Do you think Snyder should change the name of the Redskins? (2 Viewers)

[Hang 10]

Hey, at least there's no history of the team's use of the name being used in a racist manner or anything.

It's people like you that named our basketball team the ####ing wizards.

Total non-sequitur and also 100% wrong since I preferred Bullets and would be happy if they changed it back. But other than that you totally nailed it!

You mind a friendly suggestion? Maybe you should take the mascots of your local sports teams a little less seriously? They're just dumb names thought up to sell overpriced crap to kids. Personally I care about a thousand times more about the "Washington" part of all four of the names of the major teams then whatever cheesy name some marketing ####### decides to put after it. Just my opinion, YMMV I guess.

You're the one that's taking the name so seriously. How many times have you posted in this stupid thread? Try taking up a worth while cause, Rev. Sharpton.

You seem to know a lot about me. You know how I felt about the basketball team's name (you were wrong, but that's OK, nobody's intel is perfect), and how "seriously" I take the name controversy (you are confusing an interest in discussion with passion, but whatever). But now you're following me around enough to know what other causes I take up and whether they're "worth while" or not? Who are you? Why are you so obsessed with me? Don't get me wrong, I'm flattered, but it's a little bit weird.

Wait. You're the claimed that I take sports teams names too seriously, despite the fact that you are the one that can't let the issue go. I'd say this thread has established this fact pretty well.

Also, I don't think that I know a lot about you. You seem to be a limpwristed PC liberal that happens to follow the same sports teams as me. So there's that.

And yeah, not sure I know what you're talking about with the stalking thing. Have I replied to you in any other threads this week? Month? Honestly, I don't know.

 

[The Commish]

Early in this thread, there was a court decision posted that said it wasn't enough to argue that "redskin" was offensive. They had to show that "Washington Redskin" was offensive and derogatory. To me, this means that "redskin" <> "Washington Redskin" per the courts. So I don't use them interchangeably, yet all the opponents approach this from the "Go ask an Indian if redskin is offensive and get back to me" perspective. Shouldn't they be approaching this from the "Go ask an Indian if Washington Redskins is offensive and get back to me" perspective?


The reason this is important to me is the context and intent arguments I brought up several pages ago. I personally don't see how folks can get worked up over the term Washington Redskin. You ask 100 people what they think of when they hear that term, they'll say the team....not the hunted Indian or the term used to describe specific groups of Indians by Columbus or a socialist/communist skinhead.

As was explained to earlier, you were misinterpreting that legal ruling. What they were saying IMO was the test wasn't whether "Redskin" is offensive, but rather that "Washington Redskin" is offensive. They were simply articulating the proper question for the court. Because it's obvious to anyone that the team is referring to Native Americans, the question is whether it's offensive to refer to Native Americans that way. If, say, the team had a potato on its helmet, then we'd have a different question. That's all the court was saying as I understand it. Since the nickname obviously refers to the minority, the questions are identical, but the court still wants to clarify the proper question before it.

You don't get a pass from using a slur just because the team has been around long enough and the minority is small enough that people associate the word with the team first and the minority second. That makes no sense. If it's a slur, it's a slur. That's the only question. I'm not saying I know that answer to that question (although I have a guess, and the Grantland article does a good job of explaining why). I'm saying that in this case, the distinction you're trying to draw is not really a distinction.

It was certainly my interpretation. Now the question I have before we go any further is, who's interpretation is right? Perhaps that is our problem. We are starting from completely different POV on this. So let's assume that we can agree that you were correct in your interpretation. The question comes back to context, agreed? This word has a very long history and means different things to different people. It's not a word like "*******" or "n#####" that has only one meaning, so to me, context becomes very important.

Personally, I believe the court asked their question(s) specifically to bring context into it's ruling....as it should.

The court ruled on procedural grounds. The passage you're citing has nothing to do with the "context" of a decision. You are so far lost in the weeds here with this bizarre, nonsensical "context" thing that you are trying to discern the intentions of a court decision that was clearly made on a standing issue and, as the judge actually said in the opinion, had nothing at all to do with whether or not the name was offensive. So take like ten steps back. The decision is totally irrelevant. Forget it ever happened, because the ruling was not made on substantive grounds.

Here's the question- is referring to a football team as the "Redskins," by which they obviously mean Native Americans, a slur towards those people? The fact that people think of the football team first when they hear the word is irrelevant. The fact that the word is also a kind of potato is irrelevant. The only question is whether it's offensive to describe Native Americans in this manner. If it is, then the football team's name is offensive, since it's obviously being used by the team to describe Native Americans. If it's not, no harm done. It's that simple.

Context seems (to this non-lawyer) to be important given the fact it was used as part of the reason to overturn the decision

However, let's forego all that stuff and talk about the team name and answer your question. What we know is that the team was named in honor of their American Indian coach. If we go back further into history we know that the term redskin was used by American Indians for themselves and it was used in writings of the 19th century in a positive light. We can go back even further to the 18th century and see the term being used in a positive light.

I haven't seen any hard evidence of the claim that the term was used to describe "scalps presented as proof for bounty payments" assertion. But let's say that exists. That particular meaning then becomes a bastardized version of the original. So my question to those offended is this. Why are you offended by the name of a sports team that is in honor of an American Indian and why do you ignore the complete history of the word and focus on someone else's bastardized version of the word? Do you not believe the history of how the team got it's name or do you simply not understand the history of the team's name?

 

[The Commish]

I can't believe this is still a discussion. It needs to be changed, but the Cleveland Indians need to go first...

What is so derogatory about the word "Indians"? I can see the justification in "Redskins" being a racial slur, but Indians? Come on, this PC business has gotten out of control in our society, imo.

Yes, and while they're at it, they might as well get rid of the Braves, Chiefs while they're at it. hey, and the Yankees too. Not because I'm a Yankee, but because I hate them.

You have seen the Chief Wahoo logo, haven't you? It's disgusting that a major sports team markets its team with such a blatantly racist logo. Yes, the Braves should also change their name along with the Chiefs and any other team named after people. I'll tell you what, if the owners of the Indians, Braves, Chiefs, et al donate all of their profits from their racist logos to Native American charities, I'll consider changing my mind...

Oh Boy. Naming a team after people is offensive? I guess we need to get rid of the following teams as well:

Yankees

Mets

Athletics

Rangers

Nationals

Pirates

Brewers

Padres

Patriots

Texans

Titans

Raiders

Cowboys

Packers

Vikings

Saints

49ers

Buckeneers

And that's just two sports.

Reds

 

[PatsFanCT]

I can't believe this is still a discussion. It needs to be changed, but the Cleveland Indians need to go first...

What is so derogatory about the word "Indians"? I can see the justification in "Redskins" being a racial slur, but Indians? Come on, this PC business has gotten out of control in our society, imo.

Yes, and while they're at it, they might as well get rid of the Braves, Chiefs while they're at it. hey, and the Yankees too. Not because I'm a Yankee, but because I hate them.

You have seen the Chief Wahoo logo, haven't you? It's disgusting that a major sports team markets its team with such a blatantly racist logo. Yes, the Braves should also change their name along with the Chiefs and any other team named after people. I'll tell you what, if the owners of the Indians, Braves, Chiefs, et al donate all of their profits from their racist logos to Native American charities, I'll consider changing my mind...

Oh Boy. Naming a team after people is offensive? I guess we need to get rid of the following teams as well:

Yankees

Mets

Athletics

Rangers

Nationals

Pirates

Brewers

Padres

Patriots

Texans

Titans

Raiders

Cowboys

Packers

Vikings

Saints

49ers

Buckeneers

And that's just two sports.

Reds

That was based on their uniform color.

But as an Irish guy, who's a fan of the Celtics, I'm not the least bit offended by their name. Should I be?

 

[Hang 10]

I can't believe this is still a discussion. It needs to be changed, but the Cleveland Indians need to go first...

What is so derogatory about the word "Indians"? I can see the justification in "Redskins" being a racial slur, but Indians? Come on, this PC business has gotten out of control in our society, imo.

Yes, and while they're at it, they might as well get rid of the Braves, Chiefs while they're at it. hey, and the Yankees too. Not because I'm a Yankee, but because I hate them.

You have seen the Chief Wahoo logo, haven't you? It's disgusting that a major sports team markets its team with such a blatantly racist logo. Yes, the Braves should also change their name along with the Chiefs and any other team named after people. I'll tell you what, if the owners of the Indians, Braves, Chiefs, et al donate all of their profits from their racist logos to Native American charities, I'll consider changing my mind...

Oh Boy. Naming a team after people is offensive? I guess we need to get rid of the following teams as well:

Yankees

Mets

Athletics

Rangers

Nationals

Pirates

Brewers

Padres

Patriots

Texans

Titans

Raiders

Cowboys

Packers

Vikings

Saints

49ers

Buckeneers

And that's just two sports.

Reds

That was based on their uniform color.

But as an Irish guy, who's a fan of the Celtics, I'm not the least bit offended by their name. Should I be?

You don't have to be offended by the name when guys like Tobias can be offended for you and champion your their cause.

 

[JB Breakfast Club]

I can't believe this is still a discussion. It needs to be changed, but the Cleveland Indians need to go first...

What is so derogatory about the word "Indians"? I can see the justification in "Redskins" being a racial slur, but Indians? Come on, this PC business has gotten out of control in our society, imo.

Yes, and while they're at it, they might as well get rid of the Braves, Chiefs while they're at it. hey, and the Yankees too. Not because I'm a Yankee, but because I hate them.

You have seen the Chief Wahoo logo, haven't you? It's disgusting that a major sports team markets its team with such a blatantly racist logo. Yes, the Braves should also change their name along with the Chiefs and any other team named after people. I'll tell you what, if the owners of the Indians, Braves, Chiefs, et al donate all of their profits from their racist logos to Native American charities, I'll consider changing my mind...

Oh Boy. Naming a team after people is offensive? I guess we need to get rid of the following teams as well:

Yankees

Mets

Athletics

Rangers

Nationals

Pirates

Brewers

Padres

Patriots

Texans

Titans

Raiders

Cowboys

Packers

Vikings

Saints

49ers

Buckeneers

And that's just two sports.

ugh, fine. I mean naming teams after races of people that have experienced genocide, slavery, or other forms of sub-human treatment.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Wait. You're the claimed that I take sports teams names too seriously, despite the fact that you are the one that can't let the issue go. I'd say this thread has established this fact pretty well.

Also, I don't think that I know a lot about you. You seem to be a limpwristed PC liberal that happens to follow the same sports teams as me. So there's that.

And yeah, not sure I know what you're talking about with the stalking thing. Have I replied to you in any other threads this week? Month? Honestly, I don't know.

The "stalking" thing was just a little joke highlighting the fact that you seem to think you know me pretty well (well enough to know whether I support "worth while" causes) when in fact you don't know me at all.

Listen, it's been really fun engaging a guy who uses phrases like "limpwristed PC liberal" as insults in message board conversations. But if you don't mind, I'm gonna go back to talking about an interesting issue with people whose opinions I actually value.

 

[Hang 10]

Wait. You're the claimed that I take sports teams names too seriously, despite the fact that you are the one that can't let the issue go. I'd say this thread has established this fact pretty well. Also, I don't think that I know a lot about you. You seem to be a limpwristed PC liberal that happens to follow the same sports teams as me. So there's that. And yeah, not sure I know what you're talking about with the stalking thing. Have I replied to you in any other threads this week? Month? Honestly, I don't know.

The "stalking" thing was just a little joke highlighting the fact that you seem to think you know me pretty well (well enough to know whether I support "worth while" causes) when in fact you don't know me at all. Listen, it's been really fun engaging a guy who uses phrases like "limpwristed PC liberal" as insults in message board conversations. But if you don't mind, I'm gonna go back to talking about an interesting issue with people whose opinions I actually value.

Never said you didn't support worthwhile causes, just that this wasn't one of them. Don't be so sensitive, Francis.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Early in this thread, there was a court decision posted that said it wasn't enough to argue that "redskin" was offensive. They had to show that "Washington Redskin" was offensive and derogatory. To me, this means that "redskin" <> "Washington Redskin" per the courts. So I don't use them interchangeably, yet all the opponents approach this from the "Go ask an Indian if redskin is offensive and get back to me" perspective. Shouldn't they be approaching this from the "Go ask an Indian if Washington Redskins is offensive and get back to me" perspective?


The reason this is important to me is the context and intent arguments I brought up several pages ago. I personally don't see how folks can get worked up over the term Washington Redskin. You ask 100 people what they think of when they hear that term, they'll say the team....not the hunted Indian or the term used to describe specific groups of Indians by Columbus or a socialist/communist skinhead.

As was explained to earlier, you were misinterpreting that legal ruling. What they were saying IMO was the test wasn't whether "Redskin" is offensive, but rather that "Washington Redskin" is offensive. They were simply articulating the proper question for the court. Because it's obvious to anyone that the team is referring to Native Americans, the question is whether it's offensive to refer to Native Americans that way. If, say, the team had a potato on its helmet, then we'd have a different question. That's all the court was saying as I understand it. Since the nickname obviously refers to the minority, the questions are identical, but the court still wants to clarify the proper question before it.

You don't get a pass from using a slur just because the team has been around long enough and the minority is small enough that people associate the word with the team first and the minority second. That makes no sense. If it's a slur, it's a slur. That's the only question. I'm not saying I know that answer to that question (although I have a guess, and the Grantland article does a good job of explaining why). I'm saying that in this case, the distinction you're trying to draw is not really a distinction.

It was certainly my interpretation. Now the question I have before we go any further is, who's interpretation is right? Perhaps that is our problem. We are starting from completely different POV on this. So let's assume that we can agree that you were correct in your interpretation. The question comes back to context, agreed? This word has a very long history and means different things to different people. It's not a word like "*******" or "n#####" that has only one meaning, so to me, context becomes very important.

Personally, I believe the court asked their question(s) specifically to bring context into it's ruling....as it should.

The court ruled on procedural grounds. The passage you're citing has nothing to do with the "context" of a decision. You are so far lost in the weeds here with this bizarre, nonsensical "context" thing that you are trying to discern the intentions of a court decision that was clearly made on a standing issue and, as the judge actually said in the opinion, had nothing at all to do with whether or not the name was offensive. So take like ten steps back. The decision is totally irrelevant. Forget it ever happened, because the ruling was not made on substantive grounds.

Here's the question- is referring to a football team as the "Redskins," by which they obviously mean Native Americans, a slur towards those people? The fact that people think of the football team first when they hear the word is irrelevant. The fact that the word is also a kind of potato is irrelevant. The only question is whether it's offensive to describe Native Americans in this manner. If it is, then the football team's name is offensive, since it's obviously being used by the team to describe Native Americans. If it's not, no harm done. It's that simple.

Context seems (to this non-lawyer) to be important given the fact it was used as part of the reason to overturn the decision

You keep saying this. Do you have a cite? I've read all three Harjo decisions. They're decided on laches. They don't rely on "context" to overturn the TTAB's decision.

 

[The Commish]

I can't believe this is still a discussion. It needs to be changed, but the Cleveland Indians need to go first...

What is so derogatory about the word "Indians"? I can see the justification in "Redskins" being a racial slur, but Indians? Come on, this PC business has gotten out of control in our society, imo.

Yes, and while they're at it, they might as well get rid of the Braves, Chiefs while they're at it. hey, and the Yankees too. Not because I'm a Yankee, but because I hate them.

You have seen the Chief Wahoo logo, haven't you? It's disgusting that a major sports team markets its team with such a blatantly racist logo. Yes, the Braves should also change their name along with the Chiefs and any other team named after people. I'll tell you what, if the owners of the Indians, Braves, Chiefs, et al donate all of their profits from their racist logos to Native American charities, I'll consider changing my mind...

Oh Boy. Naming a team after people is offensive? I guess we need to get rid of the following teams as well:

Yankees

Mets

Athletics

Rangers

Nationals

Pirates

Brewers

Padres

Patriots

Texans

Titans

Raiders

Cowboys

Packers

Vikings

Saints

49ers

Buckeneers

And that's just two sports.

Reds

That was based on their uniform color.

But as an Irish guy, who's a fan of the Celtics, I'm not the least bit offended by their name. Should I be?

Actually it was based on a term that goes all the way down into the caribbean. It was a term used by locals for white folks. It all started with "redlegs"

 

[The Commish]

Early in this thread, there was a court decision posted that said it wasn't enough to argue that "redskin" was offensive. They had to show that "Washington Redskin" was offensive and derogatory. To me, this means that "redskin" <> "Washington Redskin" per the courts. So I don't use them interchangeably, yet all the opponents approach this from the "Go ask an Indian if redskin is offensive and get back to me" perspective. Shouldn't they be approaching this from the "Go ask an Indian if Washington Redskins is offensive and get back to me" perspective?


The reason this is important to me is the context and intent arguments I brought up several pages ago. I personally don't see how folks can get worked up over the term Washington Redskin. You ask 100 people what they think of when they hear that term, they'll say the team....not the hunted Indian or the term used to describe specific groups of Indians by Columbus or a socialist/communist skinhead.

As was explained to earlier, you were misinterpreting that legal ruling. What they were saying IMO was the test wasn't whether "Redskin" is offensive, but rather that "Washington Redskin" is offensive. They were simply articulating the proper question for the court. Because it's obvious to anyone that the team is referring to Native Americans, the question is whether it's offensive to refer to Native Americans that way. If, say, the team had a potato on its helmet, then we'd have a different question. That's all the court was saying as I understand it. Since the nickname obviously refers to the minority, the questions are identical, but the court still wants to clarify the proper question before it.

You don't get a pass from using a slur just because the team has been around long enough and the minority is small enough that people associate the word with the team first and the minority second. That makes no sense. If it's a slur, it's a slur. That's the only question. I'm not saying I know that answer to that question (although I have a guess, and the Grantland article does a good job of explaining why). I'm saying that in this case, the distinction you're trying to draw is not really a distinction.

It was certainly my interpretation. Now the question I have before we go any further is, who's interpretation is right? Perhaps that is our problem. We are starting from completely different POV on this. So let's assume that we can agree that you were correct in your interpretation. The question comes back to context, agreed? This word has a very long history and means different things to different people. It's not a word like "*******" or "n#####" that has only one meaning, so to me, context becomes very important.

Personally, I believe the court asked their question(s) specifically to bring context into it's ruling....as it should.

The court ruled on procedural grounds. The passage you're citing has nothing to do with the "context" of a decision. You are so far lost in the weeds here with this bizarre, nonsensical "context" thing that you are trying to discern the intentions of a court decision that was clearly made on a standing issue and, as the judge actually said in the opinion, had nothing at all to do with whether or not the name was offensive. So take like ten steps back. The decision is totally irrelevant. Forget it ever happened, because the ruling was not made on substantive grounds.

Here's the question- is referring to a football team as the "Redskins," by which they obviously mean Native Americans, a slur towards those people? The fact that people think of the football team first when they hear the word is irrelevant. The fact that the word is also a kind of potato is irrelevant. The only question is whether it's offensive to describe Native Americans in this manner. If it is, then the football team's name is offensive, since it's obviously being used by the team to describe Native Americans. If it's not, no harm done. It's that simple.

Context seems (to this non-lawyer) to be important given the fact it was used as part of the reason to overturn the decision

You keep saying this. Do you have a cite? I've read all three Harjo decisions. They're decided on laches. They don't rely on "context" to overturn the TTAB's decision.

This was one of the first pieces I read on the whole thing. It has links to several other rabbit holes if you have time. They too acknowledge that laches was the primary factor, but follow it up with:

• that there was an absence of evidence that the term redskin is disparaging in the particular context of the name of the sports team;
• that the TTB did not sufficiently articulate its inferences and explain how it decided between competing pieces of evidence. In particular, the District Court was critical of the fact that the TTB ruled on the basis "of the entirety of the evidence" but did not review that evidence in any detail and made few findings of fact;
• that the petitioners' claim was barred by the doctrine of laches, which provides that a right or claim should not be enforced if the long delay in asserting it puts the respondent at an unreasonable disadvantage. In this case, the Court held that opposition to the mark should have been asserted when the mark was issued in 1967 or shortly thereafter and that the delay of twenty-five years was unreasonable.

 

[Raider Nation]

Uh oh.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Sorry, but I just can't believe a man of integrity like Dan Snyder would lie to us like that.

 

[TobiasFunke]

The time has come for a name change

 

[JHuber77]

Packers CEO Mark Murphy now chimes in.....

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/08/07/packers-ceo-says-redskins-name-is-very-derogatory-to-a-lot-of-people/

Maybe he should look at his team name that it might be offensive to a certain group of people

 

[cobalt_27]

Packers CEO Mark Murphy now chimes in.....

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/08/07/packers-ceo-says-redskins-name-is-very-derogatory-to-a-lot-of-people/

Maybe he should look at his team name that it might be offensive to a certain group of people

You people are laughable. And absurd.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This country is starting to look more and more OCD - obsess and obsess about some PC issue and then when we can't stand any more just relent.

And then do it again, reason and debate be damned.

 

[3optic]

This country is starting to look more and more OCD - obsess and obsess about some PC issue and then when we can't stand any more just relent.

And then do it again, reason and debate be damned.

Again I would normally agree but it's just not a relevant point in this case. The name is about as out-dated and absurdly inappropriate as it gets

 

[Matt Bitonti]

people who think the name is just fine should read a biography of the Redskins original owner. that guy was a total *******.

 

[cobalt_27]

This country is starting to look more and more OCD - obsess and obsess about some PC issue and then when we can't stand any more just relent.

And then do it again, reason and debate be damned.

If you infused any reason to this discussion, perhaps we would have a productive debate. But, a lot of you guys in this collective dissenting group have decided to tether yourselves to racism, for whatever reason. Thus, there is no room for logical discourse.

 

[seahawk 17]

people who think the name is just fine should read a biography of the Redskins original owner. that guy was a total *******.

I'm lazy, and don't really care...but I will give it a read.

Link please.

 

[Matt Bitonti]

people who think the name is just fine should read a biography of the Redskins original owner. that guy was a total *******.

I'm lazy, and don't really care...but I will give it a read.

Link please.

long story short the Redskins were forced by the US federal government to integrate their roster in the early 60's, or they would lose the lease on their stadium land.

They were the first team located below the Mason Dixon line, last team to be all white.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Preston_Marshall#Biography

 

[karmarooster]

Does anyone think "Skins" would be an appropriate change, but keep some continuity? Kinda like how Syracuse went from the Orangemen to the Orange?

 

[Wildcat]

If the original intent was to be racist, that doesn't make sense to me why they would have chosen a team name after the group they are racist against.

 

[karmarooster]

If the original intent was to be racist, that doesn't make sense to me why they would have chosen a team name after the group they are racist against.

Think about this for a second. Were they "racist against" as you put it Native Americans? Was the big push in the 60s to integrate the all-white professional sports leagues with the Native American athletes? Or was it Black athletes?

The contention that the ownership was racist implies that they just didn't care that their team name is a derogatory name for Native Americans. It's not like they named the team the "Black Skins"... which would be naming their team after the group they were "racist against."

I know this is difficult, but there are two separate issues here. First is that the team name is derogatory to Native Americans. The second is that the Redskins ownership was the last to racially integrate with black athletes.

 

[karmarooster]

This country is starting to look more and more OCD - obsess and obsess about some PC issue and then when we can't stand any more just relent.

And then do it again, reason and debate be damned.

Yeah its like we just obsessed and obsessed about slavery. And eventually people just relented. Then there was the whole "women want to vote thing." Even though they didn't know a thing about voting. Eventually people just relented, reasoning be damned. And then those slaves complained about Jim Crow laws. So OCD. And then then people got so OCD when a few white folks wanted to exclude the blacks from their privately owned diners. Ok so I guess that just not politically correct, but whatever, the PC obsession after a while it just wasn't worth it and people had to relent. And then the gays wanted to have the ability to marry and have intestacy rights and adoption rights. Practically obsessive compulsive about it. We couldn't stand it so we just relented. Reason and debate be damned.

 

[LuckyOne]

This country is starting to look more and more OCD - obsess and obsess about some PC issue and then when we can't stand any more just relent.

And then do it again, reason and debate be damned.

Yeah its like we just obsessed and obsessed about slavery. And eventually people just relented. Then there was the whole "women want to vote thing." Even though they didn't know a thing about voting. Eventually people just relented, reasoning be damned. And then those slaves complained about Jim Crow laws. So OCD. And then then people got so OCD when a few white folks wanted to exclude the blacks from their privately owned diners. Ok so I guess that just not politically correct, but whatever, the PC obsession after a while it just wasn't worth it and people had to relent. And then the gays wanted to have the ability to marry and have intestacy rights and adoption rights. Practically obsessive compulsive about it. We couldn't stand it so we just relented. Reason and debate be damned.

Best post in the thread. Well played!

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This country is starting to look more and more OCD - obsess and obsess about some PC issue and then when we can't stand any more just relent.

And then do it again, reason and debate be damned.

Yeah its like we just obsessed and obsessed about slavery. And eventually people just relented. Then there was the whole "women want to vote thing." Even though they didn't know a thing about voting. Eventually people just relented, reasoning be damned. And then those slaves complained about Jim Crow laws. So OCD. And then then people got so OCD when a few white folks wanted to exclude the blacks from their privately owned diners. Ok so I guess that just not politically correct, but whatever, the PC obsession after a while it just wasn't worth it and people had to relent. And then the gays wanted to have the ability to marry and have intestacy rights and adoption rights. Practically obsessive compulsive about it. We couldn't stand it so we just relented. Reason and debate be damned.

Best post in the thread. Well played!

This country is starting to look more and more OCD - obsess and obsess about some PC issue and then when we can't stand any more just relent.

And then do it again, reason and debate be damned.

Yeah its like we just obsessed and obsessed about slavery. And eventually people just relented. Then there was the whole "women want to vote thing." Even though they didn't know a thing about voting. Eventually people just relented, reasoning be damned. And then those slaves complained about Jim Crow laws. So OCD. And then then people got so OCD when a few white folks wanted to exclude the blacks from their privately owned diners. Ok so I guess that just not politically correct, but whatever, the PC obsession after a while it just wasn't worth it and people had to relent. And then the gays wanted to have the ability to marry and have intestacy rights and adoption rights. Practically obsessive compulsive about it. We couldn't stand it so we just relented. Reason and debate be damned.

Wow, do you want to have this conversation? I will gladly with all due respect to you also, and I'll buy the beer and go on to the nth degree - but I really think this belongs in the FFA. I wish this and the Hernandez discussion were over there now and this forum was dedicated to football stuff, which I think is a common ground we all love. I made a comment, restrained others. Needless to say I think there are assumptions, presumptions, strawmen galore and historical accuracies and inaccuracies being bandied about everywhere here. All great fodder, I just wish it was going on somewhere else. - Thanks.

ETA:

here's the FFA thread on this:

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=681549&hl=redskins

Tee it up and I will be glad to discuss - there.

 

[seahawk 17]

people who think the name is just fine should read a biography of the Redskins original owner. that guy was a total *******.

I'm lazy, and don't really care...but I will give it a read.

Link please.

long story short the Redskins were forced by the US federal government to integrate their roster in the early 60's, or they would lose the lease on their stadium land.

They were the first team located below the Mason Dixon line, last team to be all white.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Preston_Marshall#Biography

That's pretty shocking to be that point blank about your racism. Never knew that about the original owner.

Thanks for the link, I appreciate it.

 

[Matt Bitonti]

Does anyone think "Skins" would be an appropriate change, but keep some continuity? Kinda like how Syracuse went from the Orangemen to the Orange?

certainly that would be fine. The traditional term for football is Pigskins they could just be the skins and no problems.

 

[mjr]

This country is starting to look more and more OCD - obsess and obsess about some PC issue and then when we can't stand any more just relent.

And then do it again, reason and debate be damned.

Yeah its like we just obsessed and obsessed about slavery. And eventually people just relented. Then there was the whole "women want to vote thing." Even though they didn't know a thing about voting. Eventually people just relented, reasoning be damned. And then those slaves complained about Jim Crow laws. So OCD. And then then people got so OCD when a few white folks wanted to exclude the blacks from their privately owned diners. Ok so I guess that just not politically correct, but whatever, the PC obsession after a while it just wasn't worth it and people had to relent. And then the gays wanted to have the ability to marry and have intestacy rights and adoption rights. Practically obsessive compulsive about it. We couldn't stand it so we just relented. Reason and debate be damned.

Best post in the thread. Well played!

Normally I would rail against a post like that for equating the name of a football team to something like slavery, and in many circumstances I often believe too many people have thin skin these days and/or have ulterior motives (such as scoring some loot in a lawsuit)...Normally. But considering the origin of the term "red skin", I can't help but side with those who think this term should be eradicated from one of America's greatest pastimes.

The term was actually coined due to women being offended by the term "scalp" back when trappers would bring in Indian scalps along with their animal skins to sell to traders. To accommodate, trappers began to refer to Indian scalps as "red skins", along with their deer skins and bear skins.

Considering that "redskin" was a term coined in an effort to appease an offended group of people, why should it not be rid of for the same exact reason? It's not as if we need to continue using the term to appease offended women when we men bring bloodied scalps into a trading post these days....Besides, the Devil Rays did it a few years ago. World is still turning...

 

[Sidewinder16]

But considering the origin of the term "red skin", I can't help but side with those who think this term should be eradicated from one of America's greatest pastimes.

The term was actually coined due to women being offended by the term "scalp" back when trappers would bring in Indian scalps along with their animal skins to sell to traders. To accommodate, trappers began to refer to Indian scalps as "red skins", along with their deer skins and bear skins.

Considering that "redskin" was a term coined in an effort to appease an offended group of people, why should it not be rid of for the same exact reason? It's not as if we need to continue using the term to appease offended women when we men bring bloodied scalps into a trading post these days....Besides, the Devil Rays did it a few years ago. World is still turning...
The term was actually coined due to women being offended by the term "scalp" back when trappers would bring in Indian scalps along with their animal skins to sell to traders. To accommodate, trappers began to refer to Indian scalps as "red skins", along with their deer skins and bear skins.

Considering that "redskin" was a term coined in an effort to appease an offended group of people, why should it not be rid of for the same exact reason? It's not as if we need to continue using the term to appease offended women when we men bring bloodied scalps into a trading post these days....Besides, the Devil Rays did it a few years ago. World is still turning...

This explanation keeps getting repeated, yet it has already been debunked. Nobody seems to want to hear it, but that is not the origin of the word.

Snippets from the first and last page (but if anyone is a research/science nerd, the entire article is an interesting read):

But the actual origin of the word is entirely benign and reflects more positive aspects of relations between Indians and whites.

The word redskin reflects a genuine Native American idiom that was used in several languages, where it grew out of an earlier established and more widespread use of “red” and “white” as racial labels. This terminology was developed by Native Americans to label categories of the new ethnic and political reality they confronted with the coming of the Europeans.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

But considering the origin of the term "red skin", I can't help but side with those who think this term should be eradicated from one of America's greatest pastimes.

The term was actually coined due to women being offended by the term "scalp" back when trappers would bring in Indian scalps along with their animal skins to sell to traders. To accommodate, trappers began to refer to Indian scalps as "red skins", along with their deer skins and bear skins.

Considering that "redskin" was a term coined in an effort to appease an offended group of people, why should it not be rid of for the same exact reason? It's not as if we need to continue using the term to appease offended women when we men bring bloodied scalps into a trading post these days....Besides, the Devil Rays did it a few years ago. World is still turning...
The term was actually coined due to women being offended by the term "scalp" back when trappers would bring in Indian scalps along with their animal skins to sell to traders. To accommodate, trappers began to refer to Indian scalps as "red skins", along with their deer skins and bear skins.

Considering that "redskin" was a term coined in an effort to appease an offended group of people, why should it not be rid of for the same exact reason? It's not as if we need to continue using the term to appease offended women when we men bring bloodied scalps into a trading post these days....Besides, the Devil Rays did it a few years ago. World is still turning...

This explanation keeps getting repeated, yet it has already been debunked. Nobody seems to want to hear it, but that is not the origin of the word.

Snippets from the first and last page (but if anyone is a research/science nerd, the entire article is an interesting read):

But the actual origin of the word is entirely benign and reflects more positive aspects of relations between Indians and whites.

The word redskin reflects a genuine Native American idiom that was used in several languages, where it grew out of an earlier established and more widespread use of “red” and “white” as racial labels. This terminology was developed by Native Americans to label categories of the new ethnic and political reality they confronted with the coming of the Europeans.

The above linked article is a 20 page exegesis on the origins of the word.

http://anthropology.si.edu/goddard/redskin.pdf

This is the author:

Ives Goddard is Senior Linguist in the Department of Anthropology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution. His research has focused on the Algonquian languages, especially Munsee, Unami, Massachusett, and Meskwaki. Since 1990 he has been conducting fieldwork among the Meskwaki in Tama County, IA, as part of a project to edit and translate the native-written Meskwaki manuscripts collected for the Bureau of American Ethnology by Truman Michelson in 1911 and the years following. He is the editor of Languages, vol. 17 of the Handbook of North American Indians (1996), and the compiler of the wall map Native Languages and Language Families of North America (1999). Author’s address: Smithsonian Institution, MRC 100, P.O. Box 37012, Washington, DC 20013-7012. U.S.A.

There's an email address there too in case anyone really wants to explore their views for accuracy, you'd be hard pressed to find a better authoprity by the looks of it.

What's more:

The Redskins name originated in Boston in 1933. The football team was called the Boston Braves, but the owner decided to rename the team the Boston Redskins in honor of the team's head coach, William "Lone Star" Dietz, who was a native American, writes lawyer Robert Raskopf in a brief filed on behalf of the team.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2009/1116/p02s07-usju.html

Further the team was the Braves were the Braves when they played at Braves Field, upon moving to Fenway they became the Redskins a la the Red Sox.

The esteemed New York Times descibed Jim Thorpe, the greatest US athlete or pro fooball player of all time perhaps, thusly:

"INDIAN THORPE IN OLYMPIAD.; Redskin from Carlisle Will Strive for Place on American Team." The NYT feels so bad about it they still have it on their website. Strike that, they must feel good about because it is there after all to this day.

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60C12FC3B5E13738DDDA10A94DC405B828DF1D3

In fact Coach Dietz was a friend of Jim Thorpe's.

http://www.lonestardietz.com/

I also find it remarkable that so many here, so many in the public, tv, radio, print, all use the word Redskins in the football context without repercussion. Does anyone here refuse to use the word "redskin" in a football context? Does anyone say, "hey let's get a beer, the Cowboys are playing the .... uh that team from DC on MNF tonight." Anyone? Is there another slur you would consider using or accepting in such proclivity just because it's associated with a sports team?

The fact that Marshall was opposed to desegregation and held racist views (like many in and out of the NFL, NBA and MLB then, before and after) did not mean that he had particular animus for Native Americans. Apparently he hired a Native American coach and even named the team in his honor. Remarkable.

Some fact based discussion (preferably in the FFA) would be helpful.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Yeah, guys. The New York Times archives have a 101 year old article that used the word "redskin" and they haven't removed the article from their archives, therefore it's OK. Some fact based discussion would be helpful- preferably if those "facts" are taken from the brief drafted by the attorneys representing the team. Truthiness!

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Yeah, guys. The New York Times archives have a 101 year old article that used the word "redskin" and they haven't removed the article from their archives, therefore it's OK. Some fact based discussion would be helpful- preferably if those "facts" are taken from the brief drafted by the attorneys representing the team. Truthiness!

The NYT reflects the times they were living in; those times have changed but I seriously doubt the NYT has an archive with similar slurs remaining on their website.

As for Dietz, that's real, and I posted a link to his own family's (I take it) site talking about that.

The site includes a blog, including this post, which features an actual scan of a contemporary article showing that what Marshall's family claims about the naming of the team after Dietz is true.

http://tombenjey.com/2013/05/06/redskins-named-in-dietzs-honor/

This is the quote, as it was shown in the paper at the time:

The team is to be coached by an Indian, Lone Star Dietz, with several Indian players.

(Also it was to avoid confusion with the Boston Braves baseball team).

The man Marshall hated Native Americans so much he hired a Native American coach and he advertised and promoted the team on the basis that it had several Indian players. Some Indian hater.

And the article from the Smithsonian Institute - Useless?

ETA - I agree, put this in FFA.

 

[Insein]

I've changed my mind on this topic. I want them to change the name so I can stop ####### hearing about it. Change it to just the Skins, put a potato skin on the helmet and be done with it.

 

[spider321]

I've changed my mind on this topic. I want them to change the name so I can stop ####### hearing about it. Change it to just the Skins, put a potato skin on the helmet and be done with it.

No. The offendeds have always gotten their way.

It's time to finally stand up to them.

 

[karmarooster]

I've changed my mind on this topic. I want them to change the name so I can stop ####### hearing about it. Change it to just the Skins, put a potato skin on the helmet and be done with it.

No. The offendeds have always gotten their way.

It's time to finally stand up to them.

Yeah it's finally time to stand up to the indigenous people who have ALWAYS gotten their way. They even got Oklahoma!

 

[Casting Couch]

If Daniel Snyder is one thing, it's stubborn to a fault. If dude says he will NEVER change the name of the club, you can bet large sums that dude will NEVER change the name of the club.

 

[Don Quixote]

WASHINGTON—A new study published Monday by the University of New Mexico confirmed that the name of the Washington Redskins is only offensive if you take any amount of time whatsoever to think about its actual meaning. “When you hear or say ‘Redskins’ in the abstract, it’s completely harmless, but we’ve discovered that if you briefly pause to remember it’s a racial slur for an indigenous group wiped out by genocide over the course of a few centuries, then, yeah, it’s awful,” said lead researcher Lawrence Wagner, adding that only if you allow the NFL franchise’s name to register in your mind does it evoke the thought of human beings devastated by the forced removal from tribal lands, intentional exposure to smallpox, and countless massacres. “It has the potential to come across as a degrading relic of an ethnocentric mentality responsible for the destruction of an entire people and their culture, but that’s only if you take a couple seconds to recognize it as something beyond a string of letters.” Wagner recommended that the NFL franchise should change their name to something more appropriate and historically accurate, such as the Washington Racist *****.

 

[Ron_Mexico]

WASHINGTON—A new study published Monday by the University of New Mexico confirmed that the name of the Washington Redskins is only offensive if you take any amount of time whatsoever to think about its actual meaning. “When you hear or say ‘Redskins’ in the abstract, it’s completely harmless, but we’ve discovered that if you briefly pause to remember it’s a racial slur for an indigenous group wiped out by genocide over the course of a few centuries, then, yeah, it’s awful,” said lead researcher Lawrence Wagner, adding that only if you allow the NFL franchise’s name to register in your mind does it evoke the thought of human beings devastated by the forced removal from tribal lands, intentional exposure to smallpox, and countless massacres. “It has the potential to come across as a degrading relic of an ethnocentric mentality responsible for the destruction of an entire people and their culture, but that’s only if you take a couple seconds to recognize it as something beyond a string of letters.” Wagner recommended that the NFL franchise should change their name to something more appropriate and historically accurate, such as the Washington Racist *****.

brilliant.

 

[Jewell]

Peter Kings The MMQB No Longer to Use Redskins Nickname

WASHINGTON (CBSDC) - Peter Kings website, the Monday Morning Quarterback, will no longer publish the name Redskins, Robert Klemko told Chris Moore of CBS Sports Radio on Thursday.

I know that our site, weve talked about it, and were not going to use Redskins in our writing, Klemko said on CBS Sports Radios MoJo with Chris Moore and Brian Jones.

Were going to say Washington football team, Klemko added. And its not something were going to publicize or write about. Were just not going to do it.

TheMMQB.com, an offshoot of Sports Illustrated, is a preeminent source for NFL news, and collectively, its feature writers made up of Robert Klemko, Greg Bedard, Jenny Vrentas and the sites founder, Peter King account for more than 1.2 million Twitter followers. So theres strength in numbers on this one.

The first domino to fall was the Kansas City Star in Oct. 2012, when public editor Derek Donovan rebuked the oft-debated nickname.

The decision to abstain from its use was viewed as radical at the time, but garnered national attention from Klemko, then a writer for USA Today Sports.

The Washington City Paper quickly followed suit, even launching a contest to determine how the paper should refer to the team moving forward.

Its worth noting, The Star has apparently since backed off its stance against the name.

Redskins owner Dan Snyder famously said in May, Well never change the name. Its simple. NEVER.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/08/29/peter-kings-mmqb-will-no-longer-use-redskins-nickname-in-writing/

 

[JustinHawkins]

does anyone actually go to Peter King's website? Will anyone even notice?

 

[Chase Stuart]

Actual background information on how the Redskins got their name: http://www.footballperspective.com/the-origin-of-the-name-redskins/

 

[cobalt_27]

does anyone actually go to Peter King's website? Will anyone even notice?

I'm sure fans of Washington football team hope nobody notices. But, this might spark a trend.

 

[Jewell]

does anyone actually go to Peter King's website? Will anyone even notice?

I'm sure fans of Washington football team hope nobody notices. But, this might spark a trend.

Actually, Peter King is just piggy-backing on an already existing trend. Check it...

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Refers To Washington Redskins as 'R- Word' For Entire Segment

August 12, 2013

As reported by National Review Online, Maddow has officially joined the left-leaning media boycott of calling the Redskins “the Redskins” – and will forevermore refer to the team as the “R-Word.” As Rachel so disingenuously eloquently put it, “Redskins” is just too darn “painfully racist.”

While many football fans will say, "So what? Who cares what Rachel Maddow thinks about football?" Other football fans, flipping the channels quickly, may confuse Maddow for Chris Collinsworth and give the statements some football weight.

 

[Don Quixote]

Bill Simmons drops name too

 

[TobiasFunke]

does anyone actually go to Peter King's website? Will anyone even notice?

I'm sure fans of Washington football team hope nobody notices. But, this might spark a trend.

Not all of us. A lot of us don't like the name and would love to see it changed. It's an embarrassment. And even Skins fans who don't think it's an embarrassment need to realize that this issue isn't going to go away. If the team returns to the Super Bowl during the RGIII era, this will become a huge media talking point that we'll have to hear about constantly in the run-up to the game, and that coverage will displace flattering player profiles and other stuff you'd normally want to check out if you're lucky enough to have your favorite team in the big game.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

does anyone actually go to Peter King's website? Will anyone even notice?

Chaka does. Chaka loves Peter King.

 

[golfguy]

no