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)
- Thread starter DBIsports
- Start date
Todd Andrews
Footballguy
Todd Andrews
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Parrothead
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
I feel like it creates lots of questions.Parrothead said:
Hooper31
Footballguy
I'm very late to this party. Haven't read the thread because I find it a difficult topic to discuss with others rationally, but thought I might throw in a link to a recent George Will column.
I consider myself very left of center, but find that I agree with Will quite often as I do in this case.
I consider myself very left of center, but find that I agree with Will quite often as I do in this case.
Amanda Blackhorse, a Navajo who successfully moved a federal agency towithdraw trademark protections from the Washington Redskins because it considers the teams name derogatory, lives on a reservation where Navajos root for the Red Mesa High School Redskins. She opposes this name; the Native Americans who picked and retain it evidently do not.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office acted on a 1946 law banning trademarks that may disparage persons. May gives the agency latitude to disregard evidence regarding how many people actually feel disparaged or feel that others should feel disparaged. Blackhorse speaks of the majority of Native American people who have spoken out on this. This would seem implausible even if a 2004 poll had not found that 90 percent of Native Americans were not offended by the Redskins name. A 2013 AP-GfK poll showed that 79 percent of Americans of all ethnicities opposed changing it, and just 18 percent of nonwhite football fans favored changing it.
The federal agency acted in the absence of general or Native American revulsion about Redskins, and probably because of this absence. Are the Americans who are paying attention to this controversy comfortable with government saying, in effect, that if people are not offended, they should be, so government must decide what uses of language should be punished?
In todays regulatory state, agencies often do pretty much as they please, exercising discretion unconstrained by law.
George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley notes that in 2004 the Federal Election Commission held that the anti-George W. Bush movie Fahrenheit 9/11 did not need to be regulated as an electioneering communication but in 2008 held that the hostile Hillary: The Movie was such a communication. In the regulatory state, the rule of law is the rule that law barely limits regulators discretion.
A Washington Redskins football helmet lies on the field during NFL football minicamp. (Nick Wass/AP)
Although the death penalty clearly was not considered a cruel and unusual punishment when the Eighth Amendment proscription of such punishments was adopted, perhaps societys evolving standards of decency have brought this punishment under the proscription. Standards of decency do evolve: No sports team launched today would select the name Redskins. Although Thomas Sowell is correct that some people are in the business of being offended, just as Campbell is in the business of making soup, the fact that some people are professionally indignant does not mean offense may be given promiscuously to others.
The name Redskins is more problematic than, say, that of the Chicago Blackhawks or Cleveland Indians presumably because Redskins refers to skin pigmentation. People offended by this might be similarly distressed if they knew that Oklahoma is a compound of two Choctaw words meaning red and people. Blackhorse, however, has two larger objections.
She says someone once told her that teams mascots are meant to be ridiculed, to be toyed with, to be pushed around and disrespected and have stuff thrown at them. She should supplement the opinion of that someone with information from persons more knowledgeable. But she considers any team name that references Native Americans an injurious appropriation of our culture. Has an appropriation been committed by the University of Utah and Florida State University even though they have the approval of the respective tribes for their teams nicknames, the Utes and Seminoles?
William Voegeli, a senior editor of the Claremont Review of Books, writes that the kerfuffle over an NFL teams name involves serious matters. They include comity in a diverse nation, civil discourse, and not only how we make decisions, but how we decide what needs to be decided, and who will do the deciding.
Time was, Voegeli writes, a tolerant society was one with a mutual non-aggression pact: If your beliefs and practices offend but do not otherwise affect me, I will not interfere with them if you will reciprocate regarding my beliefs and practices. Now, however, tolerance supposedly requires compulsory acknowledgment that certain peoples beliefs and practices deserve, Voegeli says, to be honored, respected, affirmed and validated lest they suffer irreparable injury to their sense of worth. And it requires compelling conformity for the good of the compelled.
When two Oregon bakers chose, for religious reasons, not to provide a cake for a same-sex wedding, an Oregon government official explained why tolerance meant coercing the bakers: The goal is to rehabilitate. Tolerance required declaring the bakers beliefs and practices intolerable. We are going to discover whether a society can be congenial while its government is being coercive regarding wedding cakes and team names.
I just wonder why a politically correct site, like footballguys, continues to allow ethnic slurs to be used in thread titles.
Seems a bit hypocritical to filter out language that one group of people find offensive, but not others...then again, not totally surprising given the backgrounds here.
Seems a bit hypocritical to filter out language that one group of people find offensive, but not others...then again, not totally surprising given the backgrounds here.
timschochet
Footballguy
Regarding George Will's article: why is it that conservatives seem to actively look for ways to justify anything that some find racially offensive? Anytime that anyone or anything is called racism, unless it's do blatantly evident that no reasonable person can deny it, conservatives always look for a loophole.
squistion
Footballguy
I think you would agree that the progressive Huffington Post is probably even more PC than this site. Perhaps you also notify them of their continued hypocrisy.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/redskins-name-change/
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Lets see-
FBG filters this "R-word" (probably a much better comparison anyway as it really does have many everyday usages in other contexts). Is ####### filtered on
Huffington Post?Nope!
And a different type of word, but one that FBGs generally are shocked to find filtered...
######
Don't think that the argument holds. Sorry!
squistion
Footballguy
Oh yes, that proves that FBGs is unquestionably more PC than either Huffington Post or Daily Kos. The language filter is the litmus test as to how liberal or progressive any site is.
Last edited by a moderator:
its just not very christ-like. But then again, most self-professeed christians tend to pick and choose what aspects of christ they would like to follow.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
It doesn't attempt to prove anything other than the FBGs filters words from usage that the Huffington Post does not. I have no clue as to whether the Huffington Post or Daily Kos is more PC or not. And when were we testing "how liberal or progressive any site is"? How is that even relevant?
squistion
Footballguy
Another profound observation I should add to my signature line: Being PC has nothing to do and has no relevance to where one stands on the political spectrum,
Last edited by a moderator:
Hooper31
Footballguy
How many qualifies as enough when it comes to "some"? How many (or what percent) is enough to make a team change their name? There's a line. Everyone has a line. When is the line crossed? That line is arbitrary and can be swayed by the media and a few timely speeches. The public in general is fickle and easily manipulated.
And I'm no conservative. I'm a pretty liberal dude.
timschochet
Footballguy
OK, but as a general rule, doesn't it seem as if liberals see racism everywhere and conservatives see racism nowhere?
Riversco
Footballguy
I think they have different viewpoints as to how to fix racism. Democrats think the answer to racism is government intervention. Conservatives believe the answer to racism is to just stop talking about it (there's a youtube video by Morgan Freeman where he voices this opinion) and if you leave the issue alone, it will fade over time and the racism will disappear.
Liberals believe they are making "progress" when they push to change the name Redskins. Conservatives view this as going backwards, like ripping off the scab and starting a fight all over again instead of moving on.
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Do you believe that there is more government intervention involved in a trademark protected work, or one that doesn't have a registered trademark?
Riversco
Footballguy
cstu
Footballguy
How about Washington Pride with a lion logo? The Lions wouldn't be happy but we've had Chiefs and Redskins for awhile without it being a big deal.
bigbottom
Footballguy
You are WAY off. Conservatives are extremely perceptive when it comes to identifying and speaking out against racism and prejudice. Reverend Wright's church, affirmative action, NAACP, BET, Black History Month, etc.
Last edited by a moderator:
Chaka
Footballguy
TheIronSheik
SUPER ELITE UPPER TIER
I always find it humorous that people who have done something their whole lives, suddenly change their mind, then call out everyone else for thinking the same thing they used to think. 
Doug B
Footballguy
Can handle this IF the former stance is acknowledged. Can't fault someone for saying "I was ignorant of the effects, and won't do it anymore from now on" ... but I can fault someone (e.g. Bob Costas) for acting like they were never wrong on the issue to begin with.I always find it humorous that people who have done something their whole lives, suddenly change their mind, then call out everyone else for thinking the same thing they used to think.
I migjht be being a little hard on ol' Bob C. He's said a lot on the topic in recent years. Maybe Costas has owned up to his personal usage of the term throughout the 80s & 90s. But in his famous diatribe during SNF this past season, he did not.
Idiot Boxer
Footballguy
The world is flat I say! Flat!I always find it humorous that people who have done something their whole lives, suddenly change their mind, then call out everyone else for thinking the same thing they used to think.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Todem
Footballguy
What's the problem changing the name to The Natives? What the heck is so offensive about that? Native Americans embodies the Indian nation.
TheIronSheik
SUPER ELITE UPPER TIER
TheIronSheik
SUPER ELITE UPPER TIER
Yes. This is what I'm referring to.Can handle this IF the former stance is acknowledged. Can't fault someone for saying "I was ignorant of the effects, and won't do it anymore from now on" ... but I can fault someone (e.g. Bob Costas) for acting like they were never wrong on the issue to begin with.I always find it humorous that people who have done something their whole lives, suddenly change their mind, then call out everyone else for thinking the same thing they used to think.
I migjht be being a little hard on ol' Bob C. He's said a lot on the topic in recent years. Maybe Costas has owned up to his personal usage of the term throughout the 80s & 90s. But in his famous diatribe during SNF this past season, he did not.
avoiding injuries
Footballguy
That's still 2 less than Redskins.
TheIronSheik
SUPER ELITE UPPER TIER
Please don't call them anything. Even thinking about them is offensive. And you should know better. Get on the right side of history.
TheIronSheik
SUPER ELITE UPPER TIER
That's offensive. It wasn't America when they lived here. As an American, I find that offensive.
Why do you feel the need to call them anything? Trying to mold everyone into one homogenous group seems a bit disingenuous, no? Pretty sure the various tribes did not see themselves as one group...
B-Deep
Footballguy
Actually it was named America before the country was here, you are incorrect and again desperately stretching to be offended to prove a point
but in any case Blame Dan Snyder, he came up with it. It is obviously the term he believes should be used to describe native americans, as he used it instead of redksins. Still have never seen him get up and show the balls to use his "non slur" as a name for the people he is "not offending"
if it is not a slur, use it Dan. Say Redskins have no reason to be offended, they are afterall redskins.
TheIronSheik
SUPER ELITE UPPER TIER
The Indians called it America?
I was pretty sure that was a name brought over from Europe. May want to check your facts. I'd hate for you to be on the wrong side of history.
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
To be correct, it has to be at least 2 potatoes.at keep name, change logo to a potato.
Doug B
Footballguy
Question:
If the team is named after a specific individual (cf. Chicago Blackhawks, Cleveland Browns), is it generally OK?
I saw the name "Redhawks" (a la Miami of Ohio's 'Red Hawks') proposed upthread and in a few other places. One of the Sioux military leaders that stood off against General Custer's regiment at Little Big Horn was one Chief Red Hawk (more info).
If the team is named after a specific individual (cf. Chicago Blackhawks, Cleveland Browns), is it generally OK?
I saw the name "Redhawks" (a la Miami of Ohio's 'Red Hawks') proposed upthread and in a few other places. One of the Sioux military leaders that stood off against General Custer's regiment at Little Big Horn was one Chief Red Hawk (more info).
Fennis
Footballguy
TheIronSheik
SUPER ELITE UPPER TIER
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
All name ideas suck so far.
Washington Federals? Sucks too.
How about the Washington Washingtons? Like New York New York and a way to honor George even more...... nah that sucks too.
Washington Monuments? Could have some fun with that if they have a really good offensive line. I could go for this. I want the logo to the Washington Monument of course. Jokes abound.
Washington Lincolns? Honor both presidents.... sucks too.
Washington Dream - honor MLK's speech there and do all the PC nonsense surrounding same. Could turn I have a Dream into a football phrase. This is promising.
I'm running out of ideas. I think Monuments has the best potential.
Washington Federals? Sucks too.
How about the Washington Washingtons? Like New York New York and a way to honor George even more...... nah that sucks too.
Washington Monuments? Could have some fun with that if they have a really good offensive line. I could go for this. I want the logo to the Washington Monument of course. Jokes abound.
Washington Lincolns? Honor both presidents.... sucks too.
Washington Dream - honor MLK's speech there and do all the PC nonsense surrounding same. Could turn I have a Dream into a football phrase. This is promising.
I'm running out of ideas. I think Monuments has the best potential.
Doug B
Footballguy
Nah ...Americans, Potomacs, Redhawks, and Pride are pretty good, IMHO. Generals, Admirals, etc. aren't bad, either.
One issue with "Pride" and "Dream", though, is that NFL marketing eschews singular team names (like Orlando Magic, OKC Thunder, etc.). But there are still are a lot of other solid choices. Anything new will sound weird for a while ... I knew it took a while for "Houston Texans" to become familiar.
EDIT: "Red Tails" was proposed upthread also -- that to me is also a rock-solid choice.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
