Califan007 The Constipated Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Califan, you missed the point of his article by a country mile. Not even slightly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 We cannot arbitrarily decide that certain words have histories associated with them that is offensive. That's called making things up, or lying. That definitely matters. Actually it's the only thing that matters. People want to compare this to the n word or the rebel flag. Those are two words (/symbols) that have definite, clear, oppressive and divisional histories associated with them. Or even "fag" or "retard", two words that have recently fallen out of favor. One can look at the usages of both those words and decide that they've been used in a derogatory and repressive manner. I keep coming back to it. YOU CANNOT MAKE THIS ARGUMENT ABOUT REDSKIN. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE THINGS UP ABOUT THIS WORD. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE OFFENDED. So to those who actually ARE offensed, Native American or not, I simply say you do not have the right. Uh, pointing out that it's certainly possible for words to have histories that are more recent than those of the person who first used it.  And those histories can be, and often are, strictly personal.  The n-word wasn't created to be offensive. It was simply a slang variant of the word "negro".  It became offensive, when black people had it snarled at them, as they were being treated badly, sometimes even being beaten, by racists.  To pick a different analogy, the "confederate flag" was not created to represent the KKK. But the KKK is part of the flag's history, now. ("The Dukes of Hazard" is part of it's history, too.) It's history was not frozen for eternity, the day the first one was sewn.  (Being planted on the Moon is part of the US flag's history.)  ----------  We've had posters in this thread state that they personally have had the word used as an epitaph. At least one who says he had that word snarled at him, when he was kicked out of a roadside diner, because he had "redskins" with him.  Those examples obviously occurred after the word's origin. But they absolutely are part of the word's history, now. At least for those individual people.  ----------  Now, if your point is "being offended does not entitle someone to falsely claim that the word was created to refer to scalps", then I'm right there with you.  But what I'm reading in your post is "the word was created by Natives, and therefore no one is permitted to consider it offensive, ever after". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 That may just about do it Yup.. it says in there that they have several other appeal options, and could even attempt to trademark by state.. but it' not looking good. Â Now we'll see if my prediction comes true. Â NFL has PR headache, Snyder wants a new stadium. Pay for the stadium, says Dan, and I'll change the name. Â ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 That may just about do it Only from a PR standpoint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 That may just about do it God I hope so, I'm so sick of this debate and watching us slowly lose the public dialogue. The name isn't a slur and never was. But if enough people now, including NAs, believe that it is.... Then we've lost and frankly the fight isn't worth it anymore. Bite the bullet, change it, and move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Yup.. it says in there that they have several other appeal options, and could even attempt to trademark by state.. but it' not looking good.  Now we'll see if my prediction comes true.  NFL has PR headache, Snyder wants a new stadium. Pay for the stadium, says Dan, and I'll change the name.  ~Bang  Yeah something has to give here for Snyder. Unless he wants to keep spending millions in court.  The other question now is, will the NFL keep defending the team? They have stood by Snyder through this, but it's going to be tough for the league to keep standing by Snyder after this latest ruling. Only from a PR standpoint.  If the name will no longer be trademarked, how is this only a PR hit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 His piece cited origin of word to scalps. I should respect he's offended because of this. Apparently you missed this direct quote from the article [my underline]:  "Those scalpings were a tragic and ugly episode in American history, and at the very least a certain solemnity of tone is called for in making even oblique reference to them. But they are not tied to the origin of the word. Indeed, the word goes back quite a bit further than that era, and has been used as a self-identifier since at least the mid-1700s, when the Piankashaws referred to themselves and other Natives as "redskins." More anecdotally, many modern-day Natives refer to themselves and other Natives as "Skins" as a term of self-association."  I didn't miss anything by a country mile, he didn't bring anything new to table that I haven't heard. I should change my opinion why? Re: the above... you missed at least one thing by a country mile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 God I hope so, I'm so sick of this debate and watching us slowly lose the public dialogue. The name isn't a slur and never was. But if enough people now, including NAs, believe that it is.... Then we've lost and frankly the fight isn't worth it anymore. Bite the bullet, change it, and move on. Â Agreed. I've never wanted the name to change, but this isn't a battle worth fighting over anymore. Snyder does have deep pockets, but does he want to keep spending millions fighting this? Do we as fans want to keep having this debate over and over for the foreseeable future? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFKFedEx Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Yup.. it says in there that they have several other appeal options, and could even attempt to trademark by state.. but it' not looking good.  Now we'll see if my prediction comes true.  NFL has PR headache, Snyder wants a new stadium. Pay for the stadium, says Dan, and I'll change the name.  ~Bang Once in while we agree Bang. New name = new $tadium deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 If the name will no longer be trademarked, how is this only a PR hit? No, it's still trademarked. It just loses its additional federal protections. Its state protections are still in tact, along with many other usage protections. We went over this hundreds of pages ago, I can't bring it up though because I'm on my iPhone lol... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 No, it's still trademarked. It just loses its additional federal protections. Its state protections are still in tact, along with many other usage protections. We went over this hundreds of pages ago, I can't bring it up though because I'm on my iPhone lol... Â Ah, I guess I misunderstood the whole trademark thing. I knew while it was being appealed, it was still protected. I thought with this recent news, there was no more protection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss_Hogg Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Okay, let's say the word Redskins isn't racist. It's never been used as a slur.  But what we cannot ignore is the fact that Native Americans are the only ethnic group used as as sports mascots. We're basically lumping a proud race of people with animals, pirates, and machines.  Highly recommend reading this: http://www.apa.org/pi/oema/resources/indian-mascots.aspx  And watching this:  Dan T made one of the best posts in this thread about choosing between his Nationals hat and Skins hat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Ah, I guess I misunderstood the whole trademark thing. I knew while it was being appealed, it was still protected. I thought with this recent news, there was no more protection. Nope. In fact, during the arguments before the court the NA's attorney said that theSkins' attorney's claim of freedom of speech didn't apply precisely because they can still call the team the Redskins and still have legal protections for the use of the name. The Redskins--and the rest of the NFL--will most likely lose an infinitesimal amount of money over this. The Name-Change side scored a victory in that a government entity said the name is offensive to NAs...it gives their side a bit more sense of legitimacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StephenDavis Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Nope. In fact, during the arguments before the court the NA's attorney said that theSkins' attorney's claim of freedom of speech didn't apply precisely because they can still call the team the Redskins and still have legal protections for the use of the name. The Redskins--and the rest of the NFL--will most likely lose an infinitesimal amount of money over this. The Name-Change side scored a victory in that a government entity said the name is offensive to NAs...it gives their side a bit more sense of legitimacy. Time to change the name. I believe the name debate is an underlying distraction for the team. We haven't been a consistent competitive team in over 20 years. No better time then now to make a change. I think it would help create a "fresh start" for the franchise. God knows we need one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Okay, let's say the word Redskins isn't racist. It's never been used as a slur. But what we cannot ignore is the fact that Native Americans are the only ethnic group used as as sports mascots. Basically we're lumping a proud people with animals, pirates, and machines. If that's the argument, then let that BE the argument. And if that were the argument, there never would have been a trademark suit... And we're also "lumping" that same proud people in with Vikings, Cowboys, Patriots, Texans, Saints, Brewers, Phillies, Mets, Nationals, Mariners, Athletics, Rangers, Royals, Yankees, Celtics, Warriors, Wizards, Mavericks, Trailblazers, Kings, Canadiens, Rangers, Senators and Canucks. Time to change the name. I believe the name debate is an underlying distraction for the team. We haven't been a consistent competitive team in over 20 years. No better time then now to make a change. I think it would help create a "fresh start" for the franchise. God knows we need one. Horrible reasons for changing the team's name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonez3 Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015  Apparently you missed this direct quote from the article [my underline]:  "Those scalpings were a tragic and ugly episode in American history, and at the very least a certain solemnity of tone is called for in making even oblique reference to them. But they are not tied to the origin of the word. Indeed, the word goes back quite a bit further than that era, and has been used as a self-identifier since at least the mid-1700s, when the Piankashaws referred to themselves and other Natives as "redskins." More anecdotally, many modern-day Natives refer to themselves and other Natives as "Skins" as a term of self-association."  Re: the above... you missed at least one thing by a country mile. In the words of the author...Na cuz  He was making inference to the racist usage, that is inarguable. I recognized he neutral tone of his piece in my original. But he does not cite Goodard during this section and went out of his way to bring in an article that really does not support the term used in derogatory fashion.  Yes he recognizes the origin is not with those scalping, but he undeniable infers they have racist connections based on these practices.  No? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Once in while we agree Bang. New name = new $tadium deal. It seems his only leverage to get out from under this and save at least a little face.  ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonez3 Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Okay, let's say the word Redskins isn't racist. It's never been used as a slur.  But what we cannot ignore is the fact that Native Americans are the only ethnic group used as as sports mascots. We're basically lumping a proud race of people with animals, pirates, and machines.  Highly recommend reading this: http://www.apa.org/pi/oema/resources/indian-mascots.aspx  Dan T made one of the best posts in this thread about choosing between his Nationals hat and Skins hat. Fighting Irish with a cartoonish appearing mascot?!?! And just like Redskins, some fabricated histories on how it related to history of unruly Irish people.  And in the wrong context, calling an Irishman a leprechaun can be inferred as racist or racially insensitive. I think Rory McIlroy just was called this and raised some national attention.  And the video has a guy saying how the "redskins are the most blatant racist name there is...'. No, its not pal. Sorry, people like to be offended and felt bad for and are hitching their agenda wagon to things that just aren't based in fact.  All good man, I respect NA struggles, probably moreso growing up a Skins fan like many others. But I just don't tolerate nonsense and character weakness. I would gladly support physically and financially NA rights. But I would stand face to face with any chief in the nation and not recognize Redskin as a racist term. Period, end of story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFKFedEx Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 It seems his only leverage to get out from under this and save at least a little face. Â ~Bang I wish I could say that I don't doubt his ability to fully maximize and capitalize on this opportunity. Unfortunately, the past 16 years of Snyder's decision making won't allow me to do so. Â Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Evidente Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 So what happens now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss_Hogg Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 If that's the argument, then let that BE the argument. And if that were the argument, there never would have been a trademark suit... And we're also "lumping" that same proud people in with Vikings, Cowboys, Patriots, Texans, Saints, Brewers, Phillies, Mets, Nationals, Mariners, Athletics, Rangers, Royals, Yankees, Celtics, Warriors, Wizards, Mavericks, Trailblazers, Kings, Canadiens, Rangers, Senators and Canucks. Horrible reasons for changing the team's name.  I agree the activists need more focus. Is this just about a racial slur or is it about using native Americans as a sports mascot?  And not one of those teams you mentioned involve someone's race.  Fighting Irish with a cartoonish appearing mascot?!?! And just like Redskins, some fabricated histories on how it related to history of unruly Irish people.  And in the wrong context, calling an Irishman a leprechaun can be inferred as racist or racially insensitive. I think Rory McIlroy just was called this and raised some national attention.  Irish is a nationality, not a race.  But if enough Irish people are offended, then the school should listen.  This is hard for me too because I bleed burgundy and gold and I love this team, but I think it's time we re-brand and move on.  keep the colors, keep the history, retire all native imagery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFKFedEx Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 So what happens now? The news will fade, the team will file appeals, the cycle will continue. Nothing good for the football we watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Okay, let's say the word Redskins isn't racist. It's never been used as a slur.  But what we cannot ignore is the fact that Native Americans are the only ethnic group used as as sports mascots. We're basically lumping a proud race of people with animals, pirates, and machines.   You sure ? Depictions of the Notre Dame mascot are a white guy fighting...would you like more examples ? Celtics mascot perhaps ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Okay, let's say the word Redskins isn't racist. It's never been used as a slur. But what we cannot ignore is the fact that Native Americans are the only ethnic group used as as sports mascots. We're basically lumping a proud race of people with animals, pirates, and machines. Highly recommend reading this: http://www.apa.org/pi/oema/resources/indian-mascots.aspx And watching this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lUF95ThI7s Dan T made one of the best posts in this thread about choosing between his Nationals hat and Skins hat. VikingsPatriots Saints Packers 49ers Completely incorrect on your part Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 I agree the activists need more focus. Is this just about a racial slur or is it about using native Americans as a sports mascot?  And not one of those teams you mentioned involve someone's race.    Sir, you pointed out mascots. The depiction and the team name is a complete stereotype and ND is pretty obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.