Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by Spurffelbow833, Jun 12, 2013.
FIGHTING Irish? Why not add drunken?
Sent from my iPhone using GatorCountry
People see what they want to see. I see a football team where attributes associated with Native Americans are looked at as honorable (same as they are with the Seminoles...all jokes about poor behavior, cheating scandals, and other improper benefits aside). I also see this same team being led by a non-white individual (along with a roster heavily dosed with non-white individuals), and I see triumph over any hopes of racist views. The only ones keeping any possible racist views alive (as it pertains to this issue) are the people that haven't jumped on the bandwagon of refusing to be offended. But some folks would rather have a trivial cause to complain about than recognize success for what it is.
This is different than the "N" word, because that word is still used consistently in a hateful or derogatory fashion. I've never heard anybody use "Redskins" in such a fashion (not to say that it wasn't used this way at one point in time...but that it's not any more).
But people have every right to choose to be offended, I just like to point out that it is indeed a choice.
Here's yet a different perspective on the team name:
(at the very least, I've learned a little bit about the Redskins and some of the fuel for the debate along the way...if it had not been for people getting offended by the name, I wouldn't have looked some of this stuff up)
The article I linked makes it clear that Marshall was a racist. And there is no doubt that Redskin was a fairly commonly used racist term in the timefrane he named the team. I offer that only to make it clear that Goodell and Snyder are completely full of chit on that point, even if there is no bad intent today.
Certainly, Native Americans can choose whether to be offendd by redskin, as AAs can choose whether to be offended by nigger, Latinos can choose whether to be offended by beaner or wetback, gays can choose whether to be offended by faggot....and on and on with all terms typically used in derogatory fashion.
That "article" relied pretty heavily on an emotional rant from a Salon writer. I don't have any problem with reading the Salon, but the bias is pretty obvious. When you say "no doubt that Redskin was a fairly commonly used racist term in the timeframe he named the team..." Can you provide any examples of that? I honestly can't find anything on the topic and it seems like the actual outrage didn't come until many years later.
Think about this, Marshall was a racist, obviously, but he discriminated against "black" people, not against Native Americans (that's bad in its own right). Why would he have allowed Native American players or even a Native American coach if he considered them on the same level? His problems with "blacks" doesn't seem at all relevant in light of what we know about how he treated Native Americans. Do you have any examples of him discriminating against Native Americans?
Again, you are using terms that have been pretty well documented as being offensive and are still presently used as offensive and comparing those with a term that we think may have intended offense at some point back in the day. The analogy is very clearly missing supporting data.
But there is data showing that the analogy is ridiculous:
That survey was done in 2002. Do you really think you would get a 90% approval rate (or anything close to it) with those other names you suggest?
Are there any documented examples of people taking offense to the team name prior to the 90's?
the entire article
By the way, I read where he did this, but I found no reference to even a suggestion that he did not do this by his own volition and that it was somehow forced upon him by Marshall.
Why start treating Native Americans with respect now when we can keep up the historical record of indecency? I am very much against PC in most cases but seriously... The name was always a bad idea.
seems a lot of folk are stuck with their heads up the p-ass-t
The name for team may or may not have been decided upon because the owner was a racist and wanted to be derogatory(Doesn't really make much sense to use a derogatory name to name your own team. Typically racists and others use derogatory terms deliberately in regard to opposing teams). First college I attended was SJU in NYC that at the time had the name the St Johns Redmen). The team originally based the name on a cigar store(or some such) that had a wooden statue of an American Indian outside the store. It was a store the students of SJU frequented and they associated themselves with the store. That they chose to name the team the 'Redmen' was their identifying themselves with Indians and the store. In more recent years the PC movement started and SJU was bludgeoned into changing their name of their own team. I am quite sure that had SJU chosen to buy off(yield to blackmail) the Indians like FSU did, that SJU would have been permitted by the PC police to retain the name.
Whether or not the Washington Redskins name was deliberately a racist shot by the ownership back them aimed at Indians is a BS debate(IMO)--What matters is whether the team name TODAY represents admirable qualities of Indians as demonstrated by ownership and players and fans today doing what they can to be worthy of the name 'Redskins'
I get it now.
The redskins should just STFU...
Because the wops, frogs, krauts, kikes, dagos, spics, peckerwoods, gooks and slopes don't want to hear their complaining anymore. :joecool:
Arguing about how far an unabashed racist went with his racism seems pretty silly to me.
The real issues here are:
- to what degree Native Americans are still offended by the term, and/or by a business making money on a term they consider offensive
- can those offended adversely impact the business effectively enough to get the team to change
It doesn't matter whether people not impacted by the term think it's okay.
That's funny, because it seems pretty silly to me that somebody would be accused of being racist against a different group of people than what there is evidence for. Especially when there seems to be matter to consider that contradicts the claim.
90% in 2002 (linked above). I'll add that another "issue" is to what extent people are working to convince others that they should be offended by something that previously invoked no feeling of being offended. These people are more offensive than the term "Redskins."
Let me guess, "emotionally" impacted? Maybe the solution is to help people learn to not be suckered into propaganda declaring that they *should* be offended by something that there is no evidence was ever intended to offend. I understand if you disagree, but the right to say what "doesn't matter" is a two-way street.
I'm still willing to see what you guys have that warrants consideration as far as why the term "Redskins" should be considered offensive. I've posted a few things that have gone unaddressed.
you are that convinced the term redskin is used to honor native Americans. This is no longer a debate it's an argument, and I honestly no longer care to continue this my link to disprove your link back and forth. I'm going to the beach.
Sent from my mind using ESP
I think a more accurate way to describe my position is that I'm not convinced of any real intent to offend with the term ever existed. While I'm familiar (now) with how the team name came about. I have no reason to believe the intent was sarcastic or otherwise not genuine with respect to it being a term that people would have pride in. To this point, I have not seen anybody post anything that suggests otherwise. We've seen misdirection with racism against other groups brought into the fold, and we've seen false allegations brought into the fold. But we haven't seen any real examples of Marshall discriminating against Native Americans. We have seen, however, that he has done things that would suggest that he was not racist against them.
No worries! I've got pretty much a back-to-back Father's Day (x2) lined up. So I'm pretty pumped as well. Enjoy your day at the beach.
Initially wrote "under 35" but wanted to drive home the key demographic. I don't care to ever be 17 again.
interesting... so a proudly racist owner "honored" Native Americans by purportedly naming his team Redskins. And we know this was an honor because he had a white coach who used an Indian name, and he paraded around a mascot in "red face".
Honestly, you fight for this position like you have an ownership stake. The person you portray Marshall as is wholly inconsistent with human behavior.
If Native Americans really don't care, the protests won't go that far, and things will move on as is.
All I am saying is that it is not our business to tell them whether to be offended by a term that was commonly used with intent to be disparaging and offensive. Check Websters if you still don't believe that. Or watch any number of old westerns.
Or better yet, go visit a reservation or some place with a high concentration of native Americans and walk around asking "how you Redskins doing?"
you really believe a racist team owner would deliberately name his own team with a derogatory term? A racist who had a thing against Indians would likely call his own team the 'Cowboys', or some such. A team owner wants his players to live up to the team name.
He deliberately left skilled players off his team. Due to segregation. And it made Washington the worst team in the league. So his racism definitely trumped team needs.
Sent from my mind using ESP
Much like an owner wants his football team to play like lions or tigers or bears?
Yes. No doubt he he held Redskins in similar esteem.
I think there is doubt though. We are jumping at conclusions here. Nobody knows why he named them the Redskins.