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 8

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

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.

Uh huh.  No way.  No moving the goal posts here.  You said "offended."  What you really meant to say, it sounds like now, was "annoyed" or "irritated."  Based on this thread, I have no doubt that you, @Gunther, @newtogolf, @14ledo81, and, I'm sure, countless others, might be annoyed at the name change.  But don't try to confuse that with a group of people who are offended by the flippant use of a derogatory name for them and their ancestors.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremie Boop View Post
 

I could very well be wrong, but at least I'm willing to admit it.

Not sure what this comment means, because if you knew me at all, you'd know I'd happily admit when I'm wrong and have done so many times.

 

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.

Which is why most people wouldn't hold any grudges for the past use of the name. They just ask, quite reasonably, that it now be changed. It surprises me that people that that is really so much to ask.

post #128 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremie Boop View Post

 

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.

Tell me how many people need to endure the offensive name before you're willing to accept that their feelings are more important than Dan Snyder's money.  Then I will try to find a number.

post #129 of 324
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.

 

 

The Washington Redskins were originally the Boston Braves.  Their owner, George Preston Marshall changed the name in the 30's.  Marshall was known as the most racist man in football.  He didn't sign a black player until the government threatened to revoke his lease on RFK Stadium in 1962.  Then he drafted Ernie Davis, a black player from syracuse, but Davis refused to play for the man. 

 

So when you are saying that the name was meant to be an honor, that's the man you're talking about.  

 

 

 

Here's an interesting article from the NCAI:  http://www.ncai.org/resources/ncai-publications/Ending_the_Legacy_of_Racism.pdf

post #130 of 324
@Jeremie Boop isn't the commercial by a group that represents Indians a form of proof that many more dislike it than like it? They're spending millions of dollars to air it. They're clearly offended.
post #131 of 324
@Golfingdad I don't care if they change the name. Just engaging in a debate here. I just meant I admit I may be wrong about this particular subject because I really don't have any numbers of Native American people who are for or against the name being changed.


@dsc123 I will not give some arbitrary number that should represent an amount of offended people that would justify a change. I'm just waiting to see something that shows a unified message from those it actually pertains to. I don't care about some owner's money in the least.
post #132 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsc123 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremie Boop View Post

 

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.

Tell me how many people need to endure the offensive name before you're willing to accept that their feelings are more important than Dan Snyder's money.  Then I will try to find a number.

 

How many would you say?

 

Also, lets say it were somehow possible to nail down the numbers exactly.  55% of Native Americans like the name and 45% do not.  Would you still call for a name change?

post #133 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

@Jeremie Boop isn't the commercial by a group that represents Indians a form of proof that many more dislike it than like it? They're spending millions of dollars to air it. They're clearly offended.

Not necessarily proof that many more dislike it, just proof that people with money want to put out that message. I've no doubt that some people are offended. I've also said that I could be wrong about this whole thing. I just like to debate the issue.

post #134 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremie Boop View Post

@dsc123 I will not give some arbitrary number that should represent an amount of offended people that would justify a change. I'm just waiting to see something that shows a unified message from those it actually pertains to. I don't care about some owner's money in the least.

 

My point is that you dont' need to see hard data to know that a huge amount of people are offended.  Why do you think the dictionary defines it as offensive?  

 

How about this--According to the Census, there are over 5 million Native Americans alive today.  The NFL claims that only 10% of Native Americans are offended.  If you accept that number (which you shouldn't) that's over 500,000 people that are personally offended by the name.  Are they more important than Dan Snyder's money?  

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremie Boop View Post
 

Not necessarily proof that many more dislike it, just proof that people with money want to put out that message. I've no doubt that some people are offended. I've also said that I could be wrong about this whole thing. I just like to debate the issue.

And we're all in this same boat, just friendly debate.  :beer:

post #135 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsc123 View Post
 

 

The Washington Redskins were originally the Boston Braves.  Their owner, George Preston Marshall changed the name in the 30's.  Marshall was known as the most racist man in football.  He didn't sign a black player until the government threatened to revoke his lease on RFK Stadium in 1962.  Then he drafted Ernie Davis, a black player from syracuse, but Davis refused to play for the man. 

 

So when you are saying that the name was meant to be an honor, that's the man you're talking about.  

 

 

 

Here's an interesting article from the NCAI:  http://www.ncai.org/resources/ncai-publications/Ending_the_Legacy_of_Racism.pdf

No, it was changed to honor a native american who worked for the franchise is what I was referencing. Perhaps that story was false then? *meaning the one I had read*

post #136 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremie Boop View Post
 

No, it was changed to honor a native american who worked for the franchise is what I was referencing. Perhaps that story was false then? *meaning the one I had read*

 

I didn't find any specific references to the guy's racism towards Native Americans (apart from callling his team the Redskins, of course), and he had Native Americans on his team long before he had African-Americans.  But check out that article I linked to from the NACI.  It provides a lot of context.

post #137 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsc123 View Post
 

 

I didn't find any specific references to the guy's racism towards Native Americans (apart from callling his team the Redskins, of course), and he had Native Americans on his team long before he had African-Americans.  But check out that article I linked to from the NACI.  It provides a lot of context.

I don't think that someone that is racist towards one set of people is necessarily racist towards all others. However, I can see how that would lend credence to the idea that it was meant in a racist manner.

post #138 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremie Boop View Post

@golfingdad I don't care if they change the name. Just engaging in a debate here. I just meant I admit I may be wrong about this particular subject because I really don't have any numbers of Native American people who are for or against the name being changed.

That's cool.  (I just like debating this stuff too.  I don't have NEARLY as strong of an opinion about any of this stuff as it probably appears on here.)  It was just that you said ... "at least I'm willing to admit ..." and usually when people add that "at least" part, it is to imply that the other person doesn't.  Clearly you didn't mean that, so no worries. :)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremie Boop View Post
 

I don't think that someone that is racist towards one set of people is necessarily racist towards all others. However, I can see how that would lend credence to the idea that it was meant in a racist manner.

And I would still contend that even if it wasn't meant disparagingly - and I'd probably lean towards believing that, because I'd find it harder to believe somebody could get away with intentionally naming their team something offensive - that doesn't take anything away from the fact that it's offensive to a large number of people NOW.

post #139 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremie Boop View Post
 

Not necessarily proof that many more dislike it, just proof that people with money want to put out that message. I've no doubt that some people are offended. I've also said that I could be wrong about this whole thing.

 

The point is that "those people with money" are representatives of all of the Indians in the U.S. (or North America, or whatever). So their choice to spend millions of dollars is pretty good proof, IMO, that they want the darn thing changed.

post #140 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

The point is that "those people with money" are representatives of all of the Indians in the U.S. (or North America, or whatever). So their choice to spend millions of dollars is pretty good proof, IMO, that they want the darn thing changed.

I did see the commercial and it was well done. Didn't sway me, however. This is more about principle to me. Sure, not really a huge issue either way, except to a very small minority on both sides of the debate but I was angered when Harry Reid and company took valuable Senate time to whine about it when there are hundreds of bills waiting for action on far more important matters that they don't find politically expedient. So, this particular issue touched me enough to take a stand. Anyways...I remain hopeful Snyder doesn't cave.
post #141 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

The point is that "those people with money" are representatives of all of the Indians in the U.S. (or North America, or whatever). So their choice to spend millions of dollars is pretty good proof, IMO, that they want the darn thing changed.
Sure it means there are people that want it changed, no argument from me there. People spend millions to make commercials to sway people to their opinion all the time, does that mean everyone that spends the money for one are in the right or are the voice of the majority/masses?

One thing I took a slight issue with is how the commercial said they never refer to themselves as redskins, but what about those schools on reservations that do just that with their own mascots being Redskins?

In the end, I really have no dog in the fight. I don't watch the NFL. I don't care if they change the name, plenty of franchises have done so in the past. This debate/discussion has been great. People on both sides have made good points. Only one person can make the decision here and that's the owner. I agree that he'd save himself lots of problems if he'd change the name, but I don't agree that he should or has to do so. I appreciate the fact that not everyone, or even most, agrees with me because that is what makes our nation great. We don't have to agree on everything to have mutual respect and value each other's opinions.
post #142 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremie Boop View Post

Only one person can make the decision here and that's the owner.

 

The courts could make him, too. Or the NFL.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremie Boop View Post

I don't agree that he should or has to do so.

 

Yes, you've made it perfectly clear that you support offending many, many people simply because it's more convenient to a very wealthy person not to have to change the name of his NFL franchise. :-) 

post #143 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 

 

The courts could make him, too. Or the NFL.

 

 

Yes, you've made it perfectly clear that you support offending many, many people simply because it's more convenient to a very wealthy person not to have to change the name of his NFL franchise. :-) 

Sure, the courts or NFL could at some point do so, but as of yet it doesn't seem to have warranted their attention. 

 

Nice dig at me, that's cool, I know I'm on the "bad side" of this discussion. I'm done at this point anyway. We can all talk about what we think should be done but it really doesn't matter what we think or say.

post #144 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamo View Post


Because it should be enough that any people are offended.....

 

I cut the rest of your comments off because this part alone is a real problem to me.    Freedom of speech is one of our most treasured ideals in this country, however lately it seems that only applies so long as no one is offended by that speech.   There is nothing in the first amendment that addresses someone being offended by the speech of another.   

 

With regard to this particular issue, when the fans stop buying Redskins merchandise and stop showing up at games, Snyder will change the name.    Otherwise, it will take some sort of legal action to cause it and that would be a travesty.    IMHO, if people don't like the name, they need to address it with their pocketbooks rather than trample the first amendment.

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?