Senators Urge N.F.L. to Act on Redskins’ Name

[DC Tom]

That relates to the bounty the British government put on the scalps of Native Americans in an attempt to eradicate them from North America. Bounties were paid for "redskins" and traders paid for them along with deerskins, etc. Different amounts were paid for men, women and children.

 

No, it doesn't. Where the hell does this ridiculous story even come from?

[What a Tuel]

Let's all be genuine for a second and ask ourselves, is the team name Washington Redskins intended to be offensive? Nope. Does the organization involved take real steps to offend, denigrate, or harm the affected people? No. So what are we really talking about here? The name of a football team that could be interpreted as offensive, but is not intended that way. But that would mean people would need to look into the substance and context of something rather than just being outraged. Being outraged is easier and more exciting.

[BarleyNY]

 

 

No, it doesn't. Where the hell does this ridiculous story even come from?

A quick Google search would give several examples. Check Wikapedia on "scalping" and "redskin". Here's a link to one article about one proclamation from King George. There were several targeting different tribes:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/11/14/208627/tribes-want-congress-to-ban-redskins.html

 

 

[DC Tom]

A quick Google search would give several examples. Check Wikapedia on "scalping" and "redskin". Here's a link to one article about one proclamation from King George. There were several targeting different tribes:

http://www.mcclatchy...n-redskins.html

 

Check your sources yourself. None of them say what you're claiming.

[FireChan]

A quick Google search would give several examples. Check Wikapedia on "scalping" and "redskin". Here's a link to one article about one proclamation from King George. There were several targeting different tribes:

http://www.mcclatchy...n-redskins.html

 

That article says nothing about that.

 

Edit: Damn you Tom

Edited May 25, 2014 by FireChan

[Rocky Landing]

Let's all be genuine for a second and ask ourselves, is the team name Washington Redskins intended to be offensive? Nope. Does the organization involved take real steps to offend, denigrate, or harm the affected people? No. So what are we really talking about here? The name of a football team that could be interpreted as offensive, but is not intended that way. But that would mean people would need to look into the substance and context of something rather than just being outraged. Being outraged is easier and more exciting.

Truly, there is no denying that the term "redskin" is rooted in racism, and genocide. Even a cursory examination of the word's history will bear that out.

 

Also, a word about context: I know that most of the people who post on here live in WNY. I was born and raised in Rochester, myself. I have been living in Los Angeles for over twenty years, and spent a couple years in New Mexico. Living in the South West definitely gives me a different perspective. There is a MUCH larger population of true Native Americans here. (When I say "true" Native Americans, I'm not talking about your friend who brags about being 1/32 Cherokee.) There are still reservations here in places like Death Valley, the Mojave Desert, the Mimbres Desert, etc.. I truly cannot imagine walking up to one of the Native Americans I have met here and making some of the arguments I have read on this forum to their face. Examples: "They shouldn't change the name, because they didn't originally intend it to be offensive." "It will cost them money." "It's tradition." "The members of the Senate have no business commenting on the name of the capital's football team." And, possibly one of the most offensive arguments: "It doesn't offend enough people," ("the majority," as one poster put it).

 

I'm sorry, but I will reiterate what I said in an earlier post: The fact that we have an NFL team representing our nation's capital named the most offensive epithet you can call a Native American is a national embarrassment.

[DC Tom]

Someone let me know when the Senate's going to force Packers fans to stop calling themselves cheeseheads and offending the Dutch. And the NFL better drop Pepsi as a sponsor, or risk offending the Quebecois.

[Rocky Landing]

Someone let me know when the Senate's going to force Packers fans to stop calling themselves cheeseheads and offending the Dutch. And the NFL better drop Pepsi as a sponsor, or risk offending the Quebecois.

The notion that you are insinuating- that anybody, including the senate, is forcing the Redskins to change their name is spurious. Their right to calling themselves such is constitutionally guaranteed as free speech under the first amendment. Were the senate to attempt such a coup, the ACLU would be all over it. And, the senate, and everybody else, has the same right to denounce it.

 

But, more to the point: The Dutch are not offended by the "cheesehead" Moniker, neither are the Quebecois offended by NFL endorsements, and the comparison utterly belittles the genocide of millions of Native Americans, the scant remainder of whom are U.S. citizens. Was that really your intention?

Edited May 25, 2014 by Rocky Landing

[What a Tuel]

Truly, there is no denying that the term "redskin" is rooted in racism, and genocide. Even a cursory examination of the word's history will bear that out.

 

Also, a word about context: I know that most of the people who post on here live in WNY. I was born and raised in Rochester, myself. I have been living in Los Angeles for over twenty years, and spent a couple years in New Mexico. Living in the South West definitely gives me a different perspective. There is a MUCH larger population of true Native Americans here. (When I say "true" Native Americans, I'm not talking about your friend who brags about being 1/32 Cherokee.) There are still reservations here in places like Death Valley, the Mojave Desert, the Mimbres Desert, etc.. I truly cannot imagine walking up to one of the Native Americans I have met here and making some of the arguments I have read on this forum to their face. Examples: "They shouldn't change the name, because they didn't originally intend it to be offensive." "It will cost them money." "It's tradition." "The members of the Senate have no business commenting on the name of the capital's football team." And, possibly one of the most offensive arguments: "It doesn't offend enough people," ("the majority," as one poster put it).

 

I'm sorry, but I will reiterate what I said in an earlier post: The fact that we have an NFL team representing our nation's capital named the most offensive epithet you can call a Native American is a national embarrassment.

 

A lot of words, and things people say are rooted in some form of insult, racism, bigotry, etc etc. The only way to differentiate whether they are offensive or not is with the speakers intent.

 

Just following along with the theme of Sports teams names shows that the team name is meant to inspire its team members and fans, not secretly demean, and offend people.

 

You can feel like its a "national embarrassment" all you want, but don't include the rest of us in your crusade....(oops)

[jaybee]

I'd be more offended by "Washington" than I would be "Redskins". They should change the name Washington and leave Redskins alone.

[Rocky Landing]

A lot of words, and things people say are rooted in some form of insult, racism, bigotry, etc etc. The only way to differentiate whether they are offensive or not is with the speakers intent.

 

Just following along with the theme of Sports teams names shows that the team name is meant to inspire its team members and fans, not secretly demean, and offend people.

 

You can feel like its a "national embarrassment" all you want, but don't include the rest of us in your crusade....(oops)

I suppose it is just a question of which side of history you choose to stand.

[FireChan]

I suppose it is just a question of which side of history you choose to stand.

 

Why hasn't this been a big deal for the last 81 years?

 

The notion that you are insinuating- that anybody, including the senate, is forcing the Redskins to change their name is spurious. Their right to calling themselves such is constitutionally guaranteed as free speech under the first amendment. Were the senate to attempt such a coup, the ACLU would be all over it. And, the senate, and everybody else, has the same right to denounce it.

 

But, more to the point: The Dutch are not offended by the "cheesehead" Moniker, neither are the Quebecois offended by NFL endorsements, and the comparison utterly belittles the genocide of millions of Native Americans, the scant remainder of whom are U.S. citizens. Was that really your intention?

 

Why has the senate waited so long to denounce it?

 

Truly, there is no denying that the term "redskin" is rooted in racism, and genocide. Even a cursory examination of the word's history will bear that out.

 

Also, a word about context: I know that most of the people who post on here live in WNY. I was born and raised in Rochester, myself. I have been living in Los Angeles for over twenty years, and spent a couple years in New Mexico. Living in the South West definitely gives me a different perspective. There is a MUCH larger population of true Native Americans here. (When I say "true" Native Americans, I'm not talking about your friend who brags about being 1/32 Cherokee.) There are still reservations here in places like Death Valley, the Mojave Desert, the Mimbres Desert, etc.. I truly cannot imagine walking up to one of the Native Americans I have met here and making some of the arguments I have read on this forum to their face. Examples: "They shouldn't change the name, because they didn't originally intend it to be offensive." "It will cost them money." "It's tradition." "The members of the Senate have no business commenting on the name of the capital's football team." And, possibly one of the most offensive arguments: "It doesn't offend enough people," ("the majority," as one poster put it).

 

I'm sorry, but I will reiterate what I said in an earlier post: The fact that we have an NFL team representing our nation's capital named the most offensive epithet you can call a Native American is a national embarrassment.

 

And, possibly one of the most offensive arguments: "It doesn't offend enough people," ("the majority," as one poster put it).

 

Do you remember when a small portion of the black community was offended by being called black? Did the Senate write any letters? What side of history were you then? Bill Cosby is offended by the term African-American. What side of history are you on there?

 

It's a name that had negative connotations, sure. But if you're seriously championing a cause as "justice in the history books" that the people who are being "wronged" don't even agree on, I don't know what to tell you.

 

What about Westboro Baptist Church? They were "offended" by a lot of stuff. Did you write them off or support them? What side of history do you stand on there?

 

EDIT: I realize that WBC talk might have banished this to PPP. Whoops.

Edited May 25, 2014 by FireChan

[DC Tom]

The notion that you are insinuating- that anybody, including the senate, is forcing the Redskins to change their name is spurious. Their right to calling themselves such is constitutionally guaranteed as free speech under the first amendment. Were the senate to attempt such a coup, the ACLU would be all over it. And, the senate, and everybody else, has the same right to denounce it.

 

Then you haven't been paying attention - there has been plenty of talk about revoking the Redskins' trademark protections.

 

But, more to the point: The Dutch are not offended by the "cheesehead" Moniker, neither are the Quebecois offended by NFL endorsements,

 

"Cheesehead" is an epithet against the Dutch, and "Pepsi" is an epithet against French-Canadians.

 

and the comparison utterly belittles the genocide of millions of Native Americans, the scant remainder of whom are U.S. citizens. Was that really your intention?

 

I'm sorry, isn't the argument that there are no "degrees" of offense, and any offense should be avoided? Because that's what I keep hearing...if "even one" Native American is offended by "Redskin," the team's name should be changed.

 

Are we arguing now that yes, the magnitude of the offense does actually matter?

[Rocky Landing]

Why hasn't this been a big deal for the last 81 years?

 

 

 

Why has the senate waited so long to denounce it?

 

 

 

And, possibly one of the most offensive arguments: "It doesn't offend enough people," ("the majority," as one poster put it).

 

Do you remember when a small portion of the black community was offended by being called black? Did the Senate write any letters? What side of history were you then? Bill Cosby is offended by the term African-American. What side of history are you on there?

 

It's a name that had negative connotations, sure. But if you're seriously championing a cause as "justice in the history books" that the people who are being "wronged" don't even agree on, I don't know what to tell you.

 

What about Westboro Baptist Church? They were "offended" by a lot of stuff. Did you write them off or support them? What side of history do you stand on there?

 

EDIT: I realize that WBC talk might have banished this to PPP. Whoops.

I appreciate the debate, and I'm not even going to be offended by your trying to equate my perspective to that of the WBC. That being said, I find all of your arguments to be spurious, and for the most part, deflective.

 

Then you haven't been paying attention - there has been plenty of talk about revoking the Redskins' trademark protections.

 

 

 

"Cheesehead" is an epithet against the Dutch, and "Pepsi" is an epithet against French-Canadians.

 

 

 

I'm sorry, isn't the argument that there are no "degrees" of offense, and any offense should be avoided? Because that's what I keep hearing...if "even one" Native American is offended by "Redskin," the team's name should be changed.

 

Are we arguing now that yes, the magnitude of the offense does actually matter?

1) Not by the senate (that I am aware of), but by Native American organizations.

 

2) I don't believe that we waged genocide against the Dutch or French-Canadians.

 

3) I don't agree with the sentiment that, "if "even one" Native American is offended by "Redskin," the team's name should be changed." I would argue that the "magnitude of the offense" certainly does matter. I don't understand why it wouldn't.

[FireChan]

I appreciate the debate, and I'm not even going to be offended by your trying to equate my perspective to that of the WBC. That being said, I find all of your arguments to be spurious, and for the most part, deflective.

 

You seem to believe your sensibilites are the most important. With your whole history book stance, it's clear that you believe this is one of the great injustices in the world and will be written as such. Why you? Why this case? Why not WBC getting harassed for their speech? Why not the offensiveness of "black?" Are those things "more ok" than Redskins? Who is the judge of those things, is it you?

 

See the difference between us is that I don't care about a group of people who don't care, and I don't believe in telling others what to believe. You do. You're taking your beliefs, telling Snyder that he's wrong and you're right, and telling the MAJORITY of Native Americans what they should be offended by. You think I'm insensitive about my majority comments? What about you? Telling a beautiful culture, who has suffered more than you ever will, what they should care about? Is that being sensitive, or acting like they're invalids who need you to defend them from perceived threats?

 

Edit:

 

Tom'd again.

Edited May 25, 2014 by FireChan

[DC Grid]

I don't have a stake in the fight, but finding native Americans who aren't offended by a racial slur isn't really compelling. It's like finding a black person who isn't offended by the N word and then saying that gives you license to use it as a sports nickname. Again, Congress has WAY better things to do, but sadly a measure like this isn't even the most worthless thing they've done this month.

[Rocky Landing]

You seem to believe your sensibilites are the most important. With your whole history book stance, it's clear that you believe this is one of the great injustices in the world and will be written as such. Why you? Why this case? Why not WBC getting harassed for their speech? Why not the offensiveness of "black?" Are those things "more ok" than Redskins? Who is the judge of those things, is it you?

 

See the difference between us is that I don't care about a group of people who don't care, and I don't believe in telling others what to believe. You do. You're taking your beliefs, telling Snyder that he's wrong and you're right, and telling the MAJORITY of Native Americans what they should be offended by. You think I'm insensitive about my majority comments? What about you? Telling a beautiful culture, who has suffered more than you ever will, what they should care about? Is that being sensitive, or acting like they're invalids who need you to defend them from perceived threats?

 

Edit:

 

Tom'd again.

I'm really NOT taking this as personally as you seem to think I am. I'm debating from an historical perspective. If arguing a perspective about what is, or isn't offensive is, "telling others what to believe," then what are you doing?

 

Be that as it may, your anger is seething off the page, and I have no desire to engage with someone in personal attacks over a difference of opinion, or perspective. Feel free to take the last word, if you like.

[SBUffalo]

It is all political grandstanding, the Dems are simply trying to change the discourse from how inept Obama has been on the VA issue to "Wow, look at those Dems! They are soooo compassiiioonnaattee! Look at how they are sticking up for the poor Native Americans!"

 

Except the issue of the name has been going for decades now... Nice try.

 

Let's all be genuine for a second and ask ourselves, is the team name Washington Redskins intended to be offensive? Nope. Does the organization involved take real steps to offend, denigrate, or harm the affected people? No. So what are we really talking about here? The name of a football team that could be interpreted as offensive, but is not intended that way. But that would mean people would need to look into the substance and context of something rather than just being outraged. Being outraged is easier and more exciting.

 

To answer your first question: probably. Google George Preston Marshall.

[truth on hold]

 

 

Except the issue of the name has been going for decades now... Nice try.

 

 

 

To answer your first question: probably.

Why would anyone knowingly use an offensive racial slur for their team's name?

[ExiledInIllinois]

 

Why would anyone knowingly use an offensive racial slur for their team's name?

 

Different era. Some teams had a few nicknames. The original owner was pretty racist, probably didn't hold his players and team in high regard like teams are today. Again, nickname goes back to a different cultural era. You can't compare that era with today.