Henry Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 Al, I think what Om is trying to say is that if you walk up to your boss and say "how are you today, you bug-eyed ratf*cking n*gger," whatever your intentions may have been, you'll probably get a pink slip. The Constitution keeps you from going to jail in that case. Not from getting fired. That's the difference between free speech and good taste. What we and the media are debating is where the term "Redskin" falls in the taste specturm. Free Speech isn't even an issue here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 hahahaha, I just had a thought. Somebody should design some kickass tomahawk with a feather on it and everything. Sell them at Chesapeake Knife stores or wherever under the name "Redskin". It's just a name like "knife" or "sword", then the Skins change the logo on the Helmet to that and tell everybody to piss off. ok, too much coffee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 henry...au contraire mon ami.......this is an organized effort...those are policy statements by newspapers and their editors...not recommendations to individuals making individual choices.....wanna bet that they will control advertising in their papers also? I can be an idiot and say those things to my boss........but there is no policy that specifically proscribes that sort of language.... again...I think it is very dangerous, extremely dangerous...to start issuing policies based on how people react to statements....it chills speech before it ever occurs: and that is clearly what is happening with these newspapers. it controls speech based on imagined intent. it also attempts to control speech based on something approaching a "majority rules" approach.......something I would think the ACLU would fight...but what do I know....I'm just the probable descendent of butchering slave masters....or am I? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 How can be both liberal and fascist? I'm confused :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 whoever said a Liberal person irt goals was beyond using fascist METHODS for achieving his/her ends? I fail to see any inconsistency.......but you're catching on to the general drift of all of this....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 TEG, Liberal and Facisist have been synonomous since about 1935. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 Originally posted by OPM TEG, Liberal and Facisist have been synonomous since about 1935. I respectfully disagree. The antithesis of fascism is communism. As we all know, communism is liberalism to the extreme. Fascism is a "system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism." (per American Heritage dictionary). I would think that you could deduce the differences between a fascist and a liberal (or even... say a communist). Liberal platforms usually echew censorship. In fact liberals are blamed for corrupting family values with that. Do liberals suppress through a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 Granted, the PC movement can be viewed as a form of censorship. Perhaps it is 100% censorship. It truly is inconsistent with the other general ideals of liberalism, save the ideal of not shoving rampant nationalism down one's throat. That said, I have strayed off onto some weird tangent - I apologize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 edit - sorry about the double post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 you answered your own question!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 Originally posted by The Evil Genius I respectfully disagree. The antithesis of fascism is communism. As we all know, communism is liberalism to the extreme. Fascism is a "system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism." (per American Heritage dictionary). I would think that you could deduce the differences between a fascist and a liberal (or even... say a communist). Liberal platforms usually echew censorship. In fact liberals are blamed for corrupting family values with that. Do liberals suppress through a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism? The person your argument is with is a man who died several years ago and, in fact, won a nobel prize for this idea and others. In fact the definition of facism used by the dictionary is almost the exactly how he defined communism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gridironmike Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 Originally posted by rellim A long ways back, a lot of people felt that slavery and bigotry was perfectly acceptable. I've never been able to find one, but I'd love to find a 1933 version of a dictionary and see what the definition was for the word "redskin." Then we would have a better guage of the name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gridironmike Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 Originally posted by rellim If it is a term derived from Red Warpaint, then why does the Redskins logo a profile shot of an indian man, with no Red Warpaint? If you'll lok at the logo as it originally appeared in 1972, the whole face was a reddish tint. Go to http://www.helmethut.com and look at some of their older Redskins helmets. Over time, Riddell changed the color to a more brown looking face. I don't have a reason for this, just an observation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gridironmike Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 Originally posted by Bandit You know, if the Skins logo was put a nice 50 cent coin praising the Native American. People would love it. Nobody woudl complain. I've had a theory for years that the current logo was based on the popular "buffalo" nickel or "indian head" nickel. I have a book at home that says the design was "borrowed" from the U.S. Mint (and I'll post the title of it when I get home). James Earl Fraser designed the coin and used three Native Americans as models for the coin. I can't remember their names right off hand, but one of them was at Big Horn. Fraser is also famous for the sculpture "End of the Trail" which I have proudly displayed in my Redskins room. A couple of years ago, the U.S. Mint rereleased the design as a silver dollar with 500,000 minted. Earlier this year, I posted the name of an article in the Washington Post "Style" section from around 1993. The title was "Bury My Heart At RFK." Look it up in the Washington Post Archives. It is an informative article on the naming of the team and those that want it changed. My opinion is keep the name and these PC writers should report on the news, not their views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 Originally posted by Om ... the fact remains that SOME native americans find the term highly offensive. This one certainly does. Back to the issue. I don't know how to approach this except by taking in as much info as possible. I have a good friend who is part Cherokee and has hated the fact that I like the Redskins and was almost in tears when I was putting Redskin SB penants up on the wall. He would never give me a legit reason other then the common "it's like calling a team the New York ni**ers." After much prodding he shared with me what his grandmother told him. It is the same account in the link OM posted. Now, reliable or not, my friend is a proud Native American. His father is white and he is a Tampa Bay fan, so I try to say he's predjeduced against homosexuals:silly: But seriously, there are so many accounts of the origin of the nickname. If the trading of "redskins" is a fact, and there are several accounts that back this up that would be horrible. Change the fu*king name. Think of the jews and a term that could be used derogatorly to describe a part of their dead or charred body during the holocaust. This is disgusting. I love this team down to the very last drop of blood in my body. I love the name the logo and the history and this site. Everything about this team I love, even when we do stupid ****. But if our name is based on something similar to that account my friend has shared with me, I don't want this as our name. As for the article WTF does this mean????? We need only go back 40 years into our files to remind ourselves they were the last NFL team to employ a black man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 As for the article WTF does this mean?????We need only go back 40 years into our files to remind ourselves they were the last NFL team to employ a black man. I think the author is implying that the organization is racist because at one time three owners ago the owner was racist. It's what's known as a cheap shot ... even in Seattle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montilar Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 This is your typical pc idiocy. If you shove that poll down the pc crowd's throat, they will say, "you didn't poll enough people" or "your poll is biased". Mention the fact that the term "seminole" was only offensive until Florida State PAID the tribe money to use the name. All of a sudden it was "use it as long as you want". Same for some other usages of indian names and mascots. I've mentioned it several times and regret not saving it, but on the old bleachers site years ago, someone posted an article about the VA tribal council (composed of or representing every tribe in VA) trying to hold up Jack Kent Cooke. Wish I had a clue where the article came from....) They offered him endorsement of the skins name IF he would guarentee several "internships" for indians in the skins office. And also paid them off. Now I think it would be interesting if someone would decide to research all this (the poll, articles on stuff such the names being acceptable once the activists are bought off, etc.) and put it down all together in a book siting the sources for the info.... (Hey, Rich, got a book idea for ya. If you got enough ammo, might stir some more controversy up. Or put some egg on some pc idiot's face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awgustlab Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 my letter: Dear Jackass - Hail To The Redskins!! Yours Truly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gridironmike Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 Originally posted by gridironmike I've had a theory for years that the current logo was based on the popular "buffalo" nickel or "indian head" nickel. I have a book at home that says the design was "borrowed" from the U.S. Mint (and I'll post the title of it when I get home). James Earl Fraser designed the coin and used three Native Americans as models for the coin. I can't remember their names right off hand, but one of them was at Big Horn. Fraser is also famous for the sculpture "End of the Trail" which I have proudly displayed in my Redskins room. A couple of years ago, the U.S. Mint rereleased the design as a silver dollar with 500,000 minted. The name of the book is "Great Teams' Great Years Washington Redskins" by Jack Clary Copyright 1974, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 73-21302. In the description of the Redskins helmet evolution it says "George Allen reinstated burgundy (for the helmet color) and borrowed rest of his design from the U.S. Mint." The first ever Redskins jersey (actually Boston Braves) had the right profile of a warrior on the chest of the jersey and the 1937 jersey had the right side profile of a warrior on each sleeve (as did the 1994 throwback jersey which was based on the 1937 version). Anyhow, this way just all for future reference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryman of the North Posted January 31, 2003 Share Posted January 31, 2003 did you guys know that the name sioux was a deroratory term for the lakota dakota and nakota people all im saying is that there are several names which people find offensive but you dont see duch people getting all pissy about the knicks!(knickerbocker was a derogatory term for people of duch descent back in the day) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBMGreatOne Posted January 31, 2003 Share Posted January 31, 2003 I went ahead and broke character to email this clown as well, if anybody cares here it is: "Still, It's hard to find anyone who thinks 'Redskins' acceptable," "We need only go back 40 years into our files to remind ourselves they were the last NFL Team to employ a black man" It would be hard to find anyone who finds your journalism acceptable. What you have said is entirely your opinion and you do almost nothing to attach any credibility to any of it. I hope you don't feel some kind of moral fulfillment in fighting battles for people who by and large don't take any issue with the so called "offenses" that have been alledgedly "perpetrated" against them. This article is pure trash. -Someone who doesn't appreciate himself or his team being called bigots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn X Posted February 15, 2003 Share Posted February 15, 2003 For those who are interested, here is a link to the results of the Sports Illustrated poll that CounterTre alluded to earlier: http://www.nationalreview.com/daily/nr030802.shtml The poll clearly shows that most Native Americans do not feel this issue to be a pressing one. (And for those who would doubt the findings of this poll, wondering if SI perhaps “cooked the books” to get a pro-Redskins result, I would kindly refer you to the following quote from longtime SI and Chicago Sun-Times sports columnist Rick Telander as a window into SI’s probable thinking on this matter: “Every time I watch the Washington Redskins or the Cleveland Indians (with their grotesque Chief Wahoo) I wonder what it must feel like to be a Native American sports fan and see oneself depicted in this way. It just plain gives me the willies. Team Spirits: The Native American Mascots Controversy [a book to which Suzan Harjo, the plaintiff in the still-pending copyright revocation lawsuit against the Washington Redskins, is a contributing writer] shows me why.” The foregoing quote appears on the back cover of Team Spirits: The Native American Mascots Controversy, which can be found here: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0803277989/qid=1045255766/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/103-9621318-4827839?v=glance&s=books ) However, to me, what’s even more interesting than the poll itself is the way the media responded to the poll. Or, more to the point, the way that they didn’t respond to it at all. I found the handling of this news item by ESPN’s Pardon the Interruption to be emblematic of the sports media at large. A week went by after the issue of SI that contained the poll results in question had hit newsstands, and PTI had nothing to say about it, not a peep. Then a Native American gentleman who serves as, if memory serves, some sort of cultural studies professor at some dinky college in northern Colorado decides that he’s going to put together a club men’s basketball team (as the prof’s college apparently doesn’t offer much in the way of intramural sports) and call the squad the Fighting Whities. He will emblazon the team’s jerseys with a circa 1950s/Ward Cleaver-looking caricature of a white man and a slogan underneath it that reads, “Everythang’s gonna be all white!” You see, this professor was doing this to try to make whites feel the same way he felt every time he saw a Washington Redskins game on television. He wanted whites to feel as objectified as he did. Ultimately, the enterprise largely backfired on our intrepid professor, as the response of most whites to his “social experiment” was to laugh their asses off and try to find out how they could purchase their very own Fighting Whities t-shirt. But to the hosts of PTI, Tony Kornheiser and Michael Wilbon, this was no laughing matter. No, this was a matter of supreme import to them. After spending about a minute-and-a-half (which is a veritable eternity on their temporally-obsessed program) chewing over this Fighting Whities news item, both reached the conclusion that the Native American sports mascot issue was “clearly” one that “most Native Americans” were “concerned about” and that the Redskins, for example, should do “the right thing” and mollify these concerns by dumping their “controversial” nickname. Of course, what Kornheiser and Wilbon conveniently failed to mention during their discussion was that Sports Illustrated, not exactly some small, unknown periodical, had published the results of their aforementioned survey only days earlier, results that scientifically verified that this “issue” was one that most Native Americans were actually not concerned about, including the eminently “controversial” nickname of Washington’s pro football team. What this proved to me was the following: (a) if an activist, particularly one who is female and/or a member of an ethnic minority, decides to try to agitate for change on a specific issue, arguing that said issue is not simply near & dear to his/her heart but “is important to all my people,” the (sports) news media will readily take such an assertion as ironclad fact and report it as such; and ( if an individual news organization, even one as prominent and well-respected as Sports Illustrated, does some research on the matter and finds evidence that contradicts such an assertion by such an activist, that information will go under- or practically un-reported by most other media outlets. Think about it: SI finds that most Native Americans simply aren’t offended by the nickname Redskins and aren’t emotionally invested in the whole “Native American sports mascot controversy” and SI has the statistics to back it up, but that apparently matters not. However, there’s a lone activist from some tiny college that virtually no one’s ever heard of who is offended and is emotionally invested and he’s got the brightly colored t-shirts to back it up, so there must be something to his claims, right? Look, I understand that there are Native Americans out there who are riled up over this (not a plurality, mind you), and they have a perfect right to express themselves. But what I don’t like is the media picking sides here and acting is if the feelings shared by themselves and a coterie of angry activists represent the prevailing sentiment when they do not. To be completely honest, there was a time when I bought the media’s line about this issue, hook, line, and sinker. I was totally of the mindset that the Redskins should change their nickname because “all the Native Americans want it to be changed.” It seemed sensible to me that those folks who saw the nickname as an epithet would want it jettisoned, and I was more than willing to have the team do so if it would make “all the Native Americans” happy. However, after I did some digging, I found that Suzan Harjo, who has agitated most vehemently for the Redskins to do away with their nickname, didn’t represent all Native Americans and that she wasn’t really interested in Redskins in the manner she claimed to be. For her, it wasn’t really about the word Redskins being an epithet. To be sure, yes, she did feel it to be epithetical. But that wasn’t the whole story. The reality was that she wanted ALL teams with Native American nicknames and mascots to be forced to divest themselves of such names and symbols. Along with the Redskins, she wanted such decidedly uncontroversial nicknames as Braves, Chiefs, Blackhawks, Seminoles, Apaches, etc. to also be declared off-limits. Why is that? Harjo never comes out and says this directly, but it seems clear to me that she can’t stand the fact that The Evil White Man is using such nicknames and mascots to adorn the helmets and jerseys of his teams. The Evil White Man should stay the hell away from Native American names and symbology, she seems to be saying. And Harjo does not appear to be alone in feeling this way. In fact, a good many activists who agitate on this issue, whether of Native American or, say, Caucasian American descent, seem to share this basically segregationist point of view. The reality is that the Redskins could change their nickname tomorrow to something that no reasonable person could ever construe as epithetical, like Warriors or Braves or Apaches, and that still wouldn’t be good enough for Ms. Harjo and those of her ilk. Nothing short of the complete and utter banishment of Native American nicknames and mascots from the pro, college, and high school sports landscape would make her happy. Once I realized this, I came to the conclusion that folks like Harjo were simply out-to-lunch and that the nickname Redskins, a nickname that many on this message board have argued quite forcefully and persuasively is not an epithet, should not be changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted February 15, 2003 Share Posted February 15, 2003 This is a PC bu!!sh!t article by some left leaning weenie that wants to show he is "sensitive" and wants to do the right thing. When my Mom worked for the Redskins and the Sr Mr Cooke, she said he had a book full of letters from American Indians saying how proud they were to have a professional sports team named after them. Like the real poll shows, real Indians have no problems with the name for the most part. It's just the loud mouthed left wing minority of people that hijacked the idea to further their agendas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisFul Posted February 15, 2003 Share Posted February 15, 2003 I can't believe that some HS team in Illinois got away with calling themselves "Chinks" until 1981. That blows my mind. That's like a team down here in Georgia calling themselves the "So and So County High School ******s". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yank Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 I find it interesting that the original article used the phrase "Worse, they'll probably have to spend millions suing the renegade dealers who start selling counterfeit stuff. " Just about every cowboy movie I saw in the 60s used the term "renegades" instead of "redskins" when trying to be derogotory. When I hear the term renegade now the only image I have is of those people the "enlightened" author is railing about. Just shows how really insensitive the supposedly sensitive PC cabal is. Speech and thought police are notorioously communist (i.e., liberal) and facist ideas - can't believe there's been a question about that. Stalin and Hitler were Bobsey twins there. But their hypocricy was transparent - just as that of the PC crowd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.