Redskins owner says they'll "Never change the name"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Squirrel Killer said:
You would think that if it was a slur, more than 9% of the people it's a slur against would be offended by it.
Click to expand...

This is tantamount to "I have a friend of x ethnicity who said racist shit is okay... so it's okay."

If Native Americans living on typical dilapidated reservations, in a state of poverty, or lacking meaningful education were asked, then the 9% would unfortunately make sense. It's easy enough to oppress an entire people's history to a point when they don't realize when they're being treated like shit, same as in the past. I'm sure you could find plenty of African-Americans nowadays to justify blackface minstrel shows. In fact, many blacks fully supported them during the mid-1800s, slave and free alike, before and after the Civil War. Point being that it doesn't make it okay.

Also agree that dwindling popular use of a racist epithet isn't a green light to reinstate its use.

edit: Squirrel Killer, that's exactly what you said.
 
richiek said:
An open letter to Dan Snyder: Rename the Washington Redskins

So that's why the team is located in suburban Maryland. Good for DC local government.
Click to expand...

Some solid points in that article. Team is founded by a racist, and the name sounds suspiciously racist, and people of the race in question are saying it's racist...

...but nah people just got their panties in a bunch ARE YA READY FOR SOME FOOTBAAAAAAAAAAALLLL

Goodell answered Congress in a letter released June 11, in which he defended the name "Redskins," calling it "a unifying force that stands for strength, courage, pride and respect." I'm sure all concerned are very relieved to hear that "redskin" is a term of unity and respect, because if there was one thing George Preston Marshall believed in, it was unity and respect. Oh, also white supremacy. Unity, respect, and white supremacy.
Click to expand...

lol
 
AkuMifune said:
Yes, it is.
Click to expand...
I said, "You would think that if it was a slur, more than 9% of the people it's a slur against would be offended by it." He said, "So nine percent of people offended by a racial term is the exact mark where it's ok?" I stated no such "exact mark" where a term becomes ok.
 
Amory said:
Some solid points in that article. Team is founded by a racist, and the name sounds suspiciously racist, and people of the race in question are saying it's racist...
Click to expand...

Why is it fair to say all this then dismiss it being named after a coach who was Native American and the supposition that the term does not, gasp, have racist origins?
 
Liu Kang Baking A Pie said:
Holy shit.
Click to expand...

Mind explaining what you find objectionable regarding my post?

I'm Jewish, if someone called me a kike I can choose to be offended and lash out demanding that person stop or not let a word from a stranger affect me. I'll choose the second option.

On GAF you can't make these remarks against posters and I support that decision because it's a private forum owned by somebody who makes the rules. Also, calling someone a deragatory name stiffles conversation and leads to nothing positive. But at the end of the day we are responsible for ourselves and who we let offend us.
 
I am Michael Bolton said:
On GAF you can't make these remarks against posters and I support that decision because it's a private forum owned by somebody who makes the rules. Also, calling someone a deragatory name stiffles conversation and leads to nothing positive. But at the end of the day we are responsible for ourselves and who we let offend us.
Click to expand...
Well, sure, we should choose our battles and not make everything into a life-or-death situation. But do you feel the same way about bullying? People should just suck it up and ignore it? It promotes an environment where it's okay to harass, exploit, or dehumanize people because of their culture or heritage.
 
Everyone says America is too politically correct until a big, successful company wants to keep their old racist name and then won't someone think of the children?
 
Necromanti said:
Well, sure, we should choose our battles and not make everything into a life-or-death situation. But do you feel the same way about bullying? People should just suck it up and ignore it? It promotes an environment where it's okay to harass, exploit, or dehumanize people because of their culture or heritage.
Click to expand...

It depends on the bullying to be honest. For instance the Australian kid who threw his bully on the ground that was caught on youtube was more than justified IMO to respond in the manner he did. He was being assaulted and after he laid him down he just walked away. I don't consider a name of a football team to be bullying though.
 
Jado said:
This is tantamount to "I have a friend of x ethnicity who said racist shit is okay... so it's okay."
Click to expand...
You know, when 90% of X ethnicity say they have no problem with a racial term, yeah, I'm ok with deferring to their opinion.

Jado said:
If Native Americans living on typical dilapidated reservations, in a state of poverty, or lacking meaningful education were asked, then the 9% would unfortunately make sense. It's easy enough to oppress an entire people's history to a point when they don't realize when they're being treated like shit, same as in the past. I'm sure you could find plenty of African-Americans nowadays to justify blackface minstrel shows. In fact, many blacks fully supported them during the mid-1800s, slave and free alike, before and after the Civil War. Point being that it doesn't make it okay.
Click to expand...
I wanted to reply with a joke-y response, but given the willful misinterpretations of my words in this thread, I'm going to play this one straight (which is not in any way, shape, or form a comment relating to sexuality.)

Are you seriously saying that the only way a respected national opinion poll finding that such a low percentage of Native Americans are offended by a term "make(s) sense" would be because they're so poor and uneducated? How provincial.

Jado said:
edit: Squirrel Killer, that's exactly what you said.
Click to expand...
No, it's not.

AkuMifune said:
Oh you just implied racism instead of saying something outright racist. Right then, my bad.
Click to expand...
Are you trying to imply that I'm a racist for pointing out that 90% of an ethnicity has no problem with a racial term?
 
Matugi said:
Why is it fair to say all this then dismiss it being named after a coach who was Native American and the supposition that the term does not, gasp, have racist origins?
Click to expand...

The coach probably wasn't even a native american.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Henry_Dietz

Dietz’s true identity remains highly controversial. Although he is recognized as an "Indian athlete" by Dan Snyder, owner of the Washington Redskins, Indian Country Today Media Network ran a series of articles in 2004 exposing Dietz as a white man masqerading as an Indian.[1] In 1988, the National Congress of American Indians attempted to meet and discuss the issue with the team’s former owner, Jack Kent Cooke , but Cooke refused a meeting.
Click to expand...
 
Liu Kang Baking A Pie said:
You compared not speaking poorly of a group of people using a hurtful term with someone saying "I like dogs." It was stupid.
Click to expand...

You said " If I even hurt one person with my words, I'd be sure to change them. I have the ability to get over myself and not fight with people about things that don't actually have personal relevance to me."

You basically said that no matter what was said that offended one person, no matter how ridiculous it was that you would change. I fundamentally disagree with that stance. That is why I brought up the dog remark. You just said what I said was stupid. If I told you that was offensive would you apologize and not say it again?
 
Squirrel Killer said:
I said, "You would think that if it was a slur, more than 9% of the people it's a slur against would be offended by it." He said, "So nine percent of people offended by a racial term is the exact mark where it's ok?" I stated no such "exact mark" where a term becomes ok.
Click to expand...
Okay, then this is all about you arguing around semantics.
 
I am Michael Bolton said:
Mind explaining what you find objectionable regarding my post?

I'm Jewish, if someone called me a kike I can choose to be offended and lash out demanding that person stop or not let a word from a stranger affect me. I'll choose the second option.

On GAF you can't make these remarks against posters and I support that decision because it's a private forum owned by somebody who makes the rules. Also, calling someone a deragatory name stiffles conversation and leads to nothing positive. But at the end of the day we are responsible for ourselves and who we let offend us.
Click to expand...

The situation is similar but not the same. It's a major team of a popular sport. The decision to keep and advertise the name has given rise to generations of Americans (millions) who think the slur is completely harmless, unlike the single person who deliberately calls you kike knowing it's not okay.
 
Jado said:
The Celts were called Celts. Vikings? Vikings. Fighting Irish? The Irish pride themselves on their toughness. The Leprachaun is a short fictional creature from Ireland's own folklore (it's not an Irish human). The Redskins? It's a racist slur maliciously given to Native Americans by European colonisers. Putdown. Against their will. They don't like it.

The equivalent to Redskins is not Celts or Vikings. It's the Niggers, Camel Jockeys, Coons, Kikes, Spics, Chinks, Crackers, etc.

This asshole Dan Snyder would probably be among the first to demand the banning of a team using a Jewish slur.
Click to expand...

I guess I don't fully understand in this case. I mean, I see a franchise like the Cleveland Indians and understand the objections there given the caricatures there.

However a franchise like the Atlanta Braves or the Chicago Blackhawks or a school like Illinois gets criticism too even though there are no apparent exaggerated caricatures there. It seems like more some just don't want Native Americans depicted at all. Or if they are, they need written permission or something. Which, unfortunately, I do not agree with especially if they're not calling themselves after a specific tribe.

Additionally, given some people saying that just because 9% find it offensive and the rest don't does not make it not offensive, why then give a pass to tribes that sign off on a usage? With that argument, even a franchise or school with "approval" by the majority should cease using a logo or name.

In the case of Redskins, I'm honestly torn. I could see the origins I guess. But currently? Is this even a current insult and word in the lexicon? Are the associated logos and branding exaggerated? I don't see that. And as a result, in this particular case, do not not associate it with something on the level of the Cleveland Indians or something.
 
I am Michael Bolton said:
You said " If I even hurt one person with my words, I'd be sure to change them. I have the ability to get over myself and not fight with people about things that don't actually have personal relevance to me."

You basically said that no matter what was said that offended one person, no matter how ridiculous it was that you would change. I fundamentally disagree with that stance. That is why I brought up the dog remark. You just said what I said was stupid. If I told you that was offensive would you apologize and not say it again?
Click to expand...
Apparently some of you are just arguing semantics rather than the actual story.

I wouldn't call anyone a redskin to their face, and even in some hilarious world where I would be bold enough to do that, I'd hear a person say "hey that kind of sucked" and go "yeah, I can see that. Sorry" and move on with my day.

There is such a dumb circle of arguing going on here with Group A saying Group B is too sensitive while Group A is being too sensitive about having to be reasonably sensitive to others.

GoldenEye 007 said:
I guess I don't fully understand in this case. I mean, I see a franchise like the Cleveland Indians and understand the objections there given the caricatures there.

However a franchise like the Atlanta Braves or the Chicago Blackhawks or a school like Illinois gets criticism too even though there are no apparent exaggerated caricatures there. It seems like more some just don't want Native Americans depicted at all. Or if they are, they need written permission or something. Which, unfortunately, I do not agree with especially if they're not calling themselves after a specific tribe.

Additionally, given some people saying that just because 9% find it offensive and the rest don't does not make it not offensive. Why then give a pass to tribes that sign off on a usage? With that argument, even a franchise or school with "approval" by the majority should cease using a logo or name.

In the case of Redskins, I'm honestly torn. I could see the origins I guess. But currently? Is this even a current insult and word in the lexicon? Are the associated logos and branding exaggerated? I don't see that. And as a result, in this particular case, do not not associate it with something on the level of the Cleveland Indians or something.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_appropriation
 
I am Michael Bolton said:
You said " If I even hurt one person with my words, I'd be sure to change them. I have the ability to get over myself and not fight with people about things that don't actually have personal relevance to me."

You basically said that no matter what was said that offended one person, no matter how ridiculous it was that you would change. I fundamentally disagree with that stance. That is why I brought up the dog remark. You just said what I said was stupid. If I told you that was offensive would you apologize and not say it again?
Click to expand...

The point is that it's not ridiculous to think that people would be offended by the term redskin. Native American people, as evidenced by the article linked several times in this thread, are offended by it and are fighting to have the name changed. A poll doesn't change that at all.
 
Squirrel Killer said:
You know, when 90% of X ethnicity say they have no problem with a racial term, yeah, I'm ok with deferring to their opinion.


I wanted to reply with a joke-y response, but given the willful misinterpretations of my words in this thread, I'm going to play this one straight (which is not in any way, shape, or form a comment relating to sexuality.)

Are you seriously saying that the only way a respected national opinion poll finding that such a low percentage of Native Americans are offended by a term "make(s) sense" would be because they're so poor and uneducated? How provincial.


No, it's not.


Are you trying to imply that I'm a racist for pointing out that 90% of an ethnicity has no problem with a racial term?
Click to expand...

You're still saying that 9 percent of an ethnicity being hurt by a specific term is acceptable, just so we're all clear here.

Squirrel Killer said:
Not really, you're saying that I'm saying there's an exact mark where a racial term becomes ok. I've said no such thing. This is all about you claiming that I said something I didn't.
Click to expand...

Well no, you aren't giving an exact mark, you're just saying that 9 percent is in the ok range, so I guess we can keep splitting hairs if you want to.
 
Fiction said:
The point is that it's not ridiculous to think that people would be offended by the term redskin. Native American people, as evidenced by the article linked several times in this thread, are offended by it and are fighting to have the name changed. A poll doesn't change that at all.
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem tbh with native americans not liking that a team is named the Redskins or funding it Objectionable, my issue is with trying to guilt, pressure, force a private business into changing it's name just because one finds it objectionable.
 
I think it's less that it's okay that 9% are offended and more that so few are offended that there's no reason to get your panties up in a bunch about it.
 
I am Michael Bolton said:
I don't have a problem tbh with native americans not liking that a team is named the Redskins or funding it Objectionable, my issue is with trying to guilt, pressure, force a private business into changing it's name just because one finds it objectionable.
Click to expand...

If it were a random small business on the corner of main and 5th, I could see that argument holding some water. People would withhold their business in that case, and the free market would work.

This, however, is a national football team. People don't get the choice to 'withhold' their business as such.
 
I am Michael Bolton said:
I don't have a problem tbh with native americans not liking that a team is named the Redskins or funding it Objectionable, my issue is with trying to guilt, pressure, force a private business into changing it's name just because one finds it objectionable.
Click to expand...
You just described protests. I don't understand how you find it unreasonable for people to protest things they don't like.
 
Matugi said:
I think it's less that it's okay that 9% are offended and more that so few are offended that there's no reason to get your panties up in a bunch about it.
Click to expand...

Ok, then it's your job to reach out to the 9 percent of Natives that are offended and let them know to chill the fuck out because they shouldn't be so excited about it. Cool?
 
The best part about this story is that Washington took Baltimore's basketball team and had it renamed because the "Baltimore Bullets" was too violent and made the owner uncomfortable. Now they wont change a football teams name there because of tradition.
 
Fiction said:
If it were a random small business on the corner of main and 5th, I could see that argument holding some water. People would withhold their business in that case, and the free market would work.

This, however, is a national football team. People don't get the choice to 'withhold' their business as such.
Click to expand...

Sure they do. The difference is only a small portion of those who give the team business have a problem with the name. If it were a small business it could be the same challenge.
 
Kano On The Phone said:
Ok, then it's your job to reach out to the 9 percent of Natives that are offended and let them know to chill the fuck out because they shouldn't be so excited about it. Cool?
Click to expand...

Why? What makes this such a special case over any issue in American politics ever involving a minority group or a minority of voters?

If there were 40-50% of them disapproving of it, fine, a change could be made, but with such a low number it's hard to justify the time and effort that would be put into public relations among other things.
 
Also, I'd like to make a comparison.

I get uncomfortable when people use the term 'indian giver'. Yes, that still happens quite a bit where I am. I am uncomfortable with the term even if it's not used in relation to me. People tend to look toward me for a reaction when it's used as well, as if I am going to start yelling at folk, which increases my discomfort. I never react, most of the time I just look away and ignore it, because I am the type of person who doesn't believe in starting shit. According to many in this thread, I shouldn't be offended at all by the term, since it's not widely used, and because I don't start a stink over it.
 
Liu Kang Baking A Pie said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_appropriation
Click to expand...

Ok. Thanks for the link. Not sure what you're trying to say, though. That there is an exchange of cultural ideas and symbols and the base meanings can get warped or changed from the original intent by other people? Well that seems normal.

The last point in that article mentions yoga and it was originally(and still is) a sacred aspect of the Hindu religion. I assume that if Hindu officials and members(if they don't already) started to protest the treatment of yoga as a fad exercise trend for massive profit that yoga should be shut down?
 
It's a racial term that's got a shitload of derogatory baggage. The only reason it's "OK" is that Native Americans are small enough as a percentage of the population and disenfranchised enough that there isn't significant pushback. You wouldn't name a team the Negroes.
 
Zen_Arcade said:
The best part about this story is that Washington took Baltimore's basketball team and had it renamed because the "Baltimore Bullets" was too violent and made the owner uncomfortable. Now they wont change a football teams name there because of tradition.
Click to expand...

And gave it the most boring name, with the most boring logo, in probably all of the four major sports. Except for the Browns.
 
Amory said:
And gave it the most boring name, with the most boring logo, in probably all of the four major sports. Except for the Browns.
Click to expand...
Fucking agreed. I'm a Capitals fan because Baltimore doesn't have a hockey team and I can't bring myself to get into basketball because of how dumb the name and logo are.
 
Matugi said:
Why? What makes this such a special case over any issue in American politics ever involving a minority group or a minority of voters?

If there were 40-50% of them disapproving of it, fine, a change could be made, but with such a low number it's hard to justify the time and effort that would be put into public relations among other things.
Click to expand...

You need the majority of people to tell you what the right thing is before you do it? Moreover, you could say something to ten people, have one of them be honestly hurt by it, and be ok with it? So ok with it that you'd repeat it over and over again?

Either you haven't thought this through or you're the owner of the Redskins and so have a valid reason for caring if it costs money.
 
GoldenEye 007 said:
The last point in that article mentions yoga and it was originally(and still is) a sacred aspect of the Hindu religion. I assume that if Hindu officials and members(if they don't already) started to protest the treatment of yoga as a fad exercise trend for massive profit that yoga should be shut down?
Click to expand...
Man, everything is a binary "everything" or "nothing" in these discussions. We can't ever just discuss the issues as they are.

Cultural appropriation can be mocking, and there was an article posted in this thread showing how Native Americans felt Redskins fans were mocking them rather than celebrating them. Yoga being appropriated doesn't come off as mocking, so there isn't as much harm done.
 
They should really just go back to the Bullets. Did anyone other than the owner really associate that with violence within the city? What change did that actually have on anything meaningful.

I was floored when I heard that horrible explanation for the change.

Edit: Well you just posted a link to a wiki article without explaining your more specific intentions. I didn't have a lot to go on. And I got that cultural appropriation can be mocking - that certainly is obvious. I, just in this case, don't know if it truly is. Especially when you look at the branding as a whole, it does not look ridiculous like the Cleveland Indians do.

As for the yoga thing, well if it was mentioned in there as a negative, there clearly is someone that finds it offensive. Taking a sacred tradition, making it a diet fad and monetizing it could certainly be something that a group finds offensive.
 
Kano On The Phone said:
You need the majority of people to tell you what the right thing is before you do it? Moreover, you could say something to ten people, have one of them be honestly hurt by it, and be ok with it? So ok with it that you'd repeat it over and over again?

Either you haven't thought this through or you're the owner of the Redskins and so have a valid reason for caring if it costs money.
Click to expand...

That's not how popular opinion works. Let me throw questions at you: if you were a governor, and had a policy that emotionally harmed 10% of the people, but 90% of the population favored it or was indifferent about it, would you change it?

The team doesn't cater to the 10%, it caters to the millions of fans who don't want it changed, and as of now the number that disprove of the name is so small that it's hard to justify a change.
 
Matugi said:
That's not how popular opinion works. Let me throw questions at you: if you were a governor, and had a policy that emotionally harmed 10% of the people, but 90% of the population favored it or was indifferent about it, would you change it?
Click to expand...

It would depend on the level of harm done to the 10% and how strongly the 90% felt about the issue. If the 90% were indifferent and the 10% greatly harmed, of course.
 
Matugi said:
if you were a governor, and had a policy that emotionally harmed 10% of the people, but 90% of the population favored it or was indifferent about it, would you change it?
Click to expand...
The Civil Rights movement was pretty cool and necessary despite the US only having a 10% black population.

Matugi said:
The team doesn't cater to the 10%, it caters to the millions of fans who don't want it changed
Click to expand...
Those millions of fans have no good reasons not to change it other than stubbornness and cost.
 
Matugi said:
That's not how popular opinion works. Let me throw questions at you: if you were a governor, and had a policy that emotionally harmed 10% of the people, but 90% of the population favored it or was indifferent about it, would you change it?

The team doesn't cater to the 10%, it caters to the millions of fans who don't want it changed, and as of now the number that disprove of the name is so small that it's hard to justify a change.
Click to expand...

Considering the incredibly small native american population, that's pretty much a given.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

What if the Treaty of Kanagawa never happened?
Opinion 
20
462
kentkouh replied
Walmart is not the Proud owner of VIZIO 2.3 Billion
11
1K
Avid Reading Horse replied
I heard yesterday that in some places they never take off their shoes, even inside
2
53
237
jshackles replied
Is there a name for the meme of the chorus comments in an exaggerated pic?
7
737
Nickolaidas replied
I never understood why you can't go faster than light - until now
44
2K
ClanOfNone replied
Top Bottom