To All Those Who Demand the Washington Redskins Change Their Name

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by Spurffelbow833, Jun 12, 2013.

  1. UFreak
    Online

    UFreak Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    6,160
    Likes Received:
    165
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +680 / 38 / -4
    I don't think the original owner's intent is really that important to the issue. Language evolves, society evolves, opinions evolve, sensitivities evolve. What is taboo or wrong today maybe ok 50 years from now and vice versa.

    I'm not sure how many who are arguing on either side of this issue are American Indian (the preferred term by indigenous peoples of North America) or have regular contact with American Indians (who typically refer to themselves as simply Indians or their specific tribe, i.e. Choctaw). I have had a pretty good bit of contact with this segment of the population. American Indians typically are not cool with a white person calling them a redskin. In places like Oklahoma and Mississippi, that term still gets used. But it is antiquated. It's sort of like calling a white person a honky today instead of the preferred more updated cracker or white boy.

    I've seen many on here say they are not offended or don't get offended ever. I find that almost impossible to believe. Perhaps those posters are stating this in terms of they find it impossible to be offended racially. Well, if you're a white American, you probably don't have the same degree of systematic discrimination as part of your background as say a black person or American Indian. You certainly should be less likely to get offended by racially derogatory comments or names.

    As for the name of the team, if the overwhelming majority of American Indians say they don't care, then I guess I don't care. But it surely should be their call. Not those who are driving the PC wagon or the ones who find it their personal vendetta to admonish all causes directed at sensitivity. As for the racist owner who named the team, I don't think his intent matters much either way regarding a decision in the here and now.
    • Like Like x 1
  2. LittleBlueLW
    Offline

    LittleBlueLW Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    4,811
    Likes Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +721 / 1 / -1
    Just saw Snyder's and Goodell's statements. Good for them for standing up to this PC bullcrap.

    NEVER is what Dan said. I never thought too much of the guy before but I am on his side here.
  3. orangeblueorangeblue
    Online

    orangeblueorangeblue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    55,425
    Likes Received:
    478
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,662 / 107 / -27
    It's pretty dismissive to write off attempts to mitigate something that's offensive to a wide swath of people as "PC."

    There are more people who complain about things being PC than any actual PC moves in history.
  4. LittleBlueLW
    Offline

    LittleBlueLW Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    4,811
    Likes Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +721 / 1 / -1
    Mitigate? Ha. They are looking for more than that.

    Give all who are offended a bottle of whiskey and call it even.
  5. UFreak
    Online

    UFreak Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    6,160
    Likes Received:
    165
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +680 / 38 / -4
    Judging from your response, Sounds like you may need the first jug. All those PC people seem to offend you quite a bit ;)
  6. Emmitto
    Online

    Emmitto VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    5,051
    Likes Received:
    117
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +281 / 3 / -0
    Yeah, lots people offended by offended people while also claiming people are overly offendable.
  7. LittleBlueLW
    Offline

    LittleBlueLW Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    4,811
    Likes Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +721 / 1 / -1
    If you're buying, heck yes. Bookers Reserve would be fine.

    Offended by the offended. No. Aggravated. Possible.
  8. UFreak
    Online

    UFreak Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    6,160
    Likes Received:
    165
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +680 / 38 / -4
    It's possible that those who you claim are getting offended are simply aggravated.

    I guess what I'm getting at is unless you are part of the specific party who is derided by the term, you probably (probably) aren't a good judge of how offensive or aggravating hearing the term really is.

    And the Bookers is delicious :)
  9. WESGATORS
    Offline

    WESGATORS Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    20,844
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +371 / 3 / -0
    Anstro/Oak,

    Are either of these concepts a part of your argument:

    (1) - people cannot be prejudiced against one group of people while not being prejudiced against another group of people
    (2) - Marshall discriminated against "American Indians"

    If "yes" then I would love to see support for the concept. If "no" then the racism allegations don't seem to be relevant to the nature of the team name.

    Is this fair?

    Go GATORS!
    ,WESGATORS
  10. WESGATORS
    Offline

    WESGATORS Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    20,844
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +371 / 3 / -0
    I agree with this, sort of. We shouldn't make words that have been acceptable and non-offensive, and distort them into meaning something offensive where there was never any offensive intent. In this case, the word "Redskin" seemed to be used as an identifier of distinction originating from the American Indians, not from whitie using the term to be little them as different or what have you.

    Here's the way I look at name-calling. Either there's something you don't like about me or there's not something you don't like about me. If there's something you don't like about me, I would rather you have shared it than talk about it behind my back. That, at the very least, gives me the chance to address it or gives me the option to avoid you...or otherwise allow you to expose yourself for having a prejudice. If there's not something you don't like about me (or if it's not enough of a dislike to warrant a problem), then it's not threatening...why would I take offense to it? If I take offense to the latter, that is irrational behavior on my part and should be corrected. That's not to say that I can't say "hey, I know this is irrational on my part, but I would appreciate if you didn't say blah blah blah." And your reaction to it would help me determine my association with you. Does this make sense?

    That's the part I don't get. Most of 'em don't care, how is it still an issue? It seems like there's a lot of "you should be offended" recruiting being done by "those who are driving the PC wagon."

    Go GATORS!
    ,WESGATORS
  11. wargunfan
    Offline

    wargunfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2010
    Messages:
    4,578
    Likes Received:
    149
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Inside your head.
    Ratings Received:
    +185 / 2 / -2
    They should just change the name to the "Skins" which has so many meanings it should satisfy everyone.
  12. OaktownGator
    Offline

    OaktownGator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    23,879
    Likes Received:
    1,962
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +3,642 / 82 / -24
    My main argument is that this is not an issue for us to decide. I don't think that past racism need be part of this issue, but if it bothers Native Americans enough, they will likely develop a large enough coalition to mount protests that will effect a change. Either way, makes no difference to me.

    Secondarily, I really don't like liars, and Goodell and Snyder are both full of chit with their story that the team was named Redskins to honor Native Americans. That flies directly in the face of the generalized racism of the day against Native Americans, including the use of Redskins as an intentionally disparaging term... evidenced in popular culture including westerns, and documented in the official Webster's dictionary. It also more specifically applies to the self aggrandized racist team owner.

    To that point, racists are typically racist across a broad range of "races"... a construct that itself has little meaning from a scientific perspective. Basically, the less people look like, talk like, and think like the racist, the more likely they are to disparage and demonize those people.

    Whatever it is that causes those thought patterns causes them pervasively. In my experience.

    As far as Marshall discriminating specifically against American Indians, other than his use of "Redskins" and his temporarily successful push to make the NFL a whites only league, I do not know of any documented instances of discrimination against American Indians. And before you bring his coach up again, the guy was white.
  13. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    31,813
    Likes Received:
    2,398
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +3,837 / 64 / -30
    The Washington Gringos.
  14. atlzamgator
    Offline

    atlzamgator New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    3,623
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +24 / 0 / -0
    I read this thread and I see a bunch of white guys- the majority - deciding what the minority of a population that has been the subject of genocide, land taking and abuse for 200+ years should be offended about.

    Shame on all of you.

    NATIVE americans - get it? The first ones here- if they consider it ridicule and a black mark on their race get a say.

    I'm offended when my daughter- a 2nd generation legal US citizen is called a mexican, even though my family is Cuban. Offense? of course. deal with it? yes.

    When a society evolves it does not matter what a bunch of so called tough guy whites hiding behind a screen name on a football board think. It's not your LOL and remind you .. 2 wrongs don't make a right.

    Spend 1 week in Oklahoma with a native american population and then come back and tell me. Talk to native americans who are deeply hurt over sh*t like this.

    Shame,
    • Like Like x 1
  15. JohnC1908
    Offline

    JohnC1908 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    22,077
    Likes Received:
    777
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Neptune Beach, Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +785 / 1 / -0
    Oak but this is an issue we (we as in not native americans) are deciding. It seems to be white folk banging this drum.
    Definitely a baseless assumption here but I'll bet if you step foot on a reservation this ranks zero on their concern list.
    • Like Like x 1
  16. UFreak
    Online

    UFreak Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    6,160
    Likes Received:
    165
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +680 / 38 / -4
    Well of course Anyone would hope things would not get distorted and change in meaning from positive to negative. But things evolve and I think that is irrelevant in this instance.
    In other words, should or shouldn't isn't part of the equation. What matters is what is. If it's offensive, then it's offensive. I believe, in this issue, dealing with the here and now of the term's definition is more important than what it may have meant 100 years or 200 years ago.

    I'm not sure I follow???

    Perhaps, and I agree in this instance if the survey was accurate and conducted by a legitimate survey group. But those who drive the PC wagon sometimes are driving good wagons (sometimes groups who have been discriminated against or intimidated are reluctant to speak up and can use advocates). I'm not a big fan of absolutes and I am inherently distrustful of people who polarize on being always PC or being completely dismissive of PC. Rarely is an answer like this cut and dry. Not to mention polarization is a great way to get nothing done. But I digress. If the overwhelming majority of American Indians are truly ok with the franchise's name, then I am too. Because it's about them.
  17. WESGATORS
    Offline

    WESGATORS Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    20,844
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +371 / 3 / -0
    I'm not comfortable with the idea that because Marshall was prejudiced against blacks that he must have been prejudiced against American Indians. Is it possible? Sure, but not something I feel comfortable retroactively accusing him of given the available information. I know folks who are prejudiced against one race but not another. I have no logical reason to believe that such a thing cannot exist and plenty of evidence that it does indeed exist. No problem with agreeing to disagree on that note.

    Goodell and Snyder may both be liars, but I don't see how that is relevant. They are obviously going to do what they can to protect their product. All that matters is whether or not people actually value the name "Redskins" as something to take pride in or not. The fans seem to like it, and again, I refer back to the 90% survey which you haven't acknowledged. Do you recognize that the survey took place? Do you reject its findings? If that's not conclusive enough for you, what are you looking for? I approach it from the other direction...the claims of offense are not justified for me to jump on board with support for those who feel offended. Again, no problem with agreeing to disagree.

    As for claiming the guy was "white" and not American Indian. I've looked that up and at best we can say that the claim that he is "American Indian" is not entirely convincing, but to say that it's untrue...neither you nor I have that information, it would be speculation on our parts to form a solid opinion about it. However, what's relevant is whether or not Marshall believed that he was an American Indian. Do you have any reason to believe that Marshall did not believe that he was an American Indian?

    Go GATORS!
    ,WESGATORS
  18. WESGATORS
    Offline

    WESGATORS Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    20,844
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +371 / 3 / -0
    I was responding to this statement:

    I'd be happy to elaborate or clarify if there is anything specifically questionable about what I wrote.

    Go GATORS!
    ,WESGATORS
  19. OaktownGator
    Offline

    OaktownGator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    23,879
    Likes Received:
    1,962
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +3,642 / 82 / -24
    Correct. And let's also recognize that it is indeed considered offensive because white people used it in a derogatory fashion on a widespread basis... enough such that dictionaries define the term as offensive.

    Well put.
  20. UFreak
    Online

    UFreak Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    6,160
    Likes Received:
    165
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +680 / 38 / -4
    I'm not sure it's really necessary. But are you saying you have never been offended or think it is completely irrational to be offended by name calling along racial lines? Certainly not???

Share This Page