MattFancy Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 Seems to be a more and more ESPNers coming out against the name. Then the schedule will come out today and we'll have 2 MNF games. Money is what matters here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sinister Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 Seems to be a more and more ESPNers coming out against the name. Then the schedule will come out today and we'll have 2 MNF games. Money is what matters here. Yeah.... It all seems fake as hell. If you truly believe in something then you'll stand behind it, and won't change your stance every time the wind blows your direction. If a bunch of people at a network truly feel that they can't associate themselves with the name "Redskins," then they'd refrain from trying to make a buck off of it, feigning disappointment, and treating it as nothing more than a designer jeans fad, dicking around with the people they claim to "Stand for." That **** makes me sick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BleedBNG Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 Extremists like her won't approve, but, at that point, she would finally be exposed for the nut that she is. Harjo and others like to use scalping as their origin of the name, or at least the negative of why it should be changed. The NA's may have learned it from Europeans, but they too were later doing the same with non-NA's. Since that's HER case, we're ALL Redskins. Anyways, I was watching an episode of Bonanza the other day, and they had the Indians calling the white man "pale eyes." Then I started to thinking if a few NA High Schools were to name their teams 'Pale Eyes' and wore logos of Daniel Boone, or Davy Crockett etc. and wore raccoon hats with buckskin jackets and all... would that offend me? Sorry, I just can't see it. In fact, my reaction would be "COOOL!." I honestly think that Harjo's only feelings about this is "You took something away from us, now we're taking something away from you." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 Now, a golfer? I didn't see his lineage till halfway thru, but Notah Begay has taken offense. I hope he realizes how many schools, which are proud of using the nickname themselves, would be affected. It's not just us. http://www.sbnation.com/golf/2014/4/23/5643588/notah-begay-washington-redskins-daniel-snyder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo#44 Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 This is the problem with this whole argument--it's NOT a black and white issue. There are some that feel it's offensive--like Begay. Fine. There are many others who like it--are you going to tell them they should be offended? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfitzo53 Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 I guess Smith flip flopped on the subject. Smith was against it, then okay with it, to now against it again. I remember a few months ago Smith said something like "hey, there are Native Amercians who apparently find pride in the name. Who are we as non-Native Americans to say what is or isn't offensive?" I'm not sure Steven A. Smith understands much beyond how to portray faux outrage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 Now, a golfer? I didn't see his lineage till halfway thru, but Notah Begay has taken offense. I hope he realizes how many schools, which are proud of using the nickname themselves, would be affected. It's not just us. http://www.sbnation.com/golf/2014/4/23/5643588/notah-begay-washington-redskins-daniel-snyder he called the name a 'slur'. i'd be interested to know if he's saying this based on personal experience. i'm sure we'll never know, since nobody digs that far into the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 This is the problem with this whole argument--it's NOT a black and white issue. There are some that feel it's offensive--like Begay. Fine. There are many others who like it--are you going to tell them they should be offended? That's why it's important to know the reasons for taking offense. Are they rational or Harjo-level crazy? This guy said the word is a slur, but that ignores that such a context is vastly outdated. He's big in the educational field and an Ivy Leaguer so safe bet he's very liberal and that could be more where his reaction is coming from. But in any case his reasoning was it's a slur, but again that completely ignores context. To be a slur there has to be a negative usage, an intention to insult or hurt, but there is no such intention with the name whatsoever. A lot of it simply is the assumption that mentioning skin color is taboo and implies a derogatory term. However for that to be true inferiority has to be suggested and in the case of the team that also is untrue. It's misguided PC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 A lot of it simply is the assumption that mentioning skin color is taboo and implies a derogatory term. However for that to be true inferiority has to be suggested and in the case of the team that also is untrue. It's misguided PC. Like your whole post X 10 I'm not sure Steven A. Smith understands much beyond how to portray faux outrage. he was against it before he was before it before he was against it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo#44 Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 That's why it's important to know the reasons for taking offense. Are they rational or Harjo-level crazy? This guy said the word is a slur, but that ignores that such a context is vastly outdated. He's big in the educational field and an Ivy Leaguer so safe bet he's very liberal and that could be more where his reaction is coming from. But in any case his reasoning was it's a slur, but again that completely ignores context. To be a slur there has to be a negative usage, an intention to insult or hurt, but there is no such intention with the name whatsoever. A lot of it simply is the assumption that mentioning skin color is taboo and implies a derogatory term. However for that to be true inferiority has to be suggested and in the case of the team that also is untrue. It's misguided PC. Don't get me wrong--I certainly do not agree with Begay. He is NA so I am not going to argue with him--he doesn't like it--fine. However, I do completely agree with you the amount of ignorance around the term "redskin" in general. If you go back to the protest in Green Bay (if you want to call about a dozen people a protest)--most of them are carrying signs saying that redskins refers to scalps--which is completely untrue. It also seems like the media is clinging to any of the offended--but not any of the people who think the name is honoring. Finally--if Snyder keeps opening his mouth--this debate is never going to go away. It needs to be treated like a fire--smother it--don't give it any fuel. These type of emotional, populist causes cannot maintain themselves. They will burn out--IF Snyder doesn't say or do anything else in regards to the name. Everytime he says anything--it is like throwing another log on. He needs to stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 That's why it's important to know the reasons for taking offense. Are they rational or Harjo-level crazy? This guy said the word is a slur, but that ignores that such a context is vastly outdated. He's big in the educational field and an Ivy Leaguer so safe bet he's very liberal and that could be more where his reaction is coming from. But in any case his reasoning was it's a slur, but again that completely ignores context. To be a slur there has to be a negative usage, an intention to insult or hurt, but there is no such intention with the name whatsoever. A lot of it simply is the assumption that mentioning skin color is taboo and implies a derogatory term. However for that to be true inferiority has to be suggested and in the case of the team that also is untrue. It's misguided PC. agree 1000% i really would like to know a little more about why he feels the way he does. again, not being a native american, i'm not going to tell him how to feel- if he was called a 'redskin' by some idiot, i get it. just curious if he acknowledges what you said- that there is a much more prominent and positive (or benign) meaning and context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 Maybe it's time we treated this topic like the collusion penalty was treated by the media and the NFL at large. "Next question" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sinister Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 Because he (Snyder) is the one that has to explain his side, if he wants to change perception. Ignoring/dismissing it, or talking with the tone he had in that blurb that was posted in here, doesn't help. Presenting his argument in a respectful, well thought out/calculated manner is the best way to combat this. The issue at hand isnt just the name. Its Snyders mainstream reputation. He may not care, but it could really help him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 I think he has explained it...certain people just are not listening to him...and won't ever listen to him. It is what it is. I think that any hearts and minds that would have been swayed over the topic have already changed or not changed them. The name change advocates won't bring any real facts to the table, because they work against what they are trying to sell the public. The Washington Redskins has a "dictionary defined racial slur" it it's name...fine, but so does the NAACP with "Colored People"....context matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 My grandfather on my mothers side was born on a Cherokee reservation in Arkansas in 1920. He's still kicking at 94. He's had Redskins season tickets since the 1960s and is the reason our entire family are die-hard Skins fans. We still have 4 in the upper deck at Fedex. He, of course, loves the name and would hate to see it changed. As we all would. I applaud the Dan Snyder PR campaign and the positive message he's trying to send, however belated it may be. But... Things change and the public's opinion can change with it. Sports teams change their name all the time, all over the world. If we do it on our terms, ahead of the rising tide, with a ton of class and are able to show pride in our history without condition…We could come outta this thing smelling like a rose. That's a whole lot better than being perceived as a villainous, bigoted franchise. Which is entirely plausible, and it is the worst possible outcome for someone like my grandfather, who deeply embraced the concept of the Redskins as the bootstrap underdogs who could rise up against the big-market, glamour teams like the Giants and Eagles and whoever else. I'm OK either way. As long as its done right. If we do it right, we will always be the "Redskins". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearfeather Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 There's no way that a Redskins name change will ever be portrayed by the media, or perceived by those against the name, as being done with a ton of class. Especially while Snyder is here. No way. Changing the name, will not leave us ' smelling like a rose '. Snyder has explained his position in his last two letters to the fans. He's not going to suddenly buckle and say " O,K., you win. ", It's just not going to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 There's no way that a Redskins name will ever be portrayed by the media, or perceived by those against the name, as being done with a ton of class. Especially while Snyder is here. No way. Changing the name, will not leave us ' smelling like a rose '. Snyder has explained his position in his last two letters to the fans. He's not going to suddenly buckle and say " O,K., you win. ", It's just not going to happen. So you're saying that there is no "right" way to do this. No way we can win. We are forever victims of "the media"? Is the "sudden buckle" the only option? Things will happen, no matter how many times you say "It's not going to happen". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearfeather Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 So you're saying that there is no "right" way to do this. No way we can win. We are forever victims of "the media"? Is the "sudden buckle" the only option? Things will happen, no matter how many times you say "It's not going to happen". Anything's possible years from now, so no, the " sudden buckle " isn't the only option. Do you see any indication that Snyder is considering a name change? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tweedr01 Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 So you're saying that there is no "right" way to do this. No way we can win. We are forever victims of "the media"? Is the "sudden buckle" the only option? Things will happen, no matter how many times you say "It's not going to happen". Yes. Yes. No. Sometimes, but not while Snyder is the owner, and I'm fine with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 Anything's possible years from now, so no, the " sudden buckle " isn't the only option. Do you see any indication that Snyder is considering a name change? Snyder has been working very hard on his public perception for several years now and well before the current controversy. He comes across, these last few years, as much softer and much more committed to his legacy..which we all share, as well. So, the answer is yes. But he has chosen a course to keep the name. To defend it vigorously, as he must. This is to his credit, and ours….But, we all have considered it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearfeather Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 . He comes across, these last few years, as much softer and much more committed to his legacy..which we all share, as well. So, the answer is yes. But he has chosen a course to keep the name. To defend it vigorously, as he must. This is to his credit, and ours….But, we all have considered it. Agree with your first statement, but I see that commitment to his legacy, as " The owner that kept the name ", not the " owner that gave up the name." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 I'd like to go back to this. Best helmet ever. Burgundy, gold, feather… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFKFedEx Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 I think most people here will see this as a sign of progress for keeping Native themes in sports. Keep in mind this is from a Native news source, not mainstream media. http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/04/22/utes-nickname-supported-ute-tribe-and-university-utah-sign-mou-154536 According to Wiki, the U of Utah employed the nick names 'Redskins' and 'Utes' interchangeably until 1972, when Utes became official. The Native themed human mascot continued for a few more decades until the Red Tailed Hawk became official in 1996. Not to be confused with the Miami University of Ohio, who also retired their Native themed 'Redskins' in favor of the Red Hawks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 I think most people here will see this as a sign of progress for keeping Native themes in sports. Keep in mind this is from a Native news source, not mainstream media. http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/04/22/utes-nickname-supported-ute-tribe-and-university-utah-sign-mou-154536 According to Wiki, the U of Utah employed the nick names 'Redskins' and 'Utes' interchangeably until 1972, when Utes became official. The Native themed human mascot continued for a few more decades until the Red Tailed Hawk became official in 1996. Not to be confused with the Miami University of Ohio, who also retired their Native themed 'Redskins' in favor of the Red Hawks. i thought we were supposed to be doing away with native american themes for sports teams? you know there are going to be some unhappy people, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFKFedEx Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 i thought we were supposed to be doing away with native american themes for sports teams? you know there are going to be some unhappy people, right? I don't doubt that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.