The Redskins "name"

[mr.stlouis]

I don't get it...

It NEVER dawned on me until they made a big deal about. Heck, I think it's a pretty cool mascot, really.

Actually, for years I thought the "St. Louis Savages" sounded BA. It has a ring to it! Heck I love Native Americans and their culture. It just doesn't seem like a bad thing. It sounds like an actual warrior not just a group of people.

"Washington Native Americans" sounds like dog s****. Changing their historic mascot is would be blatantly WRONG!

But if the sensitive panzies get their panzy way, I agree they need to be change the whole thing. I hope it's the "Washington Rebels" just to stick it to the ones who blew this false delima out of proportion.

Yankees is slang for union soldier! They should change theirs too. If Yankees can stick, the Rebls should too. Go Dixie!

Interesting angle. You know, "yankee" is pretty much a slur down south.

Exactly and I'm offended. IT'S BIGOTRY!!!... BLAH BLAH BLAH OMGoshness this is all the lamest thing since Titanic. (It was gonna sink, people! I CALLED IT FROM THE START!!! I shoulda placed wagers at the door!!!)

Wish we had Black people to stand up for us and claim that it's racist toward us, despite how we feel!!



I think this is sad that this is talked about more in the media then the gov't who is content with being paid and not working, while also starting to screw over other Vets and families by denying/reducing SGLI benefits, GI Bill Benefits, etc.. including those benefits to the recently deceased - as in last weekend, not a year ago.

Many Americans don't pay attention til' they're going hungry... it's sad.

 

[Thordaddy]

Re: The Redskins "name"

I look at it this way... Nobody is going to name their team after something that doesn't represent a positive. They were given that name a very long time ago, and the name was obviously chosen with the thought that "Redskins" is representative of something honorable and Bad Ass enough to name their football team after. No malicious thoughts were behind the name. The name was chosen out of RESPECT for the American Indian.

I understand political correctness,,, but some shit is taken way too far. This is an example if you ask me.


My grandmother was 100% Mohawk btw.

but see you aren't allowed to look at it that way it's not emotionally satisfying to the professionally offended

 

[Rabid Ram]

Re: The Redskins "name"

My proposal

 

[Rambitious1]

Anyone else tired of this debate?

First Obama. Now Costas.

Really?

The nickname of a FOOTBALL TEAM is viewed as a racial slur? Really?

Too bad these protestors and activists don't put their time and money into more meaningful issues.

Overly sensitive America; get over it!

First you take away the Pledge of Allegiance, now we're bickering about a long standing team name?

Its just dumb.

And... I bet the Redskins are pressured into changing it. Woo hoo! I'm glad that makes you sleep better at night.

smh

This.

It's REALLY dumb.

:brava:

 

[Thordaddy]

Re: The Redskins "name"

Anyone else tired of this debate?

First Obama. Now Costas.

Really?

The nickname of a FOOTBALL TEAM is viewed as a racial slur? Really?

Too bad these protestors and activists don't put their time and money into more meaningful issues.

Overly sensitive America; get over it!

First you take away the Pledge of Allegiance, now we're bickering about a long standing team name?

Its just dumb.

And... I bet the Redskins are pressured into changing it. Woo hoo! I'm glad that makes you sleep better at night.

smh

This.

It's REALLY dumb.

:brava:

zàzqqzqqzqqzzzqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqwcwcdw
aqzcccccccccccccc

 

[jrry32]

There were no NFL teams in the south back then. They adopted the Redskins because they were of the same mindset (banning blacks). Reportedly, that was a big part of why they continued to ban blacks to keep their southern fans and southern TV contracts

"Redskins" and "Braves" is akin to "Yellowskins" and "Samurai". One is a racial slur and the other is a title of a person of respect.

I'm not going to attempt to address every person or school that does or doesn't find it offensive. I wouldn't walk up to someone and call them a redskin so I see it as a slur. Maybe you would call someone a redskin and maybe you don't see it as a slur.

In the end, IMHO, the name will be changed. It's just a matter of time. Maybe now, maybe in 10 years, but in the end, they will tire of having a racial slur as a name and the constant reaction to it.

Anyways, we obviously are on opposite sides of the fence.

This thread is leaning more toward the "never discuss religion and politics" than football.

I don't think your opinion is right. It depends on how you define "end". I guess if you say in the end, we'll all be dead. That would be true. But it wouldn't be something that's likely to happen in the near future for me.

Daniel Snyder isn't going to change the name. He has one of the most valuable sports teams in the world and their logo and name are a major part of that. It is their brand. It has major brand equity and history behind it.

Snyder isn't going to go about it with emotion, he's going to look at the bottom-line. Changing the name is bad business...it's a bad business move.

The people that are "offended" aren't his target market. He's certainly not suffering because people aren't purchasing his product due to "outrage". Nay, the Redskins are doing incredibly well. There's no incentive to change. There's no sound business strategy that would advise changing.

The truth of the matter is that the people who find it "offensive" are a small minority. Hell, if you polled Native Americans, I'd bet you'd find that it was a small minority that actually cared about the name.

It's outrage to be outraged. It's taking offense to be offended. Nobody says the name Redskins in the context of a racial slur. Racial slurs are 100% about context. Even the n-word is all context.

As far as walking up to a person...that's an asinine test. Most people aren't going to walk up a random person and call them anything. You never know what will push a person's buttons. You could walk up to a random person on the street and call them "my dog" or "my brother" and set them off. That doesn't make brother or dog a racial slur.

Redskins, in its current use, is not a racial slur. IT'S ALL CONTEXT. And the context isn't negative or racist. If anything, it's positive.

 

[jrry32]

The litmus test is pretty simple. The next time you see one, walk up to them and call them a redskin. If you wouldn't do that, then deep down you probably know it's a slur.

False. Absolutely false.

In what way?

As I just said, racial slurs are about context. In the "litmus test" you are describing, context is impossible to discern. There are a number of things you could say to random people of different ethnicities that might set them off(especially if you encounter the wrong person) that aren't racial slurs. With random people, they don't know you well enough to be able to understand the context in which you're using things. I'm not going to walk up to a random black person and call them "my dog" but it doesn't make dog a racial slur.

I bet you could walk to most random Native Americans and talk to them about the Redskins football team without offending them.

There's a large difference between the discussion and what you're describing.

 

[Yamahopper]

I posted a comment earlier, then deleted it immediately. I didn't want what I said to offend anyone because that was not the intent ,but could have seen I worded it poorly. Apologies.

I'm 1/4th Osage. Yep, by blood quantum I'm a card carrying "Redskin" and I'm proud of my heritage in the Osage tribe. I've never really thought of myself as mixed race because I never consider race.

While I can't speak for all, I can say that I and my Native American kin and friends find the whole "Redskin" debate Hilarious.

It's just a name of a football team folks. That's it.

I'm not going to speak for all Native Americans for that is putting words in another's mouth...And that's the real problem, people on the outside of the issue for their own agenda speaking for those who are involved in the issue.
The old " Who's got a dog in the fight" saying.

All I can say is "We got this"

What is sad is all the college and other sport teams moving away from the traditional Native American team names.

And to all that think that the NFL can't make the Redskins name go away your fooling yourselves. The NFL has total control of everything that is league wide. If the other owners don't want a team named the Redskins it won't have one. Snyder has no choice to accept it or he won't have a team.

 

[jrry32]

And to all that think that the NFL can't make the Redskins name go away your fooling yourselves. The NFL has total control of everything that is league wide. If the other owners don't want a team named the Redskins it won't have one. Snyder has no choice to accept it or he won't have a team.

That's actually not true. If the owners and the league try to take his team away for those reasons, Snyder can hit them with an antitrust lawsuit. And trust me, that's a major card to play. The NFL does not want to go down that rabbit hole...especially with an owner. They'd never risk that sort of move...especially not when it's for something that isn't financially beneficial to them.

 

[iced]

And to all that think that the NFL can't make the Redskins name go away your fooling yourselves. The NFL has total control of everything that is league wide. If the other owners don't want a team named the Redskins it won't have one. Snyder has no choice to accept it or he won't have a team.

That's actually not true. If the owners and the league try to take his team away for those reasons, Snyder can hit them with an antitrust lawsuit. And trust me, that's a major card to play. The NFL does not want to go down that rabbit hole...especially with an owner. They'd never risk that sort of move...especially not when it's for something that isn't financially beneficial to them.

Jrry's right, but it's a moot point anyway with Goodell backing them.

NFL has no control over the organization from that stand point; the team is it's own separate company

 

[jrry32]

Now...the NFL can certainly apply pressure...if they want to. But I just don't think they do. There's no incentive for a name change.

 

[iced]

Now...the NFL can certainly apply pressure...if they want to. But I just don't think they do. There's no incentive for a name change.

plus goodell has already publicly backed the redskins...

 

[Yamahopper]

And to all that think that the NFL can't make the Redskins name go away your fooling yourselves. The NFL has total control of everything that is league wide. If the other owners don't want a team named the Redskins it won't have one. Snyder has no choice to accept it or he won't have a team.

That's actually not true. If the owners and the league try to take his team away for those reasons, Snyder can hit them with an antitrust lawsuit. And trust me, that's a major card to play. The NFL does not want to go down that rabbit hole...especially with an owner. They'd never risk that sort of move...especially not when it's for something that isn't financially beneficial to them.

No that is true. You don't just buy a team and say lets play. You have to be approved. And when you're approved you agree to abide by all rules of the NFL.

The NFL at this point doesn't want change, they like the tradition. But Redskin is a racial slur to many and it can quickly become a Confederate flag issue. Once public opinion is firmly behind a name change then the NFL will be forced to get onboard with it at least publicly. And when the NFL can prove that the Redskins name is hurting the NFL brand they can force Snyder to change the name under the "Conduct detrimental to the league" agreement all owners sign. And if a little money is lost, big deal the owners will make it up so he has no legal case.

As dumb as Snyder is, if you really think he wants to go to court defending a blatant racial slur....Just wow.
And unlike many I do have a dog in this fight.

There is a excellent article I read a couple years ago in the Wall street journal" Business of sports ownership "will take the mystery out of it for anyone that cares.

 

[jrry32]

And to all that think that the NFL can't make the Redskins name go away your fooling yourselves. The NFL has total control of everything that is league wide. If the other owners don't want a team named the Redskins it won't have one. Snyder has no choice to accept it or he won't have a team.

That's actually not true. If the owners and the league try to take his team away for those reasons, Snyder can hit them with an antitrust lawsuit. And trust me, that's a major card to play. The NFL does not want to go down that rabbit hole...especially with an owner. They'd never risk that sort of move...especially not when it's for something that isn't financially beneficial to them.

No that is true. You don't just buy a team and say lets play. You have to be approved. And when you're approved you agree to abide by all rules of the NFL.

The NFL at this point doesn't want change, they like the tradition. But Redskin is a racial slur to many and it can quickly become a Confederate flag issue. Once public opinion is firmly behind a name change then the NFL will be forced to get onboard with it at least publicly. And when the NFL can prove that the Redskins name is hurting the NFL brand they can force Snyder to change the name under the "Conduct detrimental to the league" agreement all owners sign. And if a little money is lost, big deal the owners will make it up so he has no legal case.

As dumb as Snyder is, if you really think he wants to go to court defending a blatant racial slur....Just wow.
And unlike many I do have a dog in this fight.

There is a excellent article I read a couple years ago in the Wall street journal" Business of sports ownership "will take the mystery out of it for anyone that cares.

He's been approved. He owns the team. He's abiding by the rules. It's absolutely true. I recommend looking into antitrust matters. The league and other teams cannot give him the ultimatum that you must change your logo and team name or else we'll strip your team from you...or else he can make the case they're acting as a single entity which violates Sherman as it is collusion.

And the bold is the exact issue. There's no grounds to prove that. It's not conduct. It's a team name that has been used for over 75 years. The Redskins are one of the NFL's most valuable and profitable franchises. Good luck trying to make that case...it's a losing argument.

Snyder is a lot of things...dumb isn't one of those.

The league won't do it and frankly, their hands are tied because if it really came to that point, they'd more than likely lose in court. And that's something they don't want happening...gives the players leverage for the next CBA.

 

[Yamahopper]

And to all that think that the NFL can't make the Redskins name go away your fooling yourselves. The NFL has total control of everything that is league wide. If the other owners don't want a team named the Redskins it won't have one. Snyder has no choice to accept it or he won't have a team.

That's actually not true. If the owners and the league try to take his team away for those reasons, Snyder can hit them with an antitrust lawsuit. And trust me, that's a major card to play. The NFL does not want to go down that rabbit hole...especially with an owner. They'd never risk that sort of move...especially not when it's for something that isn't financially beneficial to them.

No that is true. You don't just buy a team and say lets play. You have to be approved. And when you're approved you agree to abide by all rules of the NFL.

The NFL at this point doesn't want change, they like the tradition. But Redskin is a racial slur to many and it can quickly become a Confederate flag issue. Once public opinion is firmly behind a name change then the NFL will be forced to get onboard with it at least publicly. And when the NFL can prove that the Redskins name is hurting the NFL brand they can force Snyder to change the name under the "Conduct detrimental to the league" agreement all owners sign. And if a little money is lost, big deal the owners will make it up so he has no legal case.

As dumb as Snyder is, if you really think he wants to go to court defending a blatant racial slur....Just wow.
And unlike many I do have a dog in this fight.

There is a excellent article I read a couple years ago in the Wall street journal" Business of sports ownership "will take the mystery out of it for anyone that cares.

He's been approved. He owns the team. He's abiding by the rules. It's absolutely true. I recommend looking into antitrust matters. The league and other teams cannot give him the ultimatum that you must change your logo and team name or else we'll strip your team from you...or else he can make the case they're acting as a single entity which violates Sherman as it is collusion.

And the bold is the exact issue. There's no grounds to prove that. It's not conduct. It's a team name that has been used for over 75 years. The Redskins are one of the NFL's most valuable and profitable franchises. Good luck trying to make that case...it's a losing argument.

Snyder is a lot of things...dumb isn't one of those.

The league won't do it and frankly, their hands are tied because if it really came to that point, they'd more than likely lose in court. And that's something they don't want happening...gives the players leverage for the next CBA.

Just Wow.

 

[iced]

He's been approved. He owns the team. He's abiding by the rules. It's absolutely true. I recommend looking into antitrust matters. The league and other teams cannot give him the ultimatum that you must change your logo and team name or else we'll strip your team from you...or else he can make the case they're acting as a single entity which violates Sherman as it is collusion.

And the bold is the exact issue. There's no grounds to prove that. It's not conduct. It's a team name that has been used for over 75 years. The Redskins are one of the NFL's most valuable and profitable franchises. Good luck trying to make that case...it's a losing argument.

Snyder is a lot of things...dumb isn't one of those.

The league won't do it and frankly, their hands are tied because if it really came to that point, they'd more than likely lose in court. And that's something they don't want happening...gives the players leverage for the next CBA.

Just Wow.

Yea...that's kinda how I feel about your opinion of where they stand, especially from a legal perspective.

And a "little bit of money?" Lol please - you have any ideas how many jerseys they now have to replace... Hell Donte Whitner has to do the same thing when he changes to "hitner".... that's just merchandise - anything with a redskin logo..

Jrry is right - antitrust is a huge lawsuit waiting to happen, and I'm sure there is something in the CBA agreement preventing the NFL from doing anything. Remember how the NFL/AFL had a merger back in the day...All teams have independent owners and considered independent businesses..

 

[EastRam]

All teams have independent owners and considered independent businesses..

Going to disagree. The NFL as a whole can stop a team from moving.
Or tell a team what color socks to wear and how high to wear them.

Although a team may think of themselves as their own entity, their not.

If the other NFL owners get enough heat to change the name of the Washington football team. They will force Daniels hand and it will never sniff a court.

 

[iced]

All teams have independent owners and considered independent businesses..

Going to disagree. The NFL as a whole can stop a team from moving.
Or tell a team what color socks to wear and how high to wear them.

Although a team may think of themselves as their own entity, their not.

If the other NFL owners get enough heat to change the name of the Washington football team. They will force Daniels hand and it will never sniff a court.

yet goodell gets all his orders from WHO?

The NFL can't stop a "team from moving" per say - all the other owners need a 75% vote to approve it too.

Just because all the owners entered into a contract with the NFL does not give the NFL power and freedom to do whatever they want to NFL teams

 

[EastRam]

All teams have independent owners and considered independent businesses..

Going to disagree. The NFL as a whole can stop a team from moving.
Or tell a team what color socks to wear and how high to wear them.

Although a team may think of themselves as their own entity, their not.

If the other NFL owners get enough heat to change the name of the Washington football team. They will force Daniels hand and it will never sniff a court.

yet goodell gets all his orders from WHO?

The NFL can't stop a "team from moving" per say - all the other owners need a 75% vote to approve it too.

Just because all the owners entered into a contract with the NFL does not give the NFL power and freedom to do whatever they want to NFL teams

I don't really see your point. Of course Goodell works for the owners. And yes they can stop a team from moving they already have rules in place for any team that wants to move to LA or wherever.

It's really simple. If the shield starts to take a hit the owners will entice the Washington owner to change the name.

 

[LumberTubs]

I can see why it is considered racist by some but surely the redskins are such an ingrained part of the American culture/society that it's too late to do anything about it now? That's my view anyway

We'll be picking second next year thanks to the skins regardless of all of this