dawkins4prez Posted July 3, 2020 Share Posted July 3, 2020 On 7/2/2020 at 10:15 AM, EricAllenPick6 said: I was curious about this, so I went digging around. Americans (not Native Americans, just folks in generally) don't think the name is disrespectful to Native Americans: https://www.espn.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/11451964/redskins-poll-most-favor-keeping-name-dissent-growing However, it seems that the majority of Native Americans really do think the name, caricature, headdress, tomahawk chop, etc.i s disrespectful. https://news.berkeley.edu/2020/02/04/native-mascots-survey/ My question on this is where is the line? Why do the "Redskins" have to change their name (and all associated thing), but the Braves keep their name (and that tomahawk chop)? Cleveland Indians? Chicago Blackhawks? Where's the line? (I actually found a full list here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sports_team_names_and_mascots_derived_from_indigenous_peoples) IMO, teams that are named after Tribes and have respectful logos, Seminoles, Blackhawks are perfectly safe. I think Kansas City Chiefs and Atlanta Braves are safe. The two most problematic are clearly the Washington Redskins (that word is very clearly problematic) and the Cleveland Indians (name and chief Wahoo both problematic). Redskins and Indians should have rebooted a long time ago and only have themselves to blame for ahving to do it at gunpoint now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brkmsn Posted July 3, 2020 Share Posted July 3, 2020 1 minute ago, dawkins4prez said: IMO, teams that are named after Tribes and have respectful logos, Seminoles, Blackhawks are perfectly safe. I think Kansas City Chiefs and Atlanta Braves are safe. The two most problematic are clearly the Washington Redskins (that word is very clearly problematic) and the Cleveland Indians (name and chief Wahoo both problematic). Redskins and Indians should have rebooted a long time ago and only have themselves to blame for ahving to do it at gunpoint now. Once a group or movement gets its way, it will just move on to the next item. What is "perfectly safe" today means absolutely nothing years from now --- Just look around. You might think what I'm about to say is absurd, but if washington is forced to change it's name, the next major sports team that will start taking heat is probably the Cincinnati Reds. Laugh all you want --- the origin of "reds" was the color of stockings, but in identity politics facts aren't relevant --- perception is king. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FranklinFldEBUpper Posted July 3, 2020 Share Posted July 3, 2020 1 minute ago, brkmsn said: Once a group or movement gets its way, it will just move on to the next item. What is "perfectly safe" today means absolutely nothing years from now --- Just look around. You might think what I'm about to say is absurd, but if washington is forced to change it's name, the next major sports team that will start taking heat is probably the Cincinnati Reds. Laugh all you want --- the origin of "reds" was the color of stockings, but in identity politics facts aren't relevant --- perception is king. What about the 49ers? In 1849, slavery was still a thing, so...racist! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaliEagle Posted July 4, 2020 Share Posted July 4, 2020 They should be called the Washington Warthogs. That way they can use the "hogs" nickname and they can either use the animal or military plane as the logo. Plus, they've had a lot of warts over the past 20 years, so it fits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dawkins4prez Posted July 4, 2020 Share Posted July 4, 2020 6 hours ago, brkmsn said: Once a group or movement gets its way, it will just move on to the next item. What is "perfectly safe" today means absolutely nothing years from now --- Just look around. You might think what I'm about to say is absurd, but if washington is forced to change it's name, the next major sports team that will start taking heat is probably the Cincinnati Reds. Laugh all you want --- the origin of "reds" was the color of stockings, but in identity politics facts aren't relevant --- perception is king. Yeah you can totally F off with that. When I was was f'ing 8 yrs old the name Redskins made me unconfortable. By the time I was 13 I knew about their racist owner's backstory. Intentions matter, cirumstance matters and they are tangible truths. No everything is NOT perception. OTOH, some of these team names are done with utmost respect and it shows in their logos and their proper tribal namesakes. Use your brain dude, and try critical thinking from case to case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dawkins4prez Posted July 4, 2020 Share Posted July 4, 2020 3 hours ago, CaliEagle said: They should be called the Washington Warthogs. That way they can use the "hogs" nickname and they can either use the animal or military plane as the logo. Plus, they've had a lot of warts over the past 20 years, so it fits. Their nickname is and always has been the 'skins. I can't tell you how disappointed I will be if they take anything other than Pigskins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dawkins4prez Posted July 4, 2020 Share Posted July 4, 2020 6 hours ago, FranklinFldEBUpper said: What about the 49ers? In 1849, slavery was still a thing, so...racist! Durrrr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brkmsn Posted July 4, 2020 Share Posted July 4, 2020 59 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said: Yeah you can totally F off with that. When I was was f'ing 8 yrs old the name Redskins made me unconfortable. By the time I was 13 I knew about their racist owner's backstory. Intentions matter, cirumstance matters and they are tangible truths. No everything is NOT perception. OTOH, some of these team names are done with utmost respect and it shows in their logos and their proper tribal namesakes. Use your brain dude, and try critical thinking from case to case. All I can say is watch for yourself. This is the age where even scientific, factual evidence (truth) like gender has been replaced with perception --- and if you don't "buy in" prepare to be bullied and shamed by all those "critical thinkers." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sameaglesfan Posted July 4, 2020 Share Posted July 4, 2020 10 hours ago, dawkins4prez said: Their nickname is and always has been the 'skins. I can't tell you how disappointed I will be if they take anything other than Pigskins. Won't work - the vegans will hate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paco Posted July 4, 2020 Share Posted July 4, 2020 On 7/3/2020 at 12:36 AM, Diehardfan said: That guy has so much money that I really don't think he cares. He was like 35 years old when he bought the team in 1999 and is a billionaire. He is also a loyal fan along with being the owner. He's told people to pound sand in the past and I hope he does here too. You know what’s crazy? 21 years later he is still the second youngest owner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paco Posted July 4, 2020 Share Posted July 4, 2020 20 hours ago, dawkins4prez said: IMO, teams that are named after Tribes and have respectful logos, Seminoles, Blackhawks are perfectly safe. I think Kansas City Chiefs and Atlanta Braves are safe. The two most problematic are clearly the Washington Redskins (that word is very clearly problematic) and the Cleveland Indians (name and chief Wahoo both problematic). Redskins and Indians should have rebooted a long time ago and only have themselves to blame for ahving to do it at gunpoint now. Without looking, I think they retired Chief Wahoo years ago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diehardfan Posted July 4, 2020 Share Posted July 4, 2020 30 minutes ago, paco said: You know what’s crazy? 21 years later he is still the second youngest owner That's nuts. I had no idea he was that young back in the day. No wonder he made so many impulsive moves. A guy in his mid 30s with that much money and a sports team is going to do dumb things. Freaking 10 years is all it took from starting the business to where he ended up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paco Posted July 5, 2020 Share Posted July 5, 2020 On 7/3/2020 at 11:47 AM, Dawkins 20 said: @paco Hatchetwound should have plenty to say on this topic. She hasn't posted since the pandemic started Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dawkins4prez Posted July 5, 2020 Share Posted July 5, 2020 19 hours ago, paco said: Without looking, I think they retired Chief Wahoo years ago Wasn't until 2016 they removed it as primary logo. Wasn't until 2019 they removed him entirely, but they still sell plenty of stuff with him as a throwback logo. Indians is a word no longer in usage for Native Americans and should also go. There isn't much defending the Cleveland Indians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paco Posted July 5, 2020 Share Posted July 5, 2020 1 hour ago, dawkins4prez said: Wasn't until 2016 they removed it as primary logo. Wasn't until 2019 they removed him entirely, but they still sell plenty of stuff with him as a throwback logo. Indians is a word no longer in usage for Native Americans and should also go. There isn't much defending the Cleveland Indians. Gotcha. I was going by memory and it felt like it was done for a while, didn't realize it was just last year they removed it. Funny thing is that your post made me remember an In Living Color skit. Given the previous owner, I'm surprised Cincinnati doesn't get a second look. If you want to be offended, check it out: Spoiler They are the ones that made me shorten the team name to the reds What did the name use to be? The colored reds! JFC... you couldn't get away with that skit today Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dawkins4prez Posted July 5, 2020 Share Posted July 5, 2020 On 7/4/2020 at 2:11 AM, brkmsn said: All I can say is watch for yourself. This is the age where even scientific, factual evidence (truth) like gender has been replaced with perception --- and if you don't "buy in" prepare to be bullied and shamed by all those "critical thinkers." I push back against cancel culture every single day, wasn't too happy with the Aunt Jemima thing. And I also know that the Washington Redskins and Cleveland Indians absolutely, positively are decades overdue for reboots. Why is that so hard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brkmsn Posted July 5, 2020 Share Posted July 5, 2020 1 hour ago, dawkins4prez said: Why is that so hard? Because you believe that everybody has to agree with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dawkins4prez Posted July 5, 2020 Share Posted July 5, 2020 19 minutes ago, brkmsn said: Because you believe that everybody has to agree with you. So you don't agree that the Redskins and Indians need to reboot? Can you make an argument for that without resorting to cataclysmic predictions of vegan overlords? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brkmsn Posted July 5, 2020 Share Posted July 5, 2020 20 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said: So you don't agree that the Redskins and Indians need to reboot? Can you make an argument for that without resorting to cataclysmic predictions of vegan overlords? I don't believe that the origin of the word "redskin" was derogatory or a slur. In fact, there are historical records of various natives using the term to describe their own people. In my lifetime it was never comparatively similar in use as a derogatory term like the n-word or other common derogatory slurs. The term "Indian" referring to Native Americans was a gaffe that stuck around. I think we all know the story behind that. It was not an offensive slur. Of course growing up, it was clear that early cartoons, movies, books, etc... often painted Native Americans as "the bad guy." But it wasn't through the use of the term "Indian." So ... will I agree the names have to change? No. If the name was something like Washington Savages and the mascot was a Native American, I would get onboard. We label people everyday as white, black, white-trash, redneck, redhead, brunette, blonde, "the orange man," brown, olive, etc... based on looks. Either it's all offensive or it's just the way people with eyes are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dawkins4prez Posted July 5, 2020 Share Posted July 5, 2020 11 minutes ago, brkmsn said: I don't believe that the origin of the word "redskin" was derogatory or a slur. In fact, there are historical records of various natives using the term to describe their own people. In my lifetime it was never comparatively similar in use as a derogatory term like the n-word or other common derogatory slurs. The term "Indian" referring to Native Americans was a gaffe that stuck around. I think we all know the story behind that. It was not an offensive slur. Of course growing up, it was clear that early cartoons, movies, books, etc... often painted Native Americans as "the bad guy." But it wasn't through the use of the term "Indian." So ... will I agree the names have to change? No. If the name was something like Washington Savages and the mascot was a Native American, I would get onboard. We label people everyday as white, black, white-trash, redneck, redhead, brunette, blonde, "the orange man," brown, olive, etc... based on looks. Either it's all offensive or it's just the way people with eyes are. Redneck is pretty close to Redskin in colloquial usage. Can be derrogatory, but also sometimes used within the group to each other. But in 2020 can you honestly say that a non Native American should be using that term or Indian? I don't, it's clearly inappropriate. Would YOU use either term towards a Native American? I sure as F wouldn;t call a southerner Redneck to his face unless he was already a friend of mine that had proven he was cool with me using it. Even then I would use it sparingly and in jest. I don't think Rednecks or White Trash is an appropriate football name either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brkmsn Posted July 5, 2020 Share Posted July 5, 2020 2 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said: Redneck is pretty close to Redskin in colloquial usage. Can be derrogatory, but also sometimes used within the group to each other. But in 2020 can you honestly say that a non Native American should be using that term or Indian? I don't, it's clearly inappropriate. Would YOU use either term towards a Native American? I sure as F wouldn;t call a southerner Redneck to his face unless he was already a friend of mine that had proven he was cool with me using it. Even then I would use it sparingly and in jest. I don't think Rednecks or White Trash is an appropriate football name either. I doubt it would bother you to call someone black, white, or brown today --- even though there are more "official" terms to use. Anyway, you asked for my argument --- that was the concise version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dawkins4prez Posted July 5, 2020 Share Posted July 5, 2020 2 minutes ago, brkmsn said: I doubt it would bother you to call someone black, white, or brown today --- even though there are more "official" terms to use. Anyway, you asked for my argument --- that was the concise version. You're evading. Yes I would use white, black, brown. I would not use Indian or especially redskin. Would you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brkmsn Posted July 5, 2020 Share Posted July 5, 2020 9 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said: You're evading. Yes I would use white, black, brown. I would not use Indian or especially redskin. Would you? As an everyday practice regarding people, no. Regarding teams and players, i have no issue with it. I also don't go around calling people, "cowboy" either just because they are wearing a hat or boots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dawkins4prez Posted July 5, 2020 Share Posted July 5, 2020 3 hours ago, brkmsn said: As an everyday practice regarding people, no. Regarding teams and players, i have no issue with it. I also don't go around calling people, "cowboy" either just because they are wearing a hat or boots. Yes you would. You could easily offhandedly call somebody at the end of the bar a Cowboy. You would have no issue meeting some Swiss dude and calling him a Viking within 5 minutes either. I think you are refusing to spend a little introspection on this and that's why i have to say you are wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paco Posted July 6, 2020 Share Posted July 6, 2020 R-words trio of minority owners launching search to sell stakes Quote The three minority owners of the Washington Redskins are seeking to sell their shares in the team because they are "not happy being a partner" with owner Daniel Snyder, The Washington Post has reported, citing sources familiar with the deliberations. Prominent businessmen Robert Rothman, Dwight Schar and Frederick W. Smith, who combined own about 40% of the team, have hired an investment banking firm to undergo a search for possible buyers, one of the sources told The Post. Pro Football Talk first reported Schar and Smith were trying to sell their stakes in the team. The development comes as the team appears increasingly likely to change its name amid renewed pressure, given the national focus on human rights and social justice after the death of George Floyd in Minnesota. Coach Ron Rivera told The Post on Saturday he has been working with Snyder on a new team nickname in recent weeks. And the team announced Friday it would "undergo a thorough review" of the nickname. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.