Twins best friend

Out of curiosity was there a reason behind choosing 15%? What would you think about the percentage increase of offer required being based off of the the number of wins separating teams rather than how many teams have had a chance? It sounds like the idea of trying to help the losing/small market teams isn't doing well but it would be pretty neat.

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.

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.

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.

If MLBtraderumors is correct then we should have all this settled relatively soon. I'm not fully sold on signing Salty because I feel like Pinto will fill the need at catcher with more experience. Feeling this way it would almost be like paying Salty to fill the void for a year or maybe two until Pinto is ready, a time period we more than likely won't be making a World Series run during anyway. On the other hand... all these free agent signings are fun.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

1. Doumit does have some value because you can plug him in at RF, C, 1B or DH so he is relatively flexible despite providing little defense at those positions. I have no problem with him until the half-year mark where Hicks/Buxton/Arcia/Willingham are all (theoretically) available in the outfield. At that point the Twins try to find a new home for him. 2. Worley has had success at the major league level before so I definitely think he deserves another look. I know a lot of people are sold on Deduno and I like him too but I'm looking for Gibson to take a big step forward and claim that spot that many are giving to Deduno(#4). I think Worley can compete with Deduno for #5. 3. I've never understood what people saw in Hendriks. I understand he has had great success in the minors but at this moment I view him as the pitcher version of Parmelee only lacking the gleaming start that Parmelee had. 4. Can't see him making the rotation unless he regains that sparkling command. It'd be interesting to see if his fastball gained any *umph* coming out of the bullpen. 5. Nope 6. Doumit > both. More versatile, more proven. Neither have a place with Mauer at 1st and Hicks expected to take right field after the Buxton arrival. Parmelee has been bounced around a lot and done nothing with his chances. Collabello was an awesome story last year but I remain skeptical.