(06-18-2014 06:33 PM)Pervis_Griffith Wrote:  

(06-18-2014 02:01 PM)rodtheman Wrote:  The Redskins are by far my favorite NFL Team, and this is so stupid.

HAIL TO THE REDSKINS!!

Only in the PC world can a team that sings a song called "HAIL TO THE REDSKINS" think that the term Redskins is derogatory.

Also ... it appears that the majority of native americans are not only NOT offended by this term, but in fact are PROUD of this term ....

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/968922...asy-sounds

From the article ...

And I definitely don't know how I'll tell the athletes at Wellpinit (Wash.) High School -- where the student body is 91.2 percent Native American -- that the "Redskins" name they wear proudly across their chests is insulting them. Because they have no idea.

"I've talked to our students, our parents and our community about this and nobody finds any offense at all in it," says Tim Ames, the superintendent of Wellpinit schools. "'Redskins' is not an insult to our kids. 'Wagon burners' is an insult. 'Prairie n-----s' is an insult. Those are very upsetting to our kids. But 'Redskins' is an honorable name we wear with pride. … In fact, I'd like to see somebody come up here and try to change it."

Boy, you try to help some people …


Also from the article ...

And it's not going to be easy telling the Kingston (Okla.) High School (57.7 percent Native American) Redskins that the name they've worn on their uniforms for 104 years has been a joke on them this whole time. Because they wear it with honor.

"We have two great tribes here," says Kingston assistant school superintendent Ron Whipkey, "the Chicasaw and the Choctaw. And not one member of those tribes has ever come to me or our school with a complaint. It is a prideful thing to them."

"It's a name that honors the people," says Kingston English teacher Brett Hayes, who is Choctaw. "The word 'Oklahoma' itself is Choctaw for 'red people.' The students here don't want it changed. To them, it seems like it's just people who have no connection with the Native American culture, people out there trying to draw attention to themselves.

"My kids are really afraid we're going to lose the Redskin name. They say to me, 'They're not going to take it from us, are they, Dad?'"

Too late. White America has spoken. You aren't offended, so we'll be offended for you.



Exactly ... WHITE AMERICA HAS SPOKEN ... you're too stupid to realize that you should be offended. But don't worry. We'll fix it for you.




Dan Snyder is an ass on so many levels. But he's 100% right on this.


.

No, in the real world, Redskins is offensive.

Warriors (Marquette-word used for others than Indians), Mocassins (UT-C-how can a shoe be offensive-are they proposing to kill opponents with the scent?), Bullets (Washington)-that's all PC nonsense.

So just rename them the Washington Bullets.

Some fights aren't worth fighting and does it really matter if a majority of Native Americans are fine with the name when a large minority find it offensive?

Look, been down this road with my school and the worst enemy any team has in trying to keep such a name is the people who support not changing because they come up with stupid examples (You are Irish and aren't offended by Notre Dame, well that's nice or worse, you grandmother was 1/16th Cherokee and you aren't offended, so in other words no one who sees you recognizes you as a Cherokee and you don't speak the language so you are an expert) or knee jerk it because it's the other side in politics. Nothing productive comes from there.

I do think the grander point is missed.

If you look at the history of teams adopting Native American imagery it is a truly baffling moment in American history.

When the trend started, there were living veterans of the battles between US soldiers and the various tribes. There were living civilan survivors of the conflict as well as the spouses and children of those killed and injured in those conflicts. Yet the names were adopted.

I don't see anyone rushing out to name a team the Viet Cong (roughly similar amount of time has passed) and I don't foresee any schools wanting to call their teams Afghans, Iraqis, or Al-Qaeda in 20 to 40 years.

So something was different. I think that something was the massive social and technological changes of the early 20th century, we became more urban and more mechanized and I think Native Americans became a symbol of a simpler and less confusing past and was embraced as being noble.

The opponents of these names say it is no different than naming a team the Japs, Chinks, Pollocks, Slaves, N******, or whatever other slur they happen to think of.

It is vastly different because schools and team owners don't deliberately pick names that will be made fun or held in low regard. The very fact that those other slurs aren't used for team names is a powerful hint that something different is going on. It isn't about being insulting, demeaning, or being funny, if it were, all such slurs would have been fairly equally used.

That said, people feel what they feel.

I was offended by the NCAA action since it was a group of mostly white, mostly male PhD's delivering an edict without seeking any sort of input. They shot first and asked questions later, or more accurately, they made the decision that they knew what was best for a minority in a paternalistic and patronizing manner, not bothering to seek out and hear the voices of members of that minority community. They did back down some when some Native American groups (notably Seminole and Utes) came to the defense of schools.

But what we have had with the Redskins is four decades of actual, real Native Americans saying "I find this offensive." A group took the issue to court and won initially but ended up losing on procedural rather than substantive grounds.

Why fight this battle?

I don't believe George Marshall had any ill-will or disprect in his intentions when he named the team the Boston Braves or renamed them the Boston Redskins, or kept the name in DC. I don't think Dan Snyder has any ill-intentions or disrespect in his desire to keep the name, but it has been a decades long fight that if you win, you don't really achieve anything other than the satisfaction of being the winner of a battle against a group of people you truly offend as well as some annoying people who join in because they like such battles.

There is no victory to be had. Put your efforts into something worthwhile, like winning your first playoff game since 2005.

I wonder if the Kansas City Chiefs will be the next target. I actually do like the concept of changing the washington redskins mascot to a potato, hehehe. That would be the ultimate F U to the PC crowd but pretty funny. Not anymore crazy than steve ballmer buying the clippers for 2 billion.

Just leave the Native American imagery behind. It seems like a fair common ground for all parties. Keep Redskins, keep the fight song, keep uniforms, keep colors etc. Remove NA imagery and go back to the 'R' logo or something new that is similar.

Redskins refers to the football team that wears red(burgundy) nothing more. You salvage a lot of merchandise this way too.

Sorta like the cleveland Indians with a C instead of the chief Wahoo

http://store.redskins.com/cart.php?m=pro...tail&p=733

(06-18-2014 12:32 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  I did not realize their stajium (does Danny pronounce it the same way Jerry does?) was so "old"

now would be a good time to get rid of the (fake) "controversy" by moving the team to LA

That's the best solution I've heard yet. You could name the new team the California Wetbacks.

(06-19-2014 12:06 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Some fights aren't worth fighting and does it really matter if a majority of Native Americans are fine with the name when a large minority find it offensive?

Look, been down this road with my school and the worst enemy any team has in trying to keep such a name is the people who support not changing because they come up with stupid examples (You are Irish and aren't offended by Notre Dame, well that's nice or worse, you grandmother was 1/16th Cherokee and you aren't offended, so in other words no one who sees you recognizes you as a Cherokee and you don't speak the language so you are an expert) or knee jerk it because it's the other side in politics. Nothing productive comes from there.

I do think the grander point is missed.

If you look at the history of teams adopting Native American imagery it is a truly baffling moment in American history.

When the trend started, there were living veterans of the battles between US soldiers and the various tribes. There were living civilan survivors of the conflict as well as the spouses and children of those killed and injured in those conflicts. Yet the names were adopted.

I don't see anyone rushing out to name a team the Viet Cong (roughly similar amount of time has passed) and I don't foresee any schools wanting to call their teams Afghans, Iraqis, or Al-Qaeda in 20 to 40 years.

So something was different. I think that something was the massive social and technological changes of the early 20th century, we became more urban and more mechanized and I think Native Americans became a symbol of a simpler and less confusing past and was embraced as being noble.

The opponents of these names say it is no different than naming a team the Japs, Chinks, Pollocks, Slaves, N******, or whatever other slur they happen to think of.

It is vastly different because schools and team owners don't deliberately pick names that will be made fun or held in low regard. The very fact that those other slurs aren't used for team names is a powerful hint that something different is going on. It isn't about being insulting, demeaning, or being funny, if it were, all such slurs would have been fairly equally used.

That said, people feel what they feel.

I was offended by the NCAA action since it was a group of mostly white, mostly male PhD's delivering an edict without seeking any sort of input. They shot first and asked questions later, or more accurately, they made the decision that they knew what was best for a minority in a paternalistic and patronizing manner, not bothering to seek out and hear the voices of members of that minority community. They did back down some when some Native American groups (notably Seminole and Utes) came to the defense of schools.

But what we have had with the Redskins is four decades of actual, real Native Americans saying "I find this offensive." A group took the issue to court and won initially but ended up losing on procedural rather than substantive grounds.

Why fight this battle?

I don't believe George Marshall had any ill-will or disprect in his intentions when he named the team the Boston Braves or renamed them the Boston Redskins, or kept the name in DC. I don't think Dan Snyder has any ill-intentions or disrespect in his desire to keep the name, but it has been a decades long fight that if you win, you don't really achieve anything other than the satisfaction of being the winner of a battle against a group of people you truly offend as well as some annoying people who join in because they like such battles.

There is no victory to be had. Put your efforts into something worthwhile, like winning your first playoff game since 2005.

Redskins is different. Its a different scale than the Arkansas St. or La-Mo Indians. Its a whole different scale than Warriors or Moccassins.

(06-18-2014 05:57 PM)USFRamenu Wrote:  

(06-18-2014 04:56 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  When will these blood thirsty savages learn their place and understand that we're going to call them whatever we want to call them whether they like it or not?

Just as soon as you finish handing out those blankets and quilts laced with Smallpox and Diptheria.

Um, excuse me but my quilts expressly say, "Diphtheria free since 1987."

I'm likely on an island here, but I empathize more with Snyder with this topic. Sure he is a douche, but this a brand that has been invested in for decades, and is now worth billions of dollars. The corporation that is the Redkins is deserving of reparations if they are forced to change their name after 80 years. It would be like asking Coke to change the brand name because cocaine used to be an ingredient, and it is insensitive to recovering addicts.

Arguably the name Redskins is abrasive in today's soccer-everyone-gets-a-trophy society...but the fact is there was no "outrage" until recently. What's the next attack for the PC police - the Fighting Irish?

Of course, LSU had a defense in the late 50's nicknamed "The Chinese Bandits", so perhaps my perspective is askew.

(06-19-2014 12:06 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Some fights aren't worth fighting and does it really matter if a majority of Native Americans are fine with the name when a large minority find it offensive?

Look, been down this road with my school and the worst enemy any team has in trying to keep such a name is the people who support not changing because they come up with stupid examples (You are Irish and aren't offended by Notre Dame, well that's nice or worse, you grandmother was 1/16th Cherokee and you aren't offended, so in other words no one who sees you recognizes you as a Cherokee and you don't speak the language so you are an expert) or knee jerk it because it's the other side in politics. Nothing productive comes from there.

I do think the grander point is missed.

If you look at the history of teams adopting Native American imagery it is a truly baffling moment in American history.

When the trend started, there were living veterans of the battles between US soldiers and the various tribes. There were living civilan survivors of the conflict as well as the spouses and children of those killed and injured in those conflicts. Yet the names were adopted.

I don't see anyone rushing out to name a team the Viet Cong (roughly similar amount of time has passed) and I don't foresee any schools wanting to call their teams Afghans, Iraqis, or Al-Qaeda in 20 to 40 years.

So something was different. I think that something was the massive social and technological changes of the early 20th century, we became more urban and more mechanized and I think Native Americans became a symbol of a simpler and less confusing past and was embraced as being noble.

The opponents of these names say it is no different than naming a team the Japs, Chinks, Pollocks, Slaves, N******, or whatever other slur they happen to think of.

It is vastly different because schools and team owners don't deliberately pick names that will be made fun or held in low regard. The very fact that those other slurs aren't used for team names is a powerful hint that something different is going on. It isn't about being insulting, demeaning, or being funny, if it were, all such slurs would have been fairly equally used.

That said, people feel what they feel.

I was offended by the NCAA action since it was a group of mostly white, mostly male PhD's delivering an edict without seeking any sort of input. They shot first and asked questions later, or more accurately, they made the decision that they knew what was best for a minority in a paternalistic and patronizing manner, not bothering to seek out and hear the voices of members of that minority community. They did back down some when some Native American groups (notably Seminole and Utes) came to the defense of schools.

But what we have had with the Redskins is four decades of actual, real Native Americans saying "I find this offensive." A group took the issue to court and won initially but ended up losing on procedural rather than substantive grounds.

Why fight this battle?

I don't believe George Marshall had any ill-will or disprect in his intentions when he named the team the Boston Braves or renamed them the Boston Redskins, or kept the name in DC. I don't think Dan Snyder has any ill-intentions or disrespect in his desire to keep the name, but it has been a decades long fight that if you win, you don't really achieve anything other than the satisfaction of being the winner of a battle against a group of people you truly offend as well as some annoying people who join in because they like such battles.

There is no victory to be had. Put your efforts into something worthwhile, like winning your first playoff game since 2005.

Winner. Best post in this entire thread.

(06-19-2014 12:48 PM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  Just leave the Native American imagery behind. It seems like a fair common ground for all parties. Keep Redskins, keep the fight song, keep uniforms, keep colors etc. Remove NA imagery and go back to the 'R' logo or something new that is similar.

Redskins refers to the football team that wears red(burgundy) nothing more. You salvage a lot of merchandise this way too.

Exactly opposite of what one of the protesting Native American groups suggested. They said keep the logo but get rid of the Redskins name.

(06-19-2014 01:54 PM)LSUtah Wrote:  I'm likely on an island here, but I empathize more with Snyder with this topic. Sure he is a douche, but this a brand that has been invested in for decades, and is now worth billions of dollars. The corporation that is the Redkins is deserving of reparations if they are forced to change their name after 80 years. It would be like asking Coke to change the brand name because cocaine used to be an ingredient, and it is insensitive to recovering addicts.

Arguably the name Redskins is abrasive in today's soccer-everyone-gets-a-trophy society...but the fact is there was no "outrage" until recently. What's the next attack for the PC police - the Fighting Irish?

Of course, LSU had a defense in the late 50's nicknamed "The Chinese Bandits", so perhaps my perspective is askew.

I doubt that many Irish-Americans and citizens of the Republic of Ireland are complaining and find the name offensive, quite the contrary.

"Fighting Irish" does not have the "racially offensive" connotation as does "Redskins" Quite the opposite in fact.

The "Fighting Irish" has a large part of its genesis in the valor of the Irish Brigade in the Civil War, particularly the "Fighting 69th" New York Regiment.

Father Corby was a professor and later president of ND. He also was the chaplain of the Irish Brigade in the Civil War.



http://civilwarstoriesofinspiration.word...h-brigade/













http://michaelloynd.com/blog/?p=26


"In this exciting football season of overtime wins and gritty victories, the true never-say-die spirit of the Fighting Irish once again thunders from South Bend. It inspires me to indulge in All Things Irish. In particular, to uncover the true story of how this Indiana school with a French name became known as the Fighting Irish.

I’ve heard numerous legends over the years. One popular version suggested it arose during a football game, when Notre Dame roared back to an improbable victory after a player’s fiery halftime speech to a group of Irish teammates, “What’s the matter with you guys? You’re all Irish and you’re not fighting worth a lick!” It’s certainly a quaint tale. One that would’ve made a nice anecdote for my humorous novel All Things Irish. But the true origin of the Fighting Irish is far nobler and more inspiring.

In all the times I’ve visited Notre Dame, I’m always curious that in addition to being directed to the sacred sites of the stadium, the Grotto, the Golden Dome, and Touchdown Jesus, no one has ever emphasized the statue outside Corby Hall. In fact, many students and alumni pass it without a second glance. It depicts a lone chaplain raising his hand to the sky in absolution. Some might identify this individual as Corby Hall’s namesake. Others might be able to tell you he was a president of the university. But most people don’t realize that this statue is one of two identical monuments. The other, the original, rests on the hallowed grounds of Gettysburg. And it was on that bloody battlefield where the Fighting Irish namesake was born.

On what would prove one of the deadliest day’s of battle in U.S. history, a brave Catholic chaplain named Father William Corby looked over his decimated New York brigade of Irish immigrants with little more than 500 men remaining of their original 3,000. They were to be sent to rescue the crumbling Union flank in a vicious battle that would become known in Gettysburg history as The Wheatfield.

Faced with this foreboding task, Father Corby donned his stole and mounted a large rock to rally the remaining soldiers. He offered absolution to the brigade, reminding them of their military duties, warning them not to waver and to uphold the flag at all costs. In the first moments of battle, one third of the brigade suffered casualties. But the rest continued the attack, inspired by Corby’s leadership, and bought precious time for the Union defenses to turn the tide.

That heroic brigade became known as The Fighting Irish. And their brave chaplain who rallied and accompanied them into battle went on to become the third president of a little known Midwest college called Notre Dame. East Coasters began referencing the legendary chaplain’s school as that “Fighting Irishman’s University.” And many years later, an alumnus, Francis Wallace, who knew of Father Corby’s legend, began popularizing the Fighting Irish nickname in his New York Daily News columns in the 1920s. In 1927, Notre Dame officially adopted the nickname.

So wake up the echoes of Father Corby and the brave Fighting Irish. Pay homage to his statue that immortalizes his “Absolution Under Fire” speech and depicts the birth of the Fighting Irish. And let their heroics inspire us today."


So, the "Fighting Irish" nickname of Notre Dame has a similar origin as the "Fighting Tigers" of LSU, named after the "Louisiana Tigers" of Confederate Army fame.

If one must go, I guess the other must as well?

(06-19-2014 01:54 PM)LSUtah Wrote:  I'm likely on an island here, but I empathize more with Snyder with this topic. Sure he is a douche, but this a brand that has been invested in for decades, and is now worth billions of dollars. The corporation that is the Redkins is deserving of reparations if they are forced to change their name after 80 years. It would be like asking Coke to change the brand name because cocaine used to be an ingredient, and it is insensitive to recovering addicts.

Arguably the name Redskins is abrasive in today's soccer-everyone-gets-a-trophy society...but the fact is there was no "outrage" until recently. What's the next attack for the PC police - the Fighting Irish?

Of course, LSU had a defense in the late 50's nicknamed "The Chinese Bandits", so perhaps my perspective is askew.

There is nothing "new" about this.

There were protests and a letter campaign by Native American groups in 1988. Around 2,000 protested at the 1992 Super Bowl. The first suit to force cancellation of the trademark was filed in 1992 and that case didn't end until 2005. There were actually objections raised when they filed for Federal trademark protection in 1967

College teams started changing in 1972 and the Golden State Warriors dropped all Indian imagery in 1971.

Look I'm as turned off when some white male know it all professor declares it is racist but when the people actually named say "I've got a problem with it." That's not PC or whatever weird soccer reference you made.

When Irish groups start marching in South Bend declaring that they are offended, the Irish analogy might be meaningful but that isn't the case.

(06-18-2014 04:56 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  When will these blood thirsty savages learn their place and understand that we're going to call them whatever we want to call them whether they like it or not?

Yeah, if those people don't like the way we do things in this country, they can go right back where they came from.

(06-19-2014 02:08 PM)TerryD Wrote:  "Fighting Irish" does not have the "racially offensive" connotation as does "Redskins" Quite the opposite in fact.

So I guess this is why the Washington Redskins issue will be debated for a long time... because there is no consensus among the Native American communities on whether the term "Redskins" is racially offensive or a mark of pride (see post #48).

What the native Americans lack is not a strong consensus but rather a high powered public relations firm stating their side of the issue.

(06-20-2014 01:22 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  What the native Americans lack is not a strong consensus but rather a high powered public relations firm stating their side of the issue.

Can red skin potatoes get in on this racket? After all, they're just as offended as native americans are.

(06-20-2014 01:22 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  What the native Americans lack is not a strong consensus but rather a high powered public relations firm stating their side of the issue.

It is also affected by the fact that most people treat Native Americans as one solid group but in reality they are a bunch of smaller groups with very different agendas and priorities.

Just like the Aborigines of Australia.