Jump to content

I Love It (Redskins Fans Outrage) - How Would YOU Feel?


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Beerfish said:

Who determines what a racial slur is.

Society and it's use of words.  And we collect this information in a book called a dictionary.

But in theory you can decide what any given words means.....to you.....if you like, and don't wish to be understood.

10 minutes ago, Beerfish said:

Who determines at what a person has the right to be offended about?

Each individual decides this for themselves.

When enough agree, it matters.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 425
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Honestly, I don;t think I would care if the Jets or any other team I root for changed its name.  I just want my teams to win, no matter what they are called. The more difficult question for me wo

Being from the same general area let me answer the question if another thread was necessary? YES, sports radio DC area fan outrage is like unlimited hot wings, it’s never anything but delicious. 

Imagine typing this out, and thinking, "Indeed, this will prove my point.  The color of a fictional spacesuit is, in fact, the same thing as an actual racial slur."

Posted Images

5 minutes ago, SAR I said:

reds.jpg

Nope.

I think it's going to be the Washington Reds.  Just like Cincinnati.  Except in Washington.  And for football.  Instead of baseball. 

Tweak the logo, remove a word fragment, "R" helmet logo, no face, no feathers, no spears, done.

SAR I

That would work, or even The Red Burns.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oregon recently chsngex the name of it's historical rivalry wuth Orevon State that's been going on for over 100 years.  I got over it in around 48 hours.  I am sure (formerly) Redakinss fans will get o er their name change too.

  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Warfish said:

The Colts/Ravens is a great example IMO.

The Colts left, Baltimore was crushed at the time.  I have family from there, and heard the stories.  

Then the Browns moved into town and became the Ravens (the right way for a move IMO, leaving the HISTORY behind in Cleveland).

Colts fans didn't say "Can't root for them, not the Colts".  They near-universally embraced the team, many liked the name (some were more meh on it), but they didn't reject the new team because they weren't named the Colts.

The hierarchy of loyalties for most fans:  City/Region <-------Team/Name/Colors <-------- Players/Coaches

I think alot of folks will SAY they won;t root for their team they've rooted for for 30 years if they change thier name, but I think the vast majority of those fans will, in fact, be there, in new logo gear, on opening day just as usual.  

Moving, THAT is the one that is the most fatal for fans.  In the above example, very few Colts fans rooted for them after they left Baltimore.    

Great post. I have lived in California now for longer than I lived in NY but will always be a Jets fan and thats because I grew up in NY and Joe Namath. Your hierarchy is perfect. I always laugh when the top stars think they are the reason that they are the reason someone follows a team. Certainly there are some the Tebow-ites coming to mind, but it is a very small even inconsequential number. People follow TEAMS. Even the team with the biggest fair weather fan base, the CHeatriots will likely retain 98% of their fanbase without Brady. I remember Brees (who is kind of a douche but no one notices) in the last contract negotiation 9 years ago saying that the NFL would fall without him and other "stars". Simply not true, our roster as an example is almost completely different than it was just 5 years ago. People are fans of teams foremost

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Warfish said:

Redskin is a racist slur.  Your "friends on the reservation" are free to agree or disagree, presuming they exist, but the historical context of the term and it's racist slur meaning in the dictionary are unquestionable facts. 

Teams shouldn't be named after racial or ethnic groups, especially when any portion of that group is offended by it and are a historical oppressed minority ffs.  And they sure as hell shouldn't use outdated stereotypes as logos. 

You might be right, many current Native Americans aren't running around complaining about the word Redskins, they're too busy trying to stave off abject poverty in many cases.  The only reason people think it's ok is because they're aren't enough Native Americans left, much less speaking with a unified voice, to have a loud enough public voice to properly oppose it. 

Washington Wetbacks.  Washington Negros (or the other N word).  Washington Kikes.  Washington Wops.  None of these names would last a millisecond today, rightfully so.  Every one is a slur, and you personally being offended or not at those slurs doesn't make them not a slur.  This change is long overdue.  Not because of political correctness, but because of right and wrong ffs.

 

 

To be fair, I'd become a Washington Wop fan in a heartbeat.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe not so racist?  Who knows.  If theyre offended, change the name and move on.  Just to call it racist or anyone who likes the name racist seems wrong.  Its not like anyone uses the name to insult anyone, uses it in a derogatory manner as other racist slang names were. Just change the name, avoid all the controversy, debate and the arguing.  No one will remember the uproar in a few years, ala St John s University

Redskin

Documents from the colonial period indicate that the use of "red" as an identifier by Native Americans for themselves emerged in the context of Indian-European diplomacy in the southeastern region of North America, before later being adopted by Europeans and becoming a generic label for all Native Americans.[11]:627–28

Linguistic evidence indicates that, while some tribes may have used red to refer to themselves during the Pre-Columbian era based upon their origin stories,[11]:634 the general use of the term was in response to meeting people who called themselves "white" and their slaves "black".[11]:629 The choice of red rather than other colors may have been due to cultural associations, rather than skin color.[11]:632 Red and white were a dichotomy that had pervasive symbolic meanings in southeastern Native cultures which was less prevalent among northern tribes.[11]:632 While there was occasional use of "red" in Indian-European diplomacy in the northeast, it was still rare there even after it had become common in the southeast. Instead, "Indian" was translated into the native languages there as "men", "real people", or "original people".[11]:629–30 Usage in the northeast region by Europeans may have been largely limited to descriptions of tribes such as the Beothuk of Newfoundland, whose practice of painting their bodies and possessions with red ochre led Europeans to refer to them as "Red Indians".[12]

Origins of redskin in English

Use of the English adjective "red" in reference to American Indians as a race is first recorded in the 1720s. The combination with "skin", to form the term "redskin", can be dated to 1769. It arises from a translation of French peaux rouges, which in turn had been written by the French translator from the Miami-Illinois language, in a letter sent by three chiefs of the Piankashaws to Col. John Wilkins. The term here refers to warriors specifically. The term "redskin" enters wider English usage only in the first half of the 19th century.[21]:4–

Roots in Native American language

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".[23] The word later underwent a process of pejoration, by which it gained a negative connotation

Use among Native Americans

Three predominantly Native American schools use the name for their athletic teams, two of which serve reservations: Red Mesa High School in Teec Nos Pos, Arizona where the student body is 99% Native American.[51] and Wellpinit High School, Wellpinit, Washington.[52] The principal of Red Mesa said in 2014 that use of the word outside American Indian communities should be avoided because it could perpetuate "the legacy of negativity that the term has created."[53] In 2014, Wellpinit High School, located on the Spokane Indian Reservation, voted to keep the Redskins name.[54] Native American writer and attorney Gyasi Ross compares Native American use of variations of the word "Redskin" with African-American use of variations of the word "***". Use of these terms by some members of minority communities does not mean that these words may be used by outsiders. Ross also notes that while activism on the issue may be from a minority of Native Americans, this is due to most being concerned with more immediate issues, but also says "The presentation of the name 'Redskins' is problematic for many Native Americans because it identifies Natives in a way that the vast majority of Natives simply don't identity ourselves."[55]

Washington Redskins

The controversy regarding Native mascots in general, and use of the name Redskins, had been most prominent in the name of the Washington Redskins, a National Football League team. Public protest of the name began in 1968, with a resolution by the National Congress of American Indians.[57] Native American groups and their supporters argue that since they view the word "redskin" as offensive, it is inappropriate for an NFL team to continue to use it, regardless of whether any offense is intended.[31][58][59]

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gastineau Lives said:

To be fair, I'd become a Washington Wop fan in a heartbeat.

You have a logo in mind?

I wouldn't mind a Washington Highlanders, with a cool Broadsword logo. 

I would probably mind more a Washington Sheepscrewers team with a Kilt-wearing Scot caricature behind a very unhappy sheep.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Relocation isn't as big of a deal anymore. 

Back then, yes. Because you couldn't see your team regularly.

Now with all the TV/Online streaming packages, that doesn't matter anymore.

I could see the Jets even if they played in Montana lol

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Warfish said:

You have a logo in mind?

I wouldn't mind a Washington Highlanders, with a cool Broadsword logo. 

I would probably mind more a Washington Sheepscrewers team with a Kilt-wearing Scot caricature behind a very unhappy sheep.

logo

Best Spaghetti and Meatballs Recipe - How to Make Easy Homemade ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, SAR I said:

reds.jpg

Nope.

I think it's going to be the Washington Reds.  Just like Cincinnati.  Except in Washington.  And for football.  Instead of baseball. 

Tweak the logo, remove a word fragment, "R" helmet logo, no face, no feathers, no spears, done.

SAR I

Hmm - the Washington Crimson Epidermis 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SAR I said:

How do you think New Jerseyans feel about two football teams who have spent 40 years in the state using the name of a neighbor state that threw both of them out?

The Jets and Giants players have lived and worked in New Jersey for the last 38 and 44 years respectively.  It's an insult to the great state of New Jersey that they don't want their names to reflect the people they represent.  There is nothing "New York" about either team.  They don't work, live, play, or practice there.  

SAR I

And they’re both rather embarrassed by it. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Jet Nut said:

Maybe not so racist?  Who knows.  If theyre offended, change the name and move on.  Just to call it racist or anyone who likes the name racist seems wrong.  Its not like anyone uses the name to insult anyone, uses it in a derogatory manner as other racist slang names were. Just change the name, avoid all the controversy, debate and the arguing.  No one will remember the uproar in a few years, ala St John university. 

 

Exactly right. 

Not that it's a perfect comparison but when Miami University (Ohio) changed from the Redskins to the RedHawks, people threw a fit for about an hour after it happened. 

20+ years later nobody even remembers. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Warfish said:

I have one.  Mocking the whining of ignorant racists on the internet.  It's very fulfilling.

And I’m sure YOU get to decide who is and isn’t racist.

No worries, you’ve taken your ball and gone home so much that you’ve rubbed off on enough feeble minded and your c%nty behavior has become majority...

Annndddd you have this wonderful utopia the world is in as proof.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Warfish said:

I have one.  Mocking the whining of ignorant racists on the internet.  It's very fulfilling.

According to every definition I can find its not out of ignorance or racist.  Unless you have something that says it it.  I mean, shlt, they named themselves Reds

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TnT said:

And I’m sure YOU get to decide who is and isn’t racist.

Nope.  Society decides that, and then they act accordingly.

5 minutes ago, TnT said:

No worries, you’ve taken your ball and gone home so much that you’ve rubbed off on enough feeble minded and your c%nty behavior has become majority...

Annndddd you have this wonderful utopia the world is in as proof.

Yup, the State of the World, that's all me.  :-k

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Warfish said:

Nope.  Society decides that, and then they act accordingly.

Yup, the State of the World, that's all me.  :-k

 

 

Thank you for proving my point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SAR I said:

How do you think New Jerseyans feel about two football teams who have spent 40 years in the state using the name of a neighbor state that threw both of them out?

The Jets and Giants players have lived and worked in New Jersey for the last 38 and 44 years respectively.  It's an insult to the great state of New Jersey that they don't want their names to reflect the people they represent.  There is nothing "New York" about either team.  They don't work, live, play, or practice there.  

SAR I

Only middle aged fist pumping farters who still live in their parents Bayonne basement with Bon Jovi posters on the wall think they should be the Jersey Jets,

The rest of us sophisticated types understand that New jersey only exists because of it's proximity to NYC and that even thinking of changing from New York to New Jersey would drop the value of the franchise at least 800 million dollars.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Warfish said:

On the internet?  Are you kidding me?  

Did you forget #3, the Slippery Slope, but what about, what's next concern?

And #4, of course, how worried you are about "erasing history" like all those fans of Confederate Statues?

Mate, even a modicrum of research would show that the objection isn't "manufactured".  

The question really isn't why it should be changed, the question is why you would think it must stay.

 

 

I think you are presuming I am coming at this as if I believe in what the Confederate Statue, which of course I do not.  That I think has been lost on many posts where you and I have disagreed, or where you have disagreed with others who do not share your view on a particular divisive subject.  Simply put, not agreeing with a "Liberal" does not automatically mean you are a "conservative."
 
Also, I am not suggesting people are not offended, I am suggesting not everyone is offended, even if they disagree with what something might represent.

And yes, I believe there are many who oppose the ideas represented by the logo, but do not believe changing a logo is the answer.  I know that many be hard to believe, since many times you say things don't exist if you don't think them to be true.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, CanadaSteve said:

Simply put, not agreeing with a "Liberal" does not automatically mean you are a "conservative."

Why are you presuming I am a liberal?  I'm a lifelong Libertarian/Republican voter, for the record.  

Just now, CanadaSteve said:

Also, I am not suggesting people are not offended, I am suggesting not everyone is offended, even if they disagree with what something might represent.

There is no such thing as universal agreement in social science and policy.  Even the most universally agreed upon topic or issue has 10-15% who disagree with whatever it is.  You could literally poll "is free stuff from the sky good" and you'll get 20% who oppose it.

So yes, not "everyone" is offended.  But we do not require "everyone" to be offended to implement change.  We needed just enough to be offended to shift the real power, the money, in this direction.  And that's what happened.  

Just now, CanadaSteve said:

And yes, I believe there are many who oppose the ideas represented by the logo, but do not believe changing a logo is the answer.

Are you one of these hypothetical people, who oppose the ideas represented by the name/logo but don't wish them to be changed? 

If so, by all means, feel free to expand on this thought process/line of thinking. 

 

Link to post
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.




×
×
  • Create New...