Anti Redskins Ad Airing During Primetime

[Deranged Rhino]

Are we sure? As you indicate in your well thought out statement "The issue comes down to who determines what is correct". Do we know if this has changed over time or if those in the minority of the group are making the most amount of noise on the subject?

 

I would argue that to go along with your premise of "emotions of the moment" you must add who campaigns that emotion the best.

 

I have not stated it here but in previous threads on the subject, I really have no opinion on the matter either way but if en masse the native American population deem it offensive then it is. But not because loudest among them said it is. There is, of course, a difference and sometimes that is lost in all the noise.

 

The question really becomes how do we determine that honestly?

 

We don't have to determine anything. That's not our job and it's not our decision to make. It's Snyder's, so long as he owns the team. The NFL certainly can pressure him to change it if the public outcry hurts their collective bottom line, they could force a change but even then it's not our decision to make. Team names change all the time, who really cares what the team is called?

 

Which is the point. I'm not a Native American, I don't have a dog in this fight (#MikeVick) who am I to tell a Native American what he or she can or cannot be offended by? If the name is offensive to any portion of the Native American population it should be enough to make those outside their community pause and consider. We don't need to find some mathematical formula to determine the tipping point, certainly not as outsiders. The notion that we could even presume to have that kind of insight is downright absurd.

 

The fact that a few people on here are expending so much energy defending the 'tradition' of a name -- presumably of a franchise they aren't fans of considering the location of this thread -- should ask themselves why they care so much. Is it really about the tradition of the name or is it about protecting their own world view? Based on the passion displayed by the defenders, I'd wager the answer to that one is the later.

 

Which is why their arguments are weak and invalid ultimately.

Edited June 13, 2014 by GreggyT

[Captain Caveman]

Are we sure? As you indicate in your well thought out statement "The issue comes down to who determines what is correct". Do we know if this has changed over time or if those in the minority of the group are making the most amount of noise on the subject?

 

I would argue that to go along with your premise of "emotions of the moment" you must add who campaigns that emotion the best.

 

I have not stated it here but in previous threads on the subject, I really have no opinion on the matter either way but if en masse the native American population deem it offensive then it is. But not because loudest among them said it is. There is, of course, a difference and sometimes that is lost in all the noise.

 

The question really becomes how do we determine that honestly?

 

Let's say for argument's sake that only 40% find the term racist and offensive. Let's say there are "only" 1.2 million people in this country who associate the word with the attempted genocide that our government committed against their ancestors. Because they are not the majority, their opinion should be dismissed?

[machine gun kelly]

It's Snyder's team, and as a private owner, it's within his prerogative whether he wants to change the name. Unless TV lost advertisers, and fans stopped going to games, what does he care about a PC issue. I don't have a strong opinion as I can see both sides. I remember down in Tallahasee there was a PC debate on the Indian coming out before games, the Tomahawk chop, etc.

 

It was the Seminole tribe that pressured the State Legislature as well as the NCAA to back off. They were proud of their representation. I've heard the argument on the radio from a couple of Indian Chielfs interviewed on NFL Radio (it's been a couple of months) that do not want a name change, because slowly in the US, the Indian influence on culture is going away. They stated they see the names like Redskins, Indians, Chiefs, and so on keeps the Indian footprint on our American culture alive.

 

The bottom line is I don't see Snyder losing out financially on maintaining the name so he'll wait it out, and it will go away. Just a guess.

[John in Jax]

It's just not warranted in this case. The people who are defending Snyder's stance because they see this as political correctness run amok are sadly out of touch and frankly wrong. And the defense of their position, at least as argued in this thread, are entirely unconvincing and poorly executed.

 

Just a guess here, but I'd say your age is probably under 30.

 

Of course, this whole matter is ABSOLUTELY due to political correctness run amok. Here in the USA, we have evolved into a pathetic, whining society, where tiny percentages of people are "offended" by WORDS or SYMBOLS, and somehow, some way, the majority of people who laugh & scoff at their being "offended", end up capitulating to these "offended" cry babies. For those of us over 40, it's a joke, but partly our own faults for not being strong and standing up to these ridiculous, idiotic, NON-IMPORTANT issues, and telling the "offendees" to FOAD, Get a Life, Grow a Spine, STFU, and Go Away.

 

The reality is that you can ALWAYS find SOME people who are "offended" by a certain word or symbol.

 

And oh btw, just like ghetto dwellers and rappers who use the N-word, as noted earlier, it's "OK" for Indians to use the "Redskin" term, right?

 

Seriously, the time & energy & money wasted on this whole matter is mind boggling.

[Beerball]

Just a guess here, but I'd say your age is probably under 30.

 

Of course, this whole matter is ABSOLUTELY due to political correctness run amok. Here in the USA, we have evolved into a pathetic, whining society, where tiny percentages of people are "offended" by WORDS or SYMBOLS, and somehow, some way, the majority of people who laugh & scoff at their being "offended", end up capitulating to these "offended" cry babies. For those of us over 40, it's a joke, but partly our own faults for not being strong and standing up to these ridiculous, idiotic, NON-IMPORTANT issues, and telling the "offendees" to FOAD, Get a Life, Grow a Spine, STFU, and Go Away.

 

The reality is that you can ALWAYS find SOME people who are "offended" by a certain word or symbol.

 

And oh btw, just like ghetto dwellers and rappers who use the N-word, as noted earlier, it's "OK" for Indians to use the "Redskin" term, right?

 

Seriously, the time & energy & money wasted on this whole matter is mind boggling.

I'm well over 30. As much as people love to trot out the PC moniker this is about doing the right thing. Maybe I'm showing my age by saying that, but it is the way I was raised. You'll couch this in your PC political speak and talk about the "N" word and believe that if someone uses it everyone should use it. Quit getting lost in the muck. It is the right thing to do or it is not. (&, I know that this is hard for you to understand...not all blacks who use the "N" word live in ghettos...)

[Captain Caveman]

Seriously, the time & energy & money wasted on this whole matter is mind boggling.

 

Seriously, the time & energy & money wasted defending this whole matter is mind boggling.

[Dorkington]

It's quite sad that people are still defending this term.

[A Dog Named Kelso]

We don't have to determine anything. That's not our job and it's not our decision to make. It's Snyder's, so long as he owns the team. The NFL certainly can pressure him to change it if the public outcry hurts their collective bottom line, they could force a change but even then it's not our decision to make. Team names change all the time, who really cares what the team is called?

 

Which is the point. I'm not a Native American, I don't have a dog in this fight (#MikeVick) who am I to tell a Native American what he or she can or cannot be offended by? If the name is offensive to any portion of the Native American population it should be enough to make those outside their community pause and consider. We don't need to find some mathematical formula to determine the tipping point, certainly not as outsiders. The notion that we could even presume to have that kind of insight is downright absurd.

 

The fact that a few people on here are expending so much energy defending the 'tradition' of a name -- presumably of a franchise they aren't fans of considering the location of this thread -- should ask themselves why they care so much. Is it really about the tradition of the name or is it about protecting their own world view? Based on the passion displayed by the defenders, I'd wager the answer to that one is the later.

 

Which is why their arguments are weak and invalid ultimately.

 

Obviously we do not have to; however, neither does Snyder the native American leadership does. I do not care what the name of the teams is called, just look at the New Orleans and Charlotte NBA teams to see it hardly matters.

 

Let's say for argument's sake that only 40% find the term racist and offensive. Let's say there are "only" 1.2 million people in this country who associate the word with the attempted genocide that our government committed against their ancestors. Because they are not the majority, their opinion should be dismissed?

 

I would say given the numbers in your argument they should have waited to bring forth a complaint. That it should be an internal debate inside the group until they formed a broader consensus. The minority should not dictate to an outside faction its views, it may illuminate the issue but it should be the majority that proceeds.

 

Now one can say that this is not how real changes occurs, and I would agree. As an example, if this country waited for a majority of citizens to become comfortable with civil rights laws they may not have become a reality. So, a similar situation could be used where their elected leaders(if that group is more than 50% in agreement, which could mean far less than your number of 1.3 million agree) it should be deemed offensive.

 

So is the Ad created by the majority of those leaders?

 

I will say that I think the energy could be spent on more concrete issues facing Native Americans, but I covered that in an earlier post.

Edited June 13, 2014 by A Dog Named Kelso

[Rocky Landing]

It's Snyder's team, and as a private owner, it's within his prerogative whether he wants to change the name. Unless TV lost advertisers, and fans stopped going to games, what does he care about a PC issue. I don't have a strong opinion as I can see both sides. I remember down in Tallahasee there was a PC debate on the Indian coming out before games, the Tomahawk chop, etc.

 

It was the Seminole tribe that pressured the State Legislature as well as the NCAA to back off. They were proud of their representation. I've heard the argument on the radio from a couple of Indian Chielfs interviewed on NFL Radio (it's been a couple of months) that do not want a name change, because slowly in the US, the Indian influence on culture is going away. They stated they see the names like Redskins, Indians, Chiefs, and so on keeps the Indian footprint on our American culture alive.

 

The bottom line is I don't see Snyder losing out financially on maintaining the name so he'll wait it out, and it will go away. Just a guess.

I would have agreed with you, until I saw that this ad was appearing on prime time during an NBA final. I'm not sure if they aired the entire two minute spot (that's a long commercial!) or if was paired down to a minute, or 30 seconds, but regardless, the NCAI spent a significant amount of money. I doubt they're going to back off. Edited June 13, 2014 by Rocky Landing

[Captain Caveman]

So is the Ad created by the majority of those leaders?

 

Yes.

 

http://www.ncai.org/about-ncai

 

I will say that I think the energy could be spent on more concrete issues facing Native Americans, but I covered that in an earlier post.

 

I will say that energy can be and is spent on more than this one issue. This is the one that people are actively fighting against, so it becomes more visible.

Edited June 13, 2014 by Captain Caveman

[Rocky Landing]

Obviously we do not have to; however, neither does Snyder the native American leadership does. I do not care what the name of the teams is called, just look at the New Orleans and Charlotte NBA teams to see it hardly matters.

 

 

 

I would say given the numbers in your argument they should have waited to bring forth a complaint. That it should be an internal debate inside the group until they formed a broader consensus. The minority should not dictate to an outside faction its views, it may illuminate the issue but it should be the majority that proceeds.

 

Now one can say that this is not how real changes occurs, and I would agree. As an example, if this country waited for a majority of citizens to become comfortable with civil rights laws they may not have become a reality. So, a similar situation could be used where their elected leaders(if that group is more than 50% in agreement, which could mean far less than your number of 1.3 million agree) it should be deemed offensive.

 

So is the Ad created by the majority of those leaders?

 

I will say that I think the energy could be spent on more concrete issues facing Native Americans, but I covered that in an earlier post.

This has been an argument against a name change: are there enough Native Americans offended to warrant a name change, and how many is enough? Well, the National Congress of American Indians is, by far, the largest, oldest, and most recognized Native American organization there is. Their membership includes several hundred tribes. If they can't represent Native American issues, then who, on God's green earth, can?

 

Here's a link to their website, for anyone who cares: http://www.ncai.org

[A Dog Named Kelso]

Yes.

 

http://www.ncai.org/about-ncai

 

This has been an argument against a name change: are there enough Native Americans offended to warrant a name change, and how many is enough? Well, the National Congress of American Indians is, by far, the largest, oldest, and most recognized Native American organization there is. Their membership includes several hundred tribes. If they can't represent Native American issues, then who, on God's green earth, can?

 

Here's a link to their website, for anyone who cares: http://www.ncai.org

 

So if one had followed this on going discussion I would find it very hard for them to determine that the name is not offensive. And that the reasoning that it is only PC is not correct.

 

While my earlier statement that the organization could use and education campaign still has viability, as I stated earlier, I think now it will look more reactionary then anything else. Had it been conceived and executed before this ad going out and the politicians getting involved it could have been received in a positive light.

[John in Jax]

This has been an argument against a name change: are there enough Native Americans offended to warrant a name change, and how many is enough?

 

It may be an argument by a very small percentage of people, but the OWNER, and his players, and an overwhelming majority of Redskin fans, DO NOT see the team's name as "racist", or disrespectful, or insulting. Actually, THEY think it is honorable, good, and complimentary to native Americans, and THAT is their argument for keeping it. Do you really think that if some (legitimate) polls emerged that showed that a majority of Indians....let's say 60%....wanted to change the name, all of a sudden Redskin Nation & Snyder would just succumb? Get real. LOL

 

The argument you cite above may be the argument of the PC crowd, liberal media hacks, and other NON-interested parties, but it IS NOT the argument (for keeping the name) of the group I cite above.

 

Seriously, the time & energy & money wasted defending this whole matter is mind boggling.

 

Takes very little time & energy to post on message boards, or for those who are talking heads on TV, open their mouths and express an opinion. And I know of no one who is spending money "defending" this matter.

 

They have a similar matter in much of the south, when it comes to the Confederate flag. And sadly, the small, vocal minority, and the liberals in power, are winning many of those battles too. They recently changed the name of a high school here in Jax, because people thought (and they were WRONG) that the person it was named for (Nathan B. Forrest) was a KKK founder. An overwhelming number of both alumni AND community members did NOT want the name changed, but the liberal school board administrators told them "eff you", we know what's best, and we'll do what we want.

[Deranged Rhino]

Just a guess here, but I'd say your age is probably under 30.

 

...

Like everything else in your post, you are incorrect.

 

Again, think of the balls it takes for you to sit here and lecture someone else on what they can or cannot be offended by. That's the height of arrogance and makes for a weak, emotional argument that has no merit.

 

Seriously, the time & energy & money wasted on this whole matter is mind boggling.

 

Again, this just shows how out of touch you are with reality. One would think that the amount of time (decades now) and money spent by those offended by the name would indicate just how much this means to them. But because you find it silly, it must be silly, right? You decide what is offensive for everyone because you, John in Jax, are the voice of reason in this crazy world.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Energizer Bunny eat your heart out.

 

:-)

[Beerball]

It may be an argument by a very small percentage of people, but the OWNER, and his players, and an overwhelming majority of Redskin fans, DO NOT see the team's name as "racist", or disrespectful, or insulting. Actually, THEY think it is honorable, good, and complimentary to native Americans, and THAT is their argument for keeping it. Do you really think that if some (legitimate) polls emerged that showed that a majority of Indians....let's say 60%....wanted to change the name, all of a sudden Redskin Nation & Snyder would just succumb? Get real. LOL

 

The argument you cite above may be the argument of the PC crowd, liberal media hacks, and other NON-interested parties, but it IS NOT the argument (for keeping the name) of the group I cite above.

 

 

 

Takes very little time & energy to post on message boards, or for those who are talking heads on TV, open their mouths and express an opinion. And I know of no one who is spending money "defending" this matter.

 

They have a similar matter in much of the south, when it comes to the Confederate flag. And sadly, the small, vocal minority, and the liberals in power, are winning many of those battles too. They recently changed the name of a high school here in Jax, because people thought (and they were WRONG) that the person it was named for (Nathan B. Forrest) was a KKK founder. An overwhelming number of both alumni AND community members did NOT want the name changed, but the liberal school board administrators told them "eff you", we know what's best, and we'll do what we want.

You have an extremely narrow view of the world, or so it appears by reading what you write.

[Dirtbag]

Again, think of the balls it takes for you to sit here and lecture someone else on what they can or cannot be offended by. That's the height of arrogance and makes for a weak, emotional argument that has no merit.

his notion that it's up to the people using the rascist term to determine whether or not their target should be offended is so ludicrous that i have to believe he's just trolling at this point. then again, i'm one of those pc, bleeding heart, media-loving liberals who would probably start whining if they named the local grammar school after a kkk grand wizard so what do i know?

Edited June 13, 2014 by Dirtbag

[Hplarrm]

 

 

We don't have to determine anything. That's not our job and it's not our decision to make. It's Snyder's, so long as he owns the team. The NFL certainly can pressure him to change it if the public outcry hurts their collective bottom line, they could force a change but even then it's not our decision to make. Team names change all the time, who really cares what the team is called?

 

Which is the point. I'm not a Native American, I don't have a dog in this fight (#MikeVick) who am I to tell a Native American what he or she can or cannot be offended by? If the name is offensive to any portion of the Native American population it should be enough to make those outside their community pause and consider. We don't need to find some mathematical formula to determine the tipping point, certainly not as outsiders. The notion that we could even presume to have that kind of insight is downright absurd.

 

The fact that a few people on here are expending so much energy defending the 'tradition' of a name -- presumably of a franchise they aren't fans of considering the location of this thread -- should ask themselves why they care so much. Is it really about the tradition of the name or is it about protecting their own world view? Based on the passion displayed by the defenders, I'd wager the answer to that one is the later.

 

Which is why their arguments are weak and invalid ultimately.

 

I think you are wrong if your conclusion is that it is all up to Snyder. If I had to place a bet on who is in charge if the choice is between 1 billionaire Snyder) versus multiple billionaires (the other owners) then the smart money is on the multiple billionaires.

 

The key to figuring out who wins any dispute over the Deadskins name is actually one about what the broad range of owners judge makes them the most $. Ultimately our experience shows us that it is actually what the TV nets which provide the individual team owners with billions that dictates what happens.

 

A simple case which showed this was the recent NBA kerfluffle in involving Donald Sterling. An individual owner was forced to sell his team.

 

If you want toclaim that this is the NBA and not the NFL, merely look at the current CBA where NFLPA head Gene Upshaw publicly dictated that players must receive over 60% of the gross receipts. So it was.

 

If the players or some other force gets serious about pushing the owners around then the owners will simply be pushed around.

[SRQ_BillsFan]

Can't say I honestly care one way or another, I am in the middle. I know that without a doubt my view of the world is small, but I have never ever heard the word used in a deragative sense except in a 1950's black and white movie. I have heard the word "Torry" used as well to negatively hurt someone loyal to England in the 1700's. Has it's use as a slur perhaps passed?

 

I have heard people called a "savage" or a "dirty" or "drunkin Indian" but since I work in IT I am never sure about which type of Indian, Indian even refers to?

 

Never have I ever heard two people going at it use this term. So I ask the question (from a truly innocent point of view) ... how many of us have actually heard this term used as a slur?

 

I realize even if no one here ever has that it does not make it right. We have all heard other slurs, but truly, this one?

 

Other than in a bad movie.

 

Apologies if I have offended anyone on the right, left, or in the middle.

 

.

Edited June 13, 2014 by SRQ_BillsFan

[hondo in seattle]

Just a guess here, but I'd say your age is probably under 30.

 

Of course, this whole matter is ABSOLUTELY due to political correctness run amok. Here in the USA, we have evolved into a pathetic, whining society, where tiny percentages of people are "offended" by WORDS or SYMBOLS, and somehow, some way, the majority of people who laugh & scoff at their being "offended", end up capitulating to these "offended" cry babies. For those of us over 40, it's a joke, but partly our own faults for not being strong and standing up to these ridiculous, idiotic, NON-IMPORTANT issues, and telling the "offendees" to FOAD, Get a Life, Grow a Spine, STFU, and Go Away.

 

The reality is that you can ALWAYS find SOME people who are "offended" by a certain word or symbol.

 

And oh btw, just like ghetto dwellers and rappers who use the N-word, as noted earlier, it's "OK" for Indians to use the "Redskin" term, right?

 

Seriously, the time & energy & money wasted on this whole matter is mind boggling.

 

 

I don't see this as political correctness run amok. Names matter. Labels matter.

 

My dad fought in WWII. His generation used words like "Kraut" and "Jap" to refer to their enemies. I fought in Desert Storm where many of our soldiers called our enemy, "rag-heads." It's easier to kill an enemy you have first demeaned. None of us wanted to kill "Mo" who had a wife and three children waiting for his return back in Baghdad, but we didn't mind killing rag-heads.

 

It's not just political correctness to avoid using works like "Sp*c," "N*gger," K*ke," "Go*k," "Redskin" and so on. The more we use pejorative labels (and, yes, many find the "Redskin" name pejorative), the more likely we are to mistreat the group so labelled.

 

Mexican farm workers used to be called, "migrant workers." Now the people in favor of deporting them label them, "illegal aliens." This is no accidental change of verbiage. It's hard to be in favor of deporting a family of migrant workers. It's much easier to get behind deporting illegal aliens.

 

A significant number of Americans feel the word "Redskin" is demeaning and racist. As such it promotes certain negative behaviors and mindsets in certain people. America becomes a better place for everyone when the pejorative labeling stops. Change the name!

 

Confucius observed: "A superior man, in regard to what he does not know, shows a cautious reserve. He knows if names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success... Therefore a superior man considers it necessary that the names he uses may be spoken appropriately."

[FireChan]

Rocky, why don't you protest the regular use of the "N-word" by a significant population of the US? I assure you, it's used much more on a daily basis and had negative connotations more recently than "Redskin."

[hondo in seattle]

 

...

 

Would really like to see a source on this. But as I said earlier, NON-interested parties hold WAY LESS weight than: the owner & his management team, the players, and the loyal Redskin fans. Idiot Americans are gullible & stupid, and are easily swept up in to supporting things they know nothing about, and have no interest in.

 

Here are two interesting sources...

 

The National Congress of American Indians represents, I believe, about 3/4 of the Indian tribes in American and they are vociferous in their condemnation of the name. That suggests a "significant number" are offended by the name as I asserted earlier.

 

And the Oneida Nation did a poll just released asking people in the Washington area if American Indians have a right to feel offended if called "redskin." 52% said yes.

 

You're right, Dan Snyder and most white folks don't have a problem with the name. But even Miriam Webster dictionary says the usage of "redskin" is "usually offensive." The Cambridge online dictionary says it's "offensive." WordNet's online dictionary defines Redskin as an "offensive term for Native Americans

(Synonyms: Injun, red man)." Dictionary.com says the term is "often disparaging and offensive." The MacMillan Dictionary says it's "offensive." Et cetera...

"Redskin" - by definition - is offensive.

Can you imagine if all NFL teams had names like this;

Houston Spics

Buffalo Honkies

Detroit Darkies

New York Kikes

Etc.

 

I get that "redskin" isn't offensive to every American or even every American Indian. But it clearly offends some and I don't think those offended are unreasonable. And I think the more we stay away from racial epithets, the better our society will become. It's simple. Names that promote unity and pride are good. Names that promote racial stereotyping and divisiveness are bad.

[Deranged Rhino]

You're pretty funny; you should contact The Tonight Show, maybe Fallon needs another writer.

They cannot afford my quote.

 

So I'm all wrong, but you're 100% correct in all your bloviating, right? But funny thing is, I'M WITH THE MAJORITY here.

 

You're wrong not because you stand with the majority but because you fail to grasp what the other side's argument even is. Instead you dismiss it as phony because you do not agree with it and fall back on an emotional argument that has no merit or relevance to the situation.

 

You seem to have missed the MAIN POINT here, so I will repeat it:

 

I did not miss your main point, it's just irrelevant. Like most of your posts in this thread thus far.

Edited June 13, 2014 by GreggyT

[Rocky Landing]

Rocky, why don't you protest the regular use of the "N-word" by a significant population of the US? I assure you, it's used much more on a daily basis and had negative connotations more recently than "Redskin."

Who says I'm protesting anything? We're debating here. And, if there was a team called the Hoboken Ni**ers, with a long history of "honoring African Americans," we'd probably be in agreement that it should be changed.

[FireChan]

Who says I'm protesting anything? We're debating here. And, if there was a team called the Hoboken Ni**ers, with a long history of "honoring African Americans," we'd probably be in agreement that it should be changed.

 

How do you feel about the common use of the N-word?

[billsfan1959]

Would really like to see a source on this. But as I said earlier, NON-interested parties hold WAY LESS weight than: the owner & his management team, the players, and the loyal Redskin fans. Idiot Americans are gullible & stupid, and are easily swept up in to supporting things they know nothing about, and have no interest in.

 

Actually, many of us who feel that the name is offensive are informed, educated, critically thinking, rational adults.

[Deranged Rhino]

How do you feel about the common use of the N-word?

 

This has nothing to do with the issue of the topic. Absolutely nothing at all. But thanks for demonstrating the mindset of those who are so passionate about defending the name of a sports team they don't even root for. You've done this board a great service.

[Pondslider]

 

 

 

I don't see this as political correctness run amok. Names matter. Labels matter.

 

My dad fought in WWII. His generation used words like "Kraut" and "Jap" to refer to their enemies. I fought in Desert Storm where many of our soldiers called our enemy, "rag-heads." It's easier to kill an enemy you have first demeaned. None of us wanted to kill "Mo" who had a wife and three children waiting for his return back in Baghdad, but we didn't mind killing rag-heads.

 

It's not just political correctness to avoid using works like "Sp*c," "N*gger," K*ke," "Go*k," "Redskin" and so on. The more we use pejorative labels (and, yes, many find the "Redskin" name pejorative), the more likely we are to mistreat the group so labelled.

 

Mexican farm workers used to be called, "migrant workers." Now the people in favor of deporting them label them, "illegal aliens." This is no accidental change of verbiage. It's hard to be in favor of deporting a family of migrant workers. It's much easier to get behind deporting illegal aliens.

 

A significant number of Americans feel the word "Redskin" is demeaning and racist. As such it promotes certain negative behaviors and mindsets in certain people. America becomes a better place for everyone when the pejorative labeling stops. Change the name!

 

Confucius observed: "A superior man, in regard to what he does not know, shows a cautious reserve. He knows if names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success... Therefore a superior man considers it necessary that the names he uses may be spoken appropriately."

 

This is such a good post.

[FireChan]

 

 

This has nothing to do with the issue of the topic. Absolutely nothing at all. But thanks for demonstrating the mindset of those who are so passionate about defending the name of a sports team they don't even root for. You've done this board a great service.

 

It's actually a set up for the name debate. Don't worry, it'll all make sense in a second.

Edited June 14, 2014 by FireChan

[Deranged Rhino]

It's actually a set up for the name debate. Don't worry, it'll all make sense in a second.

No, it doesn't matter. It makes no difference. Bringing that into the debate only clouds the issue even more than it's already being clouded.

[FireChan]

No, it doesn't matter. It makes no difference. Bringing that into the debate only clouds the issue even more than it's already being clouded.

 

Yes it does. Hold on though, I have something that's been bugging me.

 

This has nothing to do with the issue of the topic. Absolutely nothing at all. But thanks for demonstrating the mindset of those who are so passionate about defending the name of a sports team they don't even root for. You've done this board a great service.

 

Are you insinuating I shouldn't defend a team I don't root for? Under that logic, you shouldn't defend Native Americans because you aren't one.

 

Now onto the cloudiness of this debate.

 

All across America, a distinct population of blacks use the N-word to each other in a greeting or companionship way. How can someone be alright with that, yet condemn Snyder with regards to the Redskins name?

 

I'll break it down.

 

-both have negative connotations

-both are used with an intent completely separate from their historic context

-both intents are complimentary or friendly

 

So this begs the question, what is different? For one, I suppose you could say that Snyder is white. But does that mean if he was a Native, the name would be fine? Is that how words work, they depend on the color of the speaker's skin? Sounds like racism to me.

 

Secondly, you could say that Snyder owns a business with the name, and that somehow makes it worse. So owning a business called the Washington Ni**** is objectively worse than saying Ni**** on the street? How so?

 

And thirdly, Rocky's favorite defense, "it's in our nation's capital." A laughable point. As if the "Seattle Redskins" would be less offensive or abhorrent. I guess taking offense is based off geography.

[John in Jax]

A significant number of Americans feel the word "Redskin" is demeaning and racist.

 

I'm gonna try this again, because it appears that someone deleted one of my posts from earlier today, btw, with NO reason given.

 

You say this above, then cite surveys from strictly Indians. Do you see the problem? Are there any surveys of a cross section of ALL Americans that show how they feel?

 

As I've stated many times now, an overwhelming majority of Redskin fans have no problem with it, the players have no problem with it, and of course you know how the owner/managers of the team feel about it.

[billsfan1959]

Yes it does. Hold on though, I have something that's been bugging me.

 

 

 

Are you insinuating I shouldn't defend a team I don't root for? Under that logic, you shouldn't defend Native Americans because you aren't one.

 

Now onto the cloudiness of this debate.

 

All across America, a distinct population of blacks use the N-word to each other in a greeting or companionship way. How can someone be alright with that, yet condemn Snyder with regards to the Redskins name?

 

I'll break it down.

 

-both have negative connotations

-both are used with an intent completely separate from their historic context

-both intents are complimentary or friendly

 

So this begs the question, what is different? For one, I suppose you could say that Snyder is white. But does that mean if he was a Native, the name would be fine? Is that how words work, they depend on the color of the speaker's skin? Sounds like racism to me.

 

Secondly, you could say that Snyder owns a business with the name, and that somehow makes it worse. So owning a business called the Washington Ni**** is objectively worse than saying Ni**** on the street? How so?

 

And thirdly, Rocky's favorite defense, "it's in our nation's capital." A laughable point. As if the "Seattle Redskins" would be less offensive or abhorrent. I guess taking offense is based off geography.

 

1. Individuals within any given minority population that choose to address each other in offensive ways on an individual basis is far different than a business that chooses to use an offensive label for an entire population.

 

2. The name would be offensive in Washington, DC, or Seattle, WA. The fact that Washington, DC, happens to be the capital of a nation whose foundation rests on the concept of equality and that prides itself on being a "melting pot" only serves to heighten its offensiveness.

[billsfan1959]

I'm gonna try this again, because it appears that someone deleted one of my posts from earlier today, btw, with NO reason given.

 

You say this above, then cite surveys from strictly Indians. Do you see the problem? Are there any surveys of a cross section of ALL Americans that show how they feel?

 

As I've stated many times now, an overwhelming majority of Redskin fans have no problem with it, the players have no problem with it, and of course you know how the owner/managers of the team feel about it.

 

Yes you have stated it many times. We get it. (1) The people who the label does not apply to are not offended by the label. (2) Regardless of whether or not the people it actually applies to are offended, if the majority of all other people are not offended then there is no problem.

 

 

 

Goodbye

[Rocky Landing]

How do you feel about the common use of the N-word?

Are you really trying to bait me into drawing a false comparison to the N-word by drawing your own false comparison to the N-word? I expect more from you. Edited June 14, 2014 by Rocky Landing

[Beerball]

I'm gonna try this again, because it appears that someone deleted one of my posts from earlier today, btw, with NO reason given.

check your warning points for the reasons

[Captain Caveman]

Someone else is doing something that seems like it might be wrong, so everybody can do other stuff that is wrong.

[FireChan]

Are you really trying to bait me into drawing a false comparison to the N-word by drawing your own false comparison to the N-word? I expect more from you.

 

No. I've already decided (as I'm sure you have also) that no one is going to convince another. However, contradictions in moral situations DO exist, for whatever reason.

 

I'm the first to admit it. I don't think blacks using the n-word is a big deal at all. In fact, I think the "Redskins" argument has a lot more weight. But in reality, they are very similar. For whatever reason, they are on different levels and I wanted to hear your opinion.

 

 

 

1. Individuals within any given minority population that choose to address each other in offensive ways on an individual basis is far different than a business that chooses to use an offensive label for an entire population.

 

2. The name would be offensive in Washington, DC, or Seattle, WA. The fact that Washington, DC, happens to be the capital of a nation whose foundation rests on the concept of equality and that prides itself on being a "melting pot" only serves to heighten its offensiveness.

 

1. Why? Give me your reasons. The N-word is derogatory to an entire population btw.

 

2. That was for Rocky. It's not really a point.

[A Dog Named Kelso]

I'm gonna try this again, because it appears that someone deleted one of my posts from earlier today, btw, with NO reason given.

 

You say this above, then cite surveys from strictly Indians. Do you see the problem? Are there any surveys of a cross section of ALL Americans that show how they feel?

 

As I've stated many times now, an overwhelming majority of Redskin fans have no problem with it, the players have no problem with it, and of course you know how the owner/managers of the team feel about it.

 

It is irrelevant what the fans or cross section of americans think. What is relevant is what native americans think. That is the point. If it offensive to those which word is describing(and it appears to be if you have followed the discussion), it is offensive. If the word is offensive then having a name that uses that word is offensive regardless of how the fans, owner or cross-section of american think.

[billsfan1959]

No. I've already decided (as I'm sure you have also) that no one is going to convince another. However, contradictions in moral situations DO exist, for whatever reason.

 

I'm the first to admit it. I don't think blacks using the n-word is a big deal at all. In fact, I think the "Redskins" argument has a lot more weight. But in reality, they are very similar. For whatever reason, they are on different levels and I wanted to hear your opinion.

 

 

 

1. Why? Give me your reasons. The N-word is derogatory to an entire population btw.

 

2. That was for Rocky. It's not really a point.

 

Of course the N-word is derogatory to an entire population. That isn't the point. The point is your example is irrelevant to the present debate. What people say to each other on an individual basis is not the same as an organization, a business, etc. using derogatory terms. If you wanted to provide an example of a business using the N-word in its name, then you would be providing an example that is relevant. And you would probably agree that it shouldn't be used - much like the term "Redskins" shouldn't be used. I really don't think I should have to provide any more reasons or any further explanation. It really is pretty obvious.