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 13

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

 
  • 41% (25)
    Yes, it's insensitive to American Indians
  • 41% (25)
    No, it's a non-issue
  • 16% (10)
    Who cares, this is a golf forum
60 Total Votes  
post #217 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by 14ledo81 View Post
 

 

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?

What makes you think that someone who says they are "not offended" by the word redskin, would necessarily be offended if the name was changed?  

 

Its also not the same thing, as I think @Golfingdad explained earlier.  The harm caused to a person by a racist team name is not the same as the harm caused by losing a team name that you like.  And they could continue to honor native americans with another name.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lihu View Post
 


I still think the "Washington Potomacs" might work.

 

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

 

I'm very close to there--Rockville.

post #218 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsc123 View Post

 

I'm very close to there--Rockville.


My grandmother is in a senior care facility just outside Rockville.

 

Go Poto? Go Tomacs?

 

Trying. . .hard. . .to. . .make. . .Potomacs. . .work. :-$ 

post #219 of 324
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsc123 View Post
 

 

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?

How many people are offended by those of us in the US who eat beef and chicken?  My guess is it's probably more than the number of Native Americans that are offended by the Redskin name.  Should we shut down the chicken and beef industry in the US because people are offended by the flesh eaters and the practices they deem offensive within the industry? 

 

People were offended by the owner of Chick-fil-A should they be forced out of business because the owner has viewpoints that some found offensive? 

 

We could come up with thousands of examples where special interest groups are offended by something someone is saying and or doing, we will never make everyone happy.

post #220 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post
 

How many people are offended by those of us in the US who eat beef and chicken?  My guess is it's probably more than the number of Native Americans that are offended by the Redskin name.  Should we shut down the chicken and beef industry in the US because people are offended by the flesh eaters and the practices they deem offensive within the industry? 

 

People were offended by the owner of Chick-fil-A should they be forced out of business because the owner has viewpoints that some found offensive? 

 

We could come up with thousands of examples where special interest groups are offended by something someone is saying and or doing, we will never make everyone happy.

You're really grasping for straws here.  None of those are comparable to the offense felt by an individual member of a community from a racist and derogatory word used to describe people of that community.  

post #221 of 324
You think Sterling is a racist-Probably right-but then claim that vegariatians objecting to my meal at Texas Roadhouse are the same as people offended by the racist "Redskin"?--Youve clearly wandered off the reservation pun intended.
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post

How many people are offended by those of us in the US who eat beef and chicken?  My guess is it's probably more than the number of Native Americans that are offended by the Redskin name.  Should we shut down the chicken and beef industry in the US because people are offended by the flesh eaters and the practices they deem offensive within the industry? 

People were offended by the owner of Chick-fil-A should they be forced out of business because the owner has viewpoints that some found offensive? 

We could come up with thousands of examples where special interest groups are offended by something someone is saying and or doing, we will never make everyone happy.
post #222 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lihu View Post
 


My grandmother is in a senior care facility just outside Rockville.

 

Go Poto? Go Tomacs?

 

Trying. . .hard. . .to. . .make. . .Potomacs. . .work. :-$ 


I think they should name it after the politicians.

 

Washington Scoundrels.

 

Go Drels!!!

post #223 of 324
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsc123 View Post
 

You're really grasping for straws here.  None of those are comparable to the offense felt by an individual member of a community from a racist and derogatory word used to describe people of that community.

You don't get to determine what's offensive and what's not for everyone.  You don't get to decide if Redskin is a racist term, you can have an opinion, I can have one too. 

 

Native Americans should decide what they want.  Why won't you let them have their own voice rather than feeling the need to speak on their behalf?

post #224 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post
 

You don't get to decide if Redskin is a racist term, you can have an opinion, I can have one too.

 

Neither do you. That ship has sailed - it's a racist term - or do you disagree?

 

Quote (Wikipedia):
In the United States, "redskin" is generally regarded as a racial epithet.[24] The American Heritage style guide advises that "the term redskin evokes an even more objectionable stereotype" than the use of red as a racial adjective by outsiders,[25] while others urge writers to use the term only in a historical context.[26] The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) rejected an application to register "Redskins Hog Rinds" because it "consists of or includes matter which may disparage or bring into contempt or disrepute persons, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols".[27] A decision is expected soon in the pending USPTO case to cancel the trademarks of the Washington NFL team for the same reason. [28]

 

Quote dictionary.com:

noun Slang: Often Disparaging and Offensive.

a North American Indian.

 

BTW, other racist terms are defined similarly. They don't all say "racist" right in the definition.

post #225 of 324
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil McGleno View Post

You think Sterling is a racist-Probably right-but then claim that vegariatians objecting to my meal at Texas Roadhouse are the same as people offended by the racist "Redskin"?--Youve clearly wandered off the reservation pun intended.

Maybe I've wandered a bit...but the idea I'm trying to convey is that a minority of people being offended can't be a legal precedent for "forcing" a business or team to change their name or business practices.

 

We have to be cognizant of how we handle situations like these because in this litigious society we may find that once this happens the legal precedent will allow others businesses to be attacked by special interest and the PC police as well.

 

Sterling is a racist and the NBA had addendums added to their contracts that would allow them to force Sterling to sell, but they were hesitant to test the addendums in court.  Instead found, the NBA used other methods to achieve their goal because had it gone to court and a precedent was set they would be limited in how they could handle future situations.

 

The same goes for Snyder, the NFL would much prefer he change the name on his own, because once this goes to court it becomes a mess.

post #226 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post
 

How many people are offended by those of us in the US who eat beef and chicken?  My guess is it's probably more than the number of Native Americans that are offended by the Redskin name.  Should we shut down the chicken and beef industry in the US because people are offended by the flesh eaters and the practices they deem offensive within the industry? 

 

People were offended by the owner of Chick-fil-A should they be forced out of business because the owner has viewpoints that some found offensive? 

 

We could come up with thousands of examples where special interest groups are offended by something someone is saying and or doing, we will never make everyone happy.

 

Not sure this is a valid argument. According to statistics, more than 3.2% are vegetarians. 1 million are vegans. There are 2 million Native Americans registered as such. Technically many Latinos and Mexicans are also native Americans. However, no one is sure how many people are offended by the name.

 

So, asking the football leagues if they are offended by the name is like asking me if I am offended of being called a Cossack.

 

As to Chick-fil-A, I eat there because I like the way they make the chicken, but that's despite the fact that the owner came out public about his beliefs. The fact that he did means that I could be labeled the same way as him by some people. I am sure many people do not go for that very reason. I know three families who refuse to eat there, and they believe what the owner does. It's not really good for business. He should have just stuck with being good at deep frying chicken filets.

post #227 of 324
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 

 

Neither do you. That ship has sailed - it's a racist term - or do you disagree?

 

 

 

BTW, other racist terms are defined similarly. They don't all say "racist" right in the definition.

I don't disagree but I also don't think a word on its own is offensive or racist, it's how it's used and the tone that it's delivered in that makes it offensive.  IMO, the Indians mascot is much more offensive in context than the Redskin name and logo.

 

Here's the complete wiki list of racist / ethnic slurs of which Yankee and Canuck are listed.  Admittedly, the wiki indicates that "Canuck" isn't overly offensive to Canadians but it did make the list.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs_by_ethnicity

post #228 of 324

I think you're just picking the wrong place to fight the PC Police.  I get the idea behind that, but you keep beating around the bush here because there's no conclusion other than that the word is offensive.  You keep saying that I don't get to decide, but I'm not.  You say its up to the Native Americans, but they have spoken.  So then you demand better data because you know it doesn't exist.

 

The only person in this discussion who as said it is not offensive is @MS256.  The rest of the supporters just say "well, I don't know that NA's are offended and until you prove that they are, I won't agree that Snyder should change the name."  That's hogwash.  Its a rope-a-dope.  You know the word is offensive.  The dictionary says so!  You know NA's are offended, many have said so! 4 guys Dan Synder found in Arizona doesn't disprove that.

 

A wise man once said, "You gotta know when to hold em, know when to fold em, know when to walk away, know when to run..."  ;-)

post #229 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lihu View Post

Not sure this is a valid argument. According to statistics, more than 3.2% are vegetarians. 1 million are vegans. There are 2 million Native Americans registered as such. Technically many Latinos and Mexicans are also native Americans. However, no one is sure how many people are offended by the name.

So, asking the football leagues if they are offended by the name is like asking me if I am offended of being called a Cossack.

As to Chick-fil-A, I eat there because I like the way they make the chicken, but that's despite the fact that the owner came out public about his beliefs. The fact that he did means that I could be labeled the same way as him by some people. I am sure many people do not go for that very reason. I know three families who refuse to eat there, and they believe what the owner does. It's not really good for business. He should have just stuck with being good at deep frying chicken filets.

Chick Fila's sales skyrocketed after their controversy in '12. I think it's a fair bet that Snyder's revenues would decline if he changed the name. The silent majority is powerful.
post #230 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsc123 View Post
 

I think you're just picking the wrong place to fight the PC Police.  I get the idea behind that, but you keep beating around the bush here because there's no conclusion other than that the word is offensive.  You keep saying that I don't get to decide, but I'm not.  You say its up to the Native Americans, but they have spoken.  So then you demand better data because you know it doesn't exist.

 

The only person in this discussion who as said it is not offensive is @MS256.  The rest of the supporters just say "well, I don't know that NA's are offended and until you prove that they are, I won't agree that Snyder should change the name."  That's hogwash.  Its a rope-a-dope.  You know the word is offensive.  The dictionary says so!  You know NA's are offended, many have said so! 4 guys Dan Synder found in Arizona doesn't disprove that.

 

A wise man once said, "You gotta know when to hold em, know when to fold em, know when to walk away, know when to run..."  ;-)

 

If they changed the name, I would honestly feel bad for the NA's that currently like it.  That pretty much sums up my side of the debate.

 

Well that, and I also agree somewhat with @newtogolf that it could set a bad precedent.

post #231 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsc123 View Post

 

You guys are unbelievable.  You can't honestly believe that there are not large numbers of Native Americans who are offended by the word "redskins."  Anecdotes aside, large organizations that represent Native Americans are vehemently opposed to it.  Even if you personally know some who are not offended, that doesn't mean others can't be.  

 

For the record, I think they should change the name. But he's spot on about people finding reasons to get offended, even if it may not fit perfectly in this example.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil McGleno View Post

Some people are also rightfully offended,-Minimizes their feelings to say stupid shit like "they're looking to be offended."--Fact: "Redskin" has been offensive and derogatory for over a hundred years.
Let's rename the team Washington Niggers.-Then when that fails we'll call them the Washington Chinks.

 

First off, if you can't understand the difference between the two "slurs", you're even dumber than everyone here thinks you are. Secondly, as I posted above, I agree that the name should be changed, but like I said above, it doesn't mean he's wrong about everyone finding reasons to get offended. 


Edited by Slice of Life - 6/12/14 at 3:17pm
post #232 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by 14ledo81 View Post
 

 

If they changed the name, I would honestly feel bad for the NA's that currently like it.  That pretty much sums up my side of the debate.

 

 

Well you better have data showing that NA's "like" the current name, then!  :-P

 

Seriously though, its quite a stretch to equate "not offended" with "like."   Also, you have to feel more "bad" for the NA's who are offended by the overtly racist team name, than you would for those who like it, right?

post #233 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil McGleno View Post

So totally not what I said.--Redskin and Nigger are equally bad terms. 

 

Wrong. You just don't seem to grasp it. Using Blackskins or Brownskins to reference African-Americans would be a MUCH more appropriate comparison than a term white slave owners used to demean their slaves for years...

 

The term redskin didn't originate in the same hate-filled manner as the other term you love to throw around. If you can't see the difference there, there's no helping you.

post #234 of 324

Why don't they just change the name to the "Washington Cherokees" or find a Native American tribe that was/is indigenous to the area around DC and make this go away?

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?