Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Do you think Snyder should change the name of the Redskins?


DBIsports

Should the Washington Redskins change their name?  

746 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

You are fighting a losing cause and will be on the wrong side of history on this one.

I like this schtick. Side of history = :lmao:. Those comments go along with the "It's just like the N word" comments and the MSNBC reporter warning viewers that they are about to see a clip where someone will mention the word "Redskins". I know, maybe the NFL should be required to put "Viewer discretion is advised" warnings on all Redskins games.

Unless all of this leads to big riots or something else major, this isn't going to be in History textbooks. It's not going to be a topic of conversation like the Civil Rights movement or even Gay Marriage.

"Today kids, we're going to discuss the Revolutionary War. Tomorrow is the Civil War and then Wednesday through the end of the school year, we'll discuss the amazing moment history when the Redskins changed their name."

There's more to "history" than what's in a fourth grade History textbook.

Sure. "History" includes everything that has ever happened, I guess. Based on that interpretation, I'm just going to go around saying "you'll be on the wrong side of history on this one" to everyone I think is wrong about anything.

Some guy: "I predict the Jaguars will win a Super Bowl in the next couple years."

Me: "Whoa there, buddy. You'll be on the wrong side of history on that one."

Do you believe that the phrase "on the wrong side of history" means "you'll be incorrect about predicting an outcome"?

Can I ask why everything has to be so extreme? "You'll be on the wrong side of history". Of what exactly? A debate about the name of a football team? Are people going to throw a parade for all the Native Americans when the Redskins change their name? Nah, all those people will forget about in a couple of months and move on to something else.

It's a commonly used phrase that means that one side of a debate is gonna look silly in retrospect. There's nothing "extreme" about it. You're totally misinterpreting this.

30 years from now people are gonna look back in disbelief that "Redskins" was once the name of a football team. The same way they look back in disbelief at, say, Mickey Rooney's ridiculous Asian stereotype character in Breakfast at Tiffany's. It doesn't mean it's gonna be in history textbooks or that someone's gonna have a parade or anything like that. It just means it's gonna look asinine to future generations. That's all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure. "History" includes everything that has ever happened, I guess. Based on that interpretation, I'm just going to go around saying "you'll be on the wrong side of history on this one" to everyone I think is wrong about anything.

Some guy: "I predict the Jaguars will win a Super Bowl in the next couple years."

Me: "Whoa there, buddy. You'll be on the wrong side of history on that one."

Do you believe that the phrase "on the wrong side of history" means "you'll be incorrect about predicting an outcome"?

Can I ask why everything has to be so extreme? "You'll be on the wrong side of history". Of what exactly? A debate about the name of a football team? Are people going to throw a parade for all the Native Americans when the Redskins change their name? Nah, all those people will forget about in a couple of months and move on to something else.

Of something that is inevitable. This is like the gay marriage thread (the only other thread I recall in which the "wrong side of history" argument has been used). Anyway, it is not a question of "if" the name change will occur, it only a question of when - just a matter of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are fighting a losing cause and will be on the wrong side of history on this one.

I like this schtick. Side of history = :lmao:. Those comments go along with the "It's just like the N word" comments and the MSNBC reporter warning viewers that they are about to see a clip where someone will mention the word "Redskins". I know, maybe the NFL should be required to put "Viewer discretion is advised" warnings on all Redskins games.

Unless all of this leads to big riots or something else major, this isn't going to be in History textbooks. It's not going to be a topic of conversation like the Civil Rights movement or even Gay Marriage.

"Today kids, we're going to discuss the Revolutionary War. Tomorrow is the Civil War and then Wednesday through the end of the school year, we'll discuss the amazing moment history when the Redskins changed their name."

There's more to "history" than what's in a fourth grade History textbook.

Sure. "History" includes everything that has ever happened, I guess. Based on that interpretation, I'm just going to go around saying "you'll be on the wrong side of history on this one" to everyone I think is wrong about anything.

Some guy: "I predict the Jaguars will win a Super Bowl in the next couple years."

Me: "Whoa there, buddy. You'll be on the wrong side of history on that one."

Do you believe that the phrase "on the wrong side of history" means "you'll be incorrect about predicting an outcome"?

Can I ask why everything has to be so extreme? "You'll be on the wrong side of history". Of what exactly? A debate about the name of a football team? Are people going to throw a parade for all the Native Americans when the Redskins change their name? Nah, all those people will forget about in a couple of months and move on to something else.

You can ask, but I don't think everybody else thinks that's an extreme position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are fighting a losing cause and will be on the wrong side of history on this one.

I like this schtick. Side of history = :lmao:. Those comments go along with the "It's just like the N word" comments and the MSNBC reporter warning viewers that they are about to see a clip where someone will mention the word "Redskins". I know, maybe the NFL should be required to put "Viewer discretion is advised" warnings on all Redskins games.

Unless all of this leads to big riots or something else major, this isn't going to be in History textbooks. It's not going to be a topic of conversation like the Civil Rights movement or even Gay Marriage.

"Today kids, we're going to discuss the Revolutionary War. Tomorrow is the Civil War and then Wednesday through the end of the school year, we'll discuss the amazing moment history when the Redskins changed their name."

There's more to "history" than what's in a fourth grade History textbook.

Sure. "History" includes everything that has ever happened, I guess. Based on that interpretation, I'm just going to go around saying "you'll be on the wrong side of history on this one" to everyone I think is wrong about anything.

Some guy: "I predict the Jaguars will win a Super Bowl in the next couple years."

Me: "Whoa there, buddy. You'll be on the wrong side of history on that one."

Do you believe that the phrase "on the wrong side of history" means "you'll be incorrect about predicting an outcome"?

No. And maybe I should have had Some guy, instead, say, "I think the Jaguars are good enough to win a Super Bowl in the next couple years." That makes it more about a belief/opinion rather than a prediction.

Here, I think it carries with it more than that. It's not simply, "in the future, you're views will be seen as wrong." It's more "you'll be viewed as being wrong by future generations and they will discuss it and wonder how you could ever take such a ridiculous position and it will be remembered 1000 years from now and your great-great-great grandchildren will be embarrassed to have you in their family tree."

I put "you'll be on the wrong side of history" closer to "it will be in history textbooks" than it is to "it's a thing that happened and will be documented somewhere". The way some people talk about this issue, I'm looking forward to the Smithsonian Museum opening in 100 years dedicated just to this. Not just an exhibit in a museum, but a whole museum to itself. (Yes, I realize I'm fighting what I perceive to be hyperbole with some hyperbole of my own.)

To me, for something to be "on the wrong side of history," suggests it will actually be a topic of conversation in the somewhat distant future. To me, you're not really "on the wrong side of history" if the discussion involves something that will fade away in the minds of people and won't really be remembered or discussed. I guess the internet age may change this some, though. If this had happened 50 years ago and the name was changed, I doubt it would be anything more than a footnote in books. Maybe a paragraph. Now, I guess there could be a bit more to it 50 years from now since we have so much more documentation. We're at a point that everything, from the most important events to what Joe had for lunch today, will be documented and stored somewhere. I'm just not sure this is going to be viewed as something that is discussed much in 50 years.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. And maybe I should have had Some guy, instead, say, "I think the Jaguars are good enough to win a Super Bowl in the next couple years." That makes it more about a belief/opinion rather than a prediction.

Here, I think it carries with it more than that. It's not simply, "in the future, you're views will be seen as wrong." It's more "you'll be viewed as being wrong by future generations and they will discuss it and wonder how you could ever take such a ridiculous position and it will be remembered 1000 years from now and your great-great-great grandchildren will be embarrassed to have you in their family tree."

I put "you'll be on the wrong side of history" closer to "it will be in history textbooks" than it is to "it's a thing that happened and will be documented somewhere". The way some people talk about this issue, I'm looking forward to the Smithsonian Museum opening in 100 years dedicated just to this. Not just an exhibit in a museum, but a whole museum to itself. (Yes, I realize I'm fighting what I perceive to be hyperbole with some hyperbole of my own.)

To me, for something to be "on the wrong side of history," suggests it will actually be a topic of conversation in the somewhat distant future. To me, you're not really "on the wrong side of history" if the discussion involves something that will fade away in the minds of people and won't really be remembered or discussed. I guess the internet age may change this some, though. If this had happened 50 years ago and the name was changed, I doubt it would be anything more than a footnote in books. Maybe a paragraph. Now, I guess there could be a bit more to it 50 years from now since we have so much more documentation. We're at a point that everything, from the most important events to what Joe had for lunch today, will be documented and stored somewhere. I'm just not sure this is going to be viewed as something that is discussed much in 50 years.

I think that may be a slightly stronger reading of that phrase than is intended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you'll be viewed as being wrong by future generations and they will discuss it and wonder how you could ever take such a ridiculous position and it will be remembered 1000 years from now and your great-great-great grandchildren will be embarrassed to have you in their family tree.

I'm going to start using that. TIA!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are fighting a losing cause and will be on the wrong side of history on this one.

I like this schtick. Side of history = :lmao:. Those comments go along with the "It's just like the N word" comments and the MSNBC reporter warning viewers that they are about to see a clip where someone will mention the word "Redskins". I know, maybe the NFL should be required to put "Viewer discretion is advised" warnings on all Redskins games.

Unless all of this leads to big riots or something else major, this isn't going to be in History textbooks. It's not going to be a topic of conversation like the Civil Rights movement or even Gay Marriage.

"Today kids, we're going to discuss the Revolutionary War. Tomorrow is the Civil War and then Wednesday through the end of the school year, we'll discuss the amazing moment history when the Redskins changed their name."

There's more to "history" than what's in a fourth grade History textbook.

Sure. "History" includes everything that has ever happened, I guess. Based on that interpretation, I'm just going to go around saying "you'll be on the wrong side of history on this one" to everyone I think is wrong about anything.

Some guy: "I predict the Jaguars will win a Super Bowl in the next couple years."

Me: "Whoa there, buddy. You'll be on the wrong side of history on that one."

Do you believe that the phrase "on the wrong side of history" means "you'll be incorrect about predicting an outcome"?

Can I ask why everything has to be so extreme? "You'll be on the wrong side of history". Of what exactly? A debate about the name of a football team? Are people going to throw a parade for all the Native Americans when the Redskins change their name? Nah, all those people will forget about in a couple of months and move on to something else.

It's a commonly used phrase that means that one side of a debate is gonna look silly in retrospect. There's nothing "extreme" about it. You're totally misinterpreting this.

30 years from now people are gonna look back in disbelief that "Redskins" was once the name of a football team. The same way they look back in disbelief at, say, Mickey Rooney's ridiculous Asian stereotype character in Breakfast at Tiffany's. It doesn't mean it's gonna be in history textbooks or that someone's gonna have a parade or anything like that. It just means it's gonna look asinine to future generations. That's all.

I don't think anyone is going to look back at history and think one way or another about the name of a football team. Comparing the name debate to a civil rights issue is asinine. One invloves the name of a football team, the other is about denying people their rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a thought:

Could the club get away with making the unoffical nickname "Skins" into the official team name if they got rid of all Indian-derived logos and art? Fans and writers discuss "the Skins" all the time ... "The Washington Skins host the Dallas Cowboys Sunday night ..." sounds weird, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are fighting a losing cause and will be on the wrong side of history on this one.

I like this schtick. Side of history = :lmao:. Those comments go along with the "It's just like the N word" comments and the MSNBC reporter warning viewers that they are about to see a clip where someone will mention the word "Redskins". I know, maybe the NFL should be required to put "Viewer discretion is advised" warnings on all Redskins games.

Unless all of this leads to big riots or something else major, this isn't going to be in History textbooks. It's not going to be a topic of conversation like the Civil Rights movement or even Gay Marriage.

"Today kids, we're going to discuss the Revolutionary War. Tomorrow is the Civil War and then Wednesday through the end of the school year, we'll discuss the amazing moment history when the Redskins changed their name."

There's more to "history" than what's in a fourth grade History textbook.

Sure. "History" includes everything that has ever happened, I guess. Based on that interpretation, I'm just going to go around saying "you'll be on the wrong side of history on this one" to everyone I think is wrong about anything.

Some guy: "I predict the Jaguars will win a Super Bowl in the next couple years."

Me: "Whoa there, buddy. You'll be on the wrong side of history on that one."

Do you believe that the phrase "on the wrong side of history" means "you'll be incorrect about predicting an outcome"?

Can I ask why everything has to be so extreme? "You'll be on the wrong side of history". Of what exactly? A debate about the name of a football team? Are people going to throw a parade for all the Native Americans when the Redskins change their name? Nah, all those people will forget about in a couple of months and move on to something else.

It's a commonly used phrase that means that one side of a debate is gonna look silly in retrospect. There's nothing "extreme" about it. You're totally misinterpreting this.

30 years from now people are gonna look back in disbelief that "Redskins" was once the name of a football team. The same way they look back in disbelief at, say, Mickey Rooney's ridiculous Asian stereotype character in Breakfast at Tiffany's. It doesn't mean it's gonna be in history textbooks or that someone's gonna have a parade or anything like that. It just means it's gonna look asinine to future generations. That's all.

I don't think anyone is going to look back at history and think one way or another about the name of a football team. Comparing the name debate to a civil rights issue is asinine. One invloves the name of a football team, the other is about denying people their rights.

I'm not comparing it to a civil rights issue, so I'm not sure why you say that.

People will look back and see the Redskins name after it's been changed. I don't know why you think they won't. They'll see it on lists of Super Bowl champions and whatnot. I don't know how you can deny that.

When they do, I think they're gonna say holy #### I can't believe people used to use that obviously disparaging name without hesitation. The same way that we look back at the Rooney character in my example. Or if you prefer, the same way we look back at this ...

Hail to the Redskins!

Hail, victory!

Braves on the warpath!

Fight for Old D.C.!

Scalp 'em, swamp 'um

We will take 'um big score

Read 'um, Weep 'um, touchdown

We want heap more

Fight on, fight on, till you have won

Sons of Washington

Rah! Rah! Rah!

... and say holy #### I can't believe we used to think it was OK to use those lyrics. That's all that is meant when people say that people defending the name will be on the wrong side of history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. The poll was by Cal State, the website was just reporting the news.

2. You said "we shouldn't discount all the time white liberals have put into explaining to the minorities that they should be offended since." Isn't that you saying that Native Americans are being snookered into opposing the name by white liberals because they're too weak-minded to have their own opinions? Seems like that's exactly what you said.

3. I never explained Native Americans schools using the nickname that way by calling them "too stupid to realize when they should be offended." You're just making #### up now- which is regrettable but I guess understandable considering how poorly your other arguments are going for you in this conversation.

:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are fighting a losing cause and will be on the wrong side of history on this one.

I like this schtick. Side of history = :lmao:. Those comments go along with the "It's just like the N word" comments and the MSNBC reporter warning viewers that they are about to see a clip where someone will mention the word "Redskins". I know, maybe the NFL should be required to put "Viewer discretion is advised" warnings on all Redskins games.

Unless all of this leads to big riots or something else major, this isn't going to be in History textbooks. It's not going to be a topic of conversation like the Civil Rights movement or even Gay Marriage.

"Today kids, we're going to discuss the Revolutionary War. Tomorrow is the Civil War and then Wednesday through the end of the school year, we'll discuss the amazing moment history when the Redskins changed their name."

There's more to "history" than what's in a fourth grade History textbook.

Sure. "History" includes everything that has ever happened, I guess. Based on that interpretation, I'm just going to go around saying "you'll be on the wrong side of history on this one" to everyone I think is wrong about anything.

Some guy: "I predict the Jaguars will win a Super Bowl in the next couple years."

Me: "Whoa there, buddy. You'll be on the wrong side of history on that one."

Do you believe that the phrase "on the wrong side of history" means "you'll be incorrect about predicting an outcome"?

Can I ask why everything has to be so extreme? "You'll be on the wrong side of history". Of what exactly? A debate about the name of a football team? Are people going to throw a parade for all the Native Americans when the Redskins change their name? Nah, all those people will forget about in a couple of months and move on to something else.

It's a commonly used phrase that means that one side of a debate is gonna look silly in retrospect. There's nothing "extreme" about it. You're totally misinterpreting this.

30 years from now people are gonna look back in disbelief that "Redskins" was once the name of a football team. The same way they look back in disbelief at, say, Mickey Rooney's ridiculous Asian stereotype character in Breakfast at Tiffany's. It doesn't mean it's gonna be in history textbooks or that someone's gonna have a parade or anything like that. It just means it's gonna look asinine to future generations. That's all.

I don't think anyone is going to look back at history and think one way or another about the name of a football team. Comparing the name debate to a civil rights issue is asinine. One invloves the name of a football team, the other is about denying people their rights.

I'm not comparing it to a civil rights issue, so I'm not sure why you say that.

People will look back and see the Redskins name after it's been changed. I don't know why you think they won't. They'll see it on lists of Super Bowl champions and whatnot. I don't know how you can deny that.

When they do, I think they're gonna say holy #### I can't believe people used to use that obviously disparaging name without hesitation. The same way that we look back at the Rooney character in my example. Or if you prefer, the same way we look back at this ...

Hail to the Redskins!

Hail, victory!

Braves on the warpath!

Fight for Old D.C.!

Scalp 'em, swamp 'um

We will take 'um big score

Read 'um, Weep 'um, touchdown

We want heap more

Fight on, fight on, till you have won

Sons of Washington

Rah! Rah! Rah!

... and say holy #### I can't believe we used to think it was OK to use those lyrics. That's all that is meant when people say that people defending the name will be on the wrong side of history.

But to me (and I guess dgreen), this isn't "history". When I think of people being on the wrong side of history, I think of the slavery debate, civil rights movement, women's rights, gay marriage, etc. Those are events where people will remember being on the wrong side of history. I don't think of the name of a football team. Does anyone look back and say, "I can't believe St. John's University used to be nicknamed Redmen." Or "I can't believe Miami of Ohio used to be the Redskins."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But to me (and I guess dgreen), this isn't "history". When I think of people being on the wrong side of history, I think of the slavery debate, civil rights movement, women's rights, gay marriage, etc. Those are events where people will remember being on the wrong side of history. I don't think of the name of a football team. Does anyone look back and say, "I can't believe St. John's University used to be nicknamed Redmen." Or "I can't believe Miami of Ohio used to be the Redskins."

You're just applying a different interpretation to the usage of a common phrase. Henry Ford used it one way, you are reading a different unintended meaning, that's all. Not worth debating further.

And yes, once the Washington Redskins name has been changed and a few years have passed, anyone who comes across the fact that Miami U also used to be the Redskins will have exactly the reaction you describe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

So in April you weren't offended enough to use the word Redskins, but you are now?

Hmm, I wonder if the Redskins are offended at being called Indians - You would think that after 500 years we would correct the mistake that Columbus made it to India

Edited by MattFancy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're just applying a different interpretation to the usage of a common phrase. Henry Ford used it one way, you are reading a different unintended meaning, that's all. Not worth debating further.

We have 46 pages of this exact debate. It's basically why this thread was started. Why is that not worth debating further? ETA: Why is this a reason to not debate something further?

Edited by Sidewinder16
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're just applying a different interpretation to the usage of a common phrase. Henry Ford used it one way, you are reading a different unintended meaning, that's all. Not worth debating further.

We have 46 pages of this exact debate. It's basically why this thread was started. Why is that not worth debating further? ETA: Why is this a reason to not debate something further?

This was just a weird side discussion of the phrase "wrong side of history," not the football team name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are fighting a losing cause and will be on the wrong side of history on this one.

I like this schtick. Side of history = :lmao:. Those comments go along with the "It's just like the N word" comments and the MSNBC reporter warning viewers that they are about to see a clip where someone will mention the word "Redskins". I know, maybe the NFL should be required to put "Viewer discretion is advised" warnings on all Redskins games.

Unless all of this leads to big riots or something else major, this isn't going to be in History textbooks. It's not going to be a topic of conversation like the Civil Rights movement or even Gay Marriage.

"Today kids, we're going to discuss the Revolutionary War. Tomorrow is the Civil War and then Wednesday through the end of the school year, we'll discuss the amazing moment history when the Redskins changed their name."

There's more to "history" than what's in a fourth grade History textbook.

Sure. "History" includes everything that has ever happened, I guess. Based on that interpretation, I'm just going to go around saying "you'll be on the wrong side of history on this one" to everyone I think is wrong about anything.

Some guy: "I predict the Jaguars will win a Super Bowl in the next couple years."

Me: "Whoa there, buddy. You'll be on the wrong side of history on that one."

Do you believe that the phrase "on the wrong side of history" means "you'll be incorrect about predicting an outcome"?

Can I ask why everything has to be so extreme? "You'll be on the wrong side of history". Of what exactly? A debate about the name of a football team? Are people going to throw a parade for all the Native Americans when the Redskins change their name? Nah, all those people will forget about in a couple of months and move on to something else.

It's a commonly used phrase that means that one side of a debate is gonna look silly in retrospect. There's nothing "extreme" about it. You're totally misinterpreting this.

30 years from now people are gonna look back in disbelief that "Redskins" was once the name of a football team. The same way they look back in disbelief at, say, Mickey Rooney's ridiculous Asian stereotype character in Breakfast at Tiffany's. It doesn't mean it's gonna be in history textbooks or that someone's gonna have a parade or anything like that. It just means it's gonna look asinine to future generations. That's all.

I don't think anyone is going to look back at history and think one way or another about the name of a football team. Comparing the name debate to a civil rights issue is asinine. One invloves the name of a football team, the other is about denying people their rights.

I'm not comparing it to a civil rights issue, so I'm not sure why you say that.

People will look back and see the Redskins name after it's been changed. I don't know why you think they won't. They'll see it on lists of Super Bowl champions and whatnot. I don't know how you can deny that.

When they do, I think they're gonna say holy #### I can't believe people used to use that obviously disparaging name without hesitation. The same way that we look back at the Rooney character in my example. Or if you prefer, the same way we look back at this ...

Hail to the Redskins!

Hail, victory!

Braves on the warpath!

Fight for Old D.C.!

Scalp 'em, swamp 'um

We will take 'um big score

Read 'um, Weep 'um, touchdown

We want heap more

Fight on, fight on, till you have won

Sons of Washington

Rah! Rah! Rah!

... and say holy #### I can't believe we used to think it was OK to use those lyrics. That's all that is meant when people say that people defending the name will be on the wrong side of history.

Was watching the Redskins' Super Bowl highlights on NFLN a couple weeks ago and noticed they were playing the song at the SB. Have they stopped playing the song at the games?

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But to me (and I guess dgreen), this isn't "history". When I think of people being on the wrong side of history, I think of the slavery debate, civil rights movement, women's rights, gay marriage, etc. Those are events where people will remember being on the wrong side of history. I don't think of the name of a football team. Does anyone look back and say, "I can't believe St. John's University used to be nicknamed Redmen." Or "I can't believe Miami of Ohio used to be the Redskins."

You're just applying a different interpretation to the usage of a common phrase. Henry Ford used it one way, you are reading a different unintended meaning, that's all. Not worth debating further.

And yes, once the Washington Redskins name has been changed and a few years have passed, anyone who comes across the fact that Miami U also used to be the Redskins will have exactly the reaction you describe.

I didn't even use it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What ever happened to this Redskin fan, still around?

http://www.footballbabble.com/images/Chief%20Zee.jpg

Chief Zee has attended Washington Redskins games since 1978.

He was hospitalized in 1983 after attending a game against the Eagles at Veterans Stadium. He was attacked by Philadelphia fans and suffered a broken leg in the process.

In 2000, he was included in a Canton exhibit which featured the biggest fan of each NFL team.

http://www.footballbabble.com/football/nfl/mascots-2/

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're just applying a different interpretation to the usage of a common phrase. Henry Ford used it one way, you are reading a different unintended meaning, that's all. Not worth debating further.

We have 46 pages of this exact debate. It's basically why this thread was started. Why is that not worth debating further? ETA: Why is this a reason to not debate something further?

This was just a weird side discussion of the phrase "wrong side of history," not the football team name.

No, I get that there was a side discussion. I guess I'm interested in why your reason (which seems perfectly logical to me) for not wanting to continue the side debate doesn't seem to have any merit in the larger, intended debate. Is the following not a reasonable and/or valid statement to make?

You're They're just applying a different interpretation to the usage of a common phrase word. Henry Ford used The Washington Redskins use it one way, you some Native Americans are reading a different unintended meaning, that's all. Not worth debating further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was watching the Redskins' Super Bowl highlights on NFLN a couple weeks ago and noticed they were playing the song at the SB. Have they stopped playing the song at the games?

They changed the lyrics in the 80s.

Hail Victory!

Braves on the Warpath!

Fight for old D.C.!

Run or pass and score -- we want a lot more!

Beat 'em, Swamp 'em,

Touchdown! -- Let the points soar!

Fight on, fight on 'Til you have won

Sons of Wash-ing-ton. Rah!, Rah!, Rah!

Hail to the Redskins!

Hail Victory!

Braves on the Warpath!

Fight for old D.C.!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're just applying a different interpretation to the usage of a common phrase. Henry Ford used it one way, you are reading a different unintended meaning, that's all. Not worth debating further.

We have 46 pages of this exact debate. It's basically why this thread was started. Why is that not worth debating further? ETA: Why is this a reason to not debate something further?

This was just a weird side discussion of the phrase "wrong side of history," not the football team name.

No, I get that there was a side discussion. I guess I'm interested in why your reason (which seems perfectly logical to me) for not wanting to continue the side debate doesn't seem to have any merit in the larger, intended debate. Is the following not a reasonable and/or valid statement to make?

You're They're just applying a different interpretation to the usage of a common phrase word. Henry Ford used The Washington Redskins use it one way, you some Native Americans are reading a different unintended meaning, that's all. Not worth debating further.

Because nobody was offended by or being disparaged by either use of the phrase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're just applying a different interpretation to the usage of a common phrase. Henry Ford used it one way, you are reading a different unintended meaning, that's all. Not worth debating further.

We have 46 pages of this exact debate. It's basically why this thread was started. Why is that not worth debating further? ETA: Why is this a reason to not debate something further?

This was just a weird side discussion of the phrase "wrong side of history," not the football team name.

No, I get that there was a side discussion. I guess I'm interested in why your reason (which seems perfectly logical to me) for not wanting to continue the side debate doesn't seem to have any merit in the larger, intended debate. Is the following not a reasonable and/or valid statement to make?

You're They're just applying a different interpretation to the usage of a common phrase word. Henry Ford used The Washington Redskins use it one way, you some Native Americans are reading a different unintended meaning, that's all. Not worth debating further.

I just can't believe they ever misinterpreted the Redskins as racist. Who could misunderstand the respect in this song?

Scalp 'em, swamp 'um

We will take 'um big score

Read 'um, Weep 'um, touchdown

We want heap more

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're just applying a different interpretation to the usage of a common phrase. Henry Ford used it one way, you are reading a different unintended meaning, that's all. Not worth debating further.

We have 46 pages of this exact debate. It's basically why this thread was started. Why is that not worth debating further? ETA: Why is this a reason to not debate something further?

This was just a weird side discussion of the phrase "wrong side of history," not the football team name.

No, I get that there was a side discussion. I guess I'm interested in why your reason (which seems perfectly logical to me) for not wanting to continue the side debate doesn't seem to have any merit in the larger, intended debate. Is the following not a reasonable and/or valid statement to make?

You're They're just applying a different interpretation to the usage of a common phrase word. Henry Ford used The Washington Redskins use it one way, you some Native Americans are reading a different unintended meaning, that's all. Not worth debating further.

I just can't believe they ever misinterpreted the Redskins as racist. Who could misunderstand the respect in this song?

Scalp 'em, swamp 'um

We will take 'um big score

Read 'um, Weep 'um, touchdown

We want heap more

References to Dixie

The music was taken from the song "Jesus Loves Me". The song's original first stanza is often mistakenly thought to have ended with the line "Fight for old Dixie", but in fact this line was only used between 1959 and 1961, as a glance at contemporary game day programs will verify. Each of these programs printed the lyrics, and "Old D.C." can be seen in all years except 1959 through 1961. The original version of the song also closed to the open of the well known southern folk song, "Dixie". This phrase has since been replaced with "Fight for ol' D.C.!"

Dixie refers to the southern United States and the Dixie reference may seem confusing to those unfamiliar with the history of the NFL. The team is considerably south of the Mason-Dixon line. Except for a brief foray into Dallas in 1952, there were no NFL teams anywhere in the southern United States until the 1960s. Marshall aggressively marketed his Redskins as the South's team and built a significant fan base there; this was part of the rationale behind Marshall's ban on black players in American professional football throughout most of his tenure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hail_to_the_Redskins

Apparently the Redskins were The team for the South.

Did not know that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're just applying a different interpretation to the usage of a common phrase. Henry Ford used it one way, you are reading a different unintended meaning, that's all. Not worth debating further.

We have 46 pages of this exact debate. It's basically why this thread was started. Why is that not worth debating further? ETA: Why is this a reason to not debate something further?

This was just a weird side discussion of the phrase "wrong side of history," not the football team name.

No, I get that there was a side discussion. I guess I'm interested in why your reason (which seems perfectly logical to me) for not wanting to continue the side debate doesn't seem to have any merit in the larger, intended debate. Is the following not a reasonable and/or valid statement to make?

You're They're just applying a different interpretation to the usage of a common phrase word. Henry Ford used The Washington Redskins use it one way, you some Native Americans are reading a different unintended meaning, that's all. Not worth debating further.

I just can't believe they ever misinterpreted the Redskins as racist. Who could misunderstand the respect in this song?

Scalp 'em, swamp 'um

We will take 'um big score

Read 'um, Weep 'um, touchdown

We want heap more

References to Dixie

The music was taken from the song "Jesus Loves Me". The song's original first stanza is often mistakenly thought to have ended with the line "Fight for old Dixie", but in fact this line was only used between 1959 and 1961, as a glance at contemporary game day programs will verify. Each of these programs printed the lyrics, and "Old D.C." can be seen in all years except 1959 through 1961. The original version of the song also closed to the open of the well known southern folk song, "Dixie". This phrase has since been replaced with "Fight for ol' D.C.!"

Dixie refers to the southern United States and the Dixie reference may seem confusing to those unfamiliar with the history of the NFL. The team is considerably south of the Mason-Dixon line. Except for a brief foray into Dallas in 1952, there were no NFL teams anywhere in the southern United States until the 1960s. Marshall aggressively marketed his Redskins as the South's team and built a significant fan base there; this was part of the rationale behind Marshall's ban on black players in American professional football throughout most of his tenure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hail_to_the_Redskins

Apparently the Redskins were The team for the South.

Did not know that.

Well, there goes the racism angle. Why would the team have marketed itself to the South while acting racist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not reading the whole thread - really, because in the end I just really don't care. If I'm a racist for it, so be it. But what I am curious about is alternate names - is there some kind of list or suggestions that are "official" as can be of the possible choices? I saw Olbermann do one of his rants where he said keep the logo and rename the team the Americans. I have to admit - that isn't so bad to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I've had this conversation with Tobias, in terms of whether it's important what Indians actually think, and to me whether the local Indians are offended is very important. I found a lot of what he said very persuasive, though logically I still think it doesn't make sense to be offended for or on behalf of people who aren't offended themselves (though it can never be that sweeping obviously a good number are).

So, just came across this article:

School board of majority Native American district votes to keep ‘Redskins’

WELLPINIT HIGH, in Washington

The most arresting development came in Eastern Washington at Wellpinit High, part of a district that “serves all students on the Spokane Indian Reservation,” according to its Web site. The district’s student body is 67 percent Native American, according to the latest demographic information posted online. It’s located in the state represented by Sen. Maria Cantwell (D), who led the Senate’s letter-writing campaign to Roger Goodell.

And yet the school board met last week and reaffirmed its support for the Redskins name. Via Spokane’s KXLY.com:

Wellpinit superintendent Tim Ames had previously discussed the issue with Spokane’s KREM:

Wednesday night the school board got together and decided, despite a push to get the mascot changed at the high school, they won’t be pursuing a re-branding from the Redskins….

Those who have lived in Wellpinit, for decades say the mascot has been a part of the community since 1907.

James Williams, a school board member for the last eight years and current vice chairman of the board, said a majority of those he talks to don’t want to see it changed.

“It’s something they have been brought up with all their life, and you know I don’t think they look at it being very derogatory,” he said.

Williams added the term has been the focus of a few meetings and they’ve decided it needs to stay.

“We decided last night that we weren’t going to change it. Talking to a lot of community members, the majority of the community don’t want it changed,” Williams said, adding there is too much pride in being a mighty Redskin that he wouldn’t want to be one to take that away.

Ames said the governing body on the Spokane Indian Reservation in Wellpinit approached the school district about educating people about what the Redskins name meant and potentially changing it.

“I can tell you, nobody has point blank said to me, ‘Tim that’s an offensive name in our community.’” Ames explained. “Even when I met with the Elders, they are even more intrigued by changing it. Their point was, ‘If we were to name our selves today, would we use the Redskins name?’ And they said, ‘probably not’.”

(Full disclosure: A Redskins spokesman forwarded along this story and urged me to write about it.)

...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/wp/2014/06/26/school-board-of-majority-native-american-district-votes-to-keep-redskins/

I don't know what to say about that but it echoes the ambivalence of the tribes around the DC area (1 of 4 disapproving, 3 of 4 ambivalent or outright fans).

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not reading the whole thread - really, because in the end I just really don't care. If I'm a racist for it, so be it. But what I am curious about is alternate names - is there some kind of list or suggestions that are "official" as can be of the possible choices? I saw Olbermann do one of his rants where he said keep the logo and rename the team the Americans. I have to admit - that isn't so bad to me.

Warriors and Warhawks were thrown around in the 90s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not reading the whole thread - really, because in the end I just really don't care. If I'm a racist for it, so be it. But what I am curious about is alternate names - is there some kind of list or suggestions that are "official" as can be of the possible choices? I saw Olbermann do one of his rants where he said keep the logo and rename the team the Americans. I have to admit - that isn't so bad to me.

I've said before the Indian motif at least is an important, proud, dignified icon of America itself. See for instance the Indian Head nickle and countless state, city and state flags and names of locales. Whether the name is ok I don't know but I do think the franchise logo/icon is a nice tip of the hat to the important role of Native Americans in our country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not reading the whole thread - really, because in the end I just really don't care. If I'm a racist for it, so be it. But what I am curious about is alternate names - is there some kind of list or suggestions that are "official" as can be of the possible choices? I saw Olbermann do one of his rants where he said keep the logo and rename the team the Americans. I have to admit - that isn't so bad to me.

I don't think anyone would say people are racist just because they use the name when they talk about the football team.

My bet would be on Warriors- it lets them keep a lot of the imagery and maybe even the song, and it's not specific to Native Americans, and it flies in other pro sports leagues with little to no controversy. Plus it's alliterative, which people seem to like.

Personally I like Red Tails after the Tuskegee Airmen (working with the vets' families to make sure the tone is appropriate), or Red Pandas after this little fella.

Edited by TobiasFunke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're just applying a different interpretation to the usage of a common phrase. Henry Ford used it one way, you are reading a different unintended meaning, that's all. Not worth debating further.

We have 46 pages of this exact debate. It's basically why this thread was started. Why is that not worth debating further? ETA: Why is this a reason to not debate something further?

This was just a weird side discussion of the phrase "wrong side of history," not the football team name.

No, I get that there was a side discussion. I guess I'm interested in why your reason (which seems perfectly logical to me) for not wanting to continue the side debate doesn't seem to have any merit in the larger, intended debate. Is the following not a reasonable and/or valid statement to make?

You're They're just applying a different interpretation to the usage of a common phrase word. Henry Ford used The Washington Redskins use it one way, you some Native Americans are reading a different unintended meaning, that's all. Not worth debating further.

Because nobody was offended by or being disparaged by either use of the phrase.

Are you using the term "disparaged" generally, or in some legal sense?

You seem to have a belief that at least some words/phrases can be interpreted differently, including meanings that were never intended. Does that hold universally for you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not reading the whole thread - really, because in the end I just really don't care. If I'm a racist for it, so be it. But what I am curious about is alternate names - is there some kind of list or suggestions that are "official" as can be of the possible choices? I saw Olbermann do one of his rants where he said keep the logo and rename the team the Americans. I have to admit - that isn't so bad to me.

Warriors and Warhawks were thrown around in the 90s.

They suck. Americans is better. And you give the people that want the change the chance to say, see look, we were the original americans or whatever they want. Kind of a turn on the PR if nothing else.

Senators is tired and boring; Captials is taken and wouldn't fit for the football team anyway.... it's just a weird place to be to name a team. They could change everything, name logo colors and go all black and name the team just Haliburton. That would be funny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're just applying a different interpretation to the usage of a common phrase. Henry Ford used it one way, you are reading a different unintended meaning, that's all. Not worth debating further.

We have 46 pages of this exact debate. It's basically why this thread was started. Why is that not worth debating further? ETA: Why is this a reason to not debate something further?

This was just a weird side discussion of the phrase "wrong side of history," not the football team name.

No, I get that there was a side discussion. I guess I'm interested in why your reason (which seems perfectly logical to me) for not wanting to continue the side debate doesn't seem to have any merit in the larger, intended debate. Is the following not a reasonable and/or valid statement to make?

You're They're just applying a different interpretation to the usage of a common phrase word. Henry Ford used The Washington Redskins use it one way, you some Native Americans are reading a different unintended meaning, that's all. Not worth debating further.

Because nobody was offended by or being disparaged by either use of the phrase.

Are you using the term "disparaged" generally, or in some legal sense?

You seem to have a belief that at least some words/phrases can be interpreted differently, including meanings that were never intended. Does that hold universally for you?

I have no idea what point you're trying to make. Go ahead and make it, I don't want to get into some drawn out Socratic dialogue with you at 3:30 on a Friday.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not reading the whole thread - really, because in the end I just really don't care. If I'm a racist for it, so be it. But what I am curious about is alternate names - is there some kind of list or suggestions that are "official" as can be of the possible choices? I saw Olbermann do one of his rants where he said keep the logo and rename the team the Americans. I have to admit - that isn't so bad to me.

Warriors and Warhawks were thrown around in the 90s.

They suck. Americans is better. And you give the people that want the change the chance to say, see look, we were the original americans or whatever they want. Kind of a turn on the PR if nothing else.

Senators is tired and boring; Captials is taken and wouldn't fit for the football team anyway.... it's just a weird place to be to name a team. They could change everything, name logo colors and go all black and name the team just Haliburton. That would be funny.

Washington Lobbyists and make the logo a dollar sign?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea what point you're trying to make. Go ahead and make it, I don't want to get into some drawn out Socratic dialogue with you at 3:30 on a Friday.

Sorry, I'm honestly not trying to be difficult. I'm mostly just trying to understand the debate at this point. Hopefully I can adequately explain myself.

It seems like there are two different discussions overlapping at this point, and all the participants may not be aware who is discussing which. At least, I'm having a hard time telling one from the other. One discussion seems to be a strictly legal discussion of whether the trademarks should stand, or not. And the other discussion seems to be, basically, of how the term "redskin" relates to racism. There is some natural overlap between the two, but I don't think they are entirely the same debate.

I'm more interested in opinions on the latter discussion at the moment, which is why I was trying to find out (feebly, for which I apologize) whether you were discussing from the trademark legality standpoint. I think I would disagree with this statement you made a few posts up:

I don't think anyone would say people are racist just because they use the name when they talk about the football team.

Without a complete review of the thread, I feel like there have been people who have at least intimated, if not outright stated, that the use of the name, even when talking about the football team exhibits racism/makes you racist. Which would mean that, to them, "intended meaning" is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Am I correct in assuming that "intent" is important to you with regard to the use of the name (and I'm not looking to "gotcha" anyone; just interested in an honest discussion)?

I guess, this is what bothers me the most about this whole topic. That I'm lumped in to the "racist" category by some if I'm not completely on the "get rid of the name" side. Maybe I've completely misunderstood things, but this seems to be the same perception others, like IronSheik, have had. Which was my understanding as to why he's been as vocal as he's been in this thread. It's where I find myself (selfishly) digging in my heels on this matter. If someone doesn't give a lick about how I think of and use a particular word, why should I give a lick about how they feel about my use of that word?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curious, but is there anything preventing Snyder from selling the team name rights to the highest bidder? They sell the naming rights of the stadiums they play in, and some collegiate teams sell the naming right of the actual field they plan on - why not sell the naming rights to the team itself?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea what point you're trying to make. Go ahead and make it, I don't want to get into some drawn out Socratic dialogue with you at 3:30 on a Friday.

Sorry, I'm honestly not trying to be difficult. I'm mostly just trying to understand the debate at this point. Hopefully I can adequately explain myself.

It seems like there are two different discussions overlapping at this point, and all the participants may not be aware who is discussing which. At least, I'm having a hard time telling one from the other. One discussion seems to be a strictly legal discussion of whether the trademarks should stand, or not. And the other discussion seems to be, basically, of how the term "redskin" relates to racism. There is some natural overlap between the two, but I don't think they are entirely the same debate.

I'm more interested in opinions on the latter discussion at the moment, which is why I was trying to find out (feebly, for which I apologize) whether you were discussing from the trademark legality standpoint. I think I would disagree with this statement you made a few posts up:

I don't think anyone would say people are racist just because they use the name when they talk about the football team.

Without a complete review of the thread, I feel like there have been people who have at least intimated, if not outright stated, that the use of the name, even when talking about the football team exhibits racism/makes you racist. Which would mean that, to them, "intended meaning" is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Am I correct in assuming that "intent" is important to you with regard to the use of the name (and I'm not looking to "gotcha" anyone; just interested in an honest discussion)?

I guess, this is what bothers me the most about this whole topic. That I'm lumped in to the "racist" category by some if I'm not completely on the "get rid of the name" side. Maybe I've completely misunderstood things, but this seems to be the same perception others, like IronSheik, have had. Which was my understanding as to why he's been as vocal as he's been in this thread. It's where I find myself (selfishly) digging in my heels on this matter. If someone doesn't give a lick about how I think of and use a particular word, why should I give a lick about how they feel about my use of that word?

From my perspective, anyway, I think there are two different "intent" levels worth discussing, here. There's the "willful, malicious" level, which I don't think anyone in this thread falls into, and the "negligent" or "unknowingly" level, which I don't think is a crime against humanity or anything, but makes national dialogue about the name worthwhile.

I think the vast majority of the racism associate with the name is just plain old "I never really thought about it that way" racism. The kind that the middle-class white males like me perpetrate a lot. It's borne of simply not having to look at things from someone else's perspective, because we're middle-class white guys. 30 years ago if you'd told me I shouldn't be allowed to call the game I was playing with my friends "Smear the Queer" I would have told you that doesn't make any sense at all. Because I'd never thought about it.

If you asked my grandfather how he'd describe his neighbor's kid, he'd have said "he's a little colored boy." He loved that kid, as much as his own grandchildren. Used to take him on rides in the truck to show him how to sell things door to door. Would have slapped the #### out of anyone who called the kid the n-word, and possibly shot the guy. But calling someone a "cute, well-spoken little colored boy" is a little racist these days - and I know the young adult that kid grew up to be, and he loved my grandfather, too - but he also felt ashamed whenever my grandfather called him "colored." He told him once, when he was a teenager, before my grandfather died. And my grandfather stammered and told him he didn't mean it that way, and stormed off in a huff. And then he thought about it. And he went back and asked him to talk about how it made him feel and what it made him think about. Then he shook the kid's hand and apologized and said he never thought of it that way.

Was my grandfather "A Racist"? I don't think so. But he was "a little racist" in many ways. So am I. So are most people.

The question isn't whether or not you're a racist for rooting for the Redskins. I don't think so. But when people point out to you that it's offensive to them - that it makes them feel smaller than the average American, more worthless, less than you to hear you say that - to hear the announcers, and the pundits, and the NFL Draft announcements, and see the billboards, and the commercials - that it makes them feel the way a teenage boy feels when someone he truly loves calls him "colored" - when they file lawsuits, and the tribunals agree with them, what's your reaction? Your initial one, and then the next one once you calm down? Do you think "well, #### them!" Do you think "I don't really know those people, so who cares!" Or do you try to find out if that's actually how you're helping make people feel? And if you find out that you are, do you want to fix it? That's probably the most important "intent" you can find in a story like this.

Intent isn't irrelevant to the conversation, but it also isn't decided by what you mean when you say "Redskins" without thinking about it.

Edited by Henry Ford
  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my perspective, anyway, I think there are two different "intent" levels worth discussing, here. There's the "willful, malicious" level, which I don't think anyone in this thread falls into, and the "negligent" or "unknowingly" level, which I don't think is a crime against humanity or anything, but makes national dialogue about the name worthwhile.

I think the vast majority of the racism associate with the name is just plain old "I never really thought about it that way" racism. The kind that the middle-class white males like me perpetrate a lot. It's borne of simply not having to look at things from someone else's perspective, because we're middle-class white guys. 30 years ago if you'd told me I shouldn't be allowed to call the game I was playing with my friends "Smear the Queer" I would have told you that doesn't make any sense at all. Because I'd never thought about it.

If you asked my grandfather how he'd describe his neighbor's kid, he'd have said "he's a little colored boy." He loved that kid, as much as his own grandchildren. Used to take him on rides in the truck to show him how to sell things door to door. Would have slapped the #### out of anyone who called the kid the n-word, and possibly shot the guy. But calling someone a "cute, well-spoken little colored boy" is a little racist these days - and I know the young adult that kid grew up to be, and he loved my grandfather, too - but he also felt ashamed whenever my grandfather called him "colored." He told him once, when he was a teenager, before my grandfather died. And my grandfather stammered and told him he didn't mean it that way, and stormed off in a huff. And then he thought about it. And he went back and asked him to talk about how it made him feel and what it made him think about. Then he shook the kid's hand and apologized and said he never thought of it that way.

Was my grandfather "A Racist"? I don't think so. But he was "a little racist" in many ways. So am I. So are most people.

The question isn't whether or not you're a racist for rooting for the Redskins. I don't think so. But when people point out to you that it's offensive to them - that it makes them feel smaller than the average American, more worthless, less than you to hear you say that - to hear the announcers, and the pundits, and the NFL Draft announcements, and see the billboards, and the commercials - that it makes them feel the way a teenage boy feels when someone he truly loves calls him "colored" - when they file lawsuits, and the tribunals agree with them, what's your reaction? Your initial one, and then the next one once you calm down? Do you think "well, #### them!" Do you think "I don't really know those people, so who cares!" Or do you try to find out if that's actually how you're helping make people feel? And if you find out that you are, do you want to fix it? That's probably the most important "intent" you can find in a story like this.

Intent isn't irrelevant to the conversation, but it also isn't decided by what you mean when you say "Redskins" without thinking about it.

Impressive...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are fighting a losing cause and will be on the wrong side of history on this one.

I like this schtick. Side of history = :lmao:. Those comments go along with the "It's just like the N word" comments and the MSNBC reporter warning viewers that they are about to see a clip where someone will mention the word "Redskins". I know, maybe the NFL should be required to put "Viewer discretion is advised" warnings on all Redskins games.

Unless all of this leads to big riots or something else major, this isn't going to be in History textbooks. It's not going to be a topic of conversation like the Civil Rights movement or even Gay Marriage.

"Today kids, we're going to discuss the Revolutionary War. Tomorrow is the Civil War and then Wednesday through the end of the school year, we'll discuss the amazing moment history when the Redskins changed their name."

There's more to "history" than what's in a fourth grade History textbook.

:lmao:

Well said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curious, but is there anything preventing Snyder from selling the team name rights to the highest bidder? They sell the naming rights of the stadiums they play in, and some collegiate teams sell the naming right of the actual field they plan on - why not sell the naming rights to the team itself?

You mean be like Washington Red Bulls or something?

No idea, but I'd imagine the NFL might have a rule preventing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my perspective, anyway, I think there are two different "intent" levels worth discussing, here. There's the "willful, malicious" level, which I don't think anyone in this thread falls into, and the "negligent" or "unknowingly" level, which I don't think is a crime against humanity or anything, but makes national dialogue about the name worthwhile.

I think the vast majority of the racism associate with the name is just plain old "I never really thought about it that way" racism. The kind that the middle-class white males like me perpetrate a lot. It's borne of simply not having to look at things from someone else's perspective, because we're middle-class white guys. 30 years ago if you'd told me I shouldn't be allowed to call the game I was playing with my friends "Smear the Queer" I would have told you that doesn't make any sense at all. Because I'd never thought about it.

If you asked my grandfather how he'd describe his neighbor's kid, he'd have said "he's a little colored boy." He loved that kid, as much as his own grandchildren. Used to take him on rides in the truck to show him how to sell things door to door. Would have slapped the #### out of anyone who called the kid the n-word, and possibly shot the guy. But calling someone a "cute, well-spoken little colored boy" is a little racist these days - and I know the young adult that kid grew up to be, and he loved my grandfather, too - but he also felt ashamed whenever my grandfather called him "colored." He told him once, when he was a teenager, before my grandfather died. And my grandfather stammered and told him he didn't mean it that way, and stormed off in a huff. And then he thought about it. And he went back and asked him to talk about how it made him feel and what it made him think about. Then he shook the kid's hand and apologized and said he never thought of it that way.

Was my grandfather "A Racist"? I don't think so. But he was "a little racist" in many ways. So am I. So are most people.

The question isn't whether or not you're a racist for rooting for the Redskins. I don't think so. But when people point out to you that it's offensive to them - that it makes them feel smaller than the average American, more worthless, less than you to hear you say that - to hear the announcers, and the pundits, and the NFL Draft announcements, and see the billboards, and the commercials - that it makes them feel the way a teenage boy feels when someone he truly loves calls him "colored" - when they file lawsuits, and the tribunals agree with them, what's your reaction? Your initial one, and then the next one once you calm down? Do you think "well, #### them!" Do you think "I don't really know those people, so who cares!" Or do you try to find out if that's actually how you're helping make people feel? And if you find out that you are, do you want to fix it? That's probably the most important "intent" you can find in a story like this.

Intent isn't irrelevant to the conversation, but it also isn't decided by what you mean when you say "Redskins" without thinking about it.

Impressive...

I agree... really good post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HF,

That was a great response. Seriously. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts, including the story of your grandfather and your friend, with me/us. Just like them, you've put a perspective on this that I think I needed to see but couldn't quite get to on my own.

You said "...[intent] also isn't decided by what you mean when you say 'Redskins' without thinking about it." Did you mean, without thinking about how other people think about it, or without thinking about how it's received? If so, I think I agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HF,

That was a great response. Seriously. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts, including the story of your grandfather and your friend, with me/us. Just like them, you've put a perspective on this that I think I needed to see but couldn't quite get to on my own.

You said "...[intent] also isn't decided by what you mean when you say 'Redskins' without thinking about it." Did you mean, without thinking about how other people think about it, or without thinking about how it's received? If so, I think I agree.

Yeah, that's what I mean mostly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a lot about that story with my grandfather. It's one of the singular moments in my life, hearing about that. It was told to me in a completely different context. He told me when we were talking about "trusting your gut." His "gut" reaction was to be pissed off and walk away.

Told me to always trust your gut, but always question it, too. "It will never lie to you, but it's sure going to be flat out wrong a lot. And when it's wrong, it's usually REALLY wrong."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my perspective, anyway, I think there are two different "intent" levels worth discussing, here. There's the "willful, malicious" level, which I don't think anyone in this thread falls into, and the "negligent" or "unknowingly" level, which I don't think is a crime against humanity or anything, but makes national dialogue about the name worthwhile.

I think the vast majority of the racism associate with the name is just plain old "I never really thought about it that way" racism. The kind that the middle-class white males like me perpetrate a lot. It's borne of simply not having to look at things from someone else's perspective, because we're middle-class white guys. 30 years ago if you'd told me I shouldn't be allowed to call the game I was playing with my friends "Smear the Queer" I would have told you that doesn't make any sense at all. Because I'd never thought about it.

If you asked my grandfather how he'd describe his neighbor's kid, he'd have said "he's a little colored boy." He loved that kid, as much as his own grandchildren. Used to take him on rides in the truck to show him how to sell things door to door. Would have slapped the #### out of anyone who called the kid the n-word, and possibly shot the guy. But calling someone a "cute, well-spoken little colored boy" is a little racist these days - and I know the young adult that kid grew up to be, and he loved my grandfather, too - but he also felt ashamed whenever my grandfather called him "colored." He told him once, when he was a teenager, before my grandfather died. And my grandfather stammered and told him he didn't mean it that way, and stormed off in a huff. And then he thought about it. And he went back and asked him to talk about how it made him feel and what it made him think about. Then he shook the kid's hand and apologized and said he never thought of it that way.

Was my grandfather "A Racist"? I don't think so. But he was "a little racist" in many ways. So am I. So are most people.

The question isn't whether or not you're a racist for rooting for the Redskins. I don't think so. But when people point out to you that it's offensive to them - that it makes them feel smaller than the average American, more worthless, less than you to hear you say that - to hear the announcers, and the pundits, and the NFL Draft announcements, and see the billboards, and the commercials - that it makes them feel the way a teenage boy feels when someone he truly loves calls him "colored" - when they file lawsuits, and the tribunals agree with them, what's your reaction? Your initial one, and then the next one once you calm down? Do you think "well, #### them!" Do you think "I don't really know those people, so who cares!" Or do you try to find out if that's actually how you're helping make people feel? And if you find out that you are, do you want to fix it? That's probably the most important "intent" you can find in a story like this.

Intent isn't irrelevant to the conversation, but it also isn't decided by what you mean when you say "Redskins" without thinking about it.

GFP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...