quickhands
Footballguy
Ask daniel snyder
Didn't this go to court once already and the court as well as appellate court tell them to pound sand?? That if it was a big concern to them they would have filed suit some 20-30 years prior??It's stunning to me that it wasn't changed a long time ago.
I haven't followed closely, but I think the lawsuit is still pending. I'm just saying I thought it would have been changed just as a matter of common sense/political correctness. Not because it's illegal.Didn't this go to court once already and the court as well as appellate court tell them to pound sand?? That if it was a big concern to them they would have filed suit some 20-30 years prior??It's stunning to me that it wasn't changed a long time ago.
There's been another filed just recently I believe, but there was also one prior to the current one. I'm pretty sure the courts told them to piss off and stop being stupid, but I could be wrong.I haven't followed closely, but I think the lawsuit is still pending. I'm just saying I thought it would have been changed just as a matter of common sense/political correctness. Not because it's illegal.Didn't this go to court once already and the court as well as appellate court tell them to pound sand?? That if it was a big concern to them they would have filed suit some 20-30 years prior??It's stunning to me that it wasn't changed a long time ago.
From March 7 2013:There's been another filed just recently I believe, but there was also one prior to the current one. I'm pretty sure the courts told them to piss off and stop being stupid, but I could be wrong.I haven't followed closely, but I think the lawsuit is still pending. I'm just saying I thought it would have been changed just as a matter of common sense/political correctness. Not because it's illegal.Didn't this go to court once already and the court as well as appellate court tell them to pound sand?? That if it was a big concern to them they would have filed suit some 20-30 years prior??It's stunning to me that it wasn't changed a long time ago.
I do. But I've offered it enough in the Shark Pool. Only thing I'll point out here is that one side has Daniel Snyder on it. Draw your own conclusions as to which side is the good one from there.I think TobiasFunke may have an opinion on this issue
No it should not be changed. There is way to much PC in this world.
10% seems like sort of a lot. How many people are offended by the names of other NFL teams?I can't find anything more current, but as of 2004 90% of Native Americans polled had no problems with the name.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/redskins/2004-09-24-redskins-indians-poll_x.htm
Some of us never go into the Shark Pool. I thought he was just saying that because you have lots of opinions about stuff.I do. But I've offered it enough in the Shark Pool.I think TobiasFunke may have an opinion on this issue
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think Suzan Shown Harjo is among the plaintiffs in both suits? Harjo has been gunning for a name change for years now. Not jus the Redskins but High School mascots too.I do. But I've offered it enough in the Shark Pool. Only thing I'll point out here is that one side has Daniel Snyder on it. Draw your own conclusions as to which side is the good one from there.I think TobiasFunke may have an opinion on this issue
Also the story with the litigation is that there's two patent and trademark challenges. First was tossed on standing after a long legal battle; second is pending but shouldn't be affected by the first since it was a procedural ruling.
I don't know if she's a named plaintiff, I think they have some kids because apparently there was a statute of limitations problem last time or something. I don't remember for sure.Correct me if I'm wrong but I think Suzan Shown Harjo is among the plaintiffs in both suits? Harjo has been gunning for a name change for years now. Not jus the Redskins but High School mascots too.I do. But I've offered it enough in the Shark Pool. Only thing I'll point out here is that one side has Daniel Snyder on it. Draw your own conclusions as to which side is the good one from there.I think TobiasFunke may have an opinion on this issue
Also the story with the litigation is that there's two patent and trademark challenges. First was tossed on standing after a long legal battle; second is pending but shouldn't be affected by the first since it was a procedural ruling.
Yes, I am sure we will never hear another peep from the Native Americans who are offended by this until Snyder either sells the team or dies.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.
Except Reds is short for Red Legs...which is not really the same thing.I think it should be changed, mostly due to the negative connotation surrounding the name. Personally, I see no real issue with calling them the Reds, a la Cincinnati, but it's clearly not my decision.
Actually they were called the Red Stockings first.Except Reds is short for Red Legs...which is not really the same thing.I think it should be changed, mostly due to the negative connotation surrounding the name. Personally, I see no real issue with calling them the Reds, a la Cincinnati, but it's clearly not my decision.
It seems kind of low to me. If one person out of ten complains do we need to change things to placate that one person, or should they realize things will happen in life they don't agree with?No it should not be changed. There is way to much PC in this world.10% seems like sort of a lot. How many people are offended by the names of other NFL teams?>I can't find anything more current, but as of 2004 90% of Native Americans polled had no problems with the name.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/redskins/2004-09-24-redskins-indians-poll_x.htm
Still has nothing to do with Indians.Actually they were called the Red Stockings first.Except Reds is short for Red Legs...which is not really the same thing.I think it should be changed, mostly due to the negative connotation surrounding the name. Personally, I see no real issue with calling them the Reds, a la Cincinnati, but it's clearly not my decision.
I'm fully aware of the history surrounding baseball's Reds, but can someone give me a legitimate reason for why a football team can't use it?Actually they were called the Red Stockings first.Except Reds is short for Red Legs...which is not really the same thing.I think it should be changed, mostly due to the negative connotation surrounding the name. Personally, I see no real issue with calling them the Reds, a la Cincinnati, but it's clearly not my decision.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majorityIt seems kind of low to me. If one person out of ten complains do we need to change things to placate that one person, or should they realize things will happen in life they don't agree with?No it should not be changed. There is way to much PC in this world.10% seems like sort of a lot. How many people are offended by the names of other NFL teams?>I can't find anything more current, but as of 2004 90% of Native Americans polled had no problems with the name.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/redskins/2004-09-24-redskins-indians-poll_x.h
tm
You mean other than copyright issues?I'm fully aware of the history surrounding baseball's Reds, but can someone give me a legitimate reason for why a football team can't use it?Actually they were called the Red Stockings first.Except Reds is short for Red Legs...which is not really the same thing.I think it should be changed, mostly due to the negative connotation surrounding the name. Personally, I see no real issue with calling them the Reds, a la Cincinnati, but it's clearly not my decision.
Setting aside the fact that the study was flawed, "things that will happen in life they don't agree with" is not the same as "people will use racial slurs they find offensive but if other people don't find them offensive they have to deal with it."It seems kind of low to me. If one person out of ten complains do we need to change things to placate that one person, or should they realize things will happen in life they don't agree with?No it should not be changed. There is way to much PC in this world.10% seems like sort of a lot. How many people are offended by the names of other NFL teams?>I can't find anything more current, but as of 2004 90% of Native Americans polled had no problems with the name.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/redskins/2004-09-24-redskins-indians-poll_x.h
tm
Only if as a Christian I can sue to get "Devils" stricken from all teams that use it.I'm still waiting for an atheist group to throw a fit that an LA baseball team is still called the "Angels."
Hard to imagine any atheists would mind in their current state. I would think if anyone would protest it would be religious people who are tired of hearing "the Angels suck" all the time.I'm still waiting for an atheist group to throw a fit that an LA baseball team is still called the "Angels."
I don't really care, but I think it's a lot of fuss about nothing. I've never even heard it used a racial slur. The term is always in reference to the team.Setting aside the fact that the study was flawed, "things that will happen in life they don't agree with" is not the same as "people will use racial slurs they find offensive but if other people don't find them offensive they have to deal with it."It seems kind of low to me. If one person out of ten complains do we need to change things to placate that one person, or should they realize things will happen in life they don't agree with?No it should not be changed. There is way to much PC in this world.10% seems like sort of a lot. How many people are offended by the names of other NFL teams?>I can't find anything more current, but as of 2004 90% of Native Americans polled had no problems with the name.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/redskins/2004-09-24-redskins-indians-poll_x.h
tm
I can't think of another racial slur whose use we tolerate in regular conversation even if 1% of the targeted population finds them offensive. But hey, feel free to throw out some examples if you've got 'em. It's Friday afternoon, this thread could use some spicing up.
Somehow your own personal experiences as a (white?) Tennessean who hangs out on a fantasy football message board don't really seem like a good measuring stick for what the term means.I don't really care, but I think it's a lot of fuss about nothing. I've never even heard it used a racial slur. The term is always in reference to the team.Setting aside the fact that the study was flawed, "things that will happen in life they don't agree with" is not the same as "people will use racial slurs they find offensive but if other people don't find them offensive they have to deal with it."It seems kind of low to me. If one person out of ten complains do we need to change things to placate that one person, or should they realize things will happen in life they don't agree with?No it should not be changed. There is way to much PC in this world.10% seems like sort of a lot. How many people are offended by the names of other NFL teams?>I can't find anything more current, but as of 2004 90% of Native Americans polled had no problems with the name.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/redskins/2004-09-24-redskins-indians-poll_x.h
tm
I can't think of another racial slur whose use we tolerate in regular conversation even if 1% of the targeted population finds them offensive. But hey, feel free to throw out some examples if you've got 'em. It's Friday afternoon, this thread could use some spicing up.
No doubt.Somehow your own personal experiences as a (white?) Tennessean who hangs out on a fantasy football message board don't really seem like a good measuring stick for what the term means.I don't really care, but I think it's a lot of fuss about nothing. I've never even heard it used a racial slur. The term is always in reference to the team.Setting aside the fact that the study was flawed, "things that will happen in life they don't agree with" is not the same as "people will use racial slurs they find offensive but if other people don't find them offensive they have to deal with it."It seems kind of low to me. If one person out of ten complains do we need to change things to placate that one person, or should they realize things will happen in life they don't agree with?No it should not be changed. There is way to much PC in this world.10% seems like sort of a lot. How many people are offended by the names of other NFL teams?>I can't find anything more current, but as of 2004 90% of Native Americans polled had no problems with the name.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/redskins/2004-09-24-redskins-indians-poll_x.h
tm
I can't think of another racial slur whose use we tolerate in regular conversation even if 1% of the targeted population finds them offensive. But hey, feel free to throw out some examples if you've got 'em. It's Friday afternoon, this thread could use some spicing up.
Not even close to the same thing.I'm still waiting for an atheist group to throw a fit that an LA baseball team is still called the "Angels."
I'm kinda with GoFishTN on this one....what is the racial slur that is associated with "Washington Redskins" ?? I've never heard it used in a derogatory manner by anyone ever, but concede I'm not in all places at all times.Somehow your own personal experiences as a (white?) Tennessean who hangs out on a fantasy football message board don't really seem like a good measuring stick for what the term means.I don't really care, but I think it's a lot of fuss about nothing. I've never even heard it used a racial slur. The term is always in reference to the team.Setting aside the fact that the study was flawed, "things that will happen in life they don't agree with" is not the same as "people will use racial slurs they find offensive but if other people don't find them offensive they have to deal with it."It seems kind of low to me. If one person out of ten complains do we need to change things to placate that one person, or should they realize things will happen in life they don't agree with?No it should not be changed. There is way to much PC in this world.10% seems like sort of a lot. How many people are offended by the names of other NFL teams?>I can't find anything more current, but as of 2004 90% of Native Americans polled had no problems with the name.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/redskins/2004-09-24-redskins-indians-poll_x.h
tm
I can't think of another racial slur whose use we tolerate in regular conversation even if 1% of the targeted population finds them offensive. But hey, feel free to throw out some examples if you've got 'em. It's Friday afternoon, this thread could use some spicing up.
Regardless, the team is clearly named after Native Americans, it's right there on the helmet. The name was given a long time ago, back when black people were called "coloreds" or worse and nobody batted an eye. The guy who named them that is one of the worst racists in the history of professional sports. Given those circumstances, I don't think "in reference to a football team" and "racial slur" are mutually exclusive.
Probably because it is an outdated slur. 150-200 years ago it was probably common. Now it is considered derogatory so you just don't hear it. I would put it on the same level as "darkie".I'm kinda with GoFishTN on this one....what is the racial slur that is associated with "Washington Redskins" ?? I've never heard it used in a derogatory manner by anyone ever, but concede I'm not in all places at all times.Somehow your own personal experiences as a (white?) Tennessean who hangs out on a fantasy football message board don't really seem like a good measuring stick for what the term means.I don't really care, but I think it's a lot of fuss about nothing. I've never even heard it used a racial slur. The term is always in reference to the team.Setting aside the fact that the study was flawed, "things that will happen in life they don't agree with" is not the same as "people will use racial slurs they find offensive but if other people don't find them offensive they have to deal with it."It seems kind of low to me. If one person out of ten complains do we need to change things to placate that one person, or should they realize things will happen in life they don't agree with?No it should not be changed. There is way to much PC in this world.10% seems like sort of a lot. How many people are offended by the names of other NFL teams?>I can't find anything more current, but as of 2004 90% of Native Americans polled had no problems with the name.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/redskins/2004-09-24-redskins-indians-poll_x.h
tm
I can't think of another racial slur whose use we tolerate in regular conversation even if 1% of the targeted population finds them offensive. But hey, feel free to throw out some examples if you've got 'em. It's Friday afternoon, this thread could use some spicing up.
Regardless, the team is clearly named after Native Americans, it's right there on the helmet. The name was given a long time ago, back when black people were called "coloreds" or worse and nobody batted an eye. The guy who named them that is one of the worst racists in the history of professional sports. Given those circumstances, I don't think "in reference to a football team" and "racial slur" are mutually exclusive.
Interested in the slur and what it refers too though. Seems like folks are glossing over the term in question and dropping "Washington" from it and attacking it as if it were just "redskins" that has to be addressed.Probably because it is an outdated slur. 150-200 years ago it was probably common. Now it is considered derogatory so you just don't hear it. I would put it on the same level as "darkie".I'm kinda with GoFishTN on this one....what is the racial slur that is associated with "Washington Redskins" ?? I've never heard it used in a derogatory manner by anyone ever, but concede I'm not in all places at all times.Somehow your own personal experiences as a (white?) Tennessean who hangs out on a fantasy football message board don't really seem like a good measuring stick for what the term means.I don't really care, but I think it's a lot of fuss about nothing. I've never even heard it used a racial slur. The term is always in reference to the team.Setting aside the fact that the study was flawed, "things that will happen in life they don't agree with" is not the same as "people will use racial slurs they find offensive but if other people don't find them offensive they have to deal with it."It seems kind of low to me. If one person out of ten complains do we need to change things to placate that one person, or should they realize things will happen in life they don't agree with?No it should not be changed. There is way to much PC in this world.10% seems like sort of a lot. How many people are offended by the names of other NFL teams?>I can't find anything more current, but as of 2004 90% of Native Americans polled had no problems with the name.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/redskins/2004-09-24-redskins-indians-poll_x.h
tm
I can't think of another racial slur whose use we tolerate in regular conversation even if 1% of the targeted population finds them offensive. But hey, feel free to throw out some examples if you've got 'em. It's Friday afternoon, this thread could use some spicing up.
Regardless, the team is clearly named after Native Americans, it's right there on the helmet. The name was given a long time ago, back when black people were called "coloreds" or worse and nobody batted an eye. The guy who named them that is one of the worst racists in the history of professional sports. Given those circumstances, I don't think "in reference to a football team" and "racial slur" are mutually exclusive.
Queer. This term is used academia all the time (e.g. queer studies, queer theory, etc.) Lots and lots of people still find it offensive.I can't think of another racial slur whose use we tolerate in regular conversation even if 1% of the targeted population finds them offensive. But hey, feel free to throw out some examples if you've got 'em. It's Friday afternoon, this thread could use some spicing up.
WTH are you talking about? It's the nickname that is the problem. Would New York Hymies be OK because "New York Hymies" somehow means something different than if you just used the word ***** on its own?Interested in the slur and what it refers too though. Seems like folks are glossing over the term in question and dropping "Washington" from it and attacking it as if it were just "redskins" that has to be addressed.
Good one. Dyke is kind of similar.Queer. This term is used academia all the time (e.g. queer studies, queer theory, etc.) Lots and lots of people still find it offensive.I can't think of another racial slur whose use we tolerate in regular conversation even if 1% of the targeted population finds them offensive. But hey, feel free to throw out some examples if you've got 'em. It's Friday afternoon, this thread could use some spicing up.
I think you have to weigh the benefits of any change against the drawbacks from the change. 10% of the Native American population equals thousands of people that find the name offensive. What's the reason to keep the name?It seems kind of low to me. If one person out of ten complains do we need to change things to placate that one person, or should they realize things will happen in life they don't agree with?No it should not be changed. There is way to much PC in this world.10% seems like sort of a lot. How many people are offended by the names of other NFL teams?>I can't find anything more current, but as of 2004 90% of Native Americans polled had no problems with the name.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/redskins/2004-09-24-redskins-indians-poll_x.h
tm