nonniey Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Not "a" dictionary definition. Virtually every English-language dictionary in existence. I assume it's because the editors are politically correct liberal wussies who who are ignorant of the real origin of the word and are kowtowing to the elite Main Stream Media and a tiny contingent of radical Native American activists. Ah, so you do know. Lets put it this way Redskins being defined as a slur in dictionaries is a relatively recent phenomenon and patently wrong. You just have to look up the definition of slur in any of those same dictionaries to understand that. It is those who cast the aspersion that creates a slur not those who were subjected to the aspersion. Since Redskins was never traditionally used as a slur the dictionaries are wrong in defining Redskins as such. In order to really call it a slur you would have to convince a significant portion of the population to commonly use it as a slur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sinister Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Looking forward to when the name inevitably changes and we can all move forward and focus us on just the crappy football this team plays Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Hammer Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 ] Not bad Boss Hogg, the franchise can piggy back off the shows popularity LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 As someone mentioned earlier: Perhaps re-branding the team will force Snyder to sell? He's placed all his eggs in one basket (Redskins) so he may not be able to afford a name change. Snyder is broke now ? Geez. Really? Here's a couple off the top of my head... Bell Atlantic > Verizon Esso > Exxon A couple from the world of sports Houston Oilers > Tennessee Oilers > Tennessee Titans Washington Bullets > Washington Wizards New Orleans Hornets > New Orleans Pelicans All of the sports ones are wrong. Every single one. Not to mention...I don't even think any of those teams have ever been worth a billion dollars. Did you not read the qualifier to the question ? "80 years". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
celticsalmon Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Allen's reasoning that the name has been in use for more than 80 years - is pitiful and embarrassing. The confederate flag is coming down in South Carolina- a flag that has flown for more than 150 years. Times are changing. Synder and Co. need to embrace change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Not "a" dictionary definition. Virtually every English-language dictionary in existence. I assume it's because the editors are politically correct liberal wussies who who are ignorant of the real origin of the word and are kowtowing to the elite Main Stream Media and a tiny contingent of radical Native American activists. I guess lexicographers just don't know what words mean. Someone better mail some dictionaries to those NA high schools that use Redskins name so they can "wise up" and change it. And send some dictionaries to those rappers who use the N-word too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeeb Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 I used to be a pretty big advocate of keeping the name but I've since realized the absurdity of constantly having to explain myself over a FOOTBALL TEAM name. If I have to constantly describe and defend my teams mascot as inoffensive and "respecting" natives there is something inherently wrong there even if i feel there is nothing wrong with it. Snyder & co. have done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to sway public opinion with PR failure after PR failure. Everyone needs to see the writing on the wall and that this is not going away this time. Not like the previous name protests of the 80's and 90's. This is me a loyal season ticket holder saying I'm absolutely done defending this nonsense. Rip this band aid off and change the mascot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xameil Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Allen's reasoning that the name has been in use for more than 80 years - is pitiful and embarrassing. The confederate flag is coming down in South Carolina- a flag that has flown for more than 150 years. Times are changing. Synder and Co. need to embrace change. Confederate flag has always had racist meanings. The term Redskins has not. But...guess Nabisco need to change the name of their cookie. Plus, the candy Nips (also a racist term). In fact Oreos and Nips are more racist terms then Redskins. Guess they should change their names first I used to be a pretty big advocate of keeping the name but I've since realized the absurdity of constantly having to explain myself over a FOOTBALL TEAM name. If I have to constantly describe and defend my teams mascot as inoffensive and "respecting" natives there is something inherently wrong there even if i feel there is nothing wrong with it. Snyder & co. have done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to sway public opinion with PR failure after PR failure. Everyone needs to see the writing on the wall and that this is not going away this time. Not like the previous name protests of the 80's and 90's. This is me a loyal season ticket holder saying I'm absolutely done defending this nonsense. Rip this band aid off and change the mascot. So you want the name changed for your convienince? Not selfish at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beygo Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 I am in support of the team name and do not want it changed. I'm curious to know from the name change crew how they would want the name dealt with in the hall of fame and NFL records? Should the name be redacted in all instances? If not, why should it remain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZRagone Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 So need some help here. Arguing with someone on another board about a dishonest talking points memo article that tried to suggest the lawsuit was about our "Mascot" and that the logo on the helmet is the one being discussed in the case. I remember seeing something on here when the first instance of this case was occurring with someone providing an explanation that it was only targeting the logos that actually had "REDSKINS" in them. Like this... That's because the entire basis for the lawsuit is the claim that the word "redskins" is offensive, and thus THAT's what they're going after currently....and the native American head logo doesn't fall within that logic. Does anyone remember this and happen to have any links clearly showing which "logos" are actually in jeopardy here? Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93 Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 I am in support of the team name and do not want it changed. I'm curious to know from the name change crew how they would want the name dealt with in the hall of fame and NFL records? Should the name be redacted in all instances? If not, why should it remain? Is this like some big debate? If the name changes, I'm sure historical stuff that can be changed will be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsGuy Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 So does anyone have a good explanation on what if anything changes because of this ruling? I mean legally and in a practical sense, the public perception of this ruling will be hard to judge immediately. Nothing happens right now. The Redskins probably have three to four years of appeals left on this, which is why yesterday's ruling didn't get that much ink. They've been down this road before, and came out on top in the end. The judicial landscape is, unfortunately, riddled with more activist judges now, but it is heartening to see the Redskins plan to fight this tooth and nail to the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beygo Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 I'm not starting a new debate, I am exploring a thought about the results of redacting the name Redskins from all sources. I'm not trying to be caustic, I'm truly curious to the extent of how far the name change should go. For example, should NFL films be prohibited from showing the 1982 playoff run and superbowl documentary? Of if it is to be broadcast should the names and images be blacked out or pixelated? I don't think this is a flippant topic. If the name is deemed offensive by the NFL, they must in turn remove the name and imagery in all instances. And with that action, the team's history will cease to exist as a complete record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93 Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 There are lots of cartoons/movies that still run with black face, caricatures, mammy characters, etc. They run with disclaimers saying exactly what they were "a sign of those times". That particularly aspect of the cartoon is controversial in today's society. IF they take it that far, I'm sure that's the route they'll take. They aren't gonna expunge any records. But then again, I'm sure most of the more passionate ppl in this thread are all in the belief that after changing the name, the liberals will execute Joe Theismann, Riggins, and Gibbs just for good measure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beygo Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Let me clarify what I'm looking for. What is your opinion of how far they should go? Is there a consensus in the name change group of the extent it should be changed? I don't think there is. All I've read and heard is that the time has come and that the name should be changed now. But what about the history? Because the history of the team is the reason we are fans. We have been thrilled by the past and want to re-live those events anew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Just as an aside, not every controversial issue has to be shoehorned into a "liberals vs. conservatives" debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93 Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Just as an aside, not every controversial issue has to be shoehorned into a "liberals vs. conservatives" debate. Oh I know but I've been called a liberal enough in this thread that I think that's my new name lol Liberalonawarpath93 Let me clarify what I'm looking for. What is your opinion of how far they should go? Is there a consensus in the name change group of the extent it should be changed? I don't think there is. All I've read and heard is that the time has come and that the name should be changed now. But what about the history? Because the history of the team is the reason we are fans. We have been thrilled by the past and want to re-live those events anew. Honestly, I don't think you need to change anything from history. It's history. No need to erase it. You can't act like this franchise's history (good and bad) didn't happen. Even the team makes mention of George Marshall being a racist prick in their documentaries. No need to sugarcoat stuff like that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beygo Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 But then again, I'm sure most of the more passionate ppl in this thread are all in the belief that after changing the name, the liberals will execute Joe Theismann, Riggins, and Gibbs just for good measure If you are going to play games, I don't want your opinion. I asked a serious question. I don't think it deserves such a silly response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 The history will remain intact, and all the record books will show the old name when recording events that happened under that name, should it change. A name change does not mean it's a whole new franchise, and offensive or not, I'll eat my hat the day the Elias Sports Bureau or the NFL or the Hall of Fame removes the name from history. they will not stop printing the records, and they will show the name of the team as it was called when the record was set. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93 Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 The history will remain intact, and all the record books will show the old name when recording events that happened under that name, should it change. A name change does not mean it's a whole new franchise, and offensive or not, I'll eat my hat the day the Elias Sports Bureau or the NFL or the Hall of Fame removes the name from history. they will not stop printing the records, and they will show the name of the team as it was called when the record was set. ~Bang Exactly If you are going to play games, I don't want your opinion. I asked a serious question. I don't think it deserves such a silly response. It was a joke bro lol I gave you a real response Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beygo Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Honestly, I don't think you need to change anything from history. It's history. No need to erase it. You can't act like this franchise's history (good and bad) didn't happen. Even the team makes mention of George Marshall being a racist prick in their documentaries. No need to sugarcoat stuff like that Thanks, this is all I was looking for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93 Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Thanks, this is all I was looking for. Yeah sorry man I'm too lazy to google but do all the colleges that switched their names from "redskins", "Orangemen", Etc. make mention of the past? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsGuy Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 BraveontheWarpath writes: But then again, I'm sure most of the more passionate ppl in this thread are all in the belief that after changing the name, the liberals will execute Joe Theismann, Riggins, and Gibbs just for good measure Silly reasoning, Mr. Conscience. Most liberals probably don't believe in the death penalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Just as an aside, not every controversial issue has to be shoehorned into a "liberals vs. conservatives" debate. Yes it does, ya fascist Nazi!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93 Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 BraveontheWarpath writes: Silly reasoning, Mr. Conscience. Most liberals probably don't believe in the death penalty. Dammit. *scrambles through remaining jokes* Can we just set up a death match somewhere? Im sure I can kick maybe 2% of your guys asses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.