• Announcements

    • iacas

      GAME GOLF Ryder Cup Contest   09/22/2016

      Join our GAME GOLF Ryder Cup Challenge to win an autographed GAME GOLF, a Pebble Steel watch, and many more great prizes!
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
newtogolf

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

0  

  1. 1. Should the owners of the Redskins, Blackhawks, Indians be forced to change their teams name?

    • Yes, it's insensitive to American Indians
      25
    • No, it's a non-issue
      25
    • Who cares, this is a golf forum
      10

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

324 posts in this topic

Seems society is all about political correctness these days.  Terms, jokes. ideas, team nick names in professional sports are suddenly being scrutinized to ensure we're being sensitive to the feelings of every special interest group that exists or might exist some day in this country.   I understand now some high brow media types like Bob Costas are refusing to use the word Redskin in their coverage of the team.  He'll still collect money for covering the Redskins, he just won't say the word, what a hypocrite :doh:

So should the owners of the Washington Redskins, Cleveland Indians, Chicago Blackhawks (only to name a few) be forced to change their team name or do people just need to get over themselves?

Before you ask, as an Italian American I'd be perfectly fine if a team had a nickname like NY Wops, Ginney's or Dago's for over 50 years and their owners didn't want to change it.   I also wasn't offended that the Soprano's portrayed Italians as having association with organized crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Want to get rid of this advertisement? Sign up (or log in) today! It's free!

I think we need to be moving towards political correctness. But the name is not very high on the agenda. Let's begin with religion and politics. Then race

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno. Native Americans have gotten a pretty raw deal the past 500 years. I don't think it would be the worst thing in the world to not use their likenesses for our entertainment. Spreading around love and happiness and all that. And give me a break with the "forced to change their team name" thing. Snyder will change names the moment he sees the name hurting his bottom line, and not a second before. No one's holding a gun to his head. Neither Mayland (where the team is headquartered) nor the U.S. Congress is passing a law banning the usage of the word "redskin." [quote name="Golfingdad" url="/t/70604/political-correctness-how-far-should-it-go-should-the-washington-redskins-change-their-name/0_30#post_909000"]With all props to @k-troop because he is the one who told me about this on Sunday ... yes, they definitely should, their name is EXTREMELY offensive!!! ... [URL=http://www.theonion.com/articles/washington-redskins-change-their-name-to-the-dc-re,34161/]http://www.theonion.com/articles/washington-redskins-change-their-name-to-the-dc-re,34161/[/URL] :beer: [/quote] Heh, I saw that a few days ago. Funny stuff. :-P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Political Correctness run amok.

People spend waaaay too much time actively looking for reasons to be offended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

In all seriousness ... I would vote no.**  Not emphatically, because, after all, if they did change their name, who would they be offending?  And the name "Redskins" does sound potentially offensive, but I'd have to hear from some actual Indians who said it bothered them first.  (Not Bob Costas).

**Mid-post edit:  I just went and looked up the definition of redskin on dictionary.com.  It is referred to as a "noun; slang .. often disparaging and offensive." I think I now am going to say yes. Not terribly emphatically, because if Bob Costas is the only person bothered by it, then I'm not bothered by it.  But if there are native American Indians out there who are offended by it, then we should probably not be celebrating it.  Maybe an equivalent would be the "El Paso Wetbacks." Pretty sure nobody would go for that.  Or the "Mississippi Rednecks?"

We can all agree that political correctness goes too far in a lot of cases, but if Indians out there are hurt by us celebrating an old offensive moniker, is it really that much to ask us to stop using it?  Heck, they had no problem changing their basketball teams name from Bullets to Wizards, and I'm pretty sure there was no ammo crying over that one.  Harry Potter, on the other hand, is pretty pissed right now, I hear.  (Not because they are called the Wizards, but because they are called the Wizards and they suck. ;))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I always thought it odd when so many college teams decided, under pressure, to change their mascots that the Redskins were given a free pass. Stanford Indians, St. Johns Redmen, Seattle Univ. Chieftains, to name just a few. I don't have a problem with a mascot that denotes a positive or neutral image (Braves, Indians, Chiefs) but Redskins is such a derogatory term, I am surprised that it has stayed on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 2004 American Indians were polled about the name and at that time they were okay with it.  It will be interesting to see if in 2013 they suddenly have a problem with it.

As for Snyder, he's a business man, so he's motivated by what makes financial sense and today he's not financially motivated to change the name and I really don't think Redskin fans are all that concerned about the nickname either especially since they would be the real losers if the name was changed.  All those $100+ jerseys and other fan related items that would be worthless if they change the name.

I personally find the Cleveland Indians logo more offensive than the Redskins name or logo but they don't seem to be under fire like the Redskins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

It's like calling African Americans black. Yet that stayed on. And about the above quote on non derogatory names, my highschool is the warriors and we run around in feathered chief hats. Also, today while taking the past I noticed when you bubble in your race it has all the technical names and then for white it says white. Seems like reverse racism. I've always seen it as cacasian and African American or I've seen it as black and white. Seems weird

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought it odd when so many college teams decided, under pressure, to change their mascots that the Redskins were given a free pass. Stanford Indians, St. Johns Redmen, Seattle Univ. Chieftains, to name just a few. I don't have a problem with a mascot that denotes a positive or neutral image (Braves, Indians, Chiefs) but Redskins is such a derogatory term, I am surprised that it has stayed on.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing.  Just regular old names aren't/shouldn't be offensive.  The ones you mention, also Utes, Sioux, etc, to me seem fine.

Heck, I think the Indians (Cleveland) did actually get rid of their somewhat condescendingly cartoonish "Chief Wahoo" mascot guy a few years ago, didn't they?  EDIT:  Based on @newtogolf 's latest post, apparently not. ;)

I'm 6'-3" 270 lbs, and I'm not at all offended by the San Francisco Giants. :)  (I am very offended by the New York Giants though!)

And I also agree with @jamo ... in the case of the Indians, we've been pretty much screwing them for, like, 500 years ... so it seems like if they're offended, then changing the name of the Redskins is, like, the least we could do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

And I also agree with @jamo ... in the case of the Indians, we've been pretty much screwing them for, like, 500 years ... so it seems like if they're offended, then changing the name of the Redskins is, like, the least we could do.

Usually people that are on the losing end of a war get screwed.  You think if they had won the war and controlled the country they'd have set up reservations and casino's for us?

Ask the PLO how well they are being treated over in Israel.  I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just pointing out that when countries are overtaken the population of the losing side isn't usually treated very well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing.  Just regular old names aren't/shouldn't be offensive.  The ones you mention, also Utes, Sioux, etc, to me seem fine. Heck, I think the Indians (Cleveland) did actually get rid of their somewhat condescendingly cartoonish "Chief Wahoo" mascot guy a few years ago, didn't they?  EDIT:  Based on @newtogolf 's latest post, apparently not. ;)

They've used the Chief Wahoo logo less in recent years. They use the "C" logo on away hats and on their batting helmets home and away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

.........so what are we to do with the common variety of Redskin peanuts?

Maybe cover them with chocolate. Oh dear, can we say chocolate without offending people of East Indian origin?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Redskin image if fine, but the word is not. The Cleveland Indians name is fine, but the image is not.

The origin of the term redskin is grisly, relating to "injun fighters" bringing in Native American body parts to collect an extermination bounty.

If the Washington owner changed the name from Redskins to a local Indian tribe, and kept the logo, I think everyone would be happy.

The Florida State Seminoles have survived, in part because a number of FSU students and alums are tribal members.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Anyone remember this?

Times change, yes, but sometimes political correctness goes too far.

I don't care enough to know how I feel about the Redskins. A part of me thinks it feels too much like people looking for a reason to be offended. And another part of me says "just change it" because I can't think of a good reason to dig your heels in on this fight. It's not like there's a moral high ground on which to stand here, or a principle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

It's like calling African Americans black. Yet that stayed on. And about the above quote on non derogatory names, my highschool is the warriors and we run around in feathered chief hats. Also, today while taking the past I noticed when you bubble in your race it has all the technical names and then for white it says white. Seems like reverse racism. I've always seen it as cacasian and African American or I've seen it as black and white. Seems weird

What term do we use when they live in Finland? African Finns?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing.  Just regular old names aren't/shouldn't be offensive.  The ones you mention, also Utes, Sioux, etc, to me seem fine. Heck, I think the Indians (Cleveland) did actually get rid of their somewhat condescendingly cartoonish "Chief Wahoo" mascot guy a few years ago, didn't they?  EDIT:  Based on @newtogolf 's latest post, apparently not. ;) I'm 6'-3" 270 lbs, and I'm not at all offended by the San Francisco Giants. :)  (I am very offended by the New York Giants though!) And I also agree with @jamo ... in the case of the Indians, we've been pretty much screwing them for, like, 500 years ... so it seems like if they're offended, then changing the name of the Redskins is, like, the least we could do.

I would not say they have been getting screwed so badly. The federal government gives them quite a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2016 TST Partners

    GAME Golf
    PING Golf
    Lowest Score Wins
  • Posts

    • 27/6   Player Unable to Find His Ball Because Another Player Played It Q.A and B hit their tee shots into the same general area. A found a ball and played it. B went forward to look for his ball and could not find it. After a few minutes, B started back to the tee to put another ball into play. On the way, he found A's ball and knew then that A had played his (B's) ball in error. What is the ruling? A.In match play, A lost the hole (Rule 15-3a). In stroke play, A incurred a penalty of two strokes for playing a wrong ball and must then play his own ball (Rule 15-3b). A's ball was not lost even if A and B had been searching for more than five minutes because A had not "begun to search for it (his ball)"; the searching had been for B's ball - see Definition of "Lost Ball." On the other hand, B began to search for his ball as soon as he went forward to look for it. If less than five minutes had elapsed before B found A's ball, B should have placed a ball on the spot from which A had wrongly played his (B's) ball and continued play, without penalty - see last paragraph of Rule 15-3b. However, if five minutes had expired, B's original ball was lost and he was obliged to put another ball into play under penalty of stroke and distance (Rule 27-1).
    • No offense, but in my opinion this makes you unprepared to discuss it.
    • Every year, something is changed in a club design.  The real differences are minimal, assuming your current clubs are from within the last 10 or so years (just throwing out a random number).

      However, I just got upgraded to the Ping G driver from the Ping G30, and the big change I noticed is the face of the driver has a bit more friction on the G (at least as I understand it).  What it seems to do is reduce side spin, while retaining normal-ish back spin (I use the low-spin tec version).  When I miss-hit a drive with my old driver vs the newer one, I see noticeably less slice or hook with the newer version.
        When I go through those articles, I mostly read through the reviews of them.  It gives a better idea of what might be better.
    • Right, but then you're just getting into however different people value different things (including money, the performance of their golf clubs, the looks of the golf clubs, the value of a name brand, etc.). People have different values. For something like this, there's rarely any agreement on those, nor is there any "right" or "wrong" answers. I use a set of muscle backs that could just as easily be from the 1950s as now. The tech on those isn't really improving much (though the shafts are undoubtedly much better).
    • We went round and round a bit on this last year, but I don't remember seeing decision 15-3b/1 mentioned.  The difference between this decision and 27/6 seems to be that B's ball is found in a timely manner.  The finding of the "other" ball makes it virtually certain that A's ball was moved by an outside agency (Player B).  In the other thread, B's ball is never found.  27/6 allows the same kind of relief as long as the "other" ball is found within the 5-minute search limit.  As I read the rules and decisions, this is a timing issue,  the rules require a decision to be made within 5 minutes of beginning the search for A's ball.  If the "other ball" isn't found, its presumed lost.   In a way this is somewhat similar to another discussion we had, where a player's ball apparently hit a cart path and went much further than anticipated.  He searched and didn't find it at the expected distance, went back and played another tee shot for the lost ball, and eventually found the original much closer to the green.  He couldn't then put the original into play and "negate" the second tee ball, as he'd already searched for 5 minutes. I don't know if the difference in the timing of the discovery is adequate justification for the different outcomes, but that seems to me to be the defining factor.  It would be interesting to get the take of some of the USGA rules experts on this, not on what the rules say, but on why they draw the distinction.
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Images

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. bandstan
      bandstan
      (46 years old)
    2. boobiemiles
      boobiemiles
      (25 years old)
    3. ElsieOlson
      ElsieOlson
      (77 years old)
    4. Matt66
      Matt66
      (26 years old)
  • Blog Entries