What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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

Do you think Snyder should change the name of the Redskins? (2 Viewers)

Should the Washington Redskins change their name?

  • No

    Votes: 312 43.3%

  • Yes

    Votes: 320 44.4%

  • Meh

    Votes: 89 12.3%
  • Total voters
    721
General Malaise said:
Are there people asking to change the logo of the Saints? I've seen you post about this at least a dozen times now.  Have you an example of people clamoring to alter this one?  
Click to expand...
I'm asking why aren't people concerned about this?  I mean we banned a school song over something that happened 125 years ago but we can freely wear a logo of something that was branded onto slaves?  If we're going to clean up team names, logos, chants, and school songs let's do it all the way.  

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
I'm asking why aren't people concerned about this?  I mean we banned a school song over something that happened 125 years ago but we can freely wear a logo of something that was branded onto slaves?  If we're going to clean up team names, logos, chants, and school songs let's do it all the way.  
Click to expand...
Perhaps because no one has heard about it.

 
People aren't concerned about the Saints logo because it was not created with the intent of stereotyping or subjugating another race.

Also, people aren't concerned because the logo has multiple meanings, most of which are good. (Unless you oppose Christianity, I suppose.)

Also, people aren't concerned because the alleged misuse of the flower logo took place 300 years ago and was fairly isolated even at the time.

The same cannot be said for "Redskins."

Also, people aren't concerned because, for the most part, they aren't stupid and they don't fall for poorly constructed strawman arguments.

 
Joe Summer said:
There's nothing wrong with the Saints logo itself.

No one is seriously offended by a flower.

The fact that a small group of people misappropriated the flower symbol hundreds of years ago, does not mean that all current iterations of that flower are offensive.

This shouldn't need explaining.
Click to expand...
Not wading into the Saints logo issue, which I admittedly know nothing about, but your post reminded me of the time I visited my brother when he was living in Japan and sat in on one of his martial arts classes. The imagery in the studio made heavy use of swastikas, which my brother explained long predated their usage by the Nazis. On the one hand, there was no reason to be offended by a symbol that, when it was created, had no association with Nazism. And of course there's nothing inherently offensive about that shape. But damn if it didn't make me uncomfortable every time I looked at it. I mean, you spend your entire life seeing something as a symbol of hatred, it becomes hard to see it as anything else.

Anyway, no broader lesson to that story. Just thought I'd share. (Also, the library where I went to high school had desks that, when looked at from above, were shaped like swastikas; similar to this one. In that case, I would recommend removing them because why on earth would you keep them?)

 
Joe Summer said:
People aren't concerned about the Saints logo because it was not created with the intent of stereotyping or subjugating another race.

Also, people aren't concerned because the logo has multiple meanings, most of which are good. (Unless you oppose Christianity, I suppose.)

Also, people aren't concerned because the alleged misuse of the flower logo took place 300 years ago and was fairly isolated even at the time.

The same cannot be said for "Redskins."

Also, people aren't concerned because, for the most part, they aren't stupid and they don't fall for poorly constructed strawman arguments.
Click to expand...
Gator Bait?

There’s plenty of stupid people not discussing some of the these logos and issues.  No need to go down that path.  Be better 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The swastika is actually a good analogy here. It's an example of a symbol which started out neutral, but then was co-opted and used to subjugate other races on a massive scale -- to the point where these days the western world associates "swastikas" with Nazis almost exclusively.

The same can't be said for the fleur-de-lys.

If the Nazi movement had fizzled out in 1925, the swastika would not be considered to be offensive today.

 
Joe Summer said:
The swastika is actually a good analogy here. It's an example of a symbol which started out neutral, but then was co-opted and used to subjugate other races on a massive scale -- to the point where these days the western world associates "swastikas" with Nazis almost exclusively.

The same can't be said for the fleur-de-lys.

If the Nazi movement had fizzled out in 1925, the swastika would not be considered to be offensive today.
Click to expand...
It was considered a good luck symbol.  For example, Arizona highway signs featured them until 1926.

 
If the phrase "Gator Bait" was coined for the sole purpose of subjugating or stereotyping another race, then it probably should be dropped.

I don't think that's the case, though. It seems similar to the fleur-de-lys: a neutral concept which was briefly misappropriated by a few racists.

 
Joe Summer said:
The swastika is actually a good analogy here. It's an example of a symbol which started out neutral, but then was co-opted and used to subjugate other races on a massive scale -- to the point where these days the western world associates "swastikas" with Nazis almost exclusively.

The same can't be said for the fleur-de-lys.

If the Nazi movement had fizzled out in 1925, the swastika would not be considered to be offensive today.
Click to expand...
Hey, thanks for drawing a point out of my story. I was way too lazy to think it all the way through, but I fully endorse your explanation. Teamwork!  :hifive:

 
I personally have always thought the Redskins name was offensive, but where does it stop?  Are the Atlanta Braves next?  Kansas City Chiefs?  It seems to me society topics have become one-sided for whoever yells the loudest.  Redskins name aside, just look at what the cancel culture / crybullies are doing.  Someone will always be offended by something. Like tearing down Abraham Lincoln, Fredrick Douglas, and Ulysses S Grant Statues....really?  And silly boycott over food products....really?   Again, I ask, where does it stop?  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
A lot of people are missing one of the main points about this move: Snyder didn’t want to do it; Fed Ex forced him to. 
So once again it was a large corporation that effected positive social change. Just as corporations ended discrimination against trans people a few years ago. Just as corporations helped make the #metoo movement a real thing. Extreme leftists are always attacking corporations, demonizing them, making them the source of all evil. But often corporations are a huge source for positive good. 

 
  • Smile
Reactions: Zow
Skoo said:
JohnnyU said:
Again, I ask, where does it stop?  
Click to expand...
I feel like people kept asking that question when gay marriage became legal.

Turns out people aren't marrying goats like some were worried about.
Click to expand...
I still can't get used to Sharia law and having my guns taken away.   Oh yeah, that was ridiculous too.  Constant deflection and fear mongering from, mainly, right wing radio.

 
jon_mx said:
The long-term impact this will have on society is roughy zero.  All this outrage and protests are focusing on things which will not provide real solutions.  
Click to expand...
I think long term protests will have an actual positive outcome on society...if we don't let people push it to the side.  Change is needed in many places (police tactics are a big one...I think even those who "back the blue" can agree some reform is needed).  That does not mean that some things don't go over the top into ridiculous (the gator bait thing for one...which some try to then compound by a "well what about" thing with stuff like the fleur de lys).

I think the "outrage" comes from years of nothing changing in areas where things should change.  In addition, much lately comes from how big social media can be...how easy it is for word to spread to millions of people...voices to be heard that used to not be.  There is good and bad to that...the bad is that even some fringe ideas gain popularity enough where people give up and make change...or they pressure decisions that go too far.

 
Skoo said:
I feel like people kept asking that question when gay marriage became legal.

Turns out people aren't marrying goats like some were worried about.
Click to expand...
Not legally and I can't claim my goat wives as spouses or dependents.  Yet.  

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
I'm asking why aren't people concerned about this?  I mean we banned a school song over something that happened 125 years ago but we can freely wear a logo of something that was branded onto slaves?  If we're going to clean up team names, logos, chants, and school songs let's do it all the way.  
Click to expand...
I understand your point.  I am asking if there is a groundswell of support to have this logo removed from the Saints.  You're honestly the only person I've ever encountered asking about this.  Not saying I disagree with you; just never heard anybody else mention it.  

 
JohnnyU said:
I personally have always thought the Redskins name was offensive, but where does it stop?  Are the Atlanta Braves next?  Kansas City Chiefs?  It seems to me society topics have become one-sided for whoever yells the loudest.  Redskins name aside, just look at what the cancel culture / crybullies are doing.  Someone will always be offended by something. Like tearing down Abraham Lincoln, Fredrick Douglas, and Ulysses S Grant Statues....really?  And silly boycott over food products....really?   Again, I ask, where does it stop?  
Click to expand...
Maybe it stops with the renaming of the Washington DC football team? :shrug:

 
timschochet said:
A lot of people are missing one of the main points about this move: Snyder didn’t want to do it; Fed Ex forced him to. 
So once again it was a large corporation that effected positive social change. Just as corporations ended discrimination against trans people a few years ago. Just as corporations helped make the #metoo movement a real thing. Extreme leftists are always attacking corporations, demonizing them, making them the source of all evil. But often corporations are a huge source for positive good. 
Click to expand...
FedEx should have stepped up years ago, they have been just as big of a supporter of the name “Redskins” just as long as Snyder.  Jack Kent Cooke Stadium was renamed FedEx in 1999.   It’s a shame it took the recent protest movement for FedEx to finally realize the name Redskins needed to be changed.   When Dan Snyder said he would never change the name Redskins, where were FedEx and Nike then?  But, in the end, they finally did the right thing.   I’m a long time Redskins fan, I honestly never considered the Redskins name offensive until recently, I’m glad they are changing it now.  

 
sho nuff said:
I think long term protests will have an actual positive outcome on society...if we don't let people push it to the side.  Change is needed in many places (police tactics are a big one...I think even those who "back the blue" can agree some reform is needed).  That does not mean that some things don't go over the top into ridiculous (the gator bait thing for one...which some try to then compound by a "well what about" thing with stuff like the fleur de lys).

I think the "outrage" comes from years of nothing changing in areas where things should change.  In addition, much lately comes from how big social media can be...how easy it is for word to spread to millions of people...voices to be heard that used to not be.  There is good and bad to that...the bad is that even some fringe ideas gain popularity enough where people give up and make change...or they pressure decisions that go too far.
Click to expand...
Here is what I see the long-term impacts:

1.  Police have been so badly maligned, it will result in good people leaving and good people not wanting to become a police officer.  All the reforms in the world is no substitute for attracting good people into the line of work and things will only get worse.

2.  Continuation of the victimhood and entitlement mentality which has not helped helped the black community for 50-years and will not help in the future.  There is greater divide between the races and it will continue to get worse as demands from BLM and others are unrealistic or unproductive.  

 
Max Power said:
I'll take that bet. Indians and chiefs have got to go and will go soon enough.

Saints also need a logo change. 
Click to expand...
How do you want to go about betting this?  I might see the Indians being forced to change but not the Chiefs.  Saints logo isn't going anywhere.  IMO.  

But name the wager, I'm game.  I think the name of the Washington DC football team was long overdue for a name change and think we can change it without needing to change much else.  

 
jon_mx said:
Here is what I see the long-term impacts:

1.  Police have been so badly maligned, it will result in good people leaving and good people not wanting to become a police officer.  All the reforms in the world is no substitute for attracting good people into the line of work and things will only get worse.

2.  Continuation of the victimhood and entitlement mentality which has not helped helped the black community for 50-years and will not help in the future.  There is greater divide between the races and it will continue to get worse as demands from BLM and others are unrealistic or unproductive.  
Click to expand...
1.  It may...but you ignore the part where they are maligned because of the actions of fellow officers.  Do you agree there needs to be a change in tactics and reforms within their ranks?  And yes...reform is needed...regardless of how many leave...it is still needed.

2.  I don't think its entitlement mentality...but its an interesting answer here given how you phrased #1....the divide is because some refuse to see the problems in society...and it will continue until changes are actually made.

 
Indians: 20% chance of changing name in next 5 years

Chiefs: 1% chance of changing name in next 5 years

Saints: 0% chance of ever changing logo

Republicans: 0% chance of maintaining feaux outrage over flower logo for next 5 years

 
jon_mx said:
Here is what I see the long-term impacts:

1.  Police have been so badly maligned, it will result in good people leaving and good people not wanting to become a police officer.  All the reforms in the world is no substitute for attracting good people into the line of work and things will only get worse.
Click to expand...
Wait, really? I would think police reforms would make the bad cops leave and good cops stay or join.

If you were a good cop, wouldn't you WANT reform? If you're a bad cop, wouldn't you be AGAINST reform?

And as a perspective cop , wouldn't a "good person" be glad reform is taking place?

 
General Malaise said:
How do you want to go about betting this?  I might see the Indians being forced to change but not the Chiefs.  Saints logo isn't going anywhere.  IMO.  

But name the wager, I'm game.  I think the name of the Washington DC football team was long overdue for a name change and think we can change it without needing to change much else.  
Click to expand...
Within the next 5 years the cries will grow loud enough. I dont care what you want to bet. I'm just putting my name in the hat of it's going to happen.

Some native americans find the chief name as insulting as Redskins. I think we should respect those opinions as well. 

Saints logo wont change, but it should. Their players just arent edu ated enough to know that symbol's dirty history. It marked blacks as property. 

 
I really do marvel at the argument that changing an obviously racist sports team name might force us, as a society, to consider whether other monikers could be considered offensive, as if an attempt to view a particular position from someone else's perspective is somehow an unacceptable imposition. "I don't view Redskins as offensive, so it must not be offensive," versus, "I don't view Redskins as offensive, but I'm open to listening to how others might." 

To the "where does it stop?" crowd: Where does what stop? What is wrong with examining a mascot or product name or historical statue and evaluating how someone else might feel about that? I can understand if a lot of folks don't see anything wrong with the Braves or Eskimo Pie or a Columbus statue. It's worth a conversation, though. To the folks upset over these companies changing the names: What harm has it caused you? 

 
phandango said:
I really do marvel at the argument that changing an obviously racist sports team name might force us, as a society, to consider whether other monikers could be considered offensive, as if an attempt to view a particular position from someone else's perspective is somehow an unacceptable imposition. "I don't view Redskins as offensive, so it must not be offensive," versus, "I don't view Redskins as offensive, but I'm open to listening to how others might." 

To the "where does it stop?" crowd: Where does what stop? What is wrong with examining a mascot or product name or historical statue and evaluating how someone else might feel about that? I can understand if a lot of folks don't see anything wrong with the Braves or Eskimo Pie or a Columbus statue. It's worth a conversation, though. To the folks upset over these companies changing the names: What harm has it caused you? 
Click to expand...
Who gets to decide what is offensive?  Where does that stop? 

 
Max Power said:
Within the next 5 years the cries will grow loud enough. I dont care what you want to bet. I'm just putting my name in the hat of it's going to happen.

Some native americans find the chief name as insulting as Redskins. I think we should respect those opinions as well. 

Saints logo wont change, but it should. Their players just arent edu ated enough to know that symbol's dirty history. It marked blacks as property. 
Click to expand...
Okay, let's ignore the Saints logo in here.

5 years from today, I am willing to bet that the name of the NFL team that plays in Kansas City will still be "The Chiefs".  Considering the fact that I have 5 kids to put through college, I'm hoping you'll agree to a low stakes wager of $50ish, but could be talked into more or less.  Obviously, we've learned the hard way that gambling with internet strangers can be a really bad idea thanks to @cstu but I have been around these boards for almost 20 years, have never failed to pay out a wager and have paid out all fantasy sports winners on time, every time for a long long time covering numeros leagues in various sports.

You seem like an honorable fellow to me, I'm willing to shake on this.

 
General Malaise said:
Okay, let's ignore the Saints logo in here.

5 years from today, I am willing to bet that the name of the NFL team that plays in Kansas City will still be "The Chiefs".  Considering the fact that I have 5 kids to put through college, I'm hoping you'll agree to a low stakes wager of $50ish, but could be talked into more or less.  Obviously, we've learned the hard way that gambling with internet strangers can be a really bad idea thanks to @cstu but I have been around these boards for almost 20 years, have never failed to pay out a wager and have paid out all fantasy sports winners on time, every time for a long long time covering numeros leagues in various sports.

You seem like an honorable fellow to me, I'm willing to shake on this.
Click to expand...
Sure, $50 works for me.  I think the Chiefs will be another domino on our culture's PC movement.  

🤝

 
pantherclub said:
Who gets to decide what is offensive?  Where does that stop? 
Click to expand...
What does this even mean? That nothing can be deemed offensive unless there's an official arbiter? Because it seems to me that plenty of people deemed "Redskins" to be offensive for a long time, and it wasn't until corporate sponsors threatened the team's bottom line that a change was even considered. So maybe the answer to your question is "whoever threatens the most loss of money gets to decide what is offensive."

 
Joe Summer said:
The swastika is actually a good analogy here. It's an example of a symbol which started out neutral, but then was co-opted and used to subjugate other races on a massive scale -- to the point where these days the western world associates "swastikas" with Nazis almost exclusively.

The same can't be said for the fleur-de-lys.

If the Nazi movement had fizzled out in 1925, the swastika would not be considered to be offensive today.
Click to expand...
That's the problem I see in a lot of these threads. Posters want to equate equally things that stopped happening decades or even centuries ago with things that are still being used to this day. It's not the same.

 
jon_mx said:
The long-term impact this will have on society is roughy zero.  All this outrage and protests are focusing on things which will not provide real solutions.  
Click to expand...
I guess I would rather have people around me "outraged" about things like this than outraged about having to wear a mask.  

Seriously though, as with a lot of things we see there is a bit of overcorrection we need to work through as we find a middle ground.  I dont believe it's a slippery slope to everything being banned.  

 
jon_mx said:
Here is what I see the long-term impacts:

1.  Police have been so badly maligned, it will result in good people leaving and good people not wanting to become a police officer.  All the reforms in the world is no substitute for attracting good people into the line of work and things will only get worse.

2.  Continuation of the victimhood and entitlement mentality which has not helped helped the black community for 50-years and will not help in the future.  There is greater divide between the races and it will continue to get worse as demands from BLM and others are unrealistic or unproductive.  
Click to expand...
#2 is right on.  Not enough in the black community look in the mirror as it is just too easy to blame whitey and get backing from most liberals as it is "not your fault".  Not all cases but way too many.  

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
The Atlantic: "Democrats Really Are That Dense About Climate Change" (6/23/22 01:00 PST)
Replies
47
Views
1K
Maggot Brain
Maggot Brain
GordonGekko
Did "Canceling" Babylon Bee's Political Satire Change The Future Of All Social Media Forever? (6/5/22 12:30 PST)
Replies
18
Views
738
Juxtatarot
Juxtatarot
GordonGekko
New York Times: "Will Asian Americans Bolt From The Democratic Party?" (6/20/22 23:20 PST)
Replies
36
Views
876
jon_mx
J

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Top