Senators Urge N.F.L. to Act on Redskins’ Name

[FireChan]

The last three posts were spot on.

 

EDIT: That is, the last three posts before the one above this. ;-P

 

 

 

Does anybody really associate with being called a Viking?

 

Do Vikings even exist?

 

There's the rub. In that article that got it "spot on" (I know you didn't post it), he says he wouldn't use the term "gyp" even if gypsies all got beamed to outer space and ceased to exist (paraphrased). So obviously, existence doesn't matter to that author.

 

More specifically to you, does anyone associate with Nazism anymore? Do Nazis exist still? Do I smell an expansion team?

 

And there's probably a Magnus Magnusson out there who associates with Vikings.

Edited May 26, 2014 by FireChan

[Rocky Landing]

There's the rub. In that article that got it "spot on" (I know you didn't post it), he says he wouldn't use the term "gyp" even if gypsies all got beamed to outer space and ceased to exist (paraphrased). So obviously, existence doesn't matter to that author.

 

More specifically to you, does anyone associate with Nazism anymore? Do Nazis exist still? Do I smell an expansion team?

 

And there's probably a Magnus Magnusson out there who associates with Vikings.

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.

[ExiledInIllinois]

 

 

There's the rub. In that article that got it "spot on" (I know you didn't post it), he says he wouldn't use the term "gyp" even if gypsies all got beamed to outer space and ceased to exist (paraphrased). So obviously, existence doesn't matter to that author.

 

More specifically to you, does anyone associate with Nazism anymore? Do Nazis exist still? Do I smell an expansion team?

 

And there's probably a Magnus Magnusson out there who associates with Vikings.

 

For the record, I am all for changing the name of the Minnesota team if it rubs people the wrong way. Go find them, even if it is only one.

Edited May 26, 2014 by ExiledInIllinois

[FireChan]

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.

 

Vikings have done their fair share of evil to many Americans ancestors. Specifically mine. How is that not obvious? Why is that not considered "immoral"?

 

For the record, I am all for changing the name of the Minnesota team if it rubs people the wrong way. Go find them, even if it is only one.

 

I have European heritage and my ancestors were tormented by Vikings. I'm offended. Let's start a petition.

Edited May 26, 2014 by FireChan

[What a Tuel]

 

Does anybody really associate with being called a Viking?

 

Do Vikings even exist?

 

What about the Raiders?

 

What about the Browns?

 

What about the Buccaneers?

 

Pirates have done a lot of damage to innocent people, and are still out there to this day. How could the NFL support such a celebration of violence, rape, and pillaging.

 

Who cares about the origin or intent of the names! Let's bring the name into our own context and tell the organizations what they really mean by choosing that name!

[Rocky Landing]

How does "Redskins" have a negative connotation in history and go against common decency, and "Vikings" doesn't? Instead of being named after victims of tragedy, Vikings is named after the AGGRESSORS. The rapists, the pillagers.

 

I honestly need someone to explain this to me. I don't get it.

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.

[FireChan]

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.

 

I want to be very clear here. I'm going to construct this exact post, in the year 2940, when discussing the names of the new gravity-ball teams.

 

"One, is that Nazi heritage is not just about the extermination of Jews and other European groups which occurred over 1,000 years ago. That is European history, and the English, Poles, Jews, Austrians were all guilty of expansionism. But, more to the point, is that the Nazi legacy of Europe is not the legacy of the United States."

 

See how that fits?

 

Location doesn't matter. Except when it does. Time doesn't matter. Except when it does.

 

Even now, an advocate of changing the name of the 'Skins is arguing points that you and your author who got it "spot on" would find abhorrent. You're saying "because it happened here" is why it's wrong, and I'm sure many disagree that that is wrong. There's no unified front. There's no clear right/wrong. There's just a couple thousand Americans trying to fit their own fluid and differing personal moralities on someone else. A personal morality not based on any rules or continuity. It's just, "I think this is fine, I think this is wrong."

 

Which is fine. America the free and all that. But I'm not for it. Happy Memorial Day by the way, thank God for Vets who gave us the freedom to discuss these issues.

Edited May 26, 2014 by FireChan

[Numark3]

Redskin is a derogatory term. Viking, raider, etc. is not. Is that a hard concept to grasp? It's not that people want anything that offends people to be changed. It's the fact that Redskin is a derogatory word.

 

It's really not that hard, and anyone who brings up other team's names as offensive had this whole argument go over their head.

[Rocky Landing]

I want to be very clear here. I'm going to construct this exact post, in the year 2940, when discussing the names of the new gravity-ball teams.

 

"One, is that Nazi heritage is not just about the extermination of Jews and other European groups which occurred over 1,000 years ago. That is European history, and the English, Poles, Jews, Austrians were all guilty of expansionism. But, more to the point, is that the Nazi legacy of Europe is not the legacy of the United States."

 

See how that fits?

 

Location doesn't matter. Except when it does. Time doesn't matter. Except when it does.

 

Even now, an advocate of changing the name of the 'Skins is arguing points that you and your author who got it "spot on" would find abhorrent. You're saying "because it happened here" is why it's wrong, and I'm sure many disagree that that is wrong. There's no unified front. There's no clear right/wrong. There's just a couple thousand Americans trying to fit their own fluid and differing personal moralities on someone else. A personal morality not based on any rules or continuity. It's just, "I think this is fine, I think this is wrong."

 

Which is fine. America the free and all that. But I'm not for it. Happy Memorial Day by the way, thank God for Vets who gave us the freedom to discuss these issues.

Fair enough, and thank you for the thoughts.

[jo39416]

I want to be very clear here. I'm going to construct this exact post, in the year 2940, when discussing the names of the new gravity-ball teams.

 

"One, is that Nazi heritage is not just about the extermination of Jews and other European groups which occurred over 1,000 years ago. That is European history, and the English, Poles, Jews, Austrians were all guilty of expansionism. But, more to the point, is that the Nazi legacy of Europe is not the legacy of the United States."

 

See how that fits?

 

Location doesn't matter. Except when it does. Time doesn't matter. Except when it does.

 

Even now, an advocate of changing the name of the 'Skins is arguing points that you and your author who got it "spot on" would find abhorrent. You're saying "because it happened here" is why it's wrong, and I'm sure many disagree that that is wrong. There's no unified front. There's no clear right/wrong. There's just a couple thousand Americans trying to fit their own fluid and differing personal moralities on someone else. A personal morality not based on any rules or continuity. It's just, "I think this is fine, I think this is wrong."

 

Which is fine. America the free and all that. But I'm not for it. Happy Memorial Day by the way, thank God for Vets who gave us the freedom to discuss these issues.

 

 

I think this fits nicely here.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0

[FireChan]

Fair enough, and thank you for the thoughts.

 

You as well. It's very important to keep things civil, especially in topics of this nature. I commend you. Just to be clear, I don't find Vikings offensive and I respect their culture, I was only making a point.

 

Redskin is a derogatory term. Viking, raider, etc. is not. Is that a hard concept to grasp? It's not that people want anything that offends people to be changed. It's the fact that Redskin is a derogatory word.

 

It's really not that hard, and anyone who brings up other team's names as offensive had this whole argument go over their head.

 

You missed every point in this topic.

 

I think this fits nicely here.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0

 

Insults! You'll fit right in. But I'd be lying if I said I didn't laugh.

Edited May 26, 2014 by FireChan

[Hplarrm]

One difference for me between the NFL use of Vikings vs. use of deadskins is that any outrages committed by the Vikings was done by and in the names of these Nordic cultures, while the mistreatment, genocide, etc was done by US society in the name of US culture and to further US govt policy interests.

 

If the NFL was resident in some Nordic country then I think it would be reasonable for the NFL to be called out if they were profiting from the marketing of the Viking name.

 

In addition, if this Nordic based NFL was profiting from use of the name of a victim of the Vikings transgressions (and somehow claiming that the use of these victims name was actually a tribute to them, it would simply strike me as a bit weird at best.

 

If you are looking for an analogy to better equate to the use of the Deadskins name, then simply imagine that if the Bills were moved to the NE and the new owner decided he was going to market to the new Asian immigrants by calling the team the Nips (or more formally the Japanese) and that the team was going to choose various traditional Japanese warrior and Samurai totems to show the fierceness of the teamand pay tribute to their culture.

 

Even better, this new team would raise $ from fans and commit some of their profits to tell the story of WWII internment of the Japanese by the US govt. just as the Deadskins are doing with the new foundation Snyder is setting up.

 

Do you really want to claim NFL use of the name Vikings is right on point for justifying or even explaining use of the DC team name?

 

 

How does "Redskins" have a negative connotation in history and go against common decency, and "Vikings" doesn't? Instead of being named after victims of tragedy, Vikings is named after the AGGRESSORS. The rapists, the pillagers.

 

I honestly need someone to explain this to me. I don't get it.

[What a Tuel]

Redskin is a derogatory term. Viking, raider, etc. is not. Is that a hard concept to grasp? It's not that people want anything that offends people to be changed. It's the fact that Redskin is a derogatory word.

 

It's really not that hard, and anyone who brings up other team's names as offensive had this whole argument go over their head.

 

I would be curious to know what your stance on crude comedy is.

[Rocky Landing]

I would be curious to know what your stance on crude comedy is.

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

[FireChan]

One difference for me between the NFL use of Vikings vs. use of deadskins is that any outrages committed by the Vikings was done by and in the names of these Nordic cultures, while the mistreatment, genocide, etc was done by US society in the name of US culture and to further US govt policy interests.

 

If the NFL was resident in some Nordic country then I think it would be reasonable for the NFL to be called out if they were profiting from the marketing of the Viking name.

 

In addition, if this Nordic based NFL was profiting from use of the name of a victim of the Vikings transgressions (and somehow claiming that the use of these victims name was actually a tribute to them, it would simply strike me as a bit weird at best.

 

If you are looking for an analogy to better equate to the use of the Deadskins name, then simply imagine that if the Bills were moved to the NE and the new owner decided he was going to market to the new Asian immigrants by calling the team the Nips (or more formally the Japanese) and that the team was going to choose various traditional Japanese warrior and Samurai totems to show the fierceness of the teamand pay tribute to their culture.

 

Even better, this new team would raise $ from fans and commit some of their profits to tell the story of WWII internment of the Japanese by the US govt. just as the Deadskins are doing with the new foundation Snyder is setting up.

 

Do you really want to claim NFL use of the name Vikings is right on point for justifying or even explaining use of the DC team name?

 

I've explained this before, and I tire of repeating myself. Your morality is based on geography. That's fine. I don't feel that morality should be based on physical distance.

[What a Tuel]

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

 

Nope. It is funny how people are actually more accepting of things that are meant to offend than things that aren't though.

[Hplarrm]

 

My morality is based on reality. You may choose to ignore reality, I do not.

 

 

I've explained this before, and I tire of repeating myself. Your morality is based on geography. That's fine. I don't feel that morality should be based on physical distance.

[Rocky Landing]

Nope. It is funny how people are actually more accepting of things that are meant to offend than things that aren't though.

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.

[Wayne Cubed]

One difference for me between the NFL use of Vikings vs. use of deadskins is that any outrages committed by the Vikings was done by and in the names of these Nordic cultures, while the mistreatment, genocide, etc was done by US society in the name of US culture and to further US govt policy interests.

 

If the NFL was resident in some Nordic country then I think it would be reasonable for the NFL to be called out if they were profiting from the marketing of the Viking name.

 

In addition, if this Nordic based NFL was profiting from use of the name of a victim of the Vikings transgressions (and somehow claiming that the use of these victims name was actually a tribute to them, it would simply strike me as a bit weird at best.

 

If you are looking for an analogy to better equate to the use of the Deadskins name, then simply imagine that if the Bills were moved to the NE and the new owner decided he was going to market to the new Asian immigrants by calling the team the Nips (or more formally the Japanese) and that the team was going to choose various traditional Japanese warrior and Samurai totems to show the fierceness of the teamand pay tribute to their culture.

 

Even better, this new team would raise $ from fans and commit some of their profits to tell the story of WWII internment of the Japanese by the US govt. just as the Deadskins are doing with the new foundation Snyder is setting up.

 

Do you really want to claim NFL use of the name Vikings is right on point for justifying or even explaining use of the DC team name?

 

Suppose I could go out and start a team and call them the Nazi's, right? Use the swastika and red national colors because the oppression of the Jews, Polish, etc all happened in Europe, so that's alright.

 

What makes what they did any different than what the Vikings did? Because it happened 1000 ago?

Edited May 26, 2014 by Wayne Cubed

[Rocky Landing]

Suppose I could go out and start a team and call them the Nazi's, right? Use the swastika and red national colors because the oppression of the Jews, Polish, etc all happened in Europe, so that's alright.

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