LOL @ the Redskins

[bbgun]

 

[bbgun]

If there truly is an offensive thing you shouldn't be looking at the people not affected by it. Ask the people of the demographic it is supposedly offending. Ask them. And they did, and the vast majority of Indians had no issue with the name. More fuckin virtue signaling. It's ridiculous.

The Redskins hosted/honored four Navajo Code Talkers from WWII a few years ago. They were all wearing "racist" Redskins gear.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

But they said during the process that even names like "Warriors" would not be acceptable. They didn't want anything even could be construed as referring to Natives.

Which is on its face absurd, but like iam said, this wasn't about the tribes themselves. This was about wealthy white people wanting to virtue signal.

I've read many stories where most Natives were not offended by the name. Of course the E60 poll was going to find a poll where they outcome was the opposite, though, because ESPN. But there are many Oklahoma high schools within an hour of me that have Native mascot names and they haven't changed and aren't going to... and these are communities with actual large populations of Natives in on the decision, not woke suburban white people.

I think you're missing his point. There will be lots of people who identify with the culture being referenced and not take offense.

What he's saying is, there will be some people who do take offense for whatever reason and it's not our place to tell them how to feel or why. You can chalk it up to "wokeness" or whatever, but in the end its how they feel and their perception is the reality in which the business has to function in. Did I take offense to the Cleveland Indians? No, but I can certainly see how someone who is of native american culture did, especially when their mascot was a cartoonish character with red skin.

In the end, no business is going to look at themselves as potentially being intolerant to any culture and assume they will coast on through. Changes will be made and that's what happened here.

 

[Cotton]

In the end, no business is going to look at themselves as potentially being intolerant to any culture and assume they will coast on through. Changes will be made and that's what happened here.

And, this is the crux of the problem

 

[Genghis Khan]

If there truly is an offensive thing you shouldn't be looking at the people not affected by it. Ask the people of the demographic it is supposedly offending. Ask them. And they did, and the vast majority of Indians had no issue with the name. More fuckin virtue signaling. It's ridiculous.

I just think the market, along with whoever owns the thing, should take care of it. If Snyder didn't like it, or if people weren't supporting it, go ahead and change it. Otherwise, you're just putting on your mask, cape and underoos and trying to play hero for something that doesn't need saving.

 

[bbgun]

No, but I can certainly see how someone who is of native american culture did, especially when their mascot was a cartoonish character with red skin.

Had no problem with getting rid of Chief Wahoo. It was an unseemly caricature of a group of people. But "Indian" is a neutral word like "Viking." There was no reason to abandon it.

 

[Cotton]

Otherwise, you're just putting on your mask, cape and underoos and trying to play hero for something that doesn't need saving.

Exactly my point.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

And, this is the crux of the problem

Well, it's one of the problems. As has been stated, "Redskins" is a very derogatory word so the name change was probably needed. Not cause I wanted it to, I didn't. It's not as fun to call them "Foreskins" now that it doesn't rhyme with their current name. But if even one Native American took offense to it, and there were many, then it needed to go.

 

[Texas Ace]

I personally still refer to them as the Redskins.

But I totally get why the name had to change.

 

[bbgun]

I personally still refer to them as the Redskins.

But I totally get why the name had to change.

"Indians" and "Skins" only changed because George Floyd died. White owners were falling over themselves trying to outvirtue each other.

 

[Texas Ace]

"Indians" and "Skins" only changed because George Floyd died. White owners were falling over themselves trying to outvirtue each other.

Redskin to me is pretty obvious though.

Again, referring to Asians as being "yellow" was done so in a derogatory manner and that term became popular in the 60s back when Asians as a whole were more recognized as Orientals.

So I'd ask you and anyone else for that matter -- do you think it's appropriate and or offensive to refer to Asians or the color of their skin as being yellow?

Would you call an Asian person a yellowskin to their face?

If the answer is no to those questions, then why would you then think it's appropriate to refer to a Native American as a Redskin?

 

[Chocolate Lab]

I think you're missing his point. There will be lots of people who identify with the culture being referenced and not take offense.

What he's saying is, there will be some people who do take offense for whatever reason and it's not our place to tell them how to feel or why.

Okay, so what percentage does this "some" have to be before you change everything? If 95% of people have no problem with it do you change it for the 5%? For 25%? Where do you draw the line?

Because we know "some" people take offense to "Cowboys." They fought Natives, took their land, were generally Anglos, etc.

 

[bbgun]

If the answer is no to those questions, then why would you then think it's appropriate to refer to a Native American as a Redskin?

In the last 80 years, no one referred to actual AA's as Redskins, only the football team. The point is that Snyder was dug in on the team moniker until Floyd was killed. Then he did a 180 hoping it would keep the wolves away from his door. He was mistaken.

 

[bbgun]

Okay, so what percentage does this "some" have to be before you change everything? If 95% of people have no problem with it do you change it for the 5%? For 25%? Where do you draw the line?

"If even one person objects to it" would lead to all sorts of chaos.

 

[Texas Ace]

Okay, so what percentage does this "some" have to be before you change everything? If 95% of people have no problem with it do you change it for the 5%? For 25%?

Because we know "some" people take offense to "Cowboys." They fought Natives, took their land, etc.

That's a good question.

I don't know what the exact number would be but for me I'd have to say about a quarter (25%), give or take, before any widespread changes (like changing the Redskins name) would be in order.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Okay, so what percentage does this "some" have to be before you change everything? If 95% of people have no problem with it do you change it for the 5%? For 25%? Where do you draw the line?

Because we know "some" people take offense to "Cowboys." They fought Natives, took their land, were generally Anglos, etc.

I've not seen any evidence to the scenario you're suggesting, though now that I think about it I am highly offended at how Rowdy portrays my race.

To be honest, there is no simple solution to this. Until about 20-25 years ago, America was content with being a nation that was either openly racist or just sweeping it under the rug as "that's just how it's always been." So now people who have felt slighted for generations are feeling more empowered to speak up more. Many instances, it's good that they feel that empowerment. A lot of shitty people no longer have the power they once had because they are being exposed. But of course, there will always be others who try to take advantage of situations as well.

 

[Texas Ace]

I've not seen any evidence to the scenario you're suggesting, though now that I think about it I am highly offended at how Rowdy portrays my race.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

"If even one person objects to it" would lead to all sorts of chaos.

Yeah the one person hurdle seems a little absurd. In today's sensitive society where everyone is offended by the most mundane thing I don't think you can use that as a barometer. I've said it before but there is a large part of society who wants to be a victim of something. So of course those people will find a way to claim they are offended or oppressed.

 

[Cotton]

But if even one Native American took offense to it, and there were many, then it needed to go.

God, dude, really?

So, if one white person took offense to the word cracker, would that need to go, too?

 

[Cotton]

White owners were falling over themselves trying to outvirtue each other.

Yes.