grego Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 It's an attempt at meaningless hair splitting to get around the fact the name is obviously an offensive term. e. I don't understand how someone could know that most native Americans not only don't find it offensive but at least one Native American high school uses the name as its mascot , yet hold to your position that its "obviously" a racist term. Ponderous, man. Freaking ponderous. You may as well have said the moon is made of Swiss cheese. It would have made more sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveakl Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 I suggested to Dan we quit screwing around and change it to The Washington Jumbos. Have you seen those ears? More like Dumbo. (sorry, one of my kids fav movies) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 I suggested to Dan we quit screwing around and change it to The Washington Jumbos. Nah, we're more of a speed team than a size team, these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 I suggested to Dan we quit screwing around and change it to The Washington Jumbos. If the team reflected your typical posts then they would have 30 play drives :pfft: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tweedr01 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 There are at least 10 posters in this thread who are waving around the "political correctness is killing us we have to take a stand" banner. He's just one of them. Is this really where we need to take a stand? Our god given right to call our team the Redskins? I just don't get it. Is this the hill to die on to save the world from runaway sensitivity to other people's feelings? And for the record, I mention how long I have been a proud fan of this team to demonstrate that I'm not coming to this question from the outside. I'm a huge Redskins fan and will be for life - even if the name gets changed to something less controversial. I mean, people take a stand with things they find important, just because his stance is different from yours doesn't make his any less important. You claim he's making a stand against being PC, but you are making a stand to be PC, I'd pose the same question to you. I do understand the context of explaining your history of fandom, but you do it by belittling someone else's fandom because of his age. I'm younger than him and I'd argue I'm a bigger fan than both of you. I of course say this expecting you to argue that, what kind of fan would you be if you didn't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike42 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Any word in the dictionary can offend anyone/anything. I wish some people would just admit that the name "Redskin" is only out of respect for Native Americans and not hate. It's just a name of professional football team and most people aren't bothered by it. Sure, it would be another story if all us hated Native Indians and called our team redskins out of some sick weird joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stadium-Armory Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 I don't support the name change. But if they did change to The Washington Warriors, it wouldn't be the end of the world. I'd probably still call them the 'Skins just like I call the Bullets the Bullets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFKFedEx Posted February 7, 2013 Author Share Posted February 7, 2013 90% of Native Americans agree with me. I find the 90% approval figure interesting. Who was sampled in this poll? Were the respondants modern day affiliates with a Nation? Had the respondants been subjected to DNA testing to verify their heritage? Were the respondants due paying members of a Nation? Did the respondants regulary engage in tribal activites? I ask these questions bc I've met a lot of people over the years who claim to have Native heritage, but couldn't answer yes to any the questions above. A person might have a tatoo of an Native in a head dress, but that doesn't give them street cred to say they're Native IMO. I think you'd be pressed to get 90% approval out of card carrying Natives, of which there aren't many in the DC area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 The PC police just can''t fathom the fact that many just don't construe the word "redskins" as a perjorative. Conversly the ONLY contex that the word is used is in connection with a football team. They just won't go away. It's the annual lets just try this lame argument yet again and ignore some real problems that affict the native american population. All of them. pathetic & predictible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 I find the 90% approval figure interesting. Who was sampled in this poll? Were the respondants modern day affiliates with a Nation? Had the respondants been subjected to DNA testing to verify their heritage? Were the respondants due paying members of a Nation? Did the respondants regulary engage in tribal activites? I ask these questions bc I've met a lot of people over the years who claim to have Native heritage, but couldn't answer yes to any the questions above. A person might have a tatoo of an Native in a head dress, but that doesn't give them street cred to say they're Native IMO. I think you'd be pressed to get 90% approval out of card carrying Natives, of which there aren't many in the DC area. I would like to see more information about this. Maybe a more extensive study with stats per state and especially pay attention to what folks who live on reservations say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 I would like to see more information about this. Maybe a more extensive study with stats per state and especially pay attention to what folks who live on reservations say. If you're really interested in this "study" then you can find in many of the prior threads on this subject that happen here annually. I've been here a LONG time & believe me it 's there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tweedr01 Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 Do we respond to intentional misinformation by providing facts, or by throwing up our hands and agreeing with it? This, so much of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 Well, I'm just a PC troll now. Oh well. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going Commando Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 Well, I'm just a PC troll now. Oh well. P C Troll... unwilling to lie to yourself to cover up the obvious inconsistency that it's not ok to refer to anybody else at all by the color of their skin except native americans and I just so happen to be a life long fan of a team that's nickname is a slur referring to native americans by the color of their skin--What's the difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostofSparta Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 P C Troll... unwilling to lie to yourself to cover up the obvious inconsistency that it's not ok to refer to anybody else at all by the color of their skin except native americans and I just so happen to be a life long fan of a team that's nickname is a slur referring to native americans by the color of their skin--What's the difference? In case anyone was curious, this reaction to the skin color aspect of the term is precisely why everyone is so convinced now that it's a derogatory term. Even though it hasn't been widely used in 100 years. And wasn't derogatory when it was used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 I think you missed his point.We don't openly identify people and refer to them by the color of their skin. Any people. Because it's bad. We're not really supposed to identify or delineate people based on the color of their skin. Our country has a long, awful history of doing that, so we're supposed to make an effort not to do it any more. Bill Clinton is white. Herman Cain is black. Did I just say something bad? I'm reading a lot of specious arguments based mostly on emotion in this thread. I think the people who get so heated and dogmatic in defense of the name sense that there is something wrong about the name deep down. I think they like the status quo though, they like the tradition, and they don't like thinking or hearing that the thing they love is bad, they don't like racism in the abstract and they don't like the idea that they love something that's got a racist name.I think the name will change eventually though, and I don't think it's going to be that big a deal. It's not worth the trouble IMO and I think keeping the name is actually bad for the brand in the rest of the world. It makes us look somewhat pariah. I hear a couple of folks in this thread saying that. In my experience its simply not true. I don't come across people in my day to day life who think the name Redskins is bad. Maybe you do, but I do not. If I start to come across a growing number of people who genuinely think this I might change my mind. So far the rare times I've heard anything of the sort its been from fans of another NFL team looking to taunt. And the next thing out of their mouths is sometimes a variation of "and your owner Jewy McJewboy sucks". So much for heartfelt outrage at cultural faux pas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wysknz1 Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 I'm personally offended by the term Cowboys.. I find the name Cowboys offensive because the University of Wyoming Cowboys had it first and d*ll*s should've found another name to ruin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 I find the 90% approval figure interesting. Who was sampled in this poll? Were the respondants modern day affiliates with a Nation? Had the respondants been subjected to DNA testing to verify their heritage? Were the respondants due paying members of a Nation? Did the respondants regulary engage in tribal activites? Any other possible excuses you can think of, to ignore the data? I've got an idea. How about, instead of speculating if maybe there's some excuse you con find to ignore it, speculating as to why the numerous people who've filed numerous lawsuits haven't run their own poll? Seems to me like a poll like that would go a long way towards proving their allegations that the name is offensive, wouldn't it? If the results were grossly different from the one major poll we've already got, that is. I ask these questions bc I've met a lot of people over the years who claim to have Native heritage, but couldn't answer yes to any the questions above. A person might have a tatoo of an Native in a head dress, but that doesn't give them street cred to say they're Native IMO. I think you'd be pressed to get 90% approval out of card carrying Natives, of which there aren't many in the DC area. Well, I'm one of them. (Well, affiliates with a Nation. No, I'm not a "card carrying Native". Up until recently, to get a membership card, you had to go to the tribal office in Oklahoma to get it. They've changed the rules, last few years. Send in a fee, the documentation, and a passport photo, and they'll mail you the card. Tell you what. How about you decide who's Native enough for your standards, and then have somebody conduct a poll with that criteria? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 I find the 90% approval figure interesting. Who was sampled in this poll? Were the respondants modern day affiliates with a Nation? Had the respondants been subjected to DNA testing to verify their heritage? Were the respondants due paying members of a Nation? Did the respondants regulary engage in tribal activites? I ask these questions bc I've met a lot of people over the years who claim to have Native heritage, but couldn't answer yes to any the questions above. A person might have a tatoo of an Native in a head dress, but that doesn't give them street cred to say they're Native IMO. I think you'd be pressed to get 90% approval out of card carrying Natives, of which there aren't many in the DC area. You're so zealously supportive of a name change, yet you're just now questioning the methodology of a survey that doesn't support your point? A survey that's talked about every time this subject comes up? Unbelievable. How about get your facts straight before forming such a strong opinion? If you're really interested in this "study" then you can find in many of the prior threads on this subject that happen here annually. I've been here a LONG time & believe me it 's there. Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 I would like to see more information about this. Maybe a more extensive study with stats per state and especially pay attention to what folks who live on reservations say. Same response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tweedr01 Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 I see nothing in the name Redskins that is derogatory or disparaging.Fighting Irish ties right in with the stereotype of the drunk, brawling Irish man. I don't think it is offensive, but some do because of the easy connection and have said so in this thread. Similar to those offended by Redskin because of the easy connection. So what makes you qualified to say those offended by one name are right and those offended by another name are wrong? "Who, easy there cowboy." The implication being cowboys are overly aggressive, which could be construed as offensive. So if a group isn't around any more, then they are fair game? You don't think there are descendants of Vikings alive today? Do you realize that Viking was a derogatory term used by the Saxons to label Norse as pirates, whether they were or not? Maybe there are Nordic folk offended by the term. I am Norwegian and Irish, and they can both be offensive, but I understand they are used in a revering manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 Well, I'm just a PC troll now. Oh well. Yeah, people debating by throwing around labels that they can't even support really suck, huh? There are at least 10 posters in this thread who are waving around the "political correctness is killing us we have to take a stand" banner. He's just one of them. Meh, I think you're lying to yourself and convincing yourself that Redskins isn't a derogatory term with specious arguments despite the fact that it's obviously a derogatory term. The PC Crowd Boogyman" is really big in this thread, . . . I think most people know the word Redskins is an offensive name and yet they will continue to defend it's usage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 I find the 90% approval figure interesting. Who was sampled in this poll? Were the respondants modern day affiliates with a Nation? Had the respondants been subjected to DNA testing to verify their heritage? Were the respondants due paying members of a Nation? Did the respondants regulary engage in tribal activites? I ask these questions bc I've met a lot of people over the years who claim to have Native heritage, but couldn't answer yes to any the questions above. A person might have a tatoo of an Native in a head dress, but that doesn't give them street cred to say they're Native IMO. I think you'd be pressed to get 90% approval out of card carrying Natives, of which there aren't many in the DC area. Wait, wait, wait. You have actually asked people identifying themselves as Native American if they can prove it to you with a DNA test? Seriously? That is more stunningly offensive that anything else I've seen in this thread. I can't believe yiou've actually done this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 Rfk, If someone comes in from outside and tells you it's sunny and 70 degrees out, but you thought it was snowing, are you going to go out and check for yourself? Or are you going to tell him he's wrong and he reconsider his position? "We're you wearing a coat? Did you have your car window rolled down? Did you consult a thermometer? You must not have. Because I just choose not to believe that I could be wrong" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.