Larry Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 one last quote from blackhorse from that last article- red mesa is, last time i checked, 99% navajo. blackhorse doesnt care. they chose the name, they voted to keep it. doesnt matter, cuz amanda blackhorse wants it changed. Well, at least that seems more consistent. Although, in a lot of these social debates, I often find myself, over time, becoming firmly convinced that one side has simply made up their mind what they want, and is simply triangulating the rest of their stated positions, to try to achieve that goal. I think I observe that, in the people who want to ban abortion. They want to ban abortion. but they need a reason. So they announce that they're doing it to protect the mother's life. People (the Supreme Court) point out that, in the first two trimesters, abortion does not endanger any measurable risk to the mother, whatsoever. So, now they need a reason to ban abortion, that trumps a constitutional right. And the only way to do that, is to protect somebody else's rights. Suddenly it becomes a well known fact that the fetus is a person. Now can we ban abortion? People point out that throughout human history, people have bestowed "personhood" upon birth. (Some societies have done so even later.) Suddenly, it becomes necessary for people to name their pregnancies. Now can we ban abortion? People point out that, at one stage in it's development, the fetus has gills (or, at least, gill slits) and a tail. Suddenly this fact must be suppressed. And reference book which mentions this fact must be suppressed, or at least have the reference removed. Now can we ban abortion? People point out that, prior to birth, there really aren't any "bright line" points in fetal development. Everything happens gradually, as it grows and develops. Suddenly it becomes an established fact that a miracle of life occurs at the moment of fertilization. (In order to accomplish that, well, we have to change our definition of "life". To one which just happens to declare entire classifications of living things as no longer alive. But no matter. Eggs we have to break, so we can prepare this omlette.) Now can we ban abortion? People point out that, if a fertilized egg is a person then millions of "people" are dying, of natural causes, before the mother even fits the definition of "pregnant". No problem. We will declare off of those zygotes as "persons", but say that they're dying from natural causes, and therefore we don;t have to actually do anything about them. Now can we ban abortion. People point out that, when a pregnant woman dies, in, say, a car accident, that's considered one death. Suddenly, there's a rash of new laws, laws being changed, to define that as being two deaths. Now can we ban abortion? People point out that fertility clinics routinely attempt to fertilize multiple eggs, as part of their everyday business. Suddenly we have to declare every one of those frozen petri dishes as a person, too. now can we ban abortion? In short, what I see, in this debate, is that, for at least two decades, the response by the people wanting to ban abortion, when people point out that their position on abortion is in conflict with their position on (subject X), has been to instantly change their position on (subject X) to "whatever position will let me ban abortion". I am firmly convinced that, if it were to be explained, tomorrow, that people have to claim to be a giraffe, to ban abortion, that a very large segment of society will claim to be a giraffe. At least in the cases of some of the more famous activists*, on this issue, I'm pretty convinced that the same thing is happening. They've made it clear, over the course of decades, that they will say anything, if it will let them win. Whether this is simply because of they've invested so much in this fight, that the fight has become so much of their identity, that anything is preferable to being wrong, or because they believe that their holy cause is so noble and pure that any sin is excusable if done for that purpose, I am neither qualified to determine, nor interested in. I don't care why they are doing what they're doing. * I will note, now, that I am talking about the more famous activists I read about. I'm well aware that there are thousands of people who have a problem with this name. And I have no doubt whatsoever that the vast majority of them are perfectly decent, honest people. I am most certainly not attempting to tar "the entire name change side" with the conclusions I've come to, regarding the folks who are getting all the time on TV. I have utter contempt for Jessee Jackson and Al Sharpton. I strongly support the civil rights movement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike42 Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Shame, I think it matters to the men and women who died or were injured fighting for the freedoms you so easily concede. The gave much, you could stand up to this tyranny. I see your point. I know it's not a good attitude for anyone to have. I give up this fight because this particular issue isn't ever going to go away, even if the FCC ignores it. Members of congress who finds the name offensive, doesn't even do any research themselves. Too much distractions that will get worse over time. Imagine being to the super bowl or nfc championship? News media everywhere will be covering stories about our team name, not about about our players. I'll just start calling the team Virginia Maryland Redskins because Washington hasn't made any effort in putting this stupid fire out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 abortion......... a giraffe. Jessee Jackson and Al Sharpton. you missed gay rights, panda bears, keith olbermann and david duke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Are Harjo and Blackhorse the same person? You can tell how locked in I am with the players on this issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsFan44 Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Are Harjo and Blackhorse the same person? You can tell how locked in I am with the players on this issue. No, Blackhorse is Harjo's protege she met protesting at a Redskins Chiefs game in K.C. Blackhorse is one of the new, young litigants Harjo needed to re-launch the trademark case. Add: http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/redskins/2013/05/09/native-americans-washington-mascot-fight/2148877/ Like the Harjo quote " That's so white", lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 you missed gay rights, panda bears, keith olbermann and david duke. omg, there's koolaid on my monitor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 one last quote from blackhorse from that last article- "Blackhorse said she hopes to make teams everywhere give up the name. For now, however, she has her sights set on the Washington Redskins.“We can work on Red Mesa and trying to eliminate that, but that’s not going to get rid of the federal trademark,” Blackhorse said. “The school is important as well, but things need to happen one at a time.” red mesa is, last time i checked, 99% navajo. blackhorse doesnt care. they chose the name, they voted to keep it. doesnt matter, cuz amanda blackhorse wants it changed. If anyone can read that, see all of the polls that overwhelmingly show that she's in a severe minority, and STILL support it,, well, you might want to recognize you're only doing so for yourself, and like Blackhorse, you really don't care what they have to say. But it gives a warm fuzzy, doesn't it? to do things for people that don't want you to do it>? it's always been such a fine model of successful relations among peoples, hasn't it? tell you what,, if they do change the Redskins name and those pesky Navajo STILL want to keep their name, well by golly, they're just asking to be put to the sword. It's for their own good, after all. ~Bark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan since a Fetus Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 It would seem so much easier to make Red Mesa change their name and then the Washington Redskins. It would help in proving that the name is in fact degrading. If your own people cannot stop the use of an offensive term, then how can you expect others? Lead by example. This works for me quite often in everyday life, not all the time however. Now when it comes to a name change, I am not sure how I will react. I have rooted for the Washington Redskins and the Burgundy and Gold since a fetus. The combination of the team running poorly for a couple of decades and everything I identify with gone, I can honestly say that I am not sure that I would be on board. It wouldn't be a thought process really, but more of a feeling. How will I feel if and when that day comes. i can honestly say that I do not know. However, the continuation of the colors would go a long way to keeping my interest in the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diesel Hog Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 If the team name goes and the colors change, I'm done with the NFL. I'll just stick with college and keep my Sunday's open. If the team name changes and the colors stay the same, hmm, I don't know. I'll cross that bridge if/when it happens. If the team name stays the same and the team continues to be crappy year in and year out, then I may just drop them anyway. I'm just sick of the losing culture here and the NFL in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 So, next year, RGIII has a major resurgence and the Redskins win the Super Bowl. The next year, Snyder announces that the Washington Pantydroppers are taking the field. You treat them like an expansion team? I am loyal and I would feel that the team folded. Expansion indeed. No thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dont Taze Me Bro Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 I am loyal and I would feel that the team folded. Expansion indeed. No thanks. Hell, we already have played like an expansion team 17 out of the past 22 years since our last Super Bowl victory :/ I don't know what I'd do if the name changed. I guess it depends on how it changes (i.e. does Snyder cave or does some crazy ass law or vote force him to change it with him almost going to the grave to fight it). I'd like to think that it wouldn't matter, but it definitely would not be the same and not being from the DMV area or ever living there, it would feel like my last tie to the area would be severed. By that I mean, grandmother and her family were VA natives that all moved to NC except one of her brothers who stayed in Arlington (or around that area) and had season tickets to RFK in the family. Wife's aunt lived in Arlington too, she would spend 2-3 weeks ever summer as a child there, also a Redskins fan. Well, her aunt is back in NC in a nursing home and everyone on my dad's side of the family that lived there is now deceased. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zazzaro703 Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 I really feel like im in the twilight zone with this issue. All the evidence and polls point to there not being an issue with the name with the people who matter. But now all of a sudden Redskin means dead Indian Scalp. These people have zero proof and you know they have gone around polling themselves. Had they had polling evidence, it would be out in the public being paraded around. But it's not because it doesn't exist. How the main media and government can just take the word of a severe minority and run with it is just shocking with the evidence provided in this case. It's as if it doesn't even exist. Did you read the background of the guy who brought the issue to the FCC? He is a loony toon. What's even worse is he is a "professor" and his way of thinking is being spread to young minds like a virus.... and they are PAYING him for It. It's appalling. Forcing his students to try to ban 16oz sodas? Manipulating the system? All we are missing here is the Rod Sterling monologue. I always knew the main media fed us the news with their bias injected into it, but with this name change issue it is now obviously clear how they impact the news we receive. I'm not sure how anyone could trust any news they give us after this. They will have the public believe what they want us to believe and that is frightening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SusqySkin Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2218182-government-media-fans-can-force-snyder-into-changing-washington-team-name Very Matter of fact artice this guy has produced. <staff edit of excessively long quote of an article (and it's all stuff posted in here more than once already so you didn't miss anything new)> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 1). Might want to shorten that quote. 2). Granted, I only skimmed the thing, but as near as I can tell, the guy spent that entire column saying "look how many people are doing what I want". Without ever once mentioning that natives overwhelmingly say the name isn't offensive. It's kinda ironic. In this entire "debate", the only side that gives a **** about how Natives feel, are the "racists". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 Larry, wait... did you call me a Redskin ? I wish you did, I could market myself and be as rich as ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizmo 3squire Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 Just getting to the point where I don't even care anymore if it's changed. As long as the colors remain the same (or perhaps cooler colors if they exist) and it's a cool mascot, nothing to do w/ Native americans so the naysayers can stfu and we can focus on football, and football ONLY. I'm not totally opposed to a fresh start in DC, as long as we become a WINNING team like we once were. If we're a winning team, win championships, etc... then at this point so the hell what the team is named. I'm tired of the distractions and losing culture that's plagued this team for over 20 years. The Nats are doing well and are arguably the next big team in the NL, Wizards have gotten things together and could possibly land KD in the next 2 years so they'll be contenders, Skins seem to be still at the bottom of the barrel, if a change is what we need to succeed then f it at this point, might as well. This issue won't die down unfortunately, it's gained too much momentum and it's at a point where it's a matter of time before Snyder caves in or something big happens where he has no choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planter Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 I'm a Redskins fan. The Redskins are the organization. When the name changes then they will no longer be the Redskins organization or team. They will be just another 'expansion' team to me. Uh huh. Our team represents Washington D.C. We're looking to restore pride and respect. The "name change debate" is secondary. Change the name, keep the logo and fightsong ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZRagone Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 I'm so glad the Bullets changed their name magically changed their culture and started them onto winning ways... :roll: I swear the "Change the name so we can start winning again" argument is so incredibly mind boggling and yet it continually keeps being tossed out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 Maybe Snyder is playing this all wrong. Maybe he should go the other way with this. Bring back the headdresses for the band. Bring back the Pocahontas costumes for the cheerleaders. Bring back the "we want heap more" lyrics to Hail to the Redskins. Make Chief Zee an honorary assistant head coach and put him on the sidlelines. And couch in terms of attempting to re-engage with our Native American heritage or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve09ru Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 Maybe Snyder is playing this all wrong. Maybe he should go the other way with this. Bring back the headdresses for the band. Bring back the Pocahontas costumes for the cheerleaders. Bring back the "we want heap more" lyrics to Hail to the Redskins. Make Chief Zee an honorary assistant head coach and put him on the sidlelines. And couch in terms of attempting to re-engage with our Native American heritage or something. that would be awesome - if they're already offended then may as well go all out with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizmo 3squire Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 @ZRagzone You can quote me next time champ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 Uh huh. Our team represents Washington D.C. We're looking to restore pride and respect. The "name change debate" is secondary. Change the name, keep the logo and fightsong ! Want to restore pride and respect? WIN SOME ****ING GAMES!!! That is the only thing that will restore pride and respect. Otherwise we will be another loser expansion team that nobody cares about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan2k Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 is there a reason why teams have mascots anyway? Why not just say Washington vs Dallas football teams are playing or the Washington vs San Francisco are playing in baseball Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve09ru Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 I also don't think Native American's understand what mascots truly are. Lets look at the definition from Webster's, you know, since they want to through out definitions so much. mas·cotnoun \ˈmas-ˌkät also -kət\ : a person, animal, or object used as a symbol to represent a group (such as a sports team) and to bring good luck You will notice that the above does not say: mas·cotnoun \ˈmas-ˌkät also -kət\: a person, animal, or object used as way to mock or make fun of a certain persons, animal, or object. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soup's Uncle Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 I'd stick with the team through a name change. I'm a fan of football, and my home team is my chosen squad to root for. that won't change. ~Bang ^This Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.