British Lawmakers Don't Want the Redskins Playing in London

[Prickly Pete]

The British Empire was one of the most barbaric in the history of the world and now they have the gall to complain about a sports team's nickname? How about fixing some of the damage they did to nations that they occupied during the reign of the British Empire.

 

It's 2 guys, who are trying to get their names in the papers, and probably not reflective of the concerns or attitudes of most of the population (ha, maybe ANY of the rest of the population). I'm gonna guess that most couldn't give the slightest ****.

 

More over reaction to click bait...again, it's two "lawmakers", but somehow the reaction is "those damn Brits, meddling in our affairs"...silliness.

Edited February 26, 2016 by HoF Watkins

[Mr. WEO]

 

For the aggrieved parties, it has never changed regarding the derogatory meaning of the moniker. This is the crux of the matter from my POV irrespective of the intent. Snyder's attempts to associate honor with the name are comical.

 

 

Can't argue with the bolded part. But you brought up that it is intentionally malicious, and I doubt Snyder intends it in that way.

 

Many Africans Americans would find being included in groups as a "Negro" or "Colored Person" derogatory. Is it OK, though, because other African Americans have no problem continuing to name their organizations using these equally outdated/insensitive/derogatory terms?

[DriveFor1Outta5]

 

 

Can't argue with the bolded part. But you brought up that it is intentionally malicious, and I doubt Snyder intends it in that way.

 

Many Africans Americans would find being included in groups as a "Negro" or "Colored Person" derogatory. Is it OK, though, because other African Americans have no problem continuing to name their organizations using these equally outdated/insensitive/derogatory terms?

It wouldn't be ok with the masses though. One of the weird realities we face in this world is the fact that those within a group can call themselves whatever they want. The problems arise when someone from outside their group does the name calling. By no means am I stating my political view on the issue, I'm simply stating how society works. If the Redskins were a Native American group owned by Native American it might be a different story. It works this way accross the board with many races and ethnicities as well.

[Saudi Arabia Rob]

They are simply aware of American genocide..

They have the luxury of viewing the situation from a different vantage point.

Not quite sure what genocide you are talking about, the Brits systematically killed large groups of indigent groups as they colonized the world and are truly guilty of genocide in Malaysia and other pockets in the Far East. We didn't commit "genocide," our country expanded and was in conflict with the Indian culture/way of life. Call it what you want, a war, a displacement, resettlement, murder on both side, not giving a cra$ about things, but it wasn't "genocide."

[DriveFor1Outta5]

Not quite sure what genocide you are talking about, the Brits systematically killed large groups of indigent groups as they colonized the world and are truly guilty of genocide in Malaysia and other pockets in the Far East. We didn't commit "genocide," our country expanded and was in conflict with the Indian culture/way of life. Call it what you want, a war, a displacement, resettlement, murder on both side, not giving a cra$ about things, but it wasn't "genocide."

Now we're all splitting hairs. An arguement could be made that both the US and UK never comitted true genocide. An arguement could be made the other way as well. By the true definition of genocide neither country is guilty of it, but I understand how someone could disagree with that as well. The reality of the matter is that the UK is even more politically correct than the US. We have a somewhat hypocritical brand of political correctness. The mass media only cares about political correctness when it has an economic impact. When American business is hurt by slurs and things of that nature than we become concerned. For example Blacks and Hispanics play a far more vital role in the economy. Therfore we wouldn't see anything that could be perceived as a slur towards them representing a football team. That's why we will never see the San Francisco Orientals or the New Jersey Mafiosos, because it's bad for business. In Europe political correctness has more of a broad scope beyond economics. In America what's good for business is all that matters. Snyder probably doesn't lose a penny due to the team name. That's all that matters to him. Just writing this makes me think how truly ridiculous the Redskins name really is. It's not that I'm a politically correct person, it just doesn't seem consistent with the society we live in today. Further proving to me that my point is correct and it's all about the money.

[FireChan]

Ahh this topic always brings out the best in people. No matter what side you find yourself on, anyone who thinks Daniel Snyder is fighting some sort of "good fight" is seriously delusional.

The quintessential Metz post, opening with the "I'm a neutral observer" angle to appear to be playing fair and impartial, then giving the one-sided opinion right after.

[JOE IN HAMPTON ROADS]

The best part od that article is the link to "cat and pigeon battle it out in garden".

Edited February 27, 2016 by JOE IN HAMPTON ROADS

[Buffalo Barbarian]

THAT IS THE TYPICAL ENGLISH MENTALITY,, FROM the people that brought the world slavery!!

 

Slavery has been around a looooooooooong time before England

[machine gun kelly]

Not quite sure what genocide you are talking about, the Brits systematically killed large groups of indigent groups as they colonized the world and are truly guilty of genocide in Malaysia and other pockets in the Far East. We didn't commit "genocide," our country expanded and was in conflict with the Indian culture/way of life. Call it what you want, a war, a displacement, resettlement, murder on both side, not giving a cra$ about things, but it wasn't "genocide."

 

Rob, I don't have a serious problem with them name, and ultimately, it's up to Snyder whether he keeps it or not, and deals with the consequences with his decision as a private owner. As far as the US conflicts with Native Americans, it was darn close to genocide the atrocities that went on 100-160 years ago. That was a very dark time that still presents problems today. Just look at the unemployment, addiction rates, and so on with US Native American Reservations. But the glass houses argument with Britain is certainly accurate as well with the invasion of Great Britain on sovereign nations during the Colonial period.

[boater]

 

It's 2 guys, who are trying to get their names in the papers, and probably not reflective of the concerns or attitudes of most of the population (ha, maybe ANY of the rest of the population). I'm gonna guess that most couldn't give the slightest ****.

 

More over reaction to click bait...again, it's two "lawmakers", but somehow the reaction is "those damn Brits, meddling in our affairs"...silliness.

 

Yep.

 

It's two, count them, two politicians trying to make a name for themselves. People in this thread act like those two accurately represent the opinion of the entire UK. Does anyone know how to critically read the media anymore?

 

I checked Reddit and FB: most Brits are embarrassed by these two.

 

And there are Brits who participate on the Stadium Wall, they should find the simpletons in this thread to be quite offensive.

 

Cut the UK some slack. We don't have many friendly reliable allies, but the UK is one (even after BHO's snubbing of them over the past 7 years).

 

[fergie's ire]

We should change our name to the Buffalo Redskins then.

No need....I am sure our name is just about as offensive to many Native Americans as it stands.

[Prickly Pete]

 

Yep.

 

It's two, count them, two politicians trying to make a name for themselves. People in this thread act like those two accurately represent the opinion of the entire UK. Does anyone know how to critically read the media anymore?

 

I checked Reddit and FB: most Brits are embarrassed by these two.

 

And there are Brits who participate on the Stadium Wall, they should find the simpletons in this thread to be quite offensive.

 

Cut the UK some slack. We don't have many friendly reliable allies, but the UK is one (even after BHO's snubbing of them over the past 7 years).

 

 

Yeah, if Al Sharpton (*"Sharton"...ha), and Jesse Jackson release a statement about some other country, wouldn't it be ridiculous for the rest of the world to think they represented the views of US citizens in general?

 

get a grip.

Edited February 28, 2016 by HoF Watkins

[boater]

 

Yeah, if Al Sharton, and Jesse Jackson release a statement about some other country, wouldn't it be ridiculous for the rest of the world to think they represented the views of a US citizens?

 

get a grip.

Well stated. But I fear the combination tabloid media and brain dead readers = ridiculous.

[ExiledInIllinois]

 

Interesting to me is the fact that they have the Washington Warriors trademarked for potential future use. They must know that a changes is inevitable.

Will they scrub all native imagery as did the Philadelphia Warriors did when they became Golden State WAY BACK IN THE 1960's? Must have been very PC back then.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

 

Yep.

 

It's two, count them, two politicians trying to make a name for themselves. People in this thread act like those two accurately represent the opinion of the entire UK. Does anyone know how to critically read the media anymore?

 

I checked Reddit and FB: most Brits are embarrassed by these two.

 

And there are Brits who participate on the Stadium Wall, they should find the simpletons in this thread to be quite offensive.

 

Cut the UK some slack. We don't have many friendly reliable allies, but the UK is one (even after BHO's snubbing of them over the past 7 years).

 

 

In fairness, BHO snubs just about everyone except Iran. He hasn't met an Iranian he doesn't LOVE.

[Billschinatown]

 

 

Can't argue with the bolded part. But you brought up that it is intentionally malicious, and I doubt Snyder intends it in that way.

 

Many Africans Americans would find being included in groups as a "Negro" or "Colored Person" derogatory. Is it OK, though, because other African Americans have no problem continuing to name their organizations using these equally outdated/insensitive/derogatory terms?

Are you kidding with this crap? Those are outdated terms. Negro and colored are outdated terms that people prefer to not be called. The reason for this is because this was the language used heavily pre civil rights movement. That being said it's not that big of a deal; it's people being fussy. It's not racist it's outdated. Colored and and Negro is the same as saying Indian. It's outdated and not preferred; but it's not racist.

 

Now, here is the part you need to understand. Redskin is a racist term for native americans/indians. Here are some examples of what would be the equivalent: Buffalo Chinks, Houston Nggers, Boston Micks. Do those sound ok? But don't worry the mascots of those teams are a really noble looking Chinese emperor, a strong tribal chief, and a Galiec Druid. It's about respect for them? Don't they get it? My teams also have their own war crys and rain dances. I'm sure you can imagine the possibilities. ..ding ding ding ting ting tong. If they don't like it, they just don't get it. It's about respect.

 

The whole situation is BS. We don't get to tell what's left of Native Americans not to be offende because we aren't. No crap Dan Snyder isn't and it's not his place to be. This isn't bs pc culture. This is a racist name and it needs to be changed. All it takes is putting yourself in the shoes of Native Americans. It's not hard.

 

We can pretend people/we/I wouldn't be upset over the Jacksonville Crackers. They would be. That's so ridiculous and racist that no one would ever name a team that though. Now imagine they named a team that and told you to get over it. Now imagine all the other ethnic groups kept telling you it's fine and get overit- while wearing whatever the white person equivalent of a headdress is (boat shoes?).

Edited February 29, 2016 by Billschinatown

[Billschinatown]

No need....I am sure our name is just about as offensive to many Native Americans as it stands.

It's this kind of bull ****. No. No Native Americans are offended by the Buffalo Bills name. Youre just being an !@#$, because you perpsnally have no dog in the fight. What people are offended by is the !@#$ing Washington Redskins name. Redskins being the equivalent of gook, chink, ngger. Is it OK that I didn't like when people called me a chink? (I can promise you it was no one ever called me a chink in a positive way that was meant to make me feel respected for my nobility and strength). Mostly it was other stupid **** little kids. It's generally harmless. It was meant to hurt me; like kids like to do to eachother. It wouldn't be accepted in front of a teacher. I knew it was wrong. They knew it was wrong. After all there wasn't a team named the Washington Chinks. Is it OK if I wouldn't like the Bills to be named the Buffalo Chinks? Is it OK that I would worry about the little kids that would have to deal with it at school and then see people on TV; with tons of people dancing around in their take on traditional Chinese clothing and screaming out fake Chinese? Is it OK to be worried that those kids will have to absorb that into their psyche and feel like a second class citizen? If you can't feel for those kids. You. Haven't. Been. There.

 

WASHINGTON REDSKINS.

Edited February 29, 2016 by Billschinatown

[hondo in seattle]

Are you kidding with this crap? Those are outdated terms. Negro and colored are outdated terms that people prefer to not be called. The reason for this is because this was the language used heavily pre civil rights movement. That being said it's not that big of a deal; it's people being fussy. It's not racist it's outdated. Colored and and Negro is the same as saying Indian. It's outdated and not preferred; but it's not racist.

 

Now, here is the part you need to understand. Redskin is a racist term for native americans/indians. Here are some examples of what would be the equivalent: Buffalo Chinks, Houston Nggers, Boston Micks. Do those sound ok? But don't worry the mascots of those teams are a really noble looking Chinese emperor, a strong tribal chief, and a Galiec Druid. It's about respect for them? Don't they get it? My teams also have their own war crys and rain dances. I'm sure you can imagine the possibilities. ..ding ding ding ting ting tong. If they don't like it, they just don't get it. It's about respect.

 

The whole situation is BS. We don't get to tell what's left of Native Americans not to be offende because we aren't. No crap Dan Snyder isn't and it's not his place to be. This isn't bs pc culture. This is a racist name and it needs to be changed. All it takes is putting yourself in the shoes of Native Americans. It's not hard.

 

We can pretend people/we/I wouldn't be upset over the Jacksonville Crackers. They would be. That's so ridiculous and racist that no one would ever name a team that though. Now imagine they named a team that and told you to get over it. Now imagine all the other ethnic groups kept telling you it's fine and get overit- while wearing whatever the white person equivalent of a headdress is (boat shoes?).

 

Good post.

 

Can you imagine a modern sports team picking a skin color as a moniker?

 

San Francisco Yellowskins

Atlanta Blackskins

Boston Whiteskins

 

These names wouldn't be accepted. Can't see why we should accept 'Redskin' either.

 

And I'm not sure why the sins the British Empire committed in the past should prevent two MPs from taking a moral stand in the present. I think they make a valid point: "exportation of this racial slur ... directly contravenes the values that many in Britain have worked so hard to instill."

 

Don't we want lawmakers to stand up for higher principles - to move civilization forward?

Edited February 29, 2016 by hondo in seattle

[87168]

 

Slavery has been around a looooooooooong time before England

Yet, it was NEVER implemented the way it was here, in North America.

 

in previous civilizations, slaves were often considered family, just a lower "caste".

 

In NO, and I mean NO other civilization, were slaves treated the way they were here in America (centuries of enslavement, and lingering effects). Completely different interpretations of enslavement. That's history, Not opinion. Not a theory.

 

Once again, we feel as though we have the right to tell people, of a completely different demographic, what should and should not offend them. Stunning, and arrogant.

 

I am not referring to you Barbarian. Just making for debate.

Edited February 29, 2016 by 87168

[Mr. WEO]

Are you kidding with this crap? Those are outdated terms. Negro and colored are outdated terms that people prefer to not be called. The reason for this is because this was the language used heavily pre civil rights movement. That being said it's not that big of a deal; it's people being fussy. It's not racist it's outdated. Colored and and Negro is the same as saying Indian. It's outdated and not preferred; but it's not racist.

 

Now, here is the part you need to understand. Redskin is a racist term for native americans/indians. Here are some examples of what would be the equivalent: Buffalo Chinks, Houston Nggers, Boston Micks. Do those sound ok? But don't worry the mascots of those teams are a really noble looking Chinese emperor, a strong tribal chief, and a Galiec Druid. It's about respect for them? Don't they get it? My teams also have their own war crys and rain dances. I'm sure you can imagine the possibilities. ..ding ding ding ting ting tong. If they don't like it, they just don't get it. It's about respect.

 

The whole situation is BS. We don't get to tell what's left of Native Americans not to be offende because we aren't. No crap Dan Snyder isn't and it's not his place to be. This isn't bs pc culture. This is a racist name and it needs to be changed. All it takes is putting yourself in the shoes of Native Americans. It's not hard.

 

We can pretend people/we/I wouldn't be upset over the Jacksonville Crackers. They would be. That's so ridiculous and racist that no one would ever name a team that though. Now imagine they named a team that and told you to get over it. Now imagine all the other ethnic groups kept telling you it's fine and get overit- while wearing whatever the white person equivalent of a headdress is (boat shoes?).

 

But it is offensive, and that is the topic of this discussion. Can you imagine a Presidential candidate in a Detroit town hall meeting saying "welcome all you Negroes! I am really excited about the turnout of all you coloreds tonight..."

 

Or how about you climb on the 3 train in East New York and say "any of you Negroes know where I transfer to the bus to Saratoga Ave?"

 

Jacksonville Crackers wouldn't offend me because I'm not a cracker.

 

 

Yet, it was NEVER implemented the way it was here, in North America.

 

in previous civilizations, slaves were often considered family, just a lower "caste".

 

In NO, and I mean NO other civilization, were slaves treated the way they were here in America (centuries of enslavement, and lingering effects). Completely different interpretations of enslavement. That's history, Not opinion. Not a theory.

 

Once again, we feel as though we have the right to tell people, of a completely different demographic, what should and should not offend them. Stunning, and arrogant.

 

I am not referring to you Barbarian. Just making for debate.

 

Is your high school on the list of those to be closed soon?