One vote for changing "Redskins"

LRJets wrote:These are the same people who took God out of schools who want the Redskins name to be deleted.


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

guppy wrote:

CatalinaMinx wrote:
Guppy ...are you even aware that after they were originally named the Boston Braves...they became the Washington Redskins after it was decided the team should be named after then coach, Lone Star Dietz, who was Native American. Gosh, I wonder if he was offended by that horribly racist name?


Probably not.  I think "Braves" is complimentary.  It brings to mind the image of a brave indian warrior.   But I think "Redskins", whose primary image is only one of skin color, is not.  The word "Redskins" is simply not complimentary.

I know change is a hard thing for some people.  Obviously. 

But change does happen.  Over time, attitudes eventually change.

Of course he wasn't offended. Why would be be?...AND he was native american, go figure.   It isn't about change, its about a handful of people making a fuss over something absurd. I think change is always a good thing, however in THIS case I don't think its necessary. I'm sure this won't be the last time we won't agree on something. 

CatalinaMinx wrote:

Of course he wasn't offended. Why would be be?...AND he was native american, go figure.   It isn't about change, its about a handful of people making a fuss over something absurd. I think change is always a good thing, however in THIS case I don't think its necessary. I'm sure this won't be the last time we won't agree on something. 


Its totally fine if people agree to disagree.   Some say this particular change is necesssary and "about time".  Some say its not.

Let me ask you a question though.  Lets say you and I were 50-50 owners of a team.  And we decided we were going to name our team after a historically brave and resourceful group of Japanese warriors called "Ninjas".  But instead of calling them "Ninjas" or "The Fighting Ninjas", which I wanted to call them, you came up with a different name.  You wanted to call them "The Yellowskins".  Now, how would we decide between the two names?  Lets say we are sitting in our team office, and I brought in some Japanese people whose ancestors were actual Ninjas, and who said they did not like the name "Yellowskins", that it was, to them, insulting.  Would you back off?  Or would it be necessary for you to stick with your first choice, "Yellowskins" no matter what?

CatalinaMinx wrote:

Of course he wasn't offended. Why would be be?...AND he was native american, go figure.


My point was, he probably wasn't offended by the word "Braves". 

I think the chances are pretty good he would be offended by the word "Redskins".

guppy wrote:

CatalinaMinx wrote:

Of course he wasn't offended. Why would be be?...AND he was native american, go figure.


My point was, he probably wasn't offended by the word "Braves". 

I think the chances are pretty good he would be offended by the word "Redskins".

guppy wrote:

CatalinaMinx wrote:

Of course he wasn't offended. Why would be be?...AND he was native american, go figure.   It isn't about change, its about a handful of people making a fuss over something absurd. I think change is always a good thing, however in THIS case I don't think its necessary. I'm sure this won't be the last time we won't agree on something. 


Its totally fine if people agree to disagree.   Some say this particular change is necesssary and "about time".  Some say its not.

Let me ask you a question though.  Lets say you and I were 50-50 owners of a team.  And we decided we were going to name our team after a historically brave and resourceful group of Japanese warriors called "Ninjas".  But instead of calling them "Ninjas" or "The Fighting Ninjas", which I wanted to call them, you came up with a different name.  You wanted to call them "The Yellowskins".  Now, how would we decide between the two names?  Lets say we are sitting in our team office, and I brought in some Japanese people whose ancestors were actual Ninjas, and who said they did not like the name "Yellowskins", that it was, to them, insulting.  Would you back off?  Or would it be necessary for you to stick with your first choice, "Yellowskins" no matter what?

I'm sure you people will get your way in the end, all in the spirit of being politically correct ad nauseam and all that.   

CatalinaMinx wrote:

guppy wrote:

CatalinaMinx wrote:

Of course he wasn't offended. Why would be be?...AND he was native american, go figure.   It isn't about change, its about a handful of people making a fuss over something absurd. I think change is always a good thing, however in THIS case I don't think its necessary. I'm sure this won't be the last time we won't agree on something. 


Its totally fine if people agree to disagree.   Some say this particular change is necesssary and "about time".  Some say its not.

Let me ask you a question though.  Lets say you and I were 50-50 owners of a team.  And we decided we were going to name our team after a historically brave and resourceful group of Japanese warriors called "Ninjas".  But instead of calling them "Ninjas" or "The Fighting Ninjas", which I wanted to call them, you came up with a different name.  You wanted to call them "The Yellowskins".  Now, how would we decide between the two names?  Lets say we are sitting in our team office, and I brought in some Japanese people whose ancestors were actual Ninjas, and who said they did not like the name "Yellowskins", that it was, to them, insulting.  Would you back off?  Or would it be necessary for you to stick with your first choice, "Yellowskins" no matter what?

I would have suggested we call them the Samurai.     If the head coach who happened to be Japanese was ok with it why wouldn't I be? I'm sure you people will get your way in the end, all in the spirit of being politically correct ad nauseam and all that.   


Just talking in general now, at some point we all have to reconcile and accept an idea whose time has come.  Remember when it was OK to smoke cigarettes on airplane flights?  Well at some point, people got together, used their common sense, and it was decided that it was not OK to smoke cigarettes on airplane flights anymore.  

The change was not made in the name of "political correctness". 

It was merely an idea whose time had come.  

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

guppy wrote:

Admin wrote:

guppy wrote:

CatalinaMinx wrote:Ridiculous. I hope they don't cave in to pressure. They've had their name for how many decades now? All of a sudden its offensive? To who? 3 pr 4 people? Football teams don't usually go around choosing offensive names for their teams. Team names are carefully chosen with a lot of thought behind the name. Can we expect complaints in the near future about the Cleveland "Browns" too? Or maybe the USC "Trojans"? What about the Virginia Tech Hokies? How about the NC Tar Heels?    Good grief, give it a rest. 


You don't even know what the origin of the nickname Cleveland "Browns" is, or what "Browns" was intended to be named after.  Hint:  its not a reference to race.   Also, comparing "Tar Heels" and "Hokies", which are both not references to race, to "Redskins", which is a reference to a race of people, is also first-rate logic and convincing argument on your part.  [insert sarcastic look and rolling eyes here].  Good grief.

 Only a compelte moron would/could take a name given to a team... essentially a "Nickname"( look up the definition of nickname), and turn it into a debate about right & wrong. Jesus H Christ.... don't you people have better things to put your efforts to? I mean come on... you might actually be able to do something of consequence if you were to focus on something real vs trivial crap. How many Americans Indians are harmed by the Washington team being called "Redskins"? NONE!!!! Get a grip people. Holy fucksticks.... now y'all gave me a headache!


That "complete moron" Bob Costas did an interesting piece at halftime during the Sunday night game in which he basically said the term "Redskins" is different than other Indian nicknames like Chiefs and Warriors, and should be changed. 

This "complete moron" who happens to write for the New York Times did an interesting editorial in which she said the term "redskins" is never a compliment.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


The "complete morons" of the University of Miami of Ohio changed their mascot from "Redskins" to "Red Hawks" in 1998.

The "complete morons" of Stanford University changed from the "Indians" to the "Cardinals".

Those "complete moron" Ivy Leaguers up at Dartmouth College changed from the "Indians" to The Big Green.

The "complete morons" at St. John's in New York and UMass who dropped the term "Redmen" have already been mentioned, complete morons that they are. 

A lot of "complete morons" out there, ya know.  Once you start seenig how many there are you had better get yourself the Super Size of Tylenol for what I'm predicting will be a Super Size headache.

guppy wrote:

CatalinaMinx wrote:

Of course he wasn't offended. Why would be be?...AND he was native american, go figure.


My point was, he probably wasn't offended by the word "Braves". 

I think the chances are pretty good he would be offended by the word "Redskins".

guppy wrote:

CatalinaMinx wrote:
Guppy ...are you even aware that after they were originally named the Boston Braves...they became the Washington Redskins after it was decided the team should be named after then coach, Lone Star Dietz, who was Native American. Gosh, I wonder if he was offended by that horribly racist name?


Probably not.  I think "Braves" is complimentary.  It brings to mind the image of a brave indian warrior.   But I think "Redskins", whose primary image is only one of skin color, is not.  The word "Redskins" is simply not complimentary.

I know change is a hard thing for some people.  Obviously. 

But change does happen.  Over time, attitudes eventually change.

Admin wrote:

guppy wrote:

CatalinaMinx wrote:
Guppy ...are you even aware that after they were originally named the Boston Braves...they became the Washington Redskins after it was decided the team should be named after then coach, Lone Star Dietz, who was Native American. Gosh, I wonder if he was offended by that horribly racist name?


Probably not.  I think "Braves" is complimentary.  It brings to mind the image of a brave indian warrior.   But I think "Redskins", whose primary image is only one of skin color, is not.  The word "Redskins" is simply not complimentary.

I know change is a hard thing for some people.  Obviously. 

But change does happen.  Over time, attitudes eventually change.

 Why must we assume that change is GOOD? that does seem to be a message you are conveying. Don't tradition and history enter into it.


Look, its just a subject that is being discussed.  I weighed in, is all.  There are a lot of people, Bob Costas, Stephen A. Smith, Skip Bayless, several members of Congress, the president, whoever, who hold the opinion that changing the name Redskins is an idea whose time has finally come.  All I'm sayin is, I stand with them.  Not that I stand with them on every issue.  But I do stand with them on this one.  It is of no matter to me that on this board that seems to be the minority position.  Doesn't bother me.  

But I will agree with you and say tradition DOES enter into it......The American tradition of trying to do The Right Thing, even when it involves reversing a practice of the past that has been longstanding and in place a long time.  My view is, its never too late to try to get something right.
 

guppy wrote:

Admin wrote:

guppy wrote:

CatalinaMinx wrote:
Guppy ...are you even aware that after they were originally named the Boston Braves...they became the Washington Redskins after it was decided the team should be named after then coach, Lone Star Dietz, who was Native American. Gosh, I wonder if he was offended by that horribly racist name?


Probably not.  I think "Braves" is complimentary.  It brings to mind the image of a brave indian warrior.   But I think "Redskins", whose primary image is only one of skin color, is not.  The word "Redskins" is simply not complimentary.

I know change is a hard thing for some people.  Obviously. 

But change does happen.  Over time, attitudes eventually change.

 Why must we assume that change is GOOD? that does seem to be a message you are conveying. Don't tradition and history enter into it.


Look, its just a subject that is being discussed.  I weighed in, is all.  There are a lot of people, Bob Costas, Stephen A. Smith, Skip Bayless, several members of Congress, the president, whoever, who hold the opinion that changing the name Redskins is an idea whose time has finally come.  All I'm sayin is, I stand with them.  Not that I stand with them on every issue.  But I do stand with them on this one.  It is of no matter to me that on this board that seems to be the minority position.  Doesn't bother me.  

But I will agree with you and say tradition DOES enter into it......The American tradition of trying to do The Right Thing, even when it involves reversing a practice of the past that has been longstanding and in place a long time.  My view is, its never too late to try to get something right.
 

Admin wrote:
I am.... a middle of the road American who is sick of the extremism that exists today.... a straight decent family man can't seem to get anywhere. That's my story & I'll stand by it.


On that score, I am with you Bro.  Don't like extremism on the far right or far left.  Mostly I like to treat people fair, and I like people to treat me fair.  I also don't like it when the powerful abuse their power to victimize the powerless .  Most times (notice I don't say "all") when that happens I tend to side with the powerless victims who have been abused by the powerful.  Plus, I think its only right that the powerful be held accountable for their misuse and abuse of their power.  Whatever name you give to that is not relevant.  It is what it is.  


I disagree with you, but my insults are merely a dark humor


I haven't taken a single thing you said as an insult.  You don't think changing "Redskins" to something else is an issue worth discussing; and if you are forced to discuss it,then you stand for leaving the fucking name just as it is.  I can totally appreciate how it is completely reasonable for you to have that viewpoint.  Just because you have it doesn't mean I think you are some kind of bad person.  In fact, it is the opposite.  I think you are most likely a very cool and funny person.  So we disagree.  So what?  I can disagree with my friends on an issue here or there, and they are still my friends.  Not a big deal.  


... so...... LOL.. Fuck you![/size]


Oh definitely Fuck You too.   lol.


Now I digress.  I recently saw both movies "Gravity" and "Captain Phillips".  Really enjoyed both.  Gravity was in 3-D, and I wore the glasses.  Pretty crazy.  After watching Gravity, my main take-away was, Sandra Bullock is still pretty good eye candy.  She's still got it going on.  LOL.  After watching Captain Phillips, my main take-away was:  You don't fuck with the US Navy SEALS.  You just don't.  LOL. 

CatalinaMinx wrote:

guppy wrote:

CatalinaMinx wrote:

Of course he wasn't offended. Why would be be?...AND he was native american, go figure.


My point was, he probably wasn't offended by the word "Braves". 

I think the chances are pretty good he would be offended by the word "Redskins".

??? I'm sure you must have documentation proving your claim he was offended? I'll wait. Do you honestly think the owners of the team would have come up with a name that would be offensive to their at the time head coach? I think not. 


They most likely did not intentionally intend to offend Indians by use of the word "Redskins" when they picked that name however many decades ago.  However, in today's world, the simple reality of it is the word is offensive.... today.   Native Americans have expressed that view.  That is simply a fact.  Thats why so many colleges have changed their Indian nicknames.  That is also why you did not choose to name your Japanese team of Ninjas, the "Yellowskins".  Even you, who is so stuck in the past, you inherently knew, the name "Yellowskins" is offensive.  Same goes for the word "Redskins".   In my opinion, they are no different.  Its only about skin color, not bravery or resourcefulness or anything like that.  Sorry to keep going on with this, I think I am repeating myself, but reference only to skin color is simply not complimentarly in my view..... and in the view  of many, many others, so I am far from alone on an island on this subject.  I am proud to stand with those many people who say it is time for a change.   I know its hard to change attitudes from the past, as we evolve into the future.  Maybe it will take a generation.  People's goodness and common sense eventually comes through.  Old attitudes die hard, but progress does come eventually. 

George1963 wrote:yea, my ancestor decided fighting for him was a better deal than being owned. Maybe by one of your ancestors.

Maybe.  If so, I'm sure glad that family tradition was discontinued.



 The closest analogy today to the way the Colonials fought the British might be chemical weapons. Guerrilla warfare, sniping, ambushes, just completely unacceptable methods by the standards of the day and if you know anything about how British loyalists were treated before, during, and after the war I don't know how you could call it anything but terrorism.

So the Minutemen were the Gestapo, Saddam Husseins and Bashir al-Assads for their era?  But the methods and tactics the British use to colonize other lands was only done by "acceptable methods" and "standards of the day", and anything that they did in the name of the crown could never be called "terroism"?  Okaaaay.  Well, you're the history major.



And if you asked 100 Japanese citizens they'd tell you that America was the aggressor in World War II, 

And they would be wrong, wouldn't they?   Are you ever wrong?



Dan Snyder has the right to call his team anything he wants.

Did I or did I not agree with this statement?



He can change it to the DC Darkies for all I care.

You may not care.  But I'll wager a schilling or two that there are a whole lot of folks who would.  Ya think? 

If Snyder wants to change it to the DC Darkies, and then I come on here and express outrage over it, don't judge me too harshly for taking that stance, OK?   

guppy wrote:

CatalinaMinx wrote:

guppy wrote:

CatalinaMinx wrote:

Of course he wasn't offended. Why would be be?...AND he was native american, go figure.


My point was, he probably wasn't offended by the word "Braves". 

I think the chances are pretty good he would be offended by the word "Redskins".

??? I'm sure you must have documentation proving your claim he was offended? I'll wait. Do you honestly think the owners of the team would have come up with a name that would be offensive to their at the time head coach? I think not. 


They most likely did not intentionally intend to offend Indians by use of the word "Redskins" when they picked that name however many decades ago.  However, in today's world, the simple reality of it is the word is offensive.... today.   Native Americans have expressed that view.  That is simply a fact.  Thats why so many colleges have changed their Indian nicknames.  That is also why you did not choose to name your Japanese team of Ninjas, the "Yellowskins".  Even you, who is so stuck in the past, you inherently knew, the name "Yellowskins" is offensive.  Same goes for the word "Redskins".   In my opinion, they are no different.  Its only about skin color, not bravery or resourcefulness or anything like that.  Sorry to keep going on with this, I think I am repeating myself, but reference only to skin color is simply not complimentarly in my view..... and in the view  of many, many others, so I am far from alone on an island on this subject.  I am proud to stand with those many people who say it is time for a change.   I know its hard to change attitudes from the past, as we evolve into the future.  Maybe it will take a generation.  People's goodness and common sense eventually comes through.  Old attitudes die hard, but progress does come eventually. 

CatalinaMinx wrote:

 I prefer the name, Samurai, it had nothing to do with being offensive or not.


OK, I won't speak for you.  Please speak for yourself.  Simple question.  You do, or you do not, think the name "Yellowskins" is offensive? 


By the way, there is no "right" or "wrong" answer imo.  Whether you think "Yellowskins" is offensive or you don't, that is merely indicative of your perspective and level of sensitivity towards a minority group.  Once your outlook is clearly known, then people, including me, are free to agree or disagree with you.  If we agree, fine.  If we disagree, fine.  No one is trying to change the other person's mind.   We're merely having a discussion.  We are either on the same page, or we're not.  If we're not, its not the end of the world.   I said to Admin, "We are not on the same page.  So now that we have that established, time to move on.  He ended by saying, "Fuck you, Gup", and I said, "Fuck you too, Admin".  I can deal with that.  Not a problem.   I thought you and I pretty much established the same thing.  We are not on the same page regarding the word "Redskins" and whether it is outdated or not.  That's it.  That's the bottom line.  Different strokes for different folks.  Now its time to move on.

   

guppy wrote:To all the good folks on here who have weighed in, some very strongly, on the discussion I started regarding the word "Redskins".  I know I stirred up hornets nest, and it looks like I'm all alone in my opinion (maybe Sheila is leaning ever so slightly to my point of view) that changing "Redskins" is an idea whose time has come.  But that's perfectly OK with me.  Like I said, I may be alone here, but I stand with those multitudes out there who say its time for a change.  I do so proudly.  I have no hesitation or regret taking what is on this board at least, an unpopular stance.  Anyway, just want to thank you all for the lively discussion.  Its been fun.  I respect you all.....just not your opinions.  LOL.  

Now back to football, yes? 

Respectfully yours in the First Amendment,

Gup.


 PS.  One final thing for food for thought.  May I suggest you listen to the disucssion on this subject from Stephen A. Smith and Skip Bayless.  Pretty interesting perspective from two in the daily national sports media.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Admin wrote:

guppy wrote:To all the good folks on here who have weighed in, some very strongly, on the discussion I started regarding the word "Redskins".  I know I stirred up hornets nest, and it looks like I'm all alone in my opinion (maybe Sheila is leaning ever so slightly to my point of view) that changing "Redskins" is an idea whose time has come.  But that's perfectly OK with me.  Like I said, I may be alone here, but I stand with those multitudes out there who say its time for a change.  I do so proudly.  I have no hesitation or regret taking what is on this board at least, an unpopular stance.  Anyway, just want to thank you all for the lively discussion.  Its been fun.  I respect you all.....just not your opinions.  LOL.  

Now back to football, yes? 

Respectfully yours in the First Amendment,

Gup.


 PS.  One final thing for food for thought.  May I suggest you listen to the disucssion on this subject from Stephen A. Smith and Skip Bayless.  Pretty interesting perspective from two in the daily national sports media.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

 I'd have a MUCH more different point of view if  leaders of the American Indian Tribes were speaking out against it. Maybe they are. But, to my knowledge, I haven't heard much complaint from them. I'd think the very people who should & would be offended the most, should be the ones listened to  and given the most credibility.  I mean it ain't like the US cavalry will ride out against them if they speak up now. Again... I thank you for the debate, though we are obviously on different sides of the fence on it..


Did you watch Stephen A. and Bayless on First Take?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


If you didn't, take a few minutes to watch it.  It was a good discussion.  They both feel pretty strongly about it, and talked about the Indians speaking up about it.  Also, the NFL is meeting with the Indians about it.  No, not the Cleveland Indians.  lol.   Skip Bayless said he doesn't even like to say the word.  S.I.'s Peter King will no longer use the word when covering the team.  I'm just mentioning what some others have said to prove I'm not some crazy person alone on an island on this.


The Oneida Tribe in upstate New York apparently is strongly against it, calling the name "a racial slur".  Their words, not mine. 

Also, the only member of Congress who is an actual tribal enrolled Native American, has gone on record as saying the name needs to be changed.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Again, we're not talking here about jobs and the economy.  Only a sports team's name.  But do we really need to keep a name that's only about the skin color of a race?  Skin color?  I mean, can't we do better than that?  Like picking a name that has something to do with the Indians' proud history, rather than their physical appearance?  How about Hawkeyes or something like that? 

My tribe is called the "Fighting Irish".  The difference between that and Redskins is, first of all, the Irish gave that name to ourselves, we weren't given that label by someone else.  Secondly, we are damn freakin proud of our "fighting" heritage.  We embrace it.  We consider it a badge of honor.  Its all about our toughness.   "You mess with us, we'll fight you." etc.  But what we would not like at all is being called the  "Red Headed, Freckle Faced, Pasty Whiteskins Who Get Sunburned Easily".  LOL.