PDA

View Full Version : This exists



Fatt Crapps
09-19-2013, 02:24 PM
Redskins name change not as easy as it sounds - ESPN (http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9689220/redskins-name-change-not-easy-sounds)

Mr. Brooks
09-21-2013, 09:35 AM
Until he ruined the entire article with that head scratchingly ignorant final sentence, he had made some good points.

PseudoSABR
09-21-2013, 10:32 AM
I hate Rick Reilly; he's a chum, who grandstands every damn sentence he writes. On the issue itself: is something still offensive if only some people feel it's offensive? Yes.

Fatt Crapps
09-21-2013, 03:03 PM
"A simple test for Rick Reilly: answer the challenge of Ray Halbritter of the Oneida Nation. Go to his house, look at his grandchildren and say, 'My goodness these are some cute little Redskins.' If it is really a name of honor, you will make the trip and say it to the Halbritters. If you won’t, then you are completely full of it. News flash: he won’t."

biggentleben
09-21-2013, 03:15 PM
And that's opposite his point (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1140310/1/index.htm) in 1991 on the same issue.

Hornhead
09-21-2013, 03:22 PM
He makes the perfectly valid argument that offense can be taken to so many things. We have become such a thin-skinned culture because of the relatively new idea that that people should be able to go through life without being offended. And if you aren't offended, allow us to free you of your ignorance. How bizarre that those who fail to recognize and fight legitimate evil and injustice construct their own brand of it (aka political correctness).

Here's another test. Go into a white family's home and comment about the cute whites sitting on the couch. Context makes all the difference.

TheLeviathan
09-21-2013, 03:39 PM
Here's another test. Go into a white family's home and comment about the cute whites sitting on the couch. Context makes all the difference.

Well yeah, but last I checked no one is named the Florida State Crackers.

The issue here is thinking a race of people make for good cartoonish mascots. I despise political correctness, but that isn't even remotely the issue here. It's latent sentiments of racial superiority or indifference for cultural destruction manifesting as team nicknames.

Hornhead
09-21-2013, 04:28 PM
The issue here is thinking a race of people make for good cartoonish mascots. I despise political correctness, but that isn't even remotely the issue here. It's latent sentiments of racial superiority or indifference for cultural destruction manifesting as team nicknames.
Sounds like a page straight out of the PC playbook. Okay, what evidence exist showing team nicknames destroy the cultures from which they were adopted? Per the article, the Native-American culture as a whole takes no offense and regards the Redskin name with pride. They understand the connotation it holds with regard to fighting ability and courage. The push for change comes primarily from white Leftists with an insatiable appetite for uncovering these "offenses" and transforming society to meet their vision. The resulting victim groups created can often be manipulated or solidified into thinking the Left serves to protect them from the oppressive desires of the Right.

TheLeviathan
09-21-2013, 04:56 PM
Sounds like a page straight out of the PC playbook. Okay, what evidence exist showing team nicknames destroy the cultures from which they were adopted? Per the article, the Native-American culture as a whole takes no offense and regards the Redskin name with pride. They understand the connotation it holds with regard to fighting ability and courage. The push for change comes primarily from white Leftists with an insatiable appetite for uncovering these "offenses" and transforming society to meet their vision. The resulting victim groups created can often be manipulated or solidified into thinking the Left serves to protect them from the oppressive desires of the Right.

We already destroyed their culture, this is just insult to injury. But you're right, I'm sure if it was the Mississippi Uppity Negroes or the Wisconsin Mass Murderin Honkies you'd also be complaining about political correctness shutting those names down too.

This is just subtle racism at work and you're too busy looking to feel insulted by it that you don't see the deeply rooted message this sends. It doesn't even have to bother someone else for it to bother some of us thtwe are still stuck in demeaning a people that already had so much taken from them.

TheLeviathan
09-21-2013, 05:07 PM
I missed two great ones! I bet all the PC complaining right wingers would line up to support, in principle, some group calling their team the Fiddling Fiars or Pedo Priests and similarly mocking and stereotyping a whole group of people for their own entertainment.

Hornhead
09-21-2013, 06:21 PM
I missed two great ones! I bet all the PC complaining right wingers would line up to support, in principle, some group calling their team the Fiddling Fiars or Pedo Priests and similarly mocking and stereotyping a whole group of people for their own entertainment.
The intent of those team names is to demean a group. You appear to believe the same is true for Redskin when examples abound to the contrary, some from Native-Americans themselves! Odd that a person who says our culture needs a thicker skin with regard to these perceived offensives is the one who is busy looking to feel insulted. Sounds like you at least reluctantly agree then that nicknames did nothing to destroy the culture. I can only guess such a mindless reflex resulted from too much exposure to one of our many overpriced institutions of Leftism (aka university).

TheLeviathan
09-21-2013, 07:15 PM
The intent of those team names is to demean a group. You appear to believe the same is true for Redskin when examples abound to the contrary, some from Native-Americans themselves! Odd that a person who says our culture needs a thicker skin with regard to these perceived offensives is the one who is busy looking to feel insulted. Sounds like you at least reluctantly agree then that nicknames did nothing to destroy the culture. I can only guess such a mindless reflex resulted from too much exposure to one of our many overpriced institutions of Leftism (aka university).

I never suggested these nicknames destroyed the culture, it would be a ridiculous suggestion. (almost as ridiculous as your use of it as a scarecrow) Short of genocide I'm not sure we can do that. This is more akin to pissing on the grave.

What you don't seem to understand is that these nicknames DO demean a groups culture and religion. We are mocking it, stereotyping it, and cartoonishly mimicking it. We're just so accustomed to demeaning them that we can't even recognize it when we do it.

Hornhead
09-21-2013, 08:01 PM
I never suggested these nicknames destroyed the culture, it would be a ridiculous suggestion. (almost as ridiculous as your use of it as a scarecrow) Short of genocide I'm not sure we can do that. This is more akin to pissing on the grave.

What you don't seem to understand is that these nicknames DO demean a groups culture and religion. We are mocking it, stereotyping it, and cartoonishly mimicking it. We're just so accustomed to demeaning them that we can't even recognize it when we do it.
Sorry, I misinterpreted what you were saying, similar to how you may be misinterpreting the use of Redskin as a term of derision, although you are not alone in that regard. So where does it stop? The author mentioned the Fighting Irish among the team names that should be on the hit list. The use of that mascot is far more cartoonish. With the last name OíHara, I could have seized my opportunity to be offended but instead chose to have fun with it and even had a couple ND sweaters with the silly leprechaun on them. Guess I was just young and ignorant.

I am frustrated how relatively insignificant issues draw so much focus when we have many weighty issues of far great importance to tackle. Battles like these show people are bored. Civil rights have been realized to such an extent that the movement is making up new rights and victim groups to remain relevant. Despite re-electing a black President, our country hasnít been more divided in my lifetime. Clearly something has gone terribly wrong.

TheLeviathan
09-21-2013, 08:13 PM
So where does it stop?

How about where we stop cartoonishly mocking a culture and religion by making them our sports mascots for starters? You want to throw the Irish in that...fine by me. There are obvious differences (like, we didn't slaughter them out of greed and then put them in a corner somewhere so we could try and more easily forget we slaughtered them. Minor difference I'm sure you'd contend), but if that's what it takes. Fine by me.

As for the rest, I would argue the very notion we have to "battle" this, is an indictment in and of itself. One of our biggest problems is a disregard for how we mistreat others if even unconsciously. Small battles like this can go a long way, especially when they shouldn't be a battle at all.

Hornhead
09-21-2013, 09:22 PM
How about where we stop cartoonishly mocking a culture and religion by making them our sports mascots for starters? You want to throw the Irish in that...fine by me. There are obvious differences (like, we didn't slaughter them out of greed and then put them in a corner somewhere so we could try and more easily forget we slaughtered them. Minor difference I'm sure you'd contend), but if that's what it takes. Fine by me.

As for the rest, I would argue the very notion we have to "battle" this, is an indictment in and of itself. One of our biggest problems is a disregard for how we mistreat others if even unconsciously. Small battles like this can go a long way, especially when they shouldn't be a battle at all.

I really can’t imagine the far-reaching benefits to be achieved by changing the team name. This country has recognized its sins, perhaps more than any other country. Just seems like folks trying to impose their will on others.

You may have heard of a piece of “art” decades back called Piss Christ consisting of a crucifix submerged in a glass of the artist urine. Pretty offensive, mocking stuff you might say. However, I value liberty over my right to not be offended and have no desire to infringe upon the rights of the artist, although supporting him with tax dollars via the NEA is another story. I am a rare breed for sure, but that should help you understand my position more clearly.

TheLeviathan
09-21-2013, 09:35 PM
This country has recognized its sins, perhaps more than any other country. Just seems like folks trying to impose their will on others.

The very fact we continue to openly mock a culture and religion we all but destroyed speaks to the contrary.

We're talking about a professional sports team, based in our nation's capital, in a league that receives significant government support and protections, not some individual artist. The comparison is pretty ridiculous.

Ultima Ratio
09-24-2013, 12:52 AM
The very fact we continue to openly mock a culture and religion we all but destroyed speaks to the contrary.

We're talking about a professional sports team, based in our nation's capital, in a league that receives significant government support and protections, not some individual artist. The comparison is pretty ridiculous.

Who are "we?"

Are you suggesting that the natives should be offended, though they are not? I find that offensive, especially coming from a white man (I'm guessing that you are). Are they not bright enough to know when they should be offended? Is this not ethnocentric?:p

TheLeviathan
09-24-2013, 09:54 AM
Who are "we?"

Are you suggesting that the natives should be offended, though they are not? I find that offensive, especially coming from a white man (I'm guessing that you are). Are they not bright enough to know when they should be offended? Is this not ethnocentric?:p

We as in our culture. Some Native Americans are insulted and some are not, the point is not that they feel insulted but that our culture should take a close look at how we continue to portray and treat Native Americans.

PseudoSABR
09-24-2013, 01:14 PM
Who are "we?"

Are you suggesting that the natives should be offended, though they are not? I find that offensive, especially coming from a white man (I'm guessing that you are). Are they not bright enough to know when they should be offended? Is this not ethnocentric?:pDo you really think the handful of Native Americans who are not offended is representative of the whole populace? Seriously?

What class is is the capacity to anticipate offense in others, whether that actually exists or not. There's nothing classy about naming a football team the Redskins. And to extend your point (unfairly, but that's the kind of arguments that we're passing off as legitimate I guess), I suppose we should dispense with manners altogether, because well, not absolutely everyone is offended if I don't say thank you and please.

Ultima Ratio
09-24-2013, 03:21 PM
Handful? Did you read the article, no I guess. It's an overwhelming majority. You seem to be with the commissioner's absurd criteria that if we can find one person offended, we must halt everything and listen. That is a recipe for censorship and paralysis in public discourse.

"And even though an Annenberg Public Policy Center poll found that 90 percent of Native Americans were not offended by the Redskins name, and even though linguists say the "redskins" word was first used by Native Americans themselves, and even though nobody on the Blackfeet side of my wife's family has ever had someone insult them with the word "redskin," it doesn't matter. There's no stopping a wave of PC-ness when it gets rolling."

Nailed it.

TheLeviathan
09-24-2013, 07:09 PM
Handful? Did you read the article, no I guess. It's an overwhelming majority. You seem to be with the commissioner's absurd criteria that if we can find one person offended, we must halt everything and listen. That is a recipe for censorship and paralysis in public discourse.

"And even though an Annenberg Public Policy Center poll found that 90 percent of Native Americans were not offended by the Redskins name, and even though linguists say the "redskins" word was first used by Native Americans themselves, and even though nobody on the Blackfeet side of my wife's family has ever had someone insult them with the word "redskin," it doesn't matter. There's no stopping a wave of PC-ness when it gets rolling."

Nailed it.

Native Americans are welcome to keep using it then. It doesn't make it appropriate as a team name.

Since when does the right thing to do depend on the person wronged feeling wronged?

PseudoSABR
09-24-2013, 11:30 PM
Well, let's look at that study (http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/downloads/political_communication/naes/2004_03_redskins_09-24_pr.pdf).


This report deals with interviewing conducted from Oct. 7, 2003, through September 20, 2004. In that

period 65,047 adults were interviewed, of whom 768 identified themselves as Indians or Native Americans.

Yup, a survey of nearly 800 people! In which, they actually targeted some 65,000 adults! Ha! If the goal was to survey Native American views of the offensive nature of the name Redskin, I imagine there are more credible methods of obtaining such information.

PseudoSABR
09-24-2013, 11:38 PM
In my experience, the people actually living on reservations throughout the country are pretty offended by all kinds of names referring to their people--whether it's Indian, Native American, American Indian, or Redskin--so many find any catch all term other than their tribal name totally offensive. As if the Dine' people of Arizona (what we call the Spanish term Navajo) are really much like the Ojibwe people of the midwest (which are often referred to the anglicized chippewa).

I'd bet that the people contending that so few are offended have done little to no research (much less thorough reading) to defend their beliefs.

biggentleben
09-25-2013, 02:30 PM
In my experience, the people actually living on reservations throughout the country are pretty offended by all kinds of names referring to their people--whether it's Indian, Native American, American Indian, or Redskin--so many find any catch all term other than their tribal name totally offensive. As if the Dine' people of Arizona (what we call the Spanish term Navajo) are really much like the Ojibwe people of the midwest (which are often referred to the anglicized chippewa).

I'd bet that the people contending that so few are offended have done little to no research (much less thorough reading) to defend their beliefs.

My experience on many reservations and working with a lot of Native Americans in jobs I've held has the Braves, Chiefs, Raiders, and Lakers as the top 4 teams on reservations in popularity.

PseudoSABR
09-25-2013, 05:25 PM
My experience on many reservations and working with a lot of Native Americans in jobs I've held has the Braves, Chiefs, Raiders, and Lakers as the top 4 teams on reservations in popularity.I don't want to protract this argument out any further, but I don't think it's any surprise that Cheifs and Braves are more popular than Redskins and Indians.

biggentleben
09-25-2013, 08:01 PM
I don't want to protract this argument out any further, but I don't think it's any surprise that Cheifs and Braves are more popular than Redskins and Indians.

Certainly, but they all tend to get lumped one in the same. I think that's the significant issue. There doesn't seem to be a difference in many people's eyes between a logo/name intended to honor Native tribes and one utilizing a slang.

PseudoSABR
09-26-2013, 12:23 PM
Certainly, but they all tend to get lumped one in the same. I think that's the significant issue. There doesn't seem to be a difference in many people's eyes between a logo/name intended to honor Native tribes and one utilizing a slang.I think that's a fair point, and part of why it's difficult to get actual traction on this issue.

Fatt Crapps
11-08-2013, 12:50 AM
The push for change comes primarily from white Leftists with an insatiable appetite for uncovering these "offenses" and transforming society to meet their vision. The resulting victim groups created can often be manipulated or solidified into thinking the Left serves to protect them from the oppressive desires of the Right.

How about those 700+ demonstrators outside the Metrodome tonight? You should've been there to tell them how you feel.

Twins best friend
12-02-2013, 12:06 AM
I apologize if this is too unrelated to Minnesota for this site but I've seen a lot reported recently on whether or not to change the name of the Washington Redskins due to the derogatory origins of the word and I wanted to state where I stand, and also see what other people thought in what I consider a safer environment than the nfl.com forum.

I will carefully state that I do not think the name should be taken offensively and therefore does not need to be changed. There is a common theme amongst NFL teams that their name is always taken from something that is meant to be powerful or ferocious (i.e. Bears, Lions, Vikings, Jets, Chargers, Broncos), or important (Packers, Patriots, Steelers). Knowing this, I can't imagine a name being chosen with cruel or mocking intentions and thus have to derive that Native Americans could fit in either category of naming and that "redskins" was a product of the periods common terminology. Yes the word had negative connotation at the time but I will take a page from South Park to illustrate my feelings on the word today.

South Park addressed an issue that I struggle with frequently in how the meaning of words can change. South Park uses a different term as illustration but my feelings towards the term "redskin" are similar. I can't visualize anybody using the term "redskin" as a racial slur. In my mind, redskin applies to the color of their uniforms. That might sound silly but when somebody says "redskin" I don't think of an actual person, I think of a football teams maroon jersey.

That's my piece and I'd like to know how others feel.

TheLeviathan
12-02-2013, 11:27 AM
There is a whole thread telling you how people feel, many of those posts quite effectively derail the ideas you posted.

ashburyjohn
12-02-2013, 12:27 PM
I can't visualize anybody using the term "redskin" as a racial slur.

Among the various assumptions in your post, this one is maybe easiest to test, if you feel up to a visit to the Rez. Try it and see what sort of reactions you get.

Twins best friend
12-02-2013, 03:48 PM
Try it and see what sort of reactions you get.
Maybe I'm being naive but what I'm saying is that I wouldn't think that somebody would actually do that. I'm not disputing when used in that way the word is offensive but I don't feel like that is its use anymore.

Twins best friend
12-02-2013, 03:52 PM
There is a whole thread telling you how people feel, many of those posts quite effectively derail the ideas you posted.

My post was originally a new thread because I was unaware this thread existed. I scrolled through trying to see if there was one already started but I obviously missed this one. Somebody was kind enough to move the post here for me.

TheLeviathan
12-02-2013, 04:33 PM
My post was originally a new thread because I was unaware this thread existed. I scrolled through trying to see if there was one already started but I obviously missed this one. Somebody was kind enough to move the post here for me.

Then there are a lot of responses here. There was also a thread in the General Baseball thread on this subject as well. I'd link but not able to do so conveniently at the moment.

PseudoSABR
12-02-2013, 04:41 PM
In short, you can't use yourself as a template for what other people should find offensive.

That the term was at any time a slur that dehumanized a group of people should compel our better selves to make a change. It's only the senseless, yet traditional, fear of change that motivates those who rally against it.

biggentleben
12-02-2013, 05:22 PM
Then there are a lot of responses here. There was also a thread in the General Baseball thread on this subject as well. I'd link but not able to do so conveniently at the moment.

Can you, however, link the thread INCONVENIENTLY? That's what I'd pay good money to see!

ashburyjohn
12-02-2013, 05:34 PM
Can you, however, link the thread INCONVENIENTLY? That's what I'd pay good money to see!

Possibly you are thinking of this thread:

C l e v e l a n d - p h a s i n g - o u t - (http://www.twinsdaily.com/showthread.php/9304-Cleveland-phasing-out-their-mascot) t h e i r - m a s c o t

I have placed the link as inconveniently as I could, with a few moments' effort.

Twins best friend
12-02-2013, 05:39 PM
That the term was at any time a slur that dehumanized a group of people should compel our better selves to make a change. It's only the senseless, yet traditional, fear of change that motivates those who rally against change.

If the name of the redskins is changed it won't upset me. I post because I think it's an interesting topic. Wouldn't it be mean more if we, as humans, instead could adapt a word with cruel intentions rather than hide from it? To say we understand what this used to be but no longer accept that definiton? I sippose a similar argument can be made for eliminating the word but I stand by my approach for the moment.

PseudoSABR
12-02-2013, 05:47 PM
No one's hiding from the term. But to use it as mascot for a team as nationally prominent as Washington and the NFL are spotlights and celebrates the slur.

Brock Beauchamp
12-02-2013, 06:17 PM
The author mentioned the Fighting Irish among the team names that should be on the hit list. The use of that mascot is far more cartoonish.

Ugh. I hate this analogy. Notre Dame was/is a largely Irish school. The name was created because they were, you know, the Fighting Irish. As in actually of Irish descent.

And if you can't see the difference between that and the Washington Redskins, well, so be it... But it seems so painfully obvious that I don't know how anyone makes that analogy without feeling dirty afterward.

Twins best friend
12-02-2013, 07:15 PM
No one's hiding from the term. But to use it as mascot for a team as nationally prominent as Washington and the NFL are spotlights and celebrates the slur.

I'm having trouble accepting the term "celebrates" because it is the team being celebrated not the word. And accepting an adaptation on such a popular national stage would make the effort even more important if we could pull it off.

PseudoSABR
12-02-2013, 08:19 PM
The team is being celebrated through the vessel of the mascot, which is a slur. The reason Native American figures are commodified into mascots is because of the racist assumptions people make about those figures' savagery and fierceness. There's no point in calling a team the Redskins if it doesn't celebrate that sense of savagery.

Redskin will always be made up of two words that have immutable meanings--the notion that you can simply wipe away the historical roots of the word is just silly.

TheLeviathan
12-02-2013, 08:53 PM
This used to be their theme song:

Hail to the Redskins! Hail, victory!

Braves on the warpath!

Fight for Old D.C.!

Scalp 'em, swamp 'um

We will take 'um big score

Read 'um, Weep 'um, touchdown

We want heap more

Fight on, fight on, till you have won

Sons of Washington

Rah! Rah! Rah!

Do we really still need to discuss whether the name was rooted in racism and a lack of empathy for mocking Native Americans?

Twins best friend
12-02-2013, 10:17 PM
The team is being celebrated through the vessel of the mascot, which is a slur.

Is your argument on whether or not the mascot and image of an american indian on the logo should be removed? If so then I agree that the logo/mascot should be changed but the team could still use redskins the way the packers or nationals do and represent themselves with a letter. Arguing the image is different than arguing the word.

PseudoSABR
12-02-2013, 10:41 PM
I don't know how you can admit to the problem with the iconography of the logo and not see the problem with the name. The symbolic weight of each is the same. Again, it's not like Redskin is some nonsense word, that only acts as a slur, the name is offensive because it refers to a person literally by the color of their pelt.

Ultima Ratio
12-02-2013, 11:45 PM
Test.

Redskins.

Nope, the internets doesn't filter the word out.

Maybe in N. Korea it would.

Twins best friend
12-02-2013, 11:51 PM
Because the word only gains a racial connotation with the association to a misrepresentation of an American Indian. if you showed a child a Redskin football player with the term Redskin on their jersey but no image of an American Indian the child would, i assume, conclude that they are named that because their jersey is red. The term itself can only be considered offensive when represented with a misrepresentation of an American Indian. Otherwise it could refer to somebody blushing, or angry, or too warm.

Twins best friend
12-03-2013, 12:09 AM
Do we really still need to discuss whether the name was rooted in racism and a lack of empathy for mocking Native Americans?

Let's look at the Vikings theme song:

Skol Vikings, let's win this game,
Skol Vikings, honor your name,
Go get that first down,
Then get a touchdown.
Rock 'em . . . Sock 'em
Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight!
Go Vikings, run up the score,
You'll hear us yell for more. . .
V-I-K-I-N-G-S
Skol, Vikings, let's go!

What do they have in common? They both cheer the team to fight, they both focus on scoring touchdowns, they both praise the team (Hail Redskins, Skol Vikings), So you're issue is with the word scalp. I would classify the use of that word as a stereotype but not as racist. I'd also like to address again that I don't dispute the roots of the word. I believe that people vastly associate the word with a football team, not a race of people. Therefore, the definition of the word has undergone/is undergoing a dramatic change and the issue lies not in the word but in the association to an incorrect image. The image should be the target, not the word.

PseudoSABR
12-03-2013, 01:05 AM
What the fight songs have in common is that they are fight songs, what they don't have in common is relying on racially charged phrases and images to rally that fight. The second and fourth lines of the Redskins depicts the very savagery that people find demeaning.

If the Vikings fight song had a line about force-feeding someone with lutefisk or raping and pillaging the villages of Greenland, you might actually have a point.

glunn
12-03-2013, 01:10 AM
I see no good reason for preserving the image or the word. Without the image, the word seems meaningless and therefore not a good team nickname. It seems to me that a clean slate makes the most sense.

I appreciate how everyone has been following TD policy in this thread.

Twins best friend
12-03-2013, 02:00 AM
If the Vikings fight song had a line about force-feeding someone with lutefisk...

This made me chuckle heartily. However neither of those examples pertains to the actual word Redskins.

In response to Glunn, the benefit in retaining the word after the severing of connection to the image is monetary. There is a considerable amount of merchandise in circulation which has the word Redskins on it with no logo which would remain valid.

TheLeviathan
12-03-2013, 06:33 AM
If you think the only issue with that song is "scalp" then you need to brush up on your Native American stereotypes. It's rife with more.

Its ample evidence of the utter indifference to mockery the whole concept is. We should want to be better than that.

TheLeviathan
12-03-2013, 06:34 AM
This made me chuckle heartily. However neither of those examples pertains to the actual word Redskins.

In response to Glunn, the benefit in retaining the word after the severing of connection to the image is monetary. There is a considerable amount of merchandise in circulation which has the word Redskins on it with no logo which would remain valid.

well, at least we've put a price tag on respect then I suppose.

Twins best friend
12-03-2013, 05:15 PM
If you think the only issue with that song is "scalp" then you need to brush up on your Native American stereotypes. It's rife with more.

Could you elaborate more on them then? Besides scalp what are the other stereotypes? I still don't believe that mockery is the correct term. You need to brush up on your history as well. Europeans were very impressed with the Revolutionary era American Indian physique. There are accounts of soldiers boasting that they were able to complete marches that even American Indians found difficult implying that there was a great deal of respect for the physical ability of American Indians. American Indians would joke how the the settlers couldn't handle the terrain and the weather of America because they weren't manly enough. How would it be mocking to name a team after a group of people who were considered physically elite? The image on the logo is incorrect because it misrepresents the true image of American Indians and that should be changed. The name, in my opinion, has lost the connection to that image and American Indians as a nation and now is synonymous with a football team.

That was an unnecessary shot as well regarding the price tag. I've stated before that I will not be remorse if the name is changed. Glunn wanted a reason and I offered a financial incentive. You cannot argue that it woudn't be a financial incentive which means your basis is on the morals which we were arguing already anyway.

Twins best friend
12-03-2013, 05:26 PM
Actually, I'm going to put an end to my part in this argument and ask the most basic question possible. Do you feel that the term Redskins still calls to mind the image of American Indians for people? My entire argument is based on that I don't feel that it does anymore. If people are in agreement that Redskins is still associated with American Indians and not the football team in their mind then I recant my argument and agree that the name should be changed.

TheLeviathan
12-03-2013, 06:29 PM
Could you elaborate more on them then?

The beat, warpath, braves, broken english, wump em - it's all one big cartoonish portrayl.


How would it be mocking to name a team after a group of people who were considered physically elite?

We thought Africans so physically impressive we enslaved them and worked them to death. Want to rename any teams the "Negros"? Your position is getting less and less rational with every post.


That was an unnecessary shot as well regarding the price tag.

Not at all. Financial windfalls shouldn't even be a consideration. It's insulting and shows just how trivial you treat the issue that you equate human dignity with price tags.

PseudoSABR
12-03-2013, 06:52 PM
Do you feel that the term Redskins still calls to mind the image of American Indians for people? My entire argument is based on that I don't feel that it does anymore. What the heck else could the word Redskin refer to? They have an American Indian on the side of helmet, for ****'s sake. You can't really believe that people don't make the association between the name and the logo and the actually people.

How many people does it take to be offended by the nickname and how many people does it take to associate the nickname to American Indians for you to change your mind? Because there's plenty of people in both categories.

Twins best friend
12-03-2013, 07:39 PM
They have an American Indian on the side of helmet, for ****'s sake...how many people does it take to associate the nickname to American Indians for you to change your mind? Because there's plenty...

I've stated my view on the logo. I think it should be removed. If there are people that think of American Indians as Redskins and less than other people then I'm sorry. I do not associate that term with American Indians, only a football team. I really would like to think that people are better than making that association. However, since there is such vehement opposition to my assumption, I'll retract it and apologize again.