Redskins

[junglehusky]

Well Farmington High school is still the Indians, I believe, they've been talking about changing the name since I was there 20 years ago and the reactionary "tradition" argument has always won out. To me, that line always had me scratching my head, it's not like any of the students there were legitimately aware of FHS sports history or even cared that much about the football or soccer team's record. And the principal at the time went about it the exact wrong way, suggesting a lame-ass nickname like the "academics" so of course people throw a fit at that.

But even for Washington, the tradition argument doesn't hold much water these days. Traditions and brands can change. People gripe about it for a year, then 90% of the people who were complaining go back to rooting for the team and everybody else gets on with their lives. Kind of like the UConn logo change.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

There is nothing offensive about names like: Indians, Warriors, Braves, Fighting Sioux, etc.

Even people who think soccer is HUGE in the US think they should change the name. (that's for you Zoo)

 

[BlueDogs]

How about we just stop the insanity and see it for what it is - part of the new grievance based culture where everyone has to be offended by something. I'm waiting for Crusaders, Knights, Devils, and other names to be banned as culturally insensitive. Giants should go too because it hurts the feelings of little people. Then, we will have PETA banning animal names as being exploitive.

Of all the nasty bullshIt we have going on in this world, this is the defining issue of our time? Even native Americans were not offended until somebody decided that they needed to be offended.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

How about we just stop the insanity and see it for what it is - part of the new grievance based culture where everyone has to be offended by something. I'm waiting for Crusaders, Knights, Devils, and other names to be banned as culturally insensitive. Giants should go too because it hurts the feelings of little people. Then, we will have PETA banning animal names as being exploitive.

Of all the nasty bull we have going on in this world, this is the defining issue of our time? Even native Americans were not offended until somebody decided that they needed to be offended.

I generally agree with this stance but in this specific instance you're simply wrong.

 

[BlueDogs]

I generally agree with this stance but in this specific instance you're simply wrong.

Understand, But, the name has been around a long, long time and it seems to me the name has been substantially transformed to a non-offensive meaning and to actually the opposite. It would be one thing if the word was used in common discourse in a pejorative way, but I really don't think that is remotely the case and hasn't been in use or circulation for a very log time. Words do acquire other meanings over time. If I thought it really was something intended to be nasty and demeaning, would agree with you.

 

[junglehusky]

How about we just stop the insanity and see it for what it is - part of the new grievance based culture where everyone has to be offended by something. I'm waiting for Crusaders, Knights, Devils, and other names to be banned as culturally insensitive. Giants should go too because it hurts the feelings of little people. Then, we will have PETA banning animal names as being exploitive.

Of all the nasty bull we have going on in this world, this is the defining issue of our time? Even native Americans were not offended until somebody decided that they needed to be offended.

Is there anything weaker than a slippery slope argument? Anyway, to answer your question, yes, all of us in the liberal commie conspiracy network will "stop the insanity" as soon as the religious christian majority stop whining every time someone says Happy Holidays instead of Merry CHRISTmas, as if christianity is so fragile it can't take someone just suggesting the possibility of following another religion.

 

[BlueDogs]

Is there anything weaker than a slippery slope argument? Anyway, to answer your question, yes, all of us in the liberal commie conspiracy network will "stop the insanity" as soon as the religious christian majority stop whining every time someone says Happy Holidays instead of Merry CHRISTmas, as if christianity is so fragile it can't take someone just suggesting the possibility of following another religion.

Words by definition are slippery slopes. They derive meaning by context and shared understanding, and they can and do change over time. Otherwise, we would still be speaking Old English. In terms of a grievance based society, I have no doubt many agree in that point.

In terms of "Happy Holidays", I really don't want to get into that. A simple reading of the many formative documents of this country detail very well what the cultural basis is for our society and the framers (by any stretch of the imagination) made it clear that the underpinning of a free and democratic republic was rooted in Christianity and its general acceptance. If you bother to read Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists which has the "wall between church and state" language you would find its intent was not what modern day liberals have coopted it to mean. But, this is an argument I fear as no end to it.

 

[Adios]

Let's call the New England Patriots or the Washington Redskins the Whiteys (Puritans and Virginia colony). They were the true intruders, right? lol

Seriously, "Indian" is derogatory. And I say that being of actual Indian blood. As in the real India. You know, the correct one. The one over in Asia, the one the sailors were looking for, after all? No, we are not all dark. My father is paler than many Europeans.

 

[amory]

How about we just stop the insanity and see it for what it is - part of the new grievance based culture where everyone has to be offended by something. I'm waiting for Crusaders, Knights, Devils, and other names to be banned as culturally insensitive. Giants should go too because it hurts the feelings of little people. Then, we will have PETA banning animal names as being exploitive.

Of all the nasty bull we have going on in this world, this is the defining issue of our time? Even native Americans were not offended until somebody decided that they needed to be offended.

Unless you're a native american, you don't really get to decide what native americans are and aren't offended by. I understand that political correctness can go overboard in a lot of cases, but this isn't one of those cases.

In 2014, there should not be a professional sports team in America called the "Redskins". In the grand scheme of things it might be a minor issue, but it's something that should be addressed.

 

[Adios]

Words by definition are slippery slopes. They derive meaning by context and shared understanding, and they can and do change over time. Otherwise, we would still be speaking Old English. In terms of a grievance based society, I have no doubt many agree in that point.

In terms of "Happy Holidays", I really don't want to get into that. A simple reading of the many formative documents of this country detail very well what the cultural basis is for our society and the framers (by any stretch of the imagination) made it clear that the underpinning of a free and democratic republic was rooted in Christianity and its general acceptance. If you bother to read Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists which has the "wall between church and state" language you would find its intent was not what modern day liberals have coopted it to mean. But, this is an argument I fear as no end to it.

Some of the colonies were founded as a result of seeking religious freedom. You know many of the Founding Fathers were Deists, correct? The US is a complete separation of religion and government, other than culture influencing the existence of some rights, such as the right to own slaves. The Puritans even approved of slavery early on. For thousands of years, this was a land of sophisticated gatherer-hunters. But now, it's just a Christian country, according to some. Others even say the Constitution was influenced by the way the natives lived.

 

[ZooCougar]

Words by definition are slippery slopes. They derive meaning by context and shared understanding, and they can and do change over time. Otherwise, we would still be speaking Old English. In terms of a grievance based society, I have no doubt many agree in that point.

In terms of "Happy Holidays", I really don't want to get into that. A simple reading of the many formative documents of this country detail very well what the cultural basis is for our society and the framers (by any stretch of the imagination) made it clear that the underpinning of a free and democratic republic was rooted in Christianity and its general acceptance. If you bother to read Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists which has the "wall between church and state" language you would find its intent was not what modern day liberals have coopted it to mean. But, this is an argument I fear as no end to it.

Most of the Framers were Deists.

 

[Adios]

Unless you're a native american, you don't really get to decide what native americans are and aren't offended by. I understand that political correctness can go overboard in a lot of cases, but this isn't one of those cases.

In 2014, there should not be a professional sports team in America called the "Redskins". In the grand scheme of things it might be a minor issue, but it's something that should be addressed.

This dude already proved himself to be insensitive long ago. Might be like talking to a wall.

 

[BlueDogs]

Most of the Framers were Deists.

False revisionist history. The issue was Christian denominational related. The writings of the framers beyond those few usually referenced were Christian. The evidence for this is overwhelming.

 

[BlueDogs]

Lets call it a day and get back to what we all agree upon: Uconn football

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

Let's call the New England Patriots or the Washington Redskins the Whiteys (Puritans and Virginia colony). They were the true intruders, right? lol

Seriously, "Indian" is derogatory. And I say that being of actual Indian blood. As in the real India. You know, the correct one. The one over in Asia, the one the sailors were looking for, after all? No, we are not all dark. My father is paler than many Europeans.

Why is "Indian" offensive?

 

[Alum86]

Boneyard has gone all lefty political correct. Yuk. ND can keep Fighting Irish, stereotype personified, 'cause that's okay because, well, you know......

 

[Sky ball]

Q; Just WHO is so upset about the Redskin name? I don't see huge rallies of American Indians protesting this? Are these the same people who do not want "Under God" used by any government entity or people like the principal at the high school who did not want the Pledge of Allegiance said before a school function as it may offend the foreign students? How about NOT wearing a T-shirt with the American flag on Cinco de Mayo? I am Irish and I am offended by the Notre Dame's logo of a Fighting Irishman! Really..is that next PC move?

 

[Bonehead]

I'm offended by many posts on this board - but I pull my britches up and accept others stupidity like a man. Directed to no one in particular and everyone.

Serious post - Redskin is a name of a team and not being used in derogatory manner as the N word is usually used in today's society. I have never heard Redskin used except as the name of a football team - never. I have spent 5 years in the service - mostly out west with men and women from all over the country and I never heard it used. I have heard rap music - never heard it used. I am on the side of over reaction at this point. Yes there is a group of Native Americans that want it changed and there is a part of me that understands but this is where it gets sloppy - everyone is offended by something. There were a group of UConn students offended by the new Husky logo. If the word is that offensive why is it used by ESPN, NFL and every news network? You would never hear the N word on TV. Thug can't be used as people say it replaces the N word.

I could find many names offensive - and/or mascots but those things seem to not bother me but bother others. I believe the Atlanta Brave was an issue at one point. I guess I am old school on this, not saying I don't understand just don't know where it will stop.

 

[junglehusky]

False revisionist history. The issue was Christian denominational related. The writings of the framers beyond those few usually referenced were Christian. The evidence for this is overwhelming.

The majority of them may have been Christian, but they all agreed that the majority would not use the State to institute religion. This included the evangelical denominations, who at the time were a minority and probably wouldn't have appreciated the new government establishing, say, Quakerism as the official flavor of Christianity, even though evangelizing is central to their church. All the religious groups eventually realized the only way to guarantee religious freedom for all of the diverse denominations was to keep government out of the churchin' business. Separation of church and State isn't about diminishing Christianity or any other religion, it's actually the mechanism by which religious freedom flourishes in this country. This is why you see documents of the time refer to "Divine Providence" rather than "God", and there are a grand total of zero references to Jesus in the Constitution. If they wanted to establish Christianity as the official religion of the State, you'd think they would have mentioned it in there somewhere!

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

I knew this thread never stood a chance.

 

[MilliniumPrince]

Understand, But, the name has been around a long, long time and it seems to me the name has been substantially transformed to a non-offensive meaning and to actually the opposite. It would be one thing if the word was used in common discourse in a pejorative way, but I really don't think that is remotely the case and hasn't been in use or circulation for a very log time. Words do acquire other meanings over time. If I thought it really was something intended to be nasty and demeaning, would agree with you.

Slavery was around for a long time too. Hell, in South Carolina it is still technically legal to beat your wife as long as you do it t on State Grounds. "Tradition" or "it has always been that way" have always been terrible reasons to continue bigotry. Having the team representing the nation's capital named as a word recognized as a racial slur for over a century is a damn shame.

 

[junglehusky]

I'm offended by many posts on this board - but I pull my britches up and accept others stupidity like a man. Directed to no one in particular and everyone.

Serious post - Redskin is a name of a team and not being used in derogatory manner as the N word is usually used in today's society. I have never heard Redskin used except as the name of a football team - never. I have spent 5 years in the service - mostly out west with men and women from all over the country and I never heard it used. I have heard rap music - never heard it used. I am on the side of over reaction at this point. Yes there is a group of Native Americans that want it changed and there is a part of me that understands but this is where it gets sloppy - everyone is offended by something. There were a group of UConn students offended by the new Husky logo. If the word is that offensive why is it used by ESPN, NFL and every news network? You would never hear the N word on TV. Thug can't be used as people say it replaces the N word.

I could find many names offensive - and/or mascots but those things seem to not bother me but bother others. I believe the Atlanta Brave was an issue at one point. I guess I am old school on this, not saying I don't understand just don't know where it will stop.

For what it's worth, if you read the actual essay on the Husky logo, it's not actually about the logo.

As far as the Redskins name, you may want to read up on the Phips Proclamation, which was issued by the Lt. Governor of Massachussetts in 1755, which put a literal bounty on the scalps of Penobscot Indians. As in, if you went out and killed an Indian, cut off his scalp and hair and brought it to the Governor, they gave you twenty pounds. Now I don't know if this is the actual origin of the term Redskins. However, I wouldn't argue with those Native Americans who believe it is (but then, I try not to be an unless it's for a good reason).

 

[ConnHuskBask]

I really, really hate political correctness and normally take the stance that people being " offended" is laughable.

That being said, the name "Redskin" seems pretty bad.

Maybe it's not so much the actual name but the treatment of the native Americans throughout history and fighting this fight may shed some light onto their plight.

They got rid of Chief Wahoo because it was pretty ridiculous and it seems Redskin is next.

Again, I hate the PC world we live in, but come on, this is kind of over the top.

 

[HuskyV]

Who is a racist? This was a funny scene on HBO's Silicon Valley

Need to watch on youtube, search:
Racist Mexican (Silicon Valley S01E05)

 

[ZooCougar]

False revisionist history. The issue was Christian denominational related. The writings of the framers beyond those few usually referenced were Christian. The evidence for this is overwhelming.

Cite some evidence then. Pretty hard to be educated in those days and not be at least influenced by Deist philosophy. These days the bible bangers would have you believe that the framers acted like southern baptists and ate at Cracker Barrell.

 

[BlueDogs]

Cite some evidence then. Pretty hard to be educated in those days and not be at least influenced by Deist philosophy. These days the bible bangers would have you believe that the framers acted like southern baptists and ate at Cracker Barrell.

Would be happy too. In fact there are US Supreme Court and a variety of state Supreme Court decisions in our early history that explicitly reference this basic point. And, there even someone modern affirmations up to the 1940s. As well, numerous signers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights reference this essential fact in their writings. I will dig them up for you. I would caution that stereotyping folks as those who cling to bibles and the Constitution as redneck crackle barrel lovers is not persuasive.

 

[UkonCornelius]

Native Americans don't find it offensive. Do the research before making naive statements

 

[John]

Native Americans don't find it offensive. Do the research before making naive statements

now you're just being silly.

 

[Adios]

Why is "Indian" offensive?

Because India is in Asia...

The Washington Algonquinians has a great ring to it.

 

[Adios]

For what it's worth, if you read the actual essay on the Husky logo, it's not actually about the logo.

As far as the Redskins name, you may want to read up on the Phips Proclamation, which was issued by the Lt. Governor of Massachussetts in 1755, which put a literal bounty on the scalps of Penobscot Indians. As in, if you went out and killed an Indian, cut off his scalp and hair and brought it to the Governor, they gave you twenty pounds. Now I don't know if this is the actual origin of the term Redskins. However, I wouldn't argue with those Native Americans who believe it is (but then, I try not to be an unless it's for a good reason).

20 pounds was good money back then.

I propose we revise what we call the natives and call them North Koreans!