Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

The Redskins should consider changing their name (merge)


Recommended Posts

I just want it changed so everyone will shut up and then there is nothing to complain about for ppl

People will always find something to complain about. Change it and they will turn their attention to the Giants in New York being offensive to people who are over 6'3.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 112
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Just out of interest to get a Stateside take in something and apologies for going somewhat off topic. In the UK there is a football (soccer :P) team called Tottenham Hotspurs that has a strong tradition of Jewish supporters. Historically the was quite a lot of abusive chanting based around this from opposition fans, largely using the word "Yid". Now this being the days of PC it's mostly died down apart from group of hardcore fans who, guess what, are Spurs fans themselves and Jewish. It's become a badge of honour to them.

Now the FA (the league) have tried to crack down on this and have threatened all sorts of things, but, after a dose of common sense realised it was not going to fly. My point is can a word that has racial connotations be used by the group it describes with no taboo but be off limits to others. Doesn't that kind of defeat the whole idea of not singling people out for their race?

My own view is you can't set anything off limits, let people say what they want, it makes it a lot easier to spot the ignorant *s in life and ostracise them. I'm a bit of a libertarian in some respects. What does make a difference as people have pointed out is that the NFL is a business and if this name controversy is costing them more revenue than would be lost in changing it, then it's a no brainer to change it surely.

Does anyone else think Winnebago Industries is getting nervous yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I will say for forums such as these is that tanks to the degree of anonymity it lets people debate and interact with others without preconceived hang ups or stereotypical painting.

That or it shows people from all walks of life can be obnoxious *s just as well as the next man :P.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Daniel Synder, the owner of the Washington Redskins, located in D.C. has remained firm in his position that the name of that team will never change. Is the term "redskin" a culturally offensive one? What is the historical origin of the word? Does changing a trademarked name to a safer term really bring about anything significant to American Indian tribes in the longrun? 

 

One of my history professors, Nancy Shoemaker, now teaching at the University of Connecticut, has written about American Indian relations in this country going all the way back to the French & Indian War. 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/02/AR2005100201139.html

 

What about bands of the same tribe who are not immediately upset at the use of the word redskins when speaking about their favorite football team?

 

http://youtu.be/wp293OBvaqo

 

My first roommate in college was from the Oneida Indian Reservation in Green Bay, WI. He now works on the reservation as a law enforcement officer and during college summers off Al worked as a security guard at the local casino too. We always used to have though provoking conversations about our place in this world. Al as a Native American & me as a disabled individual. At any rate, Al always believed that you had to pick & choose worthy cultural battles to fight for. Is a name change of a football team going to drastically improve the lives of his people directly or personally impact future generations with better jobs, better housing accommodations, more educational opportunities, or a higher standard of living out of poverty? If the answer is no than drop the manufactured controversy & move on to something more longevity driven for the benefit of his people back home.

 

I asked Al once if he took offense at an NFL team being named the Washington Redskins & much to my surprise he said this: "No, not really. There are far worse derogatory terms that an NFL team could call themselves like the Whiskey Buffalos or Smallpox Blanket Brigade. It just irritates me when tribes get worked up over trivial matters that really have no bearing on their daily lives at all." 

 

The other question is this: Would Daniel Snyder be compelled to drop the Redskins name if the League worked out a deal to essentially bribe the owner to do it or allow him a sweet marketing deal to pocket a high percentage of the new NFL name? Paying someone off seldom leads to a meaningful transformation IMHO. What do other individuals think about this matter?  

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-leadership/wp/2013/10/08/nfl-players-could-lead-a-redskins-name-change/

 

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2013/10/redskins-change-name-debate-obama/

 

http://www.floridatoday.com/usatoday/article/2936531

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I am not native American and I don't know anyone who is I don't think it's up to me to say.  I've heard some reports that say native American's don't mind it and I've heard others that say that they do so I am not exactly sure who to believe. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Daniel Synder, the owner of the Washington Redskins, located in D.C. has remained firm in his position that the name of that team will never change. Is the term "redskin" a culturally offensive one? What is the historical origin of the word? Does changing a trademarked name to a safer term really bring about anything significant to American Indian tribes in the longrun? 

 

 

I understand that the Washington organization feels pride and respect for their name and their traditions and honor their Native American tradition.

 

I don't believe for one second that the name was chosen or has evolved to demean anyone.

 

Similar situation to the University of Illinois discontinuing their Chief and his dance........which was also a proud tradition that began with the help of native Americans.

 

And I can understand many native Americans feeling pride in their football team and it's name.

 

Also though I see the other side.  Racism is insidious and I don't think people should have to prove direct benefit from a name change.

 

Those dedicated to stamping out racism have a point.  The NFL name is very very visible and a change gives them visibility.  Which is not a bad thing.  We could all stand to be reminded to be more respectful of one another........especially those who are not the same as us.

 

You and I both know that people tend towards intolerance.........and that does not make the world a better place.

 

I can relate from a female perspective.  On these boards, I frequently see men insulting each other by referring to others as somehow 'female'

 

These statements don't do direct harm to me.......but I get tired of it.  

 

I don't know who is behind the charge to change the redskins name but, I'm guessing that they don't expect immediate and direct benefit.......just a little less allowable racism......... even though many do not see it as racism.

 

From my perspective, it would be great if they could agree on another name that everyone agreed honored Native Americans.

 

I'm not sure how they feel about their culture on a football team name......maybe they don't want it.  

 

So, either way it's worked out.....it's a good discussion to have

Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand that the Washington organization feels pride and respect for their name and their traditions and honor their Native American tradition.

 

I don't believe for one second that the name was chosen or has evolved to demean anyone.

 

Similar situation to the University of Illinois discontinuing their Chief and his dance........which was also a proud tradition that began with the help of native Americans.

 

You should google George Preston Marshall. The name was absolutely chosen to be demeaning. He changed it from Braves to Redskins because he hired a Sioux coach. He thought having the guy show up on the sidelines in full regalia and warpaint would entertain the crowd and help sell tickets. It was intended to mock and demean Native American culture from the from the very beginning. That was the point, it was never a proud tradition. This is the same man who fought integration in the NFL tooth and nail and was at the center of the 13 year ban on black players in the league.  He was an outspoken racist until the bitter end.  Not sure why people are so desperate to defend the brain child of such a hateful man...

 

The Red Cloud Indian School that Snyder claimed consulted on the creation the emblem replies:

 

However, Red Cloud Indian School was not involved in conversations around an emblem for the Washington Redskins football team.

 

As an organization, Red Cloud Indian School has never—and will never—endorse the use of the name “Redskins.” Like many Native American organizations across the country, members of our staff and extended community find the name offensive. Although we were encouraged to hear that National Football League representatives met with the Oneida Nation to discuss the name’s derogatory nature, more must be done. We call on Dan Snyder and managers to engage in further discussion with Native groups across the country and, ultimately, to move toward changing the name, once and for all.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/letter-from-red-cloud-indian-school-on-the-washington-redskins-name/2013/10/11/e24044ba-32bc-11e3-8627-c5d7de0a046b_story.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

You should google George Preston Marshall. The name was absolutely chosen to be demeaning. He changed it from Braves to Redskins because he hired a Sioux coach. He thought having the guy show up on the sidelines in full regalia and warpaint would entertain the crowd and help sell tickets. It was intended to mock and demean Native American culture from the from the very beginning. That was the point, it was never a proud tradition. This is the same man who fought integration in the NFL tooth and nail and was at the center of the 13 year ban on black players in the league. He was an outspoken racist until the bitter end. Not sure why people are so desperate to defend the brain child of such a hateful man...

The Red Cloud Indian School that Snyder claimed consulted on the creation the emblem replies:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/letter-from-red-cloud-indian-school-on-the-washington-redskins-name/2013/10/11/e24044ba-32bc-11e3-8627-c5d7de0a046b_story.html

Well that makes a difference

If that is true then Snyder needs to answer that

Bizarre that the name would be chosen to demean

Team names are chosen as symbols of identity and strength

At least I assume so

Link to post
Share on other sites

one area of my practice is immigration law and have a few clients who are here on amnesty due to what has happened in their home country . . . so like you I have first hand knowledge of oppression; and frankly there is no hierarchy among the oppressed . . . we do not have second class citizens in this country, apparently you are one that thinks there is . . . whether someone is hurt by the terrible action by our nation in the 19th century and which followed through to the 20th century or is someone who was hurt overseas and came to this country, it does not matter . . . well at least I see them as the same . . . apparently others do not . . .

my only point was that with many liberal, public policy, and/or political correct movements there are some in the faction that do not realize that their cause is wider than they think . . . the only in my back yard situation . . . I see what is immediate in front of me (i.e. the Native Americans) and don't care about something I cant see and is in the back yard of some other town (i.e. the amnesty people) . . . if we want to be consistent we need to recognize that they are the same . . . I could care less what anyone thinks about the King name, but just wanted to point out that there are other names that are not with out clean hands . . .

as for Native American rights, my feelings are as strong as anyone on this board and if you have read my posts in other threads you will see this . . . I don't disbelieve your friend and am sure there are some Native Americans that dislike the name, but at the same time there are some that are not bothered by it, so the answer is not as clear as to what to do . . . and that is the problem . . .

First of all native Americans are not immigrants. Secondly I'm not sure what you mean by saying "you are one who thinks there are " in regard to second class citizens... and I'm shocked to see a line like that come from your mouth, or in this case fingers. I'm trying to take a stand against something I and others disagree with wholeheartdly. Thirdly if you read the story behind the old owner that is above this one (once I post it) you will see the owner was a racist individual which makes the name doubly questionable. This came up the last time this subject was raised here if my memory is right. However, mods closed it before any real debate could be made. I'm glad to see it come up again... and it may change a few minds.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that makes a difference

If that is true then Snyder needs to answer that

Bizarre that the name would be chosen to demean

Team names are chosen as symbols of identity and strength

At least I assume so

Everywhere I've read indicates that's the case. Marshall was a showman type marketer. (We have him to thank for the Pro Bowl after all...) The name change and the head dress bits were to drum up fans since that sort of thing was considered kitschy and funny back then. In his defense, he would claim that the name change was to "honor" his "Sioux" coach or to distance themselves from the Boston Braves. But records indicate that Dietz, the Sioux coach, wasn't actually Sioux, but was really a white man pretending to be Sioux. An old school case of stolen identity. But it's kind of fitting that the original Redskin wasn't even Native American. Either way, it's highly unlikely that an outspoken racist like Marshall was capable of honoring Native Americans or their culture or that it was even a consideration in his mind. He was finally forced to integrate only because RFK was funded by tax dollars, was on federal land and intense protester pressure...

 

Marshall was stubborn to keep the team white despite the fact that the Redskins were simply a terrible team, winning one game the previous season.  This ratcheted up the pressure on Marshall who found himself facing a struggle with civil rights activists and the Kennedy administration over his racist policies.  Marshall’s active bedfellows in keeping the Redskins white included the American Nazi Party, and the KKK who marched in front of the stadium. On the other side were organizations like the NAACP, the Congress On Racial Equality (CORE), and JFK's Interior Secretary, Stewart L. Udall. It was a saga that would end with the signing of the Redskins' first black players, Ron Hatcher and future hall-of-famer Bobby Mitchell, fifteen years after the rest of the league had integrated.

 

Udall is historically given the lion's share of credit for forcing Marshall's hand. While he certainly deserves recognition, it's unlikely that he would have pressed as hard without the actions of civil rights activists and ordinary black residents of DC, who had been protesting segregation for years outside of the old Griffith Stadium.

 

In 1961, the Redskins moved into brand new, publicly financed DC Stadium (now RFK Stadium); the shiny new facility quickly became a battleground, with competing demonstrations held by segregationists and civil rights activists alike. Built with $24 million in public funds, the new stadium sat on land owned by the National Capital Parks and thus by the federal government. Udall used this leverage against Marshall, threatening in March 1961 to rescind the federal government's lease to use the stadium if the franchise owner didn't sign a black player.

 

Under banners reading “Keep Redskins White!” the American Nazi Party and the Ku Klux Klan paraded around the stadium in protest. But civil rights activists countered with pickets of their own, with signs reading: "People who can't play together, can't live together.”

 

Marshall was intransigent, declaring that “no one of intelligence has ever questioned my theories on race or religion.” But in a city with a new black majority that could not even vote in a presidential elections at the time, the fight over a football team struck a chord with residents inspired by successes of the Civil Rights movement elsewhere, and the protests continued.

 

When Udall compromised and gave Marshall another season to integrate, civil rights activists took it upon themselves to make an issue of Marshall's racism wherever the team went. The local NAACP and CORE chapters picketed Marshall's home and organized a boycott of the 1961 season. Black and white civil rights activists picketed outside each and every home game that season, forcing down attendance and causing Kennedy to decline an invitation to attend the new stadium's inaugural game. On the other side of the country, activists and union members organized a boycott of a Redskins-Rams game in Los Angeles. The Redskins exhibition games in the south and the west also became targets for protesters. Pressure mounted on league commissioner Pete Rozelle to intervene.

http://www.thenation.com/article/158409/history-lesson-redskins-owner

 

Here's some articles:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/8944042/history-alone-prompt-washington-change-nfl-mascot

http://deadspin.com/5327888/racist-redskins-owner-did-not-listen-to-his-wife-and-now-he-is-in-hell

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/nov/10/racist-redskins/?pagination=false

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/01/the-racist-redskins.html

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2005-08-30/sports/0508300027_1_dietz-indian-identity-lineage

 

As for Snyder... I don't think he cares? The name is important to him for financial and emotional reasons, so he's dug in defending Marshall's brain child... Even though Marshall is probably spinning in his grave at the thought of a Jewish man owning his precious team.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that the Washington organization feels pride and respect for their name and their traditions and honor their Native American tradition.

 

I don't believe for one second that the name was chosen or has evolved to demean anyone.

 

I agree 100% Nadine. No one within the Redskins organization deliberately intended to select a name that was a racially charged one. Your NFL Franchise is located in the heart of Washington where bills, laws, funding, & polls about public sentiment are untaken nearly everyday. Surely, the elected officials there are mindful of their voting constituency some of whom are presumably American Indian. If there was a massive outcry for a name change, it would have already transpired years ago & the dust would have settled by now. 

 

Similar situation to the University of Illinois discontinuing their Chief and his dance........which was also a proud tradition that began with the help of native Americans.

 

And I can understand many native Americans feeling pride in their football team and it's name.

 

Also though I see the other side.  Racism is insidious and I don't think people should have to prove direct benefit from a name change.

 

Those dedicated to stamping out racism have a point.  The NFL name is very very visible and a change gives them visibility.  Which is not a bad thing.  We could all stand to be reminded to be more respectful of one another........especially those who are not the same as us.

 

You and I both know that people tend towards intolerance.........and that does not make the world a better place.

 

I have no problem with a discussion about intolerance or any segment of the population who feels that a name, dance, or practice is discriminatory to a person, nation, or gender's cultural heritage. The question is: What justifies a name change & how do you deal with tribes who take no offense to the term Washington Redskins? How much a specific demographic has to be offended to warrant a name change? 20%? 50%? 80%? Does majority rule or is even a tiny faction of angry citizens enough to provoke & propel a name change? 

 

I can relate from a female perspective.  On these boards, I frequently see men insulting each other by referring to others as somehow 'female'

 

Interesting point Nadine. Being called a female may be meant by some people to provoke an angry response calling into question a hypothetical person's toughness. However, if someone called me a female, I wouldn't be offended because I was raised by intelligent women who are tough as nails. It's just someone trying to get under your skin & as long as you can debate in a logical fashion, articulate your position, & move on laughing off the trivial criticism no harm is done. If someone calls SW1 "a female",  I smile, view it as a complement, & go about my daily business.  

 

These statements don't do direct harm to me.......but I get tired of it.  

 

I don't know who is behind the charge to change the redskins name but, I'm guessing that they don't expect immediate and direct benefit.......just a little less allowable racism......... even though many do not see it as racism.

 

From my perspective, it would be great if they could agree on another name that everyone agreed honored Native Americans.

 

I have no problem with trying to determine a name that offends no native american group, but if you do agree upon a new name, what do you do with all the NFL merchandise with the previous name on it? Sell it? Destroy it? Donate it to needy families who love the Redskins? 

 

I'm not sure how they feel about their culture on a football team name......maybe they don't want it.  

 

So, either way it's worked out.....it's a good discussion to have

 

The discussion is a great idea, but the ultimate resolution is always a sticky, untidy matter. If the owner refuses to move on this issue based on a tradition stance, I don't see any fluctuation or change at all personally. Nice discussion Nadine. I appreciate your thoughtful words. Thank you.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

On no, no, no,...      if Daniel S does fold, which I think not...      Then the Chiefs will be next...   

 

the PC world is not happy unless they have something trivial to complain about.

I just want it changed so everyone will shut up and then there is nothing to complain about for ppl

 

I'd be more offended by the 'Washington' part of the team name.

They are essentially the Virgina Redskins..      Or Maryland Redskins...  or..     oh whatever..  the REDSKINS.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On no, no, no,...      if Daniel S does fold, which I think not...      Then the Chiefs will be next...   

 

the PC world is not happy unless they have something trivial to complain about.

 

They are essentially the Virgina Redskins..      Or Maryland Redskins...  or..     oh whatever..  the REDSKINS.

Excellent point JD! A politically correct wave of sentiment can be just as dangerous as a racially motivated wave because it creates a domino effect that often is more consumed by exerting absolute power than by asking what their true motives are & judging each case or team on it's own name or historical merits.

 

Your Virginia Redskins example is a compelling one because any NFL team has a fan base that frequents the product outside the zip code of the franchise building it resides in...Even transcending United States borders in many cases. My point is this: Both the helmet symbol & the trademarked name are vital to a team's fiscal identity, fan recognition, & decimal point bottom line overall. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, here goes.

The Washington Dreadfullskins

The Washington RGThreeskins

The Washington Very Colourful Sox

I know, very poor.

I actually like incorporating a little humor in a racially charged situation & I do not think it is in poor taste at all BHC my friend. Naturally, it is never good to be too dismissive. I just feel that it is also important to loosen up, joke a little bit, & never take a situation or circumstance so seriously that there is no room to breathe & relax.

 

I often establish a comfort zone with all closest friends that they can ask me anything & there is no such thing as a dumb or off limits question. I might not always elaborate in great detail, but I am genuine in my response to any question. As long as a person is sincere in wanting to learn why you object to a certain word then real growth & learning can transpire under the umbrella of mutual respect. You have to open up yourself & be vulnerable too if you expect others to do the same thing themselves. I have always believed that. 

 

No BHC you have nothing to apologize for at all my friend. You reminded us all the danger in taking ourselves too seriously & remembering that a little humor goes a long way in opening up meaningful lines of communication that benefits everyone in the room looking for a permanent, positive stride forward for subsequent generations. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually like incorporating a little humor in a racially charged situation & I do not think it is in poor taste at all BHC my friend. Naturally, it is never good to be too dismissive. I just feel that it is also important to loosen up, joke a little bit, & never take a situation or circumstance so seriously that there is no room to breathe & relax.

 

I often establish a comfort zone with all closest friends that they can ask me anything & there is no such thing as a dumb or off limits question. I might not always elaborate in great detail, but I am genuine in my response to any question. As long as a person is sincere in wanting to learn why you object to a certain word then real growth & learning can transpire under the umbrella of mutual respect. You have to open up yourself & be vulnerable too if you expect others to do the same thing themselves. I have always believed that. 

 

No BHC you have nothing to apologize for at all my friend. You reminded us all the danger in taking ourselves too seriously & remembering that a little humor goes a long way in opening up meaningful lines of communication that benefits everyone in the room looking for a permanent, positive stride forward for subsequent generations. 

Naturally, there are times when immediate humor is not called for in the face of a tragedy or human causalities etc. etc. But, that's why I love thought provoking comedians because they say the things we wish we could & they encapsulate larger big picture issues behind their punchlines & line of thinking. They are like protest singers addressing both sides of any issue, giving a voice to all parties involved, & helping each person who hears the joke determine what that joke says about society in general right here right now at this moment in time. I never dismiss comedians for that reason. They let us now what the real crisis is & whether or not a complaint is justified or a manufactured one meant to distract us from what we should be genuinely concerned about & are not.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your one skin away from something completely different yet also appropriate.

 

That one is a bit cliche, having been co-opted long ago predominantly by the most braindead segments of the Cowboys and Eagles nations.  At this point it's the trash talking equivalent to calling someone a "stupidhead", you only hear it when someone has completely run out of even slightly clever things to say.

 

You should google George Preston Marshall. The name was absolutely chosen to be demeaning. He changed it from Braves to Redskins because he hired a Sioux coach. He thought having the guy show up on the sidelines in full regalia and warpaint would entertain the crowd and help sell tickets. It was intended to mock and demean Native American culture from the from the very beginning. That was the point, it was never a proud tradition. This is the same man who fought integration in the NFL tooth and nail and was at the center of the 13 year ban on black players in the league.  He was an outspoken racist until the bitter end.  Not sure why people are so desperate to defend the brain child of such a hateful man...

 

The Red Cloud Indian School that Snyder claimed consulted on the creation the emblem replies:

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/letter-from-red-cloud-indian-school-on-the-washington-redskins-name/2013/10/11/e24044ba-32bc-11e3-8627-c5d7de0a046b_story.html

 

You apparently confused yourself while reading the article.  The school doesn't endorse the name, the athletic fund (a completely different entity) that once supported the school was the one that had positive involvement with the name.  This was published explicitly so that the school could make that distinction so that its position wouldn't get misinterpreted in a way that is essentially the reverse of the cognitive error you made while reading the article.  It wasn't a debunking of Snyder's statement.

 

As for Marshall, everyone knows the guy was an old school racist who had abhorrent policies regarding his refusal to hire African American players until Robert Kennedy forced his hand in 1962.  That was a full 30 years after he hired a man he believed to be a Native American to be the team's head coach and supposedly named the team in his honor (and also possibly as a partial homage to the Red Sox, who they shared Fenway Park with).  That's a heck of disconnect between one race and another, isn't it?  I really doubt he harbored the same vitriol for both groups.  In fact, it's likely he bought into the whole pop-culture glorification of the "Indian" identity that emerged in the late 19th century after the government had already thoroughly dismantled most of the continent's native culture.  Of course, you could say that pop-culture at the time was inherently highly racist and I wouldn't disagree there but it was a weird brand of racism out of sheer ignorance.  Fact is, reading the intents of dead men is a pretty murky business and that's where a lot of arguments get tied up.

 

For me it all comes down to the fact that I've never in my lifetime seen or heard the term redskin used disparagingly and the etymology of the word is fairly benign by all of the legitimate, well-researched accounts I've seen.  It's just not a word that carries the kind of negative racial stigma associated with slurs that actually see much heavier use in that context and the group who would be most affected by it appears to be largely ambivalent towards it, save for the usual outspoken advocates that typically do not represent a majority of the people they claim to represent.  Then again, I err on the side of the anti-PC much of the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That one is a bit cliche, having been co-opted long ago predominantly by the most braindead segments of the Cowboys and Eagles nations.  At this point it's the trash talking equivalent to calling someone a "stupidhead", you only hear it when someone has completely run out of even slightly clever things to say.

 

 

Yeah I'm sorry, I just couldn't resist making the pun.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Blind Post: If native groups made a bigger stink about it, the name would be quickly changed. 

 

The problem is that the people who think it should be changed are typically white people and black people.

 

For all the stink a lot of other people are making about it, it doesn't seem to be on most Native American's radar.

 

The other thing is that everyone seems to be ok with offensive mascots as long as the people you are offending are dead and not alive to "be offended".  

 

Why is everyone ok with a mascot like "The Spartans" just because the Spartans are all dead?  Lets not forget that these where real people too, and we have collectively decided for a reason that I can't understand that it's ok to be offensive to people who are not around to defend themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all native Americans are not immigrants. Secondly I'm not sure what you mean by saying "you are one who thinks there are " in regard to second class citizens... and I'm shocked to see a line like that come from your mouth, or in this case fingers. I'm trying to take a stand against something I and others disagree with wholeheartdly. Thirdly if you read the story behind the old owner that is above this one (once I post it) you will see the owner was a racist individual which makes the name doubly questionable. This came up the last time this subject was raised here if my memory is right. However, mods closed it before any real debate could be made. I'm glad to see it come up again... and it may change a few minds.

 

EDIT: Opps, warning long post, sorry, I just get going sometimes  . . .   :)

 

My point that I originally made did not pin on citizenship or one's immigration status . . . it was simply that some names (Redskins) may offend some while others (Kings) will too . . . that is all, the fact that one class of people happens to be immigrants and the others citizens is not relevant, as is it the offending matter than counts . . . surely not all class of people who are oppressed will be in the same class . . .

 

I was just addressing a broader point and wanted to bring into the discussion, the entire picture, specifically, should we not look at all names of sports teams which are offensive . . . it seems to me that this new vigor about the Redskins is coming out of the blue, its not like a group of Native Americans is protesting the name and the media is helping . . . I will admit I am not the biggest Peter the Reporter fan nor of Bob Costas, they both seem a little self righteous and at times like to be the ones in the spotlight . . . and as such I take some of the stuff they say with a grain of salt and also am not afraid to point things out about them . . .

 

I just made the point about Peter the Reporter in regards to that I found it somewhat ironic that he was champion the name change given his last name . . . surely he has a point, but it kind of coming out of the blue . . . imagine if I were a reporter and my name was Mike N-word, and I said "Mike N-word here and I would like to point out that I find the Norte Dame Fighting Irish name to be offensive as it depicts the proud Irish nation as a being belligerent, people need to be sensitive about their names and how it effects people, heretofore I will be calling them the Norte Dame Football Players."  now I may have a point, but there are some that might say, gee you got a point but you last name is not very cool either . . . this was only the point that I as getting at in my original post . . .

 

As for other names that could be viewed as offensive here are a few off the top of my head

 

LA Kings

Norte Dame Fighting Irish

The Fighting Sioux

The Fighting Illini 

The Cornhuskers

and so on . . .

 

some names celebrate people who have oppressed others (Kings), others might be viewed as depicting the class as belligerent (the Fighting teams), or a manual labor (cornhuskers), or in the case of the Redskins, use a word that has otherwise a negative connotation to it . . .    sometimes the mascots can be off too . . . the Vikings mascot depicting a large burly bearded man with an axe, again the belligerent angle and so on . . .

 

And as I am not a fan of Peter the Reporter and felt he was being a tad self righteous, including his little "I am not going to call them by their name" protest, which I found somewhat adolescent, I felt emboldened to call him out on this forum . . . and provide an inroad to the broader picture of the other names . . . .

 

Regards to the second class citizen comments, I was only referring to what I sensed was coming from your posts and I could be wrong and I do apologize . . . my point with respect to the broader picture and if we have two neighbors, one to the left and one to the right, and the one on the left is a Native American who feels offended by the Redskin name and seeks to have it changed, and the one to the right feels offended by the name Kings and seek to have it changed, my point was that we need to treat these causes as the same . . . we can not champion one and then ignore the other if they knock on our door seeking help . . . if we do so then we  treat one with superior rights over the other and not with equal rights . . . and thus treating one as second class to the other . . . and I sensed that you felt the cause for the ones who feel the name Kings as not worthy and hence my point that I thought you were treating them unequally . . .

 

Regarding the Redskins it does not matter to me what happens to be honest . . . actually would love to have them change it to Washington Native Americans, keeping the Native Americans link . . . and would be cool if the ring the stadium with statute, names and or plaques of all of the Native Americans tribes in this country, now that would be cool . . .  I frankly do not think the name was offensive . . . I know you pointed out about the original owner Marshall, and perhaps there is something there . . . but he changed the name from Braves to Redskins due to a team duplicate (baseball v. football), I guess he could of choose Indians or something . . . but I am not so sure he changed it for racial reason . . . I just do not sense the Redskin being a demeaning and other slurs related to color or creed . . . and finally, if a good portion of Native Americans are not bothered by it, then I would not be bothered if the name stayed the same . . .  

 

Gandaff I think you and I pretty much agree on this point and I was just bringing into the thread points about the broader topic . . . what always annoy me, and you are not doing this, is that whenever these great causes come around people tend to focus just on one name or entity without looking at the big picture as there are, more often than not, plenty more offenses than just the one championed . . . and it kind of bothered me that Peter the Reporter was coming out of the blue with this as opposed to taking a broader approach to our sports names in general . . .  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a note

Cowboys is a derogatory name...

At the time..it referred to outcast....uncivilized..uncultured uneducated men who worked with the herd..smell bad....and came into town fighting and drinking and stinking.

They were the trailer trash of their time..

My point is..that like 'Redskins'..Cowboys was a phrase later used with honor as an homage to the old west.

The meaning 'now' is what matters in both cases

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Popular Now

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • That's what I was thinking
    • I think we're in good shape either way, it just adjusts our strategy with some extensions, and maybe we can't add another FA.    For a team like the Eagles, it completely changes their approach. If the cap is $175m, they can't keep Wentz without completely gutting the rest of their roster.
    • The trend is for the best offenses to be the teams contending for the Superbowl.  Are you aware of the basic Defense wins championships mantra?  You know Offense scores points?   I assume you are   Interstingly, the last really good D to win Superbowl was PHI and they had to score 44 points to do it v. No. 1 yanked Offense NE. And the Foles led offense carried them through the playoffs.  Before that it was Mannings Broncos.   Also intersesting is the 13-3 NE over LAR SB, featured the 25th and 27th ranked Ds in football.       The way to win in today's NFL is with high powered NFL passing offenses.  The rules are and have been set up that way increasingly over the last 20 years.   It's a lot different than when we were kids.   So like I said, it's usually Offense wins championships, Defense tries to hold teams to FGs.  There are occasionally anomalies but this is bascially accurate in todays' NFL.
    • There’s a good reason why defense everywhere suffered badly.   I can explain it in one word.  And you know the word.  Come on EVERYBODY say it with me!!!!   COVID!!   C-O-V-I-D!!   Defenses were poorer in the NFL and the college level as well.   Much less practice.  Much less contact.  Much less close up coaching.  Far more walk throughs.      When the world returns to normal, defenses will get better.  So will football. 
    • Not surprising at all. Here is how he ranked in other categories:   Intended Air Yards/PA - 26 Completed Air Yards/PA - 28 Completed Air Yards/Completion - 29 YAC/Completion - 2   First...it cannot be ignored that the Colts played (by far) the easiest schedule on offense. The average defense they played would have ranked ~23rd in DVOA. And that average was "deflated" somewhat by playing #1 defense PIT...when they clearly weren't the #1 defense anymore (after losing players to injury). That definitely played a factor.   Second...these numbers are as much Reich as it is anything. Reich uses the mesh concept (like he did with JB last year)...which creates open players in space and allows for YAC.    In fact, River's numbers (in the above categories) were very similar to JB's numbers last season. But Rivers is just a much better QB...and throws with better anticipation and accuracy. Throw in a HR hitter like Taylor and a young talented WR like Pittman...and you (naturally) have much better QB production with these concepts.   With the Colts offensive system, I think they could have immediate success with just about any talented QB they brought in...including a rookie. And if that QB is mobile...it will open up the playbook even more and raise the ceiling.   So I am in the minority here...but Rivers coming back doesn't move the needle for me. It's a lateral and stagnant move. I was all for the signing Rivers last off season...because it was the best of not-so-ideal situation. But if anything, it just proved that this team is ready to take the next step forward...and that means getting the right QB. Now is the time to make that move. So the only way I want Rivers back is if they get aggressive and move up to draft a QB who might need to sit for a part or all of a season.    TBH...I would rather roll the dice on Darnold and accept the risk of a reset year. I think he make a  good transition to this offense. And either he breaks out and suddenly you have a 24 year-old franchise QB...or he doesn't...and you have a reset year with the Colts in a much better position to draft a QB. Bringing back Rivers does nothing for the position long-term...and likely means another pick in the 20s.       
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...