2cents Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Bob Hope used to do black face comedy on national television in the 1950s. He stopped doing it bc he evolved in wake of growing public sentiment against the act. Do you think Bob would have gone on to host the Academy Awards a dozen times had he insisted on doing black face through the 1970s? Does anybody remember Hope as a racist today? I sure don't.Watching the Herschel Walker special on ESPN, a few people at SEC football games were still waving confederate flags in the early 1980s. Do you think the SEC would rule college football today if those schools and their fans insisted on excising their right to fly the Star and Bars everywhere? People evolve, times change. Our nickname and mascot are outdated. Again.....read post 18, read the poll that says NINTY ONE PERCENT of Native Americans are not offended by the name. Native Americans use the name and mascot for THEIR schools. The only thing outdated here is the mindset that politically correct people think they know what is best for everyone and need to force their narrow minded view of the world on everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Here's my question.Even if you consider "Redskins" to be derogatory...what law is it breaking? How could a court force a private organization to change its name due to it's offensive nature? Again, as a private organization it cannot be forced to change its name. However, if they wish to continue to enjoy IP, corporate and the other protections afforded to them by positive government action, they ARE breaking the laws relative to those issues if you consider the name derogatory. To take advantage of laws that provide for IP and incorporation, you subject your organization to government control that would otherwise be unconstitutional. This is part of what is known as regulatory capture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 How dare you sir! lol, er, I don't know man, maybe I'm more empathetic to the idea that its a obviously a racist name. The only reason we get away with it is because the Native Americans are such a small majority. If they truly don't care, then sweet, keep the good times rolling. But if a significant portion really think its racist as hell, then we should change it. ...but we've been through all this before... i'm not trying to bash you, but are you reading the posts in this thread that talk factually about how native americans feel about the name? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky21 Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Look nobody enjoys bashing Dan Snyder more than me. Well, OK, a couple of folks here do. Snyder has said over and over again that he will NEVER change the name of the team while he is the owner. The team is privately held. He makes the decisions. The name won't change but we will keep on discussing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Is there really something to be concerned about either way? I'm a DC sports fan, I grew up in NoVA and if the skins had to change their name cause a group of Native Americans legitimately won a lawsuit against the team there's zero chance it affects my opinion of the team. If I've cheered for them through the past 20 years of mediocrity and less than mediocre performance, a cosmetic change to the team isn't going to change anything. I might have a problem with the Washington Sea Dogs. Otherwise, a rose by any other name... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bliz Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Please. Florida State's going to lose the Seminoles? Atlanta's going to lose the Braves? The ultra-PC groups might complain, but that's about all that's going to happen. And don't forget about the Cleveland Indians. No one will ever convince me that anything about our team name is nearly as offensive as this: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2cents Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 So check this out.....http://msn.foxsports.com/collegefootball/story/north-dakota-votes-to-drop-fighting-sioux-nickname-061212 North Dakota votes to drop the name and Native Americans are upset that they did and want it reinstated. That should end arguments right there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky21 Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 The NCAA is a huge bunch of hypocrits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinFaninOKC Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 My grandfather was full blood Choctaw. When I picked the Skins as my team NO ONE in my family said a word. He was a pretty laid back guy and never said Redskin was derogatory. I wore hats and shirts with logos and words to his house often too. It wasn't until I was in my early 20's that I learned Native Americans were offended by the term. I guess living in Texas and Oklahoma the majority of my life sheltered me a tad. Anyway Native Americans have way bigger issues than fighting over the name of our team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Why don't they ever demand the Buffalo Bills change their name? Talk about a slap in the face... ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThomasRoane Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 How exactly is the term Sioux derogatory when there were actually Sioux Indians? I'm just a little bit Cherokee so my opinion doesn't carry a lot of weight. But for the life of me I don't know why Native Americans would not want to see their Tribal names used in a respectful fashion. The only offensive mascot I know of is the Cleveland Indians. All others just sound bad ass. If they keep this up then their tribal names will just fade away completely. The NCAA is full of it. So what about over half our state names? Most of them are named after Native American tribes. Clueless idiots!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 I'm just a little bit Cherokee so my opinion doesn't carry a lot of weight. But for the life of me I don't know why Native Americans would not want to see their Tribal names used in a respectful fashion. The only offensive mascot I know of is the Cleveland Indians. All others just sound bad ass. If they keep this up then their tribal names will just fade away completely. The NCAA is full of it. So what about over half our state names? Most of them are named after Native American tribes. Clueless idiots!! Sioux is NOT a tribal name as it is a word that means "enemy" or "the evil ones". Respectful tribal name for this tribe would be Lakota, Black Feet or Teton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFKFedEx Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Sioux is NOT a tribal name as it is a word that means "enemy" or "the evil ones". Respectful tribal name for this tribe would be Lakota, Black Feet or Teton. There are a lot of cases in history where the common names we think of as Native American are just bass ackward labels the whites tagged on indegionous groups bc the Europeans were misinformed as to who was who, and the truth didn't really matter at the time. i.e. Indians in North America and not Asia where real Indians reside to this day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 There are a lot of cases in history where the common names we think of as Native American are just bass ackward labels the whites tagged on indegionous groups bc the Europeans were misinformed as to who was who, and the truth didn't really matter at the time. i.e. Indians in North America and not Asia where real Indians reside to this day. This one was pinned on them by some other tribe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2cents Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 This one was pinned on them by some other tribe. Oh, you mean another tribe....as in its a Native American term? And not stupid misinformed white people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Oh, you mean another tribe....as in its a Native American term? And not stupid misinformed white people Yeah but naming the mascot the "Fighting Black Feet" is much cooler than the "Fighting Sioux", wouldn't you agree? Of course, if the Redskins changed their name to the Powhatans, I think that would be offensive to anybody that lives in DC or Maryland, IIRC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SB17 Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Wasn't Mark Rypien part native American? I never heard him complain about the name. (just saying) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MontanaSkins Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 I think the name has evolved from a offensive term for native americans to a team's nickname in the biggest sport in the US. I think when most people hear the word Redskins now their first thought is our team not a native american. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 For those wondering why somebody could argue "Redskins" as we know and love them is offensive when school on reservations have the same mascots, I just wonder if it isn't the same as a white guy calling a Black man a N#$%^ versus a Black guy calling another Black guy the same thing. Sometimes who is speaking matters. That said, there are many times when the passage of generations leads to terms being reinvented. I was taking part in a discussion on racism and I pointed out that through only a few generations words develop very different connotations. For example answer quickly the first thing that comes to mind: 1) Who lives in the ghetto? 2) Is the term ghetto always negative? 3) Is "ghetto-fabulous" a negative or a positive term? When I was asked these, I threw the questioner for loop because my answer to number 1 was "Jews." However, that feeds right into my point about terms coming to mean very different things relatively quickly. For the record, I think those polls speak to the term "Redskin" now having very different cultural connotations than it may have once had. It would appear to be acceptable now save to those few whose first thoughts are of something completely different, like me with "ghetto." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roanoker Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 ZZZZZZZZZZBut wouldn't we all fall through the floor if it really happened? Yeah, we'd get over it, but wow. We'd all have to buy new stuff. (Marketing ploy, perhaps?)lol:yikes: Don't think it will happen. The Redskin name, whether its trademark will be allowed to stand has been discussed and litigated ad nauseam. 2009 the Supreme Court refused to hear the case. I was lying in bed last night looking at the stars and wondered where in the hell did my roof go? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sQuijeW Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 give it one more generation and all these racial slurs that are offensive today are going to fall away. only to be replaced by new ones... prejudice is part of the circle of life. survival of the fittest comes in all forms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailfrmDEN Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Hail to the Redskins! Man that sounds so mean. Syke! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2cents Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Yeah but naming the mascot the "Fighting Black Feet" is much cooler than the "Fighting Sioux", wouldn't you agree? Of course, if the Redskins changed their name to the Powhatans, I think that would be offensive to anybody that lives in DC or Maryland, IIRC. But I'm sure the term Black Foot would offend someone somehow and then we would have to change it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Wasn't Mark Rypien part native American? I never heard him complain about the name. (just saying) Well, it really wasn't that offensive during Joe Gibbs time. Its only been offensive from about the late 50s to the mid 60s (after that we were at least fun) and from 1993 to present (though as a Redskins fan, I believe it soon will not be offensive again) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wholee Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 How about we just change it to "No-Offense Redskins". That makes everything better right? The name is here to stay! No offense but...HTTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.