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

Why is it that we accept some names stricly as "nicknames", and therefore acceptable, but not others? "Fighting Irish" is fine. "Indians" is not. Vikings is good. Redmen is not. Why, if there is a connection, is "Demons" acceptable? In fact, how about "Demon Deacons"? And, while I'm at it WTF is a Hoya?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is it that we accept some names stricly as "nicknames", and therefore acceptable, but not others? "Fighting Irish" is fine. "Indians" is not. Vikings is good. Redmen is not. Why, if there is a connection, is "Demons" acceptable? In fact, how about "Demon Deacons"? And, while I'm at it WTF is a Hoya?

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. Edited by Instinctive
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is it that we accept some names stricly as "nicknames", and therefore acceptable, but not others? "Fighting Irish" is fine. "Indians" is not. Vikings is good. Redmen is not. Why, if there is a connection, is "Demons" acceptable? In fact, how about "Demon Deacons"? And, while I'm at it WTF is a Hoya?

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's pretty much the equivalent of calling a black person the N-word.

Can you explain this? I've heard people say this before, but I don't get it. I've literally never heard anyone use "Redskins" in a derogatory manner. I've literally never witnessed anyone even so much flinch when they hear someone else use the word "Redskins". I can't say that for the N word. Many people cringe at the use of the N word. Many people deliberately use it in a derogatory manner.If someone argues that they are offended by "Redskins", I'm certainly not going to tell them they are wrong. But, I don't see how the two words are equivalent. Of course, that doesn't really settle this debate. A word can be less offensive than the N word and still be offensive enough.
How many times have any of us heard Redskins used to refer to anything other than the football team?Not many I'd imagine. Like the article I just posted said, the word seems to have fallen out of use because it was viewed as offensive.Let me give you another example. I know that many consider the term "jap" to be offensive. I've heard that it's still used that way on the West Coast in particular. I don't think I've ever personally heard the term used as a slur. I wasn't even aware it was viewed that way until the Bill Parcell's comment. Before that incident I might have used it same as I would the term "brit". But just because I don't hear it used that way doesn't mean it doesn't have a history of offensive use. A history that is going to be heard by others even if I try to use it non-offensively.
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Poll finds very few Indians offended by Washington Redskins name

WASHINGTON (AP) — A poll of American Indians found that an overwhelming majority of them are not bothered by the name of the Washington Redskins.

Only 9% of those polled said the name of the NFL team is "offensive," while 90% said it's acceptable, according to the University of Pennsylvania's National Annenberg Election Survey.

:goodposting:

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.

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."

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?

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.

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.

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.

If you are offended by something that someone else so clearly did not use with the intent to offend, then that's a "you" problem. You're choosing to be offended despite a lack of intent. Why is it important to bow down to that type of mindset?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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.

If you are offended by something that someone else so clearly did not use with the intent to offend, then that's a "you" problem. You're choosing to be offended despite a lack of intent. Why is it important to bow down to that type of mindset?

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.

And just out of curiosity, are you one of those people who still refer to Asians as Orientals? Or perhaps insist on using homosexual over the preferred term gay.? Seems that you would since "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"

Edited by squistion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, Native Americans as a group never embraced the term "Redskin" (and the flawed, discredited, decades old poll you point to as proof is considered an outlier and even then "not being bothered" by the term is hardly embracing it).

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***:

[James Fenimore] Cooper’s use of redskin as a Native American in-group term was entirely authentic, reflecting both the accurate perception of the Indian self-image and the evolving respect among whites for the Indians’ distinct cultural perspective, whatever its prospects. The descent of this word into obloquy is a phenomenon of more recent times.

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?

It doesn't matter what the intent of the speaker is.

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."

Edited by Sidewinder16
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter what the intent of the speaker is.

That's completely and utterly ridiculous, IMO. What's the point of communication at all if the intent of the speaker is irrelevant.
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. Edited by squistion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter what the intent of the speaker is.

That's completely and utterly ridiculous, IMO. What's the point of communication at all if the intent of the speaker is irrelevant.
Straw Man - I wasn't saying that the intent of every utterance by every human being is irrelevant.

However, 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. Edited by Sidewinder16
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter what the intent of the speaker is.

That's completely and utterly ridiculous, IMO. What's the point of communication at all if the intent of the speaker is irrelevant.
Straw Man - I wasn't saying that the intent of every utterance by every human being is irrelevant.

However, 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/

Recently, the most recent “Indian Country Today” polls, the largest Native American magazine, they dispute and contradict everything Sports Illustrated or the NFL did about 10 years ago. They say that the overwhelming number of Indians, American Indians, do not like the name; they feel it’s offensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter what the intent of the speaker is.

That's completely and utterly ridiculous, IMO. What's the point of communication at all if the intent of the speaker is irrelevant.
Straw Man - I wasn't saying that the intent of every utterance by every human being is irrelevant.

However, 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/

Recently, the most recent “Indian Country Today” polls, the largest Native American magazine, they dispute and contradict everything Sports Illustrated or the NFL did about 10 years ago. They say that the overwhelming number of Indians, American Indians, do not like the name; they feel it’s offensive.

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.

So, why are there Native Americans offended by the use of the term "redskin"? It didn't originate as an offensive term and, for at least the last 80 years if not consistently since it's origin, hundreds of millions of people have continued to use it in a racial-neutral, if not racial-positive manner. Is it that a few idiots throughout the existence of the word have chosen to use it in their racist communications? I guess I'm just not convinced that that's all it takes for me to suddenly be using a racial slur despite what I'm referencing or what my intentions are.

And, again, if the term is a universally offensive term, somebody, especially those unhappy with the Washington Redskins, better inform Red Mesa High of either their apparent ignorance or blatant racism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, again, if the term is a universally offensive term, somebody, especially those unhappy with the Washington Redskins, better inform Red Mesa High of either their apparent ignorance or blatant racism.

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.

The fact that some people of a minority group use the ethnic slur themselves (sometimes ironically) doesn't mitigate the fact that the majority of that group may still find that term offensive (depending on who is using it and how it is used). For another example, calling somebody gay "queer" is generally considered somewhat offensive but pointing to the old Bravo show Queer Eye as a justification (because "they" use it) would not be a persuasive argument,

Edited by squistion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, again, if the term is a universally offensive term, somebody, especially those unhappy with the Washington Redskins, better inform Red Mesa High of either their apparent ignorance or blatant racism.

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 contact 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.

The fact that some people of an ethnic group will use an ethnic slur about them, themselves (sometimes ironically) doesn't mitigate the fact that the majority of that group find that term offensive (depending on its use). For another example, calling somebody gay a "queer" is generally considered offensive but pointing to the old Bravo show Queer Eye as a justification that its use is acceptable would not be a persuasive argument,

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.

It would be upsetting to me if someone I knew tried to be intentionally offensive or racist to me or someone else in any way, shape or form. That would be something I would choose to be upset at and I would absolutely communicate my displeasure with them in that situation.

But if members of NWA or the producers of a Bravo show are trying to offend other people (they don't offend me)...:shrug:. 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it both amusing and sad that in 2013, people would be defending a team name that is considered an ethnic slur (irrespective of its origins).

This is like the gay marriage debate - it is not a question of if, it is a question of when. I don't know when gay marriage will become the law of the land, but I do know it is eventually going to happen. It is just a matter of time.

By the same token, the NFL team in Washington will eventually drop the offensive "Redskins" name. Might take another decade or so, but anyone with a pulse on political correctness in this country can say with a high degree of certainty that it is on the way out. Like gay marriage, the name change has that same feeling of inevitability.

Some people find themselves on the wrong side of history in a debate and this is another example.

Edited by squistion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol, I'm assuming that was some sort of shot at me. But don't worry, since I don't know you and you don't know me, I'm not offended, regardless of your intent. :P

It's neither here nor there, since I don't seem to be communicating well, but my "side" of the debate is that governments shouldn't be legislating marriage in any form or fashion, nor should they legislate racist intent into a word, especially when the vast majority of people intentionally use that word it in a racially-neutral or racially-positive way.

Whatever actually legally happens with either issue though won't change the fact that some people will still act out of intolerance and refuse to listen to people with different perspectives. Bigotry will live on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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.

If you are offended by something that someone else so clearly did not use with the intent to offend, then that's a "you" problem. You're choosing to be offended despite a lack of intent. Why is it important to bow down to that type of mindset?

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.

And just out of curiosity, are you one of those people who still refer to Asians as Orientals? Or perhaps insist on using homosexual over the preferred term gay.? Seems that you would since "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"

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.

But in support of my position I'd offer that language is used to communicate ideas. And that's a two-way street, not a one-way street. But if we're going to choose which side wins, I'm going to say the hearer needs to consider the intent of the speaker. Am I trying to understand what someone means or am I trying to force my beliefs on them?

Why be offended when someone intends no offense? We see this evident in the use of the N-word. The word itself sometimes does or does not offend the hearer depending upon the context. So what happens is that the hearer is now deciding who they choose to be offended by. Once we accept the premise that the word may or may not be offensive depending upon usage, then it's hypocritical and foolish to disregard the intent of the speaker. And the irony is that this decision to be offended is largely determined by the race of the person speaking it, rather than the actual intent of the individual speaking it. So the whole thing is now turned on its head. It's now OK to use skin color to discriminate, by determining the offensiveness of the word by the skin color of the speaker, rather than the individual character of the person using the word. We've come so far, haven't we.

As for homosexual, I think it's fine. It's technically accurate and heterosexual seems to generate no complaints, so I fail to see a reason to not use it. As if someone can't say "gay" with an insulting sneer or can't say homosexual without one. It's ridiculous.

To pretend that homosexual is some derisive term but that gay is OK is about as silly as saying that there's something wrong with being homosexual but there's nothing wrong with being gay. They refer to the same thing and I think society would be better served if we were to strive for a bit more rationality and bit less emotionalism.

Again, how did these terms become offensive? Because someone with an axe to grind decided that symbolism was more important than substance and started telling someone that they should be insulted when they hear it. Well good for them, we love our propaganda, don't we. That's what it is. Emotional manipulation. Inciting people to react emotionally rather than intellectually to an issue.

I, for one, resist that trend. At the same, I acknowledge all the horrible, evil things done to minorities through the ages (in most cultures) and I lament that history. But that doesn't mean that I'm going to go along with nonsensical window dressing as a means of trying to look like I'm sensitive when it's so lacking in substance and does nothing more than bastardize the language and make the use of that language more convoluted and confusing than it needs to be.

Symbolism, not religion, is the opiate of the masses. The truism was coined too narrowly.

Edited by JamesTheScot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Oldest Son (7): Are the Redskins going to change their name?

Me: I don't know.

Oldest Son: If they do, why would they change it?

Me: Some people think 'Redskins' is a mean name for American Indians. Sometimes, people call a group of people bad names when they don't like that group of people.

Youngest Son (5): They should change their name to Brownskins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this really all that important? I personally don't see "Redskins" as all that bad. We have become so enamored with not hurting anyone's feelings that we want to change everything. I think all this effort could be applied to more important causes.

Like changing the name of that team in Indianapolis. "Young Equus Caballus" is the proper nomenclature. Colts is pejorative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

With increasing talk that “Redskins” is a racial slur not fit for a professional football team, one member of the City Council in Washington, D.C. has what he thinks is a better idea.Council member David Grosso told the Washington Post that he thinks the city’s NFL team should be called the Redtails.“You can still sing the song and everything,” Grosso said. “Hail to the Redtails.”If the mascot becomes the red-tailed hawk, Grosso said, “you can still keep the feather.”Many American Indians have said the name “Redskins” is racist and offensive, and Grosso said the nickname doesn’t reflect well on Washington.“It’s been a long time that we’ve had this name associated with Washington, and I think its time we take a stand and change it,” Grosso said.

I like it! :lol:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

About 10-15 years ago I heard a radio interview with a Native American Chief. IIRC, he was about 65 years old, but I don't remember which tribe he was from.

The interviewer asked him if he found the sports names offensive. His response was that he was fine with it. As long as the members of those teams were acting honorably. The interviewer specifically asked about the name Redskins, Indians, Chiefs and his reply was that those names were not being used in a bad way. That they are just words and if they were used in anger or as a way to intentionally hurt someone, then he would be against it.

Every time I hear someone bring up this argument, I think of that interview.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simple solution. Keep the Redskin name..but just put a small redskin potato logo on the sleeve and the big R on the helmet that the throwbacks have. That will eliminate anything to do with Indians. Their new mascot could be a huge redskin potato head. Remove anything that has to do with Indians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simple solution. Keep the Redskin name..but just put a small redskin potato logo on the sleeve and the big R on the helmet that the throwbacks have. That will eliminate anything to do with Indians. Their new mascot could be a huge redskin potato head. Remove anything that has to do with Indians.

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.

Edited by rude classless thugs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

if he does i hope he gets something awesome for a name not like the wizards or nationals those names stink i hope he gets something that is not related to dc i do not want government references on sunday maybe he could get something for the blue collars brohans like injection molds or front end loaders that would be pretty awesome take that to the bank brohans

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shouldn't it probably be considered and HONOR for many professional franchises to use some of these terms (Braves, Indians, Redskins..........) as the logo and name of their prestigious organizations????

Is PETA gonna step in soon and piss and moan about names like Lions, Bears, Eagles, Ravens...........................

Will Brown people in foreign countries protest against my Cleveland Browns???

Will Satan worshipers start a petition to get rid of the Devil Rays???

There is a scene in Family Guy where the FCC guy says something like "we had to cancel that because 3 people complained, and as you know, 3 people equals 3 million", or something like that. It's so true. 5 people complain, while 7 billion don't care, but for some reason we listen to those 5 people. Some people get offended because that is simply their nature. I am offended that people get offended so easy over nothing of any substance.

Even if a few Native Americans are upset about these names, logos...................so what???? Some Native Americans are over sensitive idiots just like soe white, black, asian, hispanic......people.

If some sort of significant number of native americans were upset about this stuff, then fine, but from what I gather that is NOT the case.

Otherwise, 100 years from now all teams will be assigned a number. Team 1, team 2, team 3..........get ready. Then maybe mathematicians will protest. Oh the humanity

Edited by ghostguy123
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shouldn't it probably be considered and HONOR for many professional franchises to use some of these terms (Braves, Indians, Redskins..........) as the logo and name of their prestigious organizations???? Is PETA gonna step in soon and piss and moan about names like Lions, Bears, Eagles, Ravens........................... Will Brown people in foreign countries protest against my Cleveland Browns??? Will Satan worshipers start a petition to get rid of the Devil Rays??? There is a scene in Family Guy where the FCC guy says something like "we had to cancel that because 3 people complained, and as you know, 3 people equals 3 million", or something like that. It's so true. 5 people complain, while 7 billion don't care, but for some reason we listen to those 5 people. Some people get offended because that is simply their nature. I am offended that people get offended so easy over nothing of any substance. Even if a few Native Americans are upset about these names, logos...................so what???? Some Native Americans are over sensitive idiots just like soe white, black, asian, hispanic......people. If some sort of significant number of native americans were upset about this stuff, then fine, but from what I gather that is NOT the case. Otherwise, 100 years from now all teams will be assigned a number. Team 1, team 2, team 3..........get ready. Then maybe mathematicians will protest. Oh the humanity

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).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess they still have not realized that posting this kind of stuff on their web site is counter-productive. http://www.redskins.com/news-and-events/article-1/Poll-Widespread-Support-For-Redskins/ef9bf5e9-4e88-4624-8cb5-919e7db7732b

Good news Redskins fans, as a new Associated Press-GfK poll shows that nationally, 79 percent of Americans approve of the Washington Redskins name.

The last time this poll was conducted was in 1992 following the team’s Super Bowl championship. Twenty-one years have passed with only a four percent change in disapproval.

While much of the world has changed over the last three decades, the loyal support for the Washington Redskins remains unwavering.

It is also suspected that at least 50 percent of those in dissent are Dallas Cowboys fans.

And that's an awful joke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shouldn't it probably be considered and HONOR for many professional franchises to use some of these terms (Braves, Indians, Redskins..........) as the logo and name of their prestigious organizations???? Is PETA gonna step in soon and piss and moan about names like Lions, Bears, Eagles, Ravens........................... Will Brown people in foreign countries protest against my Cleveland Browns??? Will Satan worshipers start a petition to get rid of the Devil Rays??? There is a scene in Family Guy where the FCC guy says something like "we had to cancel that because 3 people complained, and as you know, 3 people equals 3 million", or something like that. It's so true. 5 people complain, while 7 billion don't care, but for some reason we listen to those 5 people. Some people get offended because that is simply their nature. I am offended that people get offended so easy over nothing of any substance. Even if a few Native Americans are upset about these names, logos...................so what???? Some Native Americans are over sensitive idiots just like soe white, black, asian, hispanic......people. If some sort of significant number of native americans were upset about this stuff, then fine, but from what I gather that is NOT the case. Otherwise, 100 years from now all teams will be assigned a number. Team 1, team 2, team 3..........get ready. Then maybe mathematicians will protest. Oh the humanity

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).
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????
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess they still have not realized that posting this kind of stuff on their web site is counter-productive. http://www.redskins.com/news-and-events/article-1/Poll-Widespread-Support-For-Redskins/ef9bf5e9-4e88-4624-8cb5-919e7db7732b

Good news Redskins fans, as a new Associated Press-GfK poll shows that nationally, 79 percent of Americans approve of the Washington Redskins name.

The last time this poll was conducted was in 1992 following the team’s Super Bowl championship. Twenty-one years have passed with only a four percent change in disapproval.

While much of the world has changed over the last three decades, the loyal support for the Washington Redskins remains unwavering.

It is also suspected that at least 50 percent of those in dissent are Dallas Cowboys fans.

And that's an awful joke.

:lmao:

Morons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a difference between calling people a name that is intended to insult, and just calling them an identifying name. People are identified all the time by their skin color ... white, black, red, yellow. The Redskins aren't insulting native Americans. If anything, they are glorifying them. Should ranch hands feel slighted because Dallas named their team after "their type" of people? And why has no one ever complained about the Cleveland Browns? Is it because they don't have a mascot on their helmet? Seems like people that get upset about one should get upset about the other.

Political correctness should be a thing of the past. People are just too sensitive.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a difference between calling people a name that is intended to insult, and just calling them an identifying name. People are identified all the time by their skin color ... white, black, red, yellow. The Redskins aren't insulting native Americans. If anything, they are glorifying them. Should ranch hands feel slighted because Dallas named their team after "their type" of people? And why has no one ever complained about the Cleveland Browns? Is it because they don't have a mascot on their helmet? Seems like people that get upset about one should get upset about the other.

Political correctness should be a thing of the past. People are just too sensitive.

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.

BTW How hilarious is that AP Poll? We asked a bunch of people, almost none of whom are Native American, if they're OK with the name "Redskin," and a majority of them don't seem to have a problem with it. We're not offending the people who couldn't possibly be offended, so I guess that means it's not offensive!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

BTW How hilarious is that AP Poll? We asked a bunch of people, almost none of whom are Native American, if they're OK with the name "Redskin," and a majority of them don't seem to have a problem with it. We're not offending the people who couldn't possibly be offended, so I guess that means it's not offensive!

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.

And polling is what leads to stupid political correct terms, anyway. Stop worrying about what might be offensive to certain people. We all should be able to figure out for ourselves what is truly offensive, and what is not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. BTW How hilarious is that AP Poll? We asked a bunch of people, almost none of whom are Native American, if they're OK with the name "Redskin," and a majority of them don't seem to have a problem with it. We're not offending the people who couldn't possibly be offended, so I guess that means it's not offensive!

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. And polling is what leads to stupid political correct terms, anyway. Stop worrying about what might be offensive to certain people. We all should be able to figure out for ourselves what is truly offensive, and what is not.
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! Edited by 3optic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

BTW How hilarious is that AP Poll? We asked a bunch of people, almost none of whom are Native American, if they're OK with the name "Redskin," and a majority of them don't seem to have a problem with it. We're not offending the people who couldn't possibly be offended, so I guess that means it's not offensive!

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.

And polling is what leads to stupid political correct terms, anyway. Stop worrying about what might be offensive to certain people. We all should be able to figure out for ourselves what is truly offensive, and what is not.

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?

Here's a better idea: if there's a substantial number of the potentially offended minority that finds it truly offensive (which there clearly is in this case), then we should weigh that harm against the benefits of keeping that name. I'm still waiting to hear a single concrete benefit to keeping it. The best I've heard so far is because it's in the fight song, but those lyrics have already been changed to make it less offensive. Any other reason we need to protect a name?

Which brings me to another point: the most ridiculous part of this is people acting like changing a sports team name is an affront to humanity. You want to talk about people being too sensitive and overprotective- how about the people who are protecting the name of a sports team like it's the word of God? Talk about being oversensitive. Your life isn't gonna change one iota if the DC football team decides to call itself something else. Teams change names and uniforms all the time, and last I checked the the world was still spinning. If a large number of people are offended and we can rectify that without causing any harm, what reason is there not to do it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

BTW How hilarious is that AP Poll? We asked a bunch of people, almost none of whom are Native American, if they're OK with the name "Redskin," and a majority of them don't seem to have a problem with it. We're not offending the people who couldn't possibly be offended, so I guess that means it's not offensive!

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.

And polling is what leads to stupid political correct terms, anyway. Stop worrying about what might be offensive to certain people. We all should be able to figure out for ourselves what is truly offensive, and what is not.

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?

Here's a better idea: if there's a substantial number of the potentially offended minority that finds it truly offensive (which there clearly is in this case), then we should weigh that harm against the benefits of keeping that name. I'm still waiting to hear a single concrete benefit to keeping it. The best I've heard so far is because it's in the fight song, but those lyrics have already been changed to make it less offensive. Any other reason we need to protect a name?

Which brings me to another point: the most ridiculous part of this is people acting like changing a sports team name is an affront to humanity. You want to talk about people being too sensitive and overprotective- how about the people who are protecting the name of a sports team like it's the word of God? Talk about being oversensitive. Your life isn't gonna change one iota if the DC football team decides to call itself something else. Teams change names and uniforms all the time, and last I checked the the world was still spinning. If a large number of people are offended and we can rectify that without causing any harm, what reason is there not to do it?

:goodposting:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a large number of people are offended and we can rectify that without causing any harm, what reason is there not to do it?

Because people like you won't stop there. You'll find another thing to be offended by, and another, and another, etc....

It never ends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a large number of people are offended and we can rectify that without causing any harm, what reason is there not to do it?

Because people like you won't stop there. You'll find another thing to be offended by, and another, and another, etc....

It never ends.

"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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One way or the other I am glad Snyder was very decisive in saying that he will never change the name and put the NEVER in caps he stated.

Had Snyder waffled or said "We may look into this one day" it would have gone on and on. Now everybody knows he is not changing it so the story is over and we can move on.

Central Michigan Chippawas are on deck.

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...