| Welcome to the home of some of the Washington Redskins' most ravenous fans. If this is your first visit, please read our rules and regulations. You must register before you can access all of the forums, and to use all the board's features and options; members also enjoy fewer advertisements. |
| Author |
Message |
Deadskins
JSPB22
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
Posts: 14723
Location: Location, LOCATION!
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 4:15 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Chris Luva Luva wrote: | | But if Native Americans are geniunely offended, than I understand. |
Does that mean any NAs, or the majority? Because, clearly, some are genuinely offended by it. Either way, I still don't understand how you are saying discrimination and lack of legislative representation invalidates this survey. |
|
| Back to top |
|
DarthMonk
DarthMonk
Joined: 16 Nov 2005
Posts: 3210
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 9:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Deadskins wrote: | | And you would be incorrect in assuming that using the name Braves as the team mascot, would not be seen as offensive to some. |
Yes. Had I assumed that I would be incorrect. Note my uses of the word "imagine" and "probably." I can say with confidence that I have never heard the word "Brave" used as a pejorative.
We could rename the team The Washington Americans and find protests. |
|
| Back to top |
|
emoses14
Hog
Joined: 15 Jan 2007
Posts: 1506
Location: Atlanta, GA
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 3:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DaveD1420 wrote: | | HTTRRG3ALMO wrote: | | Chris Luva Luva wrote: | | Deadskins wrote: | | OK, why is it more derogatory than calling an African-American (a term I don't like because I think it just serves to further divide people) black? The point is, it's only offensive if you have the predisposition that having skin that has reddish pigmentation is bad. The word is not a label given to Native Americans by Europeans, it comes from Native Americans themselves. In this way, saying it is equivalent to using the "n" word, or other racial epithets is simply not logical. |
So, I'll take that as a yes... 
If Native Americans feel as if it's derogatory, who are we to tell them different? You're not in their position.
I'm not saying that I want it changed tomorrow, but that I understand why people feel a change is needed. |
Last I checked this was a Democratic country. You are aware that Native-Americans did a survey and less than 10% found the name offensive right? Some argue that was 20 years ago but 90% of the Native American population are not going to change their opinion. The over 90% liked them name. End of story; move on; the people have spoken. |
The United States is not, nor has it ever been, a decomcracy. |
Shhh. They might hear you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
emoses14
Hog
Joined: 15 Jan 2007
Posts: 1506
Location: Atlanta, GA
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 4:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| fetus wrote: | | emoses14 wrote: | | fetus wrote: | | So retarded... let's really focus on this as the biggest world issue |
Yes. Until all "big" world issues are resolved we should not spend any time on any other issue. Never mind that the Smithsonian isn't really handling any of those other issues, so talking about the Redskins name isn't slowing down the search for a cure for cancer.
Lookit, I love my Redskins, but I can also understand that if IFIFIFIFIFIFIFIF it is in fact offensive to many that my team is named "Redskins", then it is at some point going to end up with a change of their name. It won't be the end of the world. |
Excuse my sarcasm, but this is a yearly pointless offseason argument, on par with Brett Favre retirement plans of the past.
The team uses this name to HONOR Native Americans, not in a derogatory sense.
If every person who got offended by anything got their way we would all have bleached skin, wear nothing, eat the same food everyday at the same time, have our voice boxes cut out and have shaved heads. Everyone would be a thoughtless clone, a zombie, taught to never think for themselves and not able to formulate an opinion. |
I hear you. and I was taking issue with the sarcasm, not the spirit behind it.
I have to admit, though, that I've never really thought about this issue beyond an eye roll whenever it comes up; primarily because I believe that the name will not change until a judge orders it so (which will not happen until the outrage sufficient to support my next point comes to pass) or there is enough of a groundswell to actually put a dent in Snyder's bottom line. And that's not a shot at Snyder.
For me, the issue of offensiveness is not a black and white issue, but one that has to be weighed in terms of its harm to some class of people. Unfortunately, the only class that matters here are Native Americans and until someone shows me some kind of disparate impact associated with the use of that name, historical connotation that is so derogatory that it offends the senses of any reasonable person (and no, not just Cause hounds), or some other indicia of offensiveness, I'm positive the name isn't going to change.
Last edited by emoses14 on Mon Feb 11, 2013 4:18 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
HTTRRG3ALMO
Hog
Joined: 01 Jan 2013
Posts: 500
Location: Washington, DC
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 4:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chris Luva Luva wrote: | If you need proof that Native Americans aren't represented fairly in this country than enough has already been said.
They do not truly have a voice. And I know that you cannot possibly relate. Nothing personal, it is what it is.
I'm not saying I want it changed. But if Native Americans are geniunely offended, than I understand. |
Again, I agree with you that if majority are proven to be genuinely offended, I understand as well even though I'd still be bitter for personal attachment reasons.
We're good brother. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Link
|
|
 |
fetus
piggie
Joined: 25 Mar 2012
Posts: 182
Location: Frisco, Tejas
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 5:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| emoses14 wrote: | | fetus wrote: | | emoses14 wrote: | | fetus wrote: | | So retarded... let's really focus on this as the biggest world issue |
Yes. Until all "big" world issues are resolved we should not spend any time on any other issue. Never mind that the Smithsonian isn't really handling any of those other issues, so talking about the Redskins name isn't slowing down the search for a cure for cancer.
Lookit, I love my Redskins, but I can also understand that if IFIFIFIFIFIFIFIF it is in fact offensive to many that my team is named "Redskins", then it is at some point going to end up with a change of their name. It won't be the end of the world. |
Excuse my sarcasm, but this is a yearly pointless offseason argument, on par with Brett Favre retirement plans of the past.
The team uses this name to HONOR Native Americans, not in a derogatory sense.
If every person who got offended by anything got their way we would all have bleached skin, wear nothing, eat the same food everyday at the same time, have our voice boxes cut out and have shaved heads. Everyone would be a thoughtless clone, a zombie, taught to never think for themselves and not able to formulate an opinion. |
I hear you. and I was taking issue with the sarcasm, not the spirit behind it.
I have to admit, though, that I've never really thought about this issue beyond an eye roll whenever it comes up; primarily because I believe that the name will not change until a judge orders it so (which will not happen until the outrage sufficient to support my next point comes to pass) or there is enough of a groundswell to actually put a dent in Snyder's bottom line. And that's not a shot at Snyder.
For me, the issue of offensiveness is not a black and white issue, but one that has to be weighed in terms of its harm to some class of people. Unfortunately, the only class that matters here are Native Americans and until someone shows me some kind of disparate impact associated with the use of that name, historical connotation that is so derogatory that it offends the senses of any reasonable person (and no, not just Cause hounds), or some other indicia of offensiveness, I'm positive the name isn't going to change. |
well then the poss argument between you and I is non-existent, so yes, I agree with everything you just said.
You and I are in the same boat, see highlighted  |
|
| Back to top |
|
Quackjack
piglet
Joined: 12 Dec 2012
Posts: 43
Location: Vienna, Virginia
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2013 7:43 pm Post subject: Redskins name change? |
|
|
It seems to be inevitable at this point. I don't support a change, however, we may have to prepare for it.
Thoughts? |
|
| Back to top |
|
frankcal20
^^^^^^^
Joined: 24 Mar 2004
Posts: 8965
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2013 7:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm sure it'll happen in my lifetime and I'm 34. Something tells me we may go with "Braves." |
|
| Back to top |
|
Quackjack
piglet
Joined: 12 Dec 2012
Posts: 43
Location: Vienna, Virginia
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2013 7:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| If it is in fact a racial slur, why would ANYONE want to keep it the same? Redskins is seldom used but for the NFL team, which conjures up images of brave native american warriors, not savages. This is making my fellow liberals look reaaaalllly sad... |
|
| Back to top |
|
welch
Skins History Buff
Joined: 10 Jan 2004
Posts: 4665
Location: New York, NY
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2013 8:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No.  . |
|
| Back to top |
|
Link
|
|
|
Countertrey
the 'mudge
Joined: 09 Jan 2004
Posts: 12771
Location: Curmudgeon Corner, Maine
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2013 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quackjack wrote: | | If it is in fact a racial slur, why would ANYONE want to keep it the same? Redskins is seldom used but for the NFL team, which conjures up images of brave native american warriors, not savages. This is making my fellow liberals look reaaaalllly sad... |
That's not what makes your fellow liberals look sad... (though, it certainly doesn't help)
Just sayin'.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
DarthMonk
DarthMonk
Joined: 16 Nov 2005
Posts: 3210
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2013 10:24 pm Post subject: Re: Redskins name change? |
|
|
| Quackjack wrote: | It seems to be inevitable at this point. I don't support a change, however, we may have to prepare for it.
Thoughts? |
Huge thread on this already (this year) called "Smithsonian Museum." |
|
| Back to top |
|
yupchagee
#14
Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Posts: 4113
Location: Louisville KY
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2013 10:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Countertrey wrote: | | Quackjack wrote: | | If it is in fact a racial slur, why would ANYONE want to keep it the same? Redskins is seldom used but for the NFL team, which conjures up images of brave native american warriors, not savages. This is making my fellow liberals look reaaaalllly sad... |
That's not what makes your fellow liberals look sad... (though, it certainly doesn't help)
Just sayin'. |
+1 |
|
| Back to top |
|
HTTRRG3ALMO
Hog
Joined: 01 Jan 2013
Posts: 500
Location: Washington, DC
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2013 10:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Countertrey wrote: | | Quackjack wrote: | | If it is in fact a racial slur, why would ANYONE want to keep it the same? Redskins is seldom used but for the NFL team, which conjures up images of brave native american warriors, not savages. This is making my fellow liberals look reaaaalllly sad... |
That's not what makes your fellow liberals look sad... (though, it certainly doesn't help)
Just sayin'. |
There is historical documented proof that Redskin was referred to Native Americans who put red clay on their bodies to display bravery in battle. In fact they even did this to settlers they captured whom they deemed brave and wanted to set apart from the others.
Sure there's historical references to the word as a racial slur, but whoever tries to use the word redskin to insult a Native American should have their @$$ beat for using something so corny to put someone down. I mean seriously...most people would feel embarrassed FOR the guy.
I also don't know of any Native Americans who look like me after a long day on the water. They look like my grandfather did.
Words change definition over time.
What comes to mind when you think "rainbow"? Well, a color spectrum in the sky has nothing to do with the gay community but it is the ACCEPTED ASSOCIATED definition of that word.
Speaking of which...if someone came up to you and said "I'm gay" would you automatically come to the conclusion "oh cool, dude is happy"? No, the association and therefore the accepted meaning of the word has changed over time.
Along with "family" and "marriage".
How about "p_ssy" (sorry mods)? Word means cat right? Yeah...I'd like to see someone use that as a team name with a mean ol kitty as a logo.
In the movie "Boomerang" this girl is in a restaurant yelling the P Bomb out with her legs spread at Eddie Murphy. Embarrassed he says "now where is that cat?" Well, the nice people didn't believe Eddie Murphy's definition.
Even laugh to yourself when someone talks about their being weed in their garden?
"Prick" didn't always mean what it does today.
"Text" = text message when it meant words typed on page.
"Good" is treated as "bad" and "bad" is treated as good.
"Sweet" was a taste, now it even means awesome or someone who's caring.
"Incredible" used to refer to someone/something that was not credible; now it means awesome.
"Thread" = piece of string, but now this is a thread.
I have a "hoe" in my house...sorry not loose woman here, but I do have a garden tool.
Ever hear a guy say "can you help me find my lost 'b!tch' "? Nope, because now we just say dog, the other term will get you slapped.
Speaking of dogs, do you expect someone to bark when they say "that's my dog." Or would you really say something as stupid as, "wait that thing looks human"? LOL I like that one
"Tramp" meant homeless person in days past.
Now to those who may try to criticize my comment I have a hypocrisy test for you...
Some of these words have accepted dual meanings today, other are pretty obvious.
For one week, walk around your job/church/formal event using the current inappropriate words (like p_ssy for example) in their originally-intended contexts.
If you have the balls to do that then I rest my case.
Yeah...that's what I thought.
In other news, many Government employees are getting furloughed (various amounts), and we're on the brink of a financial crisis that will limit our ability to defend this nation through the US military if attacked.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/06/politics/congress-spending-cuts/index.html
But of course, that's water under the bridge, we need to deal with the #1 topic in the Nation's Capitol; this expired definition of redskins. |
|
| Back to top |
|
emoses14
Hog
Joined: 15 Jan 2007
Posts: 1506
Location: Atlanta, GA
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2013 11:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Countertrey wrote: | | Quackjack wrote: | | If it is in fact a racial slur, why would ANYONE want to keep it the same? Redskins is seldom used but for the NFL team, which conjures up images of brave native american warriors, not savages. This is making my fellow liberals look reaaaalllly sad... |
That's not what makes your fellow liberals look sad... (though, it certainly doesn't help)
Just sayin'. |
Thank God, then, my fellow liberals have conservatives around doing everything they can to make us look good.
Phew! |
|
| Back to top |
|
Link
|
|
|
| Page 4 of 5 | All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
