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.
Georgetown was originally The Stonewalls.Hoya Saxa is a latin phrase for "What Rocks" - it became a Georgetown cheer similar to the Boomer-Sooner deal we have at OU.Then it became so popular that Georgetown changed all their teams to the Hoyas.
For me, it depends on whether the nickname has a derogatory word in it. I have no problem with Fighting Sioux or Seminoles, but Redskins is a bit over the top. When push comes to shove I really don't care, but I'm not going to pretend it's not a blatantly derogatory term.
I think the word has fallen out of use because we've made any reference to skin color taboo, not because the term itself was offensive. And that phenomenon in and of itself is rather overdone, IMHO.Think of it this way, why have no teams been named the N-word? Because one wouldn't expect to generate pride and community support for a team with that name.Now, on the other hand, why would someone name a team Redskin? Because one would expect to generate pride and community support for a team with that name.Or, asked in another way, what traits and attributes are we invoking when we name a team Redskin? Aren't they all positive, or at least perceived as positive in the context of the sport?And if that's the case, why be offended? I'm not offended by local H.S. teams that call themselves Scotties. I don't feel the culture is being raped because NFL Europe decided that a claymore makes for a good team name or because Axl Rose used to wear a kilt on stage.I tend to take offense when offense is intended. It's silly and a bit narcissistic to take offense when it's obvious that no offense is intended. It's even sillier when it's obvious that someone is using something from your culture as a positive symbol of pride.I look at it the opposite way. I be more offended if the dominant culture couldn't find anything from my culture worth ripping off.
No, it's not. At some point Native Americans decided to become offended at something that they previously not only did not find offensive, but even embraced. I don't feel compelled to change my use of the language because someone else decides to become offended at something they previously didn't find offensive and that I clearly do not intend to use to offend.Why the change? Why did they decide they didn't like it? That matters.Yes, let's not try to confuse you with any facts. And horrors, the polls were mentioned in an article by the NY Times (who didn't do the polls, they were conducted by Indian Country Today) so obviously they are as suspect as if they are appeared in Pravda.And as has been noted before, the origin of the Redskins name (however well intended) is completely irrelevant to whether Native Americans find the name offensive today. The origin of Sambo's Restaurant chain was a mix of its two founders names, but that it did not make it any less offensive to African Americans. The fact there was no ill intent with the Redskins is similarly irrelevant.I know nothing about either poll, but a New York Times article means little to me as well. They were outraged that the Volkswagen super bowl commercial was racist despite many Jamaicans saying not only did they have no problem with it, but they liked it.Did you read the post from nittanylion earlier this thread? If you didn't take the time to read it. It talks of the original name and that the term "redskins" actually came from Native Americans themselves as it is used in speeches decades before the NFL existed. Secondly, the name was actually a tribute to their native american coach. The fact that it was a term used by their own people (and not in a derogatory way) and the fact that it was named as a tribute for a native american, there is clearly no ill intent.If you want to continue to stick your head in the sand about our team's name, so be it. But posting a dubious decade-old poll that found that only approximately 300,000 people find the name offensive and derogatory is not "good posting."Somehow it is hip to find a way to be offended by something these days. I don't know what it is, but it seems everyone wants to find a way to be offended. Like that stupid Volkswagen commercial that had a white guy talking like a Jamaican guy. A few (non Jamaican) New York Times writers were outraged, but when they asked actual representatives from Jamaica, they liked the commercial.
Here's a much more recent information about a poll that found "the overwhelming number of Indians, American Indians, do not like the name; they feel it's offensive."
Not that it should matter. Is there some minimum number of native Americans who would need to find the name offensive for you to support changing it? We know you don't mind offending 300,000 people with what they consider a racial slur. Would you be OK with calling a million people by a racial slur? If that too much, or still OK? What about five million?
Sorry, Native Americans as a group never embraced the term "Redskin" (and the flawed, discredited, decade old poll you point to as proof is considered an outlier and even then "not being bothered" by the term is hardly embracing it).It doesn't matter what the intent of the speaker is. If you call an African American a "Negro" he or she will probably find it offensive, irrespective of what your intent is (and at one point in time, the term "Negro" actually was the acceptable PC term for that minority). A majority of Native Americans now clearly find the term "Redskin" offensive and their wishes should be respected.
Why does one have to "embrace" a term for it not to be offensive?This may not hold up to the high bar of "embracing" the term, but I still haven't seen the research done that refutes Goddard's research which was mentioned previously in this thread. He cites numerous original recordings of the use of the term including the context in which they were used (by both Europeans/Americans and by Native Americans) and ends up summarizing***:
So why the recent shift? Why is a term that was originally used at the very least neutrally, if not proudly, by Native Americans and non-Native Americans alike, suddenly a racial slur?
That's completely and utterly ridiculous, IMO. What's the point of communication at all if the intent of the speaker is irrelevant.***ETA: Goddard's opening to his paper also includes "...the actual origin of the word is entirely benign and reflects more positive aspects of relations between Indians and whites."
Straw Man - I wasn't saying that the intent of every utterance by every human being is irrelevant. The paragraph you took that from was not generalizing about all communications, it was part of a discussion about ethnic terms that were once acceptable but have fallen out of favor.In any event, if a speaker uses what is widely considered a racial slur, it is still a racial slur even if that was not the intent of the speaker.
You keep saying the bolded as if it's some indisputable fact. If that's the case then I'm sure the Navajos at Red Mesa High would greatly appreciate you informing them that they are calling themselves a racial slur. Their AD's e-mail address is right there at the bottom of that page. I'd be interested in seeing his reply if you wouldn't mind posting it here.
Maybe because all recent polls of Native Americans that I have seen back it up.http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/ready-for-a-redskins-name-change/
I don't see a poll there (just a reference to one) and I can't find it on "Indian Country Today"'s web site (maybe I haven't done a thorough enough search). So all there seems to be are references to conflicting polls by SI and the NFL and by a Native American media outlet. It would be interesting to actually see the Indian Country poll and the methods used to collect it's data. Maybe it's already been linked in this thread and I missed it.I have no idea which poll was conducted "right" and which was conducted "wrong", but I'm not convinced it matters, because I think intent is huge in communication (aka in the use of words). I don't believe words are inherently racist or slurs (inherently, they are just a collection of letters representing a collection of sounds; and obviously the same words can have vastly different meanings to different people). There are people in this world that have and do use the term "American" in an insulting and disparaging way and there are people in this world who have and do use the "n-word" in non-insulting and non-disparaging ways. Saying that either of those words are universally offensive and/or racial slurs, or not, regardless of use or intent, is just not reality.
The players will like this name.
I think you might agree the "N" word is considered a universally offensive term (although I have my doubts from your comments). But if you want to be consistent, then how bout you also inform any prominent African Americans who use that term (describing themselves and others) of their apparent ignorance or blatant racism. You could always start with members of the old hip hop band NWA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N.W.A) and then work your way forward to the present among rappers and comedians - that would keep you busy for awhile.
I'm not sure I understand your response to what I wrote.I have no interest in forcing anyone else to not offend me, so I'm not seeing my inconsistency. Something is offensive to me if it causes me displeasure or resentment. I control what offends me or what doesn't. I choose whether to get angry or upset or hurt at what people communicate to me.
. I'm not sure why they should care what I think, and if they don't care, any attempt at communicating my thoughts with them is wasted, useless time and energy. But if an opportunity arose to have a constructive conversation with them about why they were trying to offend people, I certainly think that would be an interesting conversation to have.
First, I'm not citing any poll. I'm referring to the historical use of the word. At some point people decided to become offended at its use.You say it doesn't matter why they did so, it only matters that they do. I'm saying it does matter. Now, at this point the debate may be no more "yes it does" and "no it doesn't". If that's all there is, there's no need to respond.
Like changing the name of that team in Indianapolis. "Young Equus Caballus" is the proper nomenclature. Colts is pejorative.
I like it!
Kinda like saying if a team was called the Wetbacks, keep the name but change the logo to a fish jumping out of the water and that would eliminate the problem of anyone finding the name offensive.
Please proved a link to show that the Browns were named after Brown people (I would have sworn it was after their owner who was caucasion).
And that's an awful joke.
Funny that of the three CLEARLY sarcastic examples I provided, you are asking me to provide a link for one of them. Does that mean you are ok with offending PETA and satan worshipers????Are you f'ING serious with your reply to my post????
I'm gonna go ahead and assume this is a joke so I don't lose all respect for you. I'm pretty sure it is. Good stuff, Commish. Very funny.TheCommish said:
Bradon Weeden sucks donkey balls. Happy?TheCommish said:
Not joking, Toby. People need to stop being so sensitive. Does the mascot for Washington actually DO anything to harm people? No. So just let it go.
I would normally agree with The Commish's opinion here. People are way too sensitive and PC these days. OK that being said, the name Redskins is really beyond the pale (hilarious joke not intended!).. I mean really? And no, Cowboys and Browns are not comparable nick names. Specific derogatory ethnic slurs, none of which will be listed in this post are. Moreover names like Devil Rays are not good examples either (like.. whu..?). Simply referencing something is not the problem. Hence why "Chiefs" are not the ones getting the negative attention. Important to note that these epithets were used to dehumanise populations so that they could be trivialized, ignored and quite frankly killed off. It doesn't take much modern sophistication to recognize this and all we're talking about here is a bit of inconvenience in marketing and fan continuity. Btw bring back the Washington Bullets for sure!
I think Redskin is truly offensive, and I'm a DC football fan. More importantly, lots of Native Americans think Redskin is truly offensive, and they are obviously in the best position to judge. How come you get to "figure out for themselves what is truly offensive"? You see the problem there?
Because people like you won't stop there. You'll find another thing to be offended by, and another, and another, etc....
"People like me" even though you've never met me AND an incredibly bad slippery slope argument, all in about 20 words. You're like the Pele of awful arguments.
