I tune into a football game, I want to hear about, well, maybe just maybe, football. I don't mind an update on college football during a pro game or even the baseball playoffs, but other than that, stay on task and shut your mouth.

I'm a Costas fan, but man, keep the political crap out of my sports. The government is about to default on our loans if we do not do something very, very soon, and there are thousands who are not getting paid right now and our representatives look like every one of them needs to see a proctologist to get their jobs done. A perceived racial slur that is not really a slight to the people that are supposed to be slighted is pretty minor compared to just one family wondering how they are going to pay for food or rent next week because one or both wage earners are now on Furlough.

 

[mad sweeney]

so if somebody wants to buy something at a reservation, and doesn't refer to a native american indian as a redskin, it isn't because it is an inherent racial slur... it is because of white progressive patronizing?

would YOU refer to an attendant at a reservation with the words... "hey redskin!"... if you would, what is wrong with you? and if you wouldn't, ask yourself, why not? because you are employing misplaced offense and outrage for others? or because it is in fact a slur...

there could have been a team called the pasty faced crackers... the team could cite polls that 90% of people didn't care... would that make it the right thing to do to leave it?

It is not a slur. I wouldn't say 'hey redskin' for the same reason i wouldn't say 'hey white guy' or 'hey african american'... it's rude to reduce someone you don't know to being nothing more than example of a particular race. You say, "excuse me, sir/ma'am" to any one of any race. unless you feel 'white' and 'african american' are slurs, your hypothetical does not actually demonstrate your intended point.

The name used by the team in Washington is not and never has been derogatory. I agree that this would be irrelevant if the name were in fact largely deemed by the group referred to to be offensive but this does not seem to be the case. This is manufactured outrage, enabled by ignorance of the word in question and it's origins.

at redskin being equal to aa. That's the whole point. American Indian is equal to aa, redskin is equal to _ igger. What a horribly stupid comparison. Destroyed your own argument.

No it isn't...

Depends on who's using it. However, it's still closer, by factors of magnitude, to _igger than it is to aa like the poster tried to compare.

 

[TheFanatic]

The whole thing is a joke; he had millions of viewers watching last night and instead of discussing the issue of our country about to hit default or something else thats truly important he takes a shot at the Redskins.

I know Synder is not very well liked but hes a business man, hes not going to change the name of his product 'just because'. You have to make it worth while for him to do it, either the people protest to the point it hits his profits or the NFL pony up and pay for the cost to change the name of the product with some extra as an incentive to do so. Synder seems like hes a little stubborn ( ) and the more you antagonise him the more its going to take for him to agree to do it.

He's speaking during halftime of a football game, so he addressed an issue related to football. It's not that hard.

It has about as much to do with football as native americans are pissed about being called redskins.

Can I ask which of you has seen how culturally acceptable the term redskin is because a football team is called that, so you feel comfortable using the term? I've only ever used the word redskin in talking about this team and this debate. Man is this such a non issue and yet here we are....

 

[TheFanatic]

so if somebody wants to buy something at a reservation, and doesn't refer to a native american indian as a redskin, it isn't because it is an inherent racial slur... it is because of white progressive patronizing?

would YOU refer to an attendant at a reservation with the words... "hey redskin!"... if you would, what is wrong with you? and if you wouldn't, ask yourself, why not? because you are employing misplaced offense and outrage for others? or because it is in fact a slur...

there could have been a team called the pasty faced crackers... the team could cite polls that 90% of people didn't care... would that make it the right thing to do to leave it?

It is not a slur. I wouldn't say 'hey redskin' for the same reason i wouldn't say 'hey white guy' or 'hey african american'... it's rude to reduce someone you don't know to being nothing more than example of a particular race. You say, "excuse me, sir/ma'am" to any one of any race. unless you feel 'white' and 'african american' are slurs, your hypothetical does not actually demonstrate your intended point.

The name used by the team in Washington is not and never has been derogatory. I agree that this would be irrelevant if the name were in fact largely deemed by the group referred to to be offensive but this does not seem to be the case. This is manufactured outrage, enabled by ignorance of the word in question and it's origins.

at redskin being equal to aa. That's the whole point. American Indian is equal to aa, redskin is equal to _ igger. What a horribly stupid comparison. Destroyed your own argument.

No it isn't...

Depends on who's using it. However, it's still closer, by factors of magnitude, to _igger than it is to aa like the poster tried to compare.

It's not the N word and not even close. Anyone comparing the two is just making up crap to further their really weak agenda..

 

[ragnarok628]

Depends on who's using it. However, it's still closer, by factors of magnitude, to _igger than it is to aa like the poster tried to compare.

the 'n-word' is universally understood to be derogatory, racist, a pejorative, hateful, derisive, offensive, etc. etc. etc.

Redskins is none of those things, but certain guilty white people feel like it *should* be those things for reasons mostly beyond my comprehension, but probably related to some need to feel morally superior.

if the redskins themselves are not offended by the word or the team name, in what way is it like the n-word? it isn't.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Where is Costas during the world series ranting about Atlanta and Cleveland?

Where is Costas on Saturday's ranting about Illinois and Florida State?

Did Costas mention Kansas City or Seattle tonight?

Yeah, if Costas on tv means big money... spread the wealth and plaster his face with these other sports including the NHL.

1. In a time machine back to the year 1995?

2. Is he supposed to be offended on behalf of birds?

Don't stop him now, he's rolling...

Wow, you need to get a clue as well.

World Series <> Atlanta "Braves" and Cleveland "Indians"

Kansas City "Chiefs" and Seattle "Seahawks" (the picture of the Seahawk is taken from Indian totem poles. The logo is the key here.

Birds? Um, sure.

Finally, somebody going to bat for our fine feathered community... because CLEARLY the NFL franchise name that should be under the most scrutiny is the Arizona Cardinals... either change the color of the beak to RED (Cardinals - as we all know - do not have yellow bills), or change the team name to the Arizona Pyrrhuloxias (which would be incredibly appropriate given their range in North America).

Whew, I've been holding that one in for a while. This thread is really cleansing.

Cardinals aren't named after the bird.

 

[Dizzy]

Depends on who's using it. However, it's still closer, by factors of magnitude, to _igger than it is to aa like the poster tried to compare.

the 'n-word' is universally understood to be derogatory, racist, a pejorative, hateful, derisive, offensive, etc. etc. etc.

Redskins is none of those things, but certain guilty white people feel like it *should* be those things for reasons mostly beyond my comprehension, but probably related to some need to feel morally superior.

if the redskins themselves are not offended by the word or the team name, in what way is it like the n-word? it isn't.

Heard that word used a dozen times a day in my old neighborhood... not by white people of course, but still... it seems to depend 100% on WHO is using it.

I can picture a pick-up game on a reservation out in the Dakota's... Running Bear drains a three, and Pierces With Arrows looks at him and says, "Yeah... that's my redskin right there."

 

[KellysHeroes]

The whole thing is a joke; he had millions of viewers watching last night and instead of discussing the issue of our country about to hit default or something else thats truly important he takes a shot at the Redskins.

Or maybe not talk about any of that and stick to sports. Olberman is a laughing stock because he let his political views get in the way of what he did. Costas does it much more artfully and less often, but let's keep that discussion to the political shows so we know they are coming when we tune in. When I tune into a football game, I want to hear about, well, maybe just maybe, football. I don't mind an update on college football during a pro game or even the baseball playoffs, but other than that, stay on task and shut your mouth.

I'm a Costas fan, but man, keep the political crap out of my sports. The government is about to default on our loans if we do not do something very, very soon, and there are thousands who are not getting paid right now and our representatives look like every one of them needs to see a proctologist to get their jobs done. A perceived racial slur that is not really a slight to the people that are supposed to be slighted is pretty minor compared to just one family wondering how they are going to pay for food or rent next week because one or both wage earners are now on Furlough.

The conspiracy theorists in me wants to say that the media is being ordered to shove this down our throats and take some pressure off Capital Hill while the government fails; best way to get peoples talking about something else is a little controversy in sports.

 

[mad sweeney]

The whole thing is a joke; he had millions of viewers watching last night and instead of discussing the issue of our country about to hit default or something else thats truly important he takes a shot at the Redskins.

Or maybe not talk about any of that and stick to sports. Olberman is a laughing stock because he let his political views get in the way of what he did. Costas does it much more artfully and less often, but let's keep that discussion to the political shows so we know they are coming when we tune in. When I tune into a football game, I want to hear about, well, maybe just maybe, football. I don't mind an update on college football during a pro game or even the baseball playoffs, but other than that, stay on task and shut your mouth.

I'm a Costas fan, but man, keep the political crap out of my sports. The government is about to default on our loans if we do not do something very, very soon, and there are thousands who are not getting paid right now and our representatives look like every one of them needs to see a proctologist to get their jobs done. A perceived racial slur that is not really a slight to the people that are supposed to be slighted is pretty minor compared to just one family wondering how they are going to pay for food or rent next week because one or both wage earners are now on Furlough.

It's a story that's on all football news sights and it involves a football team. Just like Hernandez is a football related story. Here's a hint: if it involves a football team or a player or coach of a football team, it's football news. The govt issues aren't football related, NFL teams are. See how that works? It's not brain surgery here.

 

[mad sweeney]

The whole thing is a joke; he had millions of viewers watching last night and instead of discussing the issue of our country about to hit default or something else thats truly important he takes a shot at the Redskins.

I know Synder is not very well liked but hes a business man, hes not going to change the name of his product 'just because'. You have to make it worth while for him to do it, either the people protest to the point it hits his profits or the NFL pony up and pay for the cost to change the name of the product with some extra as an incentive to do so. Synder seems like hes a little stubborn ( ) and the more you antagonise him the more its going to take for him to agree to do it.

He's speaking during halftime of a football game, so he addressed an issue related to football. It's not that hard.

It has about as much to do with football as native americans are pissed about being called redskins.

Can I ask which of you has seen how culturally acceptable the term redskin is because a football team is called that, so you feel comfortable using the term? I've only ever used the word redskin in talking about this team and this debate. Man is this such a non issue and yet here we are....

The Skins are an NFL team. Ipso facto, presto: any news about them, whether it's their name, their stadium, their owner etc... Is football news.

 

[mad sweeney]

Depends on who's using it. However, it's still closer, by factors of magnitude, to _igger than it is to aa like the poster tried to compare.

the 'n-word' is universally understood to be derogatory, racist, a pejorative, hateful, derisive, offensive, etc. etc. etc.

Redskins is none of those things, but certain guilty white people feel like it *should* be those things for reasons mostly beyond my comprehension, but probably related to some need to feel morally superior.

if the redskins themselves are not offended by the word or the team name, in what way is it like the n-word? it isn't.

Actually, the n-word is not. In many black communities it is acceptable and heavily used. Ipso facto, presto: it depends on who uses it. It's not brain surgery to figure this out.

 

[Da Guru]

Bob Costas has broadcasted NFL football for many years..he has done many..many Redkins games over the years. Now he is speaking out? Where was he 20 years ago? 10 years ago? Now it is a "cause" and he is on board. This is just going to snowball and snowball.

Snyder has stated publicly twice in the last two months that he has listened to all sides and decided the name stays as long as he is owner. The person who owns the team has made his decision. Why can`t people accept is and move on to the next cause.

 

[ChiefD]

Why can`t people accept is and move on to the next cause.

Agree 100%. We should move on and talk about how offensive Eli Manning's hair has been lately.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

You guys want politics off TV, but yet you drag it into the Shark Pool? Take to the the free for all.

Seconded.

 

[Da Guru]

Why can`t people accept is and move on to the next cause.

Agree 100%. We should move on and talk about how offensive Eli Manning's hair has been lately.

Why can`t people accept it and move on to the next cause.

Agree 100%. We should move on and talk about how offensive Eli Manning's hair has been lately.

Exactly..plus you would think that Costas would be beating the drum for midgets, dwarf tossing abuse and so forth.

 

[ShamrockPride]

Depends on who's using it. However, it's still closer, by factors of magnitude, to _igger than it is to aa like the poster tried to compare.

the 'n-word' is universally understood to be derogatory, racist, a pejorative, hateful, derisive, offensive, etc. etc. etc.

Right. Which is why AA's use it like white people use the word "bro" to address friends and such. So much for universal...

 

[Jewell]

Today, it's Redskins.

What will tomorrow's liberal cause du jour be?

Not sure about Liberals, but Costas hopes to eventually tackle the stigma against toupee wearers.

 

[Fat Nick]

Oklahoma, you're next...Better start thinking of new state names.

The name Oklahoma comes from the Choctaw phrase okla humma, literally meaning red people.

Why don't you quote the rest if that paragraph? The one where it says the Choctaw made that name for themselves. That doesn't even get into the difference between a derogatory phrase using 'skin' instead if people. Some of you outraged-by-the-outrage people are showing how i'll informed and horribly inept you are. Mx must've been giving a lesson in bad analogies online.

There's actually a LOT of historical evidence that shows that the Native Americans themselves were the ones who started calling themselves "Red Skinned," as a comparative to Europeans calling themselves "White," and slaves being called "Black." The point you overlook is that there are a lot of words that CAN be derogatory, but their mere usage doesn't make the intent derogatory. Some of you quick-to-be-outraged people need to consider that sometimes your outrage is not aligned with the intent or meaning of the word...even to the people you are supposedly sticking up for.

It seems based on the above you're indicating that it's OK to use the phrase if they call themselves that, but not OK if it's used in a derogatory manner. I think I'd agree with that if that's what you're saying, but then the burden of proof is to prove "Redskins" in the Washington context is intended to be derogatory. I think you'd quickly lose that one.

Before you go yelling and calling people "inept," consider reading up on the subject yourself. There are numerous historical references to Cowetaw Warriors referring to Cherokee as "The Red People." The earliest Spaniards to the area actually referred to Native Americans as having brown or "tawney" skin, often painted various colors, no reference to "red." In several Indian languages (Chocktaw and Chickasaw), their name for their own people in their OWN language loosely translates to "man" and "red" or "red people." The Native Americans are just as likely to have created or propagated the "Red Skinned" name as Caucasians. Further, the ongoing fact is that to-date, no majority of either a) the general American population, or b) A general majority of Native Americans, has ever said that Redskins is offensive. That's not even asking if it was USED with derogatory intent in the team name. That's just asking if the phrase in general is offensive.

I guess my "ill informed and inept" point here is that if this was so offensive to Native Americans, why aren't MORE Native Americans leading the drive to have the name changed? It seems to be led mostly by white journalists and people with nothing better to do than complain. After all, shouldn't the ones being offended by something be the ones who actually have some...pardon the choice of words...skin in the game?

 

[ghostguy123]

NBC should not allow him to continue with his incessant liberal rants at halftime of football games.

He likely doesn't care whatsoever anyway, just trying to look cool or hip or like some sort of good guy.....................is he pretentious much?

 

[Bob Magaw]

so its not a slur, but it is rude?

yes. those do not mean the same thing.

it would be rude to refer to an individual by alluding to skin color, but referring to a group that way makes it OK?

well, again, yes. If you are talking about a group of people sharing a particular trait, it is reasonable to reference that group by their common trait.

* some of the polls cited (that are ten years old) show something like 10% are offended... you used the word "largely"... what percent are you comfortable with or consider permissable to be offended (20-30-40%?)... you are talking about manufactured outrage and ignorance of the term... are the native american indians that are troubled and disturbed by the reference ignorant... is their outrage manufactured? maybe this isn't a case of you seeing things more clearly or being more eloquent, but of you being more willing to allow some segments of the population be outraged... and that enables you to profess the ignorance of others.

I suppose that's a good question. Where DO you draw the line? I don't have a real answer for that. definitely somewhere above 10% though... but then i've never been a big believer in anyone's right not to be offended. Regardless, for the purposes of THIS "controversy" all we have been hearing from are those offended *on behalf* of others. I think If there were some real issue with the term, there'd be more actually offended people involved in the discussion. The ignorance, to me, lies with those offended on another's behalf not understanding the term and making assumptions about the intent behind the word.

But this is really just all so that some white folks can feel like they're 'better' than other white folks. so, good job, person on the message boards, you're better than me!

so you would be cool with the birmingham blackskins?would that be rude or a slur (or both or neither)?

so it is reasonable to refer to native american indians as redskins? who does that, other than in a debate like this about the washington team name... if your child had to give a speech about the plight of some elements of CONTEMPORARY disenfranchised native american indians (it could be unemployment), you would tell them to feel free to substitute the word redskins interchangeably for native american indians, because it has the exact same meaning? SERIOUSLY? referencing contemporary native american indians with that term, either as individuals or as a group, is a complete anachronism... if you don't know, ask somebody...

some excerpts from below article...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_(slang)

"Redskin" is a descriptor for Native Americans, the origins of which are disputed. Although by some accounts not originally having negative intent,[1] the term is now defined by dictionaries of American English as "usually offensive",[2] "disparaging",[3][4] "insulting",[5] "taboo" [6] and is avoided in public usage with the exception of its continued use as a name for sports teams."

so when dictionaries define it as such, is that another example of ignorance and manufactured outrage... you consider yourself a higher authority of the english language and arbiter of common usage than dictionaries?

to quote you...

"Regardless, for the purposes of THIS "controversy" all we have been hearing from are those offended *on behalf* of others."

the word all is misleading... there are dissenting voices... but i could see how your ignorance of them might cause you to justify your position.

you don't need to look any further than snyder's recent letter... the same oneida organization he cited as in support of him (obviously ignorant of their actual beliefs), immediately denounced his misrepresentation, and urged a retraction*... they also invited him to meet with them, an offer which as far as i know, he has conspicuously failed to acknowledge...

also excerpted below from same article highlights my concern about how rigorous were the efforts to determine that the poll group were in fact representative of individuals that strongly identify with their native american heritage?

"The flaw in random and anonymous polls of Native Americans' opinion is that they must rely upon self-identification to select the target group. In an editorial in the Bloomington Herald Times, Steve Russell (an enrolled Cherokee citizen and associate professor of criminal justice at Indiana University), states that both the Sports Illustrated and Annenberg's samples of "self-identified Native Americans... includes plenty of people who have nothing to do with Indians".

quoting you again...

"But this is really just all so that some white folks can feel like they're 'better' than other white folks. so, good job, person on the message boards, you're better than me!"

that is a little disengenous and hypocritical coming from a person who has it that others who think differently from you are ignorant and using loaded terms like manufactured outrage... how do you know what motivates the thoughts of others?

* wouldn't that be the honorable thing to do (at a minimum, let alone the offer to meed with them) after misrepresenting the very same people he claimed aren't offended by the use of the name?