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. OaktownGator
    Offline

    OaktownGator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    24,841
    Likes Received:
    2,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,829
    Your first two paragraphs were well addressed by UFreak in his post that I quoted.

    As to "Lone Star", there is ample evidence he was impersonating an Indian and what his motive was...
  2. dynogator
    Offline

    dynogator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    5,676
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +201
    According to Wiki, they've been trying to change it for decades. Organized protests with multiple tribes, lawsuits, etc. So far, to no avail.

    I would change it.
  3. OaktownGator
    Offline

    OaktownGator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    24,841
    Likes Received:
    2,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,829
    But according to many of the white folks on this thread, it's only other white folks that care about the name. :joecool:

    I'll stand by what I posted though. If Native Americans care enough, I think they'll develop a coalition and get support for the change... no matter how intransigent Goodell and Snyder appear to be about their perceived potential for loss in profits... and no matter how many fairy tales they invent to rationalize their intransigence.
  4. dynogator
    Offline

    dynogator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    5,676
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +201
    The local Virginia tribes don't seem to mind the name. From the Richmond newspaper:

    "And it doesn’t matter what 79 percent of the country thinks about “Redskins.” What matters is how American Indians feel about an NFL team using “Redskins” as its nickname."

    “It doesn’t bother me,” said Robert Green, 66 and chief of the Patawomeck Tribe in Virginia. “About 98 percent of my tribe is Redskins fans, and it doesn’t offend them, either.”
    "
    Kevin Brown, 58 and chief of the Pamunkey Tribe of Virginia, said, “I’m a Redskins fan, and I don’t think there’s any intention for (the nickname) to be derogatory. The majority of the people in my tribe don’t have a problem with it. There are a few who do, and we respect their feelings."

    “I like the uniforms. I like the symbol (logo).”
    "
    G. Anne Richardson, chief of Virginia’s Rappahannock Tribe, had to stifle a laugh when asked her feelings on the Redskins’ nickname. “I don’t have an issue with it,” she said. “There are so many more issues that are important for the tribe than to waste time on what a team is called. We’re worried about real things, and I don’t consider that a real thing. We’re more worried about our kids being educated, our people housed, elder care and the survival of our culture. We’ve been in that survival mode for 400 years. We’re not worried about how some ball team is named.”

    I suspect you're right, Oak, if the local teams made it an issue, Snyder would be forced to change the name. Their implied, or expressed, approval gives him a lot of ammunition in a public relations battle.
  5. OaktownGator
    Offline

    OaktownGator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    24,841
    Likes Received:
    2,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,829
    Good add, Dyno.

    That definitely supports the Redskins' case to keep their team name.

    And it would be wise for Snyder to approach it from this angle, instead of using revisionist history with the original context of the term.

    All he has to say is while there may have been inappropriate use of the term in the past, today we're not trying to offend anyone, we're proud of our team, and from discussions with local tribes, we know that they are not offended and they're proud of their Washington Redskins team, too.
  6. candymanfromgc
    Offline

    candymanfromgc Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    5,289
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +268

    Sounds like you are racist against White Guys. First you don't know the race of anyone unless they have posted it.
  7. WESGATORS
    Offline

    WESGATORS Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    21,082
    Likes Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +528
    It's because I have been offended in the past that I know that being offended is irrational. As I said, if the intent is threatening, then there's more to a reaction than to simply be offended by it...but when the intent is non-threatening, there's no productive purpose in being offended. Whether or not the offensive behavior is along racial lines or talking about my family is not really relevant, what matters is what level of power am I attributing to the offender and is that power that I am giving to him/her justified.

    Go GATORS!
    ,WESGATORS
  8. WESGATORS
    Offline

    WESGATORS Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    21,082
    Likes Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +528
    But they don't...we've seen that come up a few times in this thread now. Just a bunch of whities clinging to the fight (on their behalf, of course).

    Would love to, can't find any.

    Go GATORS!
    ,WESGATORS
    • Like Like x 1
  9. UFreak
    Offline

    UFreak Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    6,304
    Likes Received:
    196
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +865
    Threatening or not threatening is how one perceives it. I think you may be arguing semantics on some of this??? Not sure.
    What's threatening to you and what you perceive to be threatening to others are open to different interpretations. When it is along racial lines it is even more complex. To say that one chooses to be offended may be true, but isn't that an oversimplification of a very complex issue? Racial offense is pretty complex. And we are humans with emotions, not unfeeling organisms. It's irrational to think that humans won't act with emotion. It's what we do, and it is not bad or wrong to act with emotion. It can be, but reacting emotionally to something is not on its own a bad thing. It can be a good or smart thing.

    I think the writers of Southpark said it best when Stan's dad used the "n" word on Wheel of Fortune. Eventually Stan told Token he finally understood why Token was still upset despite multiple apologies. He said "I finally understand why you are upset. It's because I really don't understand. Now I understand, it's because I can't understand how you feel about it."
  10. anstro76
    Offline

    anstro76 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2008
    Messages:
    7,216
    Likes Received:
    481
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    St.Petersburg
    Ratings Received:
    +858
    Not sure if I'm one of the whites being referred to. I never spoke of my feelings. Or expressed personal offense. I gave examples why it could be seen as racist. Guess by assuming I'm white and manufacturing offense it makes it easier to dismiss.

    Sent from my mind using ESP
  11. WESGATORS
    Offline

    WESGATORS Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    21,082
    Likes Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +528
    I think this question speaks to the heart of what may be our disagreement. Does simplifying help us to understand the issue? I believe it does. I think more times than not when we break things down into root components it's easier to figure out what a rational approach is for each component. I don't believe in leaving ambiguous complexities remain as is when there is a reasonable alternative that permits us to break it down and understand something.

    Go GATORS!
    ,WESGATORS
  12. WESGATORS
    Offline

    WESGATORS Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    21,082
    Likes Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +528
    :confused: You never spoke of your feelings, but you are sure that the name was given with the slur in mind? Seems like a contradiction.

    Go GATORS!
    ,WESGATORS
  13. UFreak
    Offline

    UFreak Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    6,304
    Likes Received:
    196
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +865
    No one can reasonably deny that breaking things down to more elemental segments makes them more understandable. But I think our impasse is a bit different. For instance, remember when you had a complex math course when you were in school and there was a difficult problem to solve that may have had 15 steps. When you learned them, each step made sense and may have even been simple. But the problem as a whole was still difficult often times.

    I think of it in that sense, especially with racially charged statements or words. When you break it down, you can find rational solutions. But the thing is, it's a complex problem. It may have layers that you or I are unaware of. Plus, I think you may be viewing an irrational response and an emotional response as equals. And they are not equals. They have similarities. I think it is more fair to say that racially charged comments elicit emotional responses that are often justified and often times good. As opposed to irrational reactions that can and should be controlled. Or something like that???
  14. OaktownGator
    Offline

    OaktownGator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    24,841
    Likes Received:
    2,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,829
    Does he need to have feelings about the word in order to understand context of the times?

    Interesting tidbit for you - the original Hail to the Redskins lyrics, penned by Marshall's wife:
    Hail to the Redskins
    Hail Vic-tor-y
    Braves on the Warpath
    Fight for old Dixie
    Scalp 'em, swamp 'em -- We will take 'em big score
    Read 'em, weep 'em, touchdown - we want heap more

    Fight on, Fight on -- 'Till you have won
    Sons of Wash-ing-ton. Rah!, Rah!, Rah!
    Hail to the Redskins
    Hail Vic-tor-y
    Braves on the Warpath
    Fight for old Dixie​
    If by "honoring" Native Americans, the Marshalls meant to promote ugly stereotypes while selling the team, they sure hit the mark.
  15. WESGATORS
    Offline

    WESGATORS Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    21,082
    Likes Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +528
    Freak, emotional responses are irrational by definition. Emotion involves no cognitive thought. That's not to say all emotional responses are "bad." Just that they are not rational.

    Go GATORS!
    ,WESGATORS
  16. WESGATORS
    Offline

    WESGATORS Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    21,082
    Likes Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +528
    Given that he made claims that don't appear to be substantiated, from my point of view, it looks like he was expressing feelings. Does he know something about Marshall that he doesn't have proof for? Possibly, but it appears to be more of a bias. And I don't recall you citing how the term "redskins" was offensive back then. It didn't appear to become offensive until about 20 years ago.

    Not significantly different than the SWAC fight song. Although, I think they should be renamed to the Flamingos.

    Who determined that they were "ugly stereotypes?" How is it any different than a gun-wielding cowboy for Dallas or a gun-wielding mountain man for West Virginia? The tomahawk in the Braves logo. None of the killing symbolism is intended to be taken literally in sports. I'm sure somebody could claim to be offended by the prospect of not letting anybody out of our SWAMP alive too. I just can't take that sort of thing seriously, but I am intrigued by the idea that some people do take it seriously.

    Go GATORS!
    ,WESGATORS
  17. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    22,275
    Likes Received:
    357
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,345
    Wes, if you are interested in the historical appropriation of Native American culture (and why this may be different from images of Cowboys), I had to read this in college and found it really interesting:

    http://www.amazon.com/Going-Native-...8&qid=1371491221&sr=1-2&keywords=going native

  18. WESGATORS
    Offline

    WESGATORS Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    21,082
    Likes Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +528
    I actually understand the imagery argument much better than I do the argument against the term "Redskins" which is a term that originated from the Native Americans themselves. But if the discussion is about the imagery, then this thread isn't just about the Redskins. My point of view is based on the claim that the Redskins are doing something wrong and that other Indian-teams are not.

    Go GATORS!
    ,WESGATORS
  19. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    22,275
    Likes Received:
    357
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,345
    I think the imagery and name argument applies to the other Indian teams too. But "Seminoles" or "Indians" isnt nearly as problematic is "Redskins." The Redskins are basically Aunt Jemima circa 1940, and the Seminoles are Aunt Jemima circa 2000.
  20. Emmitto
    Offline

    Emmitto VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    5,343
    Likes Received:
    145
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +442
    I think Oaktown identified the test earlier on with the suggestion to use the term matter-of-factly with the group in question and see how it goes over. If you think that walking into a group of American Indians and saying "Hello Redskins!" isn't a problem, then you shouldn't be bothered by the football team. If you feel like that's not wise, then the nickname is a problem too.

    I think Snyder is really screwing the pooch with this. It's not like this doesn't come up regularly. His Plan A was just to be obstinate from the jump. If American Indians really don't care, then he'd coordinate with them to go on the record and be done with this. Being obstinate should be the last line of defense. Then again, he may have some information telling him that they actually DO care, who knows.

Share This Page