Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
newtogolf

Political Correctness - How Far Should it Go? Should the Washington Redskins change their name?

0  

  1. 1. Should the owners of the Redskins, Blackhawks, Indians be forced to change their teams name?

    • Yes, it's insensitive to American Indians
      25
    • No, it's a non-issue
      25
    • Who cares, this is a golf forum
      10

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

324 posts in this topic

Seems society is all about political correctness these days.  Terms, jokes. ideas, team nick names in professional sports are suddenly being scrutinized to ensure we're being sensitive to the feelings of every special interest group that exists or might exist some day in this country.   I understand now some high brow media types like Bob Costas are refusing to use the word Redskin in their coverage of the team.  He'll still collect money for covering the Redskins, he just won't say the word, what a hypocrite :doh:

So should the owners of the Washington Redskins, Cleveland Indians, Chicago Blackhawks (only to name a few) be forced to change their team name or do people just need to get over themselves?

Before you ask, as an Italian American I'd be perfectly fine if a team had a nickname like NY Wops, Ginney's or Dago's for over 50 years and their owners didn't want to change it.   I also wasn't offended that the Soprano's portrayed Italians as having association with organized crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Want to get rid of this advertisement? Sign up (or log in) today! It's free!

I think we need to be moving towards political correctness. But the name is not very high on the agenda. Let's begin with religion and politics. Then race

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno. Native Americans have gotten a pretty raw deal the past 500 years. I don't think it would be the worst thing in the world to not use their likenesses for our entertainment. Spreading around love and happiness and all that. And give me a break with the "forced to change their team name" thing. Snyder will change names the moment he sees the name hurting his bottom line, and not a second before. No one's holding a gun to his head. Neither Mayland (where the team is headquartered) nor the U.S. Congress is passing a law banning the usage of the word "redskin." [quote name="Golfingdad" url="/t/70604/political-correctness-how-far-should-it-go-should-the-washington-redskins-change-their-name/0_30#post_909000"]With all props to @k-troop because he is the one who told me about this on Sunday ... yes, they definitely should, their name is EXTREMELY offensive!!! ... [URL=http://www.theonion.com/articles/washington-redskins-change-their-name-to-the-dc-re,34161/]http://www.theonion.com/articles/washington-redskins-change-their-name-to-the-dc-re,34161/[/URL] :beer: [/quote] Heh, I saw that a few days ago. Funny stuff. :-P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Political Correctness run amok.

People spend waaaay too much time actively looking for reasons to be offended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

In all seriousness ... I would vote no.**  Not emphatically, because, after all, if they did change their name, who would they be offending?  And the name "Redskins" does sound potentially offensive, but I'd have to hear from some actual Indians who said it bothered them first.  (Not Bob Costas).

**Mid-post edit:  I just went and looked up the definition of redskin on dictionary.com.  It is referred to as a "noun; slang .. often disparaging and offensive." I think I now am going to say yes. Not terribly emphatically, because if Bob Costas is the only person bothered by it, then I'm not bothered by it.  But if there are native American Indians out there who are offended by it, then we should probably not be celebrating it.  Maybe an equivalent would be the "El Paso Wetbacks." Pretty sure nobody would go for that.  Or the "Mississippi Rednecks?"

We can all agree that political correctness goes too far in a lot of cases, but if Indians out there are hurt by us celebrating an old offensive moniker, is it really that much to ask us to stop using it?  Heck, they had no problem changing their basketball teams name from Bullets to Wizards, and I'm pretty sure there was no ammo crying over that one.  Harry Potter, on the other hand, is pretty pissed right now, I hear.  (Not because they are called the Wizards, but because they are called the Wizards and they suck. ;))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I always thought it odd when so many college teams decided, under pressure, to change their mascots that the Redskins were given a free pass. Stanford Indians, St. Johns Redmen, Seattle Univ. Chieftains, to name just a few. I don't have a problem with a mascot that denotes a positive or neutral image (Braves, Indians, Chiefs) but Redskins is such a derogatory term, I am surprised that it has stayed on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 2004 American Indians were polled about the name and at that time they were okay with it.  It will be interesting to see if in 2013 they suddenly have a problem with it.

As for Snyder, he's a business man, so he's motivated by what makes financial sense and today he's not financially motivated to change the name and I really don't think Redskin fans are all that concerned about the nickname either especially since they would be the real losers if the name was changed.  All those $100+ jerseys and other fan related items that would be worthless if they change the name.

I personally find the Cleveland Indians logo more offensive than the Redskins name or logo but they don't seem to be under fire like the Redskins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

It's like calling African Americans black. Yet that stayed on. And about the above quote on non derogatory names, my highschool is the warriors and we run around in feathered chief hats. Also, today while taking the past I noticed when you bubble in your race it has all the technical names and then for white it says white. Seems like reverse racism. I've always seen it as cacasian and African American or I've seen it as black and white. Seems weird

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought it odd when so many college teams decided, under pressure, to change their mascots that the Redskins were given a free pass. Stanford Indians, St. Johns Redmen, Seattle Univ. Chieftains, to name just a few. I don't have a problem with a mascot that denotes a positive or neutral image (Braves, Indians, Chiefs) but Redskins is such a derogatory term, I am surprised that it has stayed on.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing.  Just regular old names aren't/shouldn't be offensive.  The ones you mention, also Utes, Sioux, etc, to me seem fine.

Heck, I think the Indians (Cleveland) did actually get rid of their somewhat condescendingly cartoonish "Chief Wahoo" mascot guy a few years ago, didn't they?  EDIT:  Based on @newtogolf 's latest post, apparently not. ;)

I'm 6'-3" 270 lbs, and I'm not at all offended by the San Francisco Giants. :)  (I am very offended by the New York Giants though!)

And I also agree with @jamo ... in the case of the Indians, we've been pretty much screwing them for, like, 500 years ... so it seems like if they're offended, then changing the name of the Redskins is, like, the least we could do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

And I also agree with @jamo ... in the case of the Indians, we've been pretty much screwing them for, like, 500 years ... so it seems like if they're offended, then changing the name of the Redskins is, like, the least we could do.

Usually people that are on the losing end of a war get screwed.  You think if they had won the war and controlled the country they'd have set up reservations and casino's for us?

Ask the PLO how well they are being treated over in Israel.  I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just pointing out that when countries are overtaken the population of the losing side isn't usually treated very well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing.  Just regular old names aren't/shouldn't be offensive.  The ones you mention, also Utes, Sioux, etc, to me seem fine. Heck, I think the Indians (Cleveland) did actually get rid of their somewhat condescendingly cartoonish "Chief Wahoo" mascot guy a few years ago, didn't they?  EDIT:  Based on @newtogolf 's latest post, apparently not. ;)

They've used the Chief Wahoo logo less in recent years. They use the "C" logo on away hats and on their batting helmets home and away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

.........so what are we to do with the common variety of Redskin peanuts?

Maybe cover them with chocolate. Oh dear, can we say chocolate without offending people of East Indian origin?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Redskin image if fine, but the word is not. The Cleveland Indians name is fine, but the image is not.

The origin of the term redskin is grisly, relating to "injun fighters" bringing in Native American body parts to collect an extermination bounty.

If the Washington owner changed the name from Redskins to a local Indian tribe, and kept the logo, I think everyone would be happy.

The Florida State Seminoles have survived, in part because a number of FSU students and alums are tribal members.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Times change.  Could anybody imagine the backlash if Disney tried to put this movie out today, rather than in 1953 ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Anyone remember this?

Times change, yes, but sometimes political correctness goes too far.

I don't care enough to know how I feel about the Redskins. A part of me thinks it feels too much like people looking for a reason to be offended. And another part of me says "just change it" because I can't think of a good reason to dig your heels in on this fight. It's not like there's a moral high ground on which to stand here, or a principle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

It's like calling African Americans black. Yet that stayed on. And about the above quote on non derogatory names, my highschool is the warriors and we run around in feathered chief hats. Also, today while taking the past I noticed when you bubble in your race it has all the technical names and then for white it says white. Seems like reverse racism. I've always seen it as cacasian and African American or I've seen it as black and white. Seems weird

What term do we use when they live in Finland? African Finns?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing.  Just regular old names aren't/shouldn't be offensive.  The ones you mention, also Utes, Sioux, etc, to me seem fine. Heck, I think the Indians (Cleveland) did actually get rid of their somewhat condescendingly cartoonish "Chief Wahoo" mascot guy a few years ago, didn't they?  EDIT:  Based on @newtogolf 's latest post, apparently not. ;) I'm 6'-3" 270 lbs, and I'm not at all offended by the San Francisco Giants. :)  (I am very offended by the New York Giants though!) And I also agree with @jamo ... in the case of the Indians, we've been pretty much screwing them for, like, 500 years ... so it seems like if they're offended, then changing the name of the Redskins is, like, the least we could do.

I would not say they have been getting screwed so badly. The federal government gives them quite a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2016 TST Partners

    GAME Golf
    PING Golf
    Lowest Score Wins
  • Posts

    • alternatives inside the well being
      alternatives inside the well being university, launches a manufacturer new digestive and immune Beard Czar  product Probiotic   Viatropin  evaluation Probiotic American American that entails newly realized traces of micro organism worthwhile to more than a few wellness issues. It has a difficult technique to alleviate digestive problems and toughen whole physique wellbeing.An educated health practitioner and wellness advised who studied comfort on the tutoring of California, perfect Biotics is a gut yeast complement that has the capabilities to absorb diet and minerals safely, fight off infections and strengthen healthful digestion," experiences James.When requested involving the selections of excellent Biotics, Dr. Cary outlined, "There are two types of micro organism decided all through the digestive tract, hazardous micro organism and worthy micro organism.  http://drozforskolin.org/beard-czar-reviews/
    • What would a PGA Tour player shoot at your home course?
      Here's some more below about the lowest you might expect - even on an easy course. I think this is largely true, but pros don't tend to play a lot on 'easy' courses so there doesn't seem to be even much anecdotal stuff. The quote below describes what's considered the 'perfect round'. I guess you could also consider a 'go-for-green' perfect round where you also hit all the par 5's in two and one-putted those for eagle for a 'go-for-green perfect' score of 50. Obviously the likelihood of doing this in a single round defies the essence of golf, but it's a good a hard theoretical lower limit that probably depends more on the par than the course rating. Likely the odds grow exponentially as the percentage of birdied / eagled holes rises. I think we can discount albatrosses as a 'perfect round' option. Most tournament pro scores don't get below 56 and 59 with about an 80/20 rule separating the more frequent 59s from the 58's. That's 4-5 strokes (assuming par 72) over the 'perfect round' and 8-9 over the 'go-for-green perfect round', each of which represent grabbing about 75% and 61% respectively of the potential shots under par realistically available. I suppose a short par-4 would add another potential eagle opportunity, but we'll discount that as I'm not sure how universal they are. The lowest tournament round was 55 (par of 71) by one single golfer out of how many total tournament rounds by pros and plus HCP amateurs over the years? So while 55 is humanly achievable it's super rare and likely represents the lower limit of any possible likelihood. That would put the absolute lowest threshold around 17.8 below the course rating (72.8) and 16 below par. So there's a lot of room to go below even a low course rating or par of 70. I don't think the expected scores would get too squished and the distribution would still likely be normal in shape. The thing that is probably unrealistic is how narrow the range of expected scores is. The field is extremely consistent, but I think a single individual player (whose average score is the same as the field) will have a score variance significantly larger than the field. I think the mode likely stays the same while the distribution flattens / spreads out more into the tails with a little more probability to both go low and high and less certainty of shooting within a stroke or two of the mode / most likely score.  
    • Difference in These Putters Besides Price?
      My mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts! Someone beat me to it, but there are obvious differences in the appearance of those two putters. The most obvious is that the alignment marks don't align! And the mark on the instep (if that's what it's called), looks like it was hacked in with a machete or maybe a cold chisel. Never mind that it looked like it laid in a barn for 10 years! Hey, I'm a senior and retired, so I'm always on the lookout for a bargain, but I refuse to buy cheap crap just because it's cheap. I remember a radio show I heard years ago where the discussion was about value vs cost. A woman called in and said she didn't have a lot of money, so she couldn't afford to buy "cheap". The host asked her what she meant. She replied that buying cheap stuff that does not perform and wears out early is more expensive in the long run than buying top quality goods that do the job and will last! Admittedly, they weren't talking golf equipment here, but the idea is the same.
    • Graduate School Study. Please fill out this 5 minute survey.
      Please take 5 minutes out of your day and complete this survey for our research paper.  Thank you very much! https://usfca.co1.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_5pRgiaKHZleaZjT
    • http://www.athleticgreensfacts.com/lift-x/
      Therefore, use a nurturing day cream to which at least a Sun Protection Factor (SPF) 15 has been added. If you spend the day out in the sun, use a sunscreen with at least SPF 30. Anti if you have oily skin, it is wise to opt for oil-free sunscreen creams. Sensitive lift x  skin: do's and don'ts in skincare Uiterlijk8 April 2016 sensitive skin: Do's and Don'ts Sensitive skin often needs additional attention. However, a wrong approach can be harmful to your skin, leaving your delicate skin exacerbates rather than reduces. http://www.athleticgreensfacts.com/lift-x/
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Images

  • Today's Birthdays

    No users celebrating today
  • Blog Entries