Rocky Landing

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/11/27/native-american-leaders-speak-out-against-redskins-name/

I feel entitled to post this because I'm 1/32 Irish.http://o.onionstatic.com/images/7/7372/original/700.jpg?3640

That's a hard pill for just about anybody to swallow. Well played, sir!

There will be no legislation passed that will force the Redskins to change their name. The Redskins name is protected under the first amendment. This has been one of the reasons that legal challenges from Native American groups have failed.

No. Go ahead and call black people "colored," and see how many friends you make.

Context

1) What???2) Did you even read my response? 3) Does not apply to the conversation AND YOU KNOW IT. 4) I would call someone a brown person BEFORE I CALLED THEM COLORED!!!

Ok, well, this seems like such an easy argument to make that it doesn't even seem worth the time, but here goes: The Browns were named after their beloved general manager and first coach Mike Brown who, to the best of my knowledge (and correct me if I'm wrong here) was NOT massacred by the United States military. The Redskins, on the other hand, are named after a derogatory term used to describe a race of people who WERE massacred by the United States Military. If, in the future, the term "Brown" becomes synonymous with, I suppose, brown people (I assume that is your assertion?) then Cleveland will have their own choice to make. That is as much as I can predict, as there is no historical perspective for the term "brown" being used as a negative, racial epithet. All of this seems so blatantly obvious to me that I am wondering why I am taking the time to type it. So, this may have to be my last post on the subject. The whole argument has drifted into the absurd.

I was expanding on what I thought was an interesting, but otherwise irrelevant point. As far as whether or not the term "redskin" could be taken as an insult, would you ever call a Native American a "redskin" to their face? I wouldn't.

Interestingly enough, the use of the swastika, or the term "Nazi" is a crime in Germany-- which would be an obvious violation of the first amendment in this country. Also, am I missing something? Is the term "Viking" actually offensive to somebody?

Is this an argument for the Redskins changing their name, or against?

That's an interesting point. But, I think the context matters in that case. The Redskins are calling themselves the Redskins in all seriousness, and choosing to ignore the historical ramifications. The clown will call a Native American a redskin in complete jest, in acknowledgment of the historical ramifications.

This is going to sound like a weird take to a lot of people, but I am against such an enormous expansion of the replay rules. I do think there are some plays that should be challengeable, that currently aren't. I recall one game (and my memory is vague on this), when Jon Gruden's Bucs lost (I think a playoff?) game on a field goal because of a completely flawed call, that even the refs agreed was wrong, but wasn't reviewable. (Gruden's response to the refs, as I recall, showed him to be a class act.) BUT... I think that there is an inherent unfairness to football. And, I think it needs to stay that way. A football game is not just about who is a better team. If it were, there would be a Super Bowl Series, and playoff games wouldn't be sudden-death. With football, there is an element of luck, and of human error. Maybe, even, luck and human error are the same thing. Often, when we watch a game, we walk away enraged. "WE WERE ROBBED!!!" Or, just the opposite: we walk away mopping the sweat off our brow, "how the hell did we pull that off???" When we watch a football game, we are watching a microcosm of the human experience. Football is the greatest spectator sport in the history of sports, because football has everything. Does anyone feel that watching a football game is too emotional? I certainly DO believe that we should hold the refs to the highest standard possible, they should be well compensated, and we should protect against graft, and corruption. But, do we need to protect against outrage? The way I see it, the refs are almost as much a part of the game experience as the players. Yes, they're fallible. But, this isn't a video game. I guess I just prefer the human element to technology. And, if we continue to use technology to "level the playing field," what does that make us? At what point do we replace the refs with computers? And, make no mistake, the refs COULD be replaced with computers this coming season. The technology exists. And finally, there is something about mandating the instant replay for every play that feels to me like mandatory sentencing across our judicial system, that takes the human experience, and judgment out of the equation (and in my opinion, has made us a less equitable society). We want to hold the refs to a higher standard, not remove them from the standard.

Are you suggesting the Redskins are a crude joke? That may be the most cogent argument you've made!

Fair enough, and thank you for the thoughts.

I think there are several relevant points here. One, is that Viking heritage is not just about the raids against the rest of Europe, which occurred over 1,000 years ago. That is European history, and Anglo-Saxons, Gauls, Romans, etc were all guilty of expansionism. But, more to the point, is that the Viking legacy of Northern raids is not the legacy of the United States. The Native American genocide is every bit as much of our national identity as is slavery. And, the NFL team, the Redskins, is representing our nation's capital. Friends of mine occasionally call me a Viking, to my face, and it is usually meant as a compliment. Conversely, I have never heard anyone decry the destruction of their heritage by the Vikings over 1,000 years ago. Just my opinion.

My mother's maiden name is Whicktor. I have proud Viking heritage, and the term "Viking" has never occurred to me to be derogatory in any way, to anybody. But, I think this is pretty obvious to everybody. What's not obvious is why it would be a relevant point.

The formula for the passer rating is: [(a + b + c + d)/6] x 100, whereas a = [(completions/attempts x 100) – 30] x 0.05; b = [(yards/att) – 3] x 0.25; c = (TD/att) x 20; and d = 2.375 – (interceptions/att x 25). Q: What’s missing from this equation? A: any variables that include the performance of any other player on the field other than the quarterback. So, if a QB has no offensive line to speak of and is only given an average of 1.6 seconds to get rid of the ball before being sacked, their rating will be low. Or, if a QB is playing a superior defense, their rating will be lower. If a QB has phenomenal receivers, their rating will be higher. That's why Russel Wilson can have a rating of 49.6 against the Cardinals in week 15, and a 102.1 against the Rams the following week. It's worthy to note that their are no published p-values, critical values, or significance levels (at least that I have ever found) for the passer rating. It has no use for statistical analysis. I think that the only use for the passer rating is for (crudely) tracking a single QB's performance against weekly variables such as the one's mentioned above. It has almost no value for comparing different players on different teams. In fact, I might go as far as to say that it is a better indicator of team performance than of QB performance.

I'm wondering where this notion that a significant number of Native Americans don't find the term "redskin" offensive comes from?-- all evidence to the contrary. The word "redskin" as a derogatory term goes back well over a century. All of the legal challenges to the name have come from Native American groups. as well as numerous protests-- all going back decades. Numerous Native American groups have publicly condemned the name. What more does it take? I also have to disagree with machine gun kelly that this is some issue for "a bunch of bleeding heart liberals," (a sentiment echoed by some other posters in less obnoxious terms). If anyone knows anything about Charles Krauthammer, they will know that he is one of the most conservative editorialists in print. And, he gets it exactly right in this link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-redskins-and-reason/2013/10/17/cbb11eee-374f-11e3-ae46-e4248e75c8ea_story.html

I'm really NOT taking this as personally as you seem to think I am. I'm debating from an historical perspective. If arguing a perspective about what is, or isn't offensive is, "telling others what to believe," then what are you doing? Be that as it may, your anger is seething off the page, and I have no desire to engage with someone in personal attacks over a difference of opinion, or perspective. Feel free to take the last word, if you like.

I appreciate the debate, and I'm not even going to be offended by your trying to equate my perspective to that of the WBC. That being said, I find all of your arguments to be spurious, and for the most part, deflective. 1) Not by the senate (that I am aware of), but by Native American organizations. 2) I don't believe that we waged genocide against the Dutch or French-Canadians. 3) I don't agree with the sentiment that, "if "even one" Native American is offended by "Redskin," the team's name should be changed." I would argue that the "magnitude of the offense" certainly does matter. I don't understand why it wouldn't.

I suppose it is just a question of which side of history you choose to stand.

The notion that you are insinuating- that anybody, including the senate, is forcing the Redskins to change their name is spurious. Their right to calling themselves such is constitutionally guaranteed as free speech under the first amendment. Were the senate to attempt such a coup, the ACLU would be all over it. And, the senate, and everybody else, has the same right to denounce it. But, more to the point: The Dutch are not offended by the "cheesehead" Moniker, neither are the Quebecois offended by NFL endorsements, and the comparison utterly belittles the genocide of millions of Native Americans, the scant remainder of whom are U.S. citizens. Was that really your intention?

Truly, there is no denying that the term "redskin" is rooted in racism, and genocide. Even a cursory examination of the word's history will bear that out. Also, a word about context: I know that most of the people who post on here live in WNY. I was born and raised in Rochester, myself. I have been living in Los Angeles for over twenty years, and spent a couple years in New Mexico. Living in the South West definitely gives me a different perspective. There is a MUCH larger population of true Native Americans here. (When I say "true" Native Americans, I'm not talking about your friend who brags about being 1/32 Cherokee.) There are still reservations here in places like Death Valley, the Mojave Desert, the Mimbres Desert, etc.. I truly cannot imagine walking up to one of the Native Americans I have met here and making some of the arguments I have read on this forum to their face. Examples: "They shouldn't change the name, because they didn't originally intend it to be offensive." "It will cost them money." "It's tradition." "The members of the Senate have no business commenting on the name of the capital's football team." And, possibly one of the most offensive arguments: "It doesn't offend enough people," ("the majority," as one poster put it). I'm sorry, but I will reiterate what I said in an earlier post: The fact that we have an NFL team representing our nation's capital named the most offensive epithet you can call a Native American is a national embarrassment.