Boss_Hogg Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 So these protesters are screaming at children. That's a good look One news outlet tweeted that a small group of protesters were yelling "shame, shame, shame!" to a father and his young child as they walked by. Keep it classy folks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 See, if I start seeing more of this, it would be easier for me to get on board with a potential name change. Ultimately, if a lot of Native Americans are offended, then we should listen! I've always said that I want the name to stay, but if enough people don't like it - react to that. If it got to where we started encountering thousands of people at every road game, it would be time to re-poll or something, right? The fact that a very small number of them yelled at children or acted poorly doesn't really bother me. Just as a small percentage of the name supporters say dumb things at times, so do some people on the other side of the debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonArtest15 Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Not surprised at Phil Jackson's stance. Dude has a lifetime's worth of peyote in his system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salistala Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 In fairness to those fans who are clearly as tone deaf as Snyder, the image I imagine they were going for was red war paint. Not equal to someone painting their face black to portray a black person. Really? Who gets to decide that? As a general rule it's wiser to choose not to paint your face as someone of a different race, whether Black, Native American, Asian or otherwise. So, once again, why are people uncomfortable with dudes in red faces with headdresses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Really? Who gets to decide that? As a general rule it's wiser to choose not to paint your face as someone of a different race, whether Black, Native American, Asian or otherwise. How about you re-read my post and tell me where you got that from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salistala Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 How about you re-read my post and tell me where you got that from? "...the image I imagine they were going for was red war paint. Not equal to someone painting their face black to portray a black person." If you were saying painting yourself in blackface is offensive and wrong, but painting yourself in redface is okay because it is just "war paint" then I disagree with you because the image is readily identifiable as a Native American as a result of the faux feathers and therefore just as offensive. Blackface is a caricature of American blacks, not all Africans could be said to be the same shade. Redface is a caricature of Native Americans, and in my opinion in poor taste (whether or not it's just "paint") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 "...the image I imagine they were going for was red war paint. Not equal to someone painting their face black to portray a black person." If you were saying painting yourself in blackface is offensive and wrong, but painting yourself in redface is okay because it is just "war paint" then I disagree with you because the image is readily identifiable as a Native American as a result of the faux feathers and therefore just as offensive. Blackface is a caricature of American blacks, not all Africans could be said to be the same shade. Redface is a caricature of Native Americans, and in my opinion in poor taste (whether or not it's just "paint") Ok. So we're back to the "any depiction of a Native American is offensive" thing? Even in the warrior context, which is 100% of the intention. Nobody picks a mascot to poke fun at it. They pick it because it gives off a sense of fear or respect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salistala Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 You and I have the same disease. When I started seriously researching the topic months ago I was willing to be persuaded either way based on whatever I was able to find out. As I wrote to Bang the other day, when it became apparent to me that certain Indian leaders have no interest in the truth I kind of lost patience with the whole lot of them. Thanks for tossing me out with the bathwater. Can I apply that in the "keep the name's" direction? Truth is I won't because I have enough awareness to know that the extremists don't speak for all, just their narrow sub-set. And I appreciate honest debate if for any other reason it sharpens my grasp of the issue to its core points. My goal is the truth, not a predetermined outcome. Ok. So we're back to the "any depiction of a Native American is offensive" thing? Even in the warrior context, which is 100% of the intention. Nobody picks a mascot to poke fun at it. They pick it because it gives off a sense of fear or respect. Do you get the idea that that guy was aiming for "fear or respect"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Do you get the idea that that guy was aiming for "fear or respect"? You quoted something I posted from weeks ago that I vaguely remember, and in the post I quoted I clearly stated that they were tone deaf. My fear/respect comment had to do with your response, which referenced anything with war paint or feathers being offensive. I reject that notion. Keep trying to twist my words though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salistala Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 So you're asking for respectful treatment from name supporters but feel it okay to characterize Dan Snyder as a demon? Nice. I understand you think Snyder is benefiting from the debate, or at least that is what you just wrote, but I highly doubt Snyder's intention is to have this issue in the media nonstop. He gains nothing from his trademark being challenged every few years. He gains nothing from a hostile, feckless media. He gains nothing from the media pontificating on prime time that he is a racist. He is one of the most vilified men in the country at this point. Why would anyone want to bring the amount of scrutiny and derision this issue has caused? Just for buying the team he loved as a child? I have never once asked for respect, occasionally I have pointed out a lack of it but I've never demanded it in return. But I believe I write with a degree of sincerity that gives respect to those that engage with me and that sometimes that is returned. I also believe some people think the only beneficiary of the gift of respect is the object of the gift, I think the agent of the gift benefits also hence my approach with those I debate with. In regards to Daniel Snyder, he himself owns media outlets and therefore anything that benefits the media benefits him. Any media outlet's revenue is directly tied to audience numbers, if you limit your audience to only your supporters you limit revenue. Therefore it's in the interest of the bottom line to include opposing voices. So even if Snyder personally didn't want to be attacked, his accountants may be advising him to stay the course "take one for the team" so all with a financial interest in his stations reap the rewards. And me? I'm just a little person with a small voice in comparison. If I personally harm him and he feels the need, he has a legion of lawyers just chomping at the bit to pull out my entrails and fling them around a courtroom with savage glee in his service. One more note, I was a little disappointed in myself when I looked into the "forsaken" reference. I did not realize it was Jesus speaking to his Father from the Cross. If I had known that at the time I would have never used it in such poor taste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salistala Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 You were going for irony here, right? Ugly Human behavior referred to the outrage and fierce partisanship I see in popular media/news sites I see today. Gone are the days of principled debate, replaced with one-line personal attacks and dubious opinion dressed up as fact. I do believe it is in the media's best interest to prolong these "debates" for as long as they can before moving on to yet another issue to be outraged with. Never resolving anything, and rehashing it later for further mouse clicks/page views. I previously labelled Snyder a fool for his apparent inability to bring this issue to rest, only to realize in my diatribe against media complicity that he was likely a heavily involved agent of unrest. See my comments above in relation to "forsaken" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planter Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 See, if I start seeing more of this, it would be easier for me to get on board with a potential name change. Ultimately, if a lot of Native Americans are offended, then we should listen! I've always said that I want the name to stay, but if enough people don't like it - react to that. If it got to where we started encountering thousands of people at every road game, it would be time to re-poll or something, right? The fact that a very small number of them yelled at children or acted poorly doesn't really bother me. Just as a small percentage of the name supporters say dumb things at times, so do some people on the other side of the debate. Well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Section106 Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 I have never once asked for respect, occasionally I have pointed out a lack of it but I've never demanded it in return. But I believe I write with a degree of sincerity that gives respect to those that engage with me and that sometimes that is returned. I also believe some people think the only beneficiary of the gift of respect is the object of the gift, I think the agent of the gift benefits also hence my approach with those I debate with. In regards to Daniel Snyder, he himself owns media outlets and therefore anything that benefits the media benefits him. Any media outlet's revenue is directly tied to audience numbers, if you limit your audience to only your supporters you limit revenue. Therefore it's in the interest of the bottom line to include opposing voices. So even if Snyder personally didn't want to be attacked, his accountants may be advising him to stay the course "take one for the team" so all with a financial interest in his stations reap the rewards. And me? I'm just a little person with a small voice in comparison. If I personally harm him and he feels the need, he has a legion of lawyers just chomping at the bit to pull out my entrails and fling them around a courtroom with savage glee in his service. One more note, I was a little disappointed in myself when I looked into the "forsaken" reference. I did not realize it was Jesus speaking to his Father from the Cross. If I had known that at the time I would have never used it in such poor taste. Whatever. You still called the man a name while politicking for a team name change because it is disrespectful. Pot meet kettle. As far as Snyder and his radio stations, which endeavor is more valuable, Red Zebra or the Washington Redskins? The answer renders you argument meaningless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BleedBNG Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 "The activists have actually performed worse in the court of public opinion than the Redskins have on the field of play... Americans want to change the subject, not the name." http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Sports/2014/11/03/Crowd-Protests-Redskins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearfeather Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 Salistala, on 03 Nov 2014 Why should it be my burden to separate the two? ( connotations ) Why should the Redskins, their former and current players, and their fans including Native American fans of the team, be burdened with their teams name being declared a slur or derogatory at the very least towards Native Americans, for all time ? I live less than 20 miles from one of the oldest, if not the oldest reservation in the U.S. I went to school with them. I've worked and work with them. I've even had them ask me about getting some of my Redskins season tickets. In 45 years I have never, ... not once, ever heard " redskin " used in a derogatory way towards Native Americans. On every occasion it has always, ... always been in reference to the football team. Lastly, enough with the cheap PR stunts by Snyder and his keystone kops. Do something meaningful with the Virginia/Delaware tribes, the team has allies there and there are plenty of opportunities to do so. Running off to Montana with some swings and a back hoe looks desperate. You mentioned the Patawomeck, whose current and former Chief have come out in support of the " Redskins ", and correctly stated how they are seeking Federal recognition. But how do you know that there is no support from the Redskins on this front. If I was Snyder, I sure as hell wouldn't show my hand on it, at least not until the deal was done. An interesting little story regarding the Patawomeck : http://www.fredericksburg.com/news/stafford-high-gets-real-with-indian-mascot/article_d056143f-ab3a-53e3-9102-bcc56a6eefc1.html I don't think any of us, ( or very few ) knew that the Redskins Charitable Foundation had made donations toward the preservation of the Lakota language almost a decade ago. Where was the publicity surrounding that ? He didn't make a show of it. He just did it. And with your last statement you attempt to diminish Snyder's efforts by cherry-picking those that you see as insignificant. But you make no mention of the scholarships for Native American students, medical transport vehicles and thousands of computers. Should the team change it's name or censor itself because of those extremely rare instances when the term is used in a derogatory statement ? For me, the answer is no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planter Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 Ouch ! Toxic Atmosphere Surrounding Redskins Is Turning the Franchise into a Joke | Bleacher Report (via http://ble.ac/teamstream-) http://teamstre.am/1tY8B6i Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve09ru Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 it's **** like this that pisses me off: http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2014/11/7/7174095/re-imagining-all-32-nfl-logos-as-nfl-logos no substance, no opinion, no facts, just pure BS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 it's **** like this that pisses me off: http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2014/11/7/7174095/re-imagining-all-32-nfl-logos-as-nfl-logos no substance, no opinion, no facts, just pure BS Relax...they are losing. The name is going nowhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve09ru Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 Relax...they are losing. The name is going nowhere.oh I know, but the baseless 'articles' and **** still get on my nerves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 oh I know, but the baseless 'articles' and **** still get on my nerves I think most people are on to their strategy now. Facts are not their friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planter Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 Relax...they are losing. The name is going nowhere. How about the name is going nowhere....fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 Ouch ! Toxic Atmosphere Surrounding Redskins Is Turning the Franchise into a Joke | Bleacher Report (via http://ble.ac/teamstream-) http://teamstre.am/1tY8B6i Hard to argue with anything in that article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 How about the name is going nowhere....fast. What is going to force the change? Serious question. What specifically? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 Sponsors? Would have left already...to only be replaced by others. Dan Snyder? Stated he will never change the name. Public Opinion? Overwhelmingly in support of the teams name. Native American majority against the name? No evidence that majority exists. The United States government? They can't force him. Given recent elections I doubt this is even brought up again by elements of the government. The ESPN's and UnWise Mike's of the world? Coverage is dying off because they know the majority of Americans are sick of the topic. The fans? Never Shall I go on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BleedBNG Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 Hard to argue with anything in that article. Maybe not this... "and when you continually make the same mistakes from a personnel standpoint" but I'd argue with this... "And when you defend a racist nickname in ignorant and thoughtless fashion" along with this... "and when you get caught cheating the salary cap" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.