Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

washington redskins logo ordeal, has now reached a whole new level of craziness...


monarch
 Share

Recommended Posts

Except, sunburned white people don't strike fear in anyone's heart.

 

Redskins is in honor of the brave, courageous warriors of the American Indian. They were known the world over for their fighting skills, bravery and skills with a horse that were unmatched.

 

It's really pretty rude for the stupid people of planet earth to demand a name change only because they're so GD stupid they have no idea why the name came to be in the first place.

 

Rant over.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we do seem to have a particularly fond penchant for self flagellation.  working ourselves into a state of high dudgeon about something that maybe five people on earth give two shits about is one of our worst habits.

Oh, there are more than five knuckleheads out there who care about this non-issue.

 

Don't kid yourself

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Oh, there are more than five knuckleheads out there who care about this non-issue.

 

Don't kid yourself

and they're mostly middle-age white guys who apparently are outraged that the native-american community isn't sufficiently outraged over this topic so they're taking it upon themselves to be outraged for them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I'm one of the middle-aged white knuckleheads and doubt that my opinion's going to be popular but it bothers me enough to pull me out of lurker status, it's always bothered me.  I was all set to get up on my soapbox about the name and then read this article which sums up the issue pretty well...

 

Redskins: A Native Guide to Debating an Inglorious Word

 

It doesn't matter how many American Indians find the name offensive, how many or what percentage should it take for all of the non-redskins to decide that they might have a voice in the matter?  It doesn't matter how many Redskins fans think that the name honors anything about the American Indian.  The fact that a white owner decided to name his team the Redskins in "honor" of his coach pales beside the fact that, among others, there was once a bounty paid to hunters who brought in Sioux scalps otherwise known as redskins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I'm one of the middle-aged white knuckleheads and doubt that my opinion's going to be popular but it bothers me enough to pull me out of lurker status, it's always bothered me.  I was all set to get up on my soapbox about the name and then read this article which sums up the issue pretty well...

 

Redskins: A Native Guide to Debating an Inglorious Word

 

It doesn't matter how many American Indians find the name offensive, how many or what percentage should it take for all of the non-redskins to decide that they might have a voice in the matter?  It doesn't matter how many Redskins fans think that the name honors anything about the American Indian.  The fact that a white owner decided to name his team the Redskins in "honor" of his coach pales beside the fact that, among others, there was once a bounty paid to hunters who brought in Sioux scalps otherwise known as redskins.

 

 

But scalps aren't skin and they aren't red. They're scalps, not redskins. And if they're Indian, there is a 99.9 percent probability that they're black scalps.

 

I'm a Cowboys fan - the polar opposite of a Redskins fan. I once called George Allen the anti-christ. So my opinion isn't influenced because of my fandom.

 

The reasoning you present such as what bounty hunters paid or leaving out the Indians' peer reputation being based on the number of white scalps he gained - it doesn't work. It doesn't work because it's about an agenda that carries with it a severe lack of integrity. It's not because anyone is offended.

 

Case in point - McMurry University in Abilene, formerly home of the Fighting McMurry Indians. Lawsuit is filed because of some numb-above-the-neck overly sensitive liberal decides it's wrong.

 

What wasn't realized was the story behind the name:

 

The university's first president, JW Hunt, spent his life ministering to the Indians of West Texas and even grew up on a reservation. McMurry, which had previously spent 83 years honoring those Indians not only by name, but in their traditions and customs, was forced to drop the name by the NCAAA. Rather than change the name, the university opted to go without a name for its athletics teams and instead simply went by "McMurry."

 

That, my friends, is paying absolutely no attention to who is offended and done in the name of a bigger agenda.

 

We're in an age where a percentage of the folks think they're speaking for everyone else. For crying out loud, Obama thinks he's the end-all on what is Islam and what isn't. Canada had a terror attack and recognized that the first time their prime minister spoke. It took our administration a full 24 hours to admit someone else was struck by terrorism. I'm shocked he didn't try to tell Canada how peaceful Islam is.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

I guess I'm one of the middle-aged white knuckleheads and doubt that my opinion's going to be popular but it bothers me enough to pull me out of lurker status, it's always bothered me.  I was all set to get up on my soapbox about the name and then read this article which sums up the issue pretty well...

 

Redskins: A Native Guide to Debating an Inglorious Word

 

It doesn't matter how many American Indians find the name offensive, how many or what percentage should it take for all of the non-redskins to decide that they might have a voice in the matter?  It doesn't matter how many Redskins fans think that the name honors anything about the American Indian.  The fact that a white owner decided to name his team the Redskins in "honor" of his coach pales beside the fact that, among others, there was once a bounty paid to hunters who brought in Sioux scalps otherwise known as redskins.

 

I would like to ask you, does the fact that there's a prime-time Network TV series called "Black-ish" offend you, as a middle-aged white male? 

 

The reason I ask is that if there were a like show, called "White-ish," people would be up in arms.  I realize that this is not exactly apples and oranges, but my point is that  the country has gone PC crazy.  Teams changing their names because they offend this guy or that one, is crazy.  Indians, peaceful, violent, good, bad or otherwise, are part of this country's history.  Colleges changing their mascots, many that have been in place for years, high schools as well, because it offends this person or that person is just ridiculous.  While I am not saying that the term "redskin" in its most basic form is not offensive to some, the same could be said for "cowboy."  Cowboys also hunted indians.  Kids played cowboys and indians with cap guns when I was a kid.  It was a normal thing.  In the sports mascot world, it is merely a mascot.  As is the Cleveland Indian, the Atlanta Brave, the Florida State Seminole, etc., etc. 

 

People should quit getting so wound up about PC and just understand people are people, regardless of their skin color, religion or what happened to "their people" long before any of us were born.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I'm one of the middle-aged white knuckleheads and doubt that my opinion's going to be popular but it bothers me enough to pull me out of lurker status, it's always bothered me.  I was all set to get up on my soapbox about the name and then read this article which sums up the issue pretty well...

 

Redskins: A Native Guide to Debating an Inglorious Word

 

It doesn't matter how many American Indians find the name offensive, how many or what percentage should it take for all of the non-redskins to decide that they might have a voice in the matter?  It doesn't matter how many Redskins fans think that the name honors anything about the American Indian.  The fact that a white owner decided to name his team the Redskins in "honor" of his coach pales beside the fact that, among others, there was once a bounty paid to hunters who brought in Sioux scalps otherwise known as redskins.

i'd argue it does matter. if it bothered a sufficient amount, a protest would be organized and the name would be changed tomorrow. evidently not enough of the supposed offended care. 

 

you seem sincere and that's admirable. my biggest issue is with those who just now discovered they were offended because it seems the thing to do. harry reid has been in DC since '83 but announced this year he would boycott Redskin games until the name was changed. he wasn't bothered the last 30 years? my guess is he loudly sang 'hail to the redskins' sitting in a suite during their super bowl years. 

 

change the name, dont change it...i don't care. i just think the motives behind the 'outrage' are little more than political opportunism and i naturally bristle at that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But scalps aren't skin and they aren't red. They're scalps, not redskins. And if they're Indian, there is a 99.9 percent probability that they're black scalps.

 

I'm a Cowboys fan - the polar opposite of a Redskins fan. I once called George Allen the anti-christ. So my opinion isn't influenced because of my fandom.

 

The reasoning you present such as what bounty hunters paid or leaving out the Indians' peer reputation being based on the number of white scalps he gained - it doesn't work. It doesn't work because it's about an agenda that carries with it a severe lack of integrity. It's not because anyone is offended.

 

Case in point - McMurry University in Abilene, formerly home of the Fighting McMurry Indians. Lawsuit is filed because of some numb-above-the-neck overly sensitive liberal decides it's wrong.

 

What wasn't realized was the story behind the name:

 

The university's first president, JW Hunt, spent his life ministering to the Indians of West Texas and even grew up on a reservation. McMurry, which had previously spent 83 years honoring those Indians not only by name, but in their traditions and customs, was forced to drop the name by the NCAAA. Rather than change the name, the university opted to go without a name for its athletics teams and instead simply went by "McMurry."

 

That, my friends, is paying absolutely no attention to who is offended and done in the name of a bigger agenda.

 

We're in an age where a percentage of the folks think they're speaking for everyone else. For crying out loud, Obama thinks he's the end-all on what is Islam and what isn't. Canada had a terror attack and recognized that the first time their prime minister spoke. It took our administration a full 24 hours to admit someone else was struck by terrorism. I'm shocked he didn't try to tell Canada how peaceful Islam is.

Mark your example with MCM is absolutely on target. That was PC gone stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to ask you, does the fact that there's a prime-time Network TV series called "Black-ish" offend you, as a middle-aged white male? 

 

The reason I ask is that if there were a like show, called "White-ish," people would be up in arms.  I realize that this is not exactly apples and oranges, but my point is that  the country has gone PC crazy.  Teams changing their names because they offend this guy or that one, is crazy.  Indians, peaceful, violent, good, bad or otherwise, are part of this country's history.  Colleges changing their mascots, many that have been in place for years, high schools as well, because it offends this person or that person is just ridiculous.  While I am not saying that the term "redskin" in its most basic form is not offensive to some, the same could be said for "cowboy."  Cowboys also hunted indians.  Kids played cowboys and indians with cap guns when I was a kid.  It was a normal thing.  In the sports mascot world, it is merely a mascot.  As is the Cleveland Indian, the Atlanta Brave, the Florida State Seminole, etc., etc. 

 

People should quit getting so wound up about PC and just understand people are people, regardless of their skin color, religion or what happened to "their people" long before any of us were born.

 

Well there are shows that are like "White-ish" but they are called Modern Family, Mike and Molly, and almost every other network primetime show. Our network TV is not very culturally diverse. Even our cartoon show are mostly white (except the Cleveland show)

 

The term "Redskins" is a dictionary defined racial slur. That's what it is. But the last part of "People are people" is precisely the point of the people asking for the removal of the team name. It's subjugating a group of people to a negative connotation of who they are as a people. That's not right. Every person deserves to be treated with respect and dignity. The term "Cowboys" have been romanticized in popular culture. It's not a racial slur.

 

Why I feel this is silly in keeping the name is it's not the end of the world either. Dan Snyder already has the trademark of "Washington Warriors", the logo is not the issue of the argument and even if they changed their name, people wouldn't stop rooting for them. It's not like people aren't going to stop selling "Redskins" memorablia at least through 3rd party retailers.

 

Just change the name. It's not that hard. It will likely happen in one of the upcoming offseasons, people will complain about it, then people will move on and decades later, society will be like "We REALLY had an intense argument to NOT change a team's racially offensive name?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before I address anything else let me state that I have no issue at all with teams being named Indians, Braves, Sioux, Chiefs, etc... and agree 100% that the outrage over those names comes from the pc minded who need some agenda, any agenda, to trumpet.  The only name that I have an issue with is Redskins so that's the discussion that I'm going to stick with. 

 

The reasoning you present such as what bounty hunters paid or leaving out the Indians' peer reputation being based on the number of white scalps he gained - it doesn't work. It doesn't work because it's about an agenda that carries with it a severe lack of integrity. It's not because anyone is offended.

 

Scalping an enemy was not a practice created by or unique to the American Indian, the practice goes back to the Stone Age and, through the centuries, has been practiced throughout the world.  That said, I haven't come across too many state/government sponsored programs that provided monetary rewards for scalps based on race or the color of someone's skin....

"The State reward for dead Indians has been increased to $200 for every red-skin sent to Purgatory. This sum is more than the dead bodies of all the Indians east of the Red River are worth." - The Daily Republican, Winona, Minnesota Sept. 24, 1863. 

I've used the bounty program as an example of redskin being used in a negative connotation.  There are plenty of other examples but I chose to use this one alone rather than write a research paper on "The Derogatory Use of the Term Redskin".  So my agenda was to save myself some typing...

The National Congress of American Indians, Washington Post, the NPR and others have done linguistic studies that prove that the name has become an offensive term for American Indians.  The FCC and the U.S. Trademark Office have labeled the term "offensive and derogatory".  Dictionaries describe the term as being "usually offensive", "disparaging","insulting",and "taboo".  The only place that seems to think that there's something honorable in the name is the NFL but even that's changed a little....

“When you hear a Native American say that ‘Redskins’ is degrading, it’s almost like the N-word for a black person,†Bailey told USA TODAY Sports. “If they feel that way, then it’s not right. They are part of this country. It’s degrading to a certain race. Does it make sense to have the name?† “I don’t know where the name came from or how it came about, but the bottom line is that it’s still here in this day and age, and it makes no sense to have it,†Bailey said. “I love that organization, but when it starts peeling off old scabs and people are pitching a fit about it because it’s degrading to them, then you’ve got to make a change.â€- Champ Bailey, former Redskin

 

 

i'd argue it does matter. if it bothered a sufficient amount, a protest would be organized and the name would be changed tomorrow. evidently not enough of the supposed offended care.  change the name, dont change it...i don't care. i just think the motives behind the 'outrage' are little more than political opportunism and i naturally bristle at that.

 

The National Congress of American Indians, among others, has gone on record numerous times stating that the term redskins is offensive to American Indians.  There have been protests regarding the name going back to the early 1970's so this is nothing new, it may have gained a little steam over the last few years but the controversy's been around for awhile.  There was a protest here in Houston when Washington came to town but no one really knew about it because it wasn't shown on TV.  It's easy to assume that there's been no protest when you never see it because it's not given the attention it deserves by local/national media.  From what I have read and what I've seen, the outrage is real for the American Indians who've been outspoken about the issue.  The recent upsurge in complaints by elected officials about the name is probably political opportunism but there's nothing new about that is there?  I'm not a big fan of politicians and believe wholeheartedly that they'll support any position as long as you give them a stage and tell them which side they need to be on.

 

So here are the questions that I have for those who find nothing wrong with the name...

1. Would you call an American Indian a redskin in a face to face conversation? 

2. Would you be still be okay with the name if black, brown or yellow were used in place of red?

3. What is the difference, in your mind, between the N word and redskin?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before I address anything else let me state that I have no issue at all with teams being named Indians, Braves, Sioux, Chiefs, etc... and agree 100% that the outrage over those names comes from the pc minded who need some agenda, any agenda, to trumpet.  The only name that I have an issue with is Redskins so that's the discussion that I'm going to stick with. 

 

Scalping an enemy was not a practice created by or unique to the American Indian, the practice goes back to the Stone Age and, through the centuries, has been practiced throughout the world.  That said, I haven't come across too many state/government sponsored programs that provided monetary rewards for scalps based on race or the color of someone's skin....

"The State reward for dead Indians has been increased to $200 for every red-skin sent to Purgatory. This sum is more than the dead bodies of all the Indians east of the Red River are worth." - The Daily Republican, Winona, Minnesota Sept. 24, 1863. 

I've used the bounty program as an example of redskin being used in a negative connotation.  There are plenty of other examples but I chose to use this one alone rather than write a research paper on "The Derogatory Use of the Term Redskin".  So my agenda was to save myself some typing...

The National Congress of American Indians, Washington Post, the NPR and others have done linguistic studies that prove that the name has become an offensive term for American Indians.  The FCC and the U.S. Trademark Office have labeled the term "offensive and derogatory".  Dictionaries describe the term as being "usually offensive", "disparaging","insulting",and "taboo".  The only place that seems to think that there's something honorable in the name is the NFL but even that's changed a little....

“When you hear a Native American say that ‘Redskins’ is degrading, it’s almost like the N-word for a black person,†Bailey told USA TODAY Sports. “If they feel that way, then it’s not right. They are part of this country. It’s degrading to a certain race. Does it make sense to have the name?† “I don’t know where the name came from or how it came about, but the bottom line is that it’s still here in this day and age, and it makes no sense to have it,†Bailey said. “I love that organization, but when it starts peeling off old scabs and people are pitching a fit about it because it’s degrading to them, then you’ve got to make a change.â€- Champ Bailey, former Redskin

 

 

The National Congress of American Indians, among others, has gone on record numerous times stating that the term redskins is offensive to American Indians.  There have been protests regarding the name going back to the early 1970's so this is nothing new, it may have gained a little steam over the last few years but the controversy's been around for awhile.  There was a protest here in Houston when Washington came to town but no one really knew about it because it wasn't shown on TV.  It's easy to assume that there's been no protest when you never see it because it's not given the attention it deserves by local/national media.  From what I have read and what I've seen, the outrage is real for the American Indians who've been outspoken about the issue.  The recent upsurge in complaints by elected officials about the name is probably political opportunism but there's nothing new about that is there?  I'm not a big fan of politicians and believe wholeheartedly that they'll support any position as long as you give them a stage and tell them which side they need to be on.

 

So here are the questions that I have for those who find nothing wrong with the name...

1. Would you call an American Indian a redskin in a face to face conversation? 

2. Would you be still be okay with the name if black, brown or yellow were used in place of red?

3. What is the difference, in your mind, between the N word and redskin?

i'm no defender of the name. i'm ambivalent. i just don't care. keep... it lose it. whatever.

 

To your questions.....

1) no. but i wouldn't call him an indian or native american either. i'd call him joe, or bob or bill or geronimo or whatever his name is.

2) never thought about it.

3) the fact that one word can't even be spelled much less said certainly implies there's a difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well there are shows that are like "White-ish" but they are called Modern Family, Mike and Molly, and almost every other network primetime show. Our network TV is not very culturally diverse. Even our cartoon show are mostly white (except the Cleveland show)

 

The term "Redskins" is a dictionary defined racial slur. That's what it is. But the last part of "People are people" is precisely the point of the people asking for the removal of the team name. It's subjugating a group of people to a negative connotation of who they are as a people. That's not right. Every person deserves to be treated with respect and dignity. The term "Cowboys" have been romanticized in popular culture. It's not a racial slur.

 

Why I feel this is silly in keeping the name is it's not the end of the world either. Dan Snyder already has the trademark of "Washington Warriors", the logo is not the issue of the argument and even if they changed their name, people wouldn't stop rooting for them. It's not like people aren't going to stop selling "Redskins" memorablia at least through 3rd party retailers.

 

Just change the name. It's not that hard. It will likely happen in one of the upcoming offseasons, people will complain about it, then people will move on and decades later, society will be like "We REALLY had an intense argument to NOT change a team's racially offensive name?"

exceptional.jpg

chris, this is why i so enjoy your articles.. your compassion shines through...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before I address anything else let me state that I have no issue at all with teams being named Indians, Braves, Sioux, Chiefs, etc... and agree 100% that the outrage over those names comes from the pc minded who need some agenda, any agenda, to trumpet.  The only name that I have an issue with is Redskins so that's the discussion that I'm going to stick with. 

 

Scalping an enemy was not a practice created by or unique to the American Indian, the practice goes back to the Stone Age and, through the centuries, has been practiced throughout the world.  That said, I haven't come across too many state/government sponsored programs that provided monetary rewards for scalps based on race or the color of someone's skin....

"The State reward for dead Indians has been increased to $200 for every red-skin sent to Purgatory. This sum is more than the dead bodies of all the Indians east of the Red River are worth." - The Daily Republican, Winona, Minnesota Sept. 24, 1863. 

I've used the bounty program as an example of redskin being used in a negative connotation.  There are plenty of other examples but I chose to use this one alone rather than write a research paper on "The Derogatory Use of the Term Redskin".  So my agenda was to save myself some typing...

The National Congress of American Indians, Washington Post, the NPR and others have done linguistic studies that prove that the name has become an offensive term for American Indians.  The FCC and the U.S. Trademark Office have labeled the term "offensive and derogatory".  Dictionaries describe the term as being "usually offensive", "disparaging","insulting",and "taboo".  The only place that seems to think that there's something honorable in the name is the NFL but even that's changed a little....

“When you hear a Native American say that ‘Redskins’ is degrading, it’s almost like the N-word for a black person,†Bailey told USA TODAY Sports. “If they feel that way, then it’s not right. They are part of this country. It’s degrading to a certain race. Does it make sense to have the name?† “I don’t know where the name came from or how it came about, but the bottom line is that it’s still here in this day and age, and it makes no sense to have it,†Bailey said. “I love that organization, but when it starts peeling off old scabs and people are pitching a fit about it because it’s degrading to them, then you’ve got to make a change.â€- Champ Bailey, former Redskin

 

 

The National Congress of American Indians, among others, has gone on record numerous times stating that the term redskins is offensive to American Indians.  There have been protests regarding the name going back to the early 1970's so this is nothing new, it may have gained a little steam over the last few years but the controversy's been around for awhile.  There was a protest here in Houston when Washington came to town but no one really knew about it because it wasn't shown on TV.  It's easy to assume that there's been no protest when you never see it because it's not given the attention it deserves by local/national media.  From what I have read and what I've seen, the outrage is real for the American Indians who've been outspoken about the issue.  The recent upsurge in complaints by elected officials about the name is probably political opportunism but there's nothing new about that is there?  I'm not a big fan of politicians and believe wholeheartedly that they'll support any position as long as you give them a stage and tell them which side they need to be on.

 

So here are the questions that I have for those who find nothing wrong with the name...

1. Would you call an American Indian a redskin in a face to face conversation? 

2. Would you be still be okay with the name if black, brown or yellow were used in place of red?

3. What is the difference, in your mind, between the N word and redskin?

exceptional.jpg

utparothed, this is simply outstanding!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a little shocked at some of the comments made here....

 

                        ---If your team name is a racial slur... change it. (and if you argue that it's not, a Websters Dictionary will be my defense)----

 

It has nothing to do with Scalps, "overly sensitive guilty white people", or 'liberal lame brains'.

 

....it has to do with a Race of people that are offended by a Team Name. That's all.... they don't hate you, or football, or the players, or your white guilty uncle who forwarded the chain email "Not MY president"..... they are OFFENDED.

 

Why are swear words bleeped on TV?... swear words offend people.

Why are naked people blurred on TV?... nudity offends people.

 

Why should we change the name of a Football Team in Washington D.C? ... it offends people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a little shocked at some of the comments made here....

 

                        ---If your team name is a racial slur... change it. (and if you argue that it's not, a Websters Dictionary will be my defense)----

 

It has nothing to do with Scalps, "overly sensitive guilty white people", or 'liberal lame brains'.

 

....it has to do with a Race of people that are offended by a Team Name. That's all.... they don't hate you, or football, or the players, or your white guilty uncle who forwarded the chain email "Not MY president"..... they are OFFENDED.

 

Why are swear words bleeped on TV?... swear words offend people.

Why are naked people blurred on TV?... nudity offends people.

 

Why should we change the name of a Football Team in Washington D.C? ... it offends people.

exceptional.jpg

excellent coleman.. simply brilliant!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a little shocked at some of the comments made here....

 

---If your team name is a racial slur... change it. (and if you argue that it's not, a Websters Dictionary will be my defense)----

 

It has nothing to do with Scalps, "overly sensitive guilty white people", or 'liberal lame brains'.

 

....it has to do with a Race of people that are offended by a Team Name. That's all.... they don't hate you, or football, or the players, or your white guilty uncle who forwarded the chain email "Not MY president"..... they are OFFENDED.

 

Why are swear words bleeped on TV?... swear words offend people.

Why are naked people blurred on TV?... nudity offends people.

 

Why should we change the name of a Football Team in Washington D.C? ... it offends people.

Whatever ... this statement offends me... so every time someone says or does something that offends someone were suppose to bow down to our principles to appease them... I call bs... life is offensive and some times just because you cry like a baby don't mean you get what you want...

So if Redskins offends you then just be offended...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well there are shows that are like "White-ish" but they are called Modern Family, Mike and Molly, and almost every other network primetime show. Our network TV is not very culturally diverse. Even our cartoon show are mostly white (except the Cleveland show)

 

The term "Redskins" is a dictionary defined racial slur. That's what it is. But the last part of "People are people" is precisely the point of the people asking for the removal of the team name. It's subjugating a group of people to a negative connotation of who they are as a people. That's not right. Every person deserves to be treated with respect and dignity. The term "Cowboys" have been romanticized in popular culture. It's not a racial slur.

 

Why I feel this is silly in keeping the name is it's not the end of the world either. Dan Snyder already has the trademark of "Washington Warriors", the logo is not the issue of the argument and even if they changed their name, people wouldn't stop rooting for them. It's not like people aren't going to stop selling "Redskins" memorablia at least through 3rd party retailers.

 

Just change the name. It's not that hard. It will likely happen in one of the upcoming offseasons, people will complain about it, then people will move on and decades later, society will be like "We REALLY had an intense argument to NOT change a team's racially offensive name?"

 

 

As you know, I'm in total disagreement.

 

Redskins is only a racial slur to people ignorant of their own history. We don't turn to Websters (although you didn't name that or present that) for historical reference.

 

I'm going to go ahead and predict the next team on the liberal target agenda will be the Cleveland Browns, despite the name coming from the family that owned them. We'll hear how this is all aimed at making fun of brown people.

 

I think if you change the name you set a dangerous precedent and open the doors to all sorts of "oh this now offends me so you need to change it to suit my politically correct position." If that happens, I turn the NFL off and never turn it back on. What a collection of weak-kneed morons.

 

For 80 years the name existed with pride and dignity. No one was offended. What changed after 80 years? People became clueless and used that to cast their "we're just smarter than anyone over the last 80 years" mantra.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

Our Affiliation

USATDP_Logo.png

Quick Links

×
×
  • Create New...