Author Topic: Redskins lose their trademark  (Read 29121 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Redskins lose their trademark
« Reply #60 on: June 19, 2014, 11:36:42 AM »

Offline greg683x

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4097
  • Tommy Points: 585
Moranis, sorry the quote boxes and all the text was getting to be too much for me. 

I completely understand your point and can agree with it.  I guess the major problem I have with this whole issue is people saying hey this name is offensive to those people and you should be offended too, even though neither of us are a member of said group of people.  yet when we ask this group of people most of them say they love it or don't have a problem with it at all. 

Yes I do understand the name is offensive to some, and really at the end of the day, they can change the name and that's fine, in fact I almost wish they would at this point to end all of this.  Just again, to clarify where I stand I don't have a problem with this bc I'm some crazy skins fan, I have a problem with people telling me what I should and shouldn't be offended by.  This issue just isn't as black and white as people make it out to be. 
Greg

Re: Redskins lose their trademark
« Reply #61 on: June 19, 2014, 11:45:31 AM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
If the team was initially named the Washington Negroes, do you still think that would be their name today?
But it wasn't named that, was it? Perhaps there's a good reason.

It's well known that the founder of the Redskins was a racist (via his struggles with integration, and so forth). I'd say that's a very good reason right there.
So let me get this straight -- he hated Native Americans, so he chose to pick a team name that supposed that his players will identify with and be referred as such? Yes, that certainly makes perfect sense.

By the way, there's no evidence that Preston Marshall had any racially biased attitude against Native Americans (he vehemently refused to sign African Americans, yet the inaugural Redskins roster featured several Native American players).

Did you know that the team was established in Boston, and shared fields with the Boston Braves (when they did, they were, in fact, listed as the Boston Braves for their inaugural 1932 season) and the Red Sox. Notice a pattern there?
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

Re: Redskins lose their trademark
« Reply #62 on: June 19, 2014, 11:56:18 AM »

Offline D.o.s.

  • NCE
  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14061
  • Tommy Points: 1239
-10 points for reading comprehension.

I'll break it down for you:

You said that there was, perhaps a good reason that the Redskins weren't called the Negros.

I said that there definitely was -- because their owner hated Black people. I said nothing, implied nothing, and suggested nothing about Marshall hating Native Americans.  ;)
At least a goldfish with a Lincoln Log on its back goin' across your floor to your sock drawer has a miraculous connotation to it.

Re: Redskins lose their trademark
« Reply #63 on: June 19, 2014, 12:14:24 PM »

Offline footey

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15965
  • Tommy Points: 1833
This is not so much an issue of specific groups being offended.

This is about our culture as a whole, evolving (or, as some might suggest, devolving) on the sensitivity towards historic injustices to minority groups, and taking steps to eradicate any appearance of insensitivity.

Re: Redskins lose their trademark
« Reply #64 on: June 19, 2014, 12:16:58 PM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
-10 points for reading comprehension.

I'll break it down for you:

You said that there was, perhaps a good reason that the Redskins weren't called the Negros.

I said that there definitely was -- because their owner hated Black people. I said nothing, implied nothing, and suggested nothing about Marshall hating Native Americans.  ;)
Well, you appear to need some breakdown, too: I am not aware of any professional franchises that were ever called that or something similar, and perhaps there's a good reason for this. Hint: the real talking point here is the end of the sentence.
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

Re: Redskins lose their trademark
« Reply #65 on: June 19, 2014, 12:25:59 PM »

Offline D.o.s.

  • NCE
  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14061
  • Tommy Points: 1239
Is that the false equivocation or the tangential argument?
At least a goldfish with a Lincoln Log on its back goin' across your floor to your sock drawer has a miraculous connotation to it.

Re: Redskins lose their trademark
« Reply #66 on: June 19, 2014, 12:33:54 PM »

Online Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
If the team was initially named the Washington Negroes, do you still think that would be their name today?
But it wasn't named that, was it? Perhaps there's a good reason.
Because they played in Boston and were originally the Braves.  When the baseball Braves raised their rent after their first year, they moved their games to Fenway and rather than get entirely new uniforms (the ones they had had a Native American logo), they went with another Native American name and since they were sharing Fenway with the "Red"Sox, they went with "Red"skins.  But just because the word was in the common lexicon in 1933, doesn't mean it isn't offensive or should be used by a professional sports team today.  After all both Negro (and its much more offensive cousin) were in the common lexicon in 1933, but you still don't find teams with those names in the professional sports leagues (I mean can you imagine if the Atlanta Black Crackers were still playing professional baseball today). 

Here is a decent article on the naming history of Washington http://www.footballperspective.com/the-origin-of-the-name-redskins/
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: Redskins lose their trademark
« Reply #67 on: June 19, 2014, 02:15:30 PM »

Offline freshinthehouse

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1620
  • Tommy Points: 156
Do many people find the name and logo racist??  Whats your definition of many?  A nationwide poll said that 90% said they DONT think it's offensive.  And the logo was designed by a native American!!!

You say a large number of native Americans feel this way, there have been just as many tribes that have come out and said they support the name as their have been tribes that say they find it offensive, plus schools full of native americans that want this as their name (but apparently that's avoiding the issue)

There's just as many polls that say Native Americans do find the name racist.  Here's one:  http://cips.csusb.edu/docs/PressRelease.pdf

And "schools full of native americans want this as their name?"  Give me a break.  Just because a couple of native schools have this as their name doesn't mean that the entire Native American population is clamoring to change their respective schools' names to Redskins. 
 
Quote
You keep saying a large amount of people find this offensive so that's why it needs to be changed.  The largest group by a wide margin DONT find it offensive, so why does the smaller groups opinion matter more?  If that smaller group consisted of solely Native Americans I could see the reason, but the majority of Native Americans are in the larger group.

Again, what are you basing this on?  One poll?  There are polls that say otherwise.

Quote
How about the Vancouver Canucks sir? 

Do I?  No.  But if there were enough Canadians that thought it was and wanted to change that name, I'd have no problem with it.

It's not what I want.  Personally this isn't that big of an issue for me.  But I live in a region that has a big Native American population, and I see/hear on a regular basis how many Natives find this kind of imagery hurtful.  And to say Redskin isn't a hurtful term is such a joke.  Go up to the next black person you see on the street and call them blackskin.  See how that goes. 

Re: Redskins lose their trademark
« Reply #68 on: June 19, 2014, 03:48:38 PM »

Offline Mencius

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1121
  • Tommy Points: 103
It boils down to whether you think the name is a pejorative or not, much as with any other identifying word.  If you associate the word Redskin with negative things, then it's a pejorative, if not, it's not.  If you associated the word Irish with negative things, it'd be a pejorative.  There's a lot of phony outrage that is nothing more than transparent status signaling.
So if I think the "N" word is not negative it is ok to use.  Irish are people from Ireland.  A Redskin is a derogatory term for Native Americans.  They aren't any where close to the same thing.  Again, the fact that you think they are is the reason you can't trust the masses on these things.

Words have generally agreed upon meanings (obviously, sometimes several meanings), but within context, they usually mean one thing.  They're either pejorative or they're not.  In terms of word usage, Redskin is pretty exclusively used as the nickname of the football team, and it is never used as a pejorative.  If this were a word either meant or used as a pejorative, then fine, be offended.  Since it's not, what we have is preening, phony outrage meant to show how right-thinking the outraged are.  It's status seeking theater.

This is not an issue driven by Native Americans.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2014, 03:57:56 PM by Mencius »

Re: Redskins lose their trademark
« Reply #69 on: June 19, 2014, 03:55:57 PM »

Offline D.o.s.

  • NCE
  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14061
  • Tommy Points: 1239
It boils down to whether you think the name is a pejorative or not, much as with any other identifying word.  If you associate the word Redskin with negative things, then it's a pejorative, if not, it's not.  If you associated the word Irish with negative things, it'd be a pejorative.  There's a lot of phony outrage that is nothing more than transparent status signaling.
So if I think the "N" word is not negative it is ok to use.  Irish are people from Ireland.  A Redskin is a derogatory term for Native Americans.  They aren't any where close to the same thing.  Again, the fact that you think they are is the reason you can't trust the masses on these things.

Words have generally agreed upon meanings (obviously, sometimes several meanings), but within context, they usually mean one thing.  They're either pejorative or they're not.  In terms of word usage, Redskin is pretty exclusively used as the nickname of the football team, and it is never used as a pejorative. 

What characterizes this issue most is the phony outrage whipped up by status seeking whites, to signal to each other how good-thinking they are.  This is not an issue driven by Native Americans.

you keep saying this, but I'm not sure how you can come to that conclusion so definitively without having your mind made up before hand.

Redskins, the word, is a derogatory term. The fact that its a football team is secondary to the fact that, for all intents and purposes, it's the same thing as calling them the Washington Gooks, or whatever.
At least a goldfish with a Lincoln Log on its back goin' across your floor to your sock drawer has a miraculous connotation to it.

Re: Redskins lose their trademark
« Reply #70 on: June 19, 2014, 04:18:14 PM »

Offline Mencius

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1121
  • Tommy Points: 103
It boils down to whether you think the name is a pejorative or not, much as with any other identifying word.  If you associate the word Redskin with negative things, then it's a pejorative, if not, it's not.  If you associated the word Irish with negative things, it'd be a pejorative.  There's a lot of phony outrage that is nothing more than transparent status signaling.
So if I think the "N" word is not negative it is ok to use.  Irish are people from Ireland.  A Redskin is a derogatory term for Native Americans.  They aren't any where close to the same thing.  Again, the fact that you think they are is the reason you can't trust the masses on these things.

Words have generally agreed upon meanings (obviously, sometimes several meanings), but within context, they usually mean one thing.  They're either pejorative or they're not.  In terms of word usage, Redskin is pretty exclusively used as the nickname of the football team, and it is never used as a pejorative. 

What characterizes this issue most is the phony outrage whipped up by status seeking whites, to signal to each other how good-thinking they are.  This is not an issue driven by Native Americans.

you keep saying this, but I'm not sure how you can come to that conclusion so definitively without having your mind made up before hand.

Redskins, the word, is a derogatory term. The fact that its a football team is secondary to the fact that, for all intents and purposes, it's the same thing as calling them the Washington Gooks, or whatever.

It's not the utterance of any given series of grunts and vowels that matter.  It's only the meaning attached to them that matters.  The obvious difference between gook and redskin is that gook is intended as a pejorative, while redskin is not.  Language is not static.  Redskins' usage is pretty well limited to the team nickname at this point, and it is never used pejoratively, unless you're a Cowboy fan who hates the Skins.  This issue's not even driven by Native Americans, but rather by ever helpful whites (Here, let me be outraged for you.  Meanwhile, have you noticed how good and right-thinking I am?)
« Last Edit: June 19, 2014, 04:23:26 PM by Mencius »

Re: Redskins lose their trademark
« Reply #71 on: June 19, 2014, 04:48:15 PM »

Offline greg683x

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4097
  • Tommy Points: 585
Do many people find the name and logo racist??  Whats your definition of many?  A nationwide poll said that 90% said they DONT think it's offensive.  And the logo was designed by a native American!!!

You say a large number of native Americans feel this way, there have been just as many tribes that have come out and said they support the name as their have been tribes that say they find it offensive, plus schools full of native americans that want this as their name (but apparently that's avoiding the issue)

There's just as many polls that say Native Americans do find the name racist.  Here's one:  http://cips.csusb.edu/docs/PressRelease.pdf

And "schools full of native americans want this as their name?"  Give me a break.  Just because a couple of native schools have this as their name doesn't mean that the entire Native American population is clamoring to change their respective schools' names to Redskins. 
 
Quote
You keep saying a large amount of people find this offensive so that's why it needs to be changed.  The largest group by a wide margin DONT find it offensive, so why does the smaller groups opinion matter more?  If that smaller group consisted of solely Native Americans I could see the reason, but the majority of Native Americans are in the larger group.

Again, what are you basing this on?  One poll?  There are polls that say otherwise.

Quote
How about the Vancouver Canucks sir? 

Do I?  No.  But if there were enough Canadians that thought it was and wanted to change that name, I'd have no problem with it.

It's not what I want.  Personally this isn't that big of an issue for me.  But I live in a region that has a big Native American population, and I see/hear on a regular basis how many Natives find this kind of imagery hurtful.  And to say Redskin isn't a hurtful term is such a joke.  Go up to the next black person you see on the street and call them blackskin.  See how that goes.

It's not just one poll, Roy posted another of registered voters that shows how the rest of the country feels as well.  But whatever, ok, you have a poll too.  where does that leave us?  right back where we started! right down the middle, I guess.    Unless youre gonna tell me now that your poll is more valid bc it supports your side, right?

Quote
And to say Redskin isn't a hurtful term is such a joke.  Go up to the next black person you see on the street and call them blackskin.  See how that goes.

If there was a team called that name, and groups of african americans were coming out and saying theyre proud of the name and its history for THEIR people, then there wouldnt be a problem with it, in the right context.  Just like apparently it's ok to call a canadian person a Canuck in the right context, and it can be used as a slur in another.  So here we are again. 

Show me proof that the majority of native americans hate this name, and give me an explanation why tribes of native americans will come out and defend such a name if this issue is so black and white with no grey area like you think it is.  You can argue with me all day but until you can explain to me why we as a country should be offended by this name, when native americans cant even agree if it's offensive.

Or we can do another hypothetical scenario with me walking into bars and restaurants and talking to people.  Though you seem pretty bad at that.
Greg

Re: Redskins lose their trademark
« Reply #72 on: June 19, 2014, 09:01:06 PM »

Offline freshinthehouse

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1620
  • Tommy Points: 156

Show me proof that the majority of native americans hate this name, and give me an explanation why tribes of native americans will come out and defend such a name if this issue is so black and white with no grey area like you think it is.

Who decided it has to be a majority vote to decide if something was offensive?  I don't think it's really possible to know what the majority is.  How do you decide gets to vote?  Do you count people that have a distant ancestor that is of Native descent?  Or do you count people who identify themselves as Native Americans?  Do you only count people that live on reservations?

I think the fact that there are tens of thousands (and you are living in denial if you don't think the case) of Native Americans that are offended by the name is reason enough to get rid of it. 

Quote
You can argue with me all day but until you can explain to me why we as a country should be offended by this name, when native americans cant even agree if it's offensive.

Who is saying that you have to be offended by the name?  No one is saying that everyone needs to find this offensive.  But in my opinion, a compassionate human being would see that this is clearly offensive to a sizable portion of a race of people in our country, and that we shouldn't have to expect an entire race to uniformly agree that something is offensive before we do something about it.

Re: Redskins lose their trademark
« Reply #73 on: June 19, 2014, 09:48:37 PM »

Offline greg683x

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4097
  • Tommy Points: 585

Show me proof that the majority of native americans hate this name, and give me an explanation why tribes of native americans will come out and defend such a name if this issue is so black and white with no grey area like you think it is.

Who decided it has to be a majority vote to decide if something was offensive?  I don't think it's really possible to know what the majority is.  How do you decide gets to vote?  Do you count people that have a distant ancestor that is of Native descent?  Or do you count people who identify themselves as Native Americans?  Do you only count people that live on reservations?

I think the fact that there are tens of thousands (and you are living in denial if you don't think the case) of Native Americans that are offended by the name is reason enough to get rid of it. 

Quote
You can argue with me all day but until you can explain to me why we as a country should be offended by this name, when native americans cant even agree if it's offensive.

Who is saying that you have to be offended by the name?  No one is saying that everyone needs to find this offensive.  But in my opinion, a compassionate human being would see that this is clearly offensive to a sizable portion of a race of people in our country, and that we shouldn't have to expect an entire race to uniformly agree that something is offensive before we do something about it.

i already answered all those questions and points you made in previous posts in this thread

i understand your opinion, I just dont agree with it.   If you'd like to know why, see my previous posts, namely the last reply I made to moranis earlier.  I dont think theres much left to discuss here, finding different ways to make the same points over and over is getting old, as im sure it is for you.
Greg

Re: Redskins lose their trademark
« Reply #74 on: June 19, 2014, 09:56:57 PM »

Offline freshinthehouse

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1620
  • Tommy Points: 156
i understand your opinion, I just dont agree with it.   If you'd like to know why, see my previous posts, namely the last reply I made to moranis earlier.  I dont think theres much left to discuss here, finding different ways to make the same points over and over is getting old, as im sure it is for you.

Haha I was just thinking the same thing.  We're pretty much just going in circles here.  Welp, I guess I'll see you at the next race-related CG thread!