Poll: Should the "Redskins" name be changed?

[bladiebla]

There was an article where an Indian Chief was interviewed who basicly said that the term redskin is something they used themselves in their language where it actually is a title of honor... Then again maybe he was paid off to say so.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

There was an article where an Indian Chief was interviewed who basicly said that the term redskin is something they used themselves in their language where it actually is a title of honor... Then again maybe he was paid off to say so.

 

And blacks use the N word in conversation with each other.

 

The issue is not what they may or may not call each other.

[Matt in KC]

Systematic genocide? murder? ethnically cleansed from the planet?

 

Is that what happened????? Oh thanks for educating me.

 

Now I know why you are in the extreme minority of people who think the Redskins should change their name. You don't know the facts!

What part of that do you think didn't happen?

 

Trail of Tears

[The Big Cat]

Not included in the poll which best defines my feeling on the matter:

 

What benefits has a re-branding effort gotten any group? Are we constantly telling everyone to call us something new? Precisely whom is cultivating the "negative" stereotypes associated with a name? What will the name change change?

[26CornerBlitz]

What part of that do you think didn't happen?

 

Trail of Tears

 

You really should not be surprised at the level of historical ignorance and serious lack of intellectual curiosity on the part of many here at TSW and beyond.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Systematic genocide? murder? ethnically cleansed from the planet?

 

Is that what happened????? Oh thanks for educating me.

 

Now I know why you are in the extreme minority of people who think the Redskins should change their name. You don't know the facts!

 

Not big on history I see.

[EasternOHBillsFan]

And blacks use the N word in conversation with each other.

 

The issue is not what they may or may not call each other.

Really? If you use the word, you can't automatically claim it is offensive and/or racist. That is called hypocrisy... to say it is not the issue is simply not true- it has a LOT to do with the issue. Either it is accepted, or it is wholly unacceptable... no in betweens. Edited May 14, 2013 by BmoreBills

[The Big Cat]

Really? If you use the word, you can't automatically claim it is offensive and/or racist. That is called hypocrisy... to say it is not the issue is simply not true- it has a LOT to do with the issue.

 

It's also called called blaming others.

 

It's not just Indians, I mean Native Americans, I mean Indigenous Americans: it's blacks, gays, it's people with disorders, it's lots of "groups."

 

So I ask again: what will changing your 'name' change? Is it offensive to be called "gay?" Or is it offensive to be lopped in with what it means to be "gay?" And if it's the latter, how long until the new name takes the same effect?

 

So who's being offensive? The ones using the 'name' or the ones defining it?

[EasternOHBillsFan]

It's also called called blaming others.

 

It's not just Indians, I mean Native Americans, I mean Indigenous Americans: it's blacks, gays, it's people with disorders, it's lots of "groups."

 

So I ask again: what will changing your 'name' change? Is it offensive to be called "gay?" Or is it offensive to be lopped in with what it means to be "gay?" And if it's the latter, how long until the new name takes the same effect?

 

So who's being offensive? The ones using the 'name' or the ones defining it?

So, the only alternative for those who disagree is to try and label those who disagree as bigots, stupid, anything to stuff an agenda down peoples' throats. Like I said as you did, what's next? You see, it never ends... when these things are resolved, new issues will crop up into a death spiral for free speech in this country. The line can't continuously be drawn and redrawn- that leaves us up against the wall with nowhere to go. Spin the wheel... who's the next offended group??? Step right up! Edited May 14, 2013 by BmoreBills

[DJasper Probincrux III]

Why is the Atlanta Braves not considered to be as objectionable as the Washington Redskins?

 

Why might the Fighting Scots be considered OK but not the Redskins?

 

Take all the time you need….

 

If you met an North American indian and you called him a Redskin, how do you think he would feel about that?

 

If you met an Irish person and you called him a Fighting Irishman do you think he'd be insulted?

 

Again, think about it…. don't rush.

You misunderstand my post. I'm not defining what I think is ok. I'm giving examples of what other governing bodies have defined as acceptable. The Atlanta Braves do get protested as do the Cleveland Indians as do many many many other examples.

 

Calling a team Redskins, which has an at least arguably appropriate origin, is far far far less objectionable than dressing people up in the equivalent of black face and having them ride around on a horse with flaming spears. Yet, the latter activity is sanctioned by the previously aggrieved party because a large royalty check is written annually. A school named Indiana University, from Indiana, PA in Indiana County, was forced to change their name from "Indians" even though they did none of the things that FSU do with regard to mascots, logos, pregame displays, in game war chants, etc etc. etc. They didn't want to write a check. Though I do wish that the administration would have changed the name to "Indianans"

 

My overall point is that race and offensiveness is the cover story for this and similar arguments and that's what gets it coverage and attention. At the end of the day it's really about money, on both sides.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Really? If you use the word, you can't automatically claim it is offensive and/or racist. That is called hypocrisy... to say it is not the issue is simply not true- it has a LOT to do with the issue. Either it is accepted, or it is wholly unacceptable... no in betweens.

 

You can't see the difference between people of a race using a word amongst themselves versus others using it about them?!?!?!?!?

 

Would YOU address a black person using the N word?

 

I can't believe this needs to even be pointed out.

 

You see, it never ends... when these things are resolved, new issues will crop up into a death spiral for free speech in this country. The line can't continuously be drawn and redrawn- that leaves us up against the wall with nowhere to go. Spin the wheel... who's the next offended group??? Step right up!

 

A yes. The straw man of the "attacks on the constitution."

 

Please.

 

Some reality?

 

You need to start thinking for yourself instead of ingesting what slanted media outlets spoon feed you.

[The Big Cat]

So, the only alternative for those who disagree is to try and label those who disagree as bigots, stupid, anything to stuff an agenda down peoples' throats. Like I said as you did, what's next? You see, it never ends... when these things are resolved, new issues will crop up into a death spiral for free speech in this country. The line can't continuously be drawn and redrawn- that leaves us up against the wall with nowhere to go. Spin the wheel... who's the next offended group??? Step right up!

 

You can't see the difference between people of a race using a word amongst themselves versus others using it about them?!?!?!?!?

 

Would YOU address a black person using the N word?

 

I can't believe this needs to even be pointed out.

 

 

 

A yes. The straw man of the "attacks on the constitution."

 

Please.

 

Some reality?

 

You need to start thinking for yourself instead of ingesting what slanted media outlets spoon feed you.

 

Agreed, it's not about free speech, at all. My right to call somebody a '!@#$' is as in-tact as ever. Just because I can doesn't mean I would, to your point.

 

But I do disagree with the campaigns to change perception through names. I believe them to be wasted calories, and also an indication that there's a reluctance to address the real "problems."

[eme123]

What part of that do you think didn't happen?

 

Trail of Tears

 

Wikipedia???? Don't hurt yourself.

 

Not big on history I see.

 

Actually I love history.

 

There is no question The Trail of Tears was an end result of bad government policy. However, Indian removals in the early 1800's do not constitute "systematic genocide" on the part of the U.S gov't. The legislation and policies held don't constitute "murder" on the part of the U.S gov't. (Even though decisions by generals & soldiers on the ground may have) The U.S government did not ethnically cleanse American Indians from the planet.

 

There is no question the Trail of Tears was a violent byproduct of white supremacy & fast continental expansion. To say it was a direct policy of Andrew Jackson & U.S Government is just plain ignorant. Even more ignorant is the fact that the Washington Redskins should be punished for it 200 years later because they are located in the U.S. capital.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Eme,

 

As they say about stupidity, "stupid is as stupid does."

 

So my opinion is that for all "intensive purposes" the campaigns carried out towards native Americans (most famously The Trail of Tears, Wounded Knee) were genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.

 

We can say what we want about the machinations but I define it based on the end results.

[26CornerBlitz]

Eme,

 

As they say about stupidity, "stupid is as stupid does."

 

So my opinion is that for all "intensive purposes" the campaigns carried out towards native Americans (most famously The Trail of Tears, Wounded Knee) were genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.

 

We can say what we want about the machinations but I define it based on the end results.

 

Love the diplomatic and intelligent way that you debate issues with a touch of humor interspersed. Always deftly handled. Kudos to you.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

But I do disagree with the campaigns to change perception through names. I believe them to be wasted calories, and also an indication that there's a reluctance to address the real "problems."

 

Big Cat, I was brought up to be polite, civil, sensitive, and respectful to others.

 

I don't always succeed as I've proven many times on this forum but I always try. Always.

 

As I said upthread this is not my issue because I'm not native American (although I am a person of color).

 

As I said earlier, if the minority in question (as a whole) finds the term "Redskins" offensive then it would be really great of Snyder to acknowledge that and change the team name.

 

As I've already said, no one should be forced to do anything in this situation but sometimes the best thing to do is also the most virtuous thing to do.

 

IF Snyder relented, had a change of heart, and changed the team's name, what kind of people would be unhappy and up in arms about it?

 

Those people angry that Snyder relented might claim to be people of principle but that would be a false claim. There would be other labels much more fitting.

 

When did treating people with sensitivity and respect become a bad thing?

 

Love the diplomatic and intelligent way that you debate issues with a touch of humor interspersed. Always deftly handled. Kudos to you.

 

Good days and bad days buddy! Some days there's more diplomacy than others…. but thank you.

[The Big Cat]

Eme,

 

As they say about stupidity, "stupid is as stupid does."

 

So my opinion is that for all "intensive purposes" the campaigns carried out towards native Americans (most famously The Trail of Tears, Wounded Knee) were genocide, ethnic cleansing and murder.

 

We can say what we want about the machinations but I define it based on the end results.

 

And that's all well and good, but it's not really the issue here.

 

In 2013, the dismal fate of the Native American has nothing to do with government policies, land grabs or "genocide" (never mind the fact that European disease, not European swords killed the majority of Native Americans), nowadays the "negative" stereotypes surrounding Indians have more to do with them living in drunken poverty on and/or near a tacky casino.

 

I'm extremely skeptical that their present lot is--in anyway--entirely inescapable. So, I'm not entirely certain how exactly they're victimized by sports mascots.

[NoSaint]

 

 

Big Cat, I was brought up to be polite, civil, sensitive, and respectful to others.

 

I don't always succeed as I've proven many times on this forum but I always try. Always.

 

As I said upthread this is not my issue because I'm not native American (although I am a person of color).

 

As I said earlier, if the minority in question (as a whole) finds the term "Redskins" offensive then it would be really great of Snyder to acknowledge that and change the team name.

 

As I've already said, no one should be forced to do anything in this situation but sometimes the best thing to do is also the most virtuous thing to do.

 

IF Snyder relented, had a change of heart, and changed the team's name, what kind of people would be unhappy and up in arms about it?

 

Those people angry that Snyder relented might claim to be people of principle but that would be a false claim. There would be other labels much more fitting.

 

When did treating people with sensitivity and respect become a bad thing?

 

 

 

Good days and bad days buddy! Some days there's more diplomacy than others…. but thank you.

 

again well said. it just doesnt seem like theres a true loser if he goes ahead with it.... the fans arent going to suddenly disappear or abandon the team, they still have the history of the organization, etc... it just seems like the right choice to make and its surprising that the organization has committed to fighting the issue for so long.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

And that's all well and good, but it's not really the issue here.

 

In 2013, the dismal fate of the Native American has nothing to do with government policies, land grabs or "genocide" (never mind the fact that European disease, not European swords killed the majority of Native Americans), nowadays the "negative" stereotypes surrounding Indians have more to do with them living in drunken poverty on and/or near a tacky casino.

 

I'm extremely skeptical that their present lot is--in anyway--entirely inescapable. So, I'm not entirely certain how exactly they're victimized by sports mascots.

 

That's a separate issue Big Cat.

 

There are many people in this country who believe that the large number of blacks living in poverty is something that they should be able to transcend out of Horatio Alger style.

 

That's a separate issue than the use of racial epithets.

[The Big Cat]

Big Cat, I was brought up to be polite, civil, sensitive, and respectful to others.

 

I don't always succeed as I've proven many times on this forum but I always try. Always.

 

As I said upthread this is not my issue because I'm not native American (although I am a person of color).

 

As I said earlier, if the minority in question (as a whole) finds the term "Redskins" offensive then it would be really great of Snyder to acknowledge that and change the team name.

 

As I've already said, no one should be forced to do anything in this situation but sometimes the best thing to do is also the most virtuous thing to do.

 

IF Snyder relented, had a change of heart, and changed the team's name, what kind of people would be unhappy and up in arms about it?

 

Those people angry that Snyder relented might claim to be people of principle but that would be a false claim. There would be other labels much more fitting.

 

When did treating people with sensitivity and respect become a bad thing?

 

 

 

Good days and bad days buddy! Some days there's more diplomacy than others…. but thank you.

 

It's a "bad" thing when "groups" (as they're prone to) start keeping tally of "disrespect" as an excuse for what ails them. My issue is that putting the focus on what we're called distracts from what the real "issues" might be. So, I see these campaigns as a waste of perfectly good intentions but nothing ever really changes, because nothing is ever really addressed. Instead, everyone not associated with the problem is just guilted into "respect"--which, by the way, is the worst means for earning respect there is.

 

That's a separate issue Big Cat.

 

There are many people in this country who believe that the large number of blacks living in poverty is something that they should be able to transcend out of Horatio Alger style.

 

That's a separate issue than the use of racial epithets.

 

Yes, it's a separate issue because it's the issue. So why are we focused on what we're being called when there are far bigger fish to fry? Do you understand what I mean?