Post: #26

(09-13-2013 01:48 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  The name is retarded to me.

Using the word "retarded" in such a manner is incredibly offensive to me. It is time for you to retire that word from your vernacular.

Post: #27

The skins do have one of the more controversial names on the surface. But if I am not mistaken, all the Native Indian team nicknames are done as a tribute to the warrior/fighting nature of the Indians, not as a racial slight. I would be pretty interested in finding out if there really are any Native Americans who care all that much. More likely the self righteous progressive types who make stupid issues out of everything are pushing their meaningless agenda again while the country continues to implode. And I would venture to guess that most Indians might actually like being portrayed as strong warriors and on the helmet of a big time football team. I mean its not like the US Irish descendants are calling the Notre Dame Fighting Irish mascot "racist" (and that scrawny little guys is pretty ugly). Little different situation I will admit but come on - maybe I missed it but I didn't see the video that showed Native Americans marching on DC to change the name.

The White Knighting in our lamestream media is at nightmarish levels, even in sports. These guys are 1000x more about pointing out any perceived slight or offense and toeing the PC multiculturalist/victimology line than they are about critical reasoning or objective reporting.

But I am 1/32nd Cheeokee so I approve of the name!! ))

Post: #28

Do Irish people care about Notre Dame being the "Fighting Irish"?

Do Norwegian people care about the Minnesota "Vikings"

Do people from India care about the Cleveland "Indians"

Or, the Cleveland "Browns"

Do black people care that their is a country in Africa called "Niger"???

I would love to know how they came up with that one!!! lol

Post: #29

If people cared there would mass protest of Redskins games with the stadium being devoid of fans.

Oh wait, all of that would never happen.

(09-16-2013 05:00 PM)Giovonny Wrote:  Do Irish people care about Notre Dame being the "Fighting Irish"?

Do Norwegian people care about the Minnesota "Vikings"

Do people from India care about the Cleveland "Indians"

Or, the Cleveland "Browns"

Do black people care that their is a country in Africa called "Niger"???

I would love to know how they came up with that one!!! lol

You forgot the Atlanta "Braves"

Post: #30

Let's not stop there. What about all the tradition of giving fighting aircraft names from the Indian Nation.

Apache

Blackhawk

Or perhaps we should take that a step further and change the weapons names to, such as Tomahawk missiles....

These names are a tribute to the warrior society and fierceness of Native American fighters.

Does anyone for a second believe that the Redskins chose that name to be racially prejudiced and to thumb their nose at Native Americans?

All these different names nowadays.....

It's like people aren't happy unless they have something to be offended about.

Post: #31

Quote:Does anyone for a second believe that the Redskins chose that name to be racially prejudiced and to thumb their nose at Native Americans?

Umm yes. that's precisely what the thread is about. the original owner of the team who designated the name was an open racist.

Having said that, the name is not gonna change and shouldn't. the current owner paid a hefty price for the team, mainly because the redskins are one of the top five brands in professional football.

Post: #32

(09-17-2013 02:08 AM)Bolthouse Wrote:  

Quote:Does anyone for a second believe that the Redskins chose that name to be racially prejudiced and to thumb their nose at Native Americans?

Umm yes. that's precisely what the thread is about. the original owner of the team who designated the name was an open racist.

Having said that, the name is not gonna change and shouldn't. the current owner paid a hefty price for the team, mainly because the redskins are one of the top five brands in professional football.

"Umm yes"

No, the guy didn't choose the name redskins for the purpose of insulting a group of people.

Post: #33

If I were the owner, I'd change it to something even more offensive to piss the other side off.

Post: #34

wow when I lookup "Washington Redskings on Wikipedia I got this (!!!):

"The Washington Redskins are a racist American football team based in the United States that represents Washington, D.C. They are a member of the East Division of the National Football Conference (NFC) in the National Football League (NFL). Its headquarters and training facility are based at Redskins Park in Ashburn, Virginia and the newly built Redskins Complex in Richmond, Virginia respectively. The team's home stadium is FedExField in Landover, Maryland. The Redskins have played more than 1,000 games since 1932. The Redskins have won five NFL Championships (two pre-merger, and three Super Bowls). The franchise has captured 13 NFL divisional titles and six NFL conference championships.[1]"

These progressives PC haters have literally politicized everything!

I guess I'll be using other sources than Wikipedia for my info...always knew it was highly politicized and PC but this is going a little too far..but when I try to Google "Washington Redskins" the entire first page of suggestions is one big link to Wikipedia...WTF?

Post: #35

(09-17-2013 02:08 AM)Bolthouse Wrote:  

Quote:Does anyone for a second believe that the Redskins chose that name to be racially prejudiced and to thumb their nose at Native Americans?

Umm yes. that's precisely what the thread is about. the original owner of the team who designated the name was an open racist.

Having said that, the name is not gonna change and shouldn't. the current owner paid a hefty price for the team, mainly because the redskins are one of the top five brands in professional football.

@Bolthouse - wrong mate. Take your PC 'racist' blinders off for a minute and do some research (and do it outside Wikipedia I'd say, given how apparently PC and political it's become!).

"In 1933, George Preston Marshall, the owner of the team, which was then located in Boston, renamed it the Boston Redskins in honor of the head coach, William "Lone Star" Dietz, an American Indian.³ When the team moved to Washington in 1937 it was renamed the Washington Redskins. George Marshall clearly did not consider the name disparaging."

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagel...02961.html

And why would he? It's lunacy that people on this forum and the general media and public are somehow saying that the name was slapped on the football team as a slur. Please tell me, in the history of sports teams, when were slur words generally used to represent a team and by extension an entire city? (I guess I missed out on the the Atlanta Yellowbelly Redneck Scalliwags or the Boston Drunk Micks years?). They clearly have not been and are typically a sense of pride for any city with a professional team.

It's almost as if you and the PC-army running our corrupt, lying media (and, increasingly, government) think that there's this cabal of all of us non-Native Americans running around sneering "ha had, Washinton Redskins" in some sort of hate-fest. Makes zero sense on any level.

The US is doomed...I see only increased autocratic state control going forward as more and more 'victims' are found and the government's police state needs to get bigger and bigger for everyone's 'protection.' This is yet another example of it.

Anyone with any sense should be taking anything the mainsteam media or politicians claim is 'good' for us with a massive grain of salt these days.

Post: #36

Wow, the PC trolls are doing guerilla warfare now.

Post: #37

Rick Reilly has a common-sense article on ESPN on the absurdity of the situation.

As Roosh pointed out, [narcissistic] rage can and will always be manufactured if need be.

The "outrage" reflects that people haven't been taught how to think and perceive the world around them, but what to think and how to perceive the world.

If Native Americans, as a class, are genuinely offended, then it may be an issue. If they are not, then what is the outrage?

Even if Native Americans are outraged, why? The power of words only exist if people give them power.

An important point made by Reilly's father-in-law is that the country has much, much more important issues to think about. Distractions like this (is it any wonder we are talking about a sports team) serve nothing but to keep the directionless masses content by providing them an issue to express rage or anxiety over.

Why are we not talking about extreme poverty on Indian reservations? Why are not talking about ridiculous approaches the Federal government takes with respects to their historical stewardship of the Native American? Look up some jurisprudence on federal Indian law - some ridiculous stuff. Just studying the approaches to criminal law on reservations (can the tribe/state/federal arrest/convict? Does 4th apply to reservations?) is mind-numbingly tedious.

Those are real and substantive issues face Native Americans, not some name of a football team. Which is why we are talking about it,

Post: #38

...

Post: #39

I just noticed the we will not write or say the name "Washington Redskins" thing today which he mentions in the article. I was listening to some podcast and they kept on referring to the team as the Washington professional football team. So so so so so stupid this whole thing. I liked Reilly "If you are not offended, we will be offended for you" line. I am surprised ESPN allowed him to print this.

Post: #40

They should change their name to the Washington Generals. RGIII is good and all, but they'll be lucky to finish @ 0.500

Post: #41

(09-19-2013 02:05 AM)El_Superbeasto Wrote:  They should change their name to the Washington Generals. RGIII is good and all, but they'll be lucky to finish @ 0.500

The running jokes around DC (lots of Cowboys fans) is playing on his name. Would be unheard of last season such "RG 2 1/2" and "RG Tree" because of his lack of mobility.

Post: #42

(09-19-2013 01:35 AM)2Wycked Wrote:  Rick Reilly has a common-sense article on ESPN on the absurdity of the situation.

As Roosh pointed out, [narcissistic] rage can and will always be manufactured if need be.

The "outrage" reflects that people haven't been taught how to think and perceive the world around them, but what to think and how to perceive the world.

If Native Americans, as a class, are genuinely offended, then it may be an issue. If they are not, then what is the outrage?

Even if Native Americans are outraged, why? The power of words only exist if people give them power.

An important point made by Reilly's father-in-law is that the country has much, much more important issues to think about. Distractions like this (is it any wonder we are talking about a sports team) serve nothing but to keep the directionless masses content by providing them an issue to express rage or anxiety over.

Why are we not talking about extreme poverty on Indian reservations? Why are not talking about ridiculous approaches the Federal government takes with respects to their historical stewardship of the Native American? Look up some jurisprudence on federal Indian law - some ridiculous stuff. Just studying the approaches to criminal law on reservations (can the tribe/state/federal arrest/convict? Does 4th apply to reservations?) is mind-numbingly tedious.

Those are real and substantive issues face Native Americans, not some name of a football team. Which is why we are talking about it,

Well said. This whole thing is a joke fabricated by the PC police and media, and the "diversity" industry who find 'hate' in almost anything these days...

Meanwhile, the Fed decides not to 'taper' bc the US jobs situation is so bad....and its mostly men in the 25-55 age range losing jobs now not women. Meanwhile we're focusing on silly things like gay marriage and the "Redskins" moniker for a professional sports team.

"The net loss of jobs over the summer months has been entirely among men, mostly aged 25 to 54 and university educated. The cohort aged over 55 has been growing, so this is not happening because baby boomers are retiring early and happy to grow cantaloupes in Arkansas, or to play golf at Torrey Pines."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comme...orate.html

Sorry if this is a 'thread derail' but the issues all come together in one big glorious pile of sh*t these days in the US of A (not that the media will report it, being in love with Obama's 'muric and all....)

Post: #43

They really should change their names to the Washington 49'ers, seeing as they're from DC and, has been pointed out, all of the 4s there act like they're 9s.

Post: #44

(09-13-2013 12:30 PM)RioNomad Wrote:  I'm an 8th Cherokee, and I don't give a fuck.

But then again, I don't even like Native Americans, so what do I know?

Is it ok to be openly racist against Natives? I better check into the Gawker media thread and double check if they're a protected class or not....

No it's not okay to be openly racist against natives.

They aren't white are they?

Post: #45

Should we take, "in God we trust" off our money? It's historical. Leave the shit alone.

Post: #46

(09-20-2013 01:49 AM)TexasMade Wrote:  Should we take, "in God we trust" off our money? It's historical. Leave the shit alone.

I agree. Let sleeping dogs lie. Our country has much, much more important issues to worry about.

Besides, the Skins look like shit this year. The last time my Bears played the Skins DeAngelo Hall picked off Cutler four fucking times. Cutler basically gave Hall a Pro Bowl appearance. Which shows how big of joke the Pro Bowl is.

Post: #47

(09-20-2013 01:49 AM)TexasMade Wrote:  Should we take, "in God we trust" off our money? It's historical. Leave the shit alone.

I will say that our government should be completely secular. As most of you know, Lincoln added "In God We Trust" for propaganda purposes during the Civil War. Same with adding "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. It was done during McCarthyism. I really don't give a fuck about either of those things though. However, I do think it's fitting that a scam adorns a scam with our money.

The difference is that the Redskins are a private entity. I don't believe anyone has a right to not be offended. I'm sure that there are plenty of feminists and beta pussies out there who are equally justified in their outrage over this forum referring to women as "Hamsters" in a derogatory manner. If enough fans gave a shit about the Redskins name, the organization would happily change it since it would mean millions in revenue from the new apparel sales.

Post: #48

Even the Wikipedia article mentions: over 90% of all Native American respondents polled--throughout the entire US--had no problem with the name.

If I were a native I'd honestly be more disgusted by non-natives trying to be disgusted in my name. It smacks of paternalism.

Post: #49

Post: #50

The President has given his two pennies on the name controversy





Which the team, speaking through its attorney, hasn't taken so kindly

Quote:Hours after President Barack Obama said he would "think about changing" the Redskins team name because it offends “a sizable group of people," the organization responded in a statement through attorney Lanny Davis.

“As a supporter of President Obama, I am sure the President is not aware that in the highly respected independent Annenberg Institute poll (taken in 2004) with a national sample of Native Americans, 9 out of 10 Native Americans said they were not bothered by the name the ‘Washington Redskins.'" Davis said. "The President made these comments to the Associated Press, but he was apparently unaware that an April 2013 AP poll showed that 8 out of 10 of all Americans in a national sample don't think the Washington Redskins' name should be changed.

"The Redskins respect everyone. But like devoted fans of the Atlanta Braves, the Cleveland Indians and the Chicago Blackhawks (from President Obama's hometown), the fans love their team and its name and, like those fans, they do not intend to disparage or disrespect a racial or ethnic group," Davis continued. "The name ‘Washington Redskins' is 80 years old -- its history and legacy and tradition. The Redskins' fans sing 'Hail to the Redskins' every Sunday as an expression of honor, not disparagement."

It's not clear how Davis' support of Obama has anything to do with whether the president was aware of a nine-year-old Annenberg Institute poll or an AP poll from this spring.

Davis also pointed to other professional sports team -- the Braves, Indians and Blackhawks -- as examples of fans that "love their team and it's name" and is done so with the utmost respect for the "racial or ethnic group" involved while noting that the Redskins name has been in existence for 80 years. "That's how it's always been" is a flimsy defense for maintaining the status quo and, as PFT's Mike Florio writes, "That's like saying, 'No offense is intended' before saying something offensive."

Obama's comments come a month after NFL commissioner Roger Goodell made similar remarks before concluding that ultimately, team owner Dan Snyder's decision.

"If one person's offended, we have to listen," Goodell said. "And ultimately, it is Dan's decision. But it is something that I want all of us to go out and make sure we're listening to our fans, listening to people who have a different view, and making sure that we continue to do what's right to make sure that team represents the strong tradition that it has for so many years."

In May, Snyder spoke in no uncertain terms about the team name.

"We'll never change [it]," he said. "It's that simple. NEVER -- you can use caps."

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-foot...hange-name