Destino Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Aren't you too young to be starting arguments at this yet early time of night? lol. That's what you get for calling me old previously! I called you old? Well grandpa, if anything I'm too old to be arguing with Hashtag this late at night. I should know better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Paint Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 So now Glenn Beck is on the side of the Redskins. Yay? Dan Rather is too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearfeather Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Deleted post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dallsux Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 I don't fit in any one of those groups, I am in the Fans that love the team, love the name and feel this effort to force change is a gross misrepresentation of historical facts. “The Great Spirit made my skin red, and he made us to live as we do now; and I believe that when the Great Spirit placed us on this earth he consulted our happiness. We love our country— This is also where I fit as well. What strikes me about this whole thing is the overwhelming evidence in support of the name & logo that is defiantly ignored by the opponents. It truly makes no sense to me whatsoever. I have never witnessed such a blatant act of intentional ignorance for a cause that has more "feelings" than actual fact attached to it & most of these "feelings" come from people who are seemingly trying to tell the Native American community that they are wrong & should be offended & they need to be protected from people like "us". And most of them aren't even Native American. Here's my thing beyond that. Let's say, for the sake of the argument, the Redskins change the name. What's next? Are the Saints going to be forced to change their name because atheists are offended & don't believe that a football team should represent a religion? And what about the Raiders, the Vikings, & the Buccaneers? Will they have to change their names because their mascots all represent groups of people that raped, pillaged, & murdered for the pure joy of doing so? What about the Packers? God only knows who they could be offending with a name like that. If the Redskins bow to this pressure & change the name or if the Federal Govt forces the change, there is potentially no end in sight to this politically correct tsunami that will follow. I personally support the name & the logo fully & proudly & have even ordered a t-shirt that reads "Pride...not prejudice" with the logo between the dots. And I think we Redskins fans who do support the name & logo need to stay supportive & vocal for as long as this fight goes on. There's no reason to let these idiots win simply because they have made up their own history & beliefs about a word that, until a few years ago, they knew nothing about. That's my 2 cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spjunkies Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Sucks, but the name change crowd has Olbermann on their side so the disgustingness evens out. They also have that pompous ass John Feinstein and buffoon UnWise Mike the two who are primarily responsible for this recent noise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Obviously I'm a long-time fan of the team, but it really wouldn't rip my heart out if the name got changed. That said, it doesn't really help the keep-the-name contingent to have a bunch of white guys lecturing Native Americans about what they should and shouldn't be offended by. Team management set the right tone a month or two back with a press release saying that the intent of the name and trademarks was to honor Native Americans, while acknowledging that some may be legitimately offended. Note that... they didn't delegitimize the offense some took, but stressed that there was no intent to cause that offense. I think it's an important distinction as this argument goes on. Jeez talk about completely reversing what is really happening. This is more of a movement of White guys telling Native Americans what they should be offended by. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KuNiT21 Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Obviously I'm a long-time fan of the team, but it really wouldn't rip my heart out if the name got changed. That said, it doesn't really help the keep-the-name contingent to have a bunch of white guys lecturing Native Americans about what they should and shouldn't be offended by. Team management set the right tone a month or two back with a press release saying that the intent of the name and trademarks was to honor Native Americans, while acknowledging that some may be legitimately offended. Note that... they didn't delegitimize the offense some took, but stressed that there was no intent to cause that offense. I think it's an important distinction as this argument goes on. Unbelievably hypocritical. So it's not ok for the "white guys" to tell the Native Americans they shouldn't be offended by the name. But yet it's ok that Harry Reid and the rest of his liberal filth in the senate tell the Native Americans that they should be offended by this and want the name change? Are you unaware that the majority of NAs support the team name? This has everything to do with votes......Harry Reid can give a damn about the name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Actually it's not, well at least not entirely. A couple of observations:The side that wants it changed has bunches of tribes representing thousands of NA's in support and have signed petitions or enacted tribal resolutions.The side that wants to keep it has an owner, players, and sports fans, who are a majority non-NA. Where are the tribal petitions and resolutions supporting the name? Maybe I missed them? They are needed to counter them.The changers win that one.The name used in the context of the team, has never been meant to be disparaging and still isn't. In fact many NA's have said they find it honoring.The name has also become a negative word or disparaging term to many thousands of NA's. They now consider the word equivalent to "darkie" or "chinaman".Just like in IT, deny will always take precedence over allow. What got you here, won't get you there. The changers have won that one too.The changers are filled with many forms of hypocrisy. However that doesn't change the points above, it just seeks to discredit or obscure them. Plus, not enough people care.The changers win again.And now you all know what it feels like when the sacred is taken away and redefined to a definition that was never intended and was not supposed to be. This is how those of us who oppose gay marriage and support traditional marriage feel. It's a sickening feeling in your stomach isn't it, when you feel something you cherish twisted and changed? This is the path our nation has chosen. Now we all must live with it. The redefinitions will continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory/fedex-stays-neutral-debate-redskins-24223154 The company most associated with the Washington Redskins is keeping its distance from the debate over the team's name in the aftermath of a trademark ruling that found the name to be "disparaging" to Native Americans. FedEx has its name on the Redskins' stadium, and its president, Fred Smith, is a member of the team's ownership group. But both a senior official and Smith are remaining neutral on owner Dan Snyder's efforts to keep the name in the face of unprecedented opposition. "It's not our place to have a position on the name," Patrick Fitzgerald, FedEx's senior vice president for marketing, said Thursday. Fitzgerald consistently referred to the Redskins as "the Washington NFL team" during an interview and did not use the nickname, but he said that was not a reflection of company policy. Smith did call the team the "Redskins" during an interview with CNBC, but he pointed out that FedEx Field hosts more than just the NFL team's games. "We have a longstanding relationship with Washington Football Inc. (the Redskins' parent company). The Redskins play at FedEx Field," Smith told CNBC. "But there are many, many other events there: the Rolling Stones, Notre Dame, and Army and Navy football, Kenny Chesney. That's our sponsorship — and we really don't have any dog in this issue from the standpoint of FedEx." Smith also said his personal feelings about the name will "remain personal" and that Snyder should speak on behalf of the team. Most of us have said all along that if the name was going to be changed, you'd have to hit Snyder in his pockets. Well, here is the closest sponsor associated with the team and they are staying out of this one. Interesting to see if their stance changes, but for now, it doesn't look like they will be pulling their sponsorship any time soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWFLSkins Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 I called you old? Well grandpa, if anything I'm too old to be arguing with Hashtag this late at night. I should know better. Granpa? hahhaa, uh no, My fourteen yr. old is not a player yet >?< Now the nine yr. old, if he was fourteen I might be worried. lol. 11:47? What is this New Years Eve? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWFLSkins Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Obviously I'm a long-time fan of the team, but it really wouldn't rip my heart out if the name got changed. That said, it doesn't really help the keep-the-name contingent to have a bunch of white guys lecturing Native Americans about what they should and shouldn't be offended by. Team management set the right tone a month or two back with a press release saying that the intent of the name and trademarks was to honor Native Americans, while acknowledging that some may be legitimately offended. Note that... they didn't delegitimize the offense some took, but stressed that there was no intent to cause that offense. I think it's an important distinction as this argument goes on. But it helps the change the name crowd for a bunch of white guys to tell them what to think? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ http://www.inquisitr.com/1309265/washington-redskins-have-surprising-ally-in-trademark-dispute-you-wont-believe-who/ “At first blush, it might seem obvious that the USPTO should have the ability to deny registration to racist or vulgar trademarks. But, as with all things free speech, who gets to decide what’s racist or vulgar? That’s right, the government, which is just ill-equipped to make these kinds of determinations.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonArtest15 Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory/fedex-stays-neutral-debate-redskins-24223154 Most of us have said all along that if the name was going to be changed, you'd have to hit Snyder in his pockets. Well, here is the closest sponsor associated with the team and they are staying out of this one. Interesting to see if their stance changes, but for now, it doesn't look like they will be pulling their sponsorship any time soon. Yup. Look at how quickly sponsors pulled out from their deals w/ the Clippers in the DAYS following the Sterling fallout. This Skins debate has been going on (with fervor) for the past 2-3 years and there is NOTHING. Honestly, this bodes well for all of us who are in favor of keeping the name and really goes to show how far things have to go before anything is changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Jeez talk about completely reversing what is really happening. This is more of a movement of White guys telling Native Americans what they should be offended by. Here is an interesting essay from a Native American on this whole issue. He's a writer and lawyer who grew up on a reservation. I suspect it represents how a wide swath of thoughtful Native Americans view this issue. He agrees, kinda, with part of your assertion, without negating the real concerns some Native Americans have about the issue, as you do. I encourage everyone to read it. I think people on all sides of the issue will find it enlightening. It may have been posted earlier in this thread when it came out in October... http://deadspin.com/redskins-a-natives-guide-to-debating-an-inglorious-1445909360 Unbelievably hypocritical. So it's not ok for the "white guys" to tell the Native Americans they shouldn't be offended by the name. But yet it's ok that Harry Reid and the rest of his liberal filth in the senate tell the Native Americans that they should be offended by this and want the name change? Are you unaware that the majority of NAs support the team name? This has everything to do with votes......Harry Reid can give a damn about the name. I'll let my statement stand. Redskins fans - especially white male Redskins fans - denigrating Native Americans who take offense at the name isn't helping the effort to keep the name. Neither, really, does calling half of the U.S. Senate "liberal filth." I don't believe that a majority of NAs support the name. I suspect a majority of NAs don't give a **** one way or the other. Some do support it. And some are offended by it. Read the piece at the link above. It colored my perception of how this is really playing out among many Native Americans. You will agree with much of what he says, including the assertion that a small percentage of Native Americans is driving the issue, and that he's uncomfortable with the role prominent white people have taken in pushing for a name change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWFLSkins Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 http://m.fox19.com/#!/newsDetail/25824840 Here in the Tristate, Anderson High School in Anderson Township has had the redskins as their mascot for nearly 100 years. It's called the home of the Redskins and according to school officials, it's been that way since the school was built in 1929. It's a mascot rooted in tradition that they say will not be going away easily. Anderson Principal Mike Broad water said in the two years he has been with the Forest Hills Local School District, he has heard no complaints or concerns about the redskins mascot. "The community has spoken pretty loudly that it is a name that is steeped in tradition and it's meant to show dignity and we treat it with as much respect as we can," he said. http://m.kxly.com/news/school-board-votes-to-keep-wellpinit-redskins/26580298 WELLPINIT, Wash. - While the U.S. Patent Office has canceled the Washington Redskins trademark registrations, there's another organization in Washington state that's decided to stand firm that their sports teams will remain the Redskins -- the Wellpinit High School Redskins to be exact, whose school is located in the town of the same name on the Spokane Indian Reservation in Stevens County. Wednesday night the school board got together and decided, despite a push to get the mascot changed at the high school, they won't be pursuing a re-branding from the Redskins. “To me it's a proud name and any school that uses Redskins as their mascot makes me feel proud,” Wellpinit resident Celia Stearns said. http://m.fox28.com/w/main/story/116669736/ DC isn't the only one with that team name, though. At least four Indiana schools, one of which is Goshen High School, also call themselves the Redskins. Will there be any change for these schools in light of D.C.'s trademark cancellation? Cynthia Padgett is an employee of Goshen Community Schools and a member of the Grand River Band of Ottawa Indians. She says she's a proud Goshen Redskin. "If they use instruments that we find-like the tomahawk, like the 'peace pipes'. Those kinds of things are ceremonial. Those do mean something to us. So as long as those are not being used in a disrespectful way I don't see that there's really a problem," Padgett said. She also says she doesn't understand why people are offended by the name. If you so feel moved to let Congress know they should be focusing on more important issues, Change.org has a petition up..... http://www.change.org/petitions/u-s-senators-that-want-the-redskins-to-change-their-name-find-something-more-important-to-change?share_id=hEtHktrGrp&utm_campaign=autopublish&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=share_petition Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsFan44 Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 I'll let my statement stand. Redskins fans - especially white male Redskins fans - denigrating Native Americans who take offense at the name isn't helping the effort to keep the name. Neither, really, does calling half of the U.S. Senate "liberal filth." I don't believe that a majority of NAs support the name. I suspect a majority of NAs don't give a **** one way or the other. Some do support it. And some are offended by it. I agree with this, anger at NAs from our fans is counterproductive and characterizing the issue as right v left pushes it from 90 - 10 to closer to 50 - 50. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWFLSkins Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 I'll let my statement stand. Redskins fans - especially white male Redskins fans - denigrating Native Americans who take offense at the name isn't helping the effort to keep the name. Neither, really, does calling half of the U.S. Senate "liberal filth." This is offensive to me. ESPECIALLY? White Males. I have not seen White Males or heard of White Males making denigrating remarks or taking denigrating actions against NA's, nor do I see a NA outcry of such or a massive outcry of NA's who find this offensive or even important. I stated many, many pages (moons) ago that when I asked either in writing or eye to eye NA's, tribes or individually, none, not one even would really put a thought to it. It simply meant nothing to them. Unlike White Men, NA's choose their words carefully, and the lack of words on this issue spoke volumes. Sure you can find the Harjo or Halbritters, who can't on any issue. Does David Koresh speak for all Christians? Does the KKK? Does the Black Panther radical faction speak for all Black Panthers or all Racial activists? There are subjects in a free country you simply are going to agree with or disagree with. But to silence those you disagree with takes away you're own freedom. Men died for that, don't give it up so easily. If a minority is offended and there is undisputed truth, I believe this society would have acted a long time ago. The goal is to remove all NA mascots, thus to their own detriment removing the memory of a proud people in a country with not such a proud beginning. I agree with this, anger at NAs from our fans is counterproductive and characterizing the issue as right v left pushes it from 90 - 10 to closer to 50 - 50. I wholeheartedly disagree with his premise that there is widespread anger at NA's on this, this is not them vs. us. I see no reversal of the love and compassion for NA's. If anything this rekindles the spirit of the plight of NA's and brings it to the forefront. Don't let the Casino and Tobacco mogul speak for all NA's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 This is offensive to me. ESPECIALLY? White Males. I have not seen White Males or heard of White Males making denigrating remarks or taking denigrating actions against NA's, Oh it's out there. What's much more common, though, is people trivializing the offense taken by some Native Americans at the name. You could pick out a slew of examples in this thread. And when it's white folks telling Native Americans what they should and shouldn't be offended by, that doesn't help the cause. Redskins' management has recognized that. Many fans haven't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWFLSkins Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Certainly, opinions differ about the appropriateness of “Redskins” as a nickname. But some perspective: There is no time in American history when Native Americans have been held in higher regard. Their nobility is celebrated in our popular culture, and their unjust treatment recounted in our schools. The existence of a professional football franchise with the same name that it has had for the past 80 years — no matter how anachronistic — has self-evidently not caused Native Americans to be held in contempt and disrepute. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/380831/hail-redskins-rich-lowry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fwo40 Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Apologize if this was posted already - I know the ACLU isn't exactly "for" the team name....but when even they are like "you know this isn't a great precedent..." perhaps the government really has overreached. http://www.inquisitr.com/1309265/washington-redskins-have-surprising-ally-in-trademark-dispute-you-wont-believe-who/#F8akOYfCxsMJ9jTZ.99 As a rule, liberals tend to agree that Washington should change their mascot. Conservatives, by and large, don’t see a problem with the use of Redskins, agreeing with Snyder’s oft-repeated position that the Redskins mascot and logo was chosen to honor rather than to disparage Native Americans. After all, most teams choose a mascot that embodies qualities that are considered admirable. No one would suggest that the ACLU is a conservative organization. However, consistent with the organization’s stated positions on freedom of speech, the ACLU has expressed support for the Washington Redskins and owner Dan Snyder’s right to continue to use the team name and mascot. According to a report in the Washington Post, ACLU legislative counsel Gabe Rottman had this to say about the U.S. government’s move to effectively and for all practical purposes deny the Washington Redskins the use of their trademarked logo and name: “At first blush, it might seem obvious that the USPTO should have the ability to deny registration to racist or vulgar trademarks. But, as with all things free speech, who gets to decide what’s racist or vulgar? That’s right, the government, which is just ill-equipped to make these kinds of determinations.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWFLSkins Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Oh it's out there. What's much more common, though, is people trivializing the offense taken by some Native Americans at the name. You could pick out a slew of examples in this thread. And when it's white folks telling Native Americans what they should and shouldn't be offended by, that doesn't help the cause. Redskins' management has recognized that. Many fans haven't. I am offended by how most other people drive, in fact I bet a majority would agree with me, a vast majority. Driving is a privilege and so is freedom of speech. btw, I have long said personally that if a vast or large group of NA's put their names to a change I would be first in line with them. But for you to generalize White Males to me is personally offensive. I am feel my flexibility on the issue is more common then the rigid one you suggest for White Males. That insinuates a can of worms has already been opened. Oh it's out there. What's much more common, though, is people trivializing the offense taken by some Native Americans at the name. You could pick out a slew of examples in this thread. And when it's white folks telling Native Americans what they should and shouldn't be offended by, that doesn't help the cause. Redskins' management has recognized that. Many fans haven't. I am beginning to think Dan with all due respect you sir are out there on this particular issue, and I don't know why. If you are talking about the venom on boards or article comments sections? ?? I guess again you are going to get nut jobs spewing hate, but how do you know they are all white? Stan Anderson · Works at Royal Dutch Shell I'm a Cowboy fan but appreciate the history that the Redskin organization has in the NFL. This political correctness crap is ridiculous. Reply · Like · 13 · Follow Post · June 18 at 10:31pm Paul Deb Humphreys · Follow · Top Commenter · Works at Ford Motor Credit Company Where will this stop? Maybe it's time to rename "egg white" to "translucent embryonic material". It's offensive when a chef says to "remove the yolks, beat only the whites." Reply · Like · 10 · Follow Post · Edited · June 18 at 9:22pm Marsha Sue Sickler · Top Commenter What I find particularly amusing is the majority of those crying "racist" over the Redskins name,are NOT native american?! Obama could care less about this,he's USING it to distract the public from noticing all the laws he has been/is breaking,and sadly it seems to be working. Reply · Like · 6 · Follow Post · 23 hours ago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Apologize if this was posted already - I know the ACLU isn't exactly "for" the team name....but when even they are like "you know this isn't a great precedent..." perhaps the government really has overreached. You are shocked that the ACLU is uncomfortable with a limitation on speech/expression? That actually says more about you than the ACLU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fwo40 Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 You are shocked that the ACLU is uncomfortable with a limitation on speech/expression? That actually says more about you than the ACLU. If you are referencing me - than thanks for the unnecessary slam. What I meant is that the organization would even comment on it at all given that they don't support the team having the name in the first place. But feel free to talk for me and for everyone you've never met or know anything about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Am I the only one that finds humor in opponents of the term Redskins using Indians to describe Native Americans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsluggo Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Yesterday ..I was thinking that maybe it was time for a name change. I think that I was just growing tired of all the negative from the media and just tired of it all...I mean warriors couldn't be that bad.. I know that we all take pride in redskins and never thought of it as racist .Even growing up in the eighty's I never remember anyone saying the name was just bad in school or out in public. I have decided that.. I'm staying Redskin ..WHY??? Because I just figured out.. What the word "Oklahoma" means and that being RED PEOPLE!!!! . We have a state that means the same as Redskins!!! That proves even more to me that Historical that its not derogatory term like the media claims!! The red nation as I've read is a term native americans also use to show pride. How can a team be under attack when you got a state that is named after it!!! I bet that majority of the public outside of people around Oklahoma are clueless to this and once again I say.. America keep listening to the liberal retards in this country and there twisted half ass ways ..They are going to destroy this country and I'm sick of it!! well yes.... in the same way that african american means the same thing as black person which is the same thing as person of color which is the same thing as colored person which is the same thing as negro which is the same thing as n**ger.... right? and before anyone jumps up my ass... i am NOT saying that redskin is equivalent to n**ger.... even the people that say that don't believe that. But i AM saying that words matter. and Redskin is no more equivalent to Oklahoma than it is to N**ger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWFLSkins Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 If you are referencing me - than thanks for the unnecessary slam. What I meant is that the organization would even comment on it at all given that they don't support the team having the name in the first place. But feel free to talk for me and for everyone you've never met or know anything about. \ I think you took that personally and he was more talking about the ACLU. well yes.... in the same way that african american means the same thing as black person which is the same thing as person of color which is the same thing as colored person which is the same thing as negro which is the same thing as n**ger.... right? and before anyone jumps up my ass... i am NOT saying that redskin is equivalent to n**ger.... even the people that say that don't believe that. But i AM saying that words matter. and Redskin is no more equivalent to Oklahoma than it is to N**ger. Disagree, the terms have origins in Native American tongue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.