What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Do you think Snyder should change the name of the Redskins? (3 Viewers)

Should the Washington Redskins change their name?

  • No

    Votes: 312 43.3%
  • Yes

    Votes: 320 44.4%
  • Meh

    Votes: 89 12.3%

  • Total voters
    721
:lmao:

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/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Redskins_name_controversy#Native_Americans_and_organizations_opposed

 
:lmao:

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.
I've read the article. And, as I said then, it's a dumb argument. People wear army uniforms around as costumes. These are not offensive. I know your go-to defense is to call my arguments terrible, but I feel the same way about yours. You thinking my arguments are bad in no way means yours are any better.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
According to the National Congress of American Indians, yes...

"The name used by the Washington NFL team is widely recognized as a racial slur and promotes discrimination against Native Americans," NCAI executive director Jacqueline Pata said in a statement. "More and more organizations are joining our voices calling on team owner Dan Snyder and the NFL to change the name

Actually Costas says "Objections to names like Braves, Chiefs, Warriors and the like, strike many of us as political correctness run amok." He never said anything about the Redskins name having or not having anything to do with political correctness.

offensive = discriminatory; you discriminate against someone when calling them something offensive. They are one in the same. The other names (Braves, Chiefs) he said "honor rather than demean," - so in essence, they could still be used and still be PC.

 
:lmao:

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.
It's not possible to get offended by the fact that other people are offended. The whole thing is quite offensive. And to say you' don't think something is offensive, is offensive to people who do think it's offensive. You can't win with the easily offended.

 
:lmao:

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.
oh, that one will be next...

 
:lmao:

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.
oh, that one will be next...
The picture of the drunk Indians fan dressed up like an indian who runs into an actual indian is hilarious. http://www.businessinsider.com/photo-indians-fan-redface-native-american-protester-2014-4

 
:lmao:

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.
I've read the article. And, as I said then, it's a dumb argument. People wear army uniforms around as costumes. These are not offensive. I know your go-to defense is to call my arguments terrible, but I feel the same way about yours. You thinking my arguments are bad in no way means yours are any better.
The analogy would be more like someone wearing a purple heart, or congressional medal of honor, and then publicly treating it in a loose, fun manner like a joke or some unimportant accessory. People who had their leg blown off saving their platoon in war would likely find such a thing insulting, and lacking either respect or honor. The headdress is not a uniform, it is many medals of honor. Just because you've seen lots of people doing oblivious things doesn't condone the act. It is offensive, because the people who deeply believe in the honor and deep achievement embodied in such an object, and the oneswho are awarded such honors, are highly offended.

As for Redskins, it is a pejorative, while Cowboys is not. It might be an argument if it was The Cowhicks (just an analogy, no insult is meant, nor do I like the word hicks) with a caricature mascot. That would be a direct analogy. You can feel whatever you like, but your arguments have been iffy. You're a funny, entertaining poster a lot of the time.

 
:lmao:

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.
oh, that one will be next...
The picture of the drunk Indians fan dressed up like an indian who runs into an actual indian is hilarious.http://www.businessinsider.com/photo-indians-fan-redface-native-american-protester-2014-4
yep.. I figure if they are successful in Washington, next they will turn all the focus on Cleveland, then if they win that, they will focus on Atlanta.... then they will find something else that can be determined to be "offensive" to someone and move on that that.. keeps the poster board makers in business, I guess

 
When I am trying to determine whether a word is disparaging to a group of people, I think of peens in his double-wide yelling from his window towards someone and saying "get off my dirt you no good XXXXXXX".

So, to a native american, "get off my dirt you no good redskin". That works.

To a black guy, "get off my dirt you no good nxxxxxx". That works.

To an atheist, "get off my dirt, you no good saint"? Ummmm
The legal test used in the current case isn't what you think. It isn't even what we assess society thinks. Nor what all of a particular class of individuals thinks. Its what some subset of a class thinks. Not a good choice of legal test IMO.

 
I think a good rule of thumb is that if the offensiveness of X is only ever discussed in the context of "if they are offended by Y, why can't I be offended by X?", then X is not actually offensive to anyone.

 
dparker713 said:
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Rove! said:
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.
There is no comparable word. Find me a word that has been used for 50+ years in common media coverage which a portion of a small minority of the population find offensive. A word that to a large portion of the total population has little to no meaning outside of the sporting context. The reason that all the analogies in this thread suck is because there is no decent parallel.

 
I remember a long time ago I received a pm complaining that my fantasy team name was offensive.

Spearchuckers?

 
That kind of gave me an idea ...

You know how the Cleveland Browns were named after Paul Brown? The Redskins could be renamed as the Washington Marshals, as in "field marshal". Yes, it's a British military rank, not an American one** ... but it affords the double-entendre with "Marshall" as in George Marshall, the club founder.

The downsides are that (a) the old Indian-head logo would probably have to be replaced (or maybe not?), and (b) if the tie to George Marshall is made too plain, his own racist baggage may make the name unacceptable.

** I guess they could say the name harkens to federal law-enforcement marshals.

 
That kind of gave me an idea ...

You know how the Cleveland Browns were named after Paul Brown? The Redskins could be renamed as the Washington Marshals, as in "field marshal". Yes, it's a British military rank, not an American one** ... but it affords the double-entendre with "Marshall" as in George Marshall, the club founder.

The downsides are that (a) the old Indian-head logo would probably have to be replaced (or maybe not?), and (b) if the tie to George Marshall is made too plain, his own racist baggage may make the name unacceptable.

** I guess they could say the name harkens to federal law-enforcement marshals.
We still have federal marshalls.

 
Why do teams feel the need to have a Nickname at all?

Why can't it simply be that Washington plays Baltimore?
How about Fantasy? Why can't be Jim plays Fred

instead of

Wake me Up Before You Romo plays Mr Rodger's Neighborhood
This is 'Merica - sell the nicknames to the highest bidders. I want to see the Washington McDonald's take on the Seattle Microsoft's (actually, I don't - I hate the NFL - but that isn't the point).

I haven't read up on the thread for a while...has anyone brought up the Philadelphia/Golden State Warriors as a use case? Their original logo was incredibly offensive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_State_Warriors#mediaviewer/File:PhiladelphiaWarriors.png). Somehow, the team realized this, changed it to remove all references to Native Americans, and the world survived! The PC police didn't even go on to demand that the Boston Celtics change their name...or maybe they are still working on that plot 40+ years later...

 
He should just rename them the Washington 'Murica with a logo of a white guy carrying an automatic weapon and a bible.

 
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/06/26/plaintiff-in-redskins-patent-case-urges-chiefs-to-change-their-name/

The Washington Redskins aren’t the only NFL team whose name bothers some Native Americans.

The Kansas City Chiefs should also change their name to avoid giving offense, according to Amanda Blackhorse, the lead plaintiff in the case that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office just decided against the Redskins.

“I’m not sure there’s anything the [Chiefs] can do at this point other than look for another name,” Blackhorse told the Kansas City Star. “They could be the team that says, ‘You know what? We understand the issue and we don’t want to be Dan Snyder and fight this in court forever. We want to do the right thing and move forward and avoid this entire battle.’ I’m sure fans will be upset, but still, that’s doing the right thing. If they want to be sensitive to Native American people, that’s the thing to do.”

Blackhorse’s sister, Kristy Blackhorse, is part of a group of Native Americans in Arizona who plan to protest at two Cardinals games this season — not only when the Redskins come to town in October, but also when the Chiefs come to town in December.

There are fundamental differences between the Chiefs and the Redskins, especially that dictionaries define “chief” as a term of respect and “redskin” as a slur. The Kansas City Chiefs have kept a low profile during the debate, hoping that they can continue to use their team name without the controversy that has swirled around the Redskins. If Blackhorse has her way, the Chiefs won’t avoid controversy for long.
Hey look, a slippery slope! Never saw that coming.

 
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/06/26/plaintiff-in-redskins-patent-case-urges-chiefs-to-change-their-name/

The Washington Redskins aren’t the only NFL team whose name bothers some Native Americans.

The Kansas City Chiefs should also change their name to avoid giving offense, according to Amanda Blackhorse, the lead plaintiff in the case that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office just decided against the Redskins.

“I’m not sure there’s anything the [Chiefs] can do at this point other than look for another name,” Blackhorse told the Kansas City Star. “They could be the team that says, ‘You know what? We understand the issue and we don’t want to be Dan Snyder and fight this in court forever. We want to do the right thing and move forward and avoid this entire battle.’ I’m sure fans will be upset, but still, that’s doing the right thing. If they want to be sensitive to Native American people, that’s the thing to do.”

Blackhorse’s sister, Kristy Blackhorse, is part of a group of Native Americans in Arizona who plan to protest at two Cardinals games this season — not only when the Redskins come to town in October, but also when the Chiefs come to town in December.

There are fundamental differences between the Chiefs and the Redskins, especially that dictionaries define “chief” as a term of respect and “redskin” as a slur. The Kansas City Chiefs have kept a low profile during the debate, hoping that they can continue to use their team name without the controversy that has swirled around the Redskins. If Blackhorse has her way, the Chiefs won’t avoid controversy for long.
Hey look, a slippery slope! Never saw that coming.
I'm protesting at Cardinals games. It's disrespectful to Catholics.

 
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/06/26/plaintiff-in-redskins-patent-case-urges-chiefs-to-change-their-name/

The Washington Redskins aren’t the only NFL team whose name bothers some Native Americans.

The Kansas City Chiefs should also change their name to avoid giving offense, according to Amanda Blackhorse, the lead plaintiff in the case that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office just decided against the Redskins.

“I’m not sure there’s anything the [Chiefs] can do at this point other than look for another name,” Blackhorse told the Kansas City Star. “They could be the team that says, ‘You know what? We understand the issue and we don’t want to be Dan Snyder and fight this in court forever. We want to do the right thing and move forward and avoid this entire battle.’ I’m sure fans will be upset, but still, that’s doing the right thing. If they want to be sensitive to Native American people, that’s the thing to do.”

Blackhorse’s sister, Kristy Blackhorse, is part of a group of Native Americans in Arizona who plan to protest at two Cardinals games this season — not only when the Redskins come to town in October, but also when the Chiefs come to town in December.

There are fundamental differences between the Chiefs and the Redskins, especially that dictionaries define “chief” as a term of respect and “redskin” as a slur. The Kansas City Chiefs have kept a low profile during the debate, hoping that they can continue to use their team name without the controversy that has swirled around the Redskins. If Blackhorse has her way, the Chiefs won’t avoid controversy for long.
Hey look, a slippery slope! Never saw that coming.
next the Chiefs, then the Indians, then the Braves..

 
I like native americans and hate the redskins so I voted yes.

The chiefs and braves are tributes and not offensive.

The indians name and their logo are offensive

 
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/06/26/plaintiff-in-redskins-patent-case-urges-chiefs-to-change-their-name/

The Washington Redskins aren’t the only NFL team whose name bothers some Native Americans.

The Kansas City Chiefs should also change their name to avoid giving offense, according to Amanda Blackhorse, the lead plaintiff in the case that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office just decided against the Redskins.

“I’m not sure there’s anything the [Chiefs] can do at this point other than look for another name,” Blackhorse told the Kansas City Star. “They could be the team that says, ‘You know what? We understand the issue and we don’t want to be Dan Snyder and fight this in court forever. We want to do the right thing and move forward and avoid this entire battle.’ I’m sure fans will be upset, but still, that’s doing the right thing. If they want to be sensitive to Native American people, that’s the thing to do.”

Blackhorse’s sister, Kristy Blackhorse, is part of a group of Native Americans in Arizona who plan to protest at two Cardinals games this season — not only when the Redskins come to town in October, but also when the Chiefs come to town in December.

There are fundamental differences between the Chiefs and the Redskins, especially that dictionaries define “chief” as a term of respect and “redskin” as a slur. The Kansas City Chiefs have kept a low profile during the debate, hoping that they can continue to use their team name without the controversy that has swirled around the Redskins. If Blackhorse has her way, the Chiefs won’t avoid controversy for long.
Hey look, a slippery slope! Never saw that coming.
next the Chiefs, then the Indians, then the Braves..
Let's hope not. The republic could never survive FOUR sports teams changing their nicknames and mascots. Civil war, sure, but not this. Dear God, please not this.

 
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/06/26/plaintiff-in-redskins-patent-case-urges-chiefs-to-change-their-name/

The Washington Redskins aren’t the only NFL team whose name bothers some Native Americans.

The Kansas City Chiefs should also change their name to avoid giving offense, according to Amanda Blackhorse, the lead plaintiff in the case that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office just decided against the Redskins.

“I’m not sure there’s anything the [Chiefs] can do at this point other than look for another name,” Blackhorse told the Kansas City Star. “They could be the team that says, ‘You know what? We understand the issue and we don’t want to be Dan Snyder and fight this in court forever. We want to do the right thing and move forward and avoid this entire battle.’ I’m sure fans will be upset, but still, that’s doing the right thing. If they want to be sensitive to Native American people, that’s the thing to do.”

Blackhorse’s sister, Kristy Blackhorse, is part of a group of Native Americans in Arizona who plan to protest at two Cardinals games this season — not only when the Redskins come to town in October, but also when the Chiefs come to town in December.

There are fundamental differences between the Chiefs and the Redskins, especially that dictionaries define “chief” as a term of respect and “redskin” as a slur. The Kansas City Chiefs have kept a low profile during the debate, hoping that they can continue to use their team name without the controversy that has swirled around the Redskins. If Blackhorse has her way, the Chiefs won’t avoid controversy for long.
Hey look, a slippery slope! Never saw that coming.
next the Chiefs, then the Indians, then the Braves..
Let's hope not. The republic could never survive FOUR sports teams changing their nicknames and mascots. Civil war, sure, but not this. Dear God, please not this.
meh.. redskins? fine.. after that it is more about winning and getting your way than it is being offended.. like the 2 year old who throws a tantrum and gets a lollipop to shut them up..

 
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/06/26/plaintiff-in-redskins-patent-case-urges-chiefs-to-change-their-name/

The Washington Redskins aren’t the only NFL team whose name bothers some Native Americans.

The Kansas City Chiefs should also change their name to avoid giving offense, according to Amanda Blackhorse, the lead plaintiff in the case that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office just decided against the Redskins.

“I’m not sure there’s anything the [Chiefs] can do at this point other than look for another name,” Blackhorse told the Kansas City Star. “They could be the team that says, ‘You know what? We understand the issue and we don’t want to be Dan Snyder and fight this in court forever. We want to do the right thing and move forward and avoid this entire battle.’ I’m sure fans will be upset, but still, that’s doing the right thing. If they want to be sensitive to Native American people, that’s the thing to do.”

Blackhorse’s sister, Kristy Blackhorse, is part of a group of Native Americans in Arizona who plan to protest at two Cardinals games this season — not only when the Redskins come to town in October, but also when the Chiefs come to town in December.

There are fundamental differences between the Chiefs and the Redskins, especially that dictionaries define “chief” as a term of respect and “redskin” as a slur. The Kansas City Chiefs have kept a low profile during the debate, hoping that they can continue to use their team name without the controversy that has swirled around the Redskins. If Blackhorse has her way, the Chiefs won’t avoid controversy for long.
Hey look, a slippery slope! Never saw that coming.
next the Chiefs, then the Indians, then the Braves..
Let's hope not. The republic could never survive FOUR sports teams changing their nicknames and mascots. Civil war, sure, but not this. Dear God, please not this.
But I guess the republic couldn't survive letting the names stay the same either?

 
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/06/26/plaintiff-in-redskins-patent-case-urges-chiefs-to-change-their-name/

The Washington Redskins aren’t the only NFL team whose name bothers some Native Americans.

The Kansas City Chiefs should also change their name to avoid giving offense, according to Amanda Blackhorse, the lead plaintiff in the case that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office just decided against the Redskins.

“I’m not sure there’s anything the [Chiefs] can do at this point other than look for another name,” Blackhorse told the Kansas City Star. “They could be the team that says, ‘You know what? We understand the issue and we don’t want to be Dan Snyder and fight this in court forever. We want to do the right thing and move forward and avoid this entire battle.’ I’m sure fans will be upset, but still, that’s doing the right thing. If they want to be sensitive to Native American people, that’s the thing to do.”

Blackhorse’s sister, Kristy Blackhorse, is part of a group of Native Americans in Arizona who plan to protest at two Cardinals games this season — not only when the Redskins come to town in October, but also when the Chiefs come to town in December.

There are fundamental differences between the Chiefs and the Redskins, especially that dictionaries define “chief” as a term of respect and “redskin” as a slur. The Kansas City Chiefs have kept a low profile during the debate, hoping that they can continue to use their team name without the controversy that has swirled around the Redskins. If Blackhorse has her way, the Chiefs won’t avoid controversy for long.
Hey look, a slippery slope! Never saw that coming.
next the Chiefs, then the Indians, then the Braves..
Let's hope not. The republic could never survive FOUR sports teams changing their nicknames and mascots. Civil war, sure, but not this. Dear God, please not this.
But I guess the republic couldn't survive letting the names stay the same either?
No I think it could probably survive that too. Certainly plenty of other nations have survived tone-deaf idiocy and racial insensitivity by private companies. I just oppose tone-deaf idiocy and racial insensitivity as a general matter. If you're cool with those things, that's fine. Agree to disagree.

 
Seriously- I get why Hang 10 cares about this because he's a fan of the team. That's the same reason I care about this. It's (relatively) important to us because it affects the way we enjoy football. I've explained how it affects me. I don't quite get how it affects Hang 10 but I acknowledge that it does somehow.

What I don't understand is why the rest of you care about this.

 
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/06/26/plaintiff-in-redskins-patent-case-urges-chiefs-to-change-their-name/

The Washington Redskins aren’t the only NFL team whose name bothers some Native Americans.

The Kansas City Chiefs should also change their name to avoid giving offense, according to Amanda Blackhorse, the lead plaintiff in the case that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office just decided against the Redskins.

“I’m not sure there’s anything the [Chiefs] can do at this point other than look for another name,” Blackhorse told the Kansas City Star. “They could be the team that says, ‘You know what? We understand the issue and we don’t want to be Dan Snyder and fight this in court forever. We want to do the right thing and move forward and avoid this entire battle.’ I’m sure fans will be upset, but still, that’s doing the right thing. If they want to be sensitive to Native American people, that’s the thing to do.”

Blackhorse’s sister, Kristy Blackhorse, is part of a group of Native Americans in Arizona who plan to protest at two Cardinals games this season — not only when the Redskins come to town in October, but also when the Chiefs come to town in December.

There are fundamental differences between the Chiefs and the Redskins, especially that dictionaries define “chief” as a term of respect and “redskin” as a slur. The Kansas City Chiefs have kept a low profile during the debate, hoping that they can continue to use their team name without the controversy that has swirled around the Redskins. If Blackhorse has her way, the Chiefs won’t avoid controversy for long.
Hey look, a slippery slope! Never saw that coming.
next the Chiefs, then the Indians, then the Braves..
Let's hope not. The republic could never survive FOUR sports teams changing their nicknames and mascots. Civil war, sure, but not this. Dear God, please not this.
meh.. redskins? fine.. after that it is more about winning and getting your way than it is being offended.. like the 2 year old who throws a tantrum and gets a lollipop to shut them up..
I trust the public and the Native American community to draw the lines reasonably. Generally people do a good job of letting these things fall where they should. My guess on where this ends up in 5 years- Redskins and cartoonish mascots out, Indians/Braves/Chiefs OK so long as they get rid of the silly imagery and chants.

 
Seriously- I get why Hang 10 cares about this because he's a fan of the team. That's the same reason I care about this. It's (relatively) important to us because it affects the way we enjoy football. I've explained how it affects me. I don't quite get how it affects Hang 10 but I acknowledge that it does somehow.

What I don't understand is why the rest of you care about this.
We are still fans of the sport and the league. It doesnt personally affect my enjoyment but it might affect a lot of football fans.

 
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/06/26/plaintiff-in-redskins-patent-case-urges-chiefs-to-change-their-name/

The Washington Redskins aren’t the only NFL team whose name bothers some Native Americans.

The Kansas City Chiefs should also change their name to avoid giving offense, according to Amanda Blackhorse, the lead plaintiff in the case that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office just decided against the Redskins.

“I’m not sure there’s anything the [Chiefs] can do at this point other than look for another name,” Blackhorse told the Kansas City Star. “They could be the team that says, ‘You know what? We understand the issue and we don’t want to be Dan Snyder and fight this in court forever. We want to do the right thing and move forward and avoid this entire battle.’ I’m sure fans will be upset, but still, that’s doing the right thing. If they want to be sensitive to Native American people, that’s the thing to do.”

Blackhorse’s sister, Kristy Blackhorse, is part of a group of Native Americans in Arizona who plan to protest at two Cardinals games this season — not only when the Redskins come to town in October, but also when the Chiefs come to town in December.

There are fundamental differences between the Chiefs and the Redskins, especially that dictionaries define “chief” as a term of respect and “redskin” as a slur. The Kansas City Chiefs have kept a low profile during the debate, hoping that they can continue to use their team name without the controversy that has swirled around the Redskins. If Blackhorse has her way, the Chiefs won’t avoid controversy for long.
Hey look, a slippery slope! Never saw that coming.
Chiefs aren't going to get called disparaging.

 
Seriously- I get why Hang 10 cares about this because he's a fan of the team. That's the same reason I care about this. It's (relatively) important to us because it affects the way we enjoy football. I've explained how it affects me. I don't quite get how it affects Hang 10 but I acknowledge that it does somehow.

What I don't understand is why the rest of you care about this.
We are still fans of the sport and the league. It doesnt personally affect my enjoyment but it might affect a lot of football fans.
Yeah, that doesn't make sense to me at all. Sorry. Not criticizing, just don't understand it. People care about all kinds of things I guess.

 
TobiasFunke said:
Seriously- I get why Hang 10 cares about this because he's a fan of the team. That's the same reason I care about this. It's (relatively) important to us because it affects the way we enjoy football. I've explained how it affects me. I don't quite get how it affects Hang 10 but I acknowledge that it does somehow.

What I don't understand is why the rest of you care about this.
That is something I don't think I'll ever understand. I get the nostalgia of the name. I get that you grow up rooting for a brand - and the R#######, for a time, were as big a brand as there was in the NFL - but to suggest that you won't enjoy football as much if they change the name, just strikes me as being so overly dramatic, that you need a Midol, or that you are needlessly whining about it, just because you can.

 
Henry Ford said:
Hang 10 said:
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/06/26/plaintiff-in-redskins-patent-case-urges-chiefs-to-change-their-name/

The Washington Redskins aren’t the only NFL team whose name bothers some Native Americans.

The Kansas City Chiefs should also change their name to avoid giving offense, according to Amanda Blackhorse, the lead plaintiff in the case that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office just decided against the Redskins.

“I’m not sure there’s anything the [Chiefs] can do at this point other than look for another name,” Blackhorse told the Kansas City Star. “They could be the team that says, ‘You know what? We understand the issue and we don’t want to be Dan Snyder and fight this in court forever. We want to do the right thing and move forward and avoid this entire battle.’ I’m sure fans will be upset, but still, that’s doing the right thing. If they want to be sensitive to Native American people, that’s the thing to do.”

Blackhorse’s sister, Kristy Blackhorse, is part of a group of Native Americans in Arizona who plan to protest at two Cardinals games this season — not only when the Redskins come to town in October, but also when the Chiefs come to town in December.

There are fundamental differences between the Chiefs and the Redskins, especially that dictionaries define “chief” as a term of respect and “redskin” as a slur. The Kansas City Chiefs have kept a low profile during the debate, hoping that they can continue to use their team name without the controversy that has swirled around the Redskins. If Blackhorse has her way, the Chiefs won’t avoid controversy for long.
Hey look, a slippery slope! Never saw that coming.
Chiefs aren't going to get called disparaging.
Clearly it doesn't matter if it's disparaging or not.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top