Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

The Official ES All Things Redskins Name Change Thread (Reboot Edition---Read New OP)

Alaskins

By Alaskins
in The Tailgate

Recommended Posts

grego

grego

Posted
Posted

Ok, because i promised and i love to say how much i hate to shill even though i shill every chance i get..

Here's this week's Bang radio Hour with the full comments from Stephen A smith and Skip Bayless last week regarding Snyder's letter.

http://bangradiohour.com/

NOT safe for work. (Or adults, for that matter.)

Enjoy the show.

~Bang

 

 

ok, so skip (from oklahoma, lol) not only says 'if ones offended, you have to change the name', he uses the Oneida tribe (which he mispronounces, no less. way to act like you got their back, when you dont even know how to SAY THE NAME OF THE FREAKING TRIBE. douche.) as an example of 'offended' native americans.

 

ya know- the oneidas, led by ray halbritter, the corrupt casino boss. they guy the oneidas themselves voted out of office only to have the US govt reinstate him. 

 

way to go, skip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
penasquito

penasquito

Posted
Posted
Due to all the negativity, shame, humiliation, dissent, polarization, adversity, defiance, animosity, contempt, discrimination, division, counter-productivity and hostility associated with it, the Washington Redskins are changing their name.

 

They will now be known simply as the Redskins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hogdirty

hogdirty

Posted
Posted

Maryland Lawmaker is Pushing a law to ban/outlaw the Redskins name

http://m.bizjournals.com/washington/morning_call/2013/10/maryland-lawmaker-pushes-bill.html?r=full

I guess I'm going to jail

This could work in Snyder's favor, since Congress wants to include themselves.  All Snyder has to do is agree to change the name if Congress comes up with a bill that outlaws all Native related names (Chiefs, Indians, Braves, etc.).  This might go against the first amendment, but it puts the pressure somewhere else. 

 

We all know Congress can't agree on anything.  Imagine trying to get a Congressman from Kansas City or Atlanta to go along with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lombardi's_kid_brother

Lombardi's_kid_brother

Posted
Posted

 

Due to all the negativity, shame, humiliation, dissent, polarization, adversity, defiance, animosity, contempt, discrimination, division, counter-productivity and hostility associated with it, the Washington Redskins are changing their name.
 
They will now be known simply as the Redskins.

 

 

What's the over/under on the number of times this joke shows up in this thread?

 

We are up to three times now, I think. I say 7.5.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
grhqofb5

grhqofb5

Posted
Posted

 

 

Could someone remind me how many millions of people died at the hands of the Washington Redskins organization? 

 

I'm sure a few fans have offed themselves in the past 20 years, particularly when Zorn was the coach (I stand by my statement that they were the worst team in NFL history through the first 6 weeks of 2009.). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BleedBNG

BleedBNG

Posted
Posted

It's the same reason that the argument about Native American schools using the nickname "Redskins" is rather pointless. A group can call themselves whatever they want but that does not give another group tacit permission to use that word.

 

Yes, and there are many people with NA decent who are part of the Washington Redskins fans group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
elkabong82

elkabong82

Posted
Posted

Am I dreaming or did I really just see the Redskins logo compared to the swastika?

 

They are just backing up what most already know, which is that those who bring up Nazis as a comparison in a debate are usually morons going for extremism because they are too stupid or emotionally blinded to derive rational arguments and comparisons.

 

It's also ironic they themselves display hate and ignorance while trying to bash the Redskins for it with the Nazi comparison, since the logo they are comparing to a swastika was designed by a Native American and endorsed by his tribe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
grego

grego

Posted
Posted

 

 

"Why? Simple decency. I wouldn’t want to use a word that defines a people — living or dead, offended or not — in a most demeaning way. It’s a question not of who or how many had their feelings hurt, but of whether you want to associate yourself with a word that, for whatever historical reason having nothing to do with you, carries inherently derogatory connotations."

 

i like krauthammer. while i get his (and others point) that language evolves- words change meaning- im not at the point where i get this as it applies to 'redskins'. yes, i know, i wouldnt say it to a native american, but thats the whole point. the word is the football team. i havent seen much (any, really) evidence that its actually used in reference to an actual native american. you say 'redskin', you think football team. you just do.

 

thus, i dont see the word 'evolving' to one with a negative, derogatory connotation, which is krauthammers whole argument above. the fact that the vast majority of native americans appear to agree with this stance only solidifies my belief. 

 

i get that 'gay' and 'retarded' has evolved- i just do not see 'redskins' as an equal comparison to those words. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bang

Bang

Posted
Posted

From Krauthammer's article, which i find to be the crux of my opposition..
"I know there are surveys that say that most Native Americans aren’t bothered by the word. But that’s not the point. My objection is not rooted in pressure from various minorities or fear of public polls or public scolds.... "
"Why? Simple decency. I wouldn’t want to use a word that defines a people — living or dead, offended or not — in a most demeaning way."
 

 

So unless I am misreading here.. He doesn't want to use a word that HE thinks defines a people, even if the people tell him that is not how they define themselves, and even though many of them proudly identify themselves with the use of this word,  and like the word as an honorific.

 

Now WHO exactly is offended here?

He is.

 

Also, since the evolution of words is important, again, what does "redskin" mean in today's society?

if you say "Native American", you're the one with the race problem.

 

~Bang

Link to comment
Share on other sites
@DCGoldPants

@DCGoldPants

Posted
Posted

From Krauthammer's article, which i find to be the crux of my opposition..

"I know there are surveys that say that most Native Americans aren’t bothered by the word. But that’s not the point. My objection is not rooted in pressure from various minorities or fear of public polls or public scolds.... "

"Why? Simple decency. I wouldn’t want to use a word that defines a people — living or dead, offended or not — in a most demeaning way."

 

 

So unless I am misreading here.. He doesn't want to use a word that HE thinks defines a people, even if the people tell him that is not how they define themselves, and even though many of them proudly identify themselves with the use of this word,  and like the word as an honorific.

 

Now WHO exactly is offended here?

He is.

 

Also, since the evolution of words is important, again, what does "redskin" mean in today's society?

if you say "Native American", you're the one with the race problem.

 

~Bang

 

 

He's not offended. He had a deadline and didn't have anything to write about the shutdown or how he was wrong about so much of it. So...pivot to something easy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GibbsFactor

GibbsFactor

Posted
Posted

From Krauthammer's article, which i find to be the crux of my opposition..

"I know there are surveys that say that most Native Americans aren’t bothered by the word. But that’s not the point. My objection is not rooted in pressure from various minorities or fear of public polls or public scolds.... "

"Why? Simple decency. I wouldn’t want to use a word that defines a people — living or dead, offended or not — in a most demeaning way."

 

 

So unless I am misreading here.. He doesn't want to use a word that HE thinks defines a people, even if the people tell him that is not how they define themselves, and even though many of them proudly identify themselves with the use of this word,  and like the word as an honorific.

 

Now WHO exactly is offended here?

He is.

 

Also, since the evolution of words is important, again, what does "redskin" mean in today's society?

if you say "Native American", you're the one with the race problem.

 

~Bang

 

This is the premise of the entire political correctness movement.   In the event one person is offended, it's too much.   This name change is picking up steam because people don't like the word Redskins.   It's that simple.   It "SOUNDS" racist and that's enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Commander PK

Commander PK

Posted
Posted

This is the premise of the entire political correctness movement.   In the event one person is offended, it's too much.   This name change is picking up steam because people don't like the word Redskins.   It's that simple.   It "SOUNDS" racist and that's enough.

 

which is ignorant.  The madness has to stop some time.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...