Redskins

[ZooCougar]

I like the Washington Americans myself.

 

[John]

I like the Washington Americans myself.

how about the Washington White Oppressors?

 

[ZooCougar]

how about the Washington White Oppressors?

Or the Imperialistic Capitalist Dogs.

 

[FAIRTIDES]

Just change the GD name already. I don't think that they were trying to be offensive way back when, when they chose the name. But good grief, change it.

While I don't think it was his intent, the original owner of the team, George Preston Marshall, was known to be a virulent racist. He was the last NFL owner to use African American players. I think his first black player was Bobby Mitchell (mid-60s). I think he considered "Redskins" to be on the same order as "Braves" or "Warriors." Although, given his position on race, using a known slur would probably not have deterred him. This from a recent article on the team name.

"When George Preston Marshall died in 1969, he left some money to his children but directed that the bulk of his estate be used to set up a foundation in his name. He attached, however, one firm condition: that the foundation, operating out of Washington, D.C., should not direct a single dollar toward “any purpose which supports or employs the principle of racial integration in any form.” Think about that. This was not 1929 or 1949. Even in 1960 such a diktat might have been, well, “understandable” in a Southern city such as Washington then was. But 1969; “in any form.”"

 

[Rocktheworld]

How easy would it be to just change it to "Warriors" or something? Keep the logo and hell there's even some nice alliteration there.

 

[junglehusky]

Well Farmington High school is still the Indians, I believe, they've been talking about changing the name since I was there 20 years ago and the reactionary "tradition" argument has always won out. To me, that line always had me scratching my head, it's not like any of the students there were legitimately aware of FHS sports history or even cared that much about the football or soccer team's record. And the principal at the time went about it the exact wrong way, suggesting a lame-ass nickname like the "academics" so of course people throw a fit at that.

But even for Washington, the tradition argument doesn't hold much water these days. Traditions and brands can change. People gripe about it for a year, then 90% of the people who were complaining go back to rooting for the team and everybody else gets on with their lives. Kind of like the UConn logo change.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

There is nothing offensive about names like: Indians, Warriors, Braves, Fighting Sioux, etc.

Even people who think soccer is HUGE in the US think they should change the name. (that's for you Zoo)

 

[BlueDogs]

How about we just stop the insanity and see it for what it is - part of the new grievance based culture where everyone has to be offended by something. I'm waiting for Crusaders, Knights, Devils, and other names to be banned as culturally insensitive. Giants should go too because it hurts the feelings of little people. Then, we will have PETA banning animal names as being exploitive.

Of all the nasty Stop we have going on in this world, this is the defining issue of our time? Even native Americans were not offended until somebody decided that they needed to be offended.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

How about we just stop the insanity and see it for what it is - part of the new grievance based culture where everyone has to be offended by something. I'm waiting for Crusaders, Knights, Devils, and other names to be banned as culturally insensitive. Giants should go too because it hurts the feelings of little people. Then, we will have PETA banning animal names as being exploitive.

Of all the nasty bull we have going on in this world, this is the defining issue of our time? Even native Americans were not offended until somebody decided that they needed to be offended.

I generally agree with this stance but in this specific instance you're simply wrong.

 

[BlueDogs]

I generally agree with this stance but in this specific instance you're simply wrong.

Understand, But, the name has been around a long, long time and it seems to me the name has been substantially transformed to a non-offensive meaning and to actually the opposite. It would be one thing if the word was used in common discourse in a pejorative way, but I really don't think that is remotely the case and hasn't been in use or circulation for a very log time. Words do acquire other meanings over time. If I thought it really was something intended to be nasty and demeaning, would agree with you.

 

[junglehusky]

How about we just stop the insanity and see it for what it is - part of the new grievance based culture where everyone has to be offended by something. I'm waiting for Crusaders, Knights, Devils, and other names to be banned as culturally insensitive. Giants should go too because it hurts the feelings of little people. Then, we will have PETA banning animal names as being exploitive.

Of all the nasty bull we have going on in this world, this is the defining issue of our time? Even native Americans were not offended until somebody decided that they needed to be offended.

Is there anything weaker than a slippery slope argument? Anyway, to answer your question, yes, all of us in the liberal commie conspiracy network will "stop the insanity" as soon as the religious christian majority stop whining every time someone says Happy Holidays instead of Merry CHRISTmas, as if christianity is so fragile it can't take someone just suggesting the possibility of following another religion.

 

[BlueDogs]

Is there anything weaker than a slippery slope argument? Anyway, to answer your question, yes, all of us in the liberal commie conspiracy network will "stop the insanity" as soon as the religious christian majority stop whining every time someone says Happy Holidays instead of Merry CHRISTmas, as if christianity is so fragile it can't take someone just suggesting the possibility of following another religion.

Words by definition are slippery slopes. They derive meaning by context and shared understanding, and they can and do change over time. Otherwise, we would still be speaking Old English. In terms of a grievance based society, I have no doubt many agree in that point.

In terms of "Happy Holidays", I really don't want to get into that. A simple reading of the many formative documents of this country detail very well what the cultural basis is for our society and the framers (by any stretch of the imagination) made it clear that the underpinning of a free and democratic republic was rooted in Christianity and its general acceptance. If you bother to read Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists which has the "wall between church and state" language you would find its intent was not what modern day liberals have coopted it to mean. But, this is an argument I fear as no end to it.

 

[Adios]

Let's call the New England Patriots or the Washington Redskins the Whiteys (Puritans and Virginia colony). They were the true intruders, right? lol

Seriously, "Indian" is derogatory. And I say that being of actual Indian blood. As in the real India. You know, the correct one. The one over in Asia, the one the sailors were looking for, after all? No, we are not all dark. My father is paler than many Europeans.

 

[amory]

How about we just stop the insanity and see it for what it is - part of the new grievance based culture where everyone has to be offended by something. I'm waiting for Crusaders, Knights, Devils, and other names to be banned as culturally insensitive. Giants should go too because it hurts the feelings of little people. Then, we will have PETA banning animal names as being exploitive.

Of all the nasty bull we have going on in this world, this is the defining issue of our time? Even native Americans were not offended until somebody decided that they needed to be offended.

Unless you're a native american, you don't really get to decide what native americans are and aren't offended by. I understand that political correctness can go overboard in a lot of cases, but this isn't one of those cases.

In 2014, there should not be a professional sports team in America called the "Redskins". In the grand scheme of things it might be a minor issue, but it's something that should be addressed.

 

[Adios]

Words by definition are slippery slopes. They derive meaning by context and shared understanding, and they can and do change over time. Otherwise, we would still be speaking Old English. In terms of a grievance based society, I have no doubt many agree in that point.

In terms of "Happy Holidays", I really don't want to get into that. A simple reading of the many formative documents of this country detail very well what the cultural basis is for our society and the framers (by any stretch of the imagination) made it clear that the underpinning of a free and democratic republic was rooted in Christianity and its general acceptance. If you bother to read Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists which has the "wall between church and state" language you would find its intent was not what modern day liberals have coopted it to mean. But, this is an argument I fear as no end to it.

Some of the colonies were founded as a result of seeking religious freedom. You know many of the Founding Fathers were Deists, correct? The US is a complete separation of religion and government, other than culture influencing the existence of some rights, such as the right to own slaves. The Puritans even approved of slavery early on. For thousands of years, this was a land of sophisticated gatherer-hunters. But now, it's just a Christian country, according to some. Others even say the Constitution was influenced by the way the natives lived.

 

[ZooCougar]

Words by definition are slippery slopes. They derive meaning by context and shared understanding, and they can and do change over time. Otherwise, we would still be speaking Old English. In terms of a grievance based society, I have no doubt many agree in that point.

In terms of "Happy Holidays", I really don't want to get into that. A simple reading of the many formative documents of this country detail very well what the cultural basis is for our society and the framers (by any stretch of the imagination) made it clear that the underpinning of a free and democratic republic was rooted in Christianity and its general acceptance. If you bother to read Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists which has the "wall between church and state" language you would find its intent was not what modern day liberals have coopted it to mean. But, this is an argument I fear as no end to it.

Most of the Framers were Deists.

 

[Adios]

Unless you're a native american, you don't really get to decide what native americans are and aren't offended by. I understand that political correctness can go overboard in a lot of cases, but this isn't one of those cases.

In 2014, there should not be a professional sports team in America called the "Redskins". In the grand scheme of things it might be a minor issue, but it's something that should be addressed.

This dude already proved himself to be insensitive long ago. Might be like talking to a wall.

 

[BlueDogs]

Most of the Framers were Deists.

False revisionist history. The issue was Christian denominational related. The writings of the framers beyond those few usually referenced were Christian. The evidence for this is overwhelming.

 

[BlueDogs]

Lets call it a day and get back to what we all agree upon: Uconn football

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

Let's call the New England Patriots or the Washington Redskins the Whiteys (Puritans and Virginia colony). They were the true intruders, right? lol

Seriously, "Indian" is derogatory. And I say that being of actual Indian blood. As in the real India. You know, the correct one. The one over in Asia, the one the sailors were looking for, after all? No, we are not all dark. My father is paler than many Europeans.

Why is "Indian" offensive?

 

[Alum86]

Boneyard has gone all lefty political correct. Yuk. ND can keep Fighting Irish, stereotype personified, 'cause that's okay because, well, you know......

 

[Sky ball]

Q; Just WHO is so upset about the Redskin name? I don't see huge rallies of American Indians protesting this? Are these the same people who do not want "Under God" used by any government entity or people like the principal at the high school who did not want the Pledge of Allegiance said before a school function as it may offend the foreign students? How about NOT wearing a T-shirt with the American flag on Cinco de Mayo? I am Irish and I am offended by the Notre Dame's logo of a Fighting Irishman! Really..is that next PC move?

 

[Bonehead]

I'm offended by many posts on this board - but I pull my britches up and accept others stupidity like a man. Directed to no one in particular and everyone.

Serious post - Redskin is a name of a team and not being used in derogatory manner as the N word is usually used in today's society. I have never heard Redskin used except as the name of a football team - never. I have spent 5 years in the service - mostly out west with men and women from all over the country and I never heard it used. I have heard rap music - never heard it used. I am on the side of over reaction at this point. Yes there is a group of Native Americans that want it changed and there is a part of me that understands but this is where it gets sloppy - everyone is offended by something. There were a group of UConn students offended by the new Husky logo. If the word is that offensive why is it used by ESPN, NFL and every news network? You would never hear the N word on TV. Thug can't be used as people say it replaces the N word.

I could find many names offensive - and/or mascots but those things seem to not bother me but bother others. I believe the Atlanta Brave was an issue at one point. I guess I am old school on this, not saying I don't understand just don't know where it will stop.

 

[junglehusky]

False revisionist history. The issue was Christian denominational related. The writings of the framers beyond those few usually referenced were Christian. The evidence for this is overwhelming.

The majority of them may have been Christian, but they all agreed that the majority would not use the State to institute religion. This included the evangelical denominations, who at the time were a minority and probably wouldn't have appreciated the new government establishing, say, Quakerism as the official flavor of Christianity, even though evangelizing is central to their church. All the religious groups eventually realized the only way to guarantee religious freedom for all of the diverse denominations was to keep government out of the churchin' business. Separation of church and State isn't about diminishing Christianity or any other religion, it's actually the mechanism by which religious freedom flourishes in this country. This is why you see documents of the time refer to "Divine Providence" rather than "God", and there are a grand total of zero references to Jesus in the Constitution. If they wanted to establish Christianity as the official religion of the State, you'd think they would have mentioned it in there somewhere!

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

I knew this thread never stood a chance.