MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: muwarrior69 on August 09, 2014, 06:24:59 PM
-
The Redskins name might be banned at TCF stadium to play the Vikings.
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/08/07/gophers-seek-to-ban-redskins-name-at-tcf-stadium/
-
Nah. The U is just trying to be cute. They're complete idiots on this one. Awful.
-
Nah. The U is just trying to be cute. They're complete idiots on this one. Awful.
The commercial thet ran on wcco on Friday was.....pretty stupid.
-
From a state that elected Jesse Ventura and Al Franken, to a program that plays the Fighting Illini.....if the "U" is so upset, they won't allow Illinois' name any longer and will turn down the money they get from allowing the Washington football team to play there. Blood money....but of course they won't.
Good to see Minnesota get in the news somehow, a first in what seems like a decade plus.
-
if the "U" is so upset, they won't allow Illinois' name any longer and will turn down the money they get from allowing the Washington football team to play there. Blood money....but of course they won't.
This is the acid test. If principle genuinely mattered they would cancel the contract.
-
From a state that elected Jesse Ventura and Al Franken, to a program that plays the Fighting Illini.....if the "U" is so upset, they won't allow Illinois' name any longer and will turn down the money they get from allowing the Washington football team to play there. Blood money....but of course they won't.
Good to see Minnesota get in the news somehow, a first in what seems like a decade plus.
Silly.
There is is huge difference between a chief's name and a derogatory, racial slur.
-
Silly.
There is is huge difference between a chief's name and a derogatory, racial slur.
I agree that Illiniwek in and of itself is benign but there is a lot of imagery and history around the Native theme that is inconsistent with a dignified rendering.
The real irony is that Minnesota wants to object to Redskins yet is perfectly happy to take Redskin dollars. They must be holding their nose all the way to the bank. Integrity is not in what one says but, rather, in what one does. If one is truly offended one correctly cancels the contract, Until that happens Minnesota is full of sh1t.
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQf3B20JYnj6UYJRkWX_baOMZoAVpica3cTBGXZcuEywLbsFfTtvQ)
(http://www.danzfamily.com/archives/blogphotos/07/634-chief-illiniwek.jpg)
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR5jFilYv2rQ4aBIPRCabFPz0ILfmAERS1rbI8q0_A6Zi60Fmn3Wg)
-
I agree that Illiniwek in and of itself is benign but there is a lot of imagery and history around the Native theme that is inconsistent with a dignified rendering.
The real irony is that Minnesota wants to object to Redskins yet is perfectly happy to take Redskin dollars. They must be holding their nose all the way to the bank. Integrity is not in what one says but, rather, in what one does. If one is truly offended one correctly cancels the contract, Until that happens Minnesota is full of sh1t.
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQf3B20JYnj6UYJRkWX_baOMZoAVpica3cTBGXZcuEywLbsFfTtvQ)
(http://www.danzfamily.com/archives/blogphotos/07/634-chief-illiniwek.jpg)
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR5jFilYv2rQ4aBIPRCabFPz0ILfmAERS1rbI8q0_A6Zi60Fmn3Wg)
Keefe, its not "Minnesota". It's a bunch of know it alls, think they know better than you, smarmy nerds.
You know the type. You are surrounded by them in Washington State.
I have a friend who just moved to Seattle. He said Washington makes Minnesota look conservative.
-
Keefe, its not "Minnesota". It's a bunch of know it alls, think they know better than you, smarmy nerds.
You know the type. You are surrounded by them in Washington State.
I have a friend who just moved to Seattle. He said Washington makes Minnesota look conservative.
Chili, I should have been more precise. By Minnesota I meant the U and not the state - in the same way one refers to U of Michigan as simply Michigan.
Washington is bifurcated politically; The People's Democratic Republic of King County is so large and so radical that it makes Che Guevara blush.
-
I agree that Illiniwek in and of itself is benign but there is a lot of imagery and history around the Native theme that is inconsistent with a dignified rendering.
The real irony is that Minnesota wants to object to Redskins yet is perfectly happy to take Redskin dollars. They must be holding their nose all the way to the bank. Integrity is not in what one says but, rather, in what one does. If one is truly offended one correctly cancels the contract, Until that happens Minnesota is full of sh1t.
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQf3B20JYnj6UYJRkWX_baOMZoAVpica3cTBGXZcuEywLbsFfTtvQ)
(http://www.danzfamily.com/archives/blogphotos/07/634-chief-illiniwek.jpg)
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR5jFilYv2rQ4aBIPRCabFPz0ILfmAERS1rbI8q0_A6Zi60Fmn3Wg)
Ding ding. Let's see the hypocrisy exposed. Turn down the money Minnesota, show your principled stance. Ask Elizabeth Warren what she would do.
Thanks for quoting Brand's nonsense again....it never gets old.
-
http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/270266861.html
-
Someone needs to prevent this woman's potential suicide due to Chief Illiniwek! http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/04/04/indigenous-student-discusses-public-suicide-over-chief-illiniwek-pain-154316
Why won't the University of Minnesota and the Big Ten do something immediately!!
Surely the University of Minnesota and the brave politician that wishes to ban the Redskins name for one game, can do far more good by refusing to allow Illinois so play games at the University of Minnesota....we're talking life and death here for this woman.
-
In far more important Redskins news....
http://www.csnwashington.com/redskinsblog/video-rg3-makes-fans-wish-come-true-richmond
-
In far more important Redskins news....
http://www.csnwashington.com/redskinsblog/video-rg3-makes-fans-wish-come-true-richmond
Nice story, I wonder if the kid and others are horrified that he plays for the REDSkins?
-
I know he's a Badger but in a story on Bronson Koenig has he describes his feelings of Indian themed mascots:
So during postgame meals with family and friends Koenig asked questions.
"They would tell me how Native Americans were slaughtered — just like the Holocaust," Koenig said. "And nobody even talks about it."
Koenig isn't afraid to discuss that topic, or his feelings on Indian mascots that are used for athletic teams on the high school, college and professional levels.
"I am disappointed," he said. "I don't know if I would say angry but kind of angry because I feel like...and with the mascots and all that stuff I think people think it's OK to make fun of us.
"I don't want to go too far into it. But even other minorities...I feel sometimes like we are lowest of the low, among the minorities.
"And when a Native American kid sees that growing up and sees the disrespect, it lowers their self-esteem and puts them in a lower place in society. It's just not a good feeling....
"It's honoring them? It's not racist? How are you going to say that when you're not a Native American?"
His mother's Facebook page features the profile of an Indian, inside a circle, wearing a headdress with a slash through the circle. Outside the circle are the words: INDIANS ARE PEOPLE. NOT MASCOTS.
The worst, in Koenig's mind, is Redskins.
"That term comes from when we were skinned and our flesh was red," he said. "I don't see how that is honoring us in anyway.
"Is our skin red? Would it be OK for the Kansas City Negroes or the Blackskins? That's not OK at all."
When Greendeer attended Seymour in the late 1980s, the school's nickname was Indians. Today it is the Thunder.
"They found out they weren't proud of their mascot," Greendeer said. "They were proud of the people going to those schools. They were proud of the families putting in their own time to make the school successful.
"They are a snapshot of someone's imagination. Our real images belong to folks like Bronson, folks like myself, leaders in the community that have done things.
"Bronson breaks the mold and it is a big slap in the face to anyone who will sit there and stereotype his people, his culture, his way of life, his image, his identity."
-
This is going to have huge momentum
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25494523/parliament-members-to-nfl-change-redskins-name-or-forget-london
::)
-
I know he's a Badger but in a story on Bronson Koenig has he describes his feelings of Indian themed mascots:
So during postgame meals with family and friends Koenig asked questions.
"They would tell me how Native Americans were slaughtered — just like the Holocaust," Koenig said. "And nobody even talks about it."
Koenig isn't afraid to discuss that topic, or his feelings on Indian mascots that are used for athletic teams on the high school, college and professional levels.
"I am disappointed," he said. "I don't know if I would say angry but kind of angry because I feel like...and with the mascots and all that stuff I think people think it's OK to make fun of us.
"I don't want to go too far into it. But even other minorities...I feel sometimes like we are lowest of the low, among the minorities.
"And when a Native American kid sees that growing up and sees the disrespect, it lowers their self-esteem and puts them in a lower place in society. It's just not a good feeling....
"It's honoring them? It's not racist? How are you going to say that when you're not a Native American?"
His mother's Facebook page features the profile of an Indian, inside a circle, wearing a headdress with a slash through the circle. Outside the circle are the words: INDIANS ARE PEOPLE. NOT MASCOTS.
The worst, in Koenig's mind, is Redskins.
"That term comes from when we were skinned and our flesh was red," he said. "I don't see how that is honoring us in anyway.
"Is our skin red? Would it be OK for the Kansas City Negroes or the Blackskins? That's not OK at all."
When Greendeer attended Seymour in the late 1980s, the school's nickname was Indians. Today it is the Thunder.
"They found out they weren't proud of their mascot," Greendeer said. "They were proud of the people going to those schools. They were proud of the families putting in their own time to make the school successful.
"They are a snapshot of someone's imagination. Our real images belong to folks like Bronson, folks like myself, leaders in the community that have done things.
"Bronson breaks the mold and it is a big slap in the face to anyone who will sit there and stereotype his people, his culture, his way of life, his image, his identity."
just wondering, if bronson is good enough and is drafted by the golden state warriors-will he tell them he will only go to their team if they change their name from "warriors" to the teacups or something benign, if that is even possible today?
-
just wondering, if bronson is good enough and is drafted by the golden state warriors-will he tell them he will only go to their team if they change their name from "warriors" to the teacups or something benign, if that is even possible today?
My teacup is offended by this.
-
My teacup is offended by this.
Many bridges are offended by the team's logo.
-
I know he's a Badger but in a story on Bronson Koenig has he describes his feelings of Indian themed mascots:
So during postgame meals with family and friends Koenig asked questions.
"They would tell me how Native Americans were slaughtered — just like the Holocaust," Koenig said. "And nobody even talks about it."
Koenig isn't afraid to discuss that topic, or his feelings on Indian mascots that are used for athletic teams on the high school, college and professional levels.
"I am disappointed," he said. "I don't know if I would say angry but kind of angry because I feel like...and with the mascots and all that stuff I think people think it's OK to make fun of us.
"I don't want to go too far into it. But even other minorities...I feel sometimes like we are lowest of the low, among the minorities.
"And when a Native American kid sees that growing up and sees the disrespect, it lowers their self-esteem and puts them in a lower place in society. It's just not a good feeling....
"It's honoring them? It's not racist? How are you going to say that when you're not a Native American?"
His mother's Facebook page features the profile of an Indian, inside a circle, wearing a headdress with a slash through the circle. Outside the circle are the words: INDIANS ARE PEOPLE. NOT MASCOTS.
The worst, in Koenig's mind, is Redskins.
"That term comes from when we were skinned and our flesh was red," he said. "I don't see how that is honoring us in anyway.
"Is our skin red? Would it be OK for the Kansas City Negroes or the Blackskins? That's not OK at all."
When Greendeer attended Seymour in the late 1980s, the school's nickname was Indians. Today it is the Thunder.
"They found out they weren't proud of their mascot," Greendeer said. "They were proud of the people going to those schools. They were proud of the families putting in their own time to make the school successful.
"They are a snapshot of someone's imagination. Our real images belong to folks like Bronson, folks like myself, leaders in the community that have done things.
"Bronson breaks the mold and it is a big slap in the face to anyone who will sit there and stereotype his people, his culture, his way of life, his image, his identity."
Bronson gets it. Chico doesn't. Fighting Illini does not = Redskins. Neither does Fighting Irish. Fighting Ni**gers does.
-
alrighty then, is our gubmint going to have to rename many of their(our) defense aircraft and weaponry?
let's see here, Apache attack helicopters, lakota utility helicopters, huron transport aircraft, tomahawk cruise missiles...
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/twenty-u-s-weapons-named-after-native-americans-8b88e2c7ed12#.iawox6ve2
let's see here, now what names can we come up with that will sound nasty and not offend anyone?
rock utility aircraft, sun missiles, hat helicopters, this is really dumb. my grandpa is from switzerland, so am i supposed to be offended by the swiss army knife? i mean, come on-i want something warrior-like to be named after my ancestry...swiss chocolate just doesn't cut it
-
alrighty then, is our gubmint going to have to rename many of their(our) defense aircraft and weaponry?
let's see here, Apache attack helicopters, lakota utility helicopters, huron transport aircraft, tomahawk cruise missiles...
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/twenty-u-s-weapons-named-after-native-americans-8b88e2c7ed12#.iawox6ve2
let's see here, now what names can we come up with that will sound nasty and not offend anyone?
rock utility aircraft, sun missiles, hat helicopters, this is really dumb. my grandpa is from switzerland, so am i supposed to be offended by the swiss army knife? i mean, come on-i want something warrior-like to be named after my ancestry...swiss chocolate just doesn't cut it
Why is this so hard?
Redskin is a racial slur.
Swiss, Apache, Irish, Illini, Lakota, etc., are not.
-
Why is this so hard?
Redskin is a racial slur.
Swiss, Apache, Irish, Illini, Lakota, etc., are not.
context my man, context. used only in terms of football and describing the team/team name, it's really not offensive to most people. to call someone this in a derogatory sense in vitriolic type acts, yes, it could be construed as a slur. if used as a slur, it's a slur. many say the term originated from the fact that a certain tribe painted themselves red, ready for war. over time, yes, some have come up with some really nasty originations of the name. so i'm back to context. everything seems so easy to you pak, but sorry to tell ya, it's not that easy for many. poll-8 of 10 do not want the football term "redskin" changed
-
context my man, context. used only in terms of football and describing the team/team name, it's really not offensive to most people. to call someone this in a derogatory sense in vitriolic type acts, yes, it could be construed as a slur. if used as a slur, it's a slur. many say the term originated from the fact that a certain tribe painted themselves red, ready for war. over time, yes, some have come up with some really nasty originations of the name. so i'm back to context. everything seems so easy to you pak, but sorry to tell ya, it's not that easy for many. poll-8 of 10 do not want the football term "redskin" changed
These are the same dumb arguments that have been brought up repeatedly. So it is OK to use a slur as long as it is in the context of sport? It is OK to use a slur as long as most people aren't offended? Neither of those arguments make much of sense.
-
everything seems so easy to you pak, but sorry to tell ya, it's not that easy for many.
True. When it comes to using racial slurs as team nicknames, it is easy for me.
-
These are the same dumb arguments that have been brought up repeatedly. So it is OK to use a slur as long as it is in the context of sport? It is OK to use a slur as long as most people aren't offended? Neither of those arguments make much of sense.
when did it become a slur-honest question?
if a team wanted to become known as the blank city "N" words and they ran a poll, i'm pretty sure about 9.9 out of 10 would agree that would not be cool, me included-just to make myself clear.
8 out of 10 don't want the "redskin" name changed.
"These are the same dumb arguments that have been brought up repeatedly"
this is your argument? so what needs to be done? change the argument? some might say that the same dumb responses have been thrown back at them trying to debate why the term isn't racist. who is the gate keeper? who decides what is right/wrong? i've heard and read a number of different interpretations for the term "redskin" and it's origins. those who are against the name will tell you it's origins are from scalping. those for the name will say it's from war paint or a specific region from which the "redskins" came from, etc etc
i highly doubt that the owners, et.al of the washington team are saying, let's keep this name because it's racist and keep p!ssing people off. let's be purposefully provocative. if the public pressure was truly on them and people stopped going to games, buying memorabilia, hit them in the pocketbook-then i'm sure they would take notice and probably change the name.
my point is, many are getting sick and tired of the not so silent "minority" the squeaky wheel syndrome. this is why many people are still upset with marquette for their name change. there was no outcry.
just because a few people think it's "politically incorrect" doesn't make it wrong. for the powers that be to force change upon a private business is just wrong-let the people decide
and context does still matter-many examples, but i'm sure you know what i mean
-
when did it become a slur-honest question?
if a team wanted to become known as the blank city "N" words and they ran a poll, i'm pretty sure about 9.9 out of 10 would agree that would not be cool, me included-just to make myself clear.
8 out of 10 don't want the "redskin" name changed.
"These are the same dumb arguments that have been brought up repeatedly"
this is your argument? so what needs to be done? change the argument? some might say that the same dumb responses have been thrown back at them trying to debate why the term isn't racist. who is the gate keeper? who decides what is right/wrong? i've heard and read a number of different interpretations for the term "redskin" and it's origins. those who are against the name will tell you it's origins are from scalping. those for the name will say it's from war paint or a specific region from which the "redskins" came from, etc etc
i highly doubt that the owners, et.al of the washington team are saying, let's keep this name because it's racist and keep p!ssing people off. let's be purposefully provocative. if the public pressure was truly on them and people stopped going to games, buying memorabilia, hit them in the pocketbook-then i'm sure they would take notice and probably change the name.
my point is, many are getting sick and tired of the not so silent "minority" the squeaky wheel syndrome. this is why many people are still upset with marquette for their name change. there was no outcry.
just because a few people think it's "politically incorrect" doesn't make it wrong. for the powers that be to force change upon a private business is just wrong-let the people decide
and context does still matter-many examples, but i'm sure you know what i mean
Honestly, the term redskins, as Bronson said, and is confirmed came from white people literally skinning (by skinning, in case I need to make it perfectly clear, is removing the skin from a human being, thus they are covered in blood) Native Americans, thus redskin. This is a family site, but feel to Google Image the atrocities Native Americans faced.
How do you not see this as something that most Native Americans see as terribly offensive.
-
Honestly, the term redskins, as Bronson said, and is confirmed came from white people literally skinning (by skinning, in case I need to make it perfectly clear, is removing the skin from a human being, thus they are covered in blood) Native Americans, thus redskin. This is a family site, but feel to Google Image the atrocities Native Americans faced.
How do you not see this as something that most Native Americans see as terribly offensive.
Not confirmed....in fact an expert at the Smithsonian Institute says that isn't the case at all.
http://anthropology.si.edu/goddard/redskin.pdf
At any rate, so glad this was a done deal and the change was coming. Hail to the Redskins....
-
Not confirmed....in fact an expert at the Smithsonian Institute says that isn't the case at all.
http://anthropology.si.edu/goddard/redskin.pdf
At any rate, so glad this was a done deal and the change was coming. Hail to the Redskins....
absolutely! all my research seemed to show, it depended on who you axked :D in all seriousness-ahem, for those of you from rio linda, that was a joke...but different historians had different versions of where the term came from. and we all know how that works.. here comes the faux vitriol in 3...2...1...
-
Honestly, the term redskins, as Bronson said, and is confirmed came from white people literally skinning (by skinning, in case I need to make it perfectly clear, is removing the skin from a human being, thus they are covered in blood) Native Americans, thus redskin. This is a family site, but feel to Google Image the atrocities Native Americans faced.
How do you not see this as something that most Native Americans see as terribly offensive.
Love how people ignore what the Native Americans did to each other long before the white privileged European land stealer started coming here. oh and slavery was an accepted practice among the tribes as well.Still acceptable to call me honkey, cracker , snowflake etc...as well
-
Love how people ignore what the Native Americans did to each other long before the white privileged European land stealer started coming here. oh and slavery was an accepted practice among the tribes as well.Still acceptable to call me honkey, cracker , snowflake etc...as well
Uh no one is ignoring anything. And I'm not sure what Natives did back then has any relevance anyway.
And it isn't acceptable to call you anything like that, so you can put your victim card away.
-
when did it become a slur-honest question?
if a team wanted to become known as the blank city "N" words and they ran a poll, i'm pretty sure about 9.9 out of 10 would agree that would not be cool, me included-just to make myself clear.
8 out of 10 don't want the "redskin" name changed.
"These are the same dumb arguments that have been brought up repeatedly"
this is your argument? so what needs to be done? change the argument? some might say that the same dumb responses have been thrown back at them trying to debate why the term isn't racist. who is the gate keeper? who decides what is right/wrong? i've heard and read a number of different interpretations for the term "redskin" and it's origins. those who are against the name will tell you it's origins are from scalping. those for the name will say it's from war paint or a specific region from which the "redskins" came from, etc etc
i highly doubt that the owners, et.al of the washington team are saying, let's keep this name because it's racist and keep p!ssing people off. let's be purposefully provocative. if the public pressure was truly on them and people stopped going to games, buying memorabilia, hit them in the pocketbook-then i'm sure they would take notice and probably change the name.
my point is, many are getting sick and tired of the not so silent "minority" the squeaky wheel syndrome. this is why many people are still upset with marquette for their name change. there was no outcry.
just because a few people think it's "politically incorrect" doesn't make it wrong. for the powers that be to force change upon a private business is just wrong-let the people decide
and context does still matter-many examples, but i'm sure you know what i mean
Here is my argument. It should be changed because it offends a significant number of people. 30% of Native Americans find it offensive. That's good enough for me.
And I have no idea when it became a slur, or why that is even relevant.
-
Still acceptable to call me honkey, cracker , snowflake etc...as well
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?
Seriously, dude, it's term of respect. They're honoring your heritage.
-
I still miss the old nickname for Pekin High (outside of Peoria).
The Chinks.
Chicos must be so bummed that was dropped. Chinks honors Orientals and Chinamen!
-
Bring it to the politics board boys.
-
Bring it to the politics board boys.
Contact the mods son.
-
Not confirmed....in fact an expert at the Smithsonian Institute says that isn't the case at all.
http://anthropology.si.edu/goddard/redskin.pdf
At any rate, so glad this was a done deal and the change was coming. Hail to the Redskins....
I have colleagues from Indian Country. Because of this thread I asked one, a Tulalip, what she thought of "Redskins."
Her reply was interesting: "It only confirms that, in the minds of most, we don't even exist."
This is a very sophisticated, discerning woman. Her answer could not have been more true. Or better said.
-
I still miss the old nickname for Pekin High (outside of Peoria).
The Chinks.
Chicos must be so bummed that was dropped. Chinks honors Orientals and Chinamen!
I side with the Native American community whom OVERWHELMINGLY want to keep the name.
I....am a Native American...born here in America....I side with my Native American brothers and sisters.
-
I have colleagues from Indian Country. Because of this thread I asked one, a Tulalip, what she thought of "Redskins."
Her reply was interesting: "It only confirms that, in the minds of most, we don't even exist."
This is a very sophisticated, discerning woman. Her answer could not have been more true. Or better said.
Interesting response, completely opposite of what some other Native Americans have said (I've posted the videos here many times). I'd be curious if you were to show her those videos, what her stance would be. Their argument, as Native Americans, that the continue removal of various Indian names, etc, will do exactly that....REMOVE FROM THE MINDS THEIR VERY EXISTENCE.
Here are some of the videos...I truly would love to hear her response. For the record, I think these folks speaking are sophisticated, well intentioned people as well. They do not speak for all Native Americans. There is disagreement on the issue, no one denies this.
https://www.youtube.com/v/EA7wv7cmp8U
https://www.youtube.com/v/LT2b5kXFv-4
https://www.youtube.com/v/LaX6pUnI-hQ
https://www.youtube.com/v/M-c-RmrUBUg
https://www.youtube.com/v/2cleG4hLuuc
-
I still miss the old nickname for Pekin High (outside of Peoria).
The Chinks.
Chicos must be so bummed that was dropped. Chinks honors Orientals and Chinamen!
A bit of history since you brought it up....personally, I like the CornJerkers (a real name) as a mascot.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-CI11SDu8zoA/Uk1jHgCQ0JI/AAAAAAAAQuE/cWchwEaW9b0/s1600/4715215922_e71708cf75_z.jpg)
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1468662/thumbs/o-PEKINMASCOT-570.jpg?6)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/7a/b0/6c/7ab06cdf4044cfac3882bfe45cb9b130.jpg)
-
I side with the Native American community whom OVERWHELMINGLY want to keep the name.
I....am a Native American...born here in America....I side with my Native American brothers and sisters.
What percentage of a group has to legitimately be offended for action to be taken on this kind of thing?
If 51% of Indians were offended, would you advocate banning Redskins? Or does it have to be 75%? How about 25%?
25% of the Indian population means more than a million Americans. It's OK to offend them?
Also, what is the most recent polling on this? Who conducted the polls? Are they scientific?
And just to make sure I have it straight, if the majority favors anything in polling, that means you're for it, right?
-
It is absolutely hilarious that Chicos is citing information and posting videos from a site that a PR firm created for the Redskins. And that site has inaccurate/incomplete information on the history of the Redskins name.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2014/07/31/fact-checking-the-new-web-site-redskinsfacts-com/
It really is embarrassing that someone with a degree from my undergraduate institution is so easily swayed by corporate propaganda.
-
What percentage of a group has to legitimately be offended for action to be taken on this kind of thing?
If 51% of Indians were offended, would you advocate banning Redskins? Or does it have to be 75%? How about 25%?
25% of the Indian population means more than a million Americans. It's OK to offend them?
Also, what is the most recent polling on this? Who conducted the polls? Are they scientific?
And just to make sure I have it straight, if the majority favors anything in polling, that means you're for it, right?
Someone, somewhere is always offended by something.
I'm just so surprised that the prediction that this would be resolved by now......
-
"25% of the Indian population means more than a million Americans. It's OK to offend them?"
so by heeding to their concerns, the 25% or so, would it not then offend the 75% or so that do not want the name changed?
-
"25% of the Indian population means more than a million Americans. It's OK to offend them?"
so by heeding to their concerns, the 25% or so, would it not then offend the 75% or so that do not want the name changed?
So if the majority of people from Pekin -- in other words, all the white people -- were "offended" that the name was about to be changed from Chinks, that means changing it was the wrong thing to do?
If the majority of Americans were "offended" that blacks got the right to vote, that means they shouldn't have been given the vote?
Come on, rocket.
-
Someone, somewhere is always offended by something.
I'm just so surprised that the prediction that this would be resolved by now......
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.
-
It really is embarrassing that someone with a degree from my undergraduate institution is so easily swayed by corporate propaganda.
But so predictable.
-
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.
not sure what you meant about sultans post, or what point of his i avoided, but i was addressing your scenario. if 25% of any group is offended by something. let's say out of 100 in a group, 25 were offended by the color of the classrooms, but 75 weren't. but the 25 were listened to and the classroom color was changed. my question is, what about the other 75? don't they count? they weren't offended, but now they are. so you placate 25 but piss off 75.
with the indian example, it's going to come down to, as most everything does-money. well, that and the gubmint, who has no business poking it's face into. the more prominent the person who raises his/her voice, the more oil poured on the squeaky wheel, not the number of people raising their voice. note the use of prominent($$$) people with indian ancestry voicing their displeasure. suddenly it's game on, even though, a majority still wants to keep the indian name as they see the remnants of their history being diminished.
-
not sure what you meant about sultans post, or what point of his i avoided, but i was addressing your scenario. if 25% of any group is offended by something. let's say out of 100 in a group, 25 were offended by the color of the classrooms, but 75 weren't. but the 25 were listened to and the classroom color was changed. my question is, what about the other 75? don't they count? they weren't offended, but now they are. so you placate 25 but piss off 75.
You aren't "offending" anyone by changing the name. You might be pissing them off, but my guess is that most just don't care. The fact is it is a slur word. Period. You would never go up to a Native person and call them "Redskin."
with the indian example, it's going to come down to, as most everything does-money. well, that and the gubmint, who has no business poking it's face into. the more prominent the person who raises his/her voice, the more oil poured on the squeaky wheel, not the number of people raising their voice. note the use of prominent($$$) people with indian ancestry voicing their displeasure. suddenly it's game on, even though, a majority still wants to keep the indian name as they see the remnants of their history being diminished.
Ooookaaayyyy...
-
It is absolutely hilarious that Chicos is citing information and posting videos from a site that a PR firm created for the Redskins. And that site has inaccurate/incomplete information on the history of the Redskins name.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2014/07/31/fact-checking-the-new-web-site-redskinsfacts-com/
It really is embarrassing that someone with a degree from my undergraduate institution is so easily swayed by corporate propaganda.
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'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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
"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.
-
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.
-
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. ;)
-
"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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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.)
-
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'.
-
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.
-
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 :o
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
-
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 :o
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
Jesus rocket, now the dictionaries have a liberal bias in your world?
BTW, if you read what Obama said, he said “If I were the owner of the team and I knew that there was a name of my team — even if it had a storied history — that was offending a sizeable group of people, I’d think about changing it.” (This is from the very article you linked BTW)
He never said government would force the change.
As as far as cancelling the trademark registration, that is because they are actually following trademark law in place that disallows disparaging trademarks.
-
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 :o
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
Got it ... Redskins is OK to be a symbol of a football team even if you never would use it in any kind of conversation with Indians, whom your buddy Chicos claims overwhelmingly say "redskins" honors them.
OK.
-
Chuck Norris....Happy 76th birthday
1/8th Cherokee
-
"He never said government would force the change."
first off, you realize obama is gubmint, right? secondly, obama gives a ringing endorsement to change the name, thirdly, words matter.
remember when obama blasted the supreme court during one of his state of the union speeches-he was just kidding, right? and then the other whopper-when he said there wasn't even smidgen of corruption with IRS and republican PAC's??? hmmmmm
-that's a nice family ya got there...sound familiar??
-
you realize obama is gubmint, right? obama gives a ringing endorsement to change the name
So rocketman, Chicos and I are allowed to give our opinions ... newspaper editorial boards, columnists and Snyder himself are allowed to give their opinions ... Republican senators who support keeping the Redskin name are allowed to give their opinions ... but the president isn't allowed to give his opinion?
Strange country you want to live in.
-
So rocketman, Chicos and I are allowed to give our opinions ... newspaper editorial boards, columnists and Snyder himself are allowed to give their opinions ... Republican senators who support keeping the Redskin name are allowed to give their opinions ... but the president isn't allowed to give his opinion?
Strange country you want to live in.
absolutely the president is allowed to give his opinion on anything and everything he wants. problem is, when he chimes in on anything, it carries a little more weight to it.
example-boss of a company says his opinion of 20 minute breaks is too much...opinion-yes as he stated. what would you think? boss says he doesn't like tattoos...as cooter, one of his v.p.'s walks in ready to show off the new ink he got over the weekend? opinion? certainly as opposed to a peer stating the same
obama states his opinion that he doesn't like guns...have you checked the increases in the stock prices of ruger and smith & wesson since like 2009? how the hell did i miss that one >:(
-
absolutely the president is allowed to give his opinion on anything and everything he wants. problem is, when he chimes in on anything, it carries a little more weight to it.
Even more weight than anonymous Scoopers? Hard to believe!
-
Even more weight than anonymous Scoopers? Hard to believe!
shoot, he might even use the scoop here as a microcosm and pulse of the nation
-
Just returned from a road trip to New Mexico to fish the San Juan(not a fishing thread) and drove through the Navajo Nation and some Hopi Villages. One school's nickname was the Warriors and met a guy fishing who was wearing an Apache Warriors t-shirt from the school where he taught. No Golden Eagles were spotted on the myriad of campuses I passed through. The one striking sighting was in Red Mesa, AZ. where a brand new campus had a large, significant metal sign that read Red Mesa Redskins along with the Washington team's Indian Head logo.
-
Just returned from a road trip to New Mexico to fish the San Juan(not a fishing thread) and drove through the Navajo Nation and some Hopi Villages. One school's nickname was the Warriors and met a guy fishing who was wearing an Apache Warriors t-shirt from the school where he taught. No Golden Eagles were spotted on the myriad of campuses I passed through. The one striking sighting was in Red Mesa, AZ. where a brand new campus had a large, significant metal sign that read Red Mesa Redskins along with the Washington team's Indian Head logo.
Did you see father Wilde down there protesting? ;D
-
Did you see father Wilde down there protesting? ;D
You mean DiUlio??
-
Just returned from a road trip to New Mexico to fish the San Juan
Were you below the Aztec for Browns or around Texas Hole?
-
Were you below the Aztec for Browns or around Texas Hole?
Fished Texas Hole and Crusher for bows
-
You mean DiUlio??
Didn't father Wilde perpetuate it-what's his name, stolenwerk on the board(ceo of that shoe co.) offered $1 mil if they would change the eagle name back to warriors. Wilde so no f'ing way or something like that
-
Didn't father Wilde perpetuate it-what's his name, stolenwerk on the board(ceo of that shoe co.) offered $1 mil if they would change the eagle name back to warriors. Wilde so no f'ing way or something like that
I recall it being the CEO of Kimberly Clark who made that offer.
As bad as DiUlio was Pilarz made him look like Thomas F#cking Jefferson
-
I recall it being the CEO of Kimberly Clark who made that offer.
As bad as DiUlio was Pilarz made him look like Thomas F#cking Jefferson
It was John stolenwerk, then ceo of Allen Edmonds shoes who probably also said that if the name were changed back, he and another ceo (Kimberly Clarke?) would donate $1 million. Looking for it online, I could only find it mentioned by the always controversial John mccadams in his blog. Father Wilde drank from the same well
Marquette Warrior: Marquette's Trustee Losers
mu-warrior.blogspot.com › 2005/05 › m...
May 19, 2005 - John Stollenwerk — Jumping into the Breach to Defend a Position Your ... Change the name from “Golden Eagles” ... and an another alumnus (unnamed) would chip in another million.
My intentions here were not to reopen any mccadams nor name change events, but to verify who and when that whole fiasco returned its 2nd time around
-
I recall it being the CEO of Kimberly Clark who made that offer.
This is accurate and the other donor also had ties.
-
This is accurate and the other donor also had ties.
I guess $$$ don't talk all da time
-
I guess $$$ don't talk all da time
In modern times, $2 million is nothing. Father Wild managed to get at least a half-dozen 8-figure donations during his tenure. $2 million is barely enough to get the right to name a classroom, much less the University's most valuable asset.
This is what Fr. Wild was thinking when that offer was made:
(https://media.giphy.com/media/TPsxgRoNEMdig/giphy.gif)
-
In modern times, $2 million is nothing. Father Wild managed to get at least a half-dozen 8-figure donations during his tenure. $2 million is barely enough to get the right to name a classroom, much less the University's most valuable asset.
This is what Fr. Wild was thinking when that offer was made:
(https://media.giphy.com/media/TPsxgRoNEMdig/giphy.gif)
that measly $2 million probably wouldn't even cover a bad title IX lawsuit, i.e. the mattress girl, et.al.
-
that measly $2 million probably wouldn't even cover a bad title IX lawsuit, i.e. the mattress girl, et.al.
Seriously, I am not sure $2 million would cover the cost of doing all the rebranding that would be necessary.
-
But it would all be more than offset by a massive increase in Warrior gear sales.
-
But it would all be more than offset by a massive increase in Warrior gear sales.
You are making my point. If alumni want to bribe Marquette into changing their name back, it is going to take a lot more money than a paltry $2 million.
-
My uncle, an MU law grad and judge, went on a trip to France. His wife, my aunt(of course) broke a tooth. The first dentist they found was an MU grad; this is no chit ey. The first thing he said to them(or axked) was, why did they change the warrior name and he would give his left one to change it back. Not sure how much left ones go for now days
-
images like this never helped
https://i.imgur.com/duMojKG.gifv
-
images like this never helped
https://i.imgur.com/duMojKG.gifv
i think your intentions were in jest, but popeye appeared to be defending himself and his woman-eyn'a? could have been a fill-in-the-blank person and i think it could be defended however, we aren't allowed to see the entire context of the situation
-
ESPN is OK with "Redskins," but not so much "Caucasians."
http://awfulannouncing.com/2016/espn-told-bomani-jones-to-cover-up-caucasians-t-shirt.html
-
ESPN is OK with "Redskins," but not so much "Caucasians."
http://awfulannouncing.com/2016/espn-told-bomani-jones-to-cover-up-caucasians-t-shirt.html
Whites are being persecuted so horrifically in this country in the 21st century that eSPN had no other options here.
Finally, someone is courageous enough to stand up to black and Native American privilege.
-
where can i get my shirt? i can already hear the criticism-white supremacist, arian nation, racist. i can however look past that because the shirt doesn't offend me and i know i am not a racist. i wouldn't exactly wear it, walking down martin luther king blvd though.
-
You are making my point. If alumni want to bribe Marquette into changing their name back, it is going to take a lot more money than a paltry $2 million.
Hmm....I wonder what Lovell's price is? But then Warriors....priceless.
-
That shirt would outsell Kobe if it were available
-
That shirt would outsell Kobe if it were available
put kobe's name on the back ;D
-
where can i get my shirt? i can already hear the criticism-white supremacist, arian nation, racist. i can however look past that because the shirt doesn't offend me and i know i am not a racist. i wouldn't exactly wear it, walking down martin luther king blvd though.
You do know that the shirt is making fun of whites who think it's OK to use racist names and symbols for sports teams, right?
Please tell me you know that.
Also, if you read the article, you'd know where you could get the shirt. There's even a link. Although the article says the site crashed because so many people wanted them.
-
You do know that the shirt is making fun of whites who think it's OK to use racist names and symbols for sports teams, right?
Please tell me you know that.
Also, if you read the article, you'd know where you could get the shirt. There's even a link. Although the article says the site crashed because so many people wanted them.
absolutely, yes i know it is supposed to be making fun of whites, but because i, and i am sure many others feel we are above that. i am humble enough to say and join in their attempts to demean my people. it doesn't do any of that for me. don't they teah that class now in schools? what one is supposed to be offended by?
so now it's only whites who think names like indians, redskins, irish, brewers, yankees, et.al are demeaning. i choose to look at them as triumphant types, warriors if you will for their sport. same for my caucasians-i'm just p1ssed off the shirt doesn't say FIGHTING CAUCASIANS. next, we need to think of something like the tomahawk chop they use in atlanta and florida state without issues
-
ESPN is OK with "Redskins," but not so much "Caucasians."
http://awfulannouncing.com/2016/espn-told-bomani-jones-to-cover-up-caucasians-t-shirt.html
Redskins is a name of honor, supported by the majority Native Americans. Thus the difference.
Personally, I thought the Caucasians shirt was funny. Of course, I couldn't wear that shirt....the irony.
-
Unanimous 8-0 on the key part of the ruling.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-rejecting-trademarks-that-disparage-others-violates-the-first-amendment/2017/06/19/26a33ffa-23b3-11e7-a1b3-faff0034e2de_story.html?utm_term=.b1689a154509
-
Unanimous 8-0 on the key part of the ruling.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-rejecting-trademarks-that-disparage-others-violates-the-first-amendment/2017/06/19/26a33ffa-23b3-11e7-a1b3-faff0034e2de_story.html?utm_term=.b1689a154509
Just had a conversation with native am out here in vegas who is a huge redskin fan. He said there are very few of them offended including himself but seems like mostly white people who are trying to act like they are sympathetic and are getting in the way of them. They are slowly losing their heritage and legacies by the very people that put them where they are now
-
Unanimous 8-0 on the key part of the ruling.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-rejecting-trademarks-that-disparage-others-violates-the-first-amendment/2017/06/19/26a33ffa-23b3-11e7-a1b3-faff0034e2de_story.html?utm_term=.b1689a154509
I think the intent here is to post the relevant ruling that impacts the systems/methods by which a govt agency tried to restrict speech (per the ruling) or prevent offense (per others opinion).
I think it is good and healthy case for the justices to take on and show a unanimous front...you may not like what is being said but there isn't a right to restrict it through the trademark office. Seems fair.
-
I think the intent here is to post the relevant ruling that impacts the systems/methods by which a govt agency tried to restrict speech (per the ruling) or prevent offense (per others opinion).
I think it is good and healthy case for the justices to take on and show a unanimous front...you may not like what is being said but there isn't a right to restrict it through the trademark office. Seems fair.
Regardless of you opinion on the offensive nature of something like Washington's nickname, this ruling is important in a larger context. Basically, this ruling says that just because "speech" goes through a government process the government can't decide whether the speech is acceptable or not. All speech as "valid" within the government context.
This is a good thing ultimately, no good can come from government managing speech, no matter how benign or for the "greater" good.
-
Just had a conversation with native am out here in vegas who is a huge redskin fan. He said there are very few of them offended including himself but seems like mostly white people who are trying to act like they are sympathetic and are getting in the way of them. They are slowly losing their heritage and legacies by the very people that put them where they are now
It's called pseudo independence
-
Regardless of you opinion on the offensive nature of something like Washington's nickname, this ruling is important in a larger context. Basically, this ruling says that just because "speech" goes through a government process the government can't decide whether the speech is acceptable or not. All speech as "valid" within the government context.
This is a good thing ultimately, no good can come from government managing speech, no matter how benign or for the "greater" good.
+1
It is especially refreshing (comforting?) to see that the ruling was unanimous. Score one for the political independence of SCOTUS.
-
A related topic.....maybe?
States censoring content on license plates
-
Correct decision by the court.
-
Correct decision by the court.
Just talked to a friend who's a very important person on the U.S. Supreme Court. The justices are thrilled you've approved.
-
Just talked to a friend who's a very important person on the U.S. Supreme Court. The justices are thrilled you've approved.
I'm the source
-
A related topic.....maybe?
States censoring content on license plates
If there was any value in suing over content on license plates, it would 100% be ruled unconstitutional.
-
If there was any value in suing over content on license plates, it would 100% be ruled unconstitutional.
It's been challenged and ruled constitutional.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/06/18/415462597/high-court-rules-specialty-license-plates-constitute-government-speech
http://www.politico.com/states/new-york/albany/story/2015/05/court-rules-restrictions-on-vanity-plates-constitutional-022377
-
Just talked to a friend who's a very important person on the U.S. Supreme Court. The justices are thrilled you've approved.
Thank you, though not sure why you decided to load up on me when others said they thought the ruling was just. As Americans we should all be happy when justice is properly served and the rule of law upheld. We do not need the US Gov't dictating what is and isn't offensive. There is no one person or body that can do that properly. What one finds offensive, someone else doesn't. Proper ruling. 8-0.
-
If there was any value in suing over content on license plates, it would 100% be ruled unconstitutional.
I didn't read the decisions posted after your comment, but I bet I can guess:
License plates are a method of identifying vehicles, not a form of speech, and just because the Secretary of State is granting you some leeway in regards to choosing which letters and numbers are used to identify your car, it doesn't mean that they are required to let you use whatever combo you want.
What if Jimmy Butler decided that instead of having "21" as his uniform number, he wanted it to be "JFB69"? Is denying that a freedom of speech violation?
-
It's been challenged and ruled constitutional.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/06/18/415462597/high-court-rules-specialty-license-plates-constitute-government-speech
http://www.politico.com/states/new-york/albany/story/2015/05/court-rules-restrictions-on-vanity-plates-constitutional-022377
Not to pick nits, but only one of those is a supreme court decision and that one was a decision around the state and an organization with a design. Not a private citizen choosing to select letters/numbers that created something offensive. Apples and oranges to the trademark decision around Washington's nickname.
-
Not to pick nits, but only one of those is a supreme court decision and that one was a decision around the state and an organization with a design. Not a private citizen choosing to select letters/numbers that created something offensive.
Well, what the Supreme Court says is law, so there really doesn't need to be more than one Supreme Court ruling, unless they see need to clarify on another case brought before them. Although the specifics of that case involve one state and one particular message, it applies to all.
Apples and oranges to the trademark decision around Washington's nickname.
Oh, I agree, but since you guys started talking about how the principle ought to be the same for license plates ....
-
Well, what the Supreme Court says is law, so there really doesn't need to be more than one Supreme Court ruling, unless they see need to clarify on another case brought before them. Although the specifics of that case involve one state and one particular message, it applies to all.
Oh, I agree, but since you guys started talking about how the principle ought to be the same for license plates ....
Let me rephrase.....there is one supreme court ruling in the license plate area of concern but is not related to the original conceit....that if a person(not an organization or corporation) wanted to sue the state for violation of their 1st amendment protections because the state would not allow them their primary choice of customization.
So, while interesting, the articles you've provided do nothing to prove my original statement incorrect
-
Let me rephrase.....there is one supreme court ruling in the license plate area of concern but is not related to the original conceit....that if a person(not an organization or corporation) wanted to sue the state for violation of their 1st amendment protections because the state would not allow them their primary choice of customization.
So, while interesting, the articles you've provided do nothing to prove my original statement incorrect
I'm not terribly interested in a long debate, so I'll leave it at this: The legal principle stated by the court here - that a license plate is government speech, not protected private speech - would not change on the basis of who seeks a personalized plate. The court wouldn't rule that a license plate is government speech when a group wants something on it, but private speech when Joe Blow wants to personalize it.
-
I'm not terribly interested in a long debate, so I'll leave it at this: The legal principle stated by the court here - that a license plate is government speech, not protected private speech - would not change on the basis of who seeks a personalized plate. The court wouldn't rule that a license plate is government speech when a group wants something on it, but private speech when Joe Blow wants to personalize it.
I'm not a legal scholar but I'd argue that if Citizen's United were overturned (or this fictional legal fight overrode that precedent) that your last statement is incorrect.
-
Just talked to a friend who's a very important person on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Ginsburg, Kennedy or one of the other 7?
I mean, there are only 9 "important persons on the U.S. Supreme Court."