FireChan Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 Rocky, why don't you protest the regular use of the "N-word" by a significant population of the US? I assure you, it's used much more on a daily basis and had negative connotations more recently than "Redskin."
hondo in seattle Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 ... Would really like to see a source on this. But as I said earlier, NON-interested parties hold WAY LESS weight than: the owner & his management team, the players, and the loyal Redskin fans. Idiot Americans are gullible & stupid, and are easily swept up in to supporting things they know nothing about, and have no interest in. Here are two interesting sources... The National Congress of American Indians represents, I believe, about 3/4 of the Indian tribes in American and they are vociferous in their condemnation of the name. That suggests a "significant number" are offended by the name as I asserted earlier. And the Oneida Nation did a poll just released asking people in the Washington area if American Indians have a right to feel offended if called "redskin." 52% said yes. You're right, Dan Snyder and most white folks don't have a problem with the name. But even Miriam Webster dictionary says the usage of "redskin" is "usually offensive." The Cambridge online dictionary says it's "offensive." WordNet's online dictionary defines Redskin as an "offensive term for Native Americans (Synonyms: Injun, red man)." Dictionary.com says the term is "often disparaging and offensive." The MacMillan Dictionary says it's "offensive." Et cetera... "Redskin" - by definition - is offensive. Can you imagine if all NFL teams had names like this; Houston Spics Buffalo Honkies Detroit Darkies New York Kikes Etc. I get that "redskin" isn't offensive to every American or even every American Indian. But it clearly offends some and I don't think those offended are unreasonable. And I think the more we stay away from racial epithets, the better our society will become. It's simple. Names that promote unity and pride are good. Names that promote racial stereotyping and divisiveness are bad.
Deranged Rhino Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 (edited) You're pretty funny; you should contact The Tonight Show, maybe Fallon needs another writer. They cannot afford my quote. So I'm all wrong, but you're 100% correct in all your bloviating, right? But funny thing is, I'M WITH THE MAJORITY here. You're wrong not because you stand with the majority but because you fail to grasp what the other side's argument even is. Instead you dismiss it as phony because you do not agree with it and fall back on an emotional argument that has no merit or relevance to the situation. You seem to have missed the MAIN POINT here, so I will repeat it: I did not miss your main point, it's just irrelevant. Like most of your posts in this thread thus far. Edited June 13, 2014 by GreggyT
Rocky Landing Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 Rocky, why don't you protest the regular use of the "N-word" by a significant population of the US? I assure you, it's used much more on a daily basis and had negative connotations more recently than "Redskin." Who says I'm protesting anything? We're debating here. And, if there was a team called the Hoboken Ni**ers, with a long history of "honoring African Americans," we'd probably be in agreement that it should be changed.
FireChan Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 Who says I'm protesting anything? We're debating here. And, if there was a team called the Hoboken Ni**ers, with a long history of "honoring African Americans," we'd probably be in agreement that it should be changed. How do you feel about the common use of the N-word?
billsfan1959 Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 Would really like to see a source on this. But as I said earlier, NON-interested parties hold WAY LESS weight than: the owner & his management team, the players, and the loyal Redskin fans. Idiot Americans are gullible & stupid, and are easily swept up in to supporting things they know nothing about, and have no interest in. Actually, many of us who feel that the name is offensive are informed, educated, critically thinking, rational adults.
Deranged Rhino Posted June 14, 2014 Posted June 14, 2014 How do you feel about the common use of the N-word? This has nothing to do with the issue of the topic. Absolutely nothing at all. But thanks for demonstrating the mindset of those who are so passionate about defending the name of a sports team they don't even root for. You've done this board a great service.
Pondslider Posted June 14, 2014 Posted June 14, 2014 I don't see this as political correctness run amok. Names matter. Labels matter. My dad fought in WWII. His generation used words like "Kraut" and "Jap" to refer to their enemies. I fought in Desert Storm where many of our soldiers called our enemy, "rag-heads." It's easier to kill an enemy you have first demeaned. None of us wanted to kill "Mo" who had a wife and three children waiting for his return back in Baghdad, but we didn't mind killing rag-heads. It's not just political correctness to avoid using works like "Sp*c," "N*gger," K*ke," "Go*k," "Redskin" and so on. The more we use pejorative labels (and, yes, many find the "Redskin" name pejorative), the more likely we are to mistreat the group so labelled. Mexican farm workers used to be called, "migrant workers." Now the people in favor of deporting them label them, "illegal aliens." This is no accidental change of verbiage. It's hard to be in favor of deporting a family of migrant workers. It's much easier to get behind deporting illegal aliens. A significant number of Americans feel the word "Redskin" is demeaning and racist. As such it promotes certain negative behaviors and mindsets in certain people. America becomes a better place for everyone when the pejorative labeling stops. Change the name! Confucius observed: "A superior man, in regard to what he does not know, shows a cautious reserve. He knows if names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success... Therefore a superior man considers it necessary that the names he uses may be spoken appropriately." This is such a good post.
FireChan Posted June 14, 2014 Posted June 14, 2014 (edited) This has nothing to do with the issue of the topic. Absolutely nothing at all. But thanks for demonstrating the mindset of those who are so passionate about defending the name of a sports team they don't even root for. You've done this board a great service. It's actually a set up for the name debate. Don't worry, it'll all make sense in a second. Edited June 14, 2014 by FireChan
Deranged Rhino Posted June 14, 2014 Posted June 14, 2014 It's actually a set up for the name debate. Don't worry, it'll all make sense in a second. No, it doesn't matter. It makes no difference. Bringing that into the debate only clouds the issue even more than it's already being clouded.
FireChan Posted June 14, 2014 Posted June 14, 2014 No, it doesn't matter. It makes no difference. Bringing that into the debate only clouds the issue even more than it's already being clouded. Yes it does. Hold on though, I have something that's been bugging me. This has nothing to do with the issue of the topic. Absolutely nothing at all. But thanks for demonstrating the mindset of those who are so passionate about defending the name of a sports team they don't even root for. You've done this board a great service. Are you insinuating I shouldn't defend a team I don't root for? Under that logic, you shouldn't defend Native Americans because you aren't one. Now onto the cloudiness of this debate. All across America, a distinct population of blacks use the N-word to each other in a greeting or companionship way. How can someone be alright with that, yet condemn Snyder with regards to the Redskins name? I'll break it down. -both have negative connotations -both are used with an intent completely separate from their historic context -both intents are complimentary or friendly So this begs the question, what is different? For one, I suppose you could say that Snyder is white. But does that mean if he was a Native, the name would be fine? Is that how words work, they depend on the color of the speaker's skin? Sounds like racism to me. Secondly, you could say that Snyder owns a business with the name, and that somehow makes it worse. So owning a business called the Washington Ni**** is objectively worse than saying Ni**** on the street? How so? And thirdly, Rocky's favorite defense, "it's in our nation's capital." A laughable point. As if the "Seattle Redskins" would be less offensive or abhorrent. I guess taking offense is based off geography.
John in Jax Posted June 14, 2014 Posted June 14, 2014 A significant number of Americans feel the word "Redskin" is demeaning and racist. I'm gonna try this again, because it appears that someone deleted one of my posts from earlier today, btw, with NO reason given. You say this above, then cite surveys from strictly Indians. Do you see the problem? Are there any surveys of a cross section of ALL Americans that show how they feel? As I've stated many times now, an overwhelming majority of Redskin fans have no problem with it, the players have no problem with it, and of course you know how the owner/managers of the team feel about it.
billsfan1959 Posted June 14, 2014 Posted June 14, 2014 Yes it does. Hold on though, I have something that's been bugging me. Are you insinuating I shouldn't defend a team I don't root for? Under that logic, you shouldn't defend Native Americans because you aren't one. Now onto the cloudiness of this debate. All across America, a distinct population of blacks use the N-word to each other in a greeting or companionship way. How can someone be alright with that, yet condemn Snyder with regards to the Redskins name? I'll break it down. -both have negative connotations -both are used with an intent completely separate from their historic context -both intents are complimentary or friendly So this begs the question, what is different? For one, I suppose you could say that Snyder is white. But does that mean if he was a Native, the name would be fine? Is that how words work, they depend on the color of the speaker's skin? Sounds like racism to me. Secondly, you could say that Snyder owns a business with the name, and that somehow makes it worse. So owning a business called the Washington Ni**** is objectively worse than saying Ni**** on the street? How so? And thirdly, Rocky's favorite defense, "it's in our nation's capital." A laughable point. As if the "Seattle Redskins" would be less offensive or abhorrent. I guess taking offense is based off geography. 1. Individuals within any given minority population that choose to address each other in offensive ways on an individual basis is far different than a business that chooses to use an offensive label for an entire population. 2. The name would be offensive in Washington, DC, or Seattle, WA. The fact that Washington, DC, happens to be the capital of a nation whose foundation rests on the concept of equality and that prides itself on being a "melting pot" only serves to heighten its offensiveness.
billsfan1959 Posted June 14, 2014 Posted June 14, 2014 I'm gonna try this again, because it appears that someone deleted one of my posts from earlier today, btw, with NO reason given. You say this above, then cite surveys from strictly Indians. Do you see the problem? Are there any surveys of a cross section of ALL Americans that show how they feel? As I've stated many times now, an overwhelming majority of Redskin fans have no problem with it, the players have no problem with it, and of course you know how the owner/managers of the team feel about it. Yes you have stated it many times. We get it. (1) The people who the label does not apply to are not offended by the label. (2) Regardless of whether or not the people it actually applies to are offended, if the majority of all other people are not offended then there is no problem. Goodbye
Rocky Landing Posted June 14, 2014 Posted June 14, 2014 (edited) How do you feel about the common use of the N-word? Are you really trying to bait me into drawing a false comparison to the N-word by drawing your own false comparison to the N-word? I expect more from you. Edited June 14, 2014 by Rocky Landing
Beerball Posted June 14, 2014 Posted June 14, 2014 I'm gonna try this again, because it appears that someone deleted one of my posts from earlier today, btw, with NO reason given. check your warning points for the reasons
Captain Caveman Posted June 14, 2014 Posted June 14, 2014 Someone else is doing something that seems like it might be wrong, so everybody can do other stuff that is wrong.
FireChan Posted June 14, 2014 Posted June 14, 2014 Are you really trying to bait me into drawing a false comparison to the N-word by drawing your own false comparison to the N-word? I expect more from you. No. I've already decided (as I'm sure you have also) that no one is going to convince another. However, contradictions in moral situations DO exist, for whatever reason. I'm the first to admit it. I don't think blacks using the n-word is a big deal at all. In fact, I think the "Redskins" argument has a lot more weight. But in reality, they are very similar. For whatever reason, they are on different levels and I wanted to hear your opinion. 1. Individuals within any given minority population that choose to address each other in offensive ways on an individual basis is far different than a business that chooses to use an offensive label for an entire population. 2. The name would be offensive in Washington, DC, or Seattle, WA. The fact that Washington, DC, happens to be the capital of a nation whose foundation rests on the concept of equality and that prides itself on being a "melting pot" only serves to heighten its offensiveness. 1. Why? Give me your reasons. The N-word is derogatory to an entire population btw. 2. That was for Rocky. It's not really a point.
A Dog Named Kelso Posted June 14, 2014 Posted June 14, 2014 I'm gonna try this again, because it appears that someone deleted one of my posts from earlier today, btw, with NO reason given. You say this above, then cite surveys from strictly Indians. Do you see the problem? Are there any surveys of a cross section of ALL Americans that show how they feel? As I've stated many times now, an overwhelming majority of Redskin fans have no problem with it, the players have no problem with it, and of course you know how the owner/managers of the team feel about it. It is irrelevant what the fans or cross section of americans think. What is relevant is what native americans think. That is the point. If it offensive to those which word is describing(and it appears to be if you have followed the discussion), it is offensive. If the word is offensive then having a name that uses that word is offensive regardless of how the fans, owner or cross-section of american think.
billsfan1959 Posted June 14, 2014 Posted June 14, 2014 No. I've already decided (as I'm sure you have also) that no one is going to convince another. However, contradictions in moral situations DO exist, for whatever reason. I'm the first to admit it. I don't think blacks using the n-word is a big deal at all. In fact, I think the "Redskins" argument has a lot more weight. But in reality, they are very similar. For whatever reason, they are on different levels and I wanted to hear your opinion. 1. Why? Give me your reasons. The N-word is derogatory to an entire population btw. 2. That was for Rocky. It's not really a point. Of course the N-word is derogatory to an entire population. That isn't the point. The point is your example is irrelevant to the present debate. What people say to each other on an individual basis is not the same as an organization, a business, etc. using derogatory terms. If you wanted to provide an example of a business using the N-word in its name, then you would be providing an example that is relevant. And you would probably agree that it shouldn't be used - much like the term "Redskins" shouldn't be used. I really don't think I should have to provide any more reasons or any further explanation. It really is pretty obvious.
Recommended Posts