(06-21-2020 12:00 AM)bullet Wrote:  Looking at what the term meant 200 years ago is when PC becomes Permanently, Completely stupid.

Except that is ignoring the argument.

(06-20-2020 06:25 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  Because the statute of limitations of offense has passed. The name is 90 years old, how can one begin to be offended now?

Which is that it is a name that has only begun to be offensive now, and 90 age it was inoffensive.

Western dime novels and Hollywood glossing over the meaning of the word doesn't automatically mean that the people who it was directed at 90 years ago had forgotten what it meant during two and a half centuries of Indian Wars.

Quote: 90 years ago and the current understanding of the term Redskins is simply a pejorative way to refer to Indians like dago is to Italians or some other terms that can't be used on here.

That's true enough, among white folks. The perpetrators of atrocities tend to be more enthusiastic about glossing it over than the targets. That's similar to the different ways that Japanese and Chinese cover the Japanese atrocities during the Second Sino-Japanese war of 1937-1945 which merged into World War II.

But I was specific that I wasn't talking about how it was understood among white folks 90 years ago and today:

Quote: For the NFL team, odds are pretty high there were some Native Americans who were offended by it back 90 years ago, they just didn't get the same hearing as Native American anti-mascot campaigners do today.

Native Americans care just as much about being defined by the color of their skin today as they did 200 years ago.

(06-20-2020 11:53 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-20-2020 07:50 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I'm not a fan of the political correctness movement overall (it seems forced and sometimes even driven by people's insecurities), but there is something to be said for our trying to be more civil and respectful of each other.

As for UNLV, and given that Las Vegas is home to lots of magicians ... how about the Conjurers? It's distinctive and "show business-y." Or maybe the UNLV Stratosphere (to honor the history of what is now called The Strat).

On this theme, and as a long-time Belmont University fan, I was displeased when BU changed its names from Rebels to Bruins. I favored the university disassociating itself from the negative elements of the history of the Confederacy. But "Bruins"? Very odd (I guess some folks liked the alliteration). Belmont could have kept Rebels and used an outlaw country music theme. Or, and on the music "note" (bad pun intended), how about the Belmont Backbeat or the Belmont Black Keys?

In general, if a school is going to change its nickname ... go with a name that no other university uses. Be distinctive.

Can't become the Belmont Banana Slugs. That name is already taken.

Ah, yes, the Cal-Santa Cruz Banana Slugs. Beautiful.

For a lot of people, the Redskins name and logo are like living at Niagara Falls; eventually you stop noticing the noise. For them, they hear Redskins and only think of the terrible, terrible football team in Maryland. But when you sit back and think about it on its own, it's an insensitive name for sure. Whether you think the insensitivity is profound enough to prompt a change (or whether you think the aggrieved party's concerns are enough to do so), that's the debate.

I don't get why the owner is so recalcitrant to change. At the least, a new logo and perhaps color scheme would mean merch $$$. Do Redskins fans really need to see a dark-skinned Native American head on a red helmet to cheer their team to another losing season? Can they not do that for the Washington Independence or Washington Swamp Monsters or the D.C. Dream Crushers?

(06-21-2020 07:43 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  Native Americans care just as much about being defined by the color of their skin today as they did 200 years ago.

Think everyone missed the point.

Everyone knew it was derogatory 90 years ago. Just look at the Hollywood westerns. People were just insensitive.

Hardly anyone knew the origin of the term 90 years ago, even among Indians, probably even less among Indians because they were more likely to be illiterate. If you have to dig to find a way a term is offensive, that's just stupid. And I have to be skeptical that is truly the origin of the term.

EDIT:
Actually, Wiki says that redskin was used by Indians themselves to contrast themselves from the Colonists who called themselves white and black. It didn't become pejorative until the last part of the 1800s. It says the skinning bit is a recent story and claiming that is the origin contrasts with historical evidence.

"...Goddard's alternative etymology is that the term emerged from the speech of Native Americans themselves, and that the origin and use of the term in the late 18th and early 19th century was benign when it first appeared "it came in the most respectful context and at the highest level. ... These are white people and Indians talking together, with the white people trying to ingratiate themselves".[20] The word later underwent a process of pejoration, by which it gained a negative connotation.[21] Goddard suggests that "redskin" emerged from French translations of Native American speech in Illinois and Missouri territories in the 18th century. He cites as the earliest example a 1769 set of "talks", or letters, from chiefs of the Piankeshaw to an English officer at Fort de Chartres. One letter included "si quelques peaux Rouges", which was translated as "if any redskins", and the second included "tout les peaux rouges", which was translated as "all the redskins".[18]:4 However, in an interview Goddard admitted that it is impossible to verify whether the native words were accurately translated.[20]

The term appeared in an August 22, 1812, meeting between President James Madison and a delegation of chiefs from western tribes. There, the response of Osage chief "No Ears" (Osage: Tetobasi) to Madison's speech included the statement, "I know the manners of the whites and the red skins," while French Crow, principal chief of the Wahpekute band of Santee Sioux, was recorded as having said, "I am a red-skin, but what I say is the truth, and notwithstanding I came a long way I am content, but wish to return from here."[18]:14–15..."

<Article discusses this for a few more paragraphs>

Article says several Indian schools use the term. But that doesn't mean they like outsiders using it.

I guess San Jose is going to have to drop Spartans too. They aren't Greek.

(06-21-2020 10:16 AM)Cyniclone Wrote:  For a lot of people, the Redskins name and logo are like living at Niagara Falls; eventually you stop noticing the noise. For them, they hear Redskins and only think of the terrible, terrible football team in Maryland. But when you sit back and think about it on its own, it's an insensitive name for sure. Whether you think the insensitivity is profound enough to prompt a change (or whether you think the aggrieved party's concerns are enough to do so), that's the debate.

I don't get why the owner is so recalcitrant to change. At the least, a new logo and perhaps color scheme would mean merch $$$. Do Redskins fans really need to see a dark-skinned Native American head on a red helmet to cheer their team to another losing season? Can they not do that for the Washington Independence or Washington Swamp Monsters or the D.C. Dream Crushers?

The DC Deep State. Going to undermine the Giants all the way to the Super Bowl.

(06-21-2020 10:16 AM)Cyniclone Wrote:  For a lot of people, the Redskins name and logo are like living at Niagara Falls; eventually you stop noticing the noise. For them, they hear Redskins and only think of the terrible, terrible football team in Maryland. But when you sit back and think about it on its own, it's an insensitive name for sure. Whether you think the insensitivity is profound enough to prompt a change (or whether you think the aggrieved party's concerns are enough to do so), that's the debate.

I don't get why the owner is so recalcitrant to change. At the least, a new logo and perhaps color scheme would mean merch $$$. Do Redskins fans really need to see a dark-skinned Native American head on a red helmet to cheer their team to another losing season? Can they not do that for the Washington Independence or Washington Swamp Monsters or the D.C. Dream Crushers?

How about they become the Washington Generals?

The Redskins should resurrect the Senators name from the baseball team. Although, they wouldn’t accomplish anything on the football field.

You guys are arguing facts. The protesters are tearing down statues of Grant as a symbol of slavery!

There's a wave of names being changed, statues removed, etc. Clemson's Board of Trustee dropped John C. Calhoun's name from its Honors College.


https://www.thestate.com/sports/college/...84016.html

(06-21-2020 04:45 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  There's a wave of names being changed, statues removed, etc. Clemson's Board of Trustee dropped John C. Calhoun's name from its Honors College.


https://www.thestate.com/sports/college/...84016.html

Whatever you think of Calhoun, he was one of the giants of the first half of the 19th century, along with Daniel Webster, Henry Clay and Andy Jackson.

(06-21-2020 10:16 AM)Cyniclone Wrote:  For a lot of people, the Redskins name and logo are like living at Niagara Falls; eventually you stop noticing the noise. For them, they hear Redskins and only think of the terrible, terrible football team in Maryland. But when you sit back and think about it on its own, it's an insensitive name for sure. Whether you think the insensitivity is profound enough to prompt a change (or whether you think the aggrieved party's concerns are enough to do so), that's the debate.

I don't get why the owner is so recalcitrant to change. At the least, a new logo and perhaps color scheme would mean merch $$$. Do Redskins fans really need to see a dark-skinned Native American head on a red helmet to cheer their team to another losing season? Can they not do that for the Washington Independence or Washington Swamp Monsters or the D.C. Dream Crushers?

This is the reason Snyder isn't changing the name of the franchise.

Quote: This year, Forbes ranked the Washington Redskins as the No. 14 most valuable sports team in the world and the No. 5 ranked NFL team valued at $3.1 billion, tied with the Chicago Cubs. https://www.nbcsports.com/washington/red...20at%20No.

When do Yale, Stanford and Harvard change their names?

(06-22-2020 11:19 AM)bluesox Wrote:  When do Yale, Stanford and Harvard change their names?

I'm pretty sure Stanford and Harvard already did that many years ago. I think Harvard even got rid of their next mascot, the revolutionary-looking guy.

(06-22-2020 11:08 AM)chess Wrote:  

(06-21-2020 10:16 AM)Cyniclone Wrote:  For a lot of people, the Redskins name and logo are like living at Niagara Falls; eventually you stop noticing the noise. For them, they hear Redskins and only think of the terrible, terrible football team in Maryland. But when you sit back and think about it on its own, it's an insensitive name for sure. Whether you think the insensitivity is profound enough to prompt a change (or whether you think the aggrieved party's concerns are enough to do so), that's the debate.

I don't get why the owner is so recalcitrant to change. At the least, a new logo and perhaps color scheme would mean merch $$$. Do Redskins fans really need to see a dark-skinned Native American head on a red helmet to cheer their team to another losing season? Can they not do that for the Washington Independence or Washington Swamp Monsters or the D.C. Dream Crushers?

This is the reason Snyder isn't changing the name of the franchise.

Quote: This year, Forbes ranked the Washington Redskins as the No. 14 most valuable sports team in the world and the No. 5 ranked NFL team valued at $3.1 billion, tied with the Chicago Cubs. https://www.nbcsports.com/washington/red...20at%20No.

Think how much new paraphenalia he could sell!

And I would think a slightly different color scheme would sell better. Rockets switched from the Red and Gold of their back to back championships to their blue pajama unis to try to sell more merchandise.

(06-21-2020 10:16 AM)Cyniclone Wrote:  For a lot of people, the Redskins name and logo are like living at Niagara Falls; eventually you stop noticing the noise. For them, they hear Redskins and only think of the terrible, terrible football team in Maryland. But when you sit back and think about it on its own, it's an insensitive name for sure. Whether you think the insensitivity is profound enough to prompt a change (or whether you think the aggrieved party's concerns are enough to do so), that's the debate.

I don't get why the owner is so recalcitrant to change. At the least, a new logo and perhaps color scheme would mean merch $$$. Do Redskins fans really need to see a dark-skinned Native American head on a red helmet to cheer their team to another losing season? Can they not do that for the Washington Independence or Washington Swamp Monsters or the D.C. Dream Crushers?

For someone who can't stand the current Cancel Culture, I'll definitely agree the Redskins name should get changed.......though I'd probably just change it to Indians or Braves :)

(06-21-2020 02:57 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  

(06-21-2020 10:16 AM)Cyniclone Wrote:  For a lot of people, the Redskins name and logo are like living at Niagara Falls; eventually you stop noticing the noise. For them, they hear Redskins and only think of the terrible, terrible football team in Maryland. But when you sit back and think about it on its own, it's an insensitive name for sure. Whether you think the insensitivity is profound enough to prompt a change (or whether you think the aggrieved party's concerns are enough to do so), that's the debate.

I don't get why the owner is so recalcitrant to change. At the least, a new logo and perhaps color scheme would mean merch $$$. Do Redskins fans really need to see a dark-skinned Native American head on a red helmet to cheer their team to another losing season? Can they not do that for the Washington Independence or Washington Swamp Monsters or the D.C. Dream Crushers?

How about they become the Washington Generals?

Or they can become the Bullets.

(06-22-2020 06:33 PM)whittx Wrote:  

(06-21-2020 02:57 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  

(06-21-2020 10:16 AM)Cyniclone Wrote:  For a lot of people, the Redskins name and logo are like living at Niagara Falls; eventually you stop noticing the noise. For them, they hear Redskins and only think of the terrible, terrible football team in Maryland. But when you sit back and think about it on its own, it's an insensitive name for sure. Whether you think the insensitivity is profound enough to prompt a change (or whether you think the aggrieved party's concerns are enough to do so), that's the debate.

I don't get why the owner is so recalcitrant to change. At the least, a new logo and perhaps color scheme would mean merch $$$. Do Redskins fans really need to see a dark-skinned Native American head on a red helmet to cheer their team to another losing season? Can they not do that for the Washington Independence or Washington Swamp Monsters or the D.C. Dream Crushers?

How about they become the Washington Generals?

Or they can become the Bullets.

A lot of people are too young to get your point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Wizards

(06-22-2020 11:08 AM)chess Wrote:  

(06-21-2020 10:16 AM)Cyniclone Wrote:  For a lot of people, the Redskins name and logo are like living at Niagara Falls; eventually you stop noticing the noise. For them, they hear Redskins and only think of the terrible, terrible football team in Maryland. But when you sit back and think about it on its own, it's an insensitive name for sure. Whether you think the insensitivity is profound enough to prompt a change (or whether you think the aggrieved party's concerns are enough to do so), that's the debate.

I don't get why the owner is so recalcitrant to change. At the least, a new logo and perhaps color scheme would mean merch $$$. Do Redskins fans really need to see a dark-skinned Native American head on a red helmet to cheer their team to another losing season? Can they not do that for the Washington Independence or Washington Swamp Monsters or the D.C. Dream Crushers?

This is the reason Snyder isn't changing the name of the franchise.

Quote: This year, Forbes ranked the Washington Redskins as the No. 14 most valuable sports team in the world and the No. 5 ranked NFL team valued at $3.1 billion, tied with the Chicago Cubs. https://www.nbcsports.com/washington/red...20at%20No.

The argument there is how much more valuable would they be if their logo and nickname weren't lightning rods for controversy? They're valuable because of the franchise and the city, not the Redskins name and mascot.