Mr. WEO Posted July 5, 2020 Posted July 5, 2020 11 minutes ago, Happy said: People like you ruin sports. Well that still leaves militias and Q though...
aristocrat Posted July 5, 2020 Posted July 5, 2020 So do the skins donate or generate money for Native American groups or charities?
RobbRiddick Posted July 5, 2020 Posted July 5, 2020 I think it's great that Nike have withdrawn their support of the Redskins. Not only does it help highlight the offensive team name, but also helps distract the public from the fact that Nike are quite happy to oppress the workers in the far east who produce their clothes. "a 2018 report by the Clean Clothes Campaign, found that Adidas and Nike still pay “poverty” wages to workers."
HardyBoy Posted July 5, 2020 Posted July 5, 2020 13 minutes ago, Happy said: I am not native american, but I'm also not expressing any righteous indignation. People like you ruin sports. I'll leave it at that. Yes, you are expressing righteous indignation...you told me to go watch something else if I didn't like it. So let me get this straight I say...using team names that were culturally appropriated from the native Americans a civilization that our country conducted a genocide on (this isn't up for debate, that happened), especially one specific team name that was literally used to describe the government sanctioned bounties placed on native people is wrong, is somehow controversial? Can you please help me understand where that is controversial? Are you proud that we commited that genocide? Are you denying it happened? I'm not saying you are a bad person for not thinking it's offensive even, I don't know that using that term makes someone racist or not, that's genuinely not what this is about. It is about cultural appropriation following a genocide. Seriously though, only if you're mature enough to have a genuine conversation about this. If you're just going to use non sequiturs and ad hominems and think you're being an intellectual ninja or whatever, or if you're trolling, I'm good on that. I got two young kids that deserve my time that I'm willing to spend on this conversation if it is going to be genuine otherwise I'm good on that. Also, my high school name got changed from the Chiefs to the Patriots in 2001. Aside from a terrible choice of what we changed it too , the world didn't end. I am very proud we made the tough choice early and didn't wait (even though we kind of definitely waited).
NoSaint Posted July 5, 2020 Posted July 5, 2020 26 minutes ago, Happy said: I am not native american, but I'm also not expressing any righteous indignation. People like you ruin sports. I'll leave it at that. Still reeling from the bullets change and now they do this to you?
Beast Posted July 5, 2020 Author Posted July 5, 2020 (edited) Maybe someone that finds the name Redskins so very racist could explain how they could possibly have supported a league that a team has such a racist name? Or you can just turn a blind eye to it in the name of entertainment? Or maybe you never watched a Redskins game out of protest? Edited July 5, 2020 by Beast
Happy Posted July 5, 2020 Posted July 5, 2020 7 minutes ago, NoSaint said: Still reeling from the bullets change and now they do this to you? I'm not an NBA fan, though I recall thinking the rationale behind it was dumb. I honestly don't care what the NBA does. I'm more connected to football and would like to see some tradition remain. If that makes me a bad person or even a neanderthal, then so be it.
Mike in Horseheads Posted July 5, 2020 Posted July 5, 2020 12 minutes ago, Happy said: I'm not an NBA fan, though I recall thinking the rationale behind it was dumb. I honestly don't care what the NBA does. I'm more connected to football and would like to see some tradition remain. If that makes me a bad person or even a neanderthal, then so be it. Can we count on you to leave the Bills and NFL like the LAMP poster yesterday because of the Redskins name change and Black Anthem?
Happy Posted July 5, 2020 Posted July 5, 2020 9 minutes ago, Mike in Horseheads said: Can we count on you to leave the Bills and NFL like the LAMP poster yesterday because of the Redskins name change and Black Anthem? No. 1
Johnny Hammersticks Posted July 5, 2020 Posted July 5, 2020 They should change their name to the Washington Fighting Irish.
HardyBoy Posted July 5, 2020 Posted July 5, 2020 7 minutes ago, Beast said: Maybe someone that finds the name Redskins so very racist could explain how they could possibly have supported a league that a team has such a racist name? Or you can just turn a blind eye to it in the name of entertainment? Or maybe you never watched a Redskins game out of protest? I don't know if the term is racist or not, amd I certainly don't think someone using the word as part of the team name is representative of their thoughts on native americans...that's not what this is about. It's profiting off a genocide of a civilization for profit, where we then culturally appropriated that civilization to wash over said genocide while forcibly preventing that civilization from practice their religion and customs, punishable by death...death that was described and literaly put on bounty posters by our government usinng that specific term. I'll potentially stand with you on the hill of people calling you a racist for using that term, especially if your continued use of that term is not at all reflective of your thoughts on native americans, because it became a larger social protest at what you deam as thought policing...similar to people kneeling for the national anthem no? I don't know that I would agree with you (seems silly to say things that knowingly offend others, and would want to genuinely listen to your perspective to understand, because there is a slippery slope argument to be made. That said, in the context of this specific team name conversation, I truly believe the slippery slope argument is a straw man argument, because it is distracting from the real issue I mentioned above. I don't think you're doing it on purpose to shift the argument, and I also believe that calling the term racist is a bit of a strawman, at least when used by itself. Genocide and cultural appropriation is the key, and when used as part of that perspectives, the fact that that specific term was literally on the bounty posters, sets it apart from other terms that have become part of the lexicon, because agree things could get a bit crazy fast. Personally, I think terms like Braves and Chiefs should go away, because we literally as a nation murdered braves and chiefs in a genocide and should be ashamed of that, not cheering our largely white teenagers with those names on their shirts playing games. I believe it to be in really poor taste and we can do better, but I potentially could be swayed on that. However, using a term that was used to describe the actual bounties put on humans simply because as a country we wanted to take their land...nah, that's not ok, it clearly crosses a line and makes the slippery slope argument moot. Intent doesn't matter there...Snyder is making billions of dollars, they are getting tax breaks, they are fittingly the team associated with the nations capital.
JaCrispy Posted July 5, 2020 Posted July 5, 2020 (edited) 36 minutes ago, BUFFALOBART said: It's not ALL ABOUT *you*...... If I can make it, anyone can...just takes a little hard work and accountability...there wasn’t any white oppression holding me back...And just like Morgan Freeman once said- it’s just an excuse why not to succeed...? Dr. Martin Luther King Jr got his PHD before Affirmative Action, in the middle of the Jim Crow south...now, that’s oppression- and he STILL prospered...kids today are soft and have no idea what REAL oppression looks like...we have more freedom and equality than our ancestors could ever have imagined... Edited July 5, 2020 by JaCrispy 2
NoSaint Posted July 5, 2020 Posted July 5, 2020 1 hour ago, Happy said: I'm not an NBA fan, though I recall thinking the rationale behind it was dumb. I honestly don't care what the NBA does. I'm more connected to football and would like to see some tradition remain. If that makes me a bad person or even a neanderthal, then so be it. yea, the redskins changing their names sure does wipe out all the traditions in the nfl 4
Niagara Posted July 5, 2020 Posted July 5, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, HardyBoy said: However, using a term that was used to describe the actual bounties put on humans simply because as a country we wanted to take their land...nah, that's not ok, it clearly crosses a line and makes the slippery slope argument moot. Scalps? The Washington Scalps? Sounds like a keyboard warrior hypocrite talking, one who is living on former native land. Do the right thing and give it back. Edited July 5, 2020 by Niagara
Niagara Posted July 5, 2020 Posted July 5, 2020 23 minutes ago, NoSaint said: yea, the redskins changing their names sure does wipe out all the traditions in the nfl I miss the Oilers too. 2
NoHuddleKelly12 Posted July 5, 2020 Posted July 5, 2020 Will this also void the results of Super Bowl XXVI and force a do-over? Pretty sure we know where Thurman’s helmet ended up, so game on!! 1
BarleyNY Posted July 5, 2020 Posted July 5, 2020 3 hours ago, Happy said: I, as well as probably the entire sports world, do not intend offense to native americans when the Washington football team is addressed as 'Redskins.' The name/word is very old and is pretty much retired from the english language. It is used only in a sports connotation, that is it. The team has been known as the Washington Redskins since 1937 and it is a tradition. It does not appear that there is good reason to change the the tradition of the name, or address the team differently, since (again) it is used in as sports context. Last word on this. . Still not answering the question, huh? I figured as much. It’s ridiculous to say that the historical context of the word doesn’t matter, especially when it’s as horrific as this one. And hiding behind the BS “I don’t mean any offense” excuse is pathetic. How is that even relevant? Sure, it’s a horrible racial slur that offends a bunch of people, but if you don’t mean anything bad by it then you think it’s okay? That’s really something. And I think that it really says a lot about you. I’ll leave it there unless you stop dodging and actually answer my question. 1
Happy Posted July 5, 2020 Posted July 5, 2020 1 minute ago, BarleyNY said: Still not answering the question, huh? I figured as much. It’s ridiculous to say that the historical context of the word doesn’t matter, especially when it’s as horrific as this one. And hiding behind the BS “I don’t mean any offense” excuse is pathetic. How is that even relevant? Sure, it’s a horrible racial slur that offends a bunch of people, but if you don’t mean anything bad by it then you think it’s okay? That’s really something. And I think that it really says a lot about you. I’ll leave it there unless you stop dodging and actually answer my question. You have no question of substance, just ones that go down rabbit holes. Go to your safe space. 1 1
BarleyNY Posted July 5, 2020 Posted July 5, 2020 3 minutes ago, Happy said: You have no question of substance, just ones that go down rabbit holes. Go to your safe space. Easy question. Man up and answer or don’t.
HardyBoy Posted July 5, 2020 Posted July 5, 2020 29 minutes ago, Niagara said: Scalps? The Washington Scalps? Sounds like a keyboard warrior hypocrite talking, one who is living on former native land. Do the right thing and give it back. Well, there are wars for land all the time..the revolutionary war is a great example...I'm not sure exactly how saying genocide of children is wrong and we should acknowledge it happened as a nation and stop pretending it didn't by, you know, glofying a term used by the govt to perpetrate that genocide is suddenly this crazy social justice thing...seems pretty inline with what we supposedly stand for as a country when we say invaded Iraq. I'm not for imperialism, and for example, I think what England did in India is morally wrong. So if a soccer team in the English Premier League had a derogatory term for Indians and a logo of a stereotypical Indian person I would say it should be changed (who knows they might). That said, if that same situation included the genocide of millions and millions and millions of indians, including children like with the native Americans that would be a whole different matter (again maybe that happened there too, but I always understood it as more of an apartheid situation). I'm not sure where not glorifying a genocide suddenly became some crazy sjw stance...wild times 1
Recommended Posts