Where are you at on this whole team name change thing?

Talk about the Washington Redskins here. Do you bleed burgundy and gold?
Hog
User avatar
Posts: 1964
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 2:36 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Postby emoses14 » Fri May 03, 2013 9:26 am

I empathize with the group of people that feel the name is derogatory. I truly do. I don't think they are fighting the TM protection solely for publicity sake (though publicity helps their cause attract attention and support). I believe and understand their being offended.


I also believe that they are wrong in this fight. SF33, framed it. It isn't just about origin of use, its about the evolution of it and perception over time.

I do believe, sorry, I KNOW, that there are numerous SIGNIFICANT differences between Redskin and the N-Word. The most pertinent for the argument against the anti-Redskin crowd is that though Redskin may be offensive, period, its usage and meaning to everyone other than them is w.r.t the football team in DC. ONLY. So for me the 2 camps of opinion are not the offenders and the offended, but rather the offended and everyone else who uses it in one context only. Sf33 is right on about usage changing. The N-Word has not ever been used for anything other than racist, violent, supremacist, subjugating ends. Not so with Redskin. Hell you can't type the full N-word without touching off a major firestorm, as it should be.

Without looking it up, my bet is the last time anyone can truthfully point to Redskin being used derogatorily was well over 50 years ago. That can't be just brushed aside, nor can the offense this group takes. Some middle ground between "piss off" and "change the name" (that does not involve changing the name) needs to be reached. If I had my druthers, I'd look to Snyder to invite the groups leaders out to his palatial estate to discuss alternatives to their desired end game that works for the offended and everyone else.
I know he got a pretty good zip on the ball. He has a quick release. . . once I seen a coupla' throws, I was just like 'Yeah, he's that dude.'"

-Santana Moss on Our QB

Hog
User avatar
Posts: 855
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 2:51 pm
Location: Staten Island

Postby PAPDOG67 » Fri May 03, 2013 9:45 am

HTTRRG3ALMO wrote:
yupchagee wrote:
Deadskins wrote:
Redskins Reparations wrote:When was the last time a professional sports franchise changed their name due to public pressure and/or political correctness?

Bullets to Wizards?


That wasn't public pressure. The owner did that after the Rabin asasination.


Wow didn't know that. Thought it was a political move.

BTW you guys ever hear of a bakery company called "Bimbo Bakeries"? They're actually a very large company across the nation (not sure if they're international).

I'd think that if we're going after company names, there's a lot worse out there than what we're dealing with.


Yes, its actually Grupo Bimbo, its a Mexican based company. I work in the market, and we laugh every time we see it pop up on a trade ticket. BTW, the ticker on it is GRBMF if you're interested.

Hog
Posts: 1011
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 10:43 pm
Location: Palm Springs, CA

Postby aswas71788 » Fri May 03, 2013 10:42 am

emoses14 wrote:I empathize with the group of people that feel the name is derogatory. I truly do. I don't think they are fighting the TM protection solely for publicity sake (though publicity helps their cause attract attention and support). I believe and understand their being offended.


I also believe that they are wrong in this fight. SF33, framed it. It isn't just about origin of use, its about the evolution of it and perception over time.

I do believe, sorry, I KNOW, that there are numerous SIGNIFICANT differences between Redskin and the N-Word. The most pertinent for the argument against the anti-Redskin crowd is that though Redskin may be offensive, period, its usage and meaning to everyone other than them is w.r.t the football team in DC. ONLY. So for me the 2 camps of opinion are not the offenders and the offended, but rather the offended and everyone else who uses it in one context only. Sf33 is right on about usage changing. The N-Word has not ever been used for anything other than racist, violent, supremacist, subjugating ends. Not so with Redskin. Hell you can't type the full N-word without touching off a major firestorm, as it should be.

Without looking it up, my bet is the last time anyone can truthfully point to Redskin being used derogatorily was well over 50 years ago. That can't be just brushed aside, nor can the offense this group takes. Some middle ground between "piss off" and "change the name" (that does not involve changing the name) needs to be reached. If I had my druthers, I'd look to Snyder to invite the groups leaders out to his palatial estate to discuss alternatives to their desired end game that works for the offended and everyone else.


You can't really use the N word as a comparison. Are you aware that some blacks call each other the N name and consider it a term of endearment? I only found that out recently, surprised the heck out of me. I have been called many names over the years; redskin, injun, indian, Tonto (I knew Jay Silverheels, he was quite a guy. He was a Mohawk from Canada. I consider it a compliment.), Squawman, chief, scalper, redass, among a few others. My feeling is that whether they are an insult or not depends on the reason for being called the name, not the name. My best friend calls me chief but I have been called that in a manner by others that was meant as an insult. This is never going to go away as long as the media is willing to make a deal out of it.

Hog
User avatar
Posts: 1964
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 2:36 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Postby emoses14 » Fri May 03, 2013 11:04 am

aswas71788 wrote:
emoses14 wrote:I empathize with the group of people that feel the name is derogatory. I truly do. I don't think they are fighting the TM protection solely for publicity sake (though publicity helps their cause attract attention and support). I believe and understand their being offended.


I also believe that they are wrong in this fight. SF33, framed it. It isn't just about origin of use, its about the evolution of it and perception over time.

I do believe, sorry, I KNOW, that there are numerous SIGNIFICANT differences between Redskin and the N-Word. The most pertinent for the argument against the anti-Redskin crowd is that though Redskin may be offensive, period, its usage and meaning to everyone other than them is w.r.t the football team in DC. ONLY. So for me the 2 camps of opinion are not the offenders and the offended, but rather the offended and everyone else who uses it in one context only. Sf33 is right on about usage changing. The N-Word has not ever been used for anything other than racist, violent, supremacist, subjugating ends. Not so with Redskin. Hell you can't type the full N-word without touching off a major firestorm, as it should be.

Without looking it up, my bet is the last time anyone can truthfully point to Redskin being used derogatorily was well over 50 years ago. That can't be just brushed aside, nor can the offense this group takes. Some middle ground between "piss off" and "change the name" (that does not involve changing the name) needs to be reached. If I had my druthers, I'd look to Snyder to invite the groups leaders out to his palatial estate to discuss alternatives to their desired end game that works for the offended and everyone else.


You can't really use the N word as a comparison. Are you aware that some blacks call each other the N name and consider it a term of endearment? I only found that out recently, surprised the heck out of me. I have been called many names over the years; redskin, injun, indian, Tonto (I knew Jay Silverheels, he was quite a guy. He was a Mohawk from Canada. I consider it a compliment.), Squawman, chief, scalper, redass, among a few others. My feeling is that whether they are an insult or not depends on the reason for being called the name, not the name. My best friend calls me chief but I have been called that in a manner by others that was meant as an insult. This is never going to go away as long as the media is willing to make a deal out of it.


Yes, very well aware. I agree the N word can't be used as a comparison, and I thought that was what I was saying.

I agree with your point on usage, which is why at the end of the day, I don't think Washington Redskins meets the test for offensive. That was my point with N word comment in response to the woman leading this fight who has likened redskin and the N word. I don't care if EVERY black person used it as a term of endearment, it still wouldn't work if they were the Washington N_ _ _ _ _ _.
I know he got a pretty good zip on the ball. He has a quick release. . . once I seen a coupla' throws, I was just like 'Yeah, he's that dude.'"

-Santana Moss on Our QB

Hog
User avatar
Posts: 4621
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 4:29 pm
Location: Montclair, Virginia

Postby riggofan » Fri May 03, 2013 11:12 am

skinsfan#33 wrote:I'm sure there are plenty of Christians that are offended by the name Wizzards due to witchcraft (in their minds) being associated with the devil. Or how about Wiccans who actually practice witchcraft (in their minds) that find the term wizzard offensive.

My point is, you can find a group that can find almost any name offensive.


Ok, that is a point.

But if I apply your logic, then it would be completely okay if the team renamed itself the Washington Wetbacks, right? Because, hey, no matter what you name a team itself some group is going to find almost any name offensive.

Hog
Posts: 1735
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 2:26 pm

Postby grampi » Fri May 03, 2013 11:26 am

This is EXACTLY what irritates about this stupid debate. That people on the pro-Redskins side play stupid about and refuse to acknowledge that the word "Redskins" is a slur and offensive to some people.[/quote]

So is this the way things work in today's society...if even one person is offended by something it must be changed? There are way too many people today who gripe and complain about everything, and it's impossible to make EVERYONE happy...this entire issue could be put to rest permanently if Snyder would call a press conference and publically announce that the team name is not going to be changed no matter what....sorry if I seem to be insensitive, but I'm beyond sick and tired of small, fringe groups always demanding that the vast majorities make concessions just to please their every whim...

CKRGiii
Online
Posts: 4539
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 2:56 pm
Location: 505 New Mexico repn

Postby cowboykillerzRGiii » Fri May 03, 2013 12:29 pm

I thought the slur was indian instead of native American.. not Redskins. As stated it actually pays homage to the warriors who dawned the red battle paint.

I find the pukes offensive... So I root against them and don't buy their products.

It's been beaten to death, and I for one would hate a name change.
#21 forever in our hearts
...and yet ANOTHER record setting performance by "RG3 the third"!!!!
“I wanted to just… put his lights out ….because, you know, …Dallas sucks…” - Dexter Manley

FanFromAnnapolis
Posts: 11060
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 6:01 pm
Location: on the bandwagon

Postby Irn-Bru » Fri May 03, 2013 12:53 pm

The public opinion poll surprises me; I would have assume many more people would be in favor of forcing a name change because that's the kind of thing that often gets public support (even if nothing is done about it).

I remember in college this topic always came up with those English 101 papers. Lots of 18 year olds getting worked up about it and comparing "Redskins" to various slurs.

What were we talking about again? Oh yeah. No, don't change it. The people who keep working up a fury on this topic need a hug.
"Last year I thought we'd win it all. This year I know we will." - Rex Ryan, on what would become the 8-8 2011 Jets

"Dream team." - Vince Young, on what would become the 8-8 2011 Eagles

Hog
User avatar
Posts: 1690
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2008 11:44 am
Location: Houston, TX

Postby markshark84 » Fri May 03, 2013 1:42 pm

The name should stay; plain and simple. This entire "debate" is being blown out of proportion.

The sensitivity of this country has become nausiating.
RIP Sean Taylor. You will be missed.

Hog
User avatar
Posts: 4621
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 4:29 pm
Location: Montclair, Virginia

Postby riggofan » Fri May 03, 2013 2:44 pm

grampi wrote:
This is EXACTLY what irritates about this stupid debate. That people on the pro-Redskins side play stupid about and refuse to acknowledge that the word "Redskins" is a slur and offensive to some people.


So is this the way things work in today's society...if even one person is offended by something it must be changed?



Of course not, and I didn't say that at all. I said I don't think the name should be changed.

What I wrote is that I wish Redskins fans would quit pretending like the name Redskins doesn't have some baggage to it. It does. You can get all grumpy old man about it all you want and whine about political correctness and all the rest. Its still factually an ethnic slur.

Again, I'd like to see Skins fans and all the rest just go ahead and own it. We don't agree that the name is that big a deal. Sorry if it bothers anybody, but we're not changing it. That's pretty much the Redskins' response isn't it?

Hog
Posts: 457
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2007 11:49 am
Location: Hagerstown ,Md.

Postby jmooney » Fri May 03, 2013 3:17 pm

Deadskins wrote:
jmooney wrote:While were at it, theives everywhere should request Pittsburgh's name to be changed

Um, it's Steelers, not Stealers. :oops: And thieves, not theives.


I knew that, it was meant as a joke. as far as mispelling thieves, it was before 5 am and I was on my first cup of coffee. The point remains the same.

Hog
Posts: 1735
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 2:26 pm

Postby grampi » Sat May 04, 2013 6:15 am

riggofan wrote:What I wrote is that I wish Redskins fans would quit pretending like the name Redskins doesn't have some baggage to it. It does. You can get all grumpy old man about it all you want and whine about political correctness and all the rest. Its still factually an ethnic slur.


It may be an ethnic slur, but I don't believe it's a derogatory one, and I think that's the crux of the matter. No team owner would name their team after a derogatory slur...not even in 1932...calling a Caucasian "white" is also an ethnic slur, but it's also not derogatory...

#33
Posts: 4084
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 8:44 am

Postby skinsfan#33 » Sat May 04, 2013 12:48 pm

riggofan wrote:
skinsfan#33 wrote:I'm sure there are plenty of Christians that are offended by the name Wizzards due to witchcraft (in their minds) being associated with the devil. Or how about Wiccans who actually practice witchcraft (in their minds) that find the term wizzard offensive.

My point is, you can find a group that can find almost any name offensive.


Ok, that is a point.

But if I apply your logic, then it would be completely okay if the team renamed itself the Washington Wetbacks, right? Because, hey, no matter what you name a team itself some group is going to find almost any name offensive.


Yes, I do if that team had named the Wetbacks for 80 years and the name was no longer associated with Mexicans.

That is where we are at with the Redskins.

By the way, no one would care if Christians were offended with the name of a team, because in most people's minds Christians are associated with the majority not minorities. And I know that is rational incredibly dumb and not based on facts at all, but it still doesn't change the fact that if a Christian group was offended by something they would gain no sympathy what so ever.
Last edited by skinsfan#33 on Sat May 04, 2013 1:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Dovie'andi se tovya sagain"
(It is time to roll the dice) Tai'shar Manetheren

"Duty is heavier than a Mountain, Death is lighter than a feather" Tai'shar Malkier

RIP James Oliver Rigney, Jr. 1948-2007

#33
Posts: 4084
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 8:44 am

Postby skinsfan#33 » Sat May 04, 2013 1:01 pm

riggofan wrote:
grampi wrote:
This is EXACTLY what irritates about this stupid debate. That people on the pro-Redskins side play stupid about and refuse to acknowledge that the word "Redskins" is a slur and offensive to some people.


So is this the way things work in today's society...if even one person is offended by something it must be changed?



Of course not, and I didn't say that at all. I said I don't think the name should be changed.

What I wrote is that I wish Redskins fans would quit pretending like the name Redskins doesn't have some baggage to it. but they are package in a shed that no one has been in for 50 years You can get all grumpy old man about it all you want and whine about political correctness and all the rest. Its no longer used as an ethnic slur.

Again, I'd like to see Skins fans and all the rest just go ahead and own it. We don't agree that the name is that big a deal. Sorry if it bothers anybody, but we're not changing it. That's pretty much the Redskins' response isn't it?


Here I change it for you to make your statement more accurate to this century.
"Dovie'andi se tovya sagain"
(It is time to roll the dice) Tai'shar Manetheren

"Duty is heavier than a Mountain, Death is lighter than a feather" Tai'shar Malkier

RIP James Oliver Rigney, Jr. 1948-2007

Hog
User avatar
Posts: 4621
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 4:29 pm
Location: Montclair, Virginia

Postby riggofan » Sat May 04, 2013 2:41 pm

skinsfan#33 wrote:
riggofan wrote:
grampi wrote:
This is EXACTLY what irritates about this stupid debate. That people on the pro-Redskins side play stupid about and refuse to acknowledge that the word "Redskins" is a slur and offensive to some people.


So is this the way things work in today's society...if even one person is offended by something it must be changed?



Of course not, and I didn't say that at all. I said I don't think the name should be changed.

What I wrote is that I wish Redskins fans would quit pretending like the name Redskins doesn't have some baggage to it. but they are package in a shed that no one has been in for 50 years You can get all grumpy old man about it all you want and whine about political correctness and all the rest. Its no longer used as an ethnic slur.

Again, I'd like to see Skins fans and all the rest just go ahead and own it. We don't agree that the name is that big a deal. Sorry if it bothers anybody, but we're not changing it. That's pretty much the Redskins' response isn't it?


Here I change it for you to make your statement more accurate to this century.


That's fine. I don't disagree with you on that at all. "Redskin" is admittedly an old ethnic slur that nobody has used in a hundred years. Sorry if it bothers anyone, but we don't think its a big enough deal to change it.

Return to Hog Wash - Washington Redskins Football