Redskins facing severe pressure to change name.

[Mr. WEO]

11 minutes ago, Happy said:

 

 

 

People like you ruin sports.  

Well that still leaves militias and Q though...

[aristocrat]

So do the skins donate or generate money for Native American groups or charities? 

[RobbRiddick]

I think it's great that Nike have withdrawn their support of the Redskins. Not only does it help highlight the offensive team name, but also helps distract the public from the fact that Nike are quite happy to oppress the workers in the far east who produce their clothes.

 

"a 2018 report by the Clean Clothes Campaign, found that Adidas and Nike still pay “poverty” wages to workers."

[HardyBoy]

13 minutes ago, Happy said:

 

I am not native american, but I'm also not expressing any righteous indignation.

 

People like you ruin sports.  I'll leave it at that.

 

Yes, you are expressing righteous indignation...you told me to go watch something else if I didn't like it.

 

So let me get this straight I say...using team names that were culturally appropriated from the native Americans a civilization that our country conducted a genocide on (this isn't up for debate, that happened), especially one specific team name that was literally used to describe the government sanctioned bounties placed on native people is wrong, is somehow controversial?

 

Can you please help me understand where that is controversial? Are you proud that we commited that genocide? Are you denying it happened? I'm not saying you are a bad person for not thinking it's offensive even, I don't know that using that term makes someone racist or not, that's genuinely not what this is about. It is about cultural appropriation following a genocide.

 

Seriously though, only if you're mature enough to have a genuine conversation about this. If you're just going to use non sequiturs and ad hominems and think you're being an intellectual ninja or whatever, or if you're trolling, I'm good on that. I got two young kids that deserve my time that I'm willing to spend on this conversation if it is going to be genuine otherwise I'm good on that.

 

Also, my high school name got changed from the Chiefs to the Patriots in 2001. Aside from a terrible choice of what we changed it too , the world didn't end. I am very proud we made the tough choice early and didn't wait (even though we kind of definitely waited).

[NoSaint]

26 minutes ago, Happy said:

 

I am not native american, but I'm also not expressing any righteous indignation.

 

People like you ruin sports.  I'll leave it at that.

Still reeling from the bullets change and now they do this to you?

[Beast]

Maybe someone that finds the name Redskins so very racist could explain how they could possibly have supported a league that a team has such a racist name?

 

Or you can just turn a blind eye to it in the name of entertainment? Or maybe you never watched a Redskins game out of protest?

Edited July 5, 2020 by Beast

[Happy]

7 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

Still reeling from the bullets change and now they do this to you?

 

I'm not an NBA fan, though I recall thinking the rationale behind it was dumb.  I honestly don't care what the NBA does.  I'm more connected to football and would like to see some tradition remain.  If that makes me a bad person or even a neanderthal, then so be it.

[Mike in Horseheads]

12 minutes ago, Happy said:

 

I'm not an NBA fan, though I recall thinking the rationale behind it was dumb.  I honestly don't care what the NBA does.  I'm more connected to football and would like to see some tradition remain.  If that makes me a bad person or even a neanderthal, then so be it.

Can we count on you to leave the Bills and NFL like the LAMP poster yesterday because of the Redskins name change and Black Anthem?

[Happy]

9 minutes ago, Mike in Horseheads said:

Can we count on you to leave the Bills and NFL like the LAMP poster yesterday because of the Redskins name change and Black Anthem?

 

No.

[Johnny Hammersticks]

They should change their name to the Washington Fighting Irish.

[HardyBoy]

7 minutes ago, Beast said:

Maybe someone that finds the name Redskins so very racist could explain how they could possibly have supported a league that a team has such a racist name?

 

Or you can just turn a blind eye to it in the name of entertainment? Or maybe you never watched a Redskins game out of protest?

 

I don't know if the term is racist or not, amd I certainly don't think someone using the word as part of the team name is representative of their thoughts on native americans...that's not what this is about. 

 

It's profiting off a genocide of a civilization for profit, where we then culturally appropriated that civilization to wash over said genocide while forcibly preventing that civilization from practice their religion and customs, punishable by death...death that was described and literaly put on bounty posters by our government usinng that specific term.

 

I'll potentially stand with you on the hill of people calling you a racist for using that term, especially if your continued use of that term is not at all reflective of your thoughts on native americans, because it became a larger social protest at what you deam as thought policing...similar to people kneeling for the national anthem no? I don't know that I would agree with you (seems silly to say things that knowingly offend others, and would want to genuinely listen to your perspective to understand, because there is a slippery slope argument to be made.

 

That said, in the context of this specific team name conversation, I truly believe the slippery slope argument is a straw man argument, because it is distracting from the real issue I mentioned above. I don't think you're doing it on purpose to shift the argument, and I also believe that calling the term racist is a bit of a strawman, at least when used by itself.

 

Genocide and cultural appropriation is the key, and when used as part of that perspectives, the fact that that specific term was literally on the bounty posters, sets it apart from other terms that have become part of the lexicon, because agree things could get a bit crazy fast. Personally, I think terms like Braves and Chiefs should go away, because we literally as a nation murdered braves and chiefs in a genocide and should be ashamed of that, not cheering our largely white teenagers with those names on their shirts playing games. I believe it to be in really poor taste and we can do better, but I potentially could be swayed on that.

 

However, using a term that was used to describe the actual bounties put on humans simply because as a country we wanted to take their land...nah, that's not ok, it clearly crosses a line and makes the slippery slope argument moot. Intent doesn't matter there...Snyder is making billions of dollars, they are getting tax breaks, they are fittingly the team associated with the nations capital.

[JaCrispy]

36 minutes ago, BUFFALOBART said:

It's not ALL ABOUT *you*......

If I can make it, anyone can...just takes a little hard work and accountability...there wasn’t any white oppression holding me back...And just like Morgan Freeman once said- it’s just an excuse why not to succeed...?

 

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr got his PHD before Affirmative Action, in the middle of the Jim Crow south...now, that’s oppression- and he STILL prospered...kids today are soft and have no idea what REAL oppression looks like...we have more freedom and equality than our ancestors could ever have imagined...

Edited July 5, 2020 by JaCrispy

[NoSaint]

1 hour ago, Happy said:

 

I'm not an NBA fan, though I recall thinking the rationale behind it was dumb.  I honestly don't care what the NBA does.  I'm more connected to football and would like to see some tradition remain.  If that makes me a bad person or even a neanderthal, then so be it.

yea, the redskins changing their names sure does wipe out all the traditions in the nfl 

[Niagara]

1 hour ago, HardyBoy said:

 

 

 

However, using a term that was used to describe the actual bounties put on humans simply because as a country we wanted to take their land...nah, that's not ok, it clearly crosses a line and makes the slippery slope argument moot. 

Scalps? The Washington Scalps?

Sounds like a keyboard warrior hypocrite talking, one who is living on former native land. Do the right thing and give it back.

Edited July 5, 2020 by Niagara

[Niagara]

23 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

yea, the redskins changing their names sure does wipe out all the traditions in the nfl 

I miss the Oilers too.

[NoHuddleKelly12]

Will this also void the results of Super Bowl XXVI and force a do-over? Pretty sure we know where Thurman’s helmet ended up, so game on!! 

[BarleyNY]

3 hours ago, Happy said:

 

I, as well as probably the entire sports world, do not intend offense to native americans when the Washington football team is addressed as 'Redskins.'  The name/word is very old and is pretty much retired from the english language.  It is used only in a sports connotation, that is it.  The team has been known as the Washington Redskins since 1937 and it is a tradition.  It does not appear that there is good reason to change the the tradition of the name, or address the team differently, since (again) it is used in as sports context.  Last word on this.

.

Still not answering the question, huh?  I figured as much.  It’s ridiculous to say that the historical context of the word doesn’t matter, especially when it’s as horrific as this one.  And hiding behind the BS “I don’t mean any offense” excuse is pathetic.  How is that even relevant?  Sure, it’s a horrible racial slur that offends a bunch of people, but if you don’t mean anything bad by it then you think it’s okay?  That’s really something.  And I think that it really says a lot about you.  I’ll leave it there unless you stop dodging and actually answer my question.

[Happy]

1 minute ago, BarleyNY said:

Still not answering the question, huh?  I figured as much.  It’s ridiculous to say that the historical context of the word doesn’t matter, especially when it’s as horrific as this one.  And hiding behind the BS “I don’t mean any offense” excuse is pathetic.  How is that even relevant?  Sure, it’s a horrible racial slur that offends a bunch of people, but if you don’t mean anything bad by it then you think it’s okay?  That’s really something.  And I think that it really says a lot about you.  I’ll leave it there unless you stop dodging and actually answer my question.

 

You have no question of substance, just ones that go down rabbit holes.  Go to your safe space.

[BarleyNY]

3 minutes ago, Happy said:

 

You have no question of substance, just ones that go down rabbit holes.  Go to your safe space.

Easy question.  Man up and answer or don’t.  

[HardyBoy]

29 minutes ago, Niagara said:

Scalps? The Washington Scalps?

Sounds like a keyboard warrior hypocrite talking, one who is living on former native land. Do the right thing and give it back.

 

Well, there are wars for land all the time..the revolutionary war is a great example...I'm not sure exactly how saying genocide of children is wrong and we should acknowledge it happened as a nation and stop pretending it didn't by, you know, glofying a term used by the govt to perpetrate that genocide is suddenly this crazy social justice thing...seems pretty inline with what we supposedly stand for as a country when we say invaded Iraq.

 

I'm not for imperialism, and for example, I think what England did in India is morally wrong. So if a soccer team in the English Premier League had a derogatory term for Indians and a logo of a stereotypical Indian person I would say it should be changed (who knows they might). That said, if that same situation included the genocide of millions and millions and millions of indians, including children like with the native Americans that would be a whole different matter (again maybe that happened there too, but I always understood it as more of an apartheid situation).

 

I'm not sure where not glorifying a genocide suddenly became some crazy sjw stance...wild times

[Beast]

2 hours ago, HardyBoy said:

 

I don't know if the term is racist or not, amd I certainly don't think someone using the word as part of the team name is representative of their thoughts on native americans...that's not what this is about. 

 

It's profiting off a genocide of a civilization for profit, where we then culturally appropriated that civilization to wash over said genocide while forcibly preventing that civilization from practice their religion and customs, punishable by death...death that was described and literaly put on bounty posters by our government usinng that specific term.

 

I'll potentially stand with you on the hill of people calling you a racist for using that term, especially if your continued use of that term is not at all reflective of your thoughts on native americans, because it became a larger social protest at what you deam as thought policing...similar to people kneeling for the national anthem no? I don't know that I would agree with you (seems silly to say things that knowingly offend others, and would want to genuinely listen to your perspective to understand, because there is a slippery slope argument to be made.

 

That said, in the context of this specific team name conversation, I truly believe the slippery slope argument is a straw man argument, because it is distracting from the real issue I mentioned above. I don't think you're doing it on purpose to shift the argument, and I also believe that calling the term racist is a bit of a strawman, at least when used by itself.

 

Genocide and cultural appropriation is the key, and when used as part of that perspectives, the fact that that specific term was literally on the bounty posters, sets it apart from other terms that have become part of the lexicon, because agree things could get a bit crazy fast. Personally, I think terms like Braves and Chiefs should go away, because we literally as a nation murdered braves and chiefs in a genocide and should be ashamed of that, not cheering our largely white teenagers with those names on their shirts playing games. I believe it to be in really poor taste and we can do better, but I potentially could be swayed on that.

 

However, using a term that was used to describe the actual bounties put on humans simply because as a country we wanted to take their land...nah, that's not ok, it clearly crosses a line and makes the slippery slope argument moot. Intent doesn't matter there...Snyder is making billions of dollars, they are getting tax breaks, they are fittingly the team associated with the nations capital.

 

I liked reading what you just posted.

 

I will have a hard time not calling that team the Redskins going forward. I'm sure I will get used to the new name and it will eventually roll off the tongue like Indianapolis Colts (Baltimore) Oakland/Los Angeles/ Oakland/ Las Vegas (Raiders) San Diego/ Los Angeles (Chargers) the Rams...I will call them whatever they rename them because that will be their proper name. If I say the Cowboys play the Refskins this week it won't be done on purpose but I know it will happen. Many, many times.

 

But, I will also refer to them as the Redskins when talking about them when that was their name. It, to me, is no different than saying the Bills had the greatest comeback against the Houston Oilers, and not saying the Houston Texans.

 

 

 

Edited July 6, 2020 by Beast

[NoSaint]

57 minutes ago, Happy said:

 

You have no question of substance, just ones that go down rabbit holes.  Go to your safe space.

 

don’t be a caricature. 

[TheCockSportif]

37 minutes ago, Beast said:

But, I will also refer to them as the Redskins when talking about them when that was their name. It, to me, is no different than saying the Bills had the greatest comeback against the Houston Oilers, and not saying the Houston Texans.

 

 

 

 

Only issue I have with your take is that the Houston Oilers and the Houston Texans are completely unrelated franchises.

[Bferra13]

On 7/4/2020 at 11:36 AM, TH3 said:

Well the whites had the call for 400 years....and look at where we are.....

 

Wow... what does this even mean?? Here's some racism.

[YoloinOhio]

Welp 

 

 

[Augie]

20 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

Welp 

 

 

 

I’m pretty sure I don’t want to be Daniel Snyder’s partner either. Redskins, or not. Give me a couple hundred million and let me see which way I lean. Thanks! 

[Rob's House]

I imagine it's been mentioned, but WaPo did a survey a few years ago and found that ~ 90% of actual Indians didn't find the name offensive and a lot of them think it's cool.

 

This contrived controversy isn't for the benefit of oppressed or marginalized communities, it's for self-righteous white people who want to advertise their wokeness and feel good about themselves.

[Niagara]

2 hours ago, HardyBoy said:

 

…seems pretty inline with what we supposedly stand for as a country when we say invaded Iraq.

Post 911, what if Iraq had WMDs?

I'm not for imperialism, and for example, I think what England did in India is morally wrong.

Could it be India was unified and much better off from its time spent with the English, as was Australia, Canada, HK and the Colonies? When the English left Rhodesia, one 1$R= 1$US, in time one trillion Zimbabwe $=1$US

included the genocide of millions and millions and millions of Indians, including children like with the native Americans

Children were killed on both sides. When women and children are targeted, the response is generally in kind.

 

[HardyBoy]

4 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

I imagine it's been mentioned, but WaPo did a survey a few years ago and found that ~ 90% of actual Indians didn't find the name offensive and a lot of them think it's cool.

 

This contrived controversy isn't for the benefit of oppressed or marginalized communities, it's for self-righteous white people who want to advertise their wokeness and feel good about themselves.

 

From what I read, there were issues with the sampling method of the study. I'll see if I can find the actual study and read the method myself and break it down a bit when I get a chance.

 

There for sure could be that going on, but if there are legit issues with the sampling method of the study, you might only be able to say that 90% of the people sampled in the study felt that way, and not apply it to the general population.

 

WaPo I don't think did the survey, some org published a survey with arguably questionable sampling methodology, and WaPo picked it up and ran with the headline...subsequent sampling hasn't been able to replicate that specific poll either from what I understand...to me it looks like someone had an agenda and wanted to get that narrative out and picked up, but reading the sampling method will help understand if it was that or not.

[Rob's House]

6 minutes ago, HardyBoy said:

 

From what I read, there were issues with the sampling method of the study. I'll see if I can find the actual study and read the method myself and break it down a bit when I get a chance.

 

There for sure could be that going on, but if there are legit issues with the sampling method of the study, you might only be able to say that 90% of the people sampled in the study felt that way, and not apply it to the general population.

 

WaPo I don't think did the survey, some org published a survey with arguably questionable sampling methodology, and WaPo picked it up and ran with the headline...subsequent sampling hasn't been able to replicate that specific poll either from what I understand...to me it looks like someone had an agenda and wanted to get that narrative out and picked up, but reading the sampling method will help understand if it was that or not.

 

I'd like to see a properly sampled survey that shows otherwise, and one that samples real Indians, like my father in law who was born on a reservation, and not a bunch of woke white Elizabeth Warren types who feel high and mighty because they have some distant Indian ancestor that gives them license to speak for the tribe.

[Niagara]

25 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

self-righteous white people who want to advertise their wokeness and feel good about themselves.

Like when they voted Obama.

[Thurman#1]

4 hours ago, Niagara said:

Scalps? The Washington Scalps?

Sounds like a keyboard warrior hypocrite talking, one who is living on former native land. Do the right thing and give it back.

 

 

As has been pointed out many times, what are called scalps today were called by several names at the time, including "redskins."

 

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a29445/true-redskins-meaning/

 

and

 

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a29318/redskin-name-update/

 

"The story in my family goes that the term dates back to the institutionalized genocide of Native Americans, most notably when the Massachusetts colonial government placed a bounty on their heads. The grisly particulars of that genocide are listed in a 1755 document called the Phips Proclamation, which zeroed in on the Penobscot Indians, a tribe today based in Maine.

 

"Spencer Phips, a British politician and then Lieutenant Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Province, issued the call, ordering on behalf of British King George II for, "His Majesty's subjects to Embrace all opportunities of pursuing, captivating, killing and Destroying all and every of the aforesaid Indians." They paid well – 50 pounds for adult male scalps; 25 for adult female scalps; and 20 for scalps of boys and girls under age 12.

 

"These bloody scalps were known as 'redskins' "

 

A Smithsonian article disputed this, but a later Smithsonian quote disputed the dispute. It's not 100% clear either way, but it's certainly possible this is true. And even if it is not, it's still a racial slur.

 

The reason this change is going to happen is simple. It should. It's time, in fact, it's long past time. It's likely that the original choice of the name was made with good intent. But it's become very clear that it has a significant negative connotation. It's time for the change.

 

 

Edited July 6, 2020 by Thurman#1

[KD in CA]

On 7/4/2020 at 8:36 AM, TH3 said:

Well the whites had the call for 400 years....and look at where we are.....

 

Living in the most peaceful and prosperous times in human history?

[muppy]

Since when did being "woke" become such a bad thing for modern culture? Just because something has existed for decades doesn't make it right. Kind of like systemic racism itself. If people are evolving and becoming less comfortable with allowing slurs as a name of a sports team to exist so be it.  If they change the name to Warriors  that will be the team name moving forward. It won't mean it was the Warriors who beat the Bills in the super bowl. That part of history won't change. The same way that statues being removed doesn't mean those people encapsulated in statues weren't a part of our history in America either.  The name Redskins in my view was never a slur but if it were in my mind  I'd want it replaced. And Those are the folks I would listen to and want to respect their wishes. Not me a sports fan to whom it really doesnt make that much difference Its only a name. I'll root against them either way. GO BILLS.

[Rico]

25 minutes ago, Muppy said:

Since when did being "woke" become such a bad thing for modern culture? Just because something has existed for decades doesn't make it right. Kind of like systemic racism itself. If people are evolving and becoming less comfortable with allowing slurs as a name of a sports team to exist so be it.  If they change the name to Warriors  that will be the team name moving forward. It won't mean it was the Warriors who beat the Bills in the super bowl. That part of history won't change. The same way that statues being removed doesn't mean those people encapsulated in statues weren't a part of our history in America either.  The name Redskins in my view was never a slur but if it were in my mind  I'd want it replaced. And Those are the folks I would listen to and want to respect their wishes. Not me a sports fan to whom it really doesnt make that much difference Its only a name. I'll root against them either way. GO BILLS.

Well, not all, but there are some people who are ‘woke’ who also hate America. It’s not too hard to figure out which one’s they are, especially the one’s in the public eye. They do not matter, not at all.

[Thurman#1]

3 hours ago, KD in CA said:

 

Living in the most peaceful and prosperous times in human history?

 

 

Yeah, guess that's because of people holding the position that it's OK to keep the Redskins name. Or perhaps not.

 

Where we are is ... at an inflection point. And again, it's about time.

 

 

3 hours ago, Muppy said:

Since when did being "woke" become such a bad thing for modern culture? Just because something has existed for decades doesn't make it right. Kind of like systemic racism itself. If people are evolving and becoming less comfortable with allowing slurs as a name of a sports team to exist so be it.  If they change the name to Warriors  that will be the team name moving forward. It won't mean it was the Warriors who beat the Bills in the super bowl. That part of history won't change. The same way that statues being removed doesn't mean those people encapsulated in statues weren't a part of our history in America either.  The name Redskins in my view was never a slur but if it were in my mind  I'd want it replaced. And Those are the folks I would listen to and want to respect their wishes. Not me a sports fan to whom it really doesnt make that much difference Its only a name. I'll root against them either way. GO BILLS.

 

 

Muppy, "I'll root against them either way." Love it. Me too as long as Snyder owns them.

Edited July 6, 2020 by Thurman#1

[Thurman#1]

On 7/3/2020 at 10:17 PM, BringBackFergy said:

I agree. And why stop with statues? Get rid of massive memorials and monuments as well. Build more casinos!!
 

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/505474-second-tribal-leader-calls-for-removal-of-mount-rushmore-before-trump?amp

 

 

I'm glad you agree.

 

And the reason why we should stop with statues of people willing to lay down their lives for slavery is because that's what is socially unacceptable to most of America at this point.

 

If the majority of America comes to see Mount Rushmore at some point as horrible in some way, that'll likely go too. You see that happening anytime in the near future?

 

Edited July 6, 2020 by Thurman#1

[Thurman#1]

16 hours ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

 

...I AM on your side bud.......with current world events and the unknown what tomorrow may bring, we have all of this time "on one's hands" to spend undoing hundreds of years of the nation's history?.....time well spent?...SERIOUSLY??.............

 

 

The idea that anyone is "undoing" anything is ridiculous. It's called change, change and evolution, and it's eternal.

 

There was a time when blackface was hugely popular and accepted. Is the fact that it's now not an example of cancel culture or undoing? The movie Birth of a Nation was a huge economic and artistic success about a hundred years ago with the KKK as the heroes. Should we bring that back to avoid "undoing" culture.

 

This is just change and growth. Best if people just deal with it, as it appears that people have finally reached a point where they're not willing to accept this anymore.

 

 

[123719bwiqrb]

Is twitter ok with just Skins?  And we use the potato logo thing?  I'm cool with that.  I mean, who doesn't love the mighty potato.  French fries, chips, mashed, those little red ones - I'm hungry now.

[Rob's House]

9 hours ago, Muppy said:

Since when did being "woke" become such a bad thing for modern culture? Just because something has existed for decades doesn't make it right. Kind of like systemic racism itself. If people are evolving and becoming less comfortable with allowing slurs as a name of a sports team to exist so be it.  If they change the name to Warriors  that will be the team name moving forward. It won't mean it was the Warriors who beat the Bills in the super bowl. That part of history won't change. The same way that statues being removed doesn't mean those people encapsulated in statues weren't a part of our history in America either.  The name Redskins in my view was never a slur but if it were in my mind  I'd want it replaced. And Those are the folks I would listen to and want to respect their wishes. Not me a sports fan to whom it really doesnt make that much difference Its only a name. I'll root against them either way. GO BILLS.

 

Wokeness is not about understanding the experience of others and showing consideration for them. It is about dehumanizing people by identifying them as members of groups, ranking them accordingly, and aggressively seeking out an enemy to destroy. When there is no enemy one must be invented.

 

The Redskins name isn't a primary target. It's a secondary target, but it's worth asking why it's a target at all. American Indians weren't upset about it. It wasn't hurting, offending, or oppressing anyone. Then one day the woke police unilaterally decided on behalf of a perceived victim group that this thing is now offensive.

 

It doesn't matter that there was no ill intent behind it, that they can't agree on the explanation for why it's supposedly offensive, or what it means to the fans, it only matters what it means to the offended. And "the offended" are the woke.

 

Strangely, that standard only applies to the targets of the woke. When the shoe is on the other foot we have a different standard. Say, for example, millions of people are offended by kneeling for the anthem as a show of disrespect to the flag. It no longer matters how it's perceived by the offended, but only what the woke claim it really means. It's pretty convenient.

 

These people claim to oppose racism, yet rank people according to race. They claim to oppose hate, yet preach wholesale condemnation of all who oppose them. They claim to value tolerance but seek the destruction of all who challenge their faith based ideology. These are not good people. They are who they purport to hate.

 

They've set race relations back decades in the name of "progress." Over a decade ago a majority of people, both black and white, thought race relations in America were good. That is no longer the case. The reason isn't because white people suddenly became more racist, but because there are people actively stirring the pot for the purpose of causing problems, and the woke are the ones buying the propaganda and spreading the message. They do nothing but spread racism and hatred.