Interesting story. Me personally, I don't see how the name is offensive. I think it shows pride to Native Americans.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10430475/senator-threatens-nfl-tax-exe...
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
I don't think this has enough traction to pass the senate or house and the committee that these folks are on definitely doesn't have the power to retract the NFL's tax-exempt status. Sure they could pass a memo stating their support against this but that has the power of the paper its written on. The ten members mentioned in the article also "really" got involved, basically sending that one message as a group but with no follow up since.
Not usually a fan of most of the Redskins rebuttals as they usually stick their foot in their mouth, but this one is spot on in both regards.
What a waste of time. My Elementary School had to change our name too, we were called the "Indians" and apparently that was offensive. What a joke. Let's focus on important issues in Washington, like not having a $19 trillion debt.
Clearly Congress has nothing better to do than get involved in a private industry.
Considering that they do so every day? Yes.
Just leave it as the Redskins....geez...
I thought they had already resolved this issue...
Washington Redskins Change Name to DC Redskins
Would it be racist if they were renamed the Rednecks?
Personally I don't care if they change or not, but I'm going to play devil's advocate for the pro PC side of things, as most seem to not want it changed.
Technically I am part Native American but I would, and do, classify myself as white. I am white bread. The problem with you or even me saying that the name is not offensive is that neither of us (inferring that you also are not Native American) are in a position to qualify whether we feel offended by it. I grew up near several reservations of different Nations and all of my friends from there found the name offensive.
There is debate of whether the term was used first by Native Americans themselves or by settlers, and I think you could have a valid argument either way. What is known for sure is that despite it's origin it was used as a slur for a long time. No matter the origin that does not change the fact that those who would be described as such today find the name offensive. Americans used to call Chinese immigrants the "yellows" and we to this day still have issues with the N word. Political correctness can be seen as extremely limiting to those that value nostalgia and resist change, however change can also be extremely liberating to those who are offended. Really does anyone miss the Fighting Sioux? or the Native American mascot of the Fighting Illini? Few people in the grand scheme of things I suspect.
In some cases like FSU they use a specific Nation and have the consent. In other cases like the Fighting Sioux (i think that was right) they did not have consent and were forced to change. But who can give consent to the term Redskin? All Nations? that would never happen.
From the outside looking in what is PC in the USA is not necessarily the same as what is PC in other parts of the world. For example, saying someone is "oriental" is considered not PC in USA, but in China (the pearl of the orient) there are oriental hotels, spas, restaurants, buildings, residential communities, etc, etc all owned by local Chinese. Do they know that in USA the term was used derogatory? Sure, some do (I've asked them) but to them it's a term used to reflect China's first economic age and entrance into the greater world economy. A source of historical pride.
It's all perspective to the people that find it offensive, and so while 100% of Redskins' fans may not think it is offensive the people the term refers to does. Who are you to say they shouldn't be?
Sure. Your favorite team has to change their name. It sucks. All your merchandise is not defunct, though probably a lot more valuable, but you'll survive. Hell, maybe a name change will even improve their luck. Just hope they come up with something better than "Wizards" this time, and not anything as cliche as "Monuments"!
I should also state that I too believe congress has much better things to do.
Just for clarification regarding your "oriental" example. Things can be called oriental without offending. What is offensive is saying a person is oriental.
Correct and thanks for that. +1
But I have found that some Asian American groups disliked anything being named Oriental. Again all perspective
I do think the name should be changed, and yes I'm a fan so all my merchandise will be outdated (though it's not like most players stick around long enough for jerseys to remain current). It was a racial slur, so it should be changed to something more suitable.
As for Congress, sure they have better things to do, but these are the issues they can talk about while they're pretending they're actually doing their jobs. So in honor of the city the Redskins play in, how about we rename them the "Washington Gridlock"?
Representative of Washington? The team plays in Maryland.
Oh Well.
Washington Scandals?
Washington Corruption?
Washington Politicians?
Washington Lobbyists?
Yes, I know that, but the team name has "Washington" in it, and it used to play in Washington, so I'm keeping with the theme.
I know but if we are renaming...
Well, if we wanted to be extremely accurate it would be the "Landover Dumpsterfires"
Is it where they play or where they pay taxes (Virginia) and spend more of their days (Ashburn)? So shouldn't they be the "Loudoun Aristocrappers"?
Oh, my point was just the play in Landover, which is when the dumpster fires typically occur (on the football field).
I understand why Native Americans are offended by the Redskin name. In full disclosure, the Skins are my favorite team and I don't want to have to change their name. If I'm completely honest, it's because DC has a real propensity for lame team names. Wizards, Nationals, Capitals? Ugh. The alternate name I've heard when this comes up is "The Senators" and I HATE THAT NAME. Let's name our team after a bunch of politicians? Spare me.
Again, I understand that calling someone a "redskin" is offensive and having a team named that is a slap in the face of them and their heritage. I would be fine with a name change but to what?
Suggestions and explanations (if you'd like) below!
See above.
-Washington Gridlock
Or maybe we try and please both parties in D.C. with:
-Washington Republicrats
-Washington Donkephants
Or for any of you that read the Oatmeal, we could steal one from that and use:
-Washington Piggers (which also kind of hearkens back to the Hogs)
Turkey Leg for the applicable Oatmeal reference because the Oatmeal is awesome.
1 - Politicians have much better things to do than get involved with this.
2 - The name should be changed. Don't care that it has been around for as long as it has, "Redskins" is a racial slur, plain and simple. It really is no different than calling a team the "Chinks", "Wetbacks", "Niggers", etc. Its just horrible and conveys the same derogatory message, just against different people. Over the long haul, this is only going to be a losing battle for Dan Snyder. The momentum for this name change is still gaining momentum and isn't going to go away until the name is changed.
You could have written something like "the Washington team name is a racial slur, like other racial slurs" because I just cringed reading all of that. And I don't think that was your intent.
Well, there's the thing, it kind of was my intent.
People are numb to the Redskins name. They see it so often that they don't realize that its such a horrible slur. Putting it side by side with the same types of derogatory slurs of other races just shows how bad it truly is. In my opinion, if you're going to cringe at a team with a name of one of the ones I listed, then there really is no excuse to why you should want the name 'Redskins' to stick around. They're all equally bad, and should be treated as such.
I don't really consider those other terms to be racist. A word is just a word, it's the way it's used that makes it racist. I had black friends in high school who were ok with me calling them whatever I wanted. One of my friends since 9th grade is Mexican, he and I use every name in the book to each other. But neither of us think the other is racist, we're just screwing around.
I agree words are just words and its the context, but pls dont use the "I had black friends" defense. Its lazy. What you and your circle of friends do in private is not always reflective of society on the whole. But the words written earlier are indeed racist. You must have never been called any of those terms by stranger before. Which is why the black/Mexican friends argument doesnt carry weight.
Screw around name calling with each other in the wrong neighborhood, and you won't be able to explain your way out of what might happen with "But my Black or Mexican friends said its ok"...
This
No race is a monolith.
No question. But people still use phrases like "Those People", which leads people to think so. There are generally held social systems. My father (75 y/o) and I have had many a back and forth regarding the "N - Word".
His generation sees it as completely unacceptable at all times. My generation began to contextualize the word.
My point was that context matters more than anything, the friends comment was just to show that. Just because some people will take a comment out of context doesn't mean the comment was racist.
For argument's sake, outside of your friends specifically in what context is it OK to use any of those terms?
Would you feel it's OK to start saying the N word to any random person (white, black or otherwise) even if the context was correct? As with rap music or Spike Lee vs Tarantino movie usage?
Personally, I wouldn't, and I would stop anyone from speaking to me with these words as well.
Just because you can say a word and it has a context, doesn't mean the word is any less offensive.
Let's also remember the context of the football team is the general public. Not within the company of a few friends your comfortable with, or family members, or whatever. If you believe it's okay to say in private, that doesn't make it okay to say publicly.
I wouldn't use it because I know people would take it out of context. I have a friend that was calling me a "sand nigger" at a party. Obviously I don't care but some girl standing near us turned around and said to him that it's offensive. Also, I wouldn't say any of those words in public because it sounds unintelligent, just like cussing in public.
you're still using friends as an example though. My friends call me offensive names too. that's not a context that can correlate to anything other than you and your friends. As you say, you wouldn't use those terms in public so they are not "just words" as you stated previously.
No, I wouldn't use them in public because someone would take it out of context. I'm not gonna go up to Derrick Hopkins after a game at McComas and say "good game nigga" because he might take it out of context and rip me in half. The risk doesn't meet the reward, but that doesn't mean the comment is racist. It just means that I don't want to take the chance of someone misunderstanding me.
man, just because you don't find it racist or offensive doesn't mean others don't. Derrick Hopkins is going to rip you in half because he finds it offensive no matter you used the work in proper context or not. The thing you don't understand is that context doesn't negate the racial underpinnings of these terms. If anything it emboldens people to keep using racist words without the understanding that these terms are racist no matter its use or context.
I vehemently disagree with you, but I've already made my points very clear. I don't feel like continuing this on a TKP forum post so I'm done. But my point that context matters the most stands. If someone calls me a terrorist and it was as a joke I don't care at all.
I appreciate you have a different opinion but you have not made anything clear. You state that there is a context in which you can use terms like these and it would be socially acceptable yet outside of you speaking to your friends you have failed to come up with any clear example of context in which you could use these terms and it be socially acceptable.
I really appreciate that you are open minded and can brush off these things. Not many can and that's where the problem is. Just because you can doesn't mean others can or should be required to do so. They have their right to feel offended as much as you have your right to brush it off and not care.
I appreciate your opinion too. Hopefully I didn't come off in my last comment as disrespectful. I know people will have other opinions from me, but everyone stating their opinion is what makes this country great. If we were in a more private setting I would love to continue the conversation, but I just don't want to keep coming on here to talk about it.
No disrespect taken. It was a good debate. +1
Maybe the problem isn't that they aren't taking it out of context, but that your perception of what is acceptable is out of whack.
Why would you even think to add 'nigga' to "good game"? Why can't it just be enough to say "good game". You keep falling back on "well, I speak like that to my friends, so its not racist". In my opinion, thats a very narrow mindset. Just because its not racist to you doesn't mean that it isn't racist to others, especially those who might overhear those conversations.
Let's note for the record that they wrote a "strongly worded letter" that says they MIGHT start CONSIDERING a punishment if Snyder does nothing. Snyder calls their bluff, we argue on message boards, these public representatives now have something to show their Native American constituents they care.
Regardless of whether or not you agree with the name change, this is an incredibly stupid way to try to effect change. Essentially, Congress is now acting like those shitty parents that can't control their kids in public because they threaten them with punishments that they have no intention or ability to carry out. Without even considering the subject, that alone makes this a complete waste of time. I feel dumber having commented on it.
Agree. Congress has no authority to act on this.
Not so fast.The do indeed have the authority. The Civil Rights Movement tells us they can. Congress can enact social change if they deem it necessary to the country's future but it still must go through normal legislative process to be ratified.
The 3 branches of government and the Supreme Court are designed so as to not let any one social issue pass with ease so as to maintain a societal balance. Issues that become so powerful though will pass all branches and the Supreme Court and become law. History has shown us this.
Please point out where in the US Constitution they have the authority to enact social change and more specifically where the authority arises for them to force a private company to change its name because some people find it offensive. They haven't banned the KKK yet so where is this social change they are authorized to enact?
But Congress has made it so Difficult for the Klan to "conduct business" through various civil rights statutes and laws that they have indeed created social change.
well since you asked:
Your premise was that Congress has no authority to make this change regarding Native Americans. My point was not specifically regarding this premise, rather that Congress, and the government, in general has in our countries history made sweeping changes to the societal norms of its people. The Civil Rights Movement being my example.
Now regarding Native Americans things get particularly interesting. The constitution mentions the federal governments relationship with native Americans only a handful of times. The pertinent issues can be summarized as 1) Territorial Sovereignty, which many believe is only related to the lands they live on but in fact has been extended to the sovereign right of Native Americans on it's image an extension of their right to regulate trade. 2) Plenary Power, in that Congress (and not the other branches of government) has the right, responsibility and ultimate authority to all matters regarding Native Americans. This is why this article says Congress and not Senate. and, 3) a Trust Relationship, whereby the federal government has a "duty to protect" the Native American Nations.
The Trust Relationship is precisely what was used when the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights pressured schools to change mascots previously, and precisely how they can pressure the Redskins to do so now if they so choose to.
With regards to those changes by universities many argued about other potentially offensive names like the Fighting Irish showed you could have an Native American mascot, but the Trust Relationship proved that Congress had the right to push these schools to change. They also created an investiture consideration to mascot names and imagery, so that the Fighting Irish argument could not be used. Meaning, since there is a vast majority of Irish Catholic's involved in Notre Dame that they had the right to use that name. And thus and Native American school can use a Native American mascot if they so wish, or as with the Seminoles consent of its use outside of their territory.
Congress can tell the Redskins to change and they would have to change.
While they're at it, I say Congress needs to grill Snyder and his Organization with a hearing because VT never wins at FedEx Field. And that's just not fair! /sarc
They should just change the name already. How about the Washington White Skins or Washington Black Skins? If red is not offensive; why not change to something that honors the white or black history in D.C.
Except that the name is offensive, dated, and ridiculous. The same people who say that the name should not be changed because 'it has been this way for a long time and has a rich tradition' harken back to the same voice of racial insensitivity that thought school segregation was a good idea or that a woman's place is in the kitchen. If the status quo is fucked, it's fucked. Doesn't matter how long it's been that way. It is 2014, are we still trying to justify racism masked as 'cultural appreciation'?
I think you're on to something here. Just go with all colors. The Washington Rainbows! or to make it sound tough can go with the presidential link to Hawaii and have the Washington Rainbow Warriors. Perfect.
Michael Sam could be their mascot.
Seriously?
This is in extremely poor taste dude
How? The rainbow is the symbol for gay PRIDE, he shouldn't be ashamed of what he is.
I really have no idea if you are being serious or trolling but ok...
Precisely as the topic of this thread depicts the use of imagery for logos and mascots can be found offensive because it is a comical caricature of the real thing. And for Native Americans a thing they are immensely proud of. To be the first NFL player that is openly gay takes huge amount of courage. Stating that he can be a mascot is liken to calling him a joke.
I disagree that I'm calling him a joke with my statement. My point being Paul Brown.
Alright, let's call it unintentional bad taste but Paul Brown doesn't make your point. He never made a black player a mascot. In fact, he was famous for never commenting on integration at all so that it was not a distraction or an issue to his players. He just signed a bunch of great black players and started kicking ass.
is an insult to Paul Brown, and ignores the era in which he led by example. However, I feel like we are getting off topic of what this thread is about. Although, my statement about Michael Sam really shows what my stance is on the topic of this thread. Just like hokiealum10 started this thread by saying
I don't see a problem with a courageous openly gay man representing a team. What I said I thought was relevent to what was being said, the overall topic, current events, and arguably could be considered as an example of another perspective of what is actually being argued. Ultimately, I am a bit dissapointed with the community downvoting my comment so harsly. I didn't violate any of the community guidelines, and it seems that some people here are so afraid of being PC that a legiment comment got blurred out.
Actually I paraphrased a quote that NFL Hall of Fame RB Jim Brown said about Paul Brown, which was:
So again Paul Brown does not make your point.
The problem is that you are assuming too much. You assume I am insulting Paul Brown's legacy without understanding his legacy yourself. You are also assuming that since you yourself think the name Redskins shows pride to Native Americans that it should be that way for others. Just as you are assuming that on openly gay man would appreciated being used as a mascot simply because you believe he would.
In actuality, people think differently than you do and a man who as you say is courageous enough to openly come out as Michael Sam has should not be referenced into the same group of fictional characters as Boltman, Freddie Falcon and Sourdough Sam. To make a comment like that shows incredible insensitivity to Michael Sam as he should be referenced with real life leaders in civil rights. He may never do anything for gay rights again in his life but he will always be the first to break this particular glass ceiling.
So ultimately while you are a bit disappointed with the community on TKP you are still assuming that only your view is correct. I, on the other hand, am unbelievably proud of the community on TKP for downvoting you, of which I was the first, because ignorant comments like that don't belong on TKP or in life at all.
How am I assuming that only my view is correct? I am not the one downvoting others unnecessarily. I am willing to listen to or read other's opinions, as I often do, but I will also state mine.
P.S. When you paraphrased the quote you made it sound like Paul Brown didn't contribute to integration even though he did.
Here you are stating that you think the word Redskins is a source of pride to Native Americans and that Michael Sam should feel proud to be used as a mascot for a team called the Rainbow Warriors.
What you are saying now is that you feel you shouldn't be downvoted because what you say is not offensive. However, clearly some Native Americans find the term Redskins offensive therefore thinking differently than you do. And as I have shown making a comment about Michael Sam being a mascot is likewise offensive yet you feel it's not and you shouldn't get downvoted for it. In both cases you ask why.
in actuality both are offensive hence the downvotes.
If people truly feel I was offensive I would rather them state their opinions on the matter rather than simply downvoting me. This obviously doesn't apply to you, possibly at all as I don't know if you downvoted me or not. While we seem to have a difference of opinion I appreciate you at least trying to make your point even if I disagree with it, which I still do. I don't think the name Redskin is offensive even if some feel the word is, nor do I think it is wrong to have a mascot that actually represents something positive like being courage enough to openly be yourself.
Actually, to be completely honest, I did downvote that comment. I really only rarely ever downvote anyone's comments. It may not specifically fall under community guidelines but I personally didn't like the comment and took offense to it. From your subsequent comments perhaps you meant it positively but I believe that how you wrote it has quite a significant negative connotation. I agree being a leader of a gay team would be something of value. Being a mascot however is very different than that.
But I appreciate your comments, and even though I disagree with you, will give you a turkey leg back because of the respectful dialogue. Just please don't say a gay football player should be a "mascot" in the future, or I may have to take that turkey leg back again.
But wait, I thought,
TURKEY LEGS DON'T MATTER, as somebody evidently pointed out on another thread.
I'm still curious as to who was so offended by "fighting gobblers" that it had to be abandoned.
Peaceful Turkeys everywhere, duh!
sure there are major changes that need to be done but to say this should not be handled as a topic is dumb. yes it should be changed.the way its being done is dumb.
The chief of the tribe that helped the redskins design the logo thinks it honorable. He stated that we keep taking their history and culture out of the mainstream and someday no one will know anything about them. There were three Navajo code talkers honored at a skins game this year and they were decked out in skins gear. If a tiny minority of a population finds fault with it why do they get the say so? I hope Snyder keeps this guns on this one and keeps the name. Congress has no authority to do anything pertaining to the redskins. They are a privately owned company so congress can get f@$ked. It doesn't matter what congress says they have ZERO authority on this matter. If the skins change them why not the Chicago Blackhawks, the Atlanta braves, the sooners ( for those that don't know look into the history of the "sooners", not the team but the actual people that term represented. I can't stand PC crap. People don't like their name they don't have to support the team or watch their games r buy their merchandise. Good grief.
)
Again, not advocating change just playing the other side on the debate:
Blackhawks are named after a specific person, not a Nation (eg. Seminoles or Sioux) and not a racial slur.
Atlanta Braves has had controversy to change but they have held firm that they won't. Again not a racial slur though.
The Sooners. Well, I really have no idea what connection you are making here. This was a term for people that cheated on the homestead race in Oklahoma by leaving before the cannon and staking the ground early, or "sooner" than the others.
However they were only able to homestead because of the Indian appropriations act which moved native Americans off the land in ok and onto reservations. Pretty sure most native Americans didn't support that move at the time.
True, but I've never seen the term Sooner as necessarily offensive to anyone in Native American Nations. Have you seen it to be? It's offensive that they were torn from their land and onto reservations to allow the Sooners to grab the land but that was an act of the government's not the Sooners.
fwiw, my ex-wife is a card carrying Lumbee Indian (a tribe in North Carolina). Over the years I attended many powwows with her and her family and friends. Many of them, including my ex, are Redskin fans. None of them found the name offensive. In fact, her cousin even said once, "it's only you white people that make a big deal about it".
That's true for most things race related.
It's clear that native Americans are also divided on this subject but to say that only whites are the ones that have issue with it is false:
http://www.ncai.org/resources/ncai-publications/Ending_the_Legacy_of_Rac...
I'm just saying what was told to me. In his opinion that was the case. I'm well aware that others have different opinions.
Oh yes. I understand. Wasn't trying to argue against what you said specifically as this is indeed correct.
here is a source for that too:
http://robesonian.com/news/home_top-news/2520020/
Great article. Thanks for sharing it.
There is something very patronizing about a bunch of white men in suits deciding whether a term is offensive to a minority. If we're honestly concerned about racial slurs or insensitive team names we should ask those who we think should be offended if they're actually offended. If Native Americans are offended by it the name should change..no question. End of discussion. This is not something congress should have any say in. This isn't something the NFL should have a say in as an organization. Dan Snyder needs to poll actual tribes across the country, and if any single Native American is offended, the name should be changed. But that's just too simple for us..which is why it will never work.
Any single person?? I get offended by billboards that atheists put up so should they not be allowed to put those boards up? I'm sure we can find someone who is offended by the term or mascot of the fighting Irish or the celtics. Should they change as well?
There were people in Richmond offended by Baltimore deciding on The Ravens because both Richmond and Baltimore claim Poe as a son of their city.
What about overly tall people and the NY Giants?
Cornhuskers....
Canucks
Huskies, what do fat people think about that name?
You can't make a sanitized name. It's a fool's errand to try. If you do mange it, somebody 20 years will decide that's a slur too.
excellent sarcastica examples of non-offensive mascots
This I agree with. Any single person is way to shallow an argument. It must be en masse to represent a call for change.
I'm constantly offended by PETA. How dare they infringe on my right to be a carnivore.
yep
FTR, Sen. Cantwell is the chair of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and Rep. Cole's one of only two registered Native Americans in Congress (Chickasaw Nation).
Absolutely impossible to have a name that does piss someone off so, forget about trying to change it or,
Change the name to The Birds and invent a new cheer, like jangling keys on third down.
Like this:
I think the difference here is it's a word that was used previously to purposefully discriminate against people. "Hokies" does not carry that historical significance, so I think our mascot is safe.
Additionally, I don't think I want our mascot to be The Birds.
What do you advocate regarding the Fighting Irish and their mascot then?
I have a friend that lives in Washington and thinks football is a fine indicator of what's wrong in the world. She's offended that her city has a football team using it's name and wants it changed because she doesn't want to be forced to be associates with it.
Again, no way to prevent people from being offended about anything so, just drop it and it'll go away on it's own.
Although our mascot comes from a spirit yell written by the "Right Hand of Terror" of the KKK at Virginia Tech....
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1997-11-16/news/9711160301_1_ku-klux-...
Well it seems as if that's up for debate. It was an interesting read, but read the closing paragraphs.
Since the Klan disappeared in the 1870s and didn't re-appear until the 1920s, I find this highly unlikely.
Excellent use of taxpayer money! Another stellar financial decision by our government.
They're still trying to change this? Good grief! People need to find time to see things that are way more offensive. Some folks complain about everything nowadays...
Just change all names to Team 1A, Team 1B, Team 1C, etc, etc, unless there are some people offended by that.
Those could be interpreted as bra sizes for extremely skinny girls. This is a sexist comment and in very poor taste! Girls don't have to be super skinny for us men to worship them!
Eric Toohey will feel slighted.
Mike Truplett wants one too.
Bob Forth doesn't just play bridge.........
You can't do it, somebody will find offense.
The idea that the NFL is tax-empt anyway is completely rediculous. They make billions of dollars every year, in mammoth stadiums that the tax-payers pay for, and in which they over-charge us for everything and keep all the profits. Why should these guys be tax-exempt?
For the record, I am a redskins fan, and feel like the name should be changed. It's not going to impact how I root for the team, and the name is obviously in poor taste. Imagine if someone tried to start a team today with that name - they'd be boo-ed out of the league. Just please please please make it better than the Wizards.
The NFL technically doesn't make any money. The individual teams do, the NFL just oversees the functioning of the league. Or something like that, I'm not a lawyer so I could be completely wrong.
The commissioner of that "tax-exempt" league sure does make a pretty penny though...
I'd say 30 million isn't bad.
Yea, but the executives at a lot of charities make a lot of money. I think the head of the Red Cross makes over $500,000.
....and the executives of the bowl games in college football that are "non-profits" also make a pretty penny. Some as much as $2 mil a year plus perks.
Actually I think the worst of all the sports is from the PGA. I read somewhere that all of their tournaments are considered to be charities.
Made me curious because I had heard something about this recently as well.
Is this the article: http://deadspin.com/the-pga-tours-non-profit-status-is-a-big-joke-148280...
Just because it happens doesn't mean that I think it should...
But my point is an industry that distributes billions of dollars annually to its participants probably shouldn't be tax-exempt, especially since most stadiums are built using tax dollars.
Surprised nobody's used up that tired out deadskins phrase. I'm also half Cherokee but I don't really care. I'm just a fan of Hokies doing well in the NFL (like 2013 All-Pro KC). This thread reminds me of that skit from the Chappelle show about the "N-word Family" episode.
It's a racist term. Wanting your current merchandise to stay relevant is not a good enough justification in my mind to keep the redskins name. At the end of the day you have to do the right thing and let social progress take hold. Contextually and historically it is a very racist term and if you are going to ignore that just because it inconveniences your ability enjoy sports you are being incredibly selfish.
I for one am tired of everyone taking offense to something. If its so offensive to all Native Americans, than why, as a population that is now used to receiving special treatment by our government, due to inarguably awful things done to it as a whole, does that population not seem to be able to come forward as a unified front to condemn the name. If the Native American population thought it was that important than it wouldn't be a handful here, or a single tribe there coming forward to speak out against it. They have the money from casino's nationwide that could be put into an effective ad campaign to combat the issue if they really chose to. Even the single tribe, the Oneida's from New York, were able to mount an ad campaign that got nationwide attention for the couple of weeks that it occurred. Its been the same with the Class Action lawsuits, where the first trial only represented seven individuals, and the latest one has only six is my understanding.
I will stand behind a name change when the offended party as a whole shows the conviction necessary to get it changed, until then I am content to leave a company to manage its brand alone. Is this callous, maybe, but the Native Americans have the freedom and rights that I fought to keep for them to mount an effective campaign against the name if they choose. So far they have failed to do so as is also their right.
So, thanks for calling them "Native Americans" instead of "redskins".
I think that kind of makes the point, doesn't it?
If, on the relative anonymity of the internet, people don't refer to Native Americans as "redskins", yet still claim the term isn't offensive, then why aren't they using it?
"I for one am tired of everyone taking offense to something."
Yeah, I cant believe other people take offense to racism. What as a socisty have we come to?
I think 3 people didn't notice this post was written in sarcastica.
First, thanks for your service and damn proud you're a Hokie
But I think there are a few problems with what you say.
1) Special treatment is more like alternate treatment. You are using gaming as a reference to a special allowance for Native American Nations, but not all Nations have gaming. And even for some that do have gaming they literally have nothing else, as the land they were forced onto was not good for farming, had no minerals or valuable commodities and basically little to no economic ooportunity at all. Gaming was a life saver for many Nations but also a very contentious one within their communities.
2) Just as all Nations do not have gaming, all nations do not think the same way. Some like the Lumbee, as was pointed out, find no issue with the term. Others do. Does that mean "everyone" needs to take issue with it to justify change? I would say no. Usually only a majority, but as I stated above in explaining why Congress does have authority on this matter, in this case a majority really isn't needed. Really only a public sentiment and you could probably link that to the overly PC nature of today's society. This is what is there now. It may blow over or it may not, but a unified offended party is never needed to affect change.
3) I do agree that previous lawsuits have failed to deliver any significant punch and this is largely why nothing ever came from it before. However, times change and people's view points change with them. Just look at this thread. I would say it's roughly 50/50, maybe a bit more on the don't change side of things. If the interwebs existed in the 80's this notion would have been laughed at. In the 90's likely the same but with some on the PC side. 00's much more people on the "change the name side" and now close to 50/50. A general public sentiment from parties who are not the offended rather are the majority will speak as loudly or louder to Congress and push them to do something.
And ultimately the country you fought to protect is the country we strive to be not the country we were before, correct? Or at least that's what my father always used to tell me he learned in the Marines.
Thanks to the last 20 years the term "Redskins" is a slur against good football.
There it is. Ey-ooohhhh.