Washington Redskins Name Change

[danb6177]

Feb 17, 2013 19:09:30 GMT -5 @jeffb2865 said:

Dan I agree with you...But in the gran scheme of things a team name dont mean a hill of beans. We all have a little bit of all nationalities running in our veins regardless of what people think they are.

We all come from the same cloth,same God,same place. We are all brothers and sisters,and to me,in the end...a team name aint gonna amount to nothing.

I hear ya man, I can just understand why they are upset.

[awesomeace]

Feb 17, 2013 17:41:40 GMT -5 Divebitch said:

It's the 'Fighting' Irish, which is a noble sounding tribute. ;D It could be the 'Drunken Fight-Picking' Irish which would probably raise more 'ire' (is that where that word comes from lol).

hey! That's my team FF name... they can't just do that and steal my team name!

[xdeadlyxmirage]

Just keep it the same. I'm honestly damned proud of what the name represents as far as race-relations. Was it a derogatory term? Yes. Is it now? Hell no! It's a word that we over the years has been stripped of it's derogatory nature. Very few people use it to mean it offensively anymore, rather it is just used as an antique term.

[Shaggzfate]

EDIT: This was suppose to be posted this morning but had some problems come up and had to run, will address everyone else when I have a chance.

K, I'll address each of you lol so bear with me.

@dive - Yes, Blackskins were only a term I used to illustrated a point on a similar level. The true term that would best represent it is "Colored" but, if you had a team named the Colors, and had a rainbow-esque uniform it wouldn't be in the least bit offensive. The original owner and creator of the team may have used it to represent them in a good light, but I imagine it was more of an allegory of how they were viewed as savages, and that the team would play "savagely". True that the native populations of the washington DC area have dwindled, and they do not represent a certain tribe, however it is the USA capital, which does represent the whole country. I was livid last night, as you could tell in my post, but I do have a lot of native family, which I am not, or if I have some in me, its very small and not substantial enough to claim it. Anyways, they all feel the same about it. You would think a native american team would have a strong base in the nations, but it doesn't. You know which team does? The Cowboys. I see it not just in the local nations, but all the nations that come to the gathering of nations pow wow we hold here in New Mexico. You know why they adopted them so readily? It's not because of Jerry Jones, or the America's team moniker, it's because they can best relate themselves to the true term of what a cowboy is, it best relates to their heritage. We do have a some what strong base of Chiefs fans too, but not as large. And here in lines the point, the chiefs does not degrade them, it honors them, because when you think of a chief, you think of a person of power, a person of respect. I mean it's just something that needs to progress already.

dan - Somethings have became to soft, like schools not allowing parents to cheer for their kids unless they cheer for everyone, or the worse part to where no one wins it's just to play. I agree that is going to far. But when it comes to equal rights, we need to evolve as a culture and finish it already. No one likes being outcast or treated as less then human, so we must remember that in ourselves when we look at others. Just because we are not of their culture, religion, or sexual preference / gender doesn't give us the right to say its ok. Nor is it reason to belittle them for being thus.

craig - You should speak with them. I don't think its the name Aztecs as much as it is the way the mascot maybe portrayed. But the best way to gain insight is to ask those who are directly affected.

TonOdanK - As I've said above the best way is to actually ask the people who it affects. It doesn't affect me personally but it does the people I love. And you must ask real native americans, not those who claim to have a little cherokee or something like that.

@bigd - It is good that you are of thick skin, it goes a long way in life, but not everyone is, and like you said it depends on those people who are being represented. If it is insulting to that group of people then it should be changed, with in reason of course. Now we cant say McDonalds offends us so change it, or anything like that, but when its a name or racial slur we surely can do everything in our power to do so.

[Shaggzfate]

I chose to have the votes permanent and hidden until voted for a reason. I wanted to get an idea what people really think on their own before they read everything. And I also wanted to get rid of the "well everyone else said this so I will too" mentality. While I can understand and respect people who change their minds after the debate to which ever way they do, the poll is to see how people felt to start it off and to gleam a look inside the groups thoughts unmolested by conversation so the votes would stay as they were before any debate.

[danb6177]

Feb 17, 2013 20:33:23 GMT -5 Shaggzfate said:

dan - But when it comes to equal rights, we need to evolve as a culture and finish it already. No one likes being outcast or treated as less then human, so we must remember that in ourselves when we look at others. Just because we are not of their culture, religion, or sexual preference / gender doesn't give us the right to say its ok. Nor is it reason to belittle them for being thus.

I agree with acceptance I really do.

what I dont agree with is not being aloud to choose not to accept.

I like that you said lets finish it already. Can I ask where the finish line is to you? Because the polygamist are on deck and guess who is after them. Not trying to be an ass just curious as to where you draw the line

Also your list should not include religion because any religious person who reads a KJV 1611 would be considered a bigot for expressing any of his beliefs. Religous freedom is not included in our definition of diversity unless it pertains to non Christian.

But this debate is politics and kind of off topic. Sorry for steering the ship off course.

[rey713]

Feb 17, 2013 11:55:39 GMT -5 bigd51 said:

Personally, you can call me any name in the book and it's not going to offend me. Words are just that... words.


And I've been thinking the same thing as Dive ever since they brought up this discussion about changing the name. I've seen guys on TV asking "what would they change it to?" and I'm just sitting there going "the Indians?". Seminoles would be a good name, too.

Either that, or change it to the Braves. As a 'Skins fan, I think I would actually like that better than the Indians. But I'm an Atlanta Braves fan too, so I might be a little bias towards that name

So it's fine and dandy for people to call black people n****s?

People get removed from broadcasting networks for even remotely saying derogatory remarks about certain races.



Imagine a team called the "Harlem Nappyheads". Hmmm...

[Shaggzfate]

Feb 17, 2013 21:08:09 GMT -5 danb6177 said:

Feb 17, 2013 20:33:23 GMT -5 Shaggzfate said:

dan - But when it comes to equal rights, we need to evolve as a culture and finish it already. No one likes being outcast or treated as less then human, so we must remember that in ourselves when we look at others. Just because we are not of their culture, religion, or sexual preference / gender doesn't give us the right to say its ok. Nor is it reason to belittle them for being thus.

I agree with acceptance I really do.

what I dont agree with is not being aloud to choose not to accept.

I like that you said lets finish it already. Can I ask where the finish line is to you? Because the polygamist are on deck and guess who is after them. Not trying to be an ass just curious as to where you draw the line

Also your list should not include religion because any religious person who reads a KJV 1611 would be considered a bigot for expressing any of his beliefs. Religous freedom is not included in our definition of diversity unless it pertains to non Christian.

But this debate is politics and kind of off topic. Sorry for steering the ship off course.

I want an egalitarian society, a true egalitarian society.

The finish line for me is completely with the individual. If you've ever watched star trek, I'd prefer the future to be something similar to that. Not making us a bunch of cowards who roll over every time we are challenged, but a future where everyone is accepted based on their merits and not the color of their skin, gender, or sexual preferences. There will always be assholes and dickheads in the world, that is true, but the majority of society can and should adopt a more understanding view on certain things.

I know this does go into politics some but still. If a person who is gay wants to get married, they should be able to. It's not right to say since you were made to like guys you can't have the ceremony and honor of the pact of marriage. It wouldn't effect me if a gay couple gets married, and it really doesn't effect anyone outside of the 2 people getting married and potentially their children if they have adopted any, or from prior to accepting themselves for who they are. Polygamists would be about the same, except I would institute some governed laws that would change how that type of marriage is viewed by the government themselves. Of course when you get into the religious side of it, it's suppose to be between one man and one woman, and because of this it's how our government also views it. But it shouldn't be this way, because it alienates some of the population for no good reason. I'd understand if it was a subject of where their rights also infringed on yours, but really what they do is there business including marriage.

I also understand some prejudice was earned for a valid reason, perhaps being mistreated as a child, like a lot of the older african decent and native decent people were treated like 2nd or non-citizens. However at some point we must stamp out the old embers of hate and make progress. What I'm trying to get at, is that you cant lump a group of people together like that, and anything that does is wrong because it causes a degree of segregation. You can't say that all black teens are gang bangers, you can't say that all middle aged white men are drunks, you cannot call a group of people worthless or anything of that sort. The term redskin was used as a racial slur, sure it maybe antiquated but so was N*****. The last word I have issue with, because the way it's used today. The word shouldn't be used with the a at the end like it is for them to describe themselves if they do not want another group of people calling them that too. Desensitizing words is the best course of action, to truly make them have no power over us, but that is a long way off, and until then we need to work on how we as a society hold ourselves. The issue of racial, sexual, and religious prejudice will not go away in my life time, nor my childrens lifetime. But if we work on fixing it now by the time my grandkids are born and growing up it would be a thing of the past. But right now too much of our peers, elders, and children have been subject to it, and it's engrained into our beings as being bad, negative, or hateful. As long as the generations who suffered from it are still alive, the words will still hold that power, intentional or not.

Back on track here I know I deviated, but where my line is simple; If any action(s) is taken to where it's a clear violation of someones basic human rights then it is wrong. But it must meet the clear guidelines of being:

-Rights against torture.
-Rights against slavery.
-Rights to fair trial / each individual judged for any mater legal or not based on their merits.
-Freedom of speech, conscience, religion, and lifestyle.

And any action which negates any of these rights as the are intended should be done away with in society. Ones freedom of speech cannot infringe on another persons freedom of life/lifestyle, affiliations, creed, race ect.

Now, I don't mean that you cant call someone a dumbass because they chose to be lazy and not do their work, or are doing something that clearly has earned that moniker, like I said above. It's meant to prevent such slanderous terms that degrade a person/people who have done nothing to earn the insults / degradation.

I want stricter gun laws, but I do not want to completely remove the fundamental right to bear arms or protect ones family. And that's what this is about, the fundamental rights of the native americans who find the name racial and distasteful. If it were simply because a team was representing them in some fashion but they were not being compensated for it, then it'd be different and I'd be for the team.

[rey713]

Shaggz you(r avatar) rock(s), dude!

[danb6177]

egalitarian society. I had to look that up. I have heard the word egalitarian before but only used in socialist agendas. I like the idea actually but the problem with drawing the line there with respect to acceptance means the race never ends. X begets Y and Y begets Z. It does not end.

Its a common way to see things and also an understandable way to see things. I respect your answer tho. Unlike most you actually have an explanation for your beliefs.

I just wonder sometimes if our generation will be known in history for the evolving of a superior way or the degradation of a superior way.


as far as the derogatory remarks go I think people need thicker skin. Nobody is ever gonna get a full buy in for whatever life they choose. If you are comortable with yourself then who cares what others say. I certainly would not require a public appology if someone said something about the way I choose to live. Id rather them say it to me in a alley but if not than oh well.

But the indians. I dunno man the way it is for me. we live in their country, they should have a bigger say. If they dont like the skins name than it should be changed