 |
|
||||||
 |
|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
10-02-2014, 02:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
So then the Washington Redskins are named the Redskins because they dislike Native Americans? Last edited by packs; 10-02-2014 at 02:11 PM. 
|
|
#2
10-02-2014, 02:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
This really isn't that complex. It's defined in the dictionary as a "slur". None of these other words are slurs by their very definition. People are afraid of change and they don't like being told that things they like suck. I understand the resistance, but it won't matter in the end. The name won't last for a lot longer.
|
|
#3
10-02-2014, 02:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#4
10-02-2014, 02:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Actually, its pretty common for 80 year old thought processes to adjust over time. Thank goodness.
|
|
#5
10-02-2014, 03:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#6
10-02-2014, 04:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Cool social experiment. Let us know how it goes!
|
|
#7
10-02-2014, 07:42 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#8
10-02-2014, 08:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I really don`t mind the name Redskins at all. But can appreciate the uproa. It`s gotten so bad, wouldn`t want "Washington" linked to anything I could be identified with. That is the truly offensive part of the equation.
__________________
H Murphy Collection https://www.flickr.com/photos/154296763@N05/
|
|
#9
10-02-2014, 09:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Once again, the team name Redskins was never intended to be a racial slur but, instead, to pay tribute to their coach (who was Native American). Now, 80 years later, a very small percentage of the population gets their panties in a wad and demands a name change. You really think Snyder is going to change the name? Get real. Let me drop a couple of facts on you. From Wikipedia: "According to Forbes Magazine, the Redskins are the third most valuable franchise in the NFL behind the Cowboys and Patriots, and were valued at approximately $1.6 billion as of 2013. They have also broken the NFL's mark for single-season attendance ten years in a row." You think Snyder is going to cave into pressure? Why? Is he afraid fans will stop attending the games if he doesn't change the team's name? Yeah, right! Long live the Washington Redskins! Last edited by vintagetoppsguy; 10-02-2014 at 09:06 PM.
|
|
#10
10-03-2014, 12:49 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I think it can be viewed as matter of manners. If someone birth named Charles asks to be called Charlie and not Chuckie or Chaz because he's never liked those last two nicknames names, you call him Charlie. If you continue to call him Chuckie or Chaz, fine, but admit you're doing it to be an ass. Saying you're "out of respect" calling people a name they say they find offensive is, of course, BS. And with Charlie, it's not even a matter or whether or not Chuckie or Chaz are offensives or bad names. Charlie may be the first to say there's nothing wrong with those names in general, just as Bob or Tim are perfectly sound names. But if you don't want him to punch you in the nose, quit calling him Chuckie.
That a Jewish person (Snyder) is so adamant and stubborn against changing an offending name amazes me. An elderly couple I know said when they were kids in Baltimore they weren't allowed to use the local public swimming pool because they were Jewish. And think of uproar if the team was named the "Washington Jewish Bankers" with people defending the name as a symbol of respect because "everyone agrees that being good with money is a good thing." P.s. I was waiting for someone to bring up the Minnesota Vikings, a common example brought up in this debates and because I'm a descent of Vikings. But no one did. If you're wondering, the nickname doesn't offend me or any Scandinavian-Americans I know of. But it's a different situation, only in part because it's the Scandinavians in Minnesota who picked the name. Self determination, like Charlie to be called Charlie and not Chuckie. Though I can tell you that the mascot and emblem is historically incorrect. For example, Vikings didn't wear horns on their helmets. That's just a modern romantic myth. Last edited by drcy; 10-03-2014 at 03:11 AM.
|
|
#11
10-03-2014, 05:22 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
It's also a myth that the Vikings can hang with my Packers!
Sorry, saw an opening.
__________________
. "A life is not important except in the impact it has on others lives" - Jackie Robinson “If you have a chance to make life better for others and fail to do so, you are wasting your time on this earth.”- Roberto Clemente
|
|
#13
10-03-2014, 11:01 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Last edited by drcy; 10-03-2014 at 11:02 AM.
|
|
#14
10-03-2014, 11:09 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Now watch what you say, or they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh, fanatical, criminal Won't you sign up your name? We'd like to feel you're acceptable, respectable, presentable, a vegetable If we are to have another contest in the near future of our national existence, I predict that the dividing line will not be Mason and Dixon's but between patriotism and intelligence on the one side, and superstition, ambition and ignorance on the other.- Ulysses S. Grant, 18th US President.
|
|
#15
10-03-2014, 12:39 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
$co++ Forre$+
|
|
#16
10-03-2014, 07:13 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Wrong wrong wrong. This is from a Washington post article The proof is in a July 6, 1933, edition of the Hartford Courant, which Witten unearthed after the sports Web site MMQB tipped him off about it. The edition includes a short Associated Press dispatch quoting Marshall saying: “The fact that we have in our head coach, Lone Star Dietz, an Indian, together with several Indian players, has not, as may be suspected, inspired me to select the name Redskins.” Instead, Marshall explains, he gave up “Braves” to avoid confusion with a Boston professional baseball team of the same name. He apparently picked the Redskins name so he could keep the existing Native American logo.
__________________
"I am an outcast, and I haven't a good name. I'm the loser, just like all gamblers are. I lived to make great plays. What did I gain? Nothing. Everything was lost because I raised hell after hours. I was a wise guy, a know-it-all, I guess." -Hal Chase
|
|
#17
10-03-2014, 07:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
 Who is "wrong wrong wrong" now?
|
|
#18
10-03-2014, 08:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Coach Lone Star Dietz could have named the team himself and it wouldn't change any of the modern facts about this issue.
There are many words that were used in the past that were acceptable then that aren't now. You don't need to be very creative to think of them. Perhaps the fact that this one has stayed around for so long is what makes this confusing to some. I think that maybe it says more about how disenfranchised Native Americans are than anything else.
|
|
#19
10-03-2014, 08:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
So because it's offensive now, but wasn't 80 years ago when the team adopted the name, they're supposed to change it? Seriously?!? What if in 80 years from now the word 'dolphin' somehow evolves into a slang word to mean a derogatory term or a racial slur? Do we make the Miami Dolphins change their name? It's a serious question because you are making the same argument about the Redskins name. Last edited by vintagetoppsguy; 10-03-2014 at 09:16 AM. Reason: Grammar
|
|
#20
10-02-2014, 02:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I just think you are too hardline on your definitions. Redskin is a slur in context. So is Indian. So is Chief.
Redskins today is a slur. Indian today is a slur. But at the time I don't think you can argue any other way than it was a misguided sense of tribute. Last edited by packs; 10-02-2014 at 03:33 PM.
|
|
#21
10-02-2014, 02:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Redskins is a slur OUT of context. It is a slur no matter what, because that's the definition of the word. Indian and chief and brave can be slurs IN context. But that is true of almost any noun.
|
|
#22
10-02-2014, 03:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think the name is a problem. But I think the same problem exists for Braves, Chiefs, and Indians. We are in agreement over Redskins but not the others.
While you think Braves, Chiefs, and Indians are harmless or titles of respect, I don't think you can make that decision for Native Americans. If they are offended by the titles, then their feelings about them should be just as important as those for Redskins. Last edited by packs; 10-02-2014 at 03:32 PM.
|
|
#23
10-02-2014, 04:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Redskins on the other hand is indefensible from my point of view. It's a slur any way you look at it. And you don't even need to ask a Native American...its right there in the dictionary.
|
|
#24
10-02-2014, 05:07 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
David like always great post.
On these type threads I try to limit myself to 1 post, I just couldn't this time. This is in my area only and could be very different where you live but Indians here couldn't give two shits about the Washington Redskins name. At the same time my Indian friends and relatives are way more concerned with the terms Native American and Indian. Like I said in my earlier post it is all about age. Those of us over 40 are offended by Native American because in the 70's-80's Native was used as a racial slur and now we are supposed to accept it.  Sorry for the rant carry on.
|
|
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Redskins cut Shaun Suisham | Abravefan11 | Watercooler Talk- ALL sports talk | 7 | 12-20-2009 07:15 AM |
Hybrid Mode
