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 12

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 #199 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil McGleno View Post

So totally not what I said.--Redskin and Nigger are equally bad terms. You would not support a team named Washington Niggers but because youre ignorant to the offense many take to the word Redskin you think its okay.--Thats your point in a nutshell.

Theyre words. When youre discussing the word what else do you do? You type it.-Just like the book the guy wrote.--Look it up on Amazon. The Nazi symbol offends many people but if youre doing a documentary or talking about it you show it.

If you think they're equal, well, you might want to read up on your history a little.

Anyway, Great advice Erik, let's talk golf! Less stressful, more fun.
post #200 of 324
Why arent they equally as bad?-Just cuz there are more black people than Indians to be offended?--Theyre both racist offensive derogatory terms. We treated Indians just about as badly as we treated black people too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunther View Post

If you think they're equal, well, you might want to read up on your history a little.

Anyway, Great advice Erik, let's talk golf! Less stressful, more fun.
post #201 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil McGleno View Post

Why arent they equally as bad?-Just cuz there are more black people than Indians to be offended?--Theyre both racist offensive derogatory terms. We treated Indians just about as badly as we treated black people too.

Phil, there have been perhaps 50 people comment on this thread. None have used the term that rolls off your fingers with such ease. Ask yourself why you think that is?
post #202 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil McGleno View Post

Why arent they equally as bad?-Just cuz there are more black people than Indians to be offended?--Theyre both racist offensive derogatory terms. We treated Indians just about as badly as we treated black people too.

 

Absolutely, the N word has had a much greater impact. Are they both hateful words, yes, but you can still qualitatively define them. Its pretty much the same thing as a curse word. Some curse words are take as worse than others, yet they are still curse words. 

post #203 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsc123 View Post
 

Because its still in use.

 

You mean why didn't we hear about it sooner?  A couple of points.  First, we shouldn't let our future be dictated by the mistakes of our past.  Second, its not new.  People have protested the name for at least the past 15 years--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Redskins_name_controversy#Protests.  Third, thankfully, society progresses.  At one time, blacks were slaves.  Then men realized that was horrible.  But they kept calling them the n-word for a while.  In fact, it was commonly used in the 30s, when the redskins were named.

 

 Perhaps the better question is why hasn't the r-word been phased out just like the n-word?

 

But you don't deny that it is used in that manner, right?  You don't think the dictionaries are wrong, right?

 

I've never really heard it used that way either.  But the fact that I live amongst people who are not racists doesn't mean racists don't exist.  

 

I should say that I've never heard the words used honorifically, either.  

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post
 

I guess you missed this part of the article I posted and only read the part you wanted;

 

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.  Roy Hawthorne, 87, of Lupton, Ariz., was one of four Code Talkers honored for their service in World War II during the Monday night game against the San Francisco 49ers.  Hawthorne, vice president of the Navajo Code Talkers Association, said the group's trip was paid for by the Redskins. The four men met briefly with team owner Dan Snyder but did not discuss the name, Hawthorne said.   Still, he said he would endorse the name if asked, and the televised appearance in which three of the Indians wore Redskins jackets spoke for itself.

 

 

 

 

I did read that.  They said that 1 guy believes the name is not offensive, and the other three Synder flew to the game and gave free gear to likely don't mind the name either.  But as I also explained, the representative organization for the Navajo Nation takes the opposite view.  As do the other organizations identified.   To me, that indicates that the opinion of these 4 guys at the redksins game are not representative.  

post #204 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunther View Post

Phil, there have been perhaps 50 people comment on this thread. None have used the term that rolls off your fingers with such ease. Ask yourself why you think that is?

 

I'm gonna back him on that one, @Gunther. You can't keep referring to something as "that word" or something. The site at the end of the commercial uses the word "redskin":

 

Quote:
Change the Mascot is a national campaign to end the use of the racial slur “redskins” as the mascot and name of the NFL team in Washington, D.C. Launched by the Oneida Indian Nation, the campaign calls upon the NFL and Commissioner Roger Goodell to do the right thing and bring an end the use of the racial epithet.

 

When you're talking about a word, what are you supposed to do, refer to it as "the r-word"? No. You use the word. It's a whole other beast to call someone that name, or insist that you be allowed to keep that name as the name of your team for whatever reason.

 

The word "nigger" is in dictionaries, it's on Wikipedia, etc. So is "redskin." You can type the words when you're talking about the words themselves.

 

I have no tolerance for racism, and if @Phil McGleno ever used the words "nigger" or "redskin" (see what I did there?) towards someone or in any other sort of racist way, he'd be Penalty Boxed at least.

 

And I'm lean far more towards Libertarian than anything, before you ask… :-P

post #205 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

I'm gonna back him on that one, @Gunther
. You can't keep referring to something as "that word" or something. The site at the end of the commercial uses the word "redskin":


When you're talking about a word, what are you supposed to do, refer to it as "the r-word"? No. You use the word. It's a whole other beast to call someone that name, or insist that you be allowed to keep that name as the name of your team for whatever reason.

The word "nigger" is in dictionaries, it's on Wikipedia, etc. So is "redskin." You can type the words when you're talking about the words themselves.

I have no tolerance for racism, and if @Phil McGleno
 ever used the words "nigger" or "redskin" (see what I did there?) towards someone or in any other sort of racist way, he'd be Penalty Boxed at least.

And I'm lean far more towards Libertarian than anything, before you ask… b2_tongue.gif

I was ok with the 1st time, it was impactful; kinda shocked me and caused me to reexamine my own opinion. Obviously, I came to the conclusion that the two words are most certainly not equal and remained steadfast in my view.

However, after the 4th or 5th time it became gratuitous and so I commented. And to hear the defense that they're equally offensive terms is a bit hard to take.

Now, back to the US Open...
post #206 of 324
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by boogielicious View Post
 

Not all African American's are offended by the n-word, but I dare you to use it in public around African Americans.

 

You bring up one group of Native American's who aren't offended, but it appears the majority are.  The fact that Snyder may be buying favoritism is beside the point.

Are we making up stats or was a new poll released that I haven't seen yet that documented a "majority" of Native Americans are offended by the Redskins team name.

 

I've said it in numerous posts on this thread,  If the majority of Native Americans in this country are offended by any teams name that's associated with their heritage or history I would fully support the owners being required to change the name.

post #207 of 324
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsc123 View Post
 

 

 

 

 

I did read that.  They said that 1 guy believes the name is not offensive, and the other three Synder flew to the game and gave free gear to likely don't mind the name either.  But as I also explained, the representative organization for the Navajo Nation takes the opposite view.  As do the other organizations identified.   To me, that indicates that the opinion of these 4 guys at the redksins game are not representative.

And when a poll from a reliable source is published that demonstrates the majority of Native Americans find the team name offensive I'll fight along side of you to make sure the name gets changed.

 

My position is the same as I held when non-Italian idiots who told me because I was Italian I shouldn't admit to liking The Soprano's because it misrepresented Italians and was offensive to those with Italian heritage.  I'm an intelligent person and I can decide for myself what is and isn't offensive to me.  I believe the American Indians are just as intelligent as I am and don't require you or me to tell them what they should or shouldn't be offended by.

post #208 of 324

Even though I don't think anybody is using the term negatively, and nobody would want to name their team after something they hated, if I were the owner I would change the name (and would have already).

 

As a businessman I would go out of my way to not offend anybody whether it be any Native Americans or the PC crowd that likes to speak for them.

 

Having a name that gets anybody's dander up is not good for business no matter what my personal views are on the subject. It wouldn't be worth the hassle.

 

If I open a golf course in Alabama and name it War Eagle Springs Or Roll Tide Hills I just lost half of my potential customers (and then I would be a moron).

post #209 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post
 

And when a poll from a reliable source is published that demonstrates the majority of Native Americans find the team name offensive I'll fight along side of you to make sure the name gets changed.

 

There are over five million native americans.  If only 2.5 million people are extremely offended, and the majority are not offended--then would you say its ok for Dan Synder to offend those people for the sake of saving his brand value?

 

The NFL claims 9 out of 10 don't mind the name (which is highly unreliable, given the source).  That's more than 500,000 that are offended.  Isn't that enough? 

post #210 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS256 View Post
 

Even though I don't think anybody is using the term negatively, and nobody would want to name their team after something they hated, if I were the owner I would change the name (and would have already).

 

As a businessman I would go out of my way to not offend anybody whether it be any Native Americans or the PC crowd that likes to speak for them.

 

Having a name that gets anybody's dander up is not good for business no matter what my personal views are on the subject. It wouldn't be worth the hassle.

 

If I open a golf course in Alabama and name it War Eagle Springs Or Roll Tide Hills I just lost half of my potential customers (and then I would be a moron).


Agreed 100%.

post #211 of 324
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS256 View Post
 

Even though I don't think anybody is using the term negatively, and nobody would want to name their team after something they hated, if I were the owner I would change the name (and would have already).

 

As a businessman I would go out of my way to not offend anybody whether it be any Native Americans or the PC crowd that likes to speak for them.

 

Having a name that gets anybody's dander up is not good for business no matter what my personal views are on the subject. It wouldn't be worth the hassle.

 

If I open a golf course in Alabama and name it War Eagle Springs Or Roll Tide Hills I just lost half of my potential customers (and then I would be a moron).

That's a completely different discussion.  If I were Snyder, I'd change the name too.  The question is under what conditions / circumstances should he be forced to.   You have to understand that this becomes a precedent that will be used to make it easier for special interest groups to impact business names, logo's etc. in the future.

post #212 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsc123 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post
 

And when a poll from a reliable source is published that demonstrates the majority of Native Americans find the team name offensive I'll fight along side of you to make sure the name gets changed.

 

There are over five million native americans.  If only 2.5 million people are extremely offended, and the majority are not offended--then would you say its ok for Dan Synder to offend those people for the sake of saving his brand value?

 

The NFL claims 9 out of 10 don't mind the name (which is highly unreliable, given the source).  That's more than 500,000 that are offended.  Isn't that enough? 

 

If these numbers are true, you would prefer to offend the 4,500,000 that like the name?

post #213 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by 14ledo81 View Post
 

 

If these numbers are true, you would prefer to offend the 4,500,000 that like the name?

 

Presumably, the new name would not be offensive.  

post #214 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post
 

That's a completely different discussion.  If I were Snyder, I'd change the name too.  The question is under what conditions / circumstances should he be forced to.   You have to understand that this becomes a precedent that will be used to make it easier for special interest groups to impact business names, logo's etc. in the future.


Yeah I'm not talking about forcing anybody to do anything. Just business.

 

Anybody offended has every right to not support that business.

post #215 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsc123 View Post
 

 

Presumably, the new name would not be offensive.  


I still think the "Washington Potomacs" might work.

 

Let me think about this one a bit, being from North Potomac, MD myself.

post #216 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsc123 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 14ledo81 View Post
 

 

If these numbers are true, you would prefer to offend the 4,500,000 that like the name?

 

Presumably, the new name would not be offensive.  

 

I didn't mean the new name.  What if the 4,500,000 really like the existing name, and would be offended if it were changed?

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?