- Joined
- Oct 24, 2009
- Messages
- 11,005
- Reaction score
- 5,433
- Location
- Southeast Michigan
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
What say you?
Yes, but only if they change it to something more offensive.
I think it should be changed and until it is the owner of the Redskins won't see one red cent of my money.
America is a wonderful, wacky place.
In one corner, you have strong support for a guy who refuses to stand during the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance although it offends every other member in the audience and a vast majority of Americans and he's trumpeted as a free speech hero, defender of the first amendment, and an all around saint for taking a stand by sitting on his ass.
In another corner, you have Daniel Snider, a guy who defends to the death his right to retain a century old name for a team he alone owns and a team whose fans love the tradition and history of the name, and many of the same people who support the free speech rights of the previously mentioned Chief Sit on My Ass are in high dudgeon over another stance that offends far fewer.
Of course, the question isn't if the government should force them to change, but if they should change. Would it be right for them to do so?
If Snyder wants to continue to give everybody a big middle finger, that's his right. It is, however, damaging the very brand he wants to protect.
The only reason I'd like to see it changed is just because I'm ****ing tired of hearing about it. Should it be changed because it's wrong? No. This isn't a question of right and wrong.
The only reason I'd like to see it changed is just because I'm ****ing tired of hearing about it. Should it be changed because it's wrong? No. This isn't a question of right and wrong.
And it's this response that the jackasses in the media are going for by attempting to push this again and again and again. It's why facts and correctness is of no importance to them. It's why the coverage is almost always slanted and idiotic arguments and conspiracies that don't make logical sense keep getting brought up. One such example is Chris Mortensen tonight suggesting that Snyder moved the team out of DC to stop dealing with DC law makers pushing him about the name; despite the fact that Dan Snyder didn't own the team when they left the DC area and the reasons for the move had nothing to do with the name in the least. But god forbid ESPN let FACTS dictate their agenda driven propaganda.
The worst is people that think it's about someone being offended. That's a level or two of thinking below mine.
Generally speaking I couldn't give a ****.
But if Native Americans want the name change, I think it should.
We wouldn't have kept the Washington Niggers would we?
Μολὼν λαβέ;1063711947 said:Was there a team by that name? Didn't think so...
What say you?
I think that's highly questionable. One could make just as strong, if not stronger, of an argument that changing a brand that's one of the most profitable in all of sports, and whose fan base rank "tradition" and "history" as some of it's most compelling factors for fandom, would actually be harmed FAR more by completely changing said brand than they are by continuing to push something that the vast majority of people, both in general and within the native american population, don't actually care about.
Not to mention, giving into that vocal minority may be no longer giving THEM the finger, but it WOULD be giving the finger to a whole different group of people that is significantly large and also does include a fair number of native americans as well (Who have actively suggested support for the name and offense over the notion of changing it)
Enlighten us oh wise one.
Maybe I'm a boring pragmatic but wouldn't it be more useful for these organizations to band together and assist the Washington Redskins with the name change? I'm sure they could raise sufficient funds to help the owner with some of the necessary costs associated with this change. They could also assist with a Washington DC area Campaign to rename the team and find out what other names would be acceptable to Redskin fans.
When a highly successful person feels like he is getting pushed around he isn't going to submit to any of your demands even if they are reasonable and good. This could be worked out if one side was willing to swallow their pride with the understanding that the other side will never swallow their pride. That's how you get things done. You get more flies with honey than with vinegar.
Since neither the National Congress of American Indians, the United South and Eastern Tribes, the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, the Comanche Nation of Oklahoma, the Fort Peck Tribal Executive Board, the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, the Great Lakes Inter-Tribal Council, the Gun Lake Band of Potawatomi Indians, the Inter-Tribal Council of the Five Civilized Tribes, the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, the Juaneno Band of Mission Indians, the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, the Menominee Tribe of Indians, the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin, the Oneida Indian Nation, the Poarch Band of Creek Indians, the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, the Sault St. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation or the United Indian Nations of Oklahoma have any legal justification for their case I would suggest they be the side that compromises in order to get this accomplished. The owner won't be bullied around. If you bully him more he'll be even less inclined to reason. If you bully him a little bit more than that he'll be even less likely to listen to reasonable request. If you bully him more than that he could just quit listening altogether and nothing will ever get accomplished.
This can only be accomplished if one side is willing to chose action over winning. Winning feels good but it should be about more than just winning. The name probably does need to be changed but you have to be willing to do what it takes to make that happen.
There you go...Native Americans who don't agree with primarily a bunch of white people telling them what should be "offensive" to them is tantamount to supporting slavery. Nevermind that the argument that "some blacks fought for the confederacy" could equally be used to cast doubt upon those minority of native americans suggesting the name must be changed as it is to cast doubt on those that suggest it should remain.
Of course, the question isn't if the government should force them to change, but if they should change. Would it be right for them to do so?
If Snyder wants to continue to give everybody a big middle finger, that's his right. It is, however, damaging the very brand he wants to protect.
So I take it you don't purchase anything from the NFL or contribute to anything that would help justify their ability to sell advertising and television rights? Because the NFL engages in revenue sharing, which means support to the NFL is ultimately financially supporting it's teams...including the Redskins.
It's very simple. Say it slowly with me:
Racial stereotypes are bad for society.
6 words.
6 words that are true and it doesn't matter one ****ing bit who is or who is not offended by whatever.
False analogy. Indians can't change the color of their skin...but the KKK can change the color of their sheets.
"This idea that the fight against the mascoting of Native people is something new and led by white folks is
... yet another way of cutting Native people out of the American discourse about things that matter to us," Keeler says.
"By reframing the issue this way the Washington NFL team continues to make real, modern Native people to disappear, much as their mascot does.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?