SoulMan Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Dork, Newsflash. The name of the Washington DC football team has nothing to do with what you just said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Dork, Newsflash. That might be the best name for a sitcom ever: Coming this fall to CBS "Dork, Newsflash", created by Chuck Lorre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
What a Tuel Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 And, the story that G.P Marshal changed the name to "honor" their coach, has been debunked. Link please. Also if the original meaning of the term was out of respect, and the Redskins Organization is saying they respect, and honor Native Americans, why don't you believe them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
What a Tuel Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 (edited) They have been asking for 30+ years, and you are correct that the Internet has helped give them (and everyone else) a voice. I don't understand how those things are somehow issues or problems. There are a lot of people who agree that using the term "Redskin" is insensitive and derogatory. We have the right to keep making noise indefinitely about the issue. That includes trying to gain the support of our elected officials. That's how this country is supposed to work. It seems like you're mad because they're not giving up, and attracting other people to their cause. It is my view that not giving up when you have strong convictions, and trying to get other people to see your point of view is a good thing. I agree people need to have conviction. Like I said, I don't blame Native Americans for the escalation of this. I guess my problem is that I hear such an uproar about a name of a sports team that hardly has any real impact on anybody, but I don't hear a word about the real problems Native Americans face that have a real impact, and aren't something they can just ignore. The Native American leaders could have just as easily made an emotional video about conditions they face, and such but they decided to take on a football team that mean them no harm? It just seems absurd. It's like the masses and the government take the easy road. "Racist sounding name? Sure I can beat my drum to that cause". "25% of Native Americans in poverty?" Crickets. Edited June 12, 2014 by What a Tuel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Link please. Also if the original meaning of the term was out of respect, and the Redskins Organization is saying they respect, and honor Native Americans, why don't you believe them? You obviously have no clue about the shameful legacy of George Preston Marshall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Link please. Also if the original meaning of the term was out of respect, and the Redskins Organization is saying they respect, and honor Native Americans, why don't you believe them? http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/1933-news-article-refutes-cherished-tale-that-redskins-were-named-to-honor-indian-coach/2014/05/28/19ad32e8-e698-11e3-afc6-a1dd9407abcf_story.html A quote from George Preston Marshall, himself, in an interview from July 6th, 1933: “The fact that we have in our head coach, Lone Star Dietz, an Indian, together with several Indian players, has not, as may be suspected, inspired me to select the name Redskins.” The original term was one of respect over 200 years ago. It has been a derogatory term for 200 years since. In 1933, it referred to the negative stereotype of the Native American as an uncivilized, violent savage. I don't suspect that Snyder, himself, is actively disrespecting Native Americans. I suspect he does't really care. His words, and actions, IMO, would support that theory. But, the one thing that supporters of the name seem to have in common, is that they don't want to acknowledge the actual history of the word, or the history of genocide endured by Native Americans. As I have said before, it depends on which side of history you choose to stand. You can either acknowledge history, or ignore it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
What a Tuel Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 You obviously have no clue about the shameful legacy of George Preston Marshall. What exactly is your point? Do you believe the Organization bears any ill will towards Native Americans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Caveman Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 I agree people need to have conviction. Like I said, I don't blame Native Americans for the escalation of this. I guess my problem is that I hear such an uproar about a name of a sports team that hardly has any real impact on anybody, but I don't hear a word about the real problems Native Americans face that have a real impact, and aren't something they can just ignore. The Native American leaders could have just as easily made an emotional video about conditions they face, and such but they decided to take on a football team that mean them no harm? It just seems absurd. It's like the masses and the government take the easy road. "Racist sounding name? Sure I can beat my drum to that cause". "25% of Native Americans in poverty?" Crickets. I think the easy road would be doing nothing. And the NCAI is not doing nothing. They are involved in a lot more than this one ad and issue. What exactly is your point? Do you believe the Organization bears any ill will towards Native Americans? Does disrespect = ill will? Because I believe that by continuing to use the term they are disrespecting Native Americans. Your point seems clear - there are much bigger issues than the Redskins name. That's fine, I get your point. With that said, why not correct a problem so easily solved as the Redskins name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 What exactly is your point? Do you believe the Organization bears any ill will towards Native Americans? No, my point is that he would have been the last person to "honor" Native Americans or any other person of color. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Dog Named Kelso Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Interestingly, the ad itself states they never refer to themselves as, then they show the helmet but these quotes seem to indicate otherwise: "I am a red man. If the Great Spirit had desired me to be a white man he would have made me so in the first place. He put in your heart certain wishes and plans, in my heart he put other and different desires. Each man is good in his sight. It is not necessary for Eagles to be Crows. We are poor... but we are free. No white man controls our footsteps. If we must die...we die defending our rights." - Sitting Bull “My Father—Restrain your feelings, and hear ca[l]mly what I shall say. I shall tell it to you plainly, I shall not speak with fear and trembling. I feel no fear. I have no cause to fear. I have never injured you, and innocence can feel no fear. I turn to all, red skins and white skins, and challenge an accusation against me ". - Chief Black Thunder Three chiefs of the Piankashaws wrote (1769), “…You think that I am an orphan; but all the people of these rivers and all the redskins will learn of my death.” This, I think, hurts the validity of the ad some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
What a Tuel Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 http://www.washingto...abcf_story.html A quote from George Preston Marshall, himself, in an interview from July 6th, 1933: “The fact that we have in our head coach, Lone Star Dietz, an Indian, together with several Indian players, has not, as may be suspected, inspired me to select the name Redskins.” The original term was one of respect over 200 years ago. It has been a derogatory term for 200 years since. In 1933, it referred to the negative stereotype of the Native American as an uncivilized, violent savage. I don't suspect that Snyder, himself, is actively disrespecting Native Americans. I suspect he does't really care. His words, and actions, IMO, would support that theory. But, the one thing that supporters of the name seem to have in common, is that they don't want to acknowledge the actual history of the word, or the history of genocide endured by Native Americans. As I have said before, it depends on which side of history you choose to stand. You can either acknowledge history, or ignore it. Thank you. I have pointed it out before. Boston Redsox - Boston Redskins. Played at the same stadium. It says in your article he picked the name out of a desire to keep the logo. "He apparently picked the Redskins name so he could keep the existing Native American logo." http://www.sportslogos.net/logos/view/bhohscn72jl4tg468jvr/Boston_Redskins/1933/Primary_Logo Does that look like the logo of someone who wishes to disparage or resents Native Americans? The true history of the word as you admitted was not a slur. If the Redskins Organization believes it to be a term of honor as it was prior to the 1800's then why can't it be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Dog Named Kelso Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 (edited) I agree people need to have conviction. Like I said, I don't blame Native Americans for the escalation of this. I guess my problem is that I hear such an uproar about a name of a sports team that hardly has any real impact on anybody, but I don't hear a word about the real problems Native Americans face that have a real impact, and aren't something they can just ignore. The Native American leaders could have just as easily made an emotional video about conditions they face, and such but they decided to take on a football team that mean them no harm? It just seems absurd. It's like the masses and the government take the easy road. "Racist sounding name? Sure I can beat my drum to that cause". "25% of Native Americans in poverty?" Crickets. Excellent point and this has been a issue they have been battling a long time with names of sport teams. That said, it is an easy tacit and one used by many leaders of varies groups to focus on issues that are seemingly benign to remove focus from far more important concerns. Edited June 13, 2014 by A Dog Named Kelso Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Guys, please. Indigenous Americans is the preferred nomenclature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Dog Named Kelso Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Thank you. I have pointed it out before. Boston Redsox - Boston Redskins. Played at the same stadium. It says in your article he picked the name out of a desire to keep the logo. "He apparently picked the Redskins name so he could keep the existing Native American logo." http://www.sportslog...33/Primary_Logo Does that look like the logo of someone who wishes to disparage or resents Native Americans? The true history of the word as you admitted was not a slur. If the Redskins Organization believes it to be a term of honor as it was prior to the 1800's then why can't it be? Except the logo was not introduced until the 1970's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Caveman Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 If the Redskins Organization believes it to be a term of honor as it was prior to the 1800's then why can't it be? Because a lot of people who they suggest they are honoring find it insulting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Dog Named Kelso Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 (edited) Because a lot of people who they suggest they are honoring find it insulting. Do they? http://www.annenberg...l-it-offensive/ I should point out, I have no emotions on the matter either way. I am not a fan of the team(nor their name) and I have no native american blood in my ancestry. I do agree with "What a Tuel" and believe their efforts and resources would be better used on more concrete problems that native americans face. Edited June 12, 2014 by A Dog Named Kelso Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
What a Tuel Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 (edited) Guys, please. Indigenous Americans is the preferred nomenclature. Now Native is offensive I bet. Because you must follow the established set of stereotypical rules that clearly make logical sense in a vacuum. Obviously Native can have negative connotations, but we won't make the logical step in thinking that the term "Native" means "a person born in a specified place or associated with a place by birth, whether subsequently resident there or not." If you twist it and interpret it as demeaning then it must have been the speakers intention, and therefore must be stricken from the record. That is a real irritating way for the world to look at things. Edited June 12, 2014 by What a Tuel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Caveman Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Do they? http://www.annenberg...l-it-offensive/ Yes, they do. A ten year poll of ~ 700 people isn't exactly convincing, but even if only 10% of the ~3 million Native Americans in this country find it offensive, that's 300,000 people. Based on this much more recent survey the percentage seems to be much higher (more than 60% see the term as racist.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hplarrm Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Now Native is offensive I bet. Because you must follow the established set of stereotypical rules that clearly make logical sense in a vacuum. Obviously Native can have negative connotations, but we won't make the logical step in thinking that the term "Native" means "a person born in a specified place or associated with a place by birth, whether subsequently resident there or not." If you twist it and interpret it as demeaning then it must have been the speakers intention, and therefore must be stricken from the record. That is a real irritating way for the world to look at things. This whole thread proves the point. If you're primary interest is football, then you want the name changed so we can spend our time debating the play of the team. On the other hand, if your primary interest is debating ideological points, or upholding the rights of an individual billionaire over multiple billionaires, then by all means keep the name of the team the ssame. We're gonna beat this dead horse for a while regardless of whether the name is changed or not, but my vote is change the name and getthis distraction from thinking about football out of the way as quickly as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Dog Named Kelso Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Yes, they do. A ten year poll of ~ 700 people isn't exactly convincing, but even if only 10% of the ~3 million Native Americans in this country find it offensive, that's 300,000 people. Based on this much more recent survey the percentage seems to be much higher (more than 60% see the term as racist.) Thanks, I had not seen that one. I know the other survey was old which is why I asked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts