or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The 19th Hole › The Grill Room › Political Correctness - How Far Should it Go? Should the Washington Redskins change their name?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Political Correctness - How Far Should it Go? Should the Washington Redskins change their name? - Page 7

Poll Results: Should the owners of the Redskins, Blackhawks, Indians be forced to change their teams name?

 
  • 40% (24)
    Yes, it's insensitive to American Indians
  • 42% (25)
    No, it's a non-issue
  • 16% (10)
    Who cares, this is a golf forum
59 Total Votes  
post #109 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 

Thanks for posting.  Very poignant.  I agree it needs to change.  And it has nothing to do with liberal or conservative as some poster tried to make it.  It is and has always been a derogatory term.

post #110 of 324

From what I understood, the name was in relation to the warriors who painted their bodies all red before battle and were widely feared for their fierceness and bravery. *Unfortunately for the team, they don't exactly live up to that imagery though.* If it is such a derogatory and hurtful name why would native american schools use it for their own mascot in some places?

post #111 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremie Boop View Post
 

From what I understood, the name was in relation to the warriors who painted their bodies all red before battle and were widely feared for their fierceness and bravery.

From Dictionary.com ...

 

red·skin

/ˈrɛdˌskɪn/ Show Spelled [red-skin] Show IPA

noun Slang: Often Disparaging and Offensive.
a North American Indian.
 
and
 
redskin (ˈrɛdˌskɪn)
 
n
  an old-fashioned informal name, now considered taboo, for a Native American
 
[C17: so called because one particular tribe, the now extinct Beothuks of Newfoundland, painted themselves with red ochre]

 

So, you're technically correct, perhaps, but that doesn't really change the fact that both definitions also point out that the word is disparaging, offensive and taboo.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremie Boop View Post
 

If it is such a derogatory and hurtful name why would native american schools use it for their own mascot in some places?

Whether or not this is true, why should that matter?  Do the schools you are referring to speak for all native Americans?  Is it not allowed to be considered offensive unless 100% of the people who are supposed to be offended by it agree?  I'm pretty sure you can find a whole bunch of gay people who are not offended by the "f" word, a whole bunch of handicapped people who are not offended by the "r" word, and a whole bunch of balck people that are not offended by the "n" word.  I think that is a safe bet.  But that certainly doesn't make those words any less offensive to some others, does it?

post #112 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremie Boop View Post
 

From what I understood, the name was in relation to the warriors who painted their bodies all red before battle and were widely feared for their fierceness and bravery. 

 

Even if that's true, is that a reason to continue using it today, given the fact that many native americans find it offensive, and every dictionary defines it as an offensive term?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremie Boop View Post
 

If it is such a derogatory and hurtful name why would native american schools use it for their own mascot in some places?

 

 

Because people have different opinions.  I am not personally offended by the N-word, and some african-americans use it themselves.  That does not render the word inoffensive.  

 

 

I would even say that I like the name.  I think the name, logo, color scheme, etc. all looks good together.  I'm not personally offended by the name.  But if the name is about a particular group of people, and a lot of those people find it offensive, their feelings are far more important than mine.  

post #113 of 324
Quote:

Whether or not this is true, why should that matter?  Do the schools you are referring to speak for all native Americans?  Is it not allowed to be considered offensive unless 100% of the people who are supposed to be offended by it agree?  I'm pretty sure you can find a whole bunch of gay people who are not offended by the "f" word, a whole bunch of handicapped people who are not offended by the "r" word, and a whole bunch of balck people that are not offended by the "n" word.  I think that is a safe bet.  But that certainly doesn't make those words any less offensive to some others, does it?

 

Why shouldn't it matter, it shows that it's not universally considered as an insult by that culture. Do the people who want it changed speak for all the people? Of course it doesn't need to be 100% of the people to be offended, but at least some consensus showing a significant number are offended should be offered as reasonable proof that it should be changed.

post #114 of 324
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 

From Dictionary.com ...

 

red·skin

/ˈrɛdˌskɪn/ Show Spelled [red-skin] Show IPA

noun Slang: Often Disparaging and Offensive.
a North American Indian.
 
and
 
redskin (ˈrɛdˌskɪn)
 
n
  an old-fashioned informal name, now considered taboo, for a Native American
 
[C17: so called because one particular tribe, the now extinct Beothuks of Newfoundland, painted themselves with red ochre]

 

So, you're technically correct, perhaps, but that doesn't really change the fact that both definitions also point out that the word is disparaging, offensive and taboo.

 

Whether or not this is true, why should that matter?  Do the schools you are referring to speak for all native Americans?  Is it not allowed to be considered offensive unless 100% of the people who are supposed to be offended by it agree?  I'm pretty sure you can find a whole bunch of gay people who are not offended by the "f" word, a whole bunch of handicapped people who are not offended by the "r" word, and a whole bunch of balck people that are not offended by the "n" word.  I think that is a safe bet.  But that certainly doesn't make those words any less offensive to some others, does it?

There are two sides to every story.

"A leader of the Navajo Code Talkers who appeared at a Washington Redskins home football game said Wednesday the team name is a symbol of loyalty and courage -- not a slur as asserted by critics who want it changed."  Rest of article is here; http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2013/11/28/navajo-code-talker-says-redskins-name-not-derogatory/

 

Now, that said, the commercial Erik posted was effective, and if the American Indians (not the white PC bunch we often hear from in these matters) in this country want the name changed, then I will be first to support forcing Snyder to change the name of his team.

post #115 of 324

Why not just err on the side of not being a dick, instead of arguing that you're only being a dick to 10,000 people?  

 

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
And I don't mean you, @Jeremie Boop--you are by all accounts a nice guy.  I mean Dan Snyder and his organization.    

 

The only reason they don't change the name is because the brand has value.  

post #116 of 324
Forcing? This is where it goes off the rails. What does that mean? Gunpoint? Kill him? Laugh if you want but there are some who would go to those lengths,although I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that yourself. We lose a little bit of freedom each day because of good intentions like not allowing a small number of people to be "offended". Christmas celebrations, Easter events, gone because a small number of people were offended. It has to stop.
post #117 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsc123 View Post
 

Why not just err on the side of not being a dick, instead of arguing that you're only being a dick to 10,000 people?  

 

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
And I don't mean you, @Jeremie Boop--you are by all accounts a nice guy.  I mean Dan Snyder and his organization.    

 

The only reason they don't change the name is because the brand has value.  

The problem is though, almost anything could make you "be a dick" to just about anyone. Changing the name could well offend as many people as it is offending now. Say they change the name, then you get a pretty large petition signed or movement started by native american people not liking that it was changed, does that mean you change it back?

post #118 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunther View Post

Forcing? This is where it goes off the rails. What does that mean?

It means that Dan Snyder has made it very clear that he isn't changing the name.  Hence, to get it done, the NFL would have to "force" a change.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremie Boop View Post
 

Changing the name could well offend as many people as it is offending now.

Seriously??  Come on.

post #119 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post
 

There are two sides to every story.

"A leader of the Navajo Code Talkers who appeared at a Washington Redskins home football game said Wednesday the team name is a symbol of loyalty and courage -- not a slur as asserted by critics who want it changed."  Rest of article is here; http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2013/11/28/navajo-code-talker-says-redskins-name-not-derogatory/

 

Did you read the rest of the article?  In particular the part where the head of the National Congress of American Indians, which claims to be the oldest, largest and most representative American Indian and Alaska Native organization, said "That term is associated with getting rid of the Indians."

 

Yes, Snyder found 4 Navajo Code Talkers, who don't mind the term.  Not surprisingly, fox news left out the part about the Navajo Nation Council, expressing opposition to the name.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post

 

Now, that said, the commercial Erik posted was effective, and if the American Indians (not the white PC bunch we often hear from in these matters) in this country want the name changed, then I will be first to support forcing Snyder to change the name of his team.

 

But this can't be news to you, right?  Before seeing that commercial did you really think that it was just a bunch of white PC people who wanted it changed and that Dan Snyder had the support of all the Native Americans?  

 

Its also strange to me that people dismiss the opinions of non-Native Americans on the topic, as if you're not allowed to have an opinion on a topic unless it directly effects you. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremie Boop View Post
 

The problem is though, almost anything could make you "be a dick" to just about anyone. Changing the name could well offend as many people as it is offending now. Say they change the name, then you get a pretty large petition signed or movement started by native american people not liking that it was changed, does that mean you change it back?

Sure, and in this case, its to thousands? tens of thousands? hundreds of thousands? of members of a particular community, whose history is one of oppression and suffering, that are reasonably and legitimately offended by the name.  Its an bad place to take a stand against PCness. 

post #120 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 

Seriously??  Come on.

Can you you tell me for certain that there aren't a lot of people who really like the team name? We can talk about this all we want, but since there are no real numbers showing for/against the name change in relation to native american people neither you nor I are any more right in our statements. I could very well be wrong, but at least I'm willing to admit it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dsc123 View Post
 

Sure, and in this case, its to thousands? tens of thousands? hundreds of thousands? of members of a particular community, whose history is one of oppression and suffering, that are reasonably and legitimately offended by the name.  Its an bad place to take a stand against PCness. 

Do you know it's thousands/tens of thousands/hundreds of thousands who want it change and are actually offended by it? I've no problem with it being changed if they came forward with a unified message saying that X number of native american people want it changed, but it goes back and forth with small polls showing people who do and don't with no clear message that dominates.

post #121 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremie Boop View Post

Why shouldn't it matter, it shows that it's not universally considered as an insult by that culture. Do the people who want it changed speak for all the people? Of course it doesn't need to be 100% of the people to be offended, but at least some consensus showing a significant number are offended should be offered as reasonable proof that it should be changed.

Because it should be enough that any people are offended by the name. Why are we (and I say "we" meaning football fans, the VAST majority of whom are not Native Americans) using their likenesses at all for our entertainment? Especially if we're using a stereotypical image and racist term to refer to them, and super especially of a people who historically have been treated like utter horseshit by an invading population of people to their own land.

If the Chargers wanted to change their name to the "****faces" tomorrow, I'd have no problem with it. Sounds fun to me, in part because you can call ANYBODY a ****face. ****face doesn't discriminate, no matter your race or gender or anything else that you can't control.

"Redskin" does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremie Boop View Post

If it is such a derogatory and hurtful name why would native american schools use it for their own mascot in some places?

The same reason I can can make fun of my sister, but if some random person did, we'd have a problem. That context matters.

There are a lot of posts on prior pages that said, essentially, you can't please everyone, you're always going to offend someone. Maybe that's true, but we can CERTAINLY make small changes to our language in an effort to not offend a group of people who we've historically oppressed for centuries. Seems like a pretty small consolation to me.
post #122 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

It means that Dan Snyder has made it very clear that he isn't changing the name.  Hence, to get it done, the NFL would have to "force" a change.

Seriously??  Come on.

That's an attack on liberty.

The other comment is not far-fetched. I and many millions are offended because we can no longer use the term Christmas or Easter in certain settings, workplace, school, etc. All to appease a few hundred that were offended by the words' use. This is one of the chief problems with liberalism, the feel good intentions often have deleterious consequences...read Obamacare. In order to cover 10% of the population, government imposed a behemoth that will adversely affect 95%. Classic case.
post #123 of 324
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsc123 View Post
 

 

Its also strange to me that people dismiss the opinions of non-Native Americans on the topic, as if you're not allowed to have an opinion on a topic unless it directly effects you.

 

You can have an opinion but it doesn't matter as much as those that are potentially being offended.  I'm Italian, there are many derogatory terms used to describe Italians.  Italians are capable of representing their own thoughts and feelings, we don't need the non-Italian PC police to tell us what we should or shouldn't find offensive.

post #124 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamo View Post
 
 

Because it should be enough that any people are offended by the name. 

 

I think this can be a very slippery slope..

 

What if I say I am offended by the name 49'er because my great-great grandpa was exploited by a mine owner years ago.  If I am the only one offended, should they change their name?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunther View Post
 
 

That's an attack on liberty.

The other comment is not far-fetched. I and many millions are offended because we can no longer use the term Christmas or Easter in certain settings, workplace, school, etc. All to appease a few hundred that were offended by the words' use. This is one of the chief problems with liberalism, the feel good intentions often have deleterious consequences...read Obamacare. In order to cover 10% of the population, government imposed a behemoth that will adversely affect 95%. Classic case.

 

I think all @Jeremie Boop is saying is he would prefer not to change what a majority likes to appease a few (I realize we do not have accurate numbers on either side).  

post #125 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamo View Post


Because it should be enough that any people are offended by the name. Why are we (and I say "we" meaning football fans, the VAST majority of whom are not Native Americans) using their likenesses at all for our entertainment? Especially if we're using a stereotypical image and racist term to refer to them, and super especially of a people who historically have been treated like utter horseshit by an invading population of people to their own land.

If the Chargers wanted to change their name to the "****faces" tomorrow, I'd have no problem with it. Sounds fun to me, in part because you can call ANYBODY a ****face. ****face doesn't discriminate, no matter your race or gender or anything else that you can't control.

"Redskin" does.
The same reason I can can make fun of my sister, but if some random person did, we'd have a problem. That context matters.

There are a lot of posts on prior pages that said, essentially, you can't please everyone, you're always going to offend someone. Maybe that's true, but we can CERTAINLY make small changes to our language in an effort to not offend a group of people who we've historically oppressed for centuries. Seems like a pretty small consolation to me.

 

Context matters, exactly, the context of where the name came from wasn't derogatory. It was a tribute to a person in the organization and to a specific set of native american warriors regarded for their fierceness in battle.

 

I just can't ascribe to the notion that if something can offend anyone that it should be changed. 

post #126 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunther View Post


That's an attack on liberty.

 

So is throwing child molesters in prison.  So is the law that says you have to stop at a stop sign.  So are the ones that say you can't discriminate based on national origin.  I consider myself a libertarian, but come on.  You know what's not an attack on liberty?  The NFL--a private club and non-profit--telling one of its members to change its name.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunther View Post

The other comment is not far-fetched. I and many millions are offended because we can no longer use the term Christmas or Easter in certain settings, workplace, school, etc. All to appease a few hundred that were offended by the words' use. This is one of the chief problems with liberalism, the feel good intentions often have deleterious consequences...read Obamacare. In order to cover 10% of the population, government imposed a behemoth that will adversely affect 95%. Classic case.

 

I've never been prohibited from using the term Christmas or Easter in any setting setting.  And even if I were, the two things are not comparable.  One is a derogatory term used to hurt people.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post
 

You can have an opinion but it doesn't matter as much as those that are potentially being offended.  I'm Italian, there are many derogatory terms used to describe Italians.  Italians are capable of representing their own thoughts and feelings, we don't need the non-Italian PC police to tell us what we should or shouldn't find offensive.

 

But you don't listen to what Native Americans say, either.  I just pointed out that the article you rely on for proof that 1 Native American likes the name also shows that a huge organization of Native Americans opposes it.  And I explained that the particular tribe that one person was a member of--the Navajo--also opposes it.  And we have dictionaries that tell us the word is offensive.  But you see Dan Synder find some guy in Arizona, fly him out to FedEx, cover him head to toe in redskins gear, and pretend to honor him, and are convinced that Native Americans like the name.  

 

So while you claim that its ok to ignore what white PC police say because they aren't effected, you believe whatever Dan Snyder--who is white--tells you to believe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremie Boop View Post
 

 

Context matters, exactly, the context of where the name came from wasn't derogatory. It was a tribute to a person in the organization and to a specific set of native american warriors regarded for their fierceness in battle.

 

I just can't ascribe to the notion that if something can offend anyone that it should be changed. 

 

This is such a red herring.  Do you not believe that it offends many?  

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Grill Room
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The 19th Hole › The Grill Room › Political Correctness - How Far Should it Go? Should the Washington Redskins change their name?