LOL @ the Redskins

[Clay_Allison]

Honestly, I only remember them being called the slurs after all this name change stuff started. And even that was more to poke fun at the redskin fans. Ever since I was old enough to watch football in the 70's right on thru their last superbowl, I don't ever remember anyone referring to them as the "slurs". Or even mentioning that their mascot name was offensive. When the PC train picked up steam in the mid to late 90's is the first time I can remember that their name just might be racist.

I grew up on a reservation and this topic went from non existent to one that was deeply offensive over night. I never have quite understood how that worked. Were they just waiting for permission to be offended?

They way we treated things as a country changed from the 1970s to the late 1990s. It used to be about confronting things, using bold language about the issues and dealing with it.

Black used to be beautiful before people started insisting on African American. The homosexual community used to rally behind the word "queer". At some point making a new "statement" every day became more important than the statement that was being made. The easiest way to accomplish that as editorial pieces turned into "blogs" was to be offended at a new thing every day, even the things you would have applauded when the movement you claimed to support began because you need something new to bitch about, every day, if you're an activist blogger or else you will be left behind by younger, dumber people vying for the same attention.

 

[Cotton]

He's just saying they exist to do wacky publicity stunts and if they thought they could get attention from picketing at Lambeau field it's within the scope of their operation.

Absolutely it is. Like I said, I could easily see them firing up a hate parade on many teams.

 

[L.T. Fan]

They have been referred to as the Slurs since I started posting here, in about 2007.

I get it though. The general sentiment of this board is inevitably going to be against changing things, especially if it involves accomodating minorities, and doubly especially if the evil government is on board. I just think it is outdated and hearkens back to when, as you say, nobody seemed offended because doing things like using a minority's physical features as a football mascot or a toothpaste logo was just a fact of life. It's time to move on, IMO.

If it offends you then you can do what everyone else does and that is voice your opinion. Where I draw the line however is when someone feels they have the right to be the conscience for everyone else. That goes to virtually everything because there are as many positions on something as there are people. The next thing that would be offensive to me is for someone to arbitrarily take these comments and accuse me of being a racist. My point is that we can have opinions but there is no need for anyone to make assumptions simply because they have differing opinions.

 

[E_D_Guapo]

They have been referred to as the Slurs since I started posting here, in about 2007.

I get it though. The general sentiment of this board is inevitably going to be against changing things, especially if it involves accomodating minorities, and doubly especially if the evil government is on board. I just think it is outdated and hearkens back to when, as you say, nobody seemed offended because doing things like using a minority's physical features as a football mascot or a toothpaste logo was just a fact of life. It's time to move on, IMO.

I'm with you on this one. I do feel like in general that political correctness has gone too far, but the Redskins? What would be the reaction if an expansion franchise wanted to name themselves the Redskins? The public outcry would be incessant. Hey, how about if Alabama gets a team and names it the Alabama Negros, with an old sharecropper as a mascot?

The whole "It's always been that way" argument holds no water with me. Just because something has always been a certain way doesn't mean it's right or that it should be accepted forever.

 

[BipolarFuk]

I think Donald Sterling should change the name of his team to the Los Angeles I Don't Like My Whore Seen With Niggers.

Hey, just a nickname, right?

 

[NoDak]

I think Donald Sterling should change the name of his team to the Los Angeles I Don't Like My Whore Seen With Niggers.

Hey, just a nickname, right?

Works for me, but you should try to shorten it up a bit.

It would be easier to market.

 

[VA Cowboy]

I'm with you on this one. I do feel like in general that political correctness has gone too far, but the Redskins? What would be the reaction if an expansion franchise wanted to name themselves the Redskins? The public outcry would be incessant. Hey, how about if Alabama gets a team and names it the Alabama Negros, with an old sharecropper as a mascot?

I'd only be opposed if they yelled, "roll negro!"

 

[L.T. Fan]

I still contend this is way out of proportion. Did you know the state of Oklahoma name means land of the red man? Where is the outcry to change this name. Red skin, Red man, is there a great distinction?

 

[Carp]

I don’t care one way or the other, but I am not Native American so I can't speak from their point of view. I do think it is ridiculous to point out other names that could be offensive to rationalize it.

 

[Kbrown]

I still contend this is way out of proportion. Did you know the state of Oklahoma name means land of the red man? Where is the outcry to change this name. Red skin, Red man, is there a great distinction?

One is a Native American word historically used by Native Americans to describe a region where Native Americans live, and the other is an English word used by a football team as its mascot? Good grief.

 

[L.T. Fan]

One is a Native American word historically used by Native Americans to describe a region where Native Americans live, and the other is an English word used by a football team as its mascot? Good grief.

So when did the name Washington Redskins begin to offend you? Better yet when did it begin to offend others?

 

[L.T. Fan]

I don’t care one way or the other, but I am not Native American so I can't speak from their point of view. I do think it is ridiculous to point out other names that could be offensive to rationalize it.

Fair enough. Perhaps I could call on you to champion my cause when folks make disparaging remarks to me because of my age. Are you open to that?

 

[Kbrown]

So when did the name Washington Redskins begin to offend you? Better yet when did it begin to offend others?

I am not personally offended, as I don't have (much) Native American blood. The point I have been making is that people taking offense isn't the issue for me, but rather that the name is an artifact from a time when using racial stereotypes for branding was OK, and that it is time to move on. The name is less offensive than it is culturally embarrassing.

Now make another bad analogy to the Texans or whatever. I am done.

 

[Texas Ace]

To me, it's no different than having an Asian themed mascot and referring to them as Yellow Skins.

Would that be an accepted team name for a expansion team? No way.

So if that wouldn't be ok, then why is Redskin?

 

[L.T. Fan]

To me, it's no different than having an Asian themed mascot and referring to them as Yellow Skins.

Would that be an accepted team name for a expansion team? No way.

So if that wouldn't be ok, then why is Redskin?

That is the question at hand. It may very well be offensive to some. My position is that the term Redskins hasn't seemingly been a problem for the most part until recently. It has been used for years with little or no resentment but suddenly has become a cause for some reason. That being the case, at what point do you cave in to those who perceive they have suddenly become enlightened to what is disparaging and what is not? What is the map and guideline to make these determinations to something that has a tradition and history without being problematic to anyone? A mascot name may well be something that causes some folks to dig in their heels. It just doesn't seem to be creating problems without help from others.

 

[Carp]

Fair enough. Perhaps I could call on you to champion my cause when folks make disparaging remarks to me because of my age. Are you open to that?

No. Like I said...I don’t care one way or another.

 

[VA Cowboy]

...the name is an artifact from a time when using racial stereotypes for branding was OK, and that it is time to move on. The name is less offensive than it is culturally embarrassing.

The only difference between then and now is that the libs have been preaching/teaching their PC nonsense for the last few decades and now everyone is so overly sensitive to the most miniscule things. People these days just seem to look for things to be offended by. Bunch of fags.

 

[Cotton]

NFL players urged by civil rights groups to oppose Washington team’s name

Posted by Mike Florio on May 27, 2014, 6:47 PM EDT

Over the weekend, a couple of random Washington players tweeted approval of president/G.M. Bruce Allen’s response to Senator Harry Reid regarding a 50-Senator letter opposing the team name. Now, more than 50 Native American and civil rights groups are urging all other players to take a stand in opposition to the name.

In a letter dated Wednesday but released to the media today, more than 75 different organizations have asked NFL players to speak out against the team’s name. The letter comes less than a week after NFLPA president Eric Winston explained on PFT Live that the players union doesn’t plan to get in the middle of the lingering controversy.

“Despite team officials claiming the name ‘honors’ Native Americans, the ‘R-word’ does exactly the opposite,” the letter states. “It was the word screamed at Native Americans as they were dragged at gunpoint off their lands, it is the word for the object needed to collect a bounty—literally ‘red skins’—ripped from dead Native American bodies and exchanged for money as proof of kill, and it is a term that still denigrates Native Americans today. The name does not honor people of color, instead it seeks to conceal a horrible segment of American history and the countless atrocities suffered by Native Americans.”

The list of organizations sending the letter includes the NAACP, the Anti-Defamation League, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, the National Fair Housing Alliance, and many Native American groups.

“Over and over again, defenders of the name demand to know why advocates for changing the name do not spend time on any of the other critical issues facing Indian Country,” the letter states. “The fact is, this is a critical issue. According to psychologists and public health experts, the NFL’s promotion of this term continues to do great psychological harm to Native Americans, and particularly Native American children. With the NFL spending billions of dollars a year promoting this slur on television and in merchandise across the globe, these children are being constantly told they are savages who should be primarily judged on the basis of their skin color.”

And so the debate will continue to rage and intensify, until the name changes. The broader question for the NFL continues to be whether it wants the debate to continue, or whether it wants to move on from an issue that the organization owned by Daniel Snyder feels destined to eventually lose.

Regardless of the team’s various self-serving arguments for keeping the name it’s had for eight decades, it’s time for Commissioner Roger Goodell and influential owners like Robert Kraft, Dan Rooney, and Jerry Jones to find a way to help Snyder find his way out of the maze into which questionable P.R. tactics over the last year have placed him. Actually, that effort is overdue. With each passing day, more and more people realize it.

 

[GShock]

Slurs encourage their fans to tweet Harry Reid in support of the name, predictable PR disaster ensues:

http://http://www.wtop.com/363/3631685/Skins-tweet-ignites-pride-and-disgust

 

[E_D_Guapo]

That is the question at hand. It may very well be offensive to some. My position is that the term Redskins hasn't seemingly been a problem for the most part until recently. It has been used for years with little or no resentment but suddenly has become a cause for some reason. That being the case, at what point do you cave in to those who perceive they have suddenly become enlightened to what is disparaging and what is not? What is the map and guideline to make these determinations to something that has a tradition and history without being problematic to anyone? A mascot name may well be something that causes some folks to dig in their heels. It just doesn't seem to be creating problems without help from others.

So just because something is accepted for a long time means that it should always be accepted? Even if, as I'm sure you would admit, it would absolutely not be accepted for an expansion franchise to use a racial term like Redskins if they were to start up today? Like it or not, the views of society as a whole are going to change over time. I don't think it's a case of, as you so snidely put it, 'those who perceive they have suddenly become enlightened'. This has been a discussion point that has been building for years, it has just started to gain real traction in the media over the past few.