Jump to content

Redskins Name Change  

539 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the "Redskins" name be changed?

    • Yes. It's a derogatory word and the NFL should set a good example.
    • No. It's not derogatory to most people and changing it would set a bad example.
    • Maybe. I don't have a strong opinion but I wouldn't be fazed by a name change.
  2. 2. How many of the following statements capture your views?

    • It's insensitive to have a team name that denotes skin color.
    • I'm deeply offended; it's borderline bigotry.
    • It's a politically-correct manufactured controversy.
    • Another example of a select "offended" few forcing their PC views on everyone.
    • The term doesn't bother me but it is offensive to many others.
    • I value tradition in this debate.
    • Why is this even an issue?


Recommended Posts

Posted

Funny thing is the name has no affect on Indians "Native Americans" TBH they don't even like to be called Native Americans it is a white word made up. The only people that have a problem with the name is white people which is funny.

 

Completely wrong statement.

  • Replies 851
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

The value of a franchise/business absolutely changes with a name change.

 

Who would you rather own? NY Yankees or NY Mets?

Same Market

Same League/Product

Different Brand Recognition (Yankees have years of tradition & marketing back bone behind them)

Posted (edited)

 

 

Completely wrong statement.

Actually it's not but you can try to tell me it's wrong. I am only going to discuss this with people that are actually American Indians. I will not talk about this with people who have no say in this.

Edited by EJ3
Posted

I applaud Tim Graham.

It will be interesting to see how long it takes before Tim Graham slips and uses the "R-Word".

 

 

 

Yes, Snyder bought the Washington Redskins. He didn't buy the Washington Pelicans.

Forbes Redskins Value: 1.56 Bil

Forbes Pelicans Value: ???? not even close

 

I thought the r-word was "retard?"

 

Completely wrong statement.

 

Actually, it's not. The number of non-Indians championing this cause exceeds the Indians, if I had to take a guess. And it doesn't help anyone's cause that other sects of Indians come out IN SUPPORT of names like these because they help preserve their cultural legacy. They even told redskins.com as much.

 

His words:

“We don’t have a problem with [the name] at all," Dodson told the website."In fact we’re honored. We’re quite honored.”

“It’s actually a term of endearment that we would refer to each other as," Dodson said. "“It’s not degrading in one bit and that’s why I sent you guys an email."

 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ytCEuuW2_A

Posted

Actually it's not but you can try to tell me it's wrong.

 

You're obviously not familiar with the history of the movement to get the name changed to make such a statement. Educate yourself or continue on with uninformed statements....it's up to you.

Posted

You're obviously not familiar with the history of the movement to get the name changed to make such a statement. Educate yourself or continue on with uninformed statements....it's up to you.

 

And your response to what I posted?

Posted

 

Actually it's not but you can try to tell me it's wrong.

 

 

ugh. should he cite the people in the article that is CURRENTLY BEING DISCUSSED as proof that you are painting with too broad a brush? Or do those not count as people being upset by it?

Posted

I thought the r-word was "retard?"

 

 

 

Actually, it's not. The number of non-Indians championing this cause exceeds the Indians, if I had to take a guess. And it doesn't help anyone's cause that other sects of Indians come out IN SUPPORT of names like these because they help preserve their cultural legacy. They even told redskins.com as much.

 

His words:

 

“We don’t have a problem with [the name] at all," Dodson told the website."In fact we’re honored. We’re quite honored.”

“It’s actually a term of endearment that we would refer to each other as," Dodson said. "“It’s not degrading in one bit and that’s why I sent you guys an email."

 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ytCEuuW2_A

 

It certainly is in this thread.

 

But you raise a valid point. How are we going know which R-word or N-word or M-word someone is afraid to say once the do-gooders have banned all the 'offensive' words? I'm sure there will eventually be dozens on the list.

Posted

I am telling you you are wrong. Very simple one little article won't change the fact. Sorry but no one really cares except for you people. I won't discuss this anymore with close minded people.

 

What do you mean you people? :nana:

Posted

I thought the r-word was "retard?"

 

 

 

Actually, it's not. The number of non-Indians championing this cause exceeds the Indians, if I had to take a guess. And it doesn't help anyone's cause that other sects of Indians come out IN SUPPORT of names like these because they help preserve their cultural legacy. They even told redskins.com as much.

 

His words:

 

“We don’t have a problem with [the name] at all," Dodson told the website."In fact we’re honored. We’re quite honored.”

“It’s actually a term of endearment that we would refer to each other as," Dodson said. "“It’s not degrading in one bit and that’s why I sent you guys an email."

 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ytCEuuW2_A

 

Funny you're quoting an Alaskan Inuit Leader instead of a CONUS leader.

Posted

The value of a franchise/business absolutely changes with a name change.

 

Who would you rather own? NY Yankees or NY Mets?

Same Market

Same League/Product

Different Brand Recognition (Yankees have years of tradition & marketing back bone behind them)

Different franchises for crying out loud. The franchise stays the same, the fan base stays the same, nothing changes but the name. Zero impact on the value of the franchise.
Posted

 

 

And your response to what I posted?

 

that anyone trying to use a single persons interview to speak for the population, or even majority is really poor investigative work into the issue?

 

the fact is some dont mind, some hate it. at what point do the ones that are hurt by it outweigh the benefits of keeping it? Anyone putting their fingers in their ears and yelling "they all love it they all love it," like EJ3, is doing a disservice to not just native americans, but anyone that appreciates common sense.

Posted

I am telling you you are wrong. Very simple one little article won't change the fact. Sorry but no one really cares except for you people. I won't discuss this anymore with brainwashed minded people.

 

But seriously: we have competing data here. Some Indians offended. Others not. So it's obviously not as cut and dry as a lot of people in this thread have made it.

 

Funny you're quoting an Alaskan Inuit Leader instead of a CONUS leader.

 

So...? He's not..? I don't get it. Are you the Injun Monitor now? :lol:

Posted (edited)
But seriously: we have competing data here. Some Indians offended. Others not. So it's obviously not as cut and dry as a lot of people in this thread have made it.So...? He's not..? I don't get it. Are you the Injun Monitor now? :lol:

 

The lawsuit and the movement have been fought by leaders of CONUS Indian Nations.....I'm not aware of any Alaskan Indian involvement throughout the years. That's my point.

Edited by 26CornerBlitz
Posted

The lawsuit and the movement has been fought by leaders of CONUS Indian Nations.....I'm not aware of any Alaskan Indian involvement throughout the years. that's my point.

 

Okay, for the purposes of this discussion, that's actually valid.

 

But, now that we have a new r-word, let me freely say, that this whole discussion is retarded.

 

You can offend someone on this planet with just about every sentence you speak. And when everything's offensive, then nothing's offensive.

Posted

Okay, for the purposes of this discussion, that's actually valid.

 

But, now that we have a new r-word, let me freely say, that this whole discussion is retarded.

 

You can offend someone on this planet with just about every sentence you speak. And when everything's offensive, then nothing's offensive.

 

Maybe it is to you since you're not among the aggrieved parties. While I do agree that there is a line where it gets ridiculous, for me this particular issue is pretty clear given the origin and historical usage of the term.

Posted

"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act" Orwell

 

PC will be the downfall of our once great nation. While everyone has the right to be offended, I also have the right to not give a flying !@#$. I choose the later.

Posted

"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act" Orwell

 

PC will be the downfall of our once great nation. While everyone has the right to be offended, I also have the right to not give a flying !@#$. I choose the later.

 

well, it seems you care. in fact, it seems you find it offensive and are voicing your opinion... just like everyone else including the people you are disparaging for doing just that.

×
×
  • Create New...