With the new NFL season upon us let's play rename the Washington Redskins

zitothebrave said:
A white person calling a black person the N word has a whole different context than the use of it by other black people to each other.
Click to expand...

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.

I don't think a 99% black district would nickname their school the "N's, " though.
 
Carp said:
Well there aren't many of them to begin with (barely 1% of the US population) and more than 1/4 of Native Americans live at or near poverty levels. So getting a good judge on how most Native Americans feelprobably pretty difficult.

Regardless, there is PLENTY of Native American support
Click to expand...

I wonder why there are so little of them today?

Did the early Christians not treat them well or soemthing?
 
acesfull86 said:
Then why is there a high school on a Navajo reservation with a 99% NA student body calling itself the Redskins?!?
Click to expand...

I don't know. I'm not Native American (well not enough to matter) so I couldn't tell you. I suppose much like the "N" word for black people, it's a different meaning among people of the same race. But again i wouldn't know or pretend to know.
 
zitothebrave said:
Nope, not when it's something you embrace. But the Redskins are not asports team that's composed of primarily Natives, it's owner isn't native, and so on so forth.
Click to expand...

If the NA's find the name so derogatory, IMO they should set an example by changing Red Mesa HS to something other than Redskins.
 
Difference is I can do whatever I want...

If you do it..give me some money cause I deserve it.

America is a great place for this type of activity...
 
Hawk said:
The Republicans will certainly take control of the Senate this fall (meaning Congress) and more than likely the Presidency in 2016 unless the Democrats can navigate around the festering pile of dog**** the executive branch is currently unloading. Obama is amazingly toxic right now. We won't see a hard-left 'centrist' like him be relevant again for at least two presidential cycles (not a condemnation of that political philosophy, per se, but rather a reflection on Obama's inept implementation of it). Hillary will probably be forced to run as more of a blue dog type candidate to avoid being typecast as Obama 2.0 ... which her people (Bill) have already floated as a primary goal, starting with the bit in The Atlantic a few weeks ago.

I would really, really love to see a Bush/Clinton face-off in 2016. Mainly because I think the Bush brand is the only juggernaut capable of matching up with the Clintons -- who, partisanship sillies aside, are political geniuses.

But I digress.
Click to expand...

They may well do that, but that is going to have more to do with the map of who is up for election as opposed to anything Obama has done or hasn't done. Democratic turnout was huge in 2008 and Obama's ground game had tremendous influence (along with W's total ineptitude) in producing those results. In 2014, a lot of Democratic senators in red (or at least purple) states likely won't be re-elected because in a non-presidential election year, Obama's get out the vote machine won't be in operation. Further, the Republicans have done a pretty good job of nominating establishment candidates this year instead of nut balls like Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock, which will help their prospects.

As for 2016, that's light years away. I don't think Jeb Bush will be the Republican candidate because of his stances on immigration and the Common Core, which ironically, are very solid policy decisions that don't sit well with the Republican base as currently constructed. I think those items--along with the mantra that he's W's brother that will come from Dems--makes him a long shot. But I've been wrong about these things before. I think if Hillary runs (and I don't think that's a slam dunk), she will win. Like Hawk said, the Clintons are experts at triangulation and can walk the tightrope better than any politicians I have witnessed in my 40+ year career in politics.

Now, enough of my hijacking. I don't give a crap one way or the other about the Redskins name/logo per se, but I'm one of the whitest guys in America. If a lot of people are offended, maybe it needs to be looked at. I feel the same away about the Braves. If they changed the name to the Beekeepers, it wouldn't bother me in the slightest. As for the "Fightin' Irish," comment, what if they were called the "Drunken Irish" (or "Cheatin' Irish" given current events)? The only time I've ever heard "Fightin' Irish" is when referencing Notre Dame. I've heard "Drunken Irish" a whole heckuva lot more during my 60+ years on the planet. There used to be as many "drunken Irish" jokes as "drunken Indian" jokes. What I do laugh about is that names/logos are cosmetic and while they can be (and likely are) damaging to some extent, eliminating ones that offend only have a cosmetic result. The life of the average Native American won't improve because the Redskins name is retired.

But, like Hawk, I digress.
 
GMAJAH25 said:
Difference is I can do whatever I want...

If you do it..give me some money cause I deserve it.

America is a great place for this type of activity...
Click to expand...

More like difference is America has a long history of taking advantage and making a mockery of Native American culture, all while making a killing off it. And this is part of it.
 
Also, I don't see how one can compare Redskins to Braves, Indians, Chiefs, Blackhawks, Seminoles, etc.

I do understand the objections to the Tomahawk Chop and the grinning face on the Cleveland Indians' hats and helmets.

I think you're going to get multiple opinions and accounts on how Native Americans really feel about the name, but I'm not going to pretend this personally would affect me either way. I also don't think Washington fans can seriously say their life will be ruined if the team changes a name. It's happened plenty of times.

I heard this on a radio show a few months back when this really started blowing up again, and it stuck with me.

If you were sitting in a room and were forming a professional sports team, would Redskins be on your list of nicknames?
 
bravesnumberone said:
Also, I don't see how one can compare Redskins to Braves, Indians, Chiefs, Blackhawks, Seminoles, etc.

I do understand the objections to the Tomahawk Chop and the grinning face on the Cleveland Indians' hats and helmets.

I think you're going to get multiple opinions and accounts on how Native Americans really feel about the name, but I'm not going to pretend this personally would affect me either way. I also don't think Washington fans can seriously say their life will be ruined if the team changes a name. It's happened plenty of times.

I heard this on a radio show a few months back when this really started blowing up again, and it stuck with me.

If you were sitting in a room and were forming a professional sports team, would Redskins be on your list of nicknames?
Click to expand...

I basically agree, but I don't know what some people find offensive and others don't. I mean, there's always someone who is going to be offended. That's just the nature of life these days. But I think Redskins does cross a line that only the grinning Chief Wahoo Cleveland Indians' logo comes close to in terms of poor taste.
 
zitothebrave said:
But you're not seeing the difference. I get it.
Click to expand...

Of course I get it, I just find it absurd.

There are words/actions I find offensive and I make it a habit to not say/do those things rather than promote them. Apparently it's unreasonable for me to hold others to that same standard.
 
Carp said:
More like difference is America has a long history of taking advantage and making a mockery of Native American culture, all while making a killing off it. And this is part of it.
Click to expand...

America has a long history of taking advantage of everyone. Welcome to America..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top