Discussion in 'Odds & Ends' started by atatu, Apr 30, 2013.
+1 on that name change suggestion lol!
Great point. Unfortunatley, we don't pick who gets to be offended by something. This to me seems ridiculous, as if anything it is honoring native americans but it's not my place to say. The town I live in ironically just changed our high school mascot from the redskins to the spartans.. what a waste. They had "pride" on the table as a change. Why not make it that and keep the mascot, how is that offensive? Bogus imo though that's easy to say as a white male..
The whole argument to me seems crazy because it is obvious that a term is only as racist as its connotation (see how many black people or even white people use the n word not pejoratively) if anything I think people are looking for a problem. Its not like they named the team the redskins to highlight any of the negative stereotypes of that people, seems that would be a counter intuitive business move to me.
^PS I think a better question would be, if Irish whitey's did picket in south bend, would anyone even care or listen to them or would they just say, you're white, you don't get to feel discriminated against.
Should they change the name? Ask ten fans get ten answers.
Should the name be illegal? Obviously not.
Basically when the white owner (the race of the players is immaterial) decides it is worth it to change the name, it will get changed and not a millisecond before. The reason could be publicity, good will, or even monetary. He is free to keep the name (or change it) and anyone is free to make as big of a deal about it as they want to. Both have that freedom. They are both equally open to criticism.
Eric Holder would never say that
Um....how could you tell he was an illegal alien from the logo?
Because they all are
The one documentary on the ABA had commentary about each team and that's what they said was the idea behind the logo. maybe that's why the name only lasted one season.
instead of telling ppl to chill maybe you should take time to remember what redskin means.
but one is criticised for supporting a racist name, the other is criticised for being decent human beings.not quite the same thing.
There will be resistance from the other owners to a name change based on possible revenue loss (shared revenue). I have grown up a Redskin fan and thought last year was the perfect time to change the name with the start of the RGIII era. While I agree people get offended way to easily these days, why put them in that position in the first place? People are way to rude these days. Redskins is a racist term. It should be changed. Redtails would be cool, but I like Warriors better.
Given all that, I was at a conference a couple years ago and I met a DBA from an Indian reservation casino. We were at a bar watching football so I brought up the Redskins and asked what she thought of the name. She didn't find it offensive and said lots of folks on her reservation cheer for them with the Cowboys being the other popular team. It does however offend someone out there. I support the name change on principal.
So you support the name change on principal? But you support the name Warriors? You do know that even teams who had the name Warriors have also changed their name because even that name offended somebody? Marquette used to be known as the Warriors before someone said even that bothered them.
How about the "Washington Principals." On principle.
A little test--
You find out that your co-worker Susan is 1/2 Native American:
Which of these things would you consider saying to her:
A: "Hey Susan, I didn't realize that you were part Native American."
B: "Hey Susan, I didn't realize that you were part redskin."
I would consider saying A. I would definitely not say B. I'm guessing that nobody here would say B, because we know that calling someone a "redskin" is pretty likely to offend them.
So if most people wouldn't use this term to refer to acquaintances, because it's usually considered offensive, maybe it's not the greatest name for a sports team.
Seems like common sense...
So youre gonna stop watching football on principle huh?
Not sure how that follows. I don't think the name's existence is a crime against humanity or anything like that-- it's just kind of embarrassing and I think it would make sense to change it.
Warriors is not blatantly racist and there are other professional teams out there with that name. I'm not suggesting that a team change its name every time someone calls it offensive. We can't all be the Mighty Ducks!
Did you take any logic classes during your scholastic career?
Yea, but was before the PC police went crazy and wanted to control our thoughts and words we used
You really think the decline in use of derogatory racial terms (like "redskin") over the years has occurred because of the PC police going crazy?
I believe that the definition of that phrase doesn't include protesting NFL nomenclature.
BTW, I don't believe that the protesters will be swayed by criticism, which is fine, but likely also defines the approach of the Redskin's owner.
Straight from the Fox News police ... who are always crazy.
Snyder said today that the name will never change.
'Washington Cleanskins' sounds like a team with few members and no followers.
here come "the washington indigenous hunter-gatherers"!!!!! :shock:
Given that NAs didn't practise circumcision, the Washington Foreskins is always a possibility.
its been time! but theres potential billions of worth in the franchise, changing the name could cost some money and we all know they won't let that happen...
there's no "principles" in washington.
^^ certainly....but there are plenty of principals.
At least the images used by the Redskins have some dignity....not something you can say about the image on the caps of the Cleveland Indians.
The Washington Rednecks?
This is getting good....
Roger Goodell's reply to US Congressmen on the use of Redskin.....
Yeah, that was a pretty lame response by Goodell...
It seems to me that a name change would be good for business. Fans who already own gear would buy new gear. Player jerseys could be auctioned off.
And people like me who would never in a million years buy something with a racial slur on it could begin to buy team stuff.
:shock: Are you trying to imply the owners might consider major sports team just a way to make money???I'll be honest when I started reading this I thought that it was something had been put forward by the owners and presumed it had sales behind it.
I've noticed that the shirts in your football don't tend to change much from year to year, just hope you don't end up the way of the premier league with shirts only lasting one season and still being asked to pay £40+ for them.
Separate names with a comma.