FireChan Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 Obviously, I think that "redskin" is a derogatory word for Native American. And dyke isn't derogatory for lesbian? The Logo says no. Do you say no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 And dyke isn't derogatory for lesbian? Who knew? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 (edited) The Logo says no. Didn't the logo used to be just an arrow and an R in the circle with feathers. ?? Edited June 21, 2014 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drewgetz Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 Shame what this country (world) is coming to. Since there is an unlimited amount of stuff to complain about it, there will be unlimited amount of people sitting comfortably to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowery4 Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 @DC Tom and Beerball, I read through this and honestly can't really pin point which side of the issue you 2 come down on. I think you both make good points for both sides. That said, I do think the government IS acting in a couple of ways, this patent action and a while back the was a discussion in either the Senate or Congress, no? I think it is kind of obvious that native Americans would and in fact do take offence. If you knew some of the ones I know, you would know they do. People do die because of discrimination still, (maybe some of it is in a round about way but) it seems to me that is what hate crime and speech laws are about. I just skimmed this thread again so if I misunderstood or didn't see something I apologize in advance. And there are quite a few posters in this thread I have blocked (but when they are quoted I do see that), so if I missed something you were arguing about with one of them, sorry about that too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 (edited) Shame what this country (world) is coming to. Since there is an unlimited amount of stuff to complain about it, there will be unlimited amount of people sitting comfortably to do so. Written without a shred of irony... (...i think...) Edited June 21, 2014 by Rocky Landing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 Who knew? I guess the USPTO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 Didn't the logo used to be just an arrow and an R in the circle with feathers. ?? Here's a link with the complete history their logos: http://www.sportslogos.net/logos/list_by_team/168 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Duck Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 (edited) @DC Tom and Beerball, I read through this and honestly can't really pin point which side of the issue you 2 come down on. I think you both make good points for both sides. That said, I do think the government IS acting in a couple of ways, this patent action and a while back the was a discussion in either the Senate or Congress, no? I think it is kind of obvious that native Americans would and in fact do take offence. If you knew some of the ones I know, you would know they do. People do die because of discrimination still, (maybe some of it is in a round about way but) it seems to me that is what hate crime and speech laws are about. I just skimmed this thread again so if I misunderstood or didn't see something I apologize in advance. And there are quite a few posters in this thread I have blocked (but when they are quoted I do see that), so if I missed something you were arguing about with one of them, sorry about that too. Personally, I'm sure there are many folks who are a bit torn on the subject and could come up with good arguments for both sides of the issue, myself included. Recently I was ridiculed by another poster for bringing up the point red skin , the two words that were used to describe/insult native Americans is not the same as REDSKINS. Is the issue that simple? of course not. You could go back to an earlier thread here on TBD were I have made a much more compelling argument why Native American's would find the name insulting. I do know I will be saddened If the Redskins name is changed and can only imagine how Redskin fans must feel. So what about the peoples feelings that are hurt in this manner... Edited June 21, 2014 by Donald Duck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 @DC Tom and Beerball, I read through this and honestly can't really pin point which side of the issue you 2 come down on. I think you both make good points for both sides. That said, I do think the government IS acting in a couple of ways, this patent action and a while back the was a discussion in either the Senate or Congress, no? I think it is kind of obvious that native Americans would and in fact do take offence. If you knew some of the ones I know, you would know they do. People do die because of discrimination still, (maybe some of it is in a round about way but) it seems to me that is what hate crime and speech laws are about. I just skimmed this thread again so if I misunderstood or didn't see something I apologize in advance. And there are quite a few posters in this thread I have blocked (but when they are quoted I do see that), so if I missed something you were arguing about with one of them, sorry about that too. I try to not preach, but, I admit that I've been pretty preachy in this thread. Here's how I feel about the subject: This specific argument revolves around the use of a word (not a practice/act/law etc.) that is offensive to a segment of the population. As I said in the very first thread on this subject...I have no "right" to comment on whether the word is offensive or not. The word is not now and never has been hurled at my ancestors or myself. All I can do is ask myself two questions: Do I truly believe that a segment of the population finds the word offensive? What is the right thing for Dan Snyder to do? People obfuscating the topic by bringing in terms like PC, comparisons to Fighting Irish etc. etc. etc. are in my mind afraid to answer those two questions honestly. Instead they would rather muddy the waters, shout from the rooftops, demean, condescend & hide behind meaningless arguments etc. rather than answer two simple questions. No one on this site bemoans the "pussification" of our country more than I; this is not that. This is doing the right thing vs. doing the wrong thing. I know that is an outdated concept, but, it is one that I stand behind. I do believe that people are truly offended by the word (people that matter in this argument, Native Americans, First Peoples). The right thing for Snyder to do is change the name. This IMO has nothing to do with the patent office, it has nothing to do with politics, it has nothing to do with PC. I believe that people are bringing those elements into the argument as a crutch. I believe that a "right minded" individual when looking at this can come to only one conclusion, change the name. This is the 4th or 5th thread on this topic in the last year. I find it ironic that those arguing that the patent office has no say in the matter are the same people who argued that Washington should keep their team name in each of those previous threads. The same people are arguing the same side of the argument using different excuses based on the thread title. Funny how that works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 (edited) Here's a link with the complete history their logos: http://www.sportslogos.net/logos/list_by_team/168 Thanks! Gr8 site! One forgets that the franchise was started in Boston and moved to Washington 5 years later. The name totally has a link to its founding city. Blame it on the Boston redskin as in the Boston Teaparty... Where as the white colonists dressed up like natives, painted their skin red in order to hide their identity all while blaming it on the redskins. I see nothing cowardly there. Hey, it seems like a very honorable name and logo, considering the city the team got started in. What's so bad. How fitting. I try to not preach, but, I admit that I've been pretty preachy in this thread. Here's how I feel about the subject: I do believe that people are truly offended by the word (people that matter in this argument, Native Americans, First Peoples). The right thing for Snyder to do is change the name. This IMO has nothing to do with the patent office, it has nothing to do with politics, it has nothing to do with PC. I believe that people are bringing those elements into the argument as a crutch. I believe that a "right minded" individual when looking at this can come to only one conclusion, change the name. This is the 4th or 5th thread on this topic in the last year. I find it ironic that those arguing that the patent office has no say in the matter are the same people who argued that Washington should keep their team name in each of those previous threads. The same people are arguing the same side of the argument using different excuses based on the thread title. Funny how that works. Well said. I have been saying over and over again, that USPTO came to this same conclusion in 1999, it was just overturned on a technicality in 2003. Notice the alternate logos of the team... It looks like they were moving away to something new. Edited June 21, 2014 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowery4 Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 Thanks Beerball, I pretty much agree with all that you wrote there. I honestly have just a little native blood (something like a 32nd, lol) but I try not to let that part of me get involved in this argument (and I have really tried to look at it from both sides) but I do have relatives and friends who are full or at least half blooded who I have contact with that do color my perspective. I think that to honor them, one has to think it out to a conclusion like yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 I try to not preach, but, I admit that I've been pretty preachy in this thread. Here's how I feel about the subject: I do believe that people are truly offended by the word (people that matter in this argument, Native Americans, First Peoples). The right thing for Snyder to do is change the name. This IMO has nothing to do with the patent office, it has nothing to do with politics, it has nothing to do with PC. I believe that people are bringing those elements into the argument as a crutch. I believe that a "right minded" individual when looking at this can come to only one conclusion, change the name. This is the 4th or 5th thread on this topic in the last year. I find it ironic that those arguing that the patent office has no say in the matter are the same people who argued that Washington should keep their team name in each of those previous threads. The same people are arguing the same side of the argument using different excuses based on the thread title. Funny how that works. Very well said BB. When boiled down to its core elements, it just seems so simple to me. As you get into the legalities and such it can be easily mucked up with both compelling and embarrassing arguments but on the very simple point that you've used time and time again - "is it right to have a team named the redskins?" I can't find any good reasons to say "YES!" even if I can find my way to answers that Snyder should be allowed to make the wrong choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg F Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 Yes, The Annenberg Survey will most likely be ignored in this thread. It is a reputable collection of info but its 10 years old. We need a survey thats more recent. It seems that the most logical step on this issue would be to take a new survey with a larger sample size. PC's are reluctant to do so because they know the results would be hugely in favor of keeping the name. I agree a more recent survey would be desirable and I don't think the results would change dramatically. The problem that Native American proponents have with the Annenberg survey (other than the obvious fact that it doesn't fit their agenda), is that it was taken from a much broader political survey, and relied on people who self-identified as Native American. A survey taken from people who self-identified as tribal members would certainly garner a different result. Considering the survey was a "broader political survey" I believe there is less chance people self-identified as Native American to push an agenda. The results may be different but would the differences be statistically significant? Don't know. Her's a much more recent survey, although the sample size certainly does not make it definitive. http://cips.csusb.ed...ressRelease.pdf The sample size isn't the only problem with that survey (there are 562 Federally recognized native governments). The selection of the respondents ("Most of the American Indian surveys were collected at local pow-wows") is clearly not a random sample. One only has to go to a town meeting to realize these type of meetings are not attended by a representative sample of the local community. The reservation near me has an annual pow-wow that is open to the public so self-identification would still be a problem there. The survey questions are poorly constructed. For example the first statement requesting a yes or no: The Redskins team name is a racial or racist word and symbol. This is like asking 'is 1 or 2 an even number'? I would have to honestly answer yes as the Redskins name is clearly racial. That doesn't mean it's also racist. This first question bias's the rest of the survey. Here is another interesting find. Red Mesa High School is located in Red Mesa, Arizona, which is about 25 miles southwest of the Four Corners. The school is located on the Navajo Reservation and is a public school. We have nearly 100% Navajo students are coming from low-income families. Their sports teams are the Red Mesa Redskins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poo Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Written without a shred of irony... (...i think...) I'd high five you for that one if we were in the same room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Those exercising their "righteous indignation" muscles should stop and reflect for a moment that the term "Indian" is one that's abhorrent to The People. Indians are inhabitants of the Asian subcontinent. The People reject that label as an ignorant characterization by the white people and even the black-white people who stole land and practiced genocide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Duck Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Washington Redcoats Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EasternOHBillsFan Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Those exercising their "righteous indignation" muscles should stop and reflect for a moment that the term "Indian" is one that's abhorrent to The People. Indians are inhabitants of the Asian subcontinent. The People reject that label as an ignorant characterization by the white people and even the black-white people who stole land and practiced genocide. Abhorrent to the people? Ignorant characterization? Engaging in hyperbole doesn't fully explain the misnomer, it merely seeks to inflame people and to do exactly what you are railing against- ignorantly characterize Europeans through labels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Those exercising their "righteous indignation" muscles should stop and reflect for a moment that the term "Indian" is one that's abhorrent to The People. Indians are inhabitants of the Asian subcontinent. The People reject that label as an ignorant characterization by the white people and even the black-white people who stole land and practiced genocide. No. You are misguided if you believe this. The term Indian is not inherently offensive if used the right way. It was not set up as a slur, but as a misnomer. It is implied that they are American Indians. Of course it is better to use Native American or up in Canada: First Nation. The way Cleveland uses it along with its logo should be changed. They can still go by Indians, but need to scrub offensive and stereotypical logos. Abhorrent to the people? Ignorant characterization? Engaging in hyperbole doesn't fully explain the misnomer, it merely seeks to inflame people and to do exactly what you are railing against- ignorantly characterize Europeans through labels. This too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Has anyone yet brought up that it's potentially offensive because they routinely get slaughtered by the Cowboys? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts