or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The 19th Hole › Sports › 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 3

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

 
  • 40% (12)
    Yes, it's insensitive to American Indians
  • 46% (14)
    No, it's a non-issue
  • 13% (4)
    Who cares, this is a golf forum
30 Total Votes  
post #37 of 92

"redskins" is blatantly racist and it needs to go.  There is nothing proud about a name that reminds of a racism and bigotry towards Native Americans.  While we're at it, the Cleveland Indians', "Chief Wahoo" needs to go as well.

post #38 of 92
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 

Sorry, but I'm going to roll my eyes now.  I cannot stand "slippery slope" arguments because they are ridiculous and weak.

 

"We can't ban Redskins because then a whole bunch of United 747's are going to now insist that the name 'Jets' offends them."

 

"Oh, we're banning peanuts from schools now because one kid might die?  Please!  What's next?  Broccoli?  Water?"

 

"Can't let gay people get married because that OBVIOUSLY means that we HAVE to let people marry sheep now because that is clearly the same thing."

 

Come on ... you're better than that.

First, I could really care less about whether Dan Snyder changes the name or not since I'm a Jets fan.

 

The crux of the thread is about how out of control PC has become.  I thought it was stupid that the Bullets had to change their name, because of anti-gun people, same as the Devil Rays changing to the Rays because the word Devil was offensive, a Devil Ray is a type of ray but the religious right got their panties in a bunch.  The Mighty Ducks was a copyright issue with Disney.  The other names you mentioned were teams that relocated and the nicknames no longer made sense so they had to change them, like the Oilers to Titans.  Why the Hornets switched to the Pelicans is beyond me, but there's no way I'd want to play for a team named the Pelicans...

 

It's a slippery slope that's a reality.  The vocal minority dictates what is and isn't offensive.  Just as Ron stated an entire daddy-daughter school dance was cancelled because one kids mother didn't want to contact her ex-husband.  I feel bad for that little girl but why should every little girl in the class miss out on the memories of dancing with their dads because one girl couldn't have their dad there.  How about instead of the mom complaining, she had an uncle, close family friend or grandfather take the dads place.  Point is, how many people need to be offended by an idea, term, phrase, or logo before it's mandated that it be changed or cancelled?

 

Who interprets what a word means, when I think of Redskin, I think of warrior, one who will fight to the death, I see it as a positive.  The dopey logo of the Cleveland Indians is much more offensive in my opinion than the name Redskin.  Maybe back in the pioneer days it was a derogatory term that meant something else but that certainly isn't the way the team considers it or presents themselves.  If anything, they keep the spirit of American Indian alive and in the public eye which is why in 2004 I think the Native Americans didn't have an issue with the use of the term.

 

Then there's the issue of who can use terms and who can't.  There needs to be a rule book on who can and can't use a term and what circumstances it can or can't be used in.  I'm just tired of all the PC and this was just another of the craziness.

 

I'm going to be a hip hop performer, they seem to get carte blanche on using any word or term (derogatory or not) for all races, religions, women, and sexual orientations without taking any heat.

post #39 of 92

There is an enormous difference in using an actual tribal name, like Cherokee or Seminole, or a term like "braves" that is descriptive. "Redskin" is and always has been a racial slur. I believe that many find the 'overboard PC' trend are simply being lazy and entitled because they aren't the ones being offended. It would be nice to err on the side of good for a change wouldn't it?The world is such a mess partly because people are too lazy and too afraid of looking sensitive to each other, for f**k's sake, just be good instead of worrying about being right.

post #40 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhySoSerious View Post
 

There is an enormous difference in using an actual tribal name, like Cherokee or Seminole, or a term like "braves" that is descriptive. "Redskin" is and always has been a racial slur. I believe that many find the 'overboard PC' trend are simply being lazy and entitled because they aren't the ones being offended. It would be nice to err on the side of good for a change wouldn't it?The world is such a mess partly because people are too lazy and too afraid of looking sensitive to each other, for f**k's sake, just be good instead of worrying about being right.

If it is and always was a racial slur then why are there native american schools, on reservations, that utilize that mascot/name?

post #41 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremie Boop View Post
 

If it is and always was a racial slur then why are there native american schools, on reservations, that utilize that mascot/name?

I'm not going to post in here again on this and I hate to even acknowledge how oblivious you seem by asking that question, but I will provide a link : http://nation.time.com/2013/10/14/indian-school-calls-out-redskins-owner/

post #42 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremie Boop View Post
 

If it is and always was a racial slur then why are there native american schools, on reservations, that utilize that mascot/name?

Couldn't you make this same argument in regards to slurs for black people?

 

"If its always been a racial slur, then why do they use it all the time?"

post #43 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhySoSerious View Post
 

I'm not going to post in here again on this and I hate to even acknowledge how oblivious you seem by asking that question, but I will provide a link : http://nation.time.com/2013/10/14/indian-school-calls-out-redskins-owner/

I can link stories to support my side as well:

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory/indians-redskins-slur-20505945

 

I'm neither oblivious nor stupid as you seem to try indicate. If the Native American people came together on this and a majority agreed that they were offended or wanted the name changed then I would be for it being changed. But as it is now there is no decisive indication that's the case.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 

Couldn't you make this same argument in regards to slurs for black people?

 

"If its always been a racial slur, then why do they use it all the time?"

Really? Do you see ANY black only schools that use any racial slurs or stereotypes as their mascots? No? Then there is no correlation. 

 

Even using the term "black" is offensive to some.

post #44 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremie Boop View Post
 

I can link stories to support my side as well:

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory/indians-redskins-slur-20505945

 

I'm neither oblivious nor stupid as you seem to try indicate. If the Native American people came together on this and a majority agreed that they were offended or wanted the name changed then I would be for it being changed. But as it is now there is no decisive indication that's the case.

Jeremie, this comes directly from your story ...

 

"There are Native American schools that call their teams Redskins. The term is used affectionately by some natives, similar to the way the N-word is used by some African-Americans."

 

It's a fair question, then, to ask that if you think Indians using the term for themselves makes it OK for all to use it, then you'd be cool with a Black College calling their team the you-know-whats?

post #45 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post
 

First, I could really care less about whether Dan Snyder changes the name or not since I'm a Jets fan.

 

The crux of the thread is about how out of control PC has become.  I thought it was stupid that the Bullets had to change their name, because of anti-gun people, same as the Devil Rays changing to the Rays because the word Devil was offensive, a Devil Ray is a type of ray but the religious right got their panties in a bunch.  The Mighty Ducks was a copyright issue with Disney.  The other names you mentioned were teams that relocated and the nicknames no longer made sense so they had to change them, like the Oilers to Titans.  Why the Hornets switched to the Pelicans is beyond me, but there's no way I'd want to play for a team named the Pelicans...

 

It's a slippery slope that's a reality.  The vocal minority dictates what is and isn't offensive.  Just as Ron stated an entire daddy-daughter school dance was cancelled because one kids mother didn't want to contact her ex-husband.  I feel bad for that little girl but why should every little girl in the class miss out on the memories of dancing with their dads because one girl couldn't have their dad there.  How about instead of the mom complaining, she had an uncle, close family friend or grandfather take the dads place.  Point is, how many people need to be offended by an idea, term, phrase, or logo before it's mandated that it be changed or cancelled?

 

Who interprets what a word means, when I think of Redskin, I think of warrior, one who will fight to the death, I see it as a positive.  The dopey logo of the Cleveland Indians is much more offensive in my opinion than the name Redskin.  Maybe back in the pioneer days it was a derogatory term that meant something else but that certainly isn't the way the team considers it or presents themselves.  If anything, they keep the spirit of American Indian alive and in the public eye which is why in 2004 I think the Native Americans didn't have an issue with the use of the term.

 

Then there's the issue of who can use terms and who can't.  There needs to be a rule book on who can and can't use a term and what circumstances it can or can't be used in.  I'm just tired of all the PC and this was just another of the craziness.

 

I'm going to be a hip hop performer, they seem to get carte blanche on using any word or term (derogatory or not) for all races, religions, women, and sexual orientations without taking any heat.

 

 

I don't really care about team names, but (see above bolded part) this is where PC has gone WAY to far.  I think it is a very slippery slope.  Where does it stop?  We can't make everybody happy all the time.

post #46 of 92
Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

 

Jeremie, this comes directly from your story ...



 



"There are Native American schools that call their teams Redskins. The term is used affectionately by some natives, similar to the way the N-word is used by some African-Americans."



 



It's a fair question, then, to ask that if you think Indians using the term for themselves makes it OK for all to use it, then you'd be cool with a Black College calling their team the you-know-whats?





 



The difference is this.  Do native americans think "Redskins" is offensive?  Black people certainly think the N word is.  I (and I think the majority of native americans and others) do not feel the term "Redskins" is even close to the N word.



 



I think you help make my point by feeling it is ok to type "Redskins" but not the N word.

post #47 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 

Jeremie, this comes directly from your story ...

 

"There are Native American schools that call their teams Redskins. The term is used affectionately by some natives, similar to the way the N-word is used by some African-Americans."

 

It's a fair question, then, to ask that if you think Indians using the term for themselves makes it OK for all to use it, then you'd be cool with a Black College calling their team the you-know-whats?

I was going to say something but l4redo81 basically said what I thought anyway.

post #48 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by 14ledo81 View Post
 
Quote:
 
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

 

Jeremie, this comes directly from your story ...


 


"There are Native American schools that call their teams Redskins. The term is used affectionately by some natives, similar to the way the N-word is used by some African-Americans."


 


It's a fair question, then, to ask that if you think Indians using the term for themselves makes it OK for all to use it, then you'd be cool with a Black College calling their team the you-know-whats?


 


The difference is this.  Do native americans think "Redskins" is offensive?  Black people certainly think the N word is.  I (and I think the majority of native americans and others) do not feel the term "Redskins" is even close to the N word.


 


I think you help make my point by feeling it is ok to type "Redskins" but not the N word.

Good call on the last point. ;)

 

But I still think it's awfully easy (and beyond presumptuous) for us white guys (making an educated guess in your case, ledo) to sit here and debate what minorities do and do not find offensive.  And what is the number or percentage of people being hurt that tips it from being allowed to taboo?  10% of Indians?  50% of Indians?

 

--------------------------------------------------

 

There are fights worth fighting, but is this really one of them?  I'll say it again ... who would actually be offended (not just annoyed because PC has gone too far in your mind) if they were to get rid of the name?  Can you name one person?

 

And please don't repeat the slippery slope argument again because its weak.  I'm asking a stand-alone question about this case only.

 

--------------------------------------------------

 

For those of you who haven't dealt with toddlers in the past decade (and this may only be a California thing too, I don't know), you may not know that it is now common in schools to refer to sitting with your legs crossed as "criss cross applesauce," as opposed to what we all said when I was growing up in the 80's ... "Indian style."  A lot of people (including myself) probably think that is ridiculous.  OMG, its the PC police run amok!  But, I also recognize that there isn't a single soul out there who could possibly be offended by the new term.  Was the old term really hurting anybody?  I don't know.  5 people?  100 people?  1000 people?  Somebody was bothered enough by it to change it.  How about now?  Anybody out there going to be insulted by the new phrase?  I think it's a pretty safe bet that the answer to that one is a resounding 'no.'

post #49 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 

Good call on the last point. ;)

 

But I still think it's awfully easy (and beyond presumptuous) for us white guys (making an educated guess in your case, ledo) to sit here and debate what minorities do and do not find offensive.  And what is the number or percentage of people being hurt that tips it from being allowed to taboo?  10% of Indians?  50% of Indians?

 

--------------------------------------------------

 

There are fights worth fighting, but is this really one of them?  I'll say it again ... who would actually be offended (not just annoyed because PC has gone too far in your mind) if they were to get rid of the name?  Can you name one person?

 

And please don't repeat the slippery slope argument again because its weak.  I'm asking a stand-alone question about this case only.

 

--------------------------------------------------

 

For those of you who haven't dealt with toddlers in the past decade (and this may only be a California thing too, I don't know), you may not know that it is now common in schools to refer to sitting with your legs crossed as "criss cross applesauce," as opposed to what we all said when I was growing up in the 80's ... "Indian style."  A lot of people (including myself) probably think that is ridiculous.  OMG, its the PC police run amok!  But, I also recognize that there isn't a single soul out there who could possibly be offended by the new term.  Was the old term really hurting anybody?  I don't know.  5 people?  100 people?  1000 people?  Somebody was bothered enough by it to change it.  How about now?  Anybody out there going to be insulted by the new phrase?  I think it's a pretty safe bet that the answer to that one is a resounding 'no.'

No, but they may ban sitting that way if someone is physically unable to do it, haha. Just being facetious there but you see what I'm saying. I also know it's not ok to refer to a meeting as a "pow wow" because it offended someone. Some things make sense to change or remove and others don't. I think the main point I have against forcing the Redskins to change their name is what I already stated. If it's not acceptable then they should also change the name of any Native American school's mascot that's Redskins. I'll never agree with the "ok for me but not you" stance.

post #50 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 

Good call on the last point. ;)

 

But I still think it's awfully easy (and beyond presumptuous) for us white guys (making an educated guess in your case, ledo) to sit here and debate what minorities do and do not find offensive.  And what is the number or percentage of people being hurt that tips it from being allowed to taboo?  10% of Indians?  50% of Indians?

 

--------------------------------------------------

 

There are fights worth fighting, but is this really one of them?  I'll say it again ... who would actually be offended (not just annoyed because PC has gone too far in your mind) if they were to get rid of the name?  Can you name one person?

 

And please don't repeat the slippery slope argument again because its weak.  I'm asking a stand-alone question about this case only.

 

--------------------------------------------------

 

For those of you who haven't dealt with toddlers in the past decade (and this may only be a California thing too, I don't know), you may not know that it is now common in schools to refer to sitting with your legs crossed as "criss cross applesauce," as opposed to what we all said when I was growing up in the 80's ... "Indian style."  A lot of people (including myself) probably think that is ridiculous.  OMG, its the PC police run amok!  But, I also recognize that there isn't a single soul out there who could possibly be offended by the new term.  Was the old term really hurting anybody?  I don't know.  5 people?  100 people?  1000 people?  Somebody was bothered enough by it to change it.  How about now?  Anybody out there going to be insulted by the new phrase?  I think it's a pretty safe bet that the answer to that one is a resounding 'no.'

 

I think there could possibly be some native americans that like the team name.  Seems like some could view it as a badge of honor.  Maybe they would be offended (maybe offended is a bit strong, but let down is possible) if the name changed.

post #51 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremie Boop View Post
 

No, but they may ban sitting that way if someone is physically unable to do it, haha. Just being facetious there but you see what I'm saying. I also know it's not ok to refer to a meeting as a "pow wow" because it offended someone. Some things make sense to change or remove and others don't. I think the main point I have against forcing the Redskins to change their name is what I already stated. If it's not acceptable then they should also change the name of any Native American school's mascot that's Redskins. I'll never agree with the "ok for me but not you" stance.

This might be a good time for me to restate that I'm not really in the camp of forcing them to change their name either.  I think that I might be of the same opinion that I had in regards to Tiger at the Masters.

 

It was something like ... "He should definitely not be DQ'd, but, boy, would it make him look good if he withdrew."

 

I think it might be a good PR move if Snyder chose, on his own, to change the name.  Speak with some of the most vocal Indian opposition to the name and try to come up with an alternative name that makes them proud.  I tried to find an example but not a lot of the area tribes - according to wikipedia - have names that roll off the tongue.  The Washington Tutelo??

 

-------------------------

 

Jeremie, here is another paragraph from your link that I think sums it up really well too:

 

"The name of a certain pro football team in Washington, D.C., has inspired protests, hearings, editorials, lawsuits, letters from Congress, even a presidential nudge. Yet behind the headlines, it's unclear how many Native Americans think "Redskins" is a racial slur.

 

Perhaps this uncertainty shouldn't matter — because the word has an undeniably racist history, or because the team says it uses the word with respect, or because in a truly decent society, some would argue, what hurts a few should be avoided by all."

 

Changing the name voluntarily would be the "decent" thing to do.

post #52 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by 14ledo81 View Post
 

I think there could possibly be some native americans that like the team name.  Seems like some could view it as a badge of honor.  Maybe they would be offended (maybe offended is a bit strong, but let down is possible) if the name changed.

To this I would agree its possible, but then I'd also just repeat this other argument.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 

Couldn't you make this same argument in regards to slurs for black people?

 

They would be a minority, but since we're just cherry-picking anyway, I would bet you could find some that would think it was cool.

 

That is not a very strong case for it being right, though.

post #53 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 

This might be a good time for me to restate that I'm not really in the camp of forcing them to change their name either.  I think that I might be of the same opinion that I had in regards to Tiger at the Masters.

 

It was something like ... "He should definitely not be DQ'd, but, boy, would it make him look good if he withdrew."

 

I think it might be a good PR move if Snyder chose, on his own, to change the name.  Speak with some of the most vocal Indian opposition to the name and try to come up with an alternative name that makes them proud.  I tried to find an example but not a lot of the area tribes - according to wikipedia - have names that roll off the tongue.  The Washington Tutelo??

 

-------------------------

 

Jeremie, here is another paragraph from your link that I think sums it up really well too:

 

"The name of a certain pro football team in Washington, D.C., has inspired protests, hearings, editorials, lawsuits, letters from Congress, even a presidential nudge. Yet behind the headlines, it's unclear how many Native Americans think "Redskins" is a racial slur.

 

Perhaps this uncertainty shouldn't matter — because the word has an undeniably racist history, or because the team says it uses the word with respect, or because in a truly decent society, some would argue, what hurts a few should be avoided by all."

 

Changing the name voluntarily would be the "decent" thing to do.

The more we change things to suit the few the more dangerous the precedent we set is. This is why I think that in order for something to be changed there needs to be consensus among those that it is supposed to offend. That's why I said if there was a way of showing that most or at the very least a large number of Native Americans are offended by the team name that it should be changed, but also that any team with the same name should also be forced to change their name. "Geek Squad" could easily be considered an offensive name because the tern "Geek" has been used as a derogatory name for both smart people and people with deformities and/or body modifications. If people came forward pushing for that name to be changed should it be?

post #54 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremie Boop View Post
 

The more we change things to suit the few the more dangerous the precedent we set is. This is why I think that in order for something to be changed there needs to be consensus among those that it is supposed to offend. That's why I said if there was a way of showing that most or at the very least a large number of Native Americans are offended by the team name that it should be changed, but also that any team with the same name should also be forced to change their name. "Geek Squad" could easily be considered an offensive name because the tern "Geek" has been used as a derogatory name for both smart people and people with deformities and/or body modifications. If people came forward pushing for that name to be changed should it be?

Again with the slippery slope ... oy.

 

And regarding your last hypothetical, it's silly to make the argument that "geek" could offend smart people, because that is not a defined group.  It's completely arbitrary.  But for arguments sake, lets say the term does refer to people with deformities (I didn't know that) ... then the answer to your last question would be sure.  We just did that with the term "retarded" several years ago, no?  Is NOT saying that as an insult to people really a burden on others?  Of course not.  We're going through the 'transformation' right now with getting people to stop saying "gay" as a negative or derogatory term.  These aren't bad things.

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