Redskins name Banned?

[ChicosBailBonds]

I'm not talking about "someone somewhere." I'm talking about well over 1 million people from the aggrieved group.

And nice job avoiding Sultan's point.

What about the 150 million or so that are offended by certain things in this country....sounds like 150X what you are talking about....should those people get their way on issues of the day? 

[WellsstreetWanderer]

Just the other day I saw a great game between the Naperville Crackers and the Schaumburg Honkeys.

Though, I've got to ask, if you have no problem referring to Native Americans as "Redskins," why would being called "cracker" bother you?
My heritage is "Fighting Irish" and I am not one of the chronically a grieved so it doesn' bother me. Mascots are symbols people are proud of not something they mock.
Never in my life heard redskins referring to someone who was skinned . Sounds like revisionist history.
Seriously, dude, it's term of respect. They're honoring your heritage.

[ChicosBailBonds]

90%

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/08/how-many-native-americans-think-redskins-is-a-slur/

But the beauty is we have really smart people that tell them that they are wrong, that they should be offended and will think for them, because apparently these folks can't.  That's the only conclusion.

[keefe]

I did post them, because it is equally hilarious that when the mainstream press pushes stuff out, they somehow aren't able to find Native Americans that are just fine with the name.  That's awesome journalism on their part...don't you think?

Just providing a balanced approach.  Not that hard to figure out.  Why is it do you think an "impartial" and "fair" media wouldn't do their job?  Hmmmm

I asked my colleague who is a Yaqui about this and she said that Indian Country has far more pressing issues than this one. She was an Obama appointee as an Undersec in DOE and she said a more significant problem is this:

As a college graduate (she is a Stanford alum) she is 1 in 700 among adult Indians. (The ratio is far worse for Indian Country males.)

As a law school graduate she is one in 17,000 among adult Indians as one with an advanced degree.

Her comment was that the Redskins corporation perpetuating an ugly stereotype is par for the course; Indian Country is used to the blind racism.

Indian Country needs to solve some very real issues. Addressing racism or stupidity within the white community is not their problem. Getting their kids educated and ready to participate in the mainstream culture warrants their attention far more than the Redskins question.

[rocket surgeon]

90%

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/08/how-many-native-americans-think-redskins-is-a-slur/

But the beauty is we have really smart people that tell them that they are wrong, that they should be offended and will think for them, because apparently these folks can't.  That's the only conclusion.

"The Merriam-Webster dictionary says the term is “very offensive and should be avoided.” But like another infamous racial epithet, the N-word, it has been redefined by some native people as a term of familiarity or endearment, often in abbreviated form, according to Meland, the Indian professor."

i didn't realize that dictionaries or in this case, merriam-webster, is a gate-keeper of morality.  do they offer their opinions on all words that may be deemed offensive?  let's say i am offended(and i can find a good number of others as well) by the term,  "trailer park".  do i call merriam-webster and tell them that they need to instruct people that "trailer park" is very offensive and should never be used?  even though a survey of people who live in "trailer parks" show 90 % could care less?  oh, but we need to ask the right questions and make sure these people know what a "trailer park" is.  then instruct them that they need to be educated more and to get sensitivity training? 

here we go, back to context...i could probably find some derogatory uses for the term "trailer park" , but as far as the people who are not offended are concerned-it just doesn't matter.  they have more important things to be concerned about...that was, surprisingly, a very good article from CBS/DC-i'm still pinching myself-that came from washington DC??  i couldn't find the journalists name, but that was a courageous piece of work.  he/she is probably in the witness protection program now-HEYn'a

[keefe]

"The Merriam-Webster dictionary says the term is “very offensive and should be avoided.” But like another infamous racial epithet, the N-word, it has been redefined by some native people as a term of familiarity or endearment, often in abbreviated form, according to Meland, the Indian professor."

i didn't realize that dictionaries or in this case, merriam-webster, is a gate-keeper of morality.  do they offer their opinions on all words that may be deemed offensive?  let's say i am offended(and i can find a good number of others as well) by the term,  "trailer park".  do i call merriam-webster and tell them that they need to instruct people that "trailer park" is very offensive and should never be used?  even though a survey of people who live in "trailer parks" show 90 % could care less?  oh, but we need to ask the right questions and make sure these people know what a "trailer park" is.  then instruct them that they need to be educated more and to get sensitivity training? 

here we go, back to context...i could probably find some derogatory uses for the term "trailer park" , but as far as the people who are not offended are concerned-it just doesn't matter.  they have more important things to be concerned about...that was, surprisingly, a very good article from CBS/DC-i'm still pinching myself-that came from washington DC??  i couldn't find the journalists name, but that was a courageous piece of work.  he/she is probably in the witness protection program now-HEYn'a

Here is my bottom line: three colleagues from Indian Country - three individuals whom I respect, admire , and have genuine affection for as caring persons committed to making a difference for their communities and for the environment - find the term "Redskins" offensive.

That is all I need to know.

[brandx]

Here is my bottom line: three colleagues from Indian Country - three individuals whom I respect, admire , and have genuine affection for as caring persons committed to making a difference for their communities and for the environment - find the term "Redskins" offensive.

That is all I need to know.

Some people have a very hard time letting go of their racial slurs and continually look for excuses to continue to use them. Luckily, we only have a few on this board.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Here is my bottom line: three colleagues from Indian Country - three individuals whom I respect, admire , and have genuine affection for as caring persons committed to making a difference for their communities and for the environment - find the term "Redskins" offensive.

That is all I need to know.

Here's what I know, my brother-in-law is Native American.  Sees no issue at all.   Nor do his three children, all with Native American blood in them.   To each their own.  Two of the three don't like the Redskins, because they are Cowboys fans....but don't want the name changed.   

[ChicosBailBonds]

"The Merriam-Webster dictionary says the term is “very offensive and should be avoided.” But like another infamous racial epithet, the N-word, it has been redefined by some native people as a term of familiarity or endearment, often in abbreviated form, according to Meland, the Indian professor."

i didn't realize that dictionaries or in this case, merriam-webster, is a gate-keeper of morality.  do they offer their opinions on all words that may be deemed offensive?  let's say i am offended(and i can find a good number of others as well) by the term,  "trailer park".  do i call merriam-webster and tell them that they need to instruct people that "trailer park" is very offensive and should never be used?  even though a survey of people who live in "trailer parks" show 90 % could care less?  oh, but we need to ask the right questions and make sure these people know what a "trailer park" is.  then instruct them that they need to be educated more and to get sensitivity training? 

here we go, back to context...i could probably find some derogatory uses for the term "trailer park" , but as far as the people who are not offended are concerned-it just doesn't matter.  they have more important things to be concerned about...that was, surprisingly, a very good article from CBS/DC-i'm still pinching myself-that came from washington DC??  i couldn't find the journalists name, but that was a courageous piece of work.  he/she is probably in the witness protection program now-HEYn'a

The dictionary also changed their definition over the years, part of white guilt or liberal nonsense....they are the morality police and despite 90% saying they have no issue, well they will be the final arbiter.  That's the deal.  Ironic, considering who these people are and how they get to decide what is and isn't.....much like tolerance.  Notice their definition of redneck....apparently they didn't find that offensive.  So much hypocrisy. 

[MU82]

What about the 150 million or so that are offended by certain things in this country....sounds like 150X what you are talking about....should those people get their way on issues of the day?

Yes, because "majority rules" is one thing we really have a problem with in this country.

You're hopeless.

[brandx]

The dictionary also changed their definition over the years, part of white guilt or liberal nonsense....they are the morality police and despite 90% saying they have no issue, well they will be the final arbiter.  That's the deal.  Ironic, considering who these people are and how they get to decide what is and isn't.....much like tolerance.  Notice their definition of redneck....apparently they didn't find that offensive.  So much hypocrisy.

This is funny. Even for you.

[rocket surgeon]

Yes, because "majority rules" is one thing we really have a problem with in this country.

You're hopeless.

   there really is nothing wrong with having a dissenting opinion.  no need to get angry.  it's just the way things go.  it doesn't mean we should put the hate out on someone because of it.  there are legitimate reasons for both sides to have their opinions.  i get it.  i'm not going to think any less of someone else for taking the other side, unless i don't get the same respect back. 

    on our side, we don't mean ANY disrespect to the native americans as the context of the use of the term "redskin" for us is basicly the same as "warrior".  i was never aware of the correlation of scalped and redskin until recently-yes, that is offensive-once again context.  for those who think we would take pride in referring to a team based on scalped indians running around, that, in my mind would not be the visual we are looking for in rooting for a football team

  i'm not even a fan of the "redskins", the "braves", the "seminoles", the "rajun cajuns", the "fighting irish", or what have you.  i am a fan of allowing all the proper channels being followed in determining if and when something is deemed offensive or not. oh yeah, i am a big fan of the chitown blackhawks however.  if i were an owner/gm/president...of a team, it's his/her call to continue on or not with a name that has been with the organization for 80 years and was, in the example of redskins, was named to honor their coach back in 1932-lone star dietz, an american sioux

[Lennys Tap]

   there really is nothing wrong with having a dissenting opinion.  no need to get angry.  it's just the way things go.  it doesn't mean we should put the hate out on someone because of it.  there are legitimate reasons for both sides to have their opinions.  i get it.  i'm not going to think any less of someone else for taking the other side, unless i don't get the same respect back. 

    on our side, we don't mean ANY disrespect to the native americans as the context of the use of the term "redskin" for us is basicly the same as "warrior".  i was never aware of the correlation of scalped and redskin until recently-yes, that is offensive-once again context.  for those who think we would take pride in referring to a team based on scalped indians running around, that, in my mind would not be the visual we are looking for in rooting for a football team

  i'm not even a fan of the "redskins", the "braves", the "seminoles", the "rajun cajuns", the "fighting irish", or what have you.  i am a fan of allowing all the proper channels being followed in determining if and when something is deemed offensive or not. oh yeah, i am a big fan of the chitown blackhawks however.  if i were an owner/gm/president...of a team, it's his/her call to continue on or not with a name that has been with the organization for 80 years and was, in the example of redskins, was named to honor their coach back in 1932-lone star dietz, an american sioux

I can't believe you honestly in your heart don't see the difference between "redskin" and "seminoles" or "Irish". I just refuse to believe you are that blind. This has nothing to do with political correctness - I'm the least politically correct guy in the room, but I won't defy common sense and decency by equating a racial slur with words that carry no such distinction. All these polls cited make me laugh. Here's a poll I'd love to see - % of self identified Caucasian bigots who favor staying with the "redskin" nickname. Might be the first one ever to register 100%. Be careful - if you lay down with dogs you'll likely get fleas.

[MU82]

   there really is nothing wrong with having a dissenting opinion.  no need to get angry.  it's just the way things go.  it doesn't mean we should put the hate out on someone because of it.  there are legitimate reasons for both sides to have their opinions.  i get it.  i'm not going to think any less of someone else for taking the other side, unless i don't get the same respect back. 

    on our side, we don't mean ANY disrespect to the native americans as the context of the use of the term "redskin" for us is basicly the same as "warrior".  i was never aware of the correlation of scalped and redskin until recently-yes, that is offensive-once again context.  for those who think we would take pride in referring to a team based on scalped indians running around, that, in my mind would not be the visual we are looking for in rooting for a football team

  i'm not even a fan of the "redskins", the "braves", the "seminoles", the "rajun cajuns", the "fighting irish", or what have you.  i am a fan of allowing all the proper channels being followed in determining if and when something is deemed offensive or not. oh yeah, i am a big fan of the chitown blackhawks however.  if i were an owner/gm/president...of a team, it's his/her call to continue on or not with a name that has been with the organization for 80 years and was, in the example of redskins, was named to honor their coach back in 1932-lone star dietz, an american sioux

I'm not angry, Boo-Boo. Just because I don't love Yogi as much as you do, and just because I shake my head at his hopelessness, it doesn't mean I'm angry.

Now you two kids, go enjoy your pic-in-ic.

[rocket surgeon]

I can't believe you honestly in your heart don't see the difference between "redskin" and "seminoles" or "Irish". I just refuse to believe you are that blind. This has nothing to do with political correctness - I'm the least politically correct guy in the room, but I won't defy common sense and decency by equating a racial slur with words that carry no such distinction. All these polls cited make me laugh. Here's a poll I'd love to see - % of self identified Caucasian bigots who favor staying with the "redskin" nickname. Might be the first one ever to register 100%. Be careful - if you lay down with dogs you'll likely get fleas.

i do see a difference, but once again, it's context that matters.  gotta love it when some of those others fans use the tomahawk chop against their opponents as a rally cry or in a victorious mood though-heyn"a; hang 'em high baby!!  go for the kill-yeah, grrrrrrr if one wants to see a term as a slur, they will.  once again, the term is used here as in noble, strong, the good guys,etc.  did you see the term warriors as a slur?  some versions can be used in a degrading way.  yes, i understand polls-it's all about how you word the question in order to get the response you are looking for...i think this term redskin has been around long enough for people to realize it's tradition.  if one were to come out with that as a new name today-nots so good

[rocket surgeon]

I'm not angry, Boo-Boo. Just because I don't love Yogi as much as you do, and just because I shake my head at his hopelessness, it doesn't mean I'm angry.

Now you two kids, go enjoy your pic-in-ic.

oh i didn't take your comment as you are being mad because i know you are a "big boy".  how else would one even know/remember the classic yogi/boo-boo toons.  your comments about that and the correlation between i and cbb did make me chuckle however.  ya know, i just remembered-82.  you brought up the racial interpretations of that cartoon some time back-perfect for my examples of context.  do you think the little kids, while watching those episodes were saying to themselves, my God, this is really a veiled racist, propagandist piece of.....neither did those watching thomas the tank engine.  then the adults got in the way.  sometimes people have too much time and think too hard.  sometimes it's good to sit back and just ride the bus, gus.  oh, and let whoever sit where ever they so please-heyn'a?

[GGGG]

i do see a difference, but once again, it's context that matters.  gotta love it when some of those others fans use the tomahawk chop against their opponents as a rally cry or in a victorious mood though-heyn"a; hang 'em high baby!!  go for the kill-yeah, grrrrrrr if one wants to see a term as a slur, they will.  once again, the term is used here as in noble, strong, the good guys,etc.  did you see the term warriors as a slur?  some versions can be used in a degrading way.  yes, i understand polls-it's all about how you word the question in order to get the response you are looking for...i think this term redskin has been around long enough for people to realize it's tradition.  if one were to come out with that as a new name today-nots so good

It is BY DEFINITION a "disparaging and offensive" term.  Warriors isn't.  Seminoles isn't. 

I have no idea how Chicos and you can be so obtuse about this.   (Well...not really.)

[naginiF]

You aren't "offending" anyone by changing the name.  You might be pissing them off, but my guess is that most just don't care.  The fact is it is a slur word.  Period. You would never go up to a Native person and call them "Redskin."

In reading this equally fascinating and shocking thread I kept thinking something along the same lines as what's bolded.  i was thinking 'If I wouldn't use a word/phrase to describe someone to a potential client it's offensive'.

Here's what I know, my brother-in-law is Native American.  Sees no issue at all.   Nor do his three children, all with Native American blood in them.   To each their own.  Two of the three don't like the Redskins, because they are Cowboys fans....but don't want the name changed.   

I notice you didn't say 'my brother-in-law is a Redskin'.

[MU82]

In reading this equally fascinating and shocking thread I kept thinking something along the same lines as what's bolded.  i was thinking 'If I wouldn't use a word/phrase to describe someone to a potential client it's offensive'.

I notice you didn't say 'my brother-in-law is a Redskin'.

Exactly. And I'm not just talking about going up to somebody and saying, "Hey Redskin."

You're sitting down with a black person and getting to know him just a little. 10 minutes in, would you say, "You wouldn't mind if I call you n-word, would you?" Or "blackie" or "colored" or "Negro" or whatever. Of course you wouldn't ask that. You'd know it would be offensive.

OK, so now you're in the exact same situation with an Indian. 10 minutes in, would you say, "You don't mind if people refer to your race as Redskins, do you?"

If you can't say that -- or really, if you can't use it in any kind of casual conversation at which an Indian might be present -- you know that Redskins is probably offensive. Duh.

[rocket surgeon]

Exactly. And I'm not just talking about going up to somebody and saying, "Hey Redskin."

You're sitting down with a black person and getting to know him just a little. 10 minutes in, would you say, "You wouldn't mind if I call you n-word, would you?" Or "blackie" or "colored" or "Negro" or whatever. Of course you wouldn't ask that. You'd know it would be offensive.

OK, so now you're in the exact same situation with an Indian. 10 minutes in, would you say, "You don't mind if people refer to your race as Redskins, do you?"

If you can't say that -- or really, if you can't use it in any kind of casual conversation at which an Indian might be present -- you know that Redskins is probably offensive. Duh.

  i agree. sitting down next to anyone and calling them any name, whether you knew them or not, could be offensive. the only place i believe the term "redskin" should be used is to refer to the NFL football team[/color][/color]otherwise, yes, it could be offensive to some people.  the same as the example i used earlier-trailor park.  it's offensive if you call someone trailer park, but not offensive when describing the dwellings or the locale.  oh no, i suppose trailer park is going to have to be changed now 
  i am not trying to be provocative here, just defending daniel snyder's right to keep the name as it pertains to his private business.  the gubmint has NO right to make him do anything with it.  if the fans/his customers started to stay away from his product, then he may have to re-think his position; that is on his terms.  if the fans stay away and he continues to stand by his name, then he's either one principled dude; a not-so-bright one, but principled, i guess

   using the "N" word today, i don't believe is ever acceptable even though we have some out there who think otherwise.  older literature(mark twain) obviously used it, but that is more of a historical and artistic subject that is receiving some flak nonetheless.  once again however, we have another example of context.  i suppose if one were using some work of mark twain's/huck finn and referencing it, the only way you could avoid using "that" term would be to say "N" word or maybe give your audience a heads up. 

you guys want to make this a "black and white" issue-please,  no pun intended.  this isn't a one size fits all

[naginiF]

  i agree. sitting down next to anyone and calling them any name, whether you knew them or not, could be offensive. the only place i believe the term "redskin" should be used is to refer to the NFL football team[/color][/color]otherwise, yes, it could be offensive to some people.  the same as the example i used earlier-trailor park.  it's offensive if you call someone trailer park, but not offensive when describing the dwellings or the locale.  oh no, i suppose trailer park is going to have to be changed now 
  i am not trying to be provocative here, just defending daniel snyder's right to keep the name as it pertains to his private business.  the gubmint has NO right to make him do anything with it.  if the fans/his customers started to stay away from his product, then he may have to re-think his position; that is on his terms.  if the fans stay away and he continues to stand by his name, then he's either one principled dude; a not-so-bright one, but principled, i guess

   using the "N" word today, i don't believe is ever acceptable even though we have some out there who think otherwise.  older literature(mark twain) obviously used it, but that is more of a historical and artistic subject that is receiving some flak nonetheless.  once again however, we have another example of context.  i suppose if one were using some work of mark twain's/huck finn and referencing it, the only way you could avoid using "that" term would be to say "N" word or maybe give your audience a heads up. 

you guys want to make this a "black and white" issue-please,  no pun intended.  this isn't a one size fits all

100% agree with you on the bolded as well as Twain's work.  On the latter I believe his works should not be altered as it gives an accurate depiction of the time as well as a reflection of how far we've come (or should have come?).

The NFL, with support of the NFLPA, should dictate to Snyder that the name needs to be changed.  I doubt that will ever happen from two groups that are so obviously misogynistic, racist, intent on not actually testing for PEDs, and ignorant of the effects of head trauma on kids.

edit:  as soon as i posted this i thought "man, that last sentence is preachy as f!".  Sorry, not the politics board. 

[Lennys Tap]

 
  i am not trying to be provocative here, just defending daniel snyder's right to keep the name as it pertains to his private business.  the gubmint has NO right to make him do anything with it.  if the fans/his customers started to stay away from his product, then he may have to re-think his position; that is on his terms.  if the fans stay away and he continues to stand by his name, then he's either one principled dude; a not-so-bright one, but principled, i guess

   

I agree that Daniel Snyder owns the team and the government has no right to tell him what to call it. Redskins, Savages, whatever - he's the boss. But why in the world would you classify his stance as "principled". When did not being able to read a frickin' dictionary become "principled"? Ignorant, yes. Stubborn? Undoubtably. But principled? That's too funny.

[brandx]

I agree that Daniel Snyder owns the team and the government has no right to tell him what to call it. Redskins, Savages, whatever - he's the boss. But why in the world would you classify his stance as "principled". When did not being able to read a frickin' dictionary become "principled"? Ignorant, yes. Stubborn? Undoubtably. But principled? That's too funny.

Whoever said the government (gubmint to the uneducated) should or could make Snyder change the name? Another made up cannard from the poor persecuted white guys.

[rocket surgeon]

Whoever said the government (gubmint to the uneducated) should or could make Snyder change the name? Another made up cannard from the poor persecuted white guys.

some things just never change....pls keep me on ig.  life has been so good the past couple of months

i fully realize this topic is in the superbar, but i've been forced by one here to make my point.  hopefully it goes no further politically than this-when the potus weighs in and says that he'd think about changing the name...hmmmm-nice family ya gots there....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/president-obama-says-id-think-about-changing-name-of-washington-redskins/2013/10/05/e170b914-2b70-11e3-8ade-a1f23cda135e_story.html

and the U.S. patent office cancels their trademark, i'd kinda think that would be considered our gubmint interfering with a private biness-Ayn'a? 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/us-patent-office-cancels-redskins-trademark-registration-says-name-is-disparaging/2014/06/18/e7737bb8-f6ee-11e3-8aa9-dad2ec039789_story.html

speaking of edumacated, i'll give ya a little heads up-when the potus and the U.S. patent office start to come into the picture AGAINST you, that might be a subtle hint for one to change whatever behavior it is that they are focusing on.  maybe that's just me though

[rocket surgeon]

I agree that Daniel Snyder owns the team and the government has no right to tell him what to call it. Redskins, Savages, whatever - he's the boss. But why in the world would you classify his stance as "principled". When did not being able to read a frickin' dictionary become "principled"? Ignorant, yes. Stubborn? Undoubtably. But principled? That's too funny.

i didn't realize the dictionary is the "gatekeeper" to morality.  if that's the case now, there are many words in there that i feel should be labeled differently too.  not all dictionaries are the same.  i realize merriam-webster has a "statement" against the use of the term "redskin"  i haven't checked any of the others, but i could.  i would like to check others for their opinions/suggestions? on some other words too then. 

but the question then becomes, who is merriam-webster?  who determines the morality or lack there of or the "correctness" of words...warrior, oriental, mexican, indian/injun, handicapped? retarted? short-horizontally challenged, fat-vertically challenged, follicly challenged or bald? liberal-progressive, global warming-climate change, isis or isil, who are the arbiters of morality here?  if this becomes a "fact-check" or a "snopes" thing, then we still have a problem as we know those are run by the pc police too.  we don't need a gubmint board to tell us what to think or say, but i'm sure it's too late for some(i mean generally , not directed at you lenny) to realize that