C.Biscuit97 Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 FWIW - this topic is being discussed on NFL Radio this morning on Ross Tucker's two shows. The overwhelming majority seem to take the side of not changing the name. Mostly, politically motivated, etc. Not my opinion, but if you want to chime in, call into the show. I'm sure it is a very diverse group that is calling into a sports radio show. Good representation of the population. there is no talking with you people you just flat out shameful or just wishing to be adversarial for the sake of it .... and dont give me the superior intellect crap, it a shameful name and it will be changed Well said. I wonder want would happen if some of these "sticks and stones" posters had their pictures as their avatars. Just a hunch, I'm guessing there not all Brad Pitts or George Clooneys. A lot easier to tell other groups to suck it up when you don't have to worry about being insulted yourself. Again, if something offends millions of people, why do some feel the need to fight to keep the offensive word? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Then Baxter Holmes is an ignoramus. Perhaps you didn't see my post on the previous page. Unlike a ignorant Boston Celtics beat writer for The Boston Globe, Goddard is an Indian language scholar at the Smithsonian Institution. A small quote from Goddard's paper: I know this may come as a surprise to those who get their history lessons from sports writers that the first documented use of the term "redskins" comes from native Americans. In fact Goddard opens up the paper by dispelling the scalp myth: This will come as a surprise to those who get their history from NFL team press releases, but Goddard's report has been thoroughly disproved in a subsequent report by the very same institution that Goddard wrote his for: the Smithsonian. And it doesn't matter who coined the name first. Language, and people's opinions and interpretations of it, changes over time. In a civil rights speech, JFK used the term "negroes." When's the last time you heard a politician use that word? And the reason why? Because it is now deemed offensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Biscuit97 Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 This will come as a surprise to those who get their history from NFL team press releases, but Goddard's report has been thoroughly disproved in a subsequent report by the very same institution that Goddard wrote his for: the Smithsonian. And it doesn't matter who coined the name first. Language, and people's opinions and interpretations of it, changes over time. In a civil rights speech, JFK used the term "negroes." When's the last time you heard a politician use that word? And the reason why? Because it is now deemed offensive. But I'm not Native American and the word doesn't bother me. They need to suck it up and people need to mind their own business. You don't see people in Texas complaining about the offensive Texans name do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 But I'm not Native American and the word doesn't bother me. They need to suck it up and people need to mind their own business. You don't see people in Texas complaining about the offensive Texans name do you? Knowingly and intentionally offending others when stopping, changing, or preventing it does not infringe upon anyone else's rights (ie, people "offended" by guns, homosexuality, etc) is the dictionary definition of a d-bag. Unfortunately, they're not in short supply, and at least one of them owns an NFL team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Insight from the shoutbox: (19 June 2014 - 09:50 AM) I still have mixed feelings about the Washington Redskins situation, because I'm not sure how you can lay claim to the word redskin as indulting because its not red skins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pondslider Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Insight from the shoutbox: Clearly a Rhodes Scholar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 there is no talking with you people you just flat out shameful or just wishing to be adversarial for the sake of it .... and dont give me the superior intellect crap, it a shameful name and it will be changed Pointing out that this myth of "redskins" referring to native scalps is, in fact, complete nonsense does not defend the term "redskins." Quite the contrary - it's a request to use actual facts, and not salacious nonsense, to make your point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 This will come as a surprise to those who get their history from NFL team press releases, but Goddard's report has been thoroughly disproved in a subsequent report by the very same institution that Goddard wrote his for: the Smithsonian. And it doesn't matter who coined the name first. Language, and people's opinions and interpretations of it, changes over time. In a civil rights speech, JFK used the term "negroes." When's the last time you heard a politician use that word? And the reason why? Because it is now deemed offensive. I believe that "thoroughly disproven" is an overstatement and misrepresentative of Goddard's work. Certainly, his statements regarding scalps are in dispute, but that represents a small portion of his study, which includes well researched, and documented evidence of his history of the word. Be that as it may, by Goddard's account, regardless of the word's origin, the term had become disparaging by the early 1800s at the latest- predating the naming of the team by over 100 years. It should also be understood that Redskin press releases have often been knowingly misleading regarding the origin of the team's name, as well as the attitudes of George Preston Marshall, and supposed support from Native American communities. In my mind, lying about your own organization's history in an attempt to seize some moral high ground excludes you from that high ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 I believe that "thoroughly disproven" is an overstatement and misrepresentative of Goddard's work. Certainly, his statements regarding scalps are in dispute, but that represents a small portion of his study, which includes well researched, and documented evidence of his history of the word. Be that as it may, by Goddard's account, regardless of the word's origin, the term had become disparaging by the early 1800s at the latest- predating the naming of the team by over 100 years. It should also be understood that Redskin press releases have often been knowingly misleading regarding the origin of the team's name, as well as the attitudes of George Preston Marshall, and supposed support from Native American communities. In my mind, lying about your own organization's history in an attempt to seize some moral high ground excludes you from that high ground. Great point here. I don't know why anyone would knowingly choose to honor the memory of an avowed racist like George Preston Marshall. I'd want nothing to do with it, personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 (edited) Edited June 19, 2014 by Buftex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Seattle Times announced today that it will no longer use the R Word in it's newspaper. It will simply refer to Synder's team as Washington. No mention of a the nick name. It's only a matter of time ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 http://www.theonion.com/articles/report-redskins-name-only-offensive-if-you-think-a,33449/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 How it lasted this long is beyond me. What other team uses an official slur as defined by the standard dictionary? Now, there were images and logos that were looked upon as slurs & charactures. Chief Wahoo comes to mind, hasn't that been changed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pondslider Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 http://www.theonion.com/articles/report-redskins-name-only-offensive-if-you-think-a,33449/ "Washington Racist !@#$s" /signed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 How it lasted this long is beyond me. What other team uses an official slur as defined by the standard dictionary? Yankees. Reds. (Seriously...I'm not complaining about them, but they are classified as "derogatory" in the OED). And then, of course, the Atlanta Thrashers were named for people who whipped slaves... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 (edited) Yankees. Reds. (Seriously...I'm not complaining about them, but they are classified as "derogatory" in the OED). And then, of course, the Atlanta Thrashers were named for people who whipped slaves... That's not true. While Yankee is derogatory, we use as a badge of pride, symbolizing our.... oh. I'm sure it is a very diverse group that is calling into a sports radio show. Good representation of the population. Yeah, the radio is only available to the "haves," not the "have nots." I'm going to assume you're white, so how old til I can disregard everything you say and chalk it up to "old, white men?" I hope it's soon. Edited June 19, 2014 by FireChan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Biscuit97 Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Yankees. Reds. (Seriously...I'm not complaining about them, but they are classified as "derogatory" in the OED). And then, of course, the Atlanta Thrashers were named for people who whipped slaves... I'm assuming you're just joking with this. The Reds were shorten from Red Stockings, the Thrashers were named after the Georgia state bird, and the Yankees were originally the Highlanders but it got changed because some Irish people didn't like it. (Too Scottish). http://www.baseball-fever.com/archive/index.php/t-64650.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Yeah, the radio is only available to the "haves," not the "have nots." Radio callers are a self-selecting sample, hence not a valid statistical measure of anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Biscuit97 Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 That's not true. While Yankee is derogatory, we use as a badge of pride, symbolizing our.... oh. Yeah, the radio is only available to the "haves," not the "have nots." I'm going to assume you're white, so how old til I can disregard everything you say and chalk it up to "old, white men?" I hope it's soon. Do you really not believe the vast majority of sports radio callers aren't white men? And I'm 33 but I guess I just grew up differently than some. I grew up in a racially mixed neighborhood. My parents raised me to respect everyone. Just because a certain word isn't meant to offend me, I shouldn't use it if it offends someone else. What would be the worst thing to happen to this world if people stopping using slurs or other offensive words? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malazan Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 (edited) Using the same logic the USPTO applied in the Redskins case, the NAACP and United Negro College Fund should be forced to give up their trademarks as well. And while not trademarked per se, I assume the State of Oklahoma will now be considering renaming itself. After all, Oklahoma means "Red Man" in Choctaw... Then there's FAG, a mark for "lubricating oils and greases." Yep. The mark is registered and is not pending cancelation. This is not offensive according to the USPTO. Stinky Gringo is the valid trademark for a type of premixed alcoholic cocktail. And one more direclty analogous to the Redskins: RedMan is a mark registered for chewing tobacco, complete with Indian logo. It is a national brand, and the mark, far from being canceled, has been renewed without a hitch. And then there's registered marks "NewsWhore", "Bitches Bash", "Creepy-Ass Cracka", and "Suck It", all of which enjoy good standing at the USPTO. But Redskins? No, that's offensive and has to go. The Redskins should be renamed, but the USPTO is not the appropriate place to try to legislate them into changing. What would be the worst thing to happen to this world if people stopping using slurs or other offensive words? It would be a bleak, dark place if we legislated whether or not people could use language someone deems offensive. Even if it is the majority that deems it offensive. Edited June 19, 2014 by jeremy2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts