Wayne Cubed Posted May 26, 2014 Posted May 26, 2014 (edited) Is this an argument for the Redskins changing their name, or against? Neither. Simply pointing out the flaw in his argument against the term Viking and the because the NFL isn't played in a Nordic country the term isn't offensive. I'm pretty sure you'd offend some people by calling the team the Nazi's and the NFL is played in Germany or surrounding countries Edited May 26, 2014 by Wayne Cubed
DC Tom Posted May 26, 2014 Posted May 26, 2014 Neither. Simply pointing out the flaw in his argument against the term Viking and the because the NFL isn't played in a Nordic country the term isn't offensive. I'm pretty sure you'd offend some people by calling the team the Nazi's. You'd offend some people calling the team the Fluffy Bunnies. You can't eliminate offense. When are we renaming the Bills? Buffalo Bill Cody did as much to oppress and enslave Native Americans as anyone.
Wayne Cubed Posted May 26, 2014 Posted May 26, 2014 You'd offend some people calling the team the Fluffy Bunnies. You can't eliminate offense. When are we renaming the Bills? Buffalo Bill Cody did as much to oppress and enslave Native Americans as anyone. Exactly. Hell, I'm offended that there's a Bison on the side of their helmet and people keep calling it a Buffalo!
What a Tuel Posted May 26, 2014 Posted May 26, 2014 That's an interesting point. But, I think the context matters in that case. The Redskins are calling themselves the Redskins in all seriousness, and choosing to ignore the historical ramifications. The clown will call a Native American a redskin in complete jest, in acknowledgment of the historical ramifications. But let me understand this: Someone can make fun of Native Americans so long as they acknowledge the wrongs that were committed against them? But the Washington Redskins can't keep their team name because they acknowledge the wrongs committed against Native Americans, and have no intention of insulting Native Americans, but their name could be construed as an insult so..... Would it make you happy if they acknowledged that "Redskins" could be taken as an insult?
SRQ_BillsFan Posted May 26, 2014 Posted May 26, 2014 Redskin is a derogatory term. Viking, raider, etc. is not. Is that a hard concept to grasp? It's not that people want anything that offends people to be changed. It's the fact that Redskin is a derogatory word. It's really not that hard, and anyone who brings up other team's names as offensive had this whole argument go over their head. If it wasn't offensive it wouldn't be derogatory.
Rocky Landing Posted May 26, 2014 Posted May 26, 2014 Neither. Simply pointing out the flaw in his argument against the term Viking and the because the NFL isn't played in a Nordic country the term isn't offensive. I'm pretty sure you'd offend some people by calling the team the Nazi's and the NFL is played in Germany or surrounding countries Interestingly enough, the use of the swastika, or the term "Nazi" is a crime in Germany-- which would be an obvious violation of the first amendment in this country. Also, am I missing something? Is the term "Viking" actually offensive to somebody?
Rocky Landing Posted May 26, 2014 Posted May 26, 2014 But let me understand this: Someone can make fun of Native Americans so long as they acknowledge the wrongs that were committed against them? But the Washington Redskins can't keep their team name because they acknowledge the wrongs committed against Native Americans, and have no intention of insulting Native Americans, but their name could be construed as an insult so..... Would it make you happy if they acknowledged that "Redskins" could be taken as an insult? I was expanding on what I thought was an interesting, but otherwise irrelevant point. As far as whether or not the term "redskin" could be taken as an insult, would you ever call a Native American a "redskin" to their face? I wouldn't.
What a Tuel Posted May 26, 2014 Posted May 26, 2014 (edited) I was expanding on what I thought was an interesting, but otherwise irrelevant point. As far as whether or not the term "redskin" could be taken as an insult, would you ever call a Native American a "redskin" to their face? I wouldn't. It is the name of a football team. There is no reason to call a Native American a redskin. Just like there is no reason to call me a bill. My names not Bill. Do you think Green Bay Packers refers to all Packers? Do you think Oakland Raiders refers to all Raiders out there? Do you think Cleveland Browns refers to all Browns out there? Edit: Let's hone in on Cleveland Browns. Let's say the Washington Redskins change their name to Washington Indians. I want you to make an argument to me, why the Cleveland Browns should keep their name, and should not be the next target of political correctness. Edited May 26, 2014 by What a Tuel
Mark Vader Posted May 26, 2014 Posted May 26, 2014 (edited) What's denigrating about "fighting" Irish? I could understand if it was "cowering" Irish, or "drunken" Irish... It points out an idea that all Irish are uncivilized brutes, and that all they want to do is fight other people. Edited May 26, 2014 by Mark Vader
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 26, 2014 Posted May 26, 2014 (edited) Redskin is a derogatory term. Viking, raider, etc. is not. Is that a hard concept to grasp? It's not that people want anything that offends people to be changed. It's the fact that Redskin is a derogatory word. It's really not that hard, and anyone who brings up other team's names as offensive had this whole argument go over their head. Silly you... You are asking for accountability, never going to happen. You are better off beating your head against a wall then dealing with this crew that has oppositional disorder. It points out an idea that all Irish are uncivilized brutes, and that all they want to do is fight other people. No it doesn't. Irish are part of the main power structure. They are not expoited and oppressed (anymore). I want you to make an argument to me, why the Cleveland Browns should keep their name, and should not be the next target of political correctness. Because the nickname is a generic color, they use nothing derogatory. They are not the Brownskins, they are the Browns. Show me any lineage to something racially offensive/derogatory. I really don't know their history... I do know that they were NOT named after Paul Brown... Right? BUT that is a strange coincidence... Edited May 26, 2014 by ExiledInIllinois
FireChan Posted May 26, 2014 Posted May 26, 2014 Silly you... You are asking for accountability, never going to happen. You are better off beating your head against a wall then dealing with this crew that has oppositional disorder. No it doesn't. Irish are part of the main power structure. They are not expoited and oppressed (anymore). Because the nickname is a generic color, they use nothing derogatory. They are not the Brownskins, they are the Browns. Show me any lineage to something racially offensive/derogatory. I really don't know their history... I do know that they were NOT named after Paul Brown... Right? BUT that is a strange coincidence... Now the Natives are "oppressed." Somehow, Dan Snyder needs to be punished for that, huh? Not the people doing the oppressing? Bold strategy Cotton, let's see how that pays off for them.
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 26, 2014 Posted May 26, 2014 Now the Natives are "oppressed." Somehow, Dan Snyder needs to be punished for that, huh? Not the people doing the oppressing? Bold strategy Cotton, let's see how that pays off for them. When have the Natives NOT been oppressed? Pay em royalities on the name and you'd see it changed mighty quickly...
Rocky Landing Posted May 26, 2014 Posted May 26, 2014 (edited) It is the name of a football team. There is no reason to call a Native American a redskin. Just like there is no reason to call me a bill. My names not Bill. Do you think Green Bay Packers refers to all Packers? Do you think Oakland Raiders refers to all Raiders out there? Do you think Cleveland Browns refers to all Browns out there? Edit: Let's hone in on Cleveland Browns. Let's say the Washington Redskins change their name to Washington Indians. I want you to make an argument to me, why the Cleveland Browns should keep their name, and should not be the next target of political correctness. Ok, well, this seems like such an easy argument to make that it doesn't even seem worth the time, but here goes: The Browns were named after their beloved general manager and first coach Mike Brown who, to the best of my knowledge (and correct me if I'm wrong here) was NOT massacred by the United States military. The Redskins, on the other hand, are named after a derogatory term used to describe a race of people who WERE massacred by the United States Military. If, in the future, the term "Brown" becomes synonymous with, I suppose, brown people (I assume that is your assertion?) then Cleveland will have their own choice to make. That is as much as I can predict, as there is no historical perspective for the term "brown" being used as a negative, racial epithet. All of this seems so blatantly obvious to me that I am wondering why I am taking the time to type it. So, this may have to be my last post on the subject. The whole argument has drifted into the absurd. Edited May 26, 2014 by Rocky Landing
eme123 Posted May 26, 2014 Posted May 26, 2014 The Redskins were named to honor their coach at the time. The coach was Lone Star Dietz who was an American Sioux. They may have had a few indian players at the time as well. We act as if American Indians are more oppressed now than they were in the 1930's. This question gets asked over and over but WHAT has changed where all of a sudden Redskins is cemented as a slur. (Insert your ridiculous answers here) Here is the truth. It has the word skin and a color next to it so in the eyes of the left the name must be derogatory. Are we that stupid as a society? Especially when polls exist that say 90% of native americans support the name!! More sunburned caucasians would be offended by the name.
FireChan Posted May 27, 2014 Posted May 27, 2014 When have the Natives NOT been oppressed? Pay em royalities on the name and you'd see it changed mighty quickly... I agree they were oppressed. My question is why you're going after a perceived symbol of their oppression instead of the opressors? Do you believe the US government has not paid enough reparations for them? If so, why go after a private entity instead of the US gov? See these gaps in logic and reasoning? This is why this issue isn't taken seriously. Ok, well, this seems like such an easy argument to make that it doesn't even seem worth the time, but here goes: The Browns were named after their beloved general manager and first coach Mike Brown who, to the best of my knowledge (and correct me if I'm wrong here) was NOT massacred by the United States military. The Redskins, on the other hand, are named after a derogatory term used to describe a race of people who WERE massacred by the United States Military. If, in the future, the term "Brown" becomes synonymous with, I suppose, brown people (I assume that is your assertion?) then Cleveland will have their own choice to make. That is as much as I can predict, as there is no historical perspective for the term "brown" being used as a negative, racial epithet. All of this seems so blatantly obvious to me that I am wondering why I am taking the time to type it. So, this may have to be my last post on the subject. The whole argument has drifted into the absurd. Agreed. On the absurdity at least.
What a Tuel Posted May 27, 2014 Posted May 27, 2014 Ok, well, this seems like such an easy argument to make that it doesn't even seem worth the time, but here goes: The Browns were named after their beloved general manager and first coach Mike Brown who, to the best of my knowledge (and correct me if I'm wrong here) was NOT massacred by the United States military. The Redskins, on the other hand, are named after a derogatory term used to describe a race of people who WERE massacred by the United States Military. If, in the future, the term "Brown" becomes synonymous with, I suppose, brown people (I assume that is your assertion?) then Cleveland will have their own choice to make. That is as much as I can predict, as there is no historical perspective for the term "brown" being used as a negative, racial epithet. All of this seems so blatantly obvious to me that I am wondering why I am taking the time to type it. So, this may have to be my last post on the subject. The whole argument has drifted into the absurd. Well this seems easy. 1. I thought we were ignoring the origin of the name and the intent behind it. The only thing that matters is it's definition remember? 2. Brown people were just as oppressed as the Indians (albeit in very different ways). 3. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/brown . 4. Would you walk up to a colored person and call them a Brown person? I agree the whole argument about the Browns is absurd. It's ridiculous, its off base, and lastly it's an argument that doesn't need to be made. Same goes for the Redskins. Let the team be, they clearly don't mean to offend anyone. If a word offends you so much, don't watch the team. You don't have a right to not be offended.
Drop Kick Flutie Posted May 27, 2014 Posted May 27, 2014 When have the Natives NOT been oppressed? Pay em royalities on the name and you'd see it changed mighty quickly... I don't think the natives are oppressed anymore for the most part, they have special legal protections and run tax free businesses
Malazan Posted May 27, 2014 Posted May 27, 2014 (edited) When have the Natives NOT been oppressed? Pay em royalities on the name and you'd see it changed mighty quickly... Let's stop oppressing them and give the casino revenue to the States. We'll give them the same rights as all other Americans. Now can we stop caring wtf they call the DC football team? Edited May 27, 2014 by jeremy2020
Rocky Landing Posted May 27, 2014 Posted May 27, 2014 Well this seems easy. 1. I thought we were ignoring the origin of the name and the intent behind it. The only thing that matters is it's definition remember? 2. Brown people were just as oppressed as the Indians (albeit in very different ways). 3. http://www.merriam-w...ictionary/brown . 4. Would you walk up to a colored person and call them a Brown person? I agree the whole argument about the Browns is absurd. It's ridiculous, its off base, and lastly it's an argument that doesn't need to be made. Same goes for the Redskins. Let the team be, they clearly don't mean to offend anyone. If a word offends you so much, don't watch the team. You don't have a right to not be offended. 1) What???2) Did you even read my response? 3) Does not apply to the conversation AND YOU KNOW IT. 4) I would call someone a brown person BEFORE I CALLED THEM COLORED!!!
Drop Kick Flutie Posted May 27, 2014 Posted May 27, 2014 1) What??? 2) Did you even read my response? 3) Does not apply to the conversation AND YOU KNOW IT. 4) I would call someone a brown person BEFORE I CALLED THEM COLORED!!! National Assosiation for the Advancement of Colored People
Recommended Posts