Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

The Official ES All Things Redskins Name Change Thread (Reboot Edition---Read New OP)


Recommended Posts

 by 'our cause', you mean those who want to change the name? because all of those things are in favor of those who want to keep the name.

im confused.

 'our cause' meaning Redskins fans as a whole, of which I am a member.  The facts that support keeping the name and Native theme will harm such efforts when presented by the team to the media, even with a pro like Luntz at the helm.

 

I know it can be confusing to interpret my stance, bc I too love the team name, imagery, and Native theme. I always have and probably always will. 

 

My stance is against keeping the name and Native theme bc I don't believe we're going to win in the long run. The battle has already taken a negative toll on all of us. This franchise has been through a similar battle 50+ years ago, and we didn't win that time either.

But where does this end when/if Dan Snyder and the organization give in?  Will I then be labeled a racist when I walk out of my house with Redskins apparel on? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

it is beyond frustrating seeing all these media members and others like Phil Jackson bringing up the issue. Facts are facts and most native americans are not offended. Wish that was all there was to it, but America's political correctness is getting way too out of hand. Quite a shame. Was happy to see both Snyder and Goodell stand up to all the nonsense. 

 

and don't even get me started on those ten congressmen, I know there are much more important issues they should be concerned with considering their approval ratings are at an all time low. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

http://voices.yahoo.com/is-redskins-name-offensive-native-americans-4710337.html?cat=37 (For what it's worth this article was four years ago)

 

Is the Redskins Name Offensive to Native Americans?

Where did the name Redskins come from?

Surprisingly, the name Redskin is not a North American one. Its original meaning had nothing to do with the scalps of Indians. The original name was a European one used to describe Algonquins who painted their face with bright red ocher and bloodroot, thereby making their face red with war paint. Only later on was it implied that the name was derived from a Native American's exposure to the sun or from the scalps of Indians that were paid to cowboys as bounties. Unfortunately, for some reason, perhaps because of our own ignorance, the name is believed to come from the human scalps of Native Americans. However, the original meaning comes from Europe and was used by the Europeans when they arrived in North America, hundreds of years before any reference to any other meaning was used. This is supported by Reader's Digest in its book "Americas Fascinating Indian Heritage" where it is quoted as stating the name Redskin was..

 

"inspired not by their natural complexion but by their fondness for vermilion makeup, concocted from fat mixed with berry juice and minerals that provided the desired color. The men would streak their faces and bodies with bright red ocher and bloodroot."

 

It doesn't end there, red is the most common color used by Native Americans in painting their skin. According to Dress Clothing of the Plains Indians by Ronal P. Koch,

"Red is generally accepted as being one of the colors most easily available to and most used by Indians for decorative and ceremonial purposes,"


Fact after fact after fact after fact AFTER FACT!!!! keeps coming out time and time again. Yet people want to rely on stupid dictionary definitions and our original owners racist past (To a different race I might add) to justify the name being derogatory.

And it's been said over and over again that even MAJORITY of Native Americans don't find the name offensive and even cheer for the team. But since the dictionary says it, it must be true....

Edited by MLSKINS
Link to post
Share on other sites

 by 'our cause', you mean those who want to change the name? because all of those things are in favor of those who want to keep the name.

im confused.

 'our cause' meaning Redskins fans as a whole, of which I am a member.  The facts that support keeping the name and Native theme will harm such efforts when presented by the team to the media, even with a pro like Luntz at the helm.

 

I know it can be confusing to interpret my stance, bc I too love the team name, imagery, and Native theme. I always have and probably always will. 

 

My stance is against keeping the name and Native theme bc I don't believe we're going to win in the long run. The battle has already taken a negative toll on all of us. This franchise has been through a similar battle 50+ years ago, and we didn't win that time either.

Don't lump me in with your ignorant cause.

You do not speak for Redskins fans as a whole, you speak for yourself.

YOUR cause.

In terms of fans, you're in yet another extreme minority, yet you still claim this cause represents all of us.

(Noting you're ignoring a whole thread full of redskins fans and a whole board full of redskins fans completely disagreeing with you, and yet you still seem to think that this is "our cause". )

 

How ****ing arrogant. How ****ing ignorant.

 

But considering those people you're following are doing the exact same thing with their own people (who you seem to care so much about) it's hardly surprising.

 

I speak directly for me when i say F your cause, and F the way you seem to feel that you speak for anyone but yourself.

Your "stance" is no stance at all. You stand for laying down to ignorance, because you don't think you can win over the loud voices.

And frankly, that's shameful. 

 

~Bang

Edited by Bang
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

http://voices.yahoo.com/is-redskins-name-offensive-native-americans-4710337.html?cat=37

 

Is the Redskins Name Offensive to Native Americans?

Where did the name Redskins come from?

Surprisingly, the name Redskin is not a North American one. Its original meaning had nothing to do with the scalps of Indians. The original name was a European one used to describe Algonquins who painted their face with bright red ocher and bloodroot, thereby making their face red with war paint. Only later on was it implied that the name was derived from a Native American's exposure to the sun or from the scalps of Indians that were paid to cowboys as bounties. Unfortunately, for some reason, perhaps because of our own ignorance, the name is believed to come from the human scalps of Native Americans. However, the original meaning comes from Europe and was used by the Europeans when they arrived in North America, hundreds of years before any reference to any other meaning was used. This is supported by Reader's Digest in its book "Americas Fascinating Indian Heritage" where it is quoted as stating the name Redskin was..

 

"inspired not by their natural complexion but by their fondness for vermilion makeup, concocted from fat mixed with berry juice and minerals that provided the desired color. The men would streak their faces and bodies with bright red ocher and bloodroot."

 

It doesn't end there, red is the most common color used by Native Americans in painting their skin. According to Dress Clothing of the Plains Indians by Ronal P. Koch,

"Red is generally accepted as being one of the colors most easily available to and most used by Indians for decorative and ceremonial purposes,"

Fact after fact after fact after fact AFTER FACT!!!! keeps coming out time and time again. Yet people want to rely on stupid dictionary definitions and our original owners racist past (To a different race I might add) to justify the name being derogatory.

And it's been said over and over again that even MAJORITY of Native Americans don't find the name offensive and even cheer for the team. But since the dictionary says it, it must be true....

 

You will note that the one person who still carries this 'cause' doesn't give a rat's ass about facts.

he hasn't bothered to argue one for months. He hasn't got a single fact on his side, except to say that "a small minority of people want to change the name, against the wishes of the vast majority of people they claim to represent."

That's the only fact he's got.

 

All he cares is that his media pals will "win" this for him, because loud ignorance means "correct" these days.

 

he's dead wrong, he's been proven dead wrong but he's too small to admit it, so he's just hoping that the noisy media once again force the will of the ignorant few upon the many who know better.

 

even though he keeps being told by the majority of the Natives he's so worried about offending to shut it.

 

so the lesson is clear.

You may be sensitive to the causes of minorities unless the majority of the minority says "we don't want you doing that", and then it's up to your superior sense of civility to show them the way to act like proper people.

 

You know,, just like in the old days.

 

~Bang

Edited by Bang
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Daniel Tosh had a great skit showing why you don't cater to a small number of people claiming offense. When presented in a certain light, some people will find damn near ANYTHING offensive:

 

Should be ok, but potentially NSFW, just to cover my rear:

http://tosh.comedycentral.com/segments/20-seconds-on-the-clock/erckcq

 

What matters most is whether or not a significant portion of the people who are supposed to be offended really are offended. In this case, they clearly are not. Caving on this issue because a small group wants to change the opinion of the majority, and because the media runs with it out of guilt and a fear of being called racist, is ridiculous. You think it's fair to the majority of Native Americans, 90% in fact, that the name be changed FOR them, on their behalf, because us fans gave up on it and let the ignorant minority have their way? No it's not, in fact we'd be doing a disservice to those we are supposed to honor by donning our Redskins gear and cheering for the Redskins.

 

It's one thing to think that it is truly offensive and the minority outweighs the majority. It plain laziness and cowardice to favor a name change simply because you are tired of hearing the arguments for a name change. S-M-H, and I can't emphasize that enough.

 

90% of Native Americans don't take issue with the name. 83% of the country doesn't think the name should change nor should Congress be concerned with such matters. But let's just cave to the demands of a very small few because they are loud and pestering. How DARE some of you adopt this lackadaisical attitude but then demand elite play and effort from the team. Our team is on the side of right in all this, we fight for our team. If we demand greatness and sacrifice from our players, we as fans should be willing to do the same off the field when necessary, and right now it is pretty damn necessary. Giving up because you're "tired" of hearing the opposition or think they'll eventually win is a loser mentality that any one of us would absolutely detest if we saw it in a player, so when it comes to our team's tradition and identity we should detest such a poor attitude from fans.

 

Fight the good fight. Show your pride, show your fanhood and show that your dedication over the years actually means something to you when it is put to the test.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Spearfeather

Hey Bang, can we agree on one fact?

 

This problem isn't going away anytime soon. :P

 

I remember walking into a game in 1992, ( Redskins vs. Cowboys, Emmett Smith fumbles in the endzone, Copeland recovers, Redskins win ) with my father and a long-time friend of his. While walking into RFK, we heard first and then saw four or five " protesters ", shouting various things, holding signs. .....

 

 

 

 

21 years later,     same old arguments.

 

 

 

The Redskins are still the Redskins.

Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, what's really racist is claiming that all Native Americans feel the same way about this. You can't be sure they do.

 

----

 

What's this? An Indian tribe sues to SAVE the "offensive nickname and mascot?" of UND? I'm shocked!?

 

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/05/30/spirit-lake-tribe-loses-appeal-und-fighting-sioux-mascot-149605

 

Spirit Lake Tribe Loses Appeal on UND Fighting Sioux Mascot

 
May 30, 2013

 

A federal appeals court has upheld a judge's decision to throw out a lawsuit by Spirit Lake Nation tribal members to save the University of North Dakota's now-retired Fighting Sioux nickname. 


The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a ruling released yesterday
said the suit filed against the NCAA failed to show that the governing
body of college athletics “acted with discriminatory intent” when it
banned the use of American Indian names and imagery in postseason
competition, according to the Associated Press.


Minot, North Dakota, attorney Reed Soderstrom represented the tribal members. He told the Grand Forks Herald that he's not surprised by the ruling and says his efforts to save the nickname are over. 


North Dakota voters in June 2012 overwhelmingly endorsed retirement
of the nickname. The state has imposed a moratorium on a new nickname
until 2015. 


For a timeline of events related to the UND Fighting Sioux nickname and logo, which spans decades, click here


Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/05/30/spirit-lake-tribe-loses-appeal-und-fighting-sioux-mascot-149605

Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember walking into a game in 1992, ( Redskins vs. Cowboys, Emmett Smith fumbles in the endzone, Copeland recovers, Redskins win ) with my father and a long-time friend of his. While walking into RFK, we heard first and then saw four or five " protesters ", shouting various things, holding signs. .....

21 years later,     same old arguments.

 

 

 

The Redskins are still the Redskins.

I walked right through that protest also. It really made me mad at the time, the fact that someone wanted to take away something that belonged to us, me and my family of three generations, all proud STHs. My family of four mocked them openly as we headed for the turnstiles. I figured those protesting clowns were just Cowboy fans making trouble bc we were SB champs, etc.

 

 

A year or two later, I had a polite, but very serious discussion with a Native from OK who attended my HS in NOVA. I told him that I thought he was wrong to disagree with the Redskins because our intent was honorary, and he was taking it all too seriously. Last year I ran into that Native at a bar in Tysons. We started shooting the S about the HS days, football, and naturally the name subject came up. I learned that he had been in that protest at RFK. I kept quiet about how I had behaved on that day 20 years earlier.

Edited by RFKFedEx
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Spearfeather

I remember walking into a game in 1992, ( Redskins vs. Cowboys, Emmett Smith fumbles in the endzone, Copeland recovers, Redskins win ) with my father and a long-time friend of his. While walking into RFK, we heard first and then saw four or five " protesters ", shouting various things, holding signs. .....

21 years later,     same old arguments.

 

 

 

The Redskins are still the Redskins.

I walked right through that protest also. . Last year I ran into that Native at a bar in Tysons. We started shooting the S about the HS days, football, and naturally the name subject came up. I learned that he had been in that protest at RFK. I kept quiet about how I had behaved on that day 20 years earlier.

 

Must have been a different four or five people, then, because I can assure you that no one in the group that I saw would refer to themselves as Native American, not with a straight face anyway.

Edited by Spearfeather
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Spearfeather

RFKFedex

A year or two later, I had a polite, but very serious discussion with a Native from OK who attended my HS in NOVA. I told him that I thought he was wrong to disagree with the Redskins because our intent was honorary, and he was taking it all too seriously. Last year I ran into that Native at a bar in Tysons. We started shooting the S about the HS days, football, and naturally the name subject came up. I learned that he had been in that protest at RFK. I kept quiet about how I had behaved on that day 20 years earlier.

 

 

That's interesting. So, a couple of years after walking past this protest, you have a " polite but very serious " conversation with a Native about the Redskins name, and he doesnt bring up the fact to you, that he had actually been in that protest, just a couple of years earlier?

Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, what's really racist is claiming that all Native Americans feel the same way about this. You can't be sure they do.

 

 

North Dakota voters in June 2012 overwhelmingly endorsed retirement

of the nickname. The state has imposed a moratorium on a new nickname

until 2015. 

For a timeline of events related to the UND Fighting Sioux nickname and logo, which spans decades, click here

Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/05/30/spirit-lake-tribe-loses-appeal-und-fighting-sioux-mascot-149605

 

I saw that story previously and IMO it epitomizes the true offense that would occur if the Redskins name had to change. 

 

In that case, there were not many Native American voters, but a ton of white voters. They voted in record numbers because of the issue. The local tribes there had even come out and said they wanted the team to keep the name, but the majority population decided FOR the NA people what was offensive and voted the name to be changed.

 

So in that case, and in the case with the Redskins, most, in fact almost ALL, of the people who are supposed to be offended are not, and then you have non-Natives who completely ignore them, decide for them what is offensive, and then try to act on it. 

 

THAT is what is truly offensive, and changing the Redskins name on the claim of offensiveness when 90% of Native Americans are not actually offended would actually be the offensive thing to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest with ya... if the name 'REDSKINS' pisses off Wise, Plachke, Page etc. , members of congress (along with the D.C. Council), and an activist (Harjo) who in the mid 60's produced an Indian NEWS radio show on WBAI-FM in New York called... 'Seeing Red'

:rolleyes:

...then GOOD! I take nothing but pleasure in them ****ing and moaning about it.

 

pfffft! at least Goodell did his homework

Edited by BleedBNG
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest with ya... if the name 'REDSKINS' pisses off Wise, Plachke, Page etc. , members of congress, and an activist (Harjo) who in the mid 60's produced an Indian NEWS radio show on WBAI-FM in New York called... 'Seeing Red' (talk about hypocrisy)...

 

...then GOOD! I take nothing but pleasure in them ****ing and moaning about it.

 

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?????!??!?!/!?  OMG.  I just looked that up - she is the very definition of hypocrisy.  I'm tempted to troll on UnWise Mike's twitter and educate him on the aformentioned.  I can't believe I'm just now finding this out...thx BleedBNG. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember walking into a game in 1992, ( Redskins vs. Cowboys, Emmett Smith fumbles in the endzone, Copeland recovers, Redskins win ) with my father and a long-time friend of his. While walking into RFK, we heard first and then saw four or five " protesters ", shouting various things, holding signs. .....

21 years later, same old arguments.

The Redskins are still the Redskins.

My lord. You were at that game? One of my great memories as a redskins fan.

Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, what's really racist is claiming that all Native Americans feel the same way about this. You can't be sure they do.

 

 

North Dakota voters in June 2012 overwhelmingly endorsed retirement

of the nickname. The state has imposed a moratorium on a new nickname

until 2015. 

For a timeline of events related to the UND Fighting Sioux nickname and logo, which spans decades, click here

Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/05/30/spirit-lake-tribe-loses-appeal-und-fighting-sioux-mascot-149605

 

I saw that story previously and IMO it epitomizes the true offense that would occur if the Redskins name had to change. 

 

In that case, there were not many Native American voters, but a ton of white voters. They voted in record numbers because of the issue. The local tribes there had even come out and said they wanted the team to keep the name, but the majority population decided FOR the NA people what was offensive and voted the name to be changed.

 

So in that case, and in the case with the Redskins, most, in fact almost ALL, of the people who are supposed to be offended are not, and then you have non-Natives who completely ignore them, decide for them what is offensive, and then try to act on it. 

 

THAT is what is truly offensive, and changing the Redskins name on the claim of offensiveness when 90% of Native Americans are not actually offended would actually be the offensive thing to do.

 

This would be my final test for what's truly offense when it comes to changing the name or not: Go onto a few different reservations and start calling people Redskins. "Hey, Redskin, what's happening?" "How's it going Redskin?"

 

If they don't care and nobody gets beat down than the name should remain. If the people that live there get really pissed off and/or deliver a beat down, well maybe it's time to re-evaluate.

 

This gets rid of all the polls, all the small protest groups, all the emotions of fans, etc. It's a pure scientific study. Oh, and it has to be a non-Native who is the test dummy. It has potential as a short lived reality show.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Must have been a different four or five people, then, because I can assure you that no one in the group that I saw would refer to themselves as Native American, not with a straight face anyway.

 

That's interesting. So, a couple of years after walking past this protest, you have a " polite but very serious " conversation with a Native about the Redskins name, and he doesnt bring up the fact to you, that he had actually been in that protest, just a couple of years earlier?

In Dec of 1992, I was a freshman in a new school system where we had 1500 in our HS. I wouldn't have recognized him on the Armory mall that day from any other protestor bc I didn't yet know who he was. He never mentioned his attendance at that protest when we had our debate a few years later, circa 1994ish. The protest was likely an insignificant event in his life at that time. As the son of a nationally prominent Native affairs atty. in DC, he'd seen a lot in 16 years.

 

If you saw the dude today you wouldn't question his Native cred. He looks like the guy in your sig minus 30 years and the head feather, same w/ his two brothers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Spearfeather

If you saw the dude today you wouldn't question his Native cred. He looks like the guy in your sig minus 30 years and the head feather, same w/ his two brothers.

 

Yeah, must have been a different group of people then.

 

I'm assuming the first time you talked to him, you didn't offer up that you had mocked some protesters a couple of years earlier.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Spearfeather

I remember walking into a game in 1992, ( Redskins vs. Cowboys, Emmett Smith fumbles in the endzone, Copeland recovers, Redskins win ) with my father and a long-time friend of his. While walking into RFK, we heard first and then saw four or five " protesters ", shouting various things, holding signs. .....

21 years later, same old arguments.

The Redskins are still the Redskins.

My lord. You were at that game? One of my great memories as a redskins fan.

 

Yes, but we were in the opposite endzone of the fumble. There wasn't much in the way of video screens at that time, and it took a minute for the refs to make the call, and for word to get around on what had actually happened.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This would be my final test for what's truly offense when it comes to changing the name or not: Go onto a few different reservations and start calling people Redskins. "Hey, Redskin, what's happening?" "How's it going Redskin?"

If they don't care and nobody gets beat down than the name should remain. If the people that live there get really pissed off and/or deliver a beat down, well maybe it's time to re-evaluate.

This gets rid of all the polls, all the small protest groups, all the emotions of fans, etc. It's a pure scientific study. Oh, and it has to be a non-Native who is the test dummy. It has potential as a short lived reality show.

Oh, look. Yet another attempt to try to claim that "if I can invent a fictional scenario in which, if I use the word THIS way, people will be offended, then that proves that, in the real world, when people use the word in this OTHER way, then it must be offensive. EVEN WHEN THE PEOPLE INVOLVED SAY IT ISN'T".

We have here a person who has asserted that a word is either offensive, no matter how it's used, or it isn't. In fact, he has proposed that people demonstrate what I will hereby dub "Hersh's Law", in his honor, by inviting assault. (In fact, by intentionally begging for one).

Lets test that reasoning.

Mel Brooks, a while back, made a movie, in which "the n-word" was used dozens of times.

That movie was not offensive.

Under Hersh's Law, this proves that "the n-word" is NEVER offensive.

I propose that Mr. Hersh thus demonstrate the validity of his reasoning, and the validity of the experiment which he, himself, proposes, by demonstrating his experiment, himself, on a control group.

Go find a representative bunch of black people. In fact, since your proposal specifically demanded that the experiment be run on a reservation, go find the best equivalent of a "back reservation".

And run your experiment. Begin walking up to every person you can find, and calling every one of them "the n-word".

Keep it up until.

1). All of THEM agree with your logic that a word is either always offensive, or always not, and that, since "Blazing Saddles" wasn't offensive, therefore they aren't offended when you use the same word in a different context.

2). Everybody agrees with your logic that a word is either always offensive, or always not, and, since "the n-word" is offensive in THIS usage, therefore it's offensive in ALL usages, and, therefore, everybody agrees to be offended at "Blazing Saddles", even though they weren't, before.

3). YOU are willing to admit that maybe there's something wrong with your demand that everybody else in the world must agree with your assertion that a word is either always offensive, or always not, and that everybody must altr whether they're offended or not, to fit the rule you invented. And, instead, are willing to admit that maybe people have the right to not be offended, in some circumstances. And admit that maybe it was a stupid Law, an a MONUMENTALLY stupid experiment, to suggest in the first place.

I bet we can get some good financial action as to which of those three things will happen first.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I found it surprising and confusing to learn that the tribe Suzan Harjo (probably the most vocal opponent of our name) is part of, the Creek nation, actually owned slaves. If someone could shed some light on that historically I'd appreciate it. Because it definitely makes me a little less sympathetic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This would be my final test for what's truly offense when it comes to changing the name or not: Go onto a few different reservations and start calling people Redskins. "Hey, Redskin, what's happening?" "How's it going Redskin?"

If they don't care and nobody gets beat down than the name should remain. If the people that live there get really pissed off and/or deliver a beat down, well maybe it's time to re-evaluate.

This gets rid of all the polls, all the small protest groups, all the emotions of fans, etc. It's a pure scientific study. Oh, and it has to be a non-Native who is the test dummy. It has potential as a short lived reality show.

Oh, look. Yet another attempt to try to claim that "if I can invent a fictional scenario in which, if I use the word THIS way, people will be offended, then that proves that, in the real world, when people use the word in this OTHER way, then it must be offensive. EVEN WHEN THE PEOPLE INVOLVED SAY IT ISN'T".

We have here a person who has asserted that a word is either offensive, no matter how it's used, or it isn't. In fact, he has proposed that people demonstrate what I will hereby dub "Hersh's Law", in his honor, by inviting assault. (In fact, by intentionally begging for one).

Lets test that reasoning.

Mel Brooks, a while back, made a movie, in which "the n-word" was used dozens of times.

That movie was not offensive.

Under Hersh's Law, this proves that "the n-word" is NEVER offensive.

I propose that Mr. Hersh thus demonstrate the validity of his reasoning, and the validity of the experiment which he, himself, proposes, by demonstrating his experiment, himself, on a control group.

Go find a representative bunch of black people. In fact, since your proposal specifically demanded that the experiment be run on a reservation, go find the best equivalent of a "back reservation".

And run your experiment. Begin walking up to every person you can find, and calling every one of them "the n-word".

Keep it up until.

1). All of THEM agree with your logic that a word is either always offensive, or always not, and that, since "Blazing Saddles" wasn't offensive, therefore they aren't offended when you use the same word in a different context.

2). Everybody agrees with your logic that a word is either always offensive, or always not, and, since "the n-word" is offensive in THIS usage, therefore it's offensive in ALL usages, and, therefore, everybody agrees to be offended at "Blazing Saddles", even though they weren't, before.

3). YOU are willing to admit that maybe there's something wrong with your demand that everybody else in the world must agree with your assertion that a word is either always offensive, or always not, and that everybody must altr whether they're offended or not, to fit the rule you invented. And, instead, are willing to admit that maybe people have the right to not be offended, in some circumstances. And admit that maybe it was a stupid Law, an a MONUMENTALLY stupid experiment, to suggest in the first place.

I bet we can get some good financial action as to which of those three things will happen first.

 

Wow Larry, you got me with that incredibly pathetic attempt to compare a fictional satire MOVIE to reality. A few things for you:

 

First, my experiment was mostly a joke. I just laugh at both sides claiming statics that justify their position.

 

Second, I didn't make any demands, let alone of the world.

 

Third, I mean seriously Larry, you just compared a real world situation to a movie in order to justify your position. You are normally a good poster, but that was weak coming from you especially when you claim I said things I didn't. Bizarre on your part.

Edited by Hersh
Link to post
Share on other sites

This would be my final test for what's truly offense when it comes to changing the name or not: Go onto a few different reservations and start calling people Redskins. "Hey, Redskin, what's happening?" "How's it going Redskin?"

 

And if you went up to black people and called them boy, "hey boy, what's happening?" "How's it going boy?" you wouldn't get a good response at all. Does that mean boy should be considered an offensive word? No, it means it should only be used in proper context.

 

You would probably get negative results in your "experiment" because of the context, same with if you called all of them Braves or Chiefs, same with if you called a group of Irishmen "fighting Irish." 

 

Redskins today means a football team. Calling Native Americans today Redskins would make as much sense as calling New Englanders Patriots. Plus, Native Americans coined the term Redskins and from what I've read they don't really use the term themselves either, so the name is strictly meant for a football team.

 

And it should go without saying that a poll asking Native Americans if they take offense to the Redskins name as a FOOTBALL TEAM, is much more accurate and representative of the situation at hand then you going to a few reservations and improperly using the word. Your argument/example is a very poor one that only looks at Redskins as a racial identifier, even though that usage is antiquated. and ignores the real context in which it is used today and in which it was asked in the polls.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Jumbo changed the title to The Official ES All Things Redskins Name Change Thread (Reboot Edition---Read New OP)
  • Jumbo locked this topic
  • Jumbo unlocked this topic
  • Jumbo pinned this topic
  • Jumbo featured and unfeatured this topic
  • Jumbo locked and unlocked this topic
  • Jumbo locked and unpinned this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...