Do you think Snyder should change the name of the Redskins? (1 Viewer)

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Let me be the first to recommend that Footballguys show some moral fortitude and add the current team nickname for the Washington American Football Club into the language filter.

Time to "walk the walk".

How would this be walking the walk?

You mean how would one of the owners of this board who used to consistently post how much easier it was to claim to do the right things than actually doing them find that this word applies? Because this board already bans comparable words and phrases that are not part of the business model of the site as policy! Might be adding a few others from this thread.

ETA: I should add that I have plenty of doubt that I would pull the trigger if it was my company, my decision but if the only criteria is "be excellent to one another" then there is no decision to make. My weakness would be with other stuff.

 

[TobiasFunke]

In fact, there are 3 high schools with high Native American populations which use the name, and apparently do so proudly.

3 schools! Holy ####!

If you read up about some of those schools, you will see there is disparity amongst the populations as to whether in fact it is a proud word.

I think you missed my point, there are 3 schools which are each comprised of high Native American populations. There are many more nationwide that use the name, but 3 specifically which are in high Native American populations. I have no idea how many of our country's high schools are in "high Native American" populations, but it can't be that many - and I think that having 3 of those all using the name is relevant here. If you ask the principals/coaches/superintendents of those schools (as has been done in various newspaper articles and such), they do find pride in the word.

Yes, other schools which aren't of high Native American populations are having disparity among them about the word, and some are changing their name.

FWIW, the principal of one of the three high schools says non-Native Americans shouldn't use the nickname.

Here's the total numbers- there's 62 high schools that still use it, although a bunch are at various stages of changing the name voluntarily or by edict. 28 used to use it but have changed it in the last 25 years.

 

[Chaka]

So - Reskinna is acceptable, but Reskinner cannot be used?

I don't know, ask some Native Americans and get back to us with your results.

Why would they be Native Americans - seems offensive, given that they were here before "America"

Also seems offensive to lump together a group of people who were not really part of a single civilization.

Good posting. Again, how far do we go with our "political correctness"?

Are you in favor of bringing back the n-word in common usage?

Apparently is already is in a part of African-American culture, as the R-word is in a part of Native American culture (specifically the high school team that uses the name on an Indian reservation).

The fact that some African Americans are comfortable with a contextual usage of the n-word (or the R-word with Native Americans) is not the same as common usage and I am pretty sure you know that.

I don't see high schools in predominately black neighborhoods naming their sports team with the N-word and go around playing other schools using the name with pride. I'm sure you know that.

In fact, there are 3 high schools with high Native American populations which use the name, and apparently do so proudly.

I do know that. What point are you trying to make? Neither word is in common usage.

I asked if you would favor bringing back the n-word into common usage, as in anyone saying it not just small segments of African Americans who are using a different context than the traditional understanding of the word ("a" vs "er"). You don't seem to want to answer that.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Who knew that describing skin color was so offensive. I wish white people would come to grips with that.

 

[jonessed]

Has there been a more recent poll since the one done in 2004 showing 90% of native Americans were not bothered by the name? http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/08/how-many-native-americans-think-redskins-is-a-slur/

Yeah but 15% of white people are offended for the others so that brings the total to well below 0%

 

[Doug B]

I wish white people would come to grips with that.

For your viewing pleasure.

 

[Parrothead]

Who knew that describing skin color was so offensive. I wish white people would come to grips with that.

I'm not white, I'm 'flesh'.. at least according to Crayola..

 

[matttyl]

Totally irrelevant to the Skins name debate, of course.

Again, I look at the Skins name debate as more of a politically correct thing, and have since TV networks stopped using the word last year well before the recent trademark stuff. I feel the trademark drama happening now is just the tactic being used in which to do what some feel is the politically correct thing. I may be totally wrong on that, and if so fine.

Personally I love the Saints and the entire city of New Orleans. I also love the symbol and have no idea if their version of it it trademarked or not. I obviously don't want to see anything changed about it - but the fact remains that their team name is derived from a Catholic holiday and their team symbol, trademarked or not, is a Christian/Catholic symbol. In today's world, could we have a team called the "Christs" and have the cross as their team logo? Would that be PC?

What is making you say that the networks stopped doing that because they are trying to be "PC"? Why do you feel with 100% confidence they didn't do so because they realize it is offensive and don't want to offend. That isn't being PC.

Two prominent sportswriters - Bill Simmons and Peter King - both stopped using the word in their columns. They said they did so because they know it offends people and they don't want to do that.

Yes, not offending people with certain terms is politically correct/political correctness. Here's the definition (just read what I underlined):

Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct; both forms commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term that refers to enforced language, ideas, or policies that address perceived discrimination against political, social or economical groups ("protected classes"). These groups most prominently include those defined by gender, race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age and disability.

I bolded/enlarged the piece you're off on. There isn't any form of discrimination going on here.

The court may feel otherwise....

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/washington_redskins_lose_trademark_registration/

The term "redskin" was widely used in newspaper articles before the 1960s and little used after that, except for references to the football team, peaches and potatoes, the opinion says. Many of the post-1960s "redskin" references to Native Americans were used in stories describing racial slurs or discrimination, as in the case of a plaintiff who won a race discrimination suit because he was called "chief," "Indian Joe" and "redskin."

 

[TobiasFunke]

Who knew that describing skin color was so offensive. I wish white people would come to grips with that.

Poor white people. Will the injustice never cease? I hear Hollywood is going to document our plight in a new film, "Twelve Years a Guy Who Couldn't Describe Minorities by Their Skin Color"

 

[tonydead]

Just because doesn't really fit for an answer for anything. More avoidance really.

Yes it does. Your ability to apply logic simply cannot process it. Now you can break it down into a contextual explanation about the differences between the usage with an "a" vs "er" at the end but I don't think you would be able to accept that reality.

Does it really hurt or bother you that some people can get away with using the N-word in a certain context but you can't in any context?

Attacking, avoiding and dismissing questions aren't answers to questions with any amount of logic. It's called question dodging.

Again, it doesn't bother me. It's interesting too that you keep wanting to equate the desire to understand something with "bother" and now "hurt". It's quite the opposite.

 

[Parrothead]

is it still ok to say "black dude"?

 

[Sinn Fein]

Who knew that describing skin color was so offensive. I wish white people would come to grips with that.

Poor white people. Will the injustice never cease? I hear Hollywood is going to document our plight in a new film, "Twelve Years a Guy Who Couldn't Describe Minorities by Their Skin Color"

You can say Crackers here.

 

[Sinn Fein]

is it still ok to say "black dude"?

Yes. Always an acceptable greeting.

"Hey, what's up black dude?" is preferable to "Hey, whats up my ?"

 

[TobiasFunke]

Who knew that describing skin color was so offensive. I wish white people would come to grips with that.

Poor white people. Will the injustice never cease? I hear Hollywood is going to document our plight in a new film, "Twelve Years a Guy Who Couldn't Describe Minorities by Their Skin Color"

You can say Crackers here.

I know, but I choose not to out of sympathy for the centuries of oppression endured by my fellow Caucasians.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Who knew that describing skin color was so offensive. I wish white people would come to grips with that.

Poor white people. Will the injustice never cease? I hear Hollywood is going to document our plight in a new film, "Twelve Years a Guy Who Couldn't Describe Minorities by Their Skin Color"

Screw whitey. Brown power!

 

[TheIronSheik]

Who knew that describing skin color was so offensive. I wish white people would come to grips with that.

Poor white people. Will the injustice never cease? I hear Hollywood is going to document our plight in a new film, "Twelve Years a Guy Who Couldn't Describe Minorities by Their Skin Color"

Screw whitey. Brown power!

I should add, I don't really understand your point here. I wasn't really saying anything about white people. I could have been talking about black people. Or brown people.

 

[RUSF18]

Totally irrelevant to the Skins name debate, of course.

Again, I look at the Skins name debate as more of a politically correct thing, and have since TV networks stopped using the word last year well before the recent trademark stuff. I feel the trademark drama happening now is just the tactic being used in which to do what some feel is the politically correct thing. I may be totally wrong on that, and if so fine.

Personally I love the Saints and the entire city of New Orleans. I also love the symbol and have no idea if their version of it it trademarked or not. I obviously don't want to see anything changed about it - but the fact remains that their team name is derived from a Catholic holiday and their team symbol, trademarked or not, is a Christian/Catholic symbol. In today's world, could we have a team called the "Christs" and have the cross as their team logo? Would that be PC?

What is making you say that the networks stopped doing that because they are trying to be "PC"? Why do you feel with 100% confidence they didn't do so because they realize it is offensive and don't want to offend. That isn't being PC.

Two prominent sportswriters - Bill Simmons and Peter King - both stopped using the word in their columns. They said they did so because they know it offends people and they don't want to do that.

Yes, not offending people with certain terms is politically correct/political correctness. Here's the definition (just read what I underlined):

Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct; both forms commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term that refers to enforced language, ideas, or policies that address perceived discrimination against political, social or economical groups ("protected classes"). These groups most prominently include those defined by gender, race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age and disability.

I bolded/enlarged the piece you're off on. There isn't any form of discrimination going on here.

The court may feel otherwise....

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/washington_redskins_lose_trademark_registration/

The term "redskin" was widely used in newspaper articles before the 1960s and little used after that, except for references to the football team, peaches and potatoes, the opinion says. Many of the post-1960s "redskin" references to Native Americans were used in stories describing racial slurs or discrimination, as in the case of a plaintiff who won a race discrimination suit because he was called "chief," "Indian Joe" and "redskin."

I'm sure the court had a little more to go on than a brief sentence to actually find that the plaintiff was being discriminated against. Without knowing what that might be, I can't say.

So let's get back to the original question: your belief is that the broadcast networks won't use the term "Redskin" because they think it's discriminatory?

 

[CBusAlex]

And why is it ok for the people who find the word offensive to adopt it as their own? Seems logical that they'd be the last group to want use the word if they really find it offensive.

Hint: black people don't find "n#####" offensive because they have some kind of genetic aversion to those syllables used in that order. It's because it was used for centuries to dehumanize them by a group of powerful oppressors.

If you are unaware (or, more likely, willfully ignorant) of this than I can see why you might find it illogical.

 

[Parrothead]

is it still ok to say "black dude"?

Yes. Always an acceptable greeting.

"Hey, what's up black dude?" is preferable to "Hey, whats up my ######?"

how about as a description? as in "some black dude asked me for money for a bus ticket because he said he lost his wallet"..

 

[TobiasFunke]

Who knew that describing skin color was so offensive. I wish white people would come to grips with that.

Poor white people. Will the injustice never cease? I hear Hollywood is going to document our plight in a new film, "Twelve Years a Guy Who Couldn't Describe Minorities by Their Skin Color"

Screw whitey. Brown power!

I should add, I don't really understand your point here. I wasn't really saying anything about white people. I could have been talking about black people. Or brown people.

My point is to have a laugh.

I just think it's hilarious when white people make these arguments. "If we can't use this word to describe [race/ethnicity], why can they use it?" Or "if we can't use this word, how come it's OK to use [similar word referring to whites]?"

Yes, it's sometimes logically inconsistent. Boo hoo. Let's just consider it a small price we white men have to pay for owning and running everything for hundreds of years.

ETA: I see what you're saying, I think. I don't know it "Red People" would be offensive or not, but that's irrelevant because it's not the name. "Redskins" is the name, and it carries with it a meaning that "Whiteskins" or "Blackskins" would not. Not that those names would pass the smell test either. The whole concept is kind stupid and outdated.

 

[Sinn Fein]

is it still ok to say "black dude"?

Yes. Always an acceptable greeting.

"Hey, what's up black dude?" is preferable to "Hey, whats up my ######?"

how about as a description? as in "some black dude asked me for money for a bus ticket because he said he lost his wallet"..

Personally, I don't have a problem with using skin color as a descriptor - used in this context it is neutral, at least in my mind, rather then making any assumptions about the person based on the color of his skin.

Having said that, is the color of the dude's skin relevant to the discussion? As opposed to "some dude asked me for money..." It is more descriptive of the situation, so I don't really have a problem with it.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Who knew that describing skin color was so offensive. I wish white people would come to grips with that.

Poor white people. Will the injustice never cease? I hear Hollywood is going to document our plight in a new film, "Twelve Years a Guy Who Couldn't Describe Minorities by Their Skin Color"

Screw whitey. Brown power!

I should add, I don't really understand your point here. I wasn't really saying anything about white people. I could have been talking about black people. Or brown people.

My point is to have a laugh.

I just think it's hilarious when white people make these arguments. "If we can't use this word to describe [race/ethnicity], why can they use it?" Or "if we can't use this word, how come it's OK to use [similar word referring to whites]?"

Yes, it's sometimes logically inconsistent. Boo hoo. Let's just consider it a small price we white men have to pay for owning and running everything for hundreds of years.

White people. :smh: Amirite?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Who knew that describing skin color was so offensive. I wish white people would come to grips with that.

Poor white people. Will the injustice never cease? I hear Hollywood is going to document our plight in a new film, "Twelve Years a Guy Who Couldn't Describe Minorities by Their Skin Color"

Screw whitey. Brown power!

I should add, I don't really understand your point here. I wasn't really saying anything about white people. I could have been talking about black people. Or brown people.

My point is to have a laugh.

I just think it's hilarious when white people make these arguments. "If we can't use this word to describe [race/ethnicity], why can they use it?" Or "if we can't use this word, how come it's OK to use [similar word referring to whites]?"

Yes, it's sometimes logically inconsistent. Boo hoo. Let's just consider it a small price we white men have to pay for owning and running everything for hundreds of years.

White people. :smh: Amirite?

Tell me about it. How many Law and Orders do they need? And don't even get me started on bottled water and Starbucks.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

It is so refreshing that very young kids of today don't seem to even notice skin color on the playground or at the pool. (At least in some places.) I'm sure we will change that soon enough.

 

[Chaka]

I wish white people would come to grips with that.

For your viewing pleasure.

For context

 

[Chaka]

And why is it ok for the people who find the word offensive to adopt it as their own? Seems logical that they'd be the last group to want use the word if they really find it offensive.

Hint: black people don't find "n#####" offensive because they have some kind of genetic aversion to those syllables used in that order. It's because it was used for centuries to dehumanize them by a group of powerful oppressors.

If you are unaware (or, more likely, willfully ignorant) of this than I can see why you might find it illogical.

Don't bother.

 

[matttyl]

In fact, there are 3 high schools with high Native American populations which use the name, and apparently do so proudly.

3 schools! Holy ####!

If you read up about some of those schools, you will see there is disparity amongst the populations as to whether in fact it is a proud word.

I think you missed my point, there are 3 schools which are each comprised of high Native American populations. There are many more nationwide that use the name, but 3 specifically which are in high Native American populations. I have no idea how many of our country's high schools are in "high Native American" populations, but it can't be that many - and I think that having 3 of those all using the name is relevant here. If you ask the principals/coaches/superintendents of those schools (as has been done in various newspaper articles and such), they do find pride in the word.

Yes, other schools which aren't of high Native American populations are having disparity among them about the word, and some are changing their name.

FWIW, the principal of one of the three high schools says non-Native Americans shouldn't use the nickname.

Here's the total numbers- there's 62 high schools that still use it, although a bunch are at various stages of changing the name voluntarily or by edict. 28 used to use it but have changed it in the last 25 years.

Right, but that means that Native Americans can and apparently do. That's my point about the R word being used, and used very publicly, and apparently with pride with some parts of Native American culture. That was my response to Chaka's question on if the N word should be used more in common usage - I think it's not an apples to apples comparison.

 

[matttyl]

I do know that. What point are you trying to make? Neither word is in common usage.

You don't consider 3 schools of primarily Native American population using the name for their school mascot to be "common usage"?

 

[MattFancy]

ProFootballTalk ‏@ProFootballTalk
Jerry Jones doesn't see owners pressuring Snyder to change name

 

[TheIronSheik]

I think the Cowboys mascot is offensive. He's basically a caricature of what a real cowboy looked like. Big 10 gallon hat, oversized chaps. It's appalling.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Doesn't the Blackhawks logo wear a headdress? Seems offensive.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Doesn't the Blackhawks logo wear a headdress? Seems offensive.

How so?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Sheik, these are totally hilarious!!!! I hadn't seen any of them before, and they make a really great point!!!!

 

[TheIronSheik]

Doesn't the Blackhawks logo wear a headdress? Seems offensive.

How so?

On a caricature of an Indian? Screams racism. Your white mind can't process it I guess since you're so unbelievably racist.

 

[MattFancy]

I think the Cowboys mascot is offensive. He's basically a caricature of what a real cowboy looked like. Big 10 gallon hat, oversized chaps. It's appalling.

At least they're not assless chaps

 

[matttyl]

I'm sure the court had a little more to go on than a brief sentence to actually find that the plaintiff was being discriminated against. Without knowing what that might be, I can't say.

So let's get back to the original question: your belief is that the broadcast networks won't use the term "Redskin" because they think it's discriminatory?

Well, yes. They feel it's not politically correct to use the term, so they stopped, well before any of the recent trademark stuff came up. They felt the word was of a discriminatory nature.

Direct from the wikipedia page for the slang version of the "r-word":

As with any term perceived to be discriminatory, different individuals may hold differing opinions of the term's appropriateness.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Sheik, these are totally hilarious!!!! I hadn't seen any of them before, and they make a really great point!!!!

I'm sure they sound ridiculous to you. I know they sound ridiculous to me. It's weird how they are all ridiculous until they are used for the Redskins argument. Then they become serious business.

 

[EYLive]

I changed my vote to yes. Football is an entertainment business. You need to cater to the customers, and I don't think the public pressure will subside.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Sheik, these are totally hilarious!!!! I hadn't seen any of them before, and they make a really great point!!!!

I'm sure they sound ridiculous to you. I know they sound ridiculous to me. It's weird how they are all ridiculous until they are used for the Redskins argument. Then they become serious business.

Right? What do these whiners think, that different words have different meanings when you apply context? They're so silly. Obviously "Cowboys" and "Redskins" are exactly the same. They both are NFL team nicknames and they both refer to groups of humans. A perfect analogy! Why can't these silly Native Americans just let it go like America's cowboys have done?

You should tell them. Here, shoot 'em an email and explain it to them. Call them Redskins in the To; line while you're at it, since we all know there's nothing disparaging about the word. Let us know how it goes.

 

[tonydead]

And why is it ok for the people who find the word offensive to adopt it as their own? Seems logical that they'd be the last group to want use the word if they really find it offensive.

Hint: black people don't find "n#####" offensive because they have some kind of genetic aversion to those syllables used in that order. It's because it was used for centuries to dehumanize them by a group of powerful oppressors.

If you are unaware (or, more likely, willfully ignorant) of this than I can see why you might find it illogical.

Thanks for directly addressing the question, but, your answer doesn't make sense. You say they aren't offended then follow by stating the exact reason why they are offended. All of which we are both well aware of and which there is plenty of evidence.

 

[RUSF18]

Doesn't the Blackhawks logo wear a headdress? Seems offensive.

You should search out their old logo which they changed in 1937.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Sheik, these are totally hilarious!!!! I hadn't seen any of them before, and they make a really great point!!!!

I'm sure they sound ridiculous to you. I know they sound ridiculous to me. It's weird how they are all ridiculous until they are used for the Redskins argument. Then they become serious business.

Right? What do these whiners think, that different words have different meanings when you apply context? They're so silly. Obviously "Cowboys" and "Redskins" are exactly the same. They both are NFL team nicknames and they both refer to groups of humans. A perfect analogy! Why can't these silly Native Americans just let it go like America's cowboys have done?

You should tell them. Here, shoot 'em an email and explain it to them. Call them Redskins in the To; line while you're at it, since we all know there's nothing disparaging about the word. Let us know how it goes.

You've already given me that link.

Again, you're changing the argument. I'm not talking about the names being similar. The article yesterday stated that it was offensive to wear headdresses and feathers because that was offensive. When I asked why it was offensive, it was stated that it's because it is a caricature of what they really are.

So my point in the above was that the Cowboy mascot was offensive for the same reasons. Because it is mocking the true Cowboys with this exaggerated mascot. Cowboys were very proud people, you know. Or course, they were mostly white, so I guess that negates the argument. Because we all know that white people aren't allowed to be offended because of their history and current social standings.

 

[RUSF18]

I'm sure the court had a little more to go on than a brief sentence to actually find that the plaintiff was being discriminated against. Without knowing what that might be, I can't say.

So let's get back to the original question: your belief is that the broadcast networks won't use the term "Redskin" because they think it's discriminatory?

Well, yes. They feel it's not politically correct to use the term, so they stopped, well before any of the recent trademark stuff came up. They felt the word was of a discriminatory nature.

Direct from the wikipedia page for the slang version of the "r-word":

As with any term perceived to be discriminatory, different individuals may hold differing opinions of the term's appropriateness.

What's funny is that Bob Costas stated, when talking about the Redskins name, that it had nothing to do with political correctness, because he mentioned that it would be applicable in the case of names like the Braves and Indians.

He called the word "an insult, a slur". But in your opinion, he didn't mean that they were offensive, but that they were discriminatory. Same thing with Peter King and Bill Simmons, two sports media giants. When they explicitly said "it is offensive", what they really meant was that it was discriminatory.

 

[Fennis]

Sheik, these are totally hilarious!!!! I hadn't seen any of them before, and they make a really great point!!!!

I'm sure they sound ridiculous to you. I know they sound ridiculous to me. It's weird how they are all ridiculous until they are used for the Redskins argument. Then they become serious business.

Right? What do these whiners think, that different words have different meanings when you apply context? They're so silly. Obviously "Cowboys" and "Redskins" are exactly the same. They both are NFL team nicknames and they both refer to groups of humans. A perfect analogy! Why can't these silly Native Americans just let it go like America's cowboys have done?

You should tell them. Here, shoot 'em an email and explain it to them. Call them Redskins in the To; line while you're at it, since we all know there's nothing disparaging about the word. Let us know how it goes.

You've already given me that link.

Again, you're changing the argument. I'm not talking about the names being similar. The article yesterday stated that it was offensive to wear headdresses and feathers because that was offensive. When I asked why it was offensive, it was stated that it's because it is a caricature of what they really are.

So my point in the above was that the Cowboy mascot was offensive for the same reasons. Because it is mocking the true Cowboys with this exaggerated mascot. Cowboys were very proud people, you know. Or course, they were mostly white, so I guess that negates the argument. Because we all know that white people aren't allowed to be offended because of their history and current social standings.

white people get offended all the time. For example, they get offended when people want to change the name of a football team from "Redskins"

 

[TheIronSheik]

Sheik, these are totally hilarious!!!! I hadn't seen any of them before, and they make a really great point!!!!

I'm sure they sound ridiculous to you. I know they sound ridiculous to me. It's weird how they are all ridiculous until they are used for the Redskins argument. Then they become serious business.

Right? What do these whiners think, that different words have different meanings when you apply context? They're so silly. Obviously "Cowboys" and "Redskins" are exactly the same. They both are NFL team nicknames and they both refer to groups of humans. A perfect analogy! Why can't these silly Native Americans just let it go like America's cowboys have done?

You should tell them. Here, shoot 'em an email and explain it to them. Call them Redskins in the To; line while you're at it, since we all know there's nothing disparaging about the word. Let us know how it goes.

You've already given me that link.

Again, you're changing the argument. I'm not talking about the names being similar. The article yesterday stated that it was offensive to wear headdresses and feathers because that was offensive. When I asked why it was offensive, it was stated that it's because it is a caricature of what they really are.

So my point in the above was that the Cowboy mascot was offensive for the same reasons. Because it is mocking the true Cowboys with this exaggerated mascot. Cowboys were very proud people, you know. Or course, they were mostly white, so I guess that negates the argument. Because we all know that white people aren't allowed to be offended because of their history and current social standings.

white people get offended all the time. For example, they get offended when people want to change the name of a football team from "Redskins"

Yes. But they're not ALLOWED to be.

 

[glumpy]

Sheik, these are totally hilarious!!!! I hadn't seen any of them before, and they make a really great point!!!!

I'm sure they sound ridiculous to you. I know they sound ridiculous to me. It's weird how they are all ridiculous until they are used for the Redskins argument. Then they become serious business.

Right? What do these whiners think, that different words have different meanings when you apply context? They're so silly. Obviously "Cowboys" and "Redskins" are exactly the same. They both are NFL team nicknames and they both refer to groups of humans. A perfect analogy! Why can't these silly Native Americans just let it go like America's cowboys have done?

You should tell them. Here, shoot 'em an email and explain it to them. Call them Redskins in the To; line while you're at it, since we all know there's nothing disparaging about the word. Let us know how it goes.

You've already given me that link.

Again, you're changing the argument. I'm not talking about the names being similar. The article yesterday stated that it was offensive to wear headdresses and feathers because that was offensive. When I asked why it was offensive, it was stated that it's because it is a caricature of what they really are.

So my point in the above was that the Cowboy mascot was offensive for the same reasons. Because it is mocking the true Cowboys with this exaggerated mascot. Cowboys were very proud people, you know. Or course, they were mostly white, so I guess that negates the argument. Because we all know that white people aren't allowed to be offended because of their history and current social standings.

white people get offended all the time. For example, they get offended when people want to change the name of a football team from "Redskins"

This is an excellent point. At least--the Native American radio personality I was listening to this morning stated that the entire issue here is being brought up by white people, and not Native Americans. She said it was not their issue at all.

 

[The Commish]

Wait...so now context matters?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Sheik, these are totally hilarious!!!! I hadn't seen any of them before, and they make a really great point!!!!

I'm sure they sound ridiculous to you. I know they sound ridiculous to me. It's weird how they are all ridiculous until they are used for the Redskins argument. Then they become serious business.

Right? What do these whiners think, that different words have different meanings when you apply context? They're so silly. Obviously "Cowboys" and "Redskins" are exactly the same. They both are NFL team nicknames and they both refer to groups of humans. A perfect analogy! Why can't these silly Native Americans just let it go like America's cowboys have done?

You should tell them. Here, shoot 'em an email and explain it to them. Call them Redskins in the To; line while you're at it, since we all know there's nothing disparaging about the word. Let us know how it goes.

You've already given me that link.

Again, you're changing the argument. I'm not talking about the names being similar. The article yesterday stated that it was offensive to wear headdresses and feathers because that was offensive. When I asked why it was offensive, it was stated that it's because it is a caricature of what they really are.

So my point in the above was that the Cowboy mascot was offensive for the same reasons. Because it is mocking the true Cowboys with this exaggerated mascot. Cowboys were very proud people, you know. Or course, they were mostly white, so I guess that negates the argument. Because we all know that white people aren't allowed to be offended because of their history and current social standings.

I don't know why you're asking me why the headdresses and feathers are offensive. It was explained by Native Americans in a reposted article that you apparently didn't bother to read. They're the ones who are offended, let them explain it. Here is the link again. Quoting in part:

The wearing of feathers and warbonnets in Native communities is not a fashion choice. Eagle feathers are presented as symbols of honor and respect and have to be earned. Some communities give them to children when they become adults through special ceremonies, others present the feathers as a way of commemorating an act or event of deep significance.

If the same is true of cowboy hats, you are free to speak with your fellow cowboys and push for the team to stop using the name. If a critical mass of them feel the same way I'd happily support their efforts. If not ... well that's just one more terrible argument you've made in this thread to put on the pile.

 

[Doug B]

Sheik, these are totally hilarious!!!! I hadn't seen any of them before, and they make a really great point!!!!

I'm sure they sound ridiculous to you. I know they sound ridiculous to me. It's weird how they are all ridiculous until they are used for the Redskins argument. Then they become serious business.

The Redskins argument is exclusively about the name "Redskins" not about the Indian-head helmet logo. As far as I understand it.

There may be some conflation with controversy regarding the Cleveland Indians' Chief Wahoo.

 

[Fennis]

Sheik, these are totally hilarious!!!! I hadn't seen any of them before, and they make a really great point!!!!

I'm sure they sound ridiculous to you. I know they sound ridiculous to me. It's weird how they are all ridiculous until they are used for the Redskins argument. Then they become serious business.

Right? What do these whiners think, that different words have different meanings when you apply context? They're so silly. Obviously "Cowboys" and "Redskins" are exactly the same. They both are NFL team nicknames and they both refer to groups of humans. A perfect analogy! Why can't these silly Native Americans just let it go like America's cowboys have done?

You should tell them. Here, shoot 'em an email and explain it to them. Call them Redskins in the To; line while you're at it, since we all know there's nothing disparaging about the word. Let us know how it goes.

You've already given me that link.

Again, you're changing the argument. I'm not talking about the names being similar. The article yesterday stated that it was offensive to wear headdresses and feathers because that was offensive. When I asked why it was offensive, it was stated that it's because it is a caricature of what they really are.

So my point in the above was that the Cowboy mascot was offensive for the same reasons. Because it is mocking the true Cowboys with this exaggerated mascot. Cowboys were very proud people, you know. Or course, they were mostly white, so I guess that negates the argument. Because we all know that white people aren't allowed to be offended because of their history and current social standings.

white people get offended all the time. For example, they get offended when people want to change the name of a football team from "Redskins"

This is an excellent point. At least--the Native American radio personality I was listening to this morning stated that the entire issue here is being brought up by white people, and not Native Americans. She said it was not their issue at all.

http://www.ncai.org/