Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Everything in this world offends someone in today's society (again, some justified, some not - this is big picture, not just the team name debate). Everyone can't be happy, so where do we draw the line? Or can a line be drawn? What do we do about it? 1. This is a silly overstatement. 2. A society is not stagnant. Yes, the battles of today may seem to be of smaller stakes than the battles of the 1770s or 1780s or 1850s or 1890 or 1910s or 1930s or 1950s or 1960s, but I like to believe that's beacuse the arc of the universe does, in fact, bend towards justice. But, regardless, that line is always moving. Standing on it yelling "Stop" is rarely a position that wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 PFT Commentator always has the hottest of the hot sports takes. http://kissingsuzykolber.uproxx.com/2014/06/top-10-strongest-takes-about-the-redskins-losing-their-trademark.html ...make that the Top 11: After reading the history of the reason the team Named them the Redskins(in honor of the then coach), if true, this is a stupid social attack by stupid people. Stupid people, sometimes win because they make stupid connections...you wouldn't call a team...the black skins.....the yellow skins...or white skins...ergo...no red skins. It is a logical assumption that redskins is a pejorative. In simple, to the stupid simple mind....end of story. I do not believe based on the reading that the term, "redskins" is a pejorative. I do believe, that sometimes, stupid people get enough like minded stupid people....to agree with a stupid idea. Here are some stupid people's winning ideas....Electing Bill Clinton....Electing George Bush....yada yada yada. In the end, The stupid people, in this case....a very liberal media, a bunch of New York Giant loving Indians, and Redskin Haters, have the advantage. If they win, I hope the team elects to call itself....The Washington "Brave". The logo and all the rest can stay the same, we can sing , Hail to the Redskins, and WE WIN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsluggo Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Everything in this world offends someone in today's society (again, some justified, some not - this is big picture, not just the team name debate). Everyone can't be happy, so where do we draw the line? Or can a line be drawn? What do we do about it? THis is not a bad thing, it is a good thing. Because we care about, and constantly work towards smoothing, the sectarian relationships in our society, things are getting BETTER, rather than getting worse. Places that don't do the same <*cough cough... Iraq, Nigeria, Sudan... etc.... *Cough> don't get better, or get much much worse. If we just make the effort to assume that the other person has SOME sort of a valid point of view, and make some effort to accommodate each other, we we can end up with a society that looks like arlington (with a weird smattering of all sorts of wildly different cultures living together and enjoying the benefits of each other) rather than Mosul ((with a weird smattering of all sorts of wildly different cultures not living together so well these days) its a small price to pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Paint Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 pics..... Should I be offended by Elmer Fudd? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chew Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Listening to all these idiots call into the Dan Patrick show with their opinions on the Redskins name change is making me want to stick pencils in my ears. But I can't stop listening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsluggo Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 both sides in this argument are pretty dismissive of the valid points on the other side. its frustrating to watch. this is a CLEAR example of a question without a clear answer. --- the name wasn't intended to be racist, and the team hasn't done offensive things with it, and yet, some people (and a growing amount of people), find offense. I don't assume that the people that find offense are LYING about their offense---- in which case both sides have valid points....... that is until people dig in their heels and start throwing feces at teh walls on their own side of the argument. (edit... this is NOT pointed at you, by the way, i tried to remove the quote because i was responding to general smatterings of posts, but am having a hard time removing the quote) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsFan44 Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 I found an example - I saw a few others and am trying to find them. The Daily Republican newspaper in Winona, Minnesota from Sept. 24, 1863 I have seen this in a lot of posts (often in conjunction with a bounty for scalps that refers to NAs as "Indians" and contains no reference to "redskins". I would argue that the terms "Indian" and "red-skin" are used interchangeably in this example, and that the racism is in the policy described, not the name used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b4twan Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 I have a question....what does the work "Redskins" actually mean????? Look at the word n****r that actually have a meaning and its in the dictionary and being a black person that is one of the reason that i find that word a offensive. Along with the negative history that the n word has. So why are people comparing those two words not sure why but If any one can tell the the negative history the word "Redskins" has towards black people. If there is a offensive meaning or negative history of that word then i can understand the reasoning for wanting the name changed. If anyone can please help me understand that part not thats just say "its offensive" because what makes it offenseive? Just a thought! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrypticVillain Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 ...make that the Top 11: For some reason, the first thing that popped in my head was this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 both sides in this argument are pretty dismissive of the valid points on the other side. its frustrating to watch. this is a CLEAR example of a question without a clear answer. --- the name wasn't intended to be racist, and the team hasn't done offensive things with it, and yet, some people (and a growing amount of people), find offense. I don't assume that the people that find offense are LYING about their offense---- in which case both sides have valid points....... that is until people dig in their heels and start throwing feces at teh walls on their own side of the argument. I think both sides are entirely too hung up on the notion of "intent." The pro-name side is digging up the history of the name as propping up the corpse of Lone Star Dietz is really that important in the grand scheme of things. The anti-name side is making too many assumptions about why the name exists. I find the intent to be almost totally irrelevent. The questions I continually come back is Why is Native American imagery so prevalent in sports, is that still proper, and is there a balance that can be struck? People love to trot out the Aunt Jemimas and Uncle Bens of the world in this discussion, and I agree that those are troubling logos. But it is not something that you are constantly exposed to - unless you really really love pancakes and are lazy, I suppose. Every major North American sport has at least one team with a Native-related nickname. The NFL has two. MLB has two. It's still prevalent in college sports - though that is obviously fading away some. It's something a person encounters daily in the sports world. I find that odd from my perspective in the 21st century. So...what to do? I honestly don't know. I think doing nothing is odd. I think demanding across the board change is draconian. And that always leads me back to the Redskins, Chief Wahoo, and whatever weird **** the Braves marketing department has worked up that week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsluggo Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Should I be offended by Elmer Fudd? about two weeks ago i saw an elmer fudd cartoon..... but it wasn't elmer fudd yet. It was from the 30s or 40s, and had a black guy with 40 pound lips and a stereotyped southern sharecropper accent playing the role of elmer fudd chasing an earlier version of buggs bunny. standards of what people find find offensive, (or at least of what people will ACKNOWLEDGE and appreciate other people's offense), change over time. It happens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 So...what to do? I honestly don't know. I think doing nothing is odd. I think demanding across the board change is draconian. And that always leads me back to the Redskins, Chief Wahoo, and whatever weird **** the Braves marketing department has worked up that week. I am of the "all or nothing" camp All sports teams with Native American logos/nicknames will jump together or none at all. That means the Braves/Indians/Redskins/Chiefs/Blackhawks/Seminoles all change at once and you eliminate all native American imagery and logos from major north American sports. Only going after the Washington Redskins is absurd, considering the etymology of the word (which Dr. Goddard has written a great scholarly article on and I have yet to see anything close refute it), the intent and what would actually happen to the word "Redskin" if the team no longer had it as its name Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsluggo Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 http://videosift.com/video/This-is-Who-Elmer-Fudd-replaced-due-to-Stereotyping-charac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Only going after the Washington Redskins is absurd, considering the etymology of the word (which Dr. Goddard has written a great scholarly article on and I have yet to see anything close refute it), the intent and what would actually happen to the word "Redskin" if the team no longer had it as its name I would suggest etymology of the word has little to do with how it's used/thought of now. Much like the aforementioned terms fag or colored, words change in meaning and appropriateness over time. Unfortunately for most of us, the term redskin has fallen out of the realm of appropriateness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins and Lions Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 So it looks like the name will change soon. I had a bad feeling this was gonna happen. We should name the team the Washington Red's Kin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 This isn't offensive because there is a little tiny high school on an indian reservation in the middle of nowhere that says it isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrypticVillain Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 I would suggest etymology of the word has little to do with how it's used/thought of now. Much like the aforementioned terms fag or colored, words change in meaning and appropriateness over time. Here's one thought I just had. What is the actual argument people are trying to make? Was the word bad at first when the team first started using it, or did it get bad after the team was name? People keep saying that words change over time, but when I say that for the most part, the word Redskins is used for the football team, it gets dismissed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 So it looks like the name will change soon. I had a bad feeling this was gonna happen. We should name the team the Washington Red's KinNo, it won't. And no, we shouldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PF Chang Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 I hate this issue. Like mcsluggo said, the answer is not clear, and I don't think there will ever be a perfect resolution. I also hate how it makes me feel about myself, because I do not want the name to change. Yet as a fan I know I'm biased here, so I am sure that my view makes me hypocritical on a number of issues. No matter how much I try to convince myself otherwise, I know I will be upset when the name inevitably changes. Which is dumb because, to be cliched, in the scheme of life does it really matter? It's rapidly devolving into a discussion I don't even want to take part in, kind of like the golden rule of "never say the word rape on the internet." Years from now, I know I'll say "the Redskins" at some point and be branded a racist, despite the lack of intent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrypticVillain Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 This isn't offensive because there is a little tiny high school on an indian reservation in the middle of nowhere that says it isn't. You can make a joke out of it, but nobody still has answered the question of why would a Native American school name themselves the Redskins if it was offensive. Let alone three of them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Here's one thought I just had. What is the actual argument people are trying to make? Was the word bad at first when the team first started using it, or did it get bad after the team was name? People keep saying that words change over time, but when I say that for the most part, the word Redskins is used for the football team, it gets dismissed. The argument is essentially that it is a dated and offensive term. I say this because the Oxford English Dictionary calls it a "dated and offensive term." Definition of redskin in English: redskinSyllabification: red·skin Pronunciation: /ˈredˌskin / noun dated or offensive An American Indian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Here's one thought I just had. What is the actual argument people are trying to make? Was the word bad at first when the team first started using it, or did it get bad after the team was name? People keep saying that words change over time, but when I say that for the most part, the word Redskins is used for the football team, it gets dismissed. The US Government had an Operation Wetback in 1954 (a project that was for the mass deportation of illegal Mexican immigrants). Do you think since they used it before, the US Government could have another operation called Operation Wetback today? Of course not. The term's acceptance has changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 I think Mara is behind all of this, because he hopes it will disrupt the team and make the Redskins lose games. Just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 You can make a joke out of it, but nobody still has answered the question of why would a Native American school name themselves the Redskins if it was offensive. Let alone three of them... Why would black actors appear in Amos 'n Andy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.