Go Ditka

[billsfan1959]

Nobody can take anything Ditka says seriously. Most of the time it is merely amusing listening to him trying to articulate any thought. However, sometimes I actually cringe and kinda feel bad for him - even embarrassed for him. But then I wonder if I should. Sort of a philosophical question, I guess: Should you feel bad for the village idiot if he doesn't know he is the village idiot?

[Joe Miner]

I love these threads.

 

The other side couldn't possibly have a point since I disagree with them. So Ill just call them names, then everyone will see how smart I am.

[FluffHead]

No matter your stance on the issue, you must admit Ditka has a sweet mustache.

[FireChan]

 

 

The only people who count in the poll are Native Americans. You could have done a poll in the south in the 60's and found that people didn't find the N word derogatory.I'd love to see the methodology and the instrument to see where these findngs come from.

 

I'm 57 years old. In my lifetime I that word has always been a derogatory term. (BTW, the origin of the term is in dispute, but it hasn't' been complementary for years, if it ever was.) I would never even think of calling a Native American a "redskin" to his/her face. I'm not an ignorant fool.

 

Naming a team Redskins is different than a team named The Indians and quite different that a team named The Chiefs. Chiefs is an honorarium. So is Braves. Indians may now be in dispute, but it isn't a derogatory term for Native Americans, just a sloppy one, and maybe should be changed, too. You might name a team The Jews, but would you name them The Kikes? Of course not.

 

The absolute worst argument one can use is that the name has been used since 1932. Since when has historical bigotry been a defense of bigotry? We have evolved. Why must the recognition of the rights, and feelings of those who aren't white, Christian, etc always be fought as if it is a completely new thing? Why must these old ways be defended until the bitter end. Maybe conservatives would have a bigger base if they became proactive on some of these issues. Get in front of a social issue, for once---and not one that drags us back into the 50's.

 

The funny thing is, Snyder could have been a hero in this and made a TON of money. Think of all the money he would have made on new gear? Now it's the inevitable with another old rich white guy backing the wrong side. A shame, really.

 

Does the intent behind a word matter to you? Or is it, "derogatory words are derogatory no matter what?"

[FluffHead]

Is this what PPP is like?

[Orton's Arm]

He's so eloquent and what impeccable logic!

 

Liberals bad! Bigotry good!

 

Um, no. That's not what he said. Nor did he say anything remotely resembling that.

[FireChan]

Is this what PPP is like?

 

PPP is way worse. And better. Somehow.

[Guest Diesel-USMC]

The only people who count in the poll are Native Americans. You could have done a poll in the south in the 60's and found that people didn't find the N word derogatory.I'd love to see the methodology and the instrument to see where these findngs come from.

 

I'm 57 years old. In my lifetime I that word has always been a derogatory term. (BTW, the origin of the term is in dispute, but it hasn't' been complementary for years, if it ever was.) I would never even think of calling a Native American a "redskin" to his/her face. I'm not an ignorant fool.

 

Naming a team Redskins is different than a team named The Indians and quite different that a team named The Chiefs. Chiefs is an honorarium. So is Braves. Indians may now be in dispute, but it isn't a derogatory term for Native Americans, just a sloppy one, and maybe should be changed, too. You might name a team The Jews, but would you name them The Kikes? Of course not.

 

The absolute worst argument one can use is that the name has been used since 1932. Since when has historical bigotry been a defense of bigotry? We have evolved. Why must the recognition of the rights, and feelings of those who aren't white, Christian, etc always be fought as if it is a completely new thing? Why must these old ways be defended until the bitter end. Maybe conservatives would have a bigger base if they became proactive on some of these issues. Get in front of a social issue, for once---and not one that drags us back into the 50's.

 

The funny thing is, Snyder could have been a hero in this and made a TON of money. Think of all the money he would have made on new gear? Now it's the inevitable with another old rich white guy backing the wrong side. A shame, really.

 

 

The 'N' word hasn't gone away, instead, its been embraced by the very people who complained about it. Look, I'm not going to argue about something as stupid as this.

 

Do I use racial slurs? No. Do I think that people over react? Yes. Do I think that this is one of those times? Yes. Do I believe everyone researches things after a media news outlet tells them what to think? No. It's an over reaction by both sides. It's a joke.

 

This is my opinion. I am neither liberal nor conservative. I find it amusing that we can go back and forth about something as trivial as this and yet, allow the bigger problems to marinate on the back burner. No problem.

[The Dean]

Does the intent behind a word matter to you? Or is it, "derogatory words are derogatory no matter what?"

 

The intent absolutely matters to me. And I don't think Redskins is intentionally derogatory. But call a woman "fatty" repeatedly, as a joke. You can be kidding, but she still won't like it and eventually will be offended. Why continue to use a known derogatory term? BTW, I think it's easy to understand that something might be offensive, but choose to not be offended by it. But why would an organization choose to use an offensive term---and then defend it by showing many people aren't offended?

 

Um, no. That's not what he said. Nor did he say anything remotely resembling that.

The 'N' word hasn't gone away, instead, its been embraced by the very people who complained about it. Look, I'm not going to argue about something as stupid as this.

 

Do I use racial slurs? No. Do I think that people over react? Yes. Do I think that this is one of those times? Yes. Do I believe everyone researches things after a media news outlet tells them what to think? No. It's an over reaction by both sides. It's a joke.

 

This is my opinion. I am neither liberal nor conservative. I find it amusing that we can go back and forth about something as trivial as this and yet, allow the bigger problems to marinate on the back burner. No problem.

 

The point is Ditka blamed liberals for the controversy. He made it a political issue and the poster made it political by saying he spoke "the truth".

[Guest Diesel-USMC]

The intent absolutely matters to me. And I don't think Redskins is intentionally derogatory. But call a woman "fatty" repeatedly, as a joke. You can be kidding, but she still won't like it and eventually will be offended. Why continue to use a known derogatory term? BTW, I think it's easy to understand that something might be offensive, but choose to not be offended by it. But why would an organization choose to use an offensive term---and then defend it by showing many people aren't offended?

 

 

 

 

The point is Ditka blamed liberals for the controversy. He made it a political issue and the poster made it political by saying he spoke "the truth".

 

 

Did he lie?

 

Stating that it's the truth was probably referring to the complete context and not simply the word liberal. So, this isn't about whether or not the name is derogatory, this is about whether liberals or conservatives are right? That seems to be the going thing anymore. "Forget context and facts, forget logic and rights, let's just force people to believe our way is the right way and go from there."

 

The term is not offensive, nor was its original meaning. Redneck is not a derogatory term? Does it not imply a specific group of people characterized by certain things? yet, the very people claiming Redskin is derogatory, toss that word around all the time hen referring to someone who "doesn't seem to be doing things the way they should" ect.

 

Like I said, at what point do we say, enough. "This is stupid, you know what this name means. Unless someone is cussing at you and using it at the same time, its the name of a sports team, and was a term of endearment before its definition change for a period of history.

Edited August 20, 2014 by ninja rooster

[Kirby Jackson]

 

 

The intent absolutely matters to me. And I don't think Redskins is intentionally derogatory. But call a woman "fatty" repeatedly, as a joke. You can be kidding, but she still won't like it and eventually will be offended. Why continue to use a known derogatory term? BTW, I think it's easy to understand that something might be offensive, but choose to not be offended by it. But why would an organization choose to use an offensive term---and then defend it by showing many people aren't offended?

If it is offensive to the group that is being demeaned, it is a problem. It's hard for me to wrap my head around the severity as a white guy. We should defer to the Native Americans on this.

[FireChan]

The intent absolutely matters to me. And I don't think Redskins is intentionally derogatory. But call a woman "fatty" repeatedly, as a joke. You can be kidding, but she still won't like it and eventually will be offended. Why continue to use a known derogatory term? BTW, I think it's easy to understand that something might be offensive, but choose to not be offended by it. But why would an organization choose to use an offensive term---and then defend it by showing many people aren't offended?

 

Joking is mocking. That's not what I'm talking about.

 

How many times have you heard the word Redskin aloud that wasn't about the football team in the last 10 years? Personally, the answer for me is zero.

 

I find it odd that so many posters preach about how, "we have changed and evolved since the name was introduced, now it is derogatory," yet, they don't think to consider that names evolve as well. Let me give you an example of how a word has completely evolved. The N word. I can assume that you agree it is equally offensive? But now, in many black communities, it's synonymous with "brother" or "friend." Did that word not evolve?

 

The word "Redskins" and its connotations are now the fierceness and toughness that are associated with most other football teams mascots. If the intent is to honor and cherish, why get offended? Even if it, "doesn't sit well with you," why get offended. No offense is meant. How can someone be offended by this?

 

Let's also go back to what some say about the word Redskins, that it is associated with the pillage and scalpings etc. And that's why we shouldn't use it. Uh, what? "Yeah sure, we sorta stole all your land and killed 99% of your population, but now we've evolved our human decency and won't use a word that reminds you of us killing all of you." What? As if not using the word, is the height of any moral decency. Not reminding some minorities that we attempted to kill them all. It's such a miniscule attempt to right the wrongs we've committed, that taking the moral high-ground and calling opponents "bigots" is laughable.

[Guest Diesel-USMC]

If it is offensive to the group that is being demeaned, it is a problem. It's hard for me to wrap my head around the severity as a white guy. We should defer to the Native Americans on this.

 

They have and the results mixed but most saying it is not a problem.

[Pondslider]

God I hate when sports people and celebrities talk about political stuff. Stick to sports!

 

Except when they agree with what I think and then they are brilliant and everybody should recognize their genius.

[The Dean]

They have and the results mixed but most saying it is not a problem.

 

Again, as a former research professional (and a damn good one, I might add, modestly ) I'd love to see the instrument used, the sample and the data. I can believe many Native Americans don't see this as a huge issue---they have issues much more important to worry about. But I'd love to know how many think the term itself is derogatory and/or offensive. I am fairly sure modern Native Americans don't view the term as particularly positive let alone "an honor".

[Guest Diesel-USMC]

 

 

Again, as a former research professional (and a damn good one, I might add, modestly ) I'd love to see the instrument used, the sample and the data. I can believe many Native Americans don't see this as a huge issue---they have issues much more important to worry about. But I'd love to know how many think the term itself is derogatory and/or offensive. I am fairly sure modern Native Americans don't view the term as particularly positive let alone "an honor".

 

 

I gotcha. Not sure where you can find that information.

 

In regards to "changing context to fit feelings", I'm a opponent of that theory.

 

These kinds of discussions often lead to arguments. I'm glad we all did not go off the deep end. Anyway, have a good evening all.

Edited August 20, 2014 by ninja rooster

[Orton's Arm]

For the record: James Fenimore Cooper is considered one of early America's finest writers. If you ever take a class where you're required to read American classics, odds are pretty good you'll be assigned something he's written. He wrote The Prairie in 1822. Below is a quote from page 581:

 

*******

But as little does he know of the temper of a Red-skin, who as seen but one Indian or one tribe, as he knows of the colour of feathers who has only looked upon a crow."

*******

 

Consistent with that sentiment, The Prairie featured multiple tribes. The Pawnees were portrayed in an extremely favorable light; with their chief portrayed as a hero. Their enemies--the Sioux--were shown in a negative light. But it's not as though Cooper portrayed every Sioux as being bad. The reader got to know several members of the Sioux tribe; some of whom created a favorable impression. Others not so favorable.

 

Cooper clearly wanted his readers to root for the Pawnees in their war against the Sioux. And to admire the Pawnees' chief. The latter is described as physically perfect: well-muscled, athletic, handsome. Not once did the Pawnees' chief--Hardheart--flinch or show fear--not even when the Sioux were planning his execution. "Look at that noble Pawnee, Teton, and see what a Red-skin may become, who fears the Master of Life and follows his laws." (The "master" that Hardheart followed was not the Christian God--it was the Native Americans' great spirit.)

 

At least in the eyes of Cooper, the term "Red-skin" was descriptive, not pejorative.

[Madbillsfan]

It's not offensive because it's not you.

[The Dean]

I gotcha. Not sure where you can find that information.

 

In regards to "changing context to fit feelings", I'm a opponent of that theory.

 

These kinds of discussions often lead to arguments. I'm glad we all did not go off the deep end. Anyway, have a good evening all.

 

You too.

[Pondslider]

For the record: James Fenimore Cooper is considered one of early America's finest writers. If you ever take a class where you're required to read American classics, odds are pretty good you'll be assigned something he's written. He wrote The Prairie in 1822. Below is a quote from page 581:

 

*******

But as little does he know of the temper of a Red-skin, who as seen but one Indian or one tribe, as he knows of the colour of feathers who has only looked upon a crow."

*******

 

Consistent with that sentiment, The Prairie featured multiple tribes. The Pawnees were portrayed in an extremely favorable light; with their chief portrayed as a hero. Their enemies--the Sioux--were shown in a negative light. But it's not as though Cooper portrayed every Sioux as being bad. The reader got to know several members of the Sioux tribe; some of whom created a favorable impression. Others not so favorable.

 

Cooper clearly wanted his readers to root for the Pawnees in their war against the Sioux. And to admire the Pawnees' chief. The latter is described as physically perfect: well-muscled, athletic, handsome. Not once did the Pawnees' chief--Hardheart--flinch or show fear--not even when the Sioux were planning his execution. "Look at that noble Pawnee, Teton, and see what a Red-skin may become, who fears the Master of Life and follows his laws." (The "master" that Hardheart followed was not the Christian God--it was the Native Americans' great spirit.)

 

At least in the eyes of Cooper, the term "Red-skin" was descriptive, not pejorative.

Twain uses the n word a lot. Let's change the name to that.