PDA

View Full Version : Article Obama To Redskins: Change the Name


SteelerEmpire
10-06-2013, 02:35 AM
Article:

In response to a remark from President Barack Obama that owner Daniel Snyder should think about changing the name “...

LINK: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/10/05/redskins-go-on-offensive-in-defending-team-name/

Bane
10-06-2013, 10:23 AM
This'll happen within the next decade.

Personally, I give it 5 years, with a low of 2.

Atlanta Dan
10-06-2013, 10:44 AM
Lanny Davis, go to attorney for sleazy clients, has been retained by Snyder to push back at Obama on the Redskins name issue

"The name 'Washington Redskins' is 80 years old. It's our history and legacy and tradition," Davis said in an emailed statement in which he also identified himself as an Obama supporter. "We Redskins fans sing 'Hail to the Redskins' every Sunday as a word of honor, not disparagement."

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/53193234/ns/politics/#.UlF2flMXe-0

Representing Snyder is a good fit for Mr. Davis

After decades of work for some of this country’s most powerful lobbying firms, Lanny J. Davis, the lawyer who once helped defend President Bill Clinton from impeachment, is suddenly scrambling to defend himself. ...

Since leaving the White House, Mr. Davis has built a client list that now includes coup supporters in Honduras, a dictator in Equatorial Guinea, for-profit colleges accused of exploiting students, and a company that dominates the manufacture of additives for infant formula. ...

Mr. Davis has become a kind of front man for the dark side, willing to take on some of the world’s least noble companies and causes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/31/world/31davis.html?pagewanted=all

GBMelBlount
10-06-2013, 10:54 AM
Sure we will hit 20 trillion in debt and this country is toast but thank God we hired a lawyer / community organizer for the most important job on the planet so he can champion PC for the 10% of indians who are offended by the name "Redskins."

Bane
10-06-2013, 11:13 AM
Sure we will hit 20 trillion in debt and this country is toast but thank God we hired a lawyer / community organizer for the most important job on the planet so he can champion PC for the 10% of indians who are offended by the name "Redskins."

Uh, what?

Snyder hired the lawyer. And the debt has nothing to do with this. Let's not drag irrelevant arguments into it.

GBMelBlount
10-06-2013, 11:32 AM
Uh, what?

Snyder hired the lawyer. And the debt has nothing to do with this. Let's not drag irrelevant arguments into it.

This is called putting things in perspective Bane.

A good manager works on solving the most important problems.

In the scheme of things this issue is ridiculously minor and the lengths this country goes in the name of PC while the country is otherwise falling apart boggles my mind.

So do you agree with Obama and Florio on this?

Bane
10-06-2013, 11:35 AM
I stand on the fence as far as this issue goes.

On one hand, it's a private organization, so Snyder's allowed to call them whatever he wants.

On the other, if you're going to use a term that uses the color of a group of peoples' skin to "honor" them (I don't care what argument you come up with, that will never make sense), don't bitch when people get upset. As I'm not one to get offended easily, not to mention the fact that I don't have an ounce of Native American blood in me, naturally, I'm not offended. But they're not me, so I'm not surprised that people are offended that Dan Snyder thinks using the color of their skin to honor them is going to happen smoothly.

That said, I have been doing a bit of research, and, uh... That name:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_(slang)

"Redskin" is a racial descriptor for Native Americans, the origins of which are disputed. Although by some accounts not originally having negative intent,[1] the term is now defined by dictionaries of American English as "usually offensive",[2] "disparaging",[3][4] "insulting",[5] "taboo" [6] and is avoided in public usage with the exception of its continued use as a name for sports teams.

The term derives from the use of "red" as a color metaphor for race following European colonization of the Western Hemisphere, although initial explorers and later Anglo-Americans termed Native Americans light-skinned, brown, tawny, or russet. According to historian Alden T. Vaughan, "Not until the middle of the eighteenth century did most Anglo-Americans view Indians as significantly different in color from themselves, and not until the nineteenth century did red become the universally accepted color label for American Indians."[7] Slang identifiers for ethnic groups based upon physical characteristics, including skin color, are almost universally slurs, or derogatory, emphasizing the difference between the speaker and the target.[8]

A linguistic analysis of books published between 1875 and 1930 show an increasingly negative context in the use of redskin, often in association with "dirty", "lying", etc.; while benign or positive usage such as "noble" redskin were used in a condescending manner.[9] The term continued in common use until the 1960s, as evidenced in Western movies, but is now largely considered a pejorative and is seldom used publicly (aside from the football team - see below). As with any term perceived to be discriminatory, different individuals may hold differing opinions of the term's appropriateness.[17]

These coupled with the argument that redskin originated from the blood covering the scalps the white hunters would cut from their Native American targets (if this is even true, as this is a point which the Wikipedia article disputes) sum up a pretty disgustingly eye-opening defense against the term.

As I said, it's Snyder's business, he can do what he wants with it. But I'll be damned if that isn't, to put it shortly, shitty. Especially given his half-assed "tradition" and "honor" arguments.

Bane
10-06-2013, 11:42 AM
This is called putting things in perspective Bane.

A good manager works on solving the most important problems.

In the scheme of things this issue is ridiculously minor and the lengths this country goes in the name of PC while the country is otherwise falling apart boggles my mind.

So do you agree with Obama and Florio on this?

Honestly, I don't think it puts anything in perspective when Obama is simply issuing a few statements about something. Sure, this isn't as big of a problem as some of the other current issues, I'll never argue that. But, it's still an issue going on in America, and all Obama has done is make some statements on it. It's not like the short amount of time could have made a dent (or even a nick) in the deficit. Hell, from the PFT article about Obama's comment, it says he was asked about this in an interview, so that eliminates any problem anyone really should have with Obama "taking time" to comment on it.

Anyway, my post following yours wasn't necessarily in response to your post, just dumb luck on my behalf, I guess, but it's where I stand on the subject. As I'm not a Redskins fan, nor am I a Native American, I don't have a horse in this race. When I was really young, I disliked the team because I thought their name sounded gross (I never understood why a team would want to be identified by skin, as the name kind of came off to me like they were wearing human skin- odd, I know, but I was a child).

Like I said, I'm not really offended easily, and I don't really see why others really are. But, at the same time, I realize that others aren't me, so it's not beyond reason that others may feel differently about a subject. But given some of the stuff I've dug up from researching the subject, I'm swaying a little more toward the name needing to be changed.

GBMelBlount
10-06-2013, 11:52 AM
Honestly, I don't think it puts anything in perspective when Obama is simply issuing a few statements about something. Sure, this isn't as big of a problem as some of the other current issues, I'll never argue that. But, it's still an issue going on in America, and all Obama has done is make some statements on it. It's not like the short amount of time could have made a dent (or even a nick) in the deficit. Hell, from the PFT article about Obama's comment, it says he was asked about this in an interview, so that eliminates any problem anyone really should have with Obama "taking time" to comment on it.

Anyway, my post following yours wasn't necessarily in response to your post, just dumb luck on my behalf, I guess, but it's where I stand on the subject. As I'm not a Redskins fan, nor am I a Native American, I don't have a horse in this race. When I was really young, I disliked the team because I thought their name sounded gross (I never understood why a team would want to be identified by skin, as the name kind of came off to me like they were wearing human skin- odd, I know, but I was a child).

Like I said, I'm not really offended easily, and I don't really see why others really are. But, at the same time, I realize that others aren't me, so it's not beyond reason that others may feel differently about a subject. But given some of the stuff I've dug up from researching the subject, I'm swaying a little more toward the name needing to be changed.

Fair enough Bane. I appreciate your candor. :drink:

Maybe I'M wrong.

This country is based on freedom of speech and liberty. Let the market decide. If people are that offended they need not attend or watch games.

It just SEEMS to me that PC is always trying to force the agenda of a few over the rights of the majority.

Bane
10-06-2013, 12:00 PM
Fair enough Bane. I appreciate your candor. :drink:

Maybe I'M wrong.

This country is based on freedom of speech and liberty. Let the market decide. If people are that offended they need not attend or watch games.

It just SEEMS to me that PC is always trying to force the agenda of a few over the rights of the majority.

Believe me, I agree. Censorship is a huge pain in the ass, and I'm not a huge fan of the organizations who push it. But, this subject is starting to rub me the wrong way, as well as a lot of the pro-Redskins-name arguments I have been seeing.

The Steelers name is awesome though. :tt04:

NSMaster56
10-06-2013, 12:53 PM
The Redskins shouldn't change their name because El Presidente told them to, they should change it because it is, based on available evidence, offensive.

First and foremost (and as many of you surely know), if you read up on the history of the Skins, it's not pretty. Their owner was notoriously racist and they were the last team to integrate (not so coincidentally also by government mandate).

That fact and that fact alone should be enough to persuade logical minds that the source of the name is tainted (outside from the obvious racial implications).

Comparatively, you don't hear an uproar about the name Kansas City Chiefs, do you? While the name has native roots/implications (although the team was named for the mayor who brought the team to the city), it is far more respectful.

What would be the harm of calling them the Washington Warriors or Redtails?

The first amendment is fine, but so is common sense and compromise.

GBMelBlount
10-06-2013, 01:16 PM
I did not know the owner was racist.

Still, changing a name is not compromise in my opinion.

GodfatherofSoul
10-06-2013, 05:35 PM
The Redskins shouldn't change their name because El Presidente told them to, they should change it because it is, based on available evidence, offensive.

First and foremost (and as many of you surely know), if you read up on the history of the Skins, it's not pretty. Their owner was notoriously racist and they were the last team to integrate (not so coincidentally also by government mandate).

That fact and that fact alone should be enough to persuade logical minds that the source of the name is tainted (outside from the obvious racial implications).

Comparatively, you don't hear an uproar about the name Kansas City Chiefs, do you? While the name has native roots/implications (although the team was named for the mayor who brought the team to the city), it is far more respectful.

What would be the harm of calling them the Washington Warriors or Redtails?

The first amendment is fine, but so is common sense and compromise.


#1 Chiefs isn't a racist name
#2 The Chiefs aren't named after any Native American tribes. They're named after a local politician nicknamed "The Chief"

GodfatherofSoul
10-06-2013, 05:36 PM
and, you should change the title of your thread. Obama didn't order Snyder to change the name, it was a pretty mild suggestion. And, it wasn't some press release, he was asked a question and answered it.

GBMelBlount
10-06-2013, 05:58 PM
and, you should change the title of your thread. Obama didn't order Snyder to change the name, it was a pretty mild suggestion. And, it wasn't some press release, he was asked a question and answered it.

But then it wouldn't stir the pot. :chuckle:

NSMaster56
10-06-2013, 06:27 PM
#1 Chiefs isn't a racist name
#2 The Chiefs aren't named after any Native American tribes. They're named after a local politician nicknamed "The Chief"

:noidea:

I did state both of those things in my post.

Although "Chief" is a term based on olde English/Latin, it is/was widely used to describe for the head of a Native American Tribe.

The connection is clear:

http://content.sportslogos.net/logos/99/3062/full/2aqyixgohws3xwl7zir9.gif

Heck, the Chiefs logo is a Native American arrowhead and they play at Arrowhead Stadium... it's clearly a Native American-related term, but nobody cares because it's much more respectful.

So again, if they renamed themselves the Washington Warriors, they probably wouldn't even need to change their logo.

Just change the dang name.

GBMelBlount
10-06-2013, 07:36 PM
If they REALLY wanted to solve the problem why not change the name to something that had nothing to do with indians...like the

"Washington Casino Alcoholics"

How could that possibly offend anyone? :chuckle:

SkipBayless69
10-07-2013, 08:42 AM
The Redskins shouldn't change their name because El Presidente told them to, they should change it because it is, based on available evidence, offensive.

First and foremost (and as many of you surely know), if you read up on the history of the Skins, it's not pretty. Their owner was notoriously racist and they were the last team to integrate (not so coincidentally also by government mandate).

That fact and that fact alone should be enough to persuade logical minds that the source of the name is tainted (outside from the obvious racial implications).

Comparatively, you don't hear an uproar about the name Kansas City Chiefs, do you? While the name has native roots/implications (although the team was named for the mayor who brought the team to the city), it is far more respectful.

What would be the harm of calling them the Washington Warriors or Redtails?

The first amendment is fine, but so is common sense and compromise.

Everyone was racist 80 years ago.

If Native Americans dont care about the name neither should anyone else.

Atlanta Dan
10-07-2013, 08:46 AM
Everyone was racist 80 years ago.

Maybe not everyone but it certainly was more acceptable

But times change and what was acceptable marketing of a brand back then might not fit now

http://blackgirlsguidetoweightloss.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/aunt-jemima-501.jpg

It is Snyder's franchise and he can do what he wants - so can those who criticize him

Tony Dungy chimes in

“I hope Daniel Snyder does reconsider and change it,” analyst and former Super Bowl-winning coach Tony Dungy said. “The Redskins nickname is offensive to Native Americans. In 2013, we need to get that name changed. … We need to do that. I hope Snyder changes his mind.”

But some disagree

“I think if you change it, you ruin the parallelism of the Cowboys/Redskin rivalry, and you can’t lose that,” National Review’s Rich Lowry said.:chuckle:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/wp/2013/10/07/tony-dungy-meet-the-press-on-redskins-name/

JonM229
10-07-2013, 10:14 AM
All of the sudden, I'm hungry for some racist pancakes

tony hipchest
10-07-2013, 12:18 PM
Yesterday at the International Baloon Festival in Albuquerque, I saw a family of Native Americans (I'd say Pueblo Tribe) all in their NFL gear... 3 of them dressed in Redskins stuff. :hunch:

Atlanta Dan
10-08-2013, 11:11 PM
Maureen Dowd of the NYT sees where this is heading - Snyder needs to take one for the team

Goodell doesn’t want Congress pressing safety issues with the N.F.L. and he doesn’t want to alienate people with bigotry. So why not appease critics on a name? When Snyder vowed last May never to change it, Goodell backed him up, calling the name a “unifying force that stands for strength, courage, pride and respect.” But as the tempest whirled, Goodell has jumped off Dan’s bus.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/09/opinion/dowd-call-an-audible-dan.html?ref=opinion

GBMelBlount
10-08-2013, 11:17 PM
But as the tempest whirled, Goodell has jumped off Dan’s bus.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/09/opinion/dowd-call-an-audible-dan.html?ref=opinion

There's a shocker. :chuckle:

My sister actually lived on an indian reservation for a year.

What does this have to do with your post you ask?

Nothing really.