Redskins facing severe pressure to change name.

[Bad Things]

2 hours ago, Happy said:

 

I see.  So after 87 years the team name Redskins is all of a sudden derogatory and offensive.  Got it.

Good!

[Numark3]

4 hours ago, Happy said:

 

I see.  So after 87 years the team name Redskins is all of a sudden derogatory and offensive.  Got it.

this has been a news story and drew criticism since the early 1970s...don’t be obtuse.  People saying this is a recent controversy, the product of whites, or modern culture, are factually wrong and ignorant of the past 50 years.

 

seriously, continuing to post about how this is from the new woke culture is beyond factually wrong, and makes you sound extremely uninformed.  

Edited July 5, 2020 by Crayola64

[machine gun kelly]

Well, I’m happy to admit I was wrong.  I really thought Snyder wouldn’t buckle, but between Fedex, and Pepsi hitting him in the wallet, and I didn’t know until the other day Fedex is a minority owner of the DC team, more than just having the naming rights.  If this name is offensive to a segment of society, and considered similar to the N word, then change it.  I don’t see the Reds, Chiefs, Seminoles, and Braves as offensive, as many went down the whole slippery slope argument, but there is a distinction.

 

 

[eball]

8 hours ago, Happy said:

 

Too many people find something offensive nowadays.  Right now it is the Redskins, tomorrow it will be the Cleveland Indians, and coming soon it will be the Bills.  I mean, Wild Bill Cody fans can't be pleased with the Buffalo Bills team name; it disrespects an old West legend....right?.  Things are out of control, and people who shouldn't care but show righteous indignation are a big part of the problem.

 

Here is an article from May, 2016 which details that 90% of Native Americans do not find the team name of Redskins offensive:  https://www.nbcsports.com/washington/washington-redskins/new-poll-finds-90-percent-native-americans-not-offended-redskins-name.  

 

Why is it that non-Native Americans have a problem with it?  They were the Boston Redskins starting in 1933, moved to Washington in 1937 and have been there ever since.  Now all of a sudden, within the last couple of years, the "enlightened" folk take it upon themselves to interject themselves where they don't belong.  You can stop waiting.

 

Still haven’t answered the question.  Your basis for not changing Washington’s name is that “only 10%” of Native Americans are offended.  Tell me ONE nickname that is offensive to 10% of the white population that exists in professional sports.  You can’t because it doesn’t exist.  Why is it ok to offend 10% of one culture but not another?

[Nanker]

4 minutes ago, eball said:

 

Still haven’t answered the question.  Your basis for not changing Washington’s name is that “only 10%” of Native Americans are offended.  Tell me ONE nickname that is offensive to 10% of the white population that exists in professional sports.  You can’t because it doesn’t exist.  Why is it ok to offend 10% of one culture but not another?

I remember seeing Merv Griffin talking about how tough it was to break into show biz. He started out as a nightclub singer. At an audition for a job at a club owned by an Italian American, he started to sing a song. “I’ve never seen a day go by...”

The owner threw him out and Merv had no idea why. 
 

True story. 

[Saxum]

8 hours ago, Happy said:

 

Just sad, but not surprising.  

 

Too bad you recently changed name or you could change it to "Sad" or "Just Sad".

[K-9]

1 hour ago, machine gun kelly said:

Well, I’m happy to admit I was wrong.  I really thought Snyder wouldn’t buckle, but between Fedex, and Pepsi hitting him in the wallet, and I didn’t know until the other day Fedex is a minority owner of the DC team, more than just having the naming rights.  If this name is offensive to a segment of society, and considered similar to the N word, then change it.  I don’t see the Reds, Chiefs, Seminoles, and Braves as offensive, as many went down the whole slippery slope argument, but there is a distinction.

 

 

The Cincinnati Reds team name has nothing to do with skin color. 

[machine gun kelly]

K-9, I know, but some have suggested the whole slippery slope thing.  That’s all.  Just like Buffalo has nothing to do with the animal,  it was an Indian name for beautiful place.

[Saxum]

1 hour ago, machine gun kelly said:

K-9, I know, but some have suggested the whole slippery slope thing.  That’s all.  Just like Buffalo has nothing to do with the animal,  it was an Indian name for beautiful place.

 

Facts never stop irrational ranters.

[Happy]

4 hours ago, Crayola64 said:

this has been a news story and drew criticism since the early 1970s...don’t be obtuse.  People saying this is a recent controversy, the product of whites, or modern culture, are factually wrong and ignorant of the past 50 years.

 

seriously, continuing to post about how this is from the new woke culture is beyond factually wrong, and makes you sound extremely uninformed.  

 

Ok, buttercup.  Go color with your box of 64 crayons.

[Mr. WEO]

9 hours ago, Happy said:

 

I see.  So after 87 years the team name Redskins is all of a sudden derogatory and offensive.  Got it.

 

"all of a sudden"??

 

WTF

[Happy]

19 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

"all of a sudden"??

 

WTF

 

In the context of 87 years, yes, it is all of a sudden

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

43 minutes ago, Happy said:

 

Ok, buttercup.  Go color with your box of 64 crayons.

 

 

...LMAO....he just choked on #32....Ruby Red....................

[Trogdor]

1 minute ago, Happy said:

 

In the context of 87 years, yes, it is all of a sudden

You have to be living under a rock to not have heard this for years. This isn't recent, companies caring about their losses from it are. 

[Happy]

2 hours ago, eball said:

 

Still haven’t answered the question.  Your basis for not changing Washington’s name is that “only 10%” of Native Americans are offended.  Tell me ONE nickname that is offensive to 10% of the white population that exists in professional sports.  You can’t because it doesn’t exist.  Why is it ok to offend 10% of one culture but not another?

 

I have no idea and it has nothing to do with anything.  If 10% of the population doesn't like something, they typically have to live with it because 90% thought the opposite.  10% is certainly more of a fringe than the middle of a bell curve.  That is why your question (or point) makes no sense.

3 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

 

...LMAO....he just choked on #32....Ruby Red....................

 

He probably did eat half of them.  

[Real McClappy]

Washington Warriors has a good feel.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

...assume the progressives will target the Philadelphia "Eagles", our nation's symbol......OR....even the NY "Yankees" as white supremacist symbolic.....too bad Billy Martin is gone.....would be one helluva fight.....

[Spiderweb]

On 7/2/2020 at 10:04 PM, Beast said:

Oh, I didn’t know FED EX, Nike, Coke, Pepsi and others demanded the Redskins change their name back in 1969.

 

I thought it was today this all came out.

 

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Agree or not, the reference was related to "old news"...

[Rico]

24 minutes ago, Real McNasty said:

Washington Warriors has a good feel.

Washington Social Justice Warriors FTW. 
More fans would hate them than the Pats.

[Spiderweb]

19 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

...assume the progressives will target the Philadelphia "Eagles", our nation's symbol......OR....even the NY "Yankees" as white supremacist symbolic.....too bad Billy Martin is gone.....would be one helluva fight.....

Give it a rest....