S.TaylorMade Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 Lol the heads on ESPN podcast Michael Smith and Jemele Hill today said that the mascot was racist too So now Chief Zee is racist, gotcha He's not racist YOU GOTTA CHANGE THE TEAM NAME IT'S RACIST YOU GOTTA GET RID OF THE RACIST MASCOT Hohw is Chief Zee racist How is the logo racist If we change the name change it to Blackhawks or Skins That simple You have Cleveland Indians and Chicago Blackhawks and the HUBBUB has died down there so why not change the name to something similar It's not about a racial slur. That's just a small portion of the propaganda. Native Americans do not want to be represented in sports. Period. If we change the name to something similar, we'll be fighting the same battle in 20 years! It's a losing battle and if we don't change it soon my grandchildren will ask me why I'm hanging up racist jerseys in my den. I love the history of the Redskins and I don't want them to take that away, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWFLSkins Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 from the post comments section....saqster 11/5/2013 11:50 AM EST Oneida and NCAI will come after this name as well. Read the official position paper on the NCAI's website. They want ALL nicknames and mascots associated with American Indians GONE. Redskins is just the beginning. The Skins are being singled out with the hopes that they will be the first domino to fall. Again, what other "SLUR" is defended like this. In just about every article across the Internet written on this topic, you will find similar comments from American Indians: "I've talked to our students, our parents and our community about this and nobody finds any offense at all in it," says Tim Ames, the superintendent of Wellpinit schools. "'Redskins' is not an insult to our kids. 'Wagon burners' is an insult. 'Prairie n-----s' is an insult. Those are very upsetting to our kids. But 'Redskins' is an honorable name we wear with pride. & In fact, I'd like to see somebody come up here and try to change it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justice98 Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 A Redskin is also a profession. The 1st Cowboys were Hispanics. Vaqueros, should they be offended by the Pic then? Your third question, you are starting to come around. They shouldn't, just like Native Americans or special interest groups should not find the Washington Redskins as Offensive. There is no Negative Intent. What profession is Redskin? I don't recall the team (or anyone else, for that matter) ever once making that argument or even saying that was the case. And I'm pretty sure early vaqueros included some Native Americans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWFLSkins Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 It's not about a racial slur. That's just a small portion of the propaganda. Native Americans do not want to be represented in sports. Period. If we change the name to something similar, we'll be fighting the same battle in 20 years! It's a losing battle and if we don't change it soon my grandchildren will ask me why I'm hanging up racist jerseys in my den. I love the history of the Redskins and I don't want them to take that away, too. A PC collection of native americans are driving this, not the majority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
U C S D SkinsFan Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 If we are forced to change the name....we should just be the SKINS - the arrow logo and the R Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.TaylorMade Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 A PC collection of native americans are driving this, not the majority. Their voice is stronger. That's all that matters. "It's not what you know. It's what you can prove." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 Meh. I'm a super liberal and I don't want the name changed. Try backing away from the politics part and just stick to the name. Funny, Redskins came from a play on Red Sox. NC21, I love you and we recognize there are individuals who have not subscribed to every component of academic postmodern liberalism, but to deny that this is solely the project of the contemporary academic Left would be to deny reality. The war on language and the elevation of sensitivity to the detriment of both freedom of speech and historical heritage is part of that project. I would agree that there are tons of liberals (check out online boards for the Chronicle, as an example) who are "old school" and do not support every aspect of this agenda. Just as there are liberals who support 2nd Amendment wholly and without qualification, but it would be a mistake to ignore that the main basis of self-defense rights supporters are 'rightist' (even if not GOP or some other particular faction.) It's just how it is in our polarized society. Exceptions simply prove the rule, they do not, unfortunately, adequately inform popular debate. Hell, we keep hearing racial slur but no one has actually looked enough at the history of the world and we still have people (whites mainly) saying the name is offensive because they decided to define it that way. Well, if I launch a war against any word, eventually people will assume it's offensive. Calling someone "Lame" has not yet been made a shunnable offense, but mark my words--it's coming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DM72 Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 A PC collection of native americans are driving this, not the majority. So you know what the majority of Native Americans think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smurf85 Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 I love the people that just gave up after reading the news today. Problem is your not Dan and this changes nothing as of right now. There going to appeal this decision and it could take up to 5 years for a ruling. This isn't the first time this has happened and the REDSKINS won the last appeal. I for one don't mind a new name like Warriors, Redhawks and so on as long as the logo and uniforms stay the same. With that being said I'm going to support the REDSKINS, because that's what I grew up knowing them as. I for one didn't even consider REDSKINS a bad word or slur when I was young and don't now. Than again I don't get affended by words and I'm not trying to live in the past. I didn't even know what racism was until I learned it as a young boy in school. People that cry about this word and any other word are the ones that keep racism alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 I hate this and hope it never changes. I'd compromise though and go back to the script R helmet or something new that's similar, remove all other NA imagery/themes. Keep the name Redskins. It refers to us, because the football team wears Red(burgundy). Without any reference to native Americans, would it still be offensive? I think the whole argument is pretty silly. Context matters. Definitions can change too. Look at recent history with the word f-a-g. Wasn't originally defined as a slur or had any negative meaning behind it...until it did for years and became offensive. Now, nobody in their right mind would call a homosexual that, and rightfully so. Redskins might be the exact opposite of that. Even if you concede( which I don't) that the word started at as a slur or was temporarily used as a slur, the only context that the word is relevant to in today's society is the NFL football team in Washington DC. Everybody has to be offended by something now... But we know for an utter and absolute fact that Redskin didn't even start as a slur, but a self-appellation by which American Indians distinguished themselves from white settlers. Look at Redskin sort of like the word, "Jew" or "white" or "black." People use those ALL the time as slurs but not one suggests that they are in and of themselves slurs. we went from "Colored" being an insult to being incorporated into "People of color." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter_R Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 So you know what the majority of Native Americans think?Do the people that are arguing against the name? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DM72 Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 If we are forced to change the name....we should just be the SKINS - the arrow logo and the R And if we are re-named the Skins, what does the R stands for? Do the people that are arguing against the name? No, but it's quite obvious that quite a few oppose the term Redskin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 What profession is Redskin? I don't recall the team (or anyone else, for that matter) ever once making that argument or even saying that was the case. And I'm pretty sure early vaqueros included some Native Americans. I can't be held responsible for what the team did or did not do. All I'm saying is that a Redskin is also a professional, as in a Professional player playing for the NFL Washington Redskins. As to your point about Native Americans being Vaqueros, perhaps that's true. I don't know of any 1st hand and it would depend on what you mean by the term "Early" but if that's the context in which we are discussing this, you can also say that various different Races were also raised up as Native Americans so do that mean that because there were White people or Black people or Hispanic people have a say in this and if that's so and they disagree with it being offensive, what exactly does that mean? Let me help you, it means nothing, just like the Indian Vaquero Argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 Reading the reactions to the trademark ruling is very telling on how much people understand about this issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkeyBoy Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 And if we are re-named the Skins, what does the R stands for? The R in "Worshington". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter_R Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 No, but it's quite obvious that quite a few oppose the term Redskin.How many is "quite a few?" Is it the majority? Maybe they should have worked on finding an answer before letting their righteous indignation run amok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 Do the people that are arguing against the name? No, but when they start trying to force somebody to change things, that's when this point might take on meaning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 So you know what the majority of Native Americans think? They've conducted at least two polls on the subject, which demonstrate pretty conclusively that this is not a majority. More importantly, if you know that Susan Harjo is leading this and lead the campaign against the word "squaw" by essentially lying about its origins and uses. Think of this like one person's mental illness or obsession becoming society's problem. It's also a way for a smaller or less powerful group to get the dominant group to engage in restraint of power or work for the privilege or power of the smaller group. This is, ultimately, behind much of the social justice stuff, at least rhetorically. I also think there is a totalitarian impulse in the postmodern left that has very much placed us in the same realm as the "struggle session" and show trials of communist regimes because your actions or the law don't define your value to the society but now your very thoughts and intentions are subject to the analysis and to the impositions of outside forces. It's very much an imposition of a flavorless, ahistorical monoculture upon the entire planet (start here because our traditions have been weakened, but eventually move on to the entire world.) They just leave the Amish alone because they are not seen as participants in the wider society...but give them time. haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 I can't be held responsible for what the team did or did not do. All I'm saying is that a Redskin is also a professional, as in a Professional player playing for the NFL Washington Redskins. You mean all those years when people were saying Chris Cooley "is a Redskin", they didn't mean he was Native American? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 You mean all those years when people were saying Chris Cooley "is a Redskin", they didn't mean he was Native American? I confess, I was also shocked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 And if we are re-named the Skins, what does the R stands for? No, but it's quite obvious that quite a few oppose the term Redskin. People can be convinced to oppose anything. Do you ever use the "R-word" in conversation? What about lame? What about stupid, dumb, idiotic or cretin (all clinical terms for people of low or impaired intelligence)? What was offensive in intent about Negro? But it became offensive. But when you let a small group decide what they will be called you are tempting them (and every other group) to invent or hold onto slights so that they can exert power, however small, over you. It's somewhat similar to people who have "chemical sensitivity" making everyone in a work place eschew fragrances, or even sorts of food. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BleedBNG Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 If you are offended, I will change it. See how easy that was! http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/05/29/retired-native-american-chief-would-be-offended-if-redskins-did-change-name/#.U5jCHcHHKBR.facebook Robert “Two Eagles” Green, who retired from his presiding role over the 1300-member Patawomeck Tribe in March: "...the members of my tribe, the vast majority, don’t find it offensive,” Green said. “I’ve been a Redskins fan for years and to be honest with you, I would be offended if they did change it.” If he's offended, I will keep it. See how easy that was! I see this being tied up in the courts for years.....but I guess this one step closer to a name change. Sad day. Go back to the original name....Braves. Washington Braves or Braveskins The fight song won't have to change much. It's funny how some on here are giving it next year to 2016. The appeal was held up in court the last time for 7 yrs. Probably for around 10 this time. When it comes to name changing, Snyder is no Pollin. If we change the name to 'Braves' then the fight song (HTTB) will go something like this: Hail to the Bra-aves Hail vic-tor-y REDSKINS on the warpath... That's right... try and take THAT away from after a score. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DM72 Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 How many is "quite a few?" Is it the majority? Maybe they should have worked on finding an answer before letting their righteous indignation run amok. Even if the majority has no problem with it, does it make it right? If you were sitting in a restaurant with 3 black guys and you called the the n-word and they had no problem with it, but I did. Is it acceptable? No. Again, I'm upset about the name change too, but if Native Americans have a problem with it, I say we change it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Braxford Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 IF the name changes, the team will always be the Redskins to me and I will likely cheer for the Redskins still. If anyone gets offended by it, I won't cheer in their face but I won't let them control what I say, when my intent is not to offends or disparage anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dont Taze Me Bro Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 im confused by this statement what if a person has gotten educated on the name and learned that it offends people? There was a time when it was perfectly fine for us to have 2 separate bathrooms for each race. Does a person who entered a whites only bathroom as a younger person, but now is bothered by it and wants it changed, does that make them a hypocrite? we dont really have any factual evidence either way. There is nothing to be confused about. If you bought a crap load of gear prior to learning that the name offended people and you take the side that the name is a racial slur, offensive to Native Americans and you continue to wear the gear, then you're a hypocrite. Because if one truly believed that it was offensive and a racial slur, then why would they wear any merchandise with said racial slur written across it? If they want it changed and truly believe its offensive then they would not continue to wear clothing, etc. with the name on it. If they do, they are a hypocrite. This topic is pretty cut and dry, you either think its a racist slur and want the name changed, or you don't. It can't be non-offensive/racist when you want it to be and vice-versa (i.e. ok to purchase merchandise or continue to wear it but claim that you think its racist and offensive and should be changed). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.