The Redskins "name"

[jrry32]

Here's something I can agree with.

exactly... it's about the benjamins

So when the "benjamins" stop rolling in because corporate America stops funding the NFL because Daniel son says he ain't changing the name...

Just a thought

That'll happen on the same day that Marc Bugler comes out of retirement and throws 10 TD passes in a NFL game. :lol:

 

[Rabid Ram]

Re: The Redskins "name"

Easiest way to put it is

Thus happens around every 5 to 10 years and nothing changes its what I call a give a shit fad everyone pretends to care and poof it fades out of mind again

 

[RamzFanz]

Blacks were already banned, hell they weren't playing in the NFL in the 1930s. The Civil rights act of 1964 is what gave blacks the majority of their rights today.

So you're expecting me to be shocked that there was a racist owner against blacks, so that must make his "Redskin" name evil and tarnishing?

yea,that makes sense... "I hate Indians and I'm racist but I want my Football team to be named after one of those people I look down upon."

No, blacks were not already banned. I'm trying not to make personal remarks as you have but you continue to make false statements. There were professional black football players and coaches as far back as 1902.

Marshall LED the effort to ban blacks in 1933 and was helped by the great depression.

The problem is you're making all of this about one man, Marshall, without any regard to the popular thought during that time period...

Marshall must have been the only racist right? Because the entire country wasn't fighting or soon to be fighting segregation and truly equal civil rights, right? The majority public didn't have a racist mind at all back then right?

:roll:

Yes, you would name a team "Redskins" as a slur. He changed it AWAY from BRAVES to REDSKINS which was a derogatory name at the time and still is. The person you say he "honored" with the derogatory term redskin was already shown to be a fraud and NOT an Indian.

He changed it to honor a man whom was claiming to be an american indian; a secret that the man kept from his own wife....But I'm sure you believe Marshall knew about it right?

Yea, I'm sure they knew all about it and only set out with malicious intentions..

If he felt the same way about the Indians that he did the blacks, he wouldn't have named his team after it...People don't name their football team after someone they supposedly look down upon

Your argument that there was a lot of racism at that time only supports the notion that Redskins is a racist term. It was just acceptable.

You are only trying to convince yourself. When referring to a "Native American", no one would say, "hey, look at that redskin run" or "man that redskin can catch" because we all know it's racist.

If you want to believe that one of the biggest racists ever in the NFL changed the team name from Braves to Redskins, to honor a man who had already been exposed and found guilty of being a fraud and an imposter, because he just loved Indians and wanted to honor them, so be it.

 

[Thordaddy]

Here's something I can agree with.

exactly... it's about the benjamins

So when the "benjamins" stop rolling in because corporate America stops funding the NFL because Daniel son says he ain't changing the name...

Just a thought

That'll happen on the same day that Marc Bugler comes out of retirement and throws 10 TD passes in a NFL game. :lol:

Exactly ,Rush Limbaugh turns down sponsors , the money is in keeping the name and is gonna stay there

 

[RamzFanz]

Re: The Redskins

Easiest way to put it is

Thus happens around every 5 to 10 years and nothing changes its what I call a give a shyte fad everyone pretends to care and poof it fades out of mind again

For the main stream media that's true. The largest Indian organizations and tribes have been fighting the name consistently for over 40 years. I may be wrong but it looks to be getting a lot more push this time around.

 

[jrry32]

Your argument that there was a lot of racism at that time only supports the notion that Redskins is a racist term. It was just acceptable.

You are only trying to convince yourself. When referring to a "Native American", no one would say, "hey, look at that redskin run" or "man that redskin can catch" because we all know it's racist.

If you want to believe that one of the biggest racists ever in the NFL changed the team name from Braves to Redskins, to honor a man who had already been exposed and found guilty of being a fraud and an imposter, because he just loved Indians and wanted to honor them, so be it.

They would if he was on the Redskins. :lol:

 

[RamzFanz]

Your argument that there was a lot of racism at that time only supports the notion that Redskins is a racist term. It was just acceptable.

You are only trying to convince yourself. When referring to a "Native American", no one would say, "hey, look at that redskin run" or "man that redskin can catch" because we all know it's racist.

If you want to believe that one of the biggest racists ever in the NFL changed the team name from Braves to Redskins, to honor a man who had already been exposed and found guilty of being a fraud and an imposter, because he just loved Indians and wanted to honor them, so be it.

They would if he was on the Redskins. :lol:

LOL, yeah, I knew that was coming.

 

[RamzFanz]

So here is the entire argument for keeping Redskins as the team name:

In 1933, one of the biggest racists ever in the history of the NFL, bought the Braves. For some reason, he felt changing the name from Braves to Redskins would honor his new German draft dodging coach who was still pretending to be an Indian despite being exposed in court and sent to prison.

I mean, who would choose to have a racist brand in the 30's just to appeal to the southern market?!? Was Darkie Toothpaste with a grinning black man racist? Please. Would Washington Darkies be OK? SURE! Why not? It was a commonly used term in the 30's so it's fiiiiiiiine. People were all racist back then, so no harm done.

People who find the term Redskin offensive are just being overly sensitive. Just because it MIGHT have been a slightly racist term at the time, was being used to "honor" a known non-Indian, and for the southernmost team that was seeking to garner the southern market, doesn't mean it was intended to be racist.

Yes, it's true that the largest Indian groups and tribes have formally come out against the term and have been fighting it for 40 years, but fortunately, in a recent poll, most whites don't find the term offensive so there's no real reason to change it.

Did I nail it?

 

[jrry32]

So here is the entire argument for keeping Redskins as the team name:

In 1933, one of the biggest racists ever in the history of the NFL, bought the Braves. For some reason, he felt changing the name from Braves to Redskins would honor his new German draft dodging coach who was still pretending to be an Indian despite being exposed in court and sent to prison.

I mean, who would choose to have a racist brand in the 30's just to appeal to the southern market?!? Was Darkie Toothpaste with a grinning black man racist? Please. Would Washington Darkies be OK? SURE! Why not? It was a commonly used term in the 30's so it's fiiiiiiiine. People were all racist back then, so no harm done.

People who find the term Redskin offensive are just being overly sensitive. Just because it MIGHT have been a slightly racist term at the time, was being used to "honor" a known non-Indian, and for the southernmost team that was seeking to garner the southern market, doesn't mean it was intended to be racist.

Yes, it's true that the largest Indian groups and tribes have formally come out against the term and have been fighting it for 40 years, but fortunately, in a recent poll, most whites don't find the term offensive so there's no real reason to change it.

Did I nail it?

Not really. It's more like this:
1. $$$$$
2. Context
3. Majority doesn't care

 

[RamzFanz]

Not really. It's more like this:
1. $$$$$
2. Context
3. Majority doesn't care

1) I'm not arguing that they will or won't change it soon, I'm just pointing out that it clearly is a racist term with racist roots. The money WILL decide because the owners have no scruples.

2) The context is the 1930's, when arguably the most racist person in the NFL changed it from the Braves to the Redskins in an apparent effort to appeal to the southern market.

3) The majority don't care. True. The largest Indian groups and tribes do though.

 

[jrry32]

Not really. It's more like this:
1. $$$$$
2. Context
3. Majority doesn't care

1) I'm not arguing that they will or won't change it soon, I'm just pointing out that it clearly is a racist term with racist roots. The money WILL decide because the owners have no scruples.

2) The context is the 1930's, when arguably the most racist person in the NFL changed it from the Braves to the Redskins in an apparent effort to appeal to the southern market.

3) The majority don't care. True. The largest Indian groups and tribes do though.

It's not the 1930s. The context isn't the same.

And I'm not so sure the largest Indian tribes do. From the data I've seen on this issue in the forms of polls, it usually has the majority of Native Americans not caring or not finding things like this offensive.

 

[RamzFanz]

Not really. It's more like this:
1. $$$$$
2. Context
3. Majority doesn't care

1) I'm not arguing that they will or won't change it soon, I'm just pointing out that it clearly is a racist term with racist roots. The money WILL decide because the owners have no scruples.

2) The context is the 1930's, when arguably the most racist person in the NFL changed it from the Braves to the Redskins in an apparent effort to appeal to the southern market.

3) The majority don't care. True. The largest Indian groups and tribes do though.

It's not the 1930s. The context isn't the same.

And I'm not so sure the largest Indian tribes do. From the data I've seen on this issue in the forms of polls, it usually has the majority of Native Americans not caring or not finding things like this offensive.

So, since it's not the 1930's, I can say Darkie now without it being considered racist? How about Chink and Wetback?

Then you need to do more research. I've already posted links. The largest groups and tribes all agree it's racist.

http://www.ncai.org/news/articles/2...-of-washington-s-harmful-indian-sports-mascot

A single poll from 9 years ago on a voter form is often quoted as evidence that they don't care. It's the only poll I know of. It's way too far from scientific to be taken seriously. It's about as serious a reflection of views as a poll taken on here.

It didn't qualify the person at all. How much native blood? Do you self-identify with "Natives"? Do you live within their culture? What tribe?

 

[RamzFanz]

Not really. It's more like this:
1. $$$$$
2. Context
3. Majority doesn't care

1) I'm not arguing that they will or won't change it soon, I'm just pointing out that it clearly is a racist term with racist roots. The money WILL decide because the owners have no scruples.

2) The context is the 1930's, when arguably the most racist person in the NFL changed it from the Braves to the Redskins in an apparent effort to appeal to the southern market.

3) The majority don't care. True. The largest Indian groups and tribes do though.

It's not the 1930s. The context isn't the same.

And I'm not so sure the largest Indian tribes do. From the data I've seen on this issue in the forms of polls, it usually has the majority of Native Americans not caring or not finding things like this offensive.

So, since it's not the 1930's, I can say Darkie now without it being considered racist? How about Chink and Wetback? I won't use it in negative context. I'll say things like "That's one hot Chink chick" and "Wow that Wetback is smart." Cool? "Hey, Darkie, I like the way you sing." "Hey Redskin, shake that red ass lady."

Then you need to do more research. I've already posted links. The largest groups and tribes all agree it's racist.

http://www.ncai.org/news/articles/2...-of-washington-s-harmful-indian-sports-mascot

A single poll from 9 years ago on a voter form is often quoted as evidence that they don't care. It's the only poll I know of. It's way too far from scientific to be taken seriously. It's about as serious a reflection of views as a poll taken on here.

It didn't qualify the person at all. How much native blood? Do you self-identify with "Natives"? Do you live within their culture? What tribe?

 

[jrry32]

So, since it's not the 1930's, I can say Darkie now without it being considered racist? How about Chink and Wetback?

I've said the n-word before and it wasn't considered racist. I am white. My black friends use it routinely.

Words are context. Sure...if you could say those words in a context where they're not demeaning...yea...it's not racist.

It's not the 1930s. The team name Redskins is not considered racist. People aren't using the word as an attack on Native Americans nor are they using it with racist context.

Do you know what a fagot is?

Then you need to do more research. I've already posted links. The largest groups and tribes all agree it's racist.

http://www.ncai.org/news/articles/2...-of-washington-s-harmful-indian-sports-mascot

A single poll from 9 years ago on a voter form is often quoted as evidence that they don't care. It's the only poll I know of. It's way too far from scientific to be taken seriously. It's about as serious a reflection of views as a poll taken on here.

It didn't qualify the person at all. How much native blood? Do you self-identify with "Natives"? Do you live within their culture? What tribe?

I have, actually. This was a topic we discussed in my sports marketing class last year. The textbook had multiple studies in it on this subject. Here's one from SI:
<a class="postlink" href="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1025046/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... AG1025046/</a>

 

[iced]

So, since it's not the 1930's, I can say Darkie now without it being considered racist? How about Chink and Wetback?

Then you need to do more research. I've already posted links. The largest groups and tribes all agree it's racist.

http://www.ncai.org/news/articles/2...-of-washington-s-harmful-indian-sports-mascot

A single poll from 9 years ago on a voter form is often quoted as evidence that they don't care. It's the only poll I know of. It's way too far from scientific to be taken seriously. It's about as serious a reflection of views as a poll taken on here.

It didn't qualify the person at all. How much native blood? Do you self-identify with "Natives"? Do you live within their culture? What tribe?

That's just one set of tribes - that doesn't encompass all the 1.2 million indians still living on reservations.

If you're asking if I live on the reservation - no, I don't. Do I have the ability to move to the Choctaw nation and live on the reservation with them? yes, I can.

And not surprising, the term Redskin is being opposed by the Majority of the Sioux tribe - one of the most notoriously known violent tribes, whom have also been linked in artcles describing the play of the Redskins.. I remember reading something about "Sammy Baugh, fighting and charging like the Sioux indians - taking it to the team..They were warriors out there on field."

But hey context doesn't matter right?

Oh and by the way - this was my point, that is just one group protesting - that's not even close to a quarter of the indian nation

 

[jrry32]

So, since it's not the 1930's, I can say Darkie now without it being considered racist? How about Chink and Wetback?

Then you need to do more research. I've already posted links. The largest groups and tribes all agree it's racist.

http://www.ncai.org/news/articles/2...-of-washington-s-harmful-indian-sports-mascot

A single poll from 9 years ago on a voter form is often quoted as evidence that they don't care. It's the only poll I know of. It's way too far from scientific to be taken seriously. It's about as serious a reflection of views as a poll taken on here.

It didn't qualify the person at all. How much native blood? Do you self-identify with "Natives"? Do you live within their culture? What tribe?

That's just one set of tribes - that doesn't encompass all the $1.2 million indians still living on reservations.

If you're asking if I live on the reservation - no, I don't. Do I have the ability to move to the Choctaw nation and live on the reservation with them? yes, I can.

And not surprising, the term Redskin is being opposed by the Majority of the Sioux tribe - one of the most notoriously known violent tribes, whom have also been linked in artcles describing the play of the Redskins.. I remember reading something about "Sammy Baugh, fighting and charging like the Sioux indians - taking it to the team..They were warriors out there on field."

But hey context doesn't matter right?

Oh and by the way - this was my point, that is just one group protesting - that's not even close to a quarter of the indian nation

OHHHHH! Now Native Americans are money...racist. :ww:

 

[Ramhusker]

Since MONEY seems to be a major factor of the REDSKINS brand not being changed, how much pressure would be applied if the federal government threatened to withdraw the BILLIONS in subsidies received by the NFL? I mean the NFL operates essentially as a non-profit organization and receives "bookoo" amounts of cash in the form of tax breaks and subsidies from both federal and state coffers.

 

[iced]

So, since it's not the 1930's, I can say Darkie now without it being considered racist? How about Chink and Wetback?

Then you need to do more research. I've already posted links. The largest groups and tribes all agree it's racist.

http://www.ncai.org/news/articles/2...-of-washington-s-harmful-indian-sports-mascot

A single poll from 9 years ago on a voter form is often quoted as evidence that they don't care. It's the only poll I know of. It's way too far from scientific to be taken seriously. It's about as serious a reflection of views as a poll taken on here.

It didn't qualify the person at all. How much native blood? Do you self-identify with "Natives"? Do you live within their culture? What tribe?

That's just one set of tribes - that doesn't encompass all the $1.2 million indians still living on reservations.

If you're asking if I live on the reservation - no, I don't. Do I have the ability to move to the Choctaw nation and live on the reservation with them? yes, I can.

And not surprising, the term Redskin is being opposed by the Majority of the Sioux tribe - one of the most notoriously known violent tribes, whom have also been linked in artcles describing the play of the Redskins.. I remember reading something about "Sammy Baugh, fighting and charging like the Sioux indians - taking it to the team..They were warriors out there on field."

But hey context doesn't matter right?

Oh and by the way - this was my point, that is just one group protesting - that's not even close to a quarter of the indian nation

OHHHHH! Now Native Americans are money...racist. :ww:

We became currency when they sold the land back to us :cheese:

 

[jrry32]

Since MONEY seems to be a major factor of the REDSKINS brand not being changed, how much pressure would be applied if the federal government threatened to withdraw the BILLIONS in subsidies received by the NFL? I mean the NFL operates essentially as a non-profit organization and receives "bookoo" amounts of cash in the form of tax breaks and subsidies from both federal and state coffers.

The NFL as a governing league operates as a non-profit...because it is.

The teams do not.

How about the government focus on all the debt they're getting into and butt out of sports? The NFL is doing quite well financially...the government...it's nearly 17 trillion in debt. I'd focus on cleaning that up before I distract the general public by getting involved with successful businesses.

 

[iced]

Since MONEY seems to be a major factor of the REDSKINS brand not being changed, how much pressure would be applied if the federal government threatened to withdraw the BILLIONS in subsidies received by the NFL? I mean the NFL operates essentially as a non-profit organization and receives "bookoo" amounts of cash in the form of tax breaks and subsidies from both federal and state coffers.

The NFL as a governing league operates as a non-profit...because it is.

The teams do not.

How about the government focus on all the debt they're getting into and butt out of sports? The NFL is doing quite well financially...the government...it's nearly 17 trillion in debt. I'd focus on cleaning that up before I distract the general public by getting involved with successful businesses.

EXACTLY

How about those assholes get back to work so they can earn their money is instead of fucking over the people who are/have gone out to defend this country

fucking joke they're taking away active duty and vet benefits