Beerball Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 THAT IS THE TYPICAL ENGLISH MENTALITY,, FROM the people that brought the world slavery!! This may be one of the single most uninformed statements I've ever read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kickedface Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 lol politicians are stupid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 How do you feel about this situation? I think English parliament should concern themselves with their own glaring issues and the abhorrent behavior of their futbol fans. http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/22/four-chelsea-fans-banned-football-matches-racist-incident-paris-metro http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/revealed-chelsea-top-reported-racism-5387014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 Weren't they the ones to coin the term? Personally I don't see the issue. They aren't portraying the name or people as bring anything negative. It's not like they are called something like "the Irish" and have a drunk logo or mascot, or call themselves "the Mexicans" and have a logo or mascot of someone in A poncho or sombrero wearing a hat. The name and logo are supposed to represent a tough, warrior type of person. They should be more offended that Snyder keeps putting a crap team out on the field that's making natives look bad...... I'm guessing the Brit's would prefer we all use the creative names of their futbol teams? Let's see how many teams can somehow use the name FC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDH Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 THAT IS THE TYPICAL ENGLISH MENTALITY,, FROM the people that brought the world slavery!! Slavery existed long before the British Empire. Nonetheless, people today should be okay with anything because their ancestors made mistakes? Why exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 C'mon, MGK, you know better than to source a few friends and then represent that as typical. And when you say you don't see a dip in jersey sales, do you actual monitor jersey sales? What are the numbers? According to a Cal State professor, 67% of Indians do feel the name is offensive. Your friends are in the minority. The National Congress of American Indians (the nation's largest intertribal advocacy organization) says the name is offensive. The American Indian College Fund, National Indian Child Welfare Association, National Indian Education Association, National Indian Youth Council, National Native American Law Student Association, Native American Journalists Association, and Native American Rights Fund have all said they think the name should be changed. I'm glad the Brits are raising the issue. The days of making excuses for racial epithets are ending. You mean like "Indian"? And someone should start pressuring the UNCF and NAACP to change their names too, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted February 26, 2016 Author Share Posted February 26, 2016 You mean like "Indian"? And someone should start pressuring the UNCF and NAACP to change their names too, right? Not even close to being equivalent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 Not even close to being equivalent. Because of who is saying it, or calling them that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted February 26, 2016 Author Share Posted February 26, 2016 Because of who is saying it, or calling them that? Because of intended malice in the moniker or not irrespective of a particular term being outdated. Negro and Indian monikers are outdated, but to my knowledge there has never been any associated malice with either term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metzelaars_lives Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 Because of intended malice in the moniker or not irrespective of a particular term being outdated. Negro and Indian monikers are outdated, but to my knowledge there has never been any associated malice with either term. Or colored? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted February 26, 2016 Author Share Posted February 26, 2016 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. Keeping the spirit of George Preston Marshall alive is an important tradition for his franchise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DriveFor1Outta5 Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 (edited) Because of intended malice in the moniker or not irrespective of a particular term being outdated. Negro and Indian monikers are outdated, but to my knowledge there has never been any associated malice with either term. That may be true, but I can guarantee there will and would never be a team named the Negros. The Redskins name is really no different. The difference is the power or lack thereof that the Native American community has. The Native American communty is much smaller than almost other minority groups in the U.S., and their voice isn't heard as loudly as others. Trust me, the name would have been changed long ago if it involved any other group. Native Americans just don't have a lot of political clout when it comes to issues such as these. Edited February 26, 2016 by DriveFor1Outta5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 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. Why's that? Because you in ALL of your infinite wisdom disagree with him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 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. But Snyder has been known for so many principled stands over the years. Like when he sued grandma after she tried to cheat him, and when fought for his right to serve old snacks. http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2014/06/18/5-more-reasons-to-hate-daniel-snyder/ Why's that? Because you in ALL of your infinite wisdom disagree with him? Probably because hes a notorious scumbag that everybody hates. http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/articles/40063/the-cranky-redskins-fans-guide-to-dan-Snyder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D521646 Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 It warms the heart that British futbol fans have taken a break from throwing bananas on the pitch, making ape noises, and beating up 'pakis' for fun long enough to express their outrage with the Redskin moniker. Maybe they should call them the Washington Zulu's.. Oh snap! Tim- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted February 26, 2016 Author Share Posted February 26, 2016 That may be true, but I can guarantee there will and would never be a team named the Negros. The Redskins name is really no different. The difference is the power or lack thereof that the Native American community has. The Native American communty is much smaller than almost other minority groups in the U.S., and their voice isn't heard as loudly as others. Trust me, the name would have been changed long ago if it involved any other group. Native Americans just don't have a lot of political clout when it comes to issues such as these. No argument with any of your points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 Because of intended malice in the moniker or not irrespective of a particular term being outdated. Negro and Indian monikers are outdated, but to my knowledge there has never been any associated malice with either term. Is the Redskins name for the NFL team intentionally malicious at this point in time? Is it's persistent use by the owner intended for that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted February 26, 2016 Author Share Posted February 26, 2016 Is the Redskins name for the NFL team intentionally malicious at this point in time? Is it's persistent use by the owner intended for that? 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xsoldier54 Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 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. @AP_NFL British lawmakers complain to #NFL about #Redskins nickname ahead of London visit http://apne.ws/1XP2qyb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts