British Parliament Members don't approve of the Washington Redskins Name
-
And I thought Brits had such a long memory they could go back to the 1700's.
the 1700s? I can see why you would think history only goes back that far...
-
And I thought Brits had such a long memory they could go back to the 1700's.
the 1700s? I can see why you would think history only goes back that far...
-
I'm not an overly PC guy, I get extremely irritated when people manufacture offense out of thin air...which the PC crowd does a lot. Like students at Harvard protesting the title of "masters" when you get your masters in something. That's bullshit conjuring. The stuff with the Native americans though, I think if they held a vote amongst all of them and came to the conclusion that the name really did used to be a racial slur against them (it was no debate)...than I think we can let them have that one no? It directly relates to them, they're not a bunch of over indulged self absorbed pious pete white folk looking for something to give momentary meaning to their useless selfie loving lives.
Companies rebrand all the time. Maybe the Redskins organization can, gasp, get together with Native americans and perhaps come up with alternatives that are acceptable but don't diverge 180 degrees from the org's current branding. Or not I dunno it's up to them.
-
I'm not an overly PC guy, I get extremely irritated when people manufacture offense out of thin air...which the PC crowd does a lot. Like students at Harvard protesting the title of "masters" when you get your masters in something. That's bullshit conjuring. The stuff with the Native americans though, I think if they held a vote amongst all of them and came to the conclusion that the name really did used to be a racial slur against them (it was no debate)...than I think we can let them have that one no? It directly relates to them, they're not a bunch of over indulged self absorbed pious pete white folk looking for something to give momentary meaning to their useless selfie loving lives.
Companies rebrand all the time. Maybe the Redskins organization can, gasp, get together with Native americans and perhaps come up with alternatives that are acceptable but don't diverge 180 degrees from the org's current branding. Or not I dunno it's up to them.
I'm not an overly PC guy, I get extremely irritated when people manufacture offense out of thin air...which the PC crowd does a lot. Like students at Harvard protesting the title of "masters" when you get your masters in something. That's bullshit conjuring. The stuff with the Native americans though, I think if they held a vote amongst all of them and came to the conclusion that the name really did used to be a racial slur against them (it was no debate)...than I think we can let them have that one no? It directly relates to them, they're not a bunch of over indulged self absorbed pious pete white folk looking for something to give momentary meaning to their useless selfie loving lives.
Companies rebrand all the time. Maybe the Redskins organization can, gasp, get together with Native americans and perhaps come up with alternatives that are acceptable but don't diverge 180 degrees from the org's current branding. Or not I dunno it's up to them.
They didn't seem to mind it too much when George Allen and Joe Gibbs had them beating the Cowboys a lot more frequently.
I think the Native Americans were a lot more pissed when they were informed Christopher Columbus discovered America.
-
Don't change the name, just the logo. Use a potato.
-
-
As a person of Native American descent, I don't find the name "redskin" endearing but I'm not really offended by it either.
However, to put things into perspective lets turn the tables and call them the Washington Blackskins.
Then we can see how fast that name would change.
Two things that will define you: Your determination when you have nothing. Your attitude when you have everything. - Mike McCartney -
As a person of Native American descent, I don't find the name "redskin" endearing but I'm not really offended by it either.
However, to put things into perspective lets turn the tables and call them the Washington Blackskins.
Then we can see how fast that name would change.
As a person of Native American descent, I don't find the name "redskin" endearing but I'm not really offended by it either.
However, to put things into perspective lets turn the tables and call them the Washington Blackskins.
Then we can see how fast that name would change.
Let me guess, your part Cherokee. Like so many others who 'claim' to be of indian decent. Horseshit.
-
As a person of Native American descent, I don't find the name "redskin" endearing but I'm not really offended by it either.
However, to put things into perspective lets turn the tables and call them the Washington Blackskins.
Then we can see how fast that name would change.
Let me guess, your part Cherokee. Like so many others who 'claim' to be of indian decent. Horseshit.
My father is a Crow Indian.Let me guess, your part Cherokee. Like so many others who 'claim' to be of indian decent. Horseshit.
Let me guess, your part asshole.
-
My father is a Crow Indian.Let me guess, your part Cherokee. Like so many others who 'claim' to be of indian decent. Horseshit.
Let me guess, your part asshole.
My father is a Crow Indian.
Let me guess, your part asshole.
'Part'. Ha!
-
My father is a Crow Indian.
Let me guess, your part asshole.
'Part'. Ha!
-
As a person of Native American descent, I don't find the name "redskin" endearing but I'm not really offended by it either.
However, to put things into perspective lets turn the tables and call them the Washington Blackskins.
Then we can see how fast that name would change.
As a person of Native American descent, I don't find the name "redskin" endearing but I'm not really offended by it either.
However, to put things into perspective lets turn the tables and call them the Washington Blackskins.
Then we can see how fast that name would change.
Have the Blackskins been around for decades with nary a peep coming from the black community until just recently? Then sure, the Blackskins can stay. If you're going to be offended, don't wait decades to do it.
-
As a person of Native American descent, I don't find the name "redskin" endearing but I'm not really offended by it either.
However, to put things into perspective lets turn the tables and call them the Washington Blackskins.
Then we can see how fast that name would change.
Have the Blackskins been around for decades with nary a peep coming from the black community until just recently? Then sure, the Blackskins can stay. If you're going to be offended, don't wait decades to do it.
Where have you been?If you're going to be offended, don't wait decades to do it.
I'm not from the DC area, but there's been protests since the '80's about their name.
Here in Cleveland, there are protests on opening day for the Indians game since the '70's.
This is nothing new.
-
As a person of Native American descent, I don't find the name "redskin" endearing but I'm not really offended by it either.
However, to put things into perspective lets turn the tables and call them the Washington Blackskins.
Then we can see how fast that name would change.
As a person of Native American descent, I don't find the name "redskin" endearing but I'm not really offended by it either.
However, to put things into perspective lets turn the tables and call them the Washington Blackskins.
Then we can see how fast that name would change.
Not that I have any credibility left in this topic but it's good you weighed in on this. You brought up some good points. Back when Marion Motley was the Jackie Robinson of Pro Football in an era of segregation, our favorite team was called the Browns even if that was more irony than reason for the name. If that was done on the other side of civil rights - there would have been some hyper-sensitives protesting the name even if they knew skin color had nothing to do with the name of the franchise. Then again, we're still trying to get Ghoolie to understand the math of how Jim Brown had nothing to do with why this franchise was originally named the Cleveland Browns.
My 2 cents here. When you get right down to it, Indians used to battle against greater numbers when land was being taken from them. Sports competitions like to battle to win so most of the time the idea of using anything to do with Indians or their traditions/cultures should be seen as honoring them. Therefore, I don't think pro sports franchises want to use logos and names of dishonorable/shameful things. For example, Braves. Maybe Atlanta just used better judgment on the name? KC chose Chiefs. Golden State went with Warriors - also a good choice. Columbus (minor league - chose clippers).
On the other hand, the skin color origins tend to tap more negative reactions. Cincy has the Reds and I'm told that had a lot to do with a rich history of Indian culture there. I'm guessing there's been people there that didn't dig the name either. Redskins? Keep the logo - and get more intelligent with the name. Then again, we are asking an owner dumb enough to pay the empty inner-chest of Albert Haynesworth 100 million $ to understand this. Stay tuned...
-
As a person of Native American descent, I don't find the name "redskin" endearing but I'm not really offended by it either.
However, to put things into perspective lets turn the tables and call them the Washington Blackskins.
Then we can see how fast that name would change.
Not that I have any credibility left in this topic but it's good you weighed in on this. You brought up some good points. Back when Marion Motley was the Jackie Robinson of Pro Football in an era of segregation, our favorite team was called the Browns even if that was more irony than reason for the name. If that was done on the other side of civil rights - there would have been some hyper-sensitives protesting the name even if they knew skin color had nothing to do with the name of the franchise. Then again, we're still trying to get Ghoolie to understand the math of how Jim Brown had nothing to do with why this franchise was originally named the Cleveland Browns.
My 2 cents here. When you get right down to it, Indians used to battle against greater numbers when land was being taken from them. Sports competitions like to battle to win so most of the time the idea of using anything to do with Indians or their traditions/cultures should be seen as honoring them. Therefore, I don't think pro sports franchises want to use logos and names of dishonorable/shameful things. For example, Braves. Maybe Atlanta just used better judgment on the name? KC chose Chiefs. Golden State went with Warriors - also a good choice. Columbus (minor league - chose clippers).
On the other hand, the skin color origins tend to tap more negative reactions. Cincy has the Reds and I'm told that had a lot to do with a rich history of Indian culture there. I'm guessing there's been people there that didn't dig the name either. Redskins? Keep the logo - and get more intelligent with the name. Then again, we are asking an owner dumb enough to pay the empty inner-chest of Albert Haynesworth 100 million $ to understand this. Stay tuned...
Agree 100% Flugs.Not that I have any credibility left in this topic but it's good you weighed in on this. You brought up some good points. Back when Marion Motley was the Jackie Robinson of Pro Football in an era of segregation, our favorite team was called the Browns even if that was more irony than reason for the name. If that was done on the other side of civil rights - there would have been some hyper-sensitives protesting the name even if they knew skin color had nothing to do with the name of the franchise. Then again, we're still trying to get Ghoolie to understand the math of how Jim Brown had nothing to do with why this franchise was originally named the Cleveland Browns.
My 2 cents here. When you get right down to it, Indians used to battle against greater numbers when land was being taken from them. Sports competitions like to battle to win so most of the time the idea of using anything to do with Indians or their traditions/cultures should be seen as honoring them. Therefore, I don't think pro sports franchises want to use logos and names of dishonorable/shameful things. For example, Braves. Maybe Atlanta just used better judgment on the name? KC chose Chiefs. Golden State went with Warriors - also a good choice. Columbus (minor league - chose clippers).
On the other hand, the skin color origins tend to tap more negative reactions. Cincy has the Reds and I'm told that had a lot to do with a rich history of Indian culture there. I'm guessing there's been people there that didn't dig the name either. Redskins? Keep the logo - and get more intelligent with the name. Then again, we are asking an owner dumb enough to pay the empty inner-chest of Albert Haynesworth 100 million $ to understand this. Stay tuned...
I think of all of the pro sports teams the redskins name is the most offensive.
In baseball, the Cleveland Indians in itself isn't derogatory but the Chief Wahoo character can cross the line for some.
-
Agree 100% Flugs.Not that I have any credibility left in this topic but it's good you weighed in on this. You brought up some good points. Back when Marion Motley was the Jackie Robinson of Pro Football in an era of segregation, our favorite team was called the Browns even if that was more irony than reason for the name. If that was done on the other side of civil rights - there would have been some hyper-sensitives protesting the name even if they knew skin color had nothing to do with the name of the franchise. Then again, we're still trying to get Ghoolie to understand the math of how Jim Brown had nothing to do with why this franchise was originally named the Cleveland Browns.
My 2 cents here. When you get right down to it, Indians used to battle against greater numbers when land was being taken from them. Sports competitions like to battle to win so most of the time the idea of using anything to do with Indians or their traditions/cultures should be seen as honoring them. Therefore, I don't think pro sports franchises want to use logos and names of dishonorable/shameful things. For example, Braves. Maybe Atlanta just used better judgment on the name? KC chose Chiefs. Golden State went with Warriors - also a good choice. Columbus (minor league - chose clippers).
On the other hand, the skin color origins tend to tap more negative reactions. Cincy has the Reds and I'm told that had a lot to do with a rich history of Indian culture there. I'm guessing there's been people there that didn't dig the name either. Redskins? Keep the logo - and get more intelligent with the name. Then again, we are asking an owner dumb enough to pay the empty inner-chest of Albert Haynesworth 100 million $ to understand this. Stay tuned...
I think of all of the pro sports teams the redskins name is the most offensive.
In baseball, the Cleveland Indians in itself isn't derogatory but the Chief Wahoo character can cross the line for some.
Agree 100% Flugs.
I think of all of the pro sports teams the redskins name is the most offensive.
In baseball, the Cleveland Indians in itself isn't derogatory but the Chief Wahoo character can cross the line for some.
I think the
Richmond Flying Squirrelsgives Rocky a bad rap.
-
Agree 100% Flugs.
I think of all of the pro sports teams the redskins name is the most offensive.
In baseball, the Cleveland Indians in itself isn't derogatory but the Chief Wahoo character can cross the line for some.
I think the
Richmond Flying Squirrelsgives Rocky a bad rap.
I think the
Richmond Flying Squirrelsgives Rocky a bad rap.
Says Mr. Know-it-all...
"When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196 -
We should call people what they want to be called just to be respectful. They need to do some polling and find out if this is just an issue being pushed by a small minority or if there is a lot of support for changing the name among Indian people. I just would not like to see it be done because of a small vocal minority.
What Canton Dawg posted makes me want to take another look at it because if it is genuinely offensive then we need to find a better name. i had resisted the name change before because as a sports fan I know we don't have mascots to make fun of but to rally around and the intent of the name Redskins was one of honor.
-
Agree 100% Flugs.
I think of all of the pro sports teams the redskins name is the most offensive.
In baseball, the Cleveland Indians in itself isn't derogatory but the Chief Wahoo character can cross the line for some.
I think the
Richmond Flying Squirrelsgives Rocky a bad rap.
Posted Today, 09:55 AM
TexasAg1969, on 27 Feb 2016 - 08:46 AM, said:
I think the
Richmond Flying Squirrelsgives Rocky a bad rap.
Says Mr. Know-it-all...
***************************************************************************
I've always favored Rocky and Bullwinkle as my favorite
cartoons ever.
Now I'm offended. Need to sue Richmond for $$$$$$. Nobody mocks Rocky.
-
I think the
Richmond Flying Squirrelsgives Rocky a bad rap.
Says Mr. Know-it-all...
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login