Washington Football Franchise team name discussion

[Jenksismyhero]

And Vikings! I can't believe people support a team named after a group of people known for rape, murder, pillage and unquestionably poor hygiene.

 

Clearly the Dolphins are the most offensive.

[illinilaw08]

Nope, not anymore it doesn't. It refers to the team nickname. No one uses the word redskins to refer to american indians anymore. No one. It's so antiquated it's laughable as a slur. I asked my wife last night what redskins means. Her football exposure is about 25% of the Superbowl each year. Even she said, you mean the football team?

 

You're basically telling me that slurs can never in the future change meanings and become something different. I think that's bulls***. "Queer" used to be a terrible word for members of the LGBT community. Now it's a term that you're SUPPOSED to use. That happened in about 20 years.

 

What your wife thinks the term redskin means is, with all due respect, irrelevant to this argument.

 

What do the people who are offended by the term - you know Native Americans - think about this? Clearly enough of them are offended that a movement to change the team name has been in place since 1971, informally, and 1988 formally.

 

I don't understand why you are turning a blind eye to that fact...

[iamshack]

What your wife thinks the term redskin means is, with all due respect, irrelevant to this argument.

 

What do the people who are offended by the term - you know Native Americans - think about this? Clearly enough of them are offended that a movement to change the team name has been in place since 1971, informally, and 1988 formally.

 

I don't understand why you are turning a blind eye to that fact...

Let me ask you this...when have you ever heard so many white academics taking up a cause that was important to American Indians?

 

That's why this is frustrating to me, anyways. It's hypocrisy. Where were all these white people when American Indians were fighting for more tangible or substantive rights/improved treatment? You don't hear s*** from white people then. But all the sudden when it's time to debate something which requires no effort other than opening up your big mouth or typing away on the internet, the white people all run to the side of the American Indian! "We are brothers in a united cause!"

 

So I don't think people are turning a blind eye to what the American Indians are saying....they are turning a blind eye to what white academic guy on the internet is saying. Because it's f***ing hollow.

[Jenksismyhero]

What your wife thinks the term redskin means is, with all due respect, irrelevant to this argument.

 

What do the people who are offended by the term - you know Native Americans - think about this? Clearly enough of them are offended that a movement to change the team name has been in place since 1971, informally, and 1988 formally.

 

I don't understand why you are turning a blind eye to that fact...

 

Her opinion is, but it's just indicative of how people perceive the word. Words are words. People provide words meaning. That word has lost the slur-meaning in 2014. We've moved past it.

 

And people are offended by just about everything. Should we ban words like "fat" and "ugly" in businesses? I'm sure you can find a large percent of people who feel offended by those words too.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Let me ask you this...when have you ever heard so many white academics taking up a cause that was important to American Indians?

 

That's why this is frustrating to me, anyways. It's hypocrisy. Where were all these white people when American Indians were fighting for more tangible or substantive rights/improved treatment? You don't hear s*** from white people then. But all the sudden when it's time to debate something which requires no effort other than opening up your big mouth or typing away on the internet, the white people all run to the side of the American Indian! "We are brothers in a united cause!"

 

So I don't think people are turning a blind eye to what the American Indians are saying....they are turning a blind eye to what white academic guy on the internet is saying. Because it's f***ing hollow.

 

Bingo.

 

It became a story this year because Snyder was an asshole about it. That created more media fodder. Now suddenly it's the worst thing in the world and "honorable" and "righteous" people are going to take a stand and not use the word anymore. As if magically there was some major shift within the last year.

[iamshack]

Bingo.

 

It became a story this year because Snyder was an asshole about it. That created more media fodder. Now suddenly it's the worst thing in the world and "honorable" and "righteous" people are going to take a stand and not use the word anymore. As if magically there was some major shift within the last year.

And if the American Indians are in such a minority position that the one of the only ways for something like this to occur is for others in a more powerful position to take up their cause, then great. I'm not pissing on that fire. But jeesh, just admit it. There's nothing wrong with that.

[Jenksismyhero]

And if the American Indians are in such a minority position that the one of the only ways for something like this to occur is for others in a more powerful position to take up their cause, then great. I'm not pissing on that fire. But jeesh, just admit it. There's nothing wrong with that.

 

The problem is they can't. Because like everyone else who doesn't think it has to be changed, they too were "ok" with it and didn't think twice about it until they needed some cause to latch onto. "Yeah, yeah! That name SHOULD be changed. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just a racist asshole! I'm clearly not an asshole so...yeah!"

 

If you think it should be changed, I can respect that position. But don't act all high and mighty about it like you're a better person for thinking that way.

[bmags]

From where I sit, there are 3 arguments going on:

 

- It is an offensive word that should not be used for a football team mascot

 

- It is not an offensive word anymore, and it should stay as the team name

 

- It may be an offensive word, but it shouldn't be this big of a deal and you shouldn't advocate for it to be removed unless you've advocated for all Indian Rights arguments because that makes you a hypocrite and aren't there better things to worry about?

 

I think the only valid arguments are 1 and 2. If you believe that the name is wrong, but think people shouldn't advocate to remove a wrong because there are other wrongs, you are arguing in bad faith. You don't actually have a problem with the argument, you have a problem with the people making the argument because you think they are shallow.

 

Hypocrisy is a really fun message board tool in the internet age. I'm sure it makes people feel very righteous to dismiss any argument or policy because the person arguing it. But at some point perhaps we could put the rhetorical tools away and just address the problem at hand.

 

Should this word stand or should it not?

 

I think it should not. Do I put this word removal as the most important change facing the nation? No, but at some point you look down and holy s***, it's been 20 years and we are no closer to removing it, and you start arguing a little harder.

[iamshack]

The problem is they can't. Because like everyone else who doesn't think it has to be changed, they too were "ok" with it and didn't think twice about it until they needed some cause to latch onto. "Yeah, yeah! That name SHOULD be changed. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just a racist asshole! I'm clearly not an asshole so...yeah!"

 

If you think it should be changed, I can respect that position. But don't act all high and mighty about it like you're a better person for thinking that way.

Well how about changing your mind? People are allowed to change their minds...but everyone is so afraid of admitting they might have been wrong before...I'll admit, I actually think the woman who said she would support Dan Snyder because she believes the imagery used by sports teams keeps her history alive has a very good point...but if the majority of American Indians are offended by it, than by all means, I'll admit I didn't recognize that before and that in my opinion, we owe it to them to change the name/imagery.

 

But at the same time, I'm not going to sit here and claim I've got some huge amount of skin in the game (no pun intended).

[iamshack]

From where I sit, there are 3 arguments going on:

 

- It is an offensive word that should not be used for a football team mascot

 

- It is not an offensive word anymore, and it should stay as the team name

 

- It may be an offensive word, but it shouldn't be this big of a deal and you shouldn't advocate for it to be removed unless you've advocated for all Indian Rights arguments because that makes you a hypocrite and aren't there better things to worry about?

 

I think the only valid arguments are 1 and 2. If you believe that the name is wrong, but think people shouldn't advocate to remove a wrong because there are other wrongs, you are arguing in bad faith. You don't actually have a problem with the argument, you have a problem with the people making the argument because you think they are shallow.

 

Hypocrisy is a really fun message board tool in the internet age. I'm sure it makes people feel very righteous to dismiss any argument or policy because the person arguing it. But at some point perhaps we could put the rhetorical tools away and just address the problem at hand.

 

Should this word stand or should it not?

 

I think it should not. Do I put this word removal as the most important change facing the nation? No, but at some point you look down and holy s***, it's been 20 years and we are no closer to removing it, and you start arguing a little harder.

I guess what I'm trying to argue for is to use some of that passion you seem to have to go out there and contribute in other ways, rather than to use causes like this to challenge your debate skills...because I really don't believe that you'll get off your couch to do much of anything for American Indians when it really comes down to it.

[illinilaw08]

Let me ask you this...when have you ever heard so many white academics taking up a cause that was important to American Indians?

 

That's why this is frustrating to me, anyways. It's hypocrisy. Where were all these white people when American Indians were fighting for more tangible or substantive rights/improved treatment? You don't hear s*** from white people then. But all the sudden when it's time to debate something which requires no effort other than opening up your big mouth or typing away on the internet, the white people all run to the side of the American Indian! "We are brothers in a united cause!"

 

So I don't think people are turning a blind eye to what the American Indians are saying....they are turning a blind eye to what white academic guy on the internet is saying. Because it's f***ing hollow.

 

This many white academics were certainly up in arms about the Chief.

 

My .02 - more people latch on to causes like this because (1) awareness of the issue; and (2) how easily the issue can be resolved.

 

Poverty in the Native American community is systemic. As a result, alcoholism is a major problem on the reservations. The Native Americans were largely eradicated, pushed to some of the least habitable ground in this country, and, consequently, have some of the worst numbers in America - employment, education, substance abuse.

 

While those issues need attention, they are issues that can't be solved in the snap of one's fingers. So they are more difficult issues to get people to rally behind (and, sidenote, there are plenty of "white academics" pushing those issues as well).

 

The name clearly offends certain Native Americans. Hence, the Washington Post receiving letters complaining about the name as early as 1971. Hence, Native Americans publicly requesting the team name to change as recently as 1988.

 

You want hollow? It's hollow to say that "because no one in my circle of friends has ever heard the term used in a derogatory manner, the word has been co-opted and it's not a slur anymore!" It's hollow to say that people can't speak out about something they perceive as an injustice because they aren't talking about larger issues.

 

The only way to get Daniel Snyder to change his position on the team name is to put public pressure on him. The only way to do that is to have "white academic guy" open his mouth.

 

 

 

 

[bmags]

I guess what I'm trying to argue for is to use some of that passion you seem to have to go out there and contribute in other ways, rather than to use causes like this to challenge your debate skills...because I really don't believe that you'll get off your couch to do much of anything for American Indians when it really comes down to it.

 

That's great, but again, what does it matter. Do you think it's wrong? If so, how are you making things better?

 

This is the same as "look at all these assholes giving to a charity they don't give a s*** about."

 

 

[iamshack]

This many white academics were certainly up in arms about the Chief.

 

My .02 - more people latch on to causes like this because (1) awareness of the issue; and (2) how easily the issue can be resolved.

 

Poverty in the Native American community is systemic. As a result, alcoholism is a major problem on the reservations. The Native Americans were largely eradicated, pushed to some of the least habitable ground in this country, and, consequently, have some of the worst numbers in America - employment, education, substance abuse.

 

While those issues need attention, they are issues that can't be solved in the snap of one's fingers. So they are more difficult issues to get people to rally behind (and, sidenote, there are plenty of "white academics" pushing those issues as well).

 

The name clearly offends certain Native Americans. Hence, the Washington Post receiving letters complaining about the name as early as 1971. Hence, Native Americans publicly requesting the team name to change as recently as 1988.

 

You want hollow? It's hollow to say that "because no one in my circle of friends has ever heard the term used in a derogatory manner, the word has been co-opted and it's not a slur anymore!" It's hollow to say that people can't speak out about something they perceive as an injustice because they aren't talking about larger issues.

 

The only way to get Daniel Snyder to change his position on the team name is to put public pressure on him. The only way to do that is to have "white academic guy" open his mouth.

That's fair enough...and all I am asking is for you to admit that is the reasoning for your taking a stance on the issue, instead of thumbing your nose at everyone else as if you were the one sending the letters to the Washington Post in 1971.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Well how about changing your mind? People are allowed to change their minds...but everyone is so afraid of admitting they might have been wrong before...I'll admit, I actually think the woman who said she would support Dan Snyder because she believes the imagery used by sports teams keeps her history alive has a very good point...but if the majority of American Indians are offended by it, than by all means, I'll admit I didn't recognize that before and that in my opinion, we owe it to them to change the name/imagery.

 

But at the same time, I'm not going to sit here and claim I've got some huge amount of skin in the game (no pun intended).

 

I think that's a valid position. I still think the meaning and usage of the word has changed so much that it shouldn't matter, but I can respect someone changing their minds on a topic after learning new information.

[illinilaw08]

The problem is they can't. Because like everyone else who doesn't think it has to be changed, they too were "ok" with it and didn't think twice about it until they needed some cause to latch onto. "Yeah, yeah! That name SHOULD be changed. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just a racist asshole! I'm clearly not an asshole so...yeah!"

 

If you think it should be changed, I can respect that position. But don't act all high and mighty about it like you're a better person for thinking that way.

 

What if they were ok with it because they weren't aware of the historical context of the word? Now that they know that, this hypothetical person isn't allowed to push for change?

 

And to Shack, we're all just using this forum to kill time while at work. It doesn't make the debate unimportant, but it's not like I could have been using this time to head to hearings in front of the Bureau of Indian Affairs to discuss ways to make meaningful change on the reservation. If we had a thread discussing that, I would gladly participate (because, like most people commenting on internet message boards, the one semester of Native American history - 1865-present - that I took in undergrad a decade ago definitely makes me an expert on the subject)...

[bmags]

What if they were ok with it because they weren't aware of the historical context of the word? Now that they know that, this hypothetical person isn't allowed to push for change?

 

And to Shack, we're all just using this forum to kill time while at work. It doesn't make the debate unimportant, but it's not like I could have been using this time to head to hearings in front of the Bureau of Indian Affairs to discuss ways to make meaningful change on the reservation. If we had a thread discussing that, I would gladly participate (because, like most people commenting on internet message boards, the one semester of Native American history - 1865-present - that I took in undergrad a decade ago definitely makes me an expert on the subject)...

 

And I listened to a Rage Against the Machine album.

[Jenksismyhero]

This many white academics were certainly up in arms about the Chief.

 

My .02 - more people latch on to causes like this because (1) awareness of the issue; and (2) how easily the issue can be resolved.

 

Poverty in the Native American community is systemic. As a result, alcoholism is a major problem on the reservations. The Native Americans were largely eradicated, pushed to some of the least habitable ground in this country, and, consequently, have some of the worst numbers in America - employment, education, substance abuse.

 

While those issues need attention, they are issues that can't be solved in the snap of one's fingers. So they are more difficult issues to get people to rally behind (and, sidenote, there are plenty of "white academics" pushing those issues as well).

 

The name clearly offends certain Native Americans. Hence, the Washington Post receiving letters complaining about the name as early as 1971. Hence, Native Americans publicly requesting the team name to change as recently as 1988.

 

You want hollow? It's hollow to say that "because no one in my circle of friends has ever heard the term used in a derogatory manner, the word has been co-opted and it's not a slur anymore!" It's hollow to say that people can't speak out about something they perceive as an injustice because they aren't talking about larger issues.

 

The only way to get Daniel Snyder to change his position on the team name is to put public pressure on him. The only way to do that is to have "white academic guy" open his mouth.

 

This is largely why I think this issue is almost complete white-people centered BS, just like the Chief nonsense was. A bunch of white, uppity liberals who aren't really taking a stand next to a group, but instead promoting an issue THEY think is necessary for the group.

 

As to the bolded, give me an example on a national scale when this has ever been an issue. Where someone has used redskin/s in a derogatory way. In anything. TV, moves, music, etc. Literally the only thing I can think of is Disney's Peter Pan. And that came out in 1953.

 

[iamshack]

That's great, but again, what does it matter. Do you think it's wrong? If so, how are you making things better?

 

This is the same as "look at all these assholes giving to a charity they don't give a s*** about."

Do I think the name is wrong, or do I think the Moses routine you and some others have employed gets old?

 

To be honest, I spend my time thinking things more relevant to my life than whether a football team name/imagery is offensive to someone. But now that the issue has been brought to my attention, well, I really have no attachment to the Redskins name. If I was a lifelong Redskins fan, maybe that would be different, but I am not. So I would certainly not oppose changing the name.

 

As for the Moses routine, yes, I think that is wrong. I think there is a way to intelligently discuss the issue without getting so high and mighty about it all the time. You and some others have a habit of doing this.

 

I'll admit, I'm not making things better for any American Indians. I have limited energy/resources, of which I expend on causes which are more personal to me. If this is the case with you, is it wrong for you to take this opportunity to show your support for American Indians by opposing the use of the name/imagery Redskin? Absolutely not! Just don't do it in a way which employs more ridicule, more divisiveness, etc.

 

What ultimately pisses me off is those that seem to argue most fervently for those who have been oppressed use those very oppressive tactics themselves that they claim to be fighting against.

 

That, is hypocrisy, in its purest form.

[illinilaw08]

That's fair enough...and all I am asking is for you to admit that is the reasoning for your taking a stance on the issue, instead of thumbing your nose at everyone else as if you were the one sending the letters to the Washington Post in 1971.

 

Bringing up 1971 is only important in the context of people saying "this only became an issue in the last year!" Clearly, certain segments of the Native American population have been offended by the word for, at a minimum, 40+ years. That's not me thumbing my nose at someone, that's relating historical facts surrounding the argument...

 

I'm arguing as to why the name should change. If Native American groups decided, "you know what, not offended any more" then I would probably change my stance... but that hasn't happened.

[Jenksismyhero]

What if they were ok with it because they weren't aware of the historical context of the word? Now that they know that, this hypothetical person isn't allowed to push for change?

 

And to Shack, we're all just using this forum to kill time while at work. It doesn't make the debate unimportant, but it's not like I could have been using this time to head to hearings in front of the Bureau of Indian Affairs to discuss ways to make meaningful change on the reservation. If we had a thread discussing that, I would gladly participate (because, like most people commenting on internet message boards, the one semester of Native American history - 1865-present - that I took in undergrad a decade ago definitely makes me an expert on the subject)...

 

If you have to be educated about the offensive nature of the word, that pretty much shows you that the word is not, on a whole, offensive. I'm sure it's offensive to some. But there are hundreds of offensive words that we use/see/hear/read daily without thinking twice about it.

 

[bmags]

Can someone start a thread for the message board oppressed to finally get a voice?

[iamshack]

Can someone start a thread for the message board oppressed to finally get a voice?

You can start it in 10 years when you start your crusade to stop their oppression!

[Dick Allen]

I feel sorry for red skin potatoes. Are they going to be renamed? Maybe, not to be offensive, the NFL team should just switch out the Indian for some potatoes on their emblem and everyone wins.

 

I do think they should change the name. If a group of people are offended, they are offended, and it doesn't seem unreasonable they are offended.But to me, Chief Wahoo should be way more offensive.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Dick Allen

[bmags]

You can start it in 10 years when you start your crusade to stop their oppression!

 

If that's the issue that's left, I'm sure the world will be a pretty good place. And Greg will still be freaked out as s*** about any news story.

[iamshack]

If that's the issue that's left, I'm sure the world will be a pretty good place. And Greg will still be freaked out as s*** about any news story.

Something tells me this statement was uttered 40-50 years ago in reference to changing a football team name because it offends someone