US Patent Office Cancels Redskins Football Team Trademark...

  • 164 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for musicalmac
#51 Posted by musicalmac (24894 posts) -

@Makhaidos said:

I don't think it was intentionally meant to be offensive; then again, neither was the name "redskin" in the first place. Nor was the term "Negro." Language evolves. As to what triggers it, figure the answer out to that and you can teach a sociology class.

Are you offended by the team's name? What triggered this recent focus on a professional football team's name?

Avatar image for musicalmac
#52 Posted by musicalmac (24894 posts) -

@Makhaidos said:

Yes. Which is why it's an offensive term that should have no government trademark. Do you know what "redskin" means or infers?

Heh, you didn't answer my question. Try, try, try again. ;)

Avatar image for lostrib
#53 Posted by lostrib (49999 posts) -

@Makhaidos said:

@lostrib said:

@Makhaidos said:

Do ten percent of white people find Yankees to be offensive? Is "Yankee" on the same standing as "Redskin"? Would you be okay with a team called "The Washington Crackers"?

So if we found that 10 percent of white people surveyed found Yankees offensive, you would want to change it?

The point is that polls put it at about 10% of Native Americans find the term "Redskin" offensive

1. Which polls?

2. Way to ignore my point.

3. Why does changing a racist team name bother you so much?

No, you're missing the point. If only like 10% of a population actually finds it offensive, then why should it be forced to change?

Avatar image for surrealnumber5
#54 Posted by surrealnumber5 (23044 posts) -

"damn yanks" is a more known and popularized term than "redskin" that whole civil war thing seemed to have a larger cultural impact than indians ever did. so yes, when compared to yankee, redskin is a poop joke.

i dont have a problem with either, i like language.

Avatar image for Makhaidos
#55 Posted by Makhaidos (2162 posts) -

@musicalmac said:

@Makhaidos said:

Yes. Which is why it's an offensive term that should have no government trademark. Do you know what "redskin" means or infers?

Heh, you didn't answer my question. Try, try, try again. ;)

Your question was, do I know what the term "Cracker" means or infers.

My answer: Yes.

How is that not answering your question?

Or do you want something more elaborate? Okay: The term "Cracker," when applied to a racial context, infers to the cracking of a slave owner's whip. It's a racial epithet.

Now, you answer my question: Do you know what "redskin" means or infers?

Avatar image for musicalmac
#56 Posted by musicalmac (24894 posts) -

@surrealnumber5 said:

i dont have a problem with either, i like language.

I think that's a healthy outlook.

Avatar image for Makhaidos
#57 Edited by Makhaidos (2162 posts) -

@musicalmac said:

@Makhaidos said:

I don't think it was intentionally meant to be offensive; then again, neither was the name "redskin" in the first place. Nor was the term "Negro." Language evolves. As to what triggers it, figure the answer out to that and you can teach a sociology class.

Are you offended by the team's name? What triggered this recent focus on a professional football team's name?

I'm offended by any attempt at racism, sexism, or discriminatory practice, regardless of my own orientation, like all decent people should be. ;)

Avatar image for musicalmac
#58 Edited by musicalmac (24894 posts) -

@Makhaidos said:

Your question was, do I know what the term "Cracker" means or infers.

My answer: Yes.

How is that not answering your question?

Or do you want something more elaborate? Okay: The term "Cracker," when applied to a racial context, infers to the cracking of a slave owner's whip. It's a racial epithet.

Now, you answer my question: Do you know what "redskin" means or infers?

Hey, you did it! So you think "yankee" and "cracker" are on the same level? You inferred that earlier in the thread.

Avatar image for Makhaidos
#59 Posted by Makhaidos (2162 posts) -

@surrealnumber5 said:

"damn yanks" is a more known and popularized term than "redskin" that whole civil war thing seemed to have a larger cultural impact than indians ever did. so yes, when compared to yankee, redskin is a poop joke.

i dont have a problem with either, i like language.

We didn't name the team the "damn yanks."

Avatar image for Makhaidos
#60 Posted by Makhaidos (2162 posts) -

@musicalmac said:

@Makhaidos said:

Your question was, do I know what the term "Cracker" means or infers.

My answer: Yes.

How is that not answering your question?

Or do you want something more elaborate? Okay: The term "Cracker," when applied to a racial context, infers to the cracking of a slave owner's whip. It's a racial epithet.

Now, you answer my question: Do you know what "redskin" means or infers?

Hey, you did it! So you think "yankee" and "cracker" are on the same level? You inferred that earlier in the thread.

Avoiding my question again. You do that a lot.

Avatar image for surrealnumber5
#61 Posted by surrealnumber5 (23044 posts) -

@Makhaidos: but a name cant be discriminatory, only people can be.


even if my name were koontree lynchings III that would not make me racist.

Avatar image for lostrib
#62 Posted by lostrib (49999 posts) -

I wonder who is going to tell this high school to change their mascot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Mesa_High_School

Avatar image for musicalmac
#63 Posted by musicalmac (24894 posts) -

@Makhaidos said:

@musicalmac said:

@Makhaidos said:

I don't think it was intentionally meant to be offensive; then again, neither was the name "redskin" in the first place. Nor was the term "Negro." Language evolves. As to what triggers it, figure the answer out to that and you can teach a sociology class.

Are you offended by the team's name? What triggered this recent focus on a professional football team's name?

I'm offended by any attempt at racism, sexism, or discriminatory practice, regardless of my own orientation, like all decent people should be. ;)

Right, but there's the problem -- it wasn't the intent of the Redskins organization to offend. If we choose to be unreasonable with our discussion points, we won't make any progress whatsoever (which I find amusing about openly liberal websites with have names that incorporate terms like 'change' or 'progress').

We've even seen that kind of stifling or damaging rhetoric here already.

Avatar image for surrealnumber5
#64 Posted by surrealnumber5 (23044 posts) -

@musicalmac said:

@Makhaidos said:

@musicalmac said:

@Makhaidos said:

I don't think it was intentionally meant to be offensive; then again, neither was the name "redskin" in the first place. Nor was the term "Negro." Language evolves. As to what triggers it, figure the answer out to that and you can teach a sociology class.

Are you offended by the team's name? What triggered this recent focus on a professional football team's name?

I'm offended by any attempt at racism, sexism, or discriminatory practice, regardless of my own orientation, like all decent people should be. ;)

Right, but there's the problem -- it wasn't the intent of the Redskins organization to offend. If we choose to be unreasonable with our discussion points, we won't make any progress whatsoever (which I find amusing about openly liberal websites with have names that incorporate terms like 'change' or 'progress').

We've even seen that kind of stifling or damaging rhetoric here already.

if you dont support my hate youre racist/sexist/jingoist/ect

Avatar image for Makhaidos
#65 Edited by Makhaidos (2162 posts) -

@musicalmac said:

@Makhaidos said:

@musicalmac said:

@Makhaidos said:

I don't think it was intentionally meant to be offensive; then again, neither was the name "redskin" in the first place. Nor was the term "Negro." Language evolves. As to what triggers it, figure the answer out to that and you can teach a sociology class.

Are you offended by the team's name? What triggered this recent focus on a professional football team's name?

I'm offended by any attempt at racism, sexism, or discriminatory practice, regardless of my own orientation, like all decent people should be. ;)

Right, but there's the problem -- it wasn't the intent of the Redskins organization to offend. If we choose to be unreasonable with our discussion points, we won't make any progress whatsoever (which I find amusing about openly liberal websites with have names that incorporate terms like 'change' or 'progress').

We've even seen that kind of stifling or damaging rhetoric here already.

Intention to offend doesn't mean offense doesn't occur. If I'm raised all my life to call gay people "fags," and don't know any better, I may not mean offense when I call a gay person a "***." That doesn't change the offense of the situation; if I'm a good person who doesn't want to offend, I apologize, change my expression and move on. The opposite of what you want the Redskins to do.

Avatar image for DaBrainz
#66 Edited by DaBrainz (7908 posts) -

I care less about this particular case but care more that the patent office has the authority to subjectively label something offensive and reject patents based off of it.

Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
#67 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

@musicalmac said:

@Makhaidos said:

@musicalmac said:

@Makhaidos said:

I don't think it was intentionally meant to be offensive; then again, neither was the name "redskin" in the first place. Nor was the term "Negro." Language evolves. As to what triggers it, figure the answer out to that and you can teach a sociology class.

Are you offended by the team's name? What triggered this recent focus on a professional football team's name?

I'm offended by any attempt at racism, sexism, or discriminatory practice, regardless of my own orientation, like all decent people should be. ;)

Right, but there's the problem -- it wasn't the intent of the Redskins organization to offend. If we choose to be unreasonable with our discussion points, we won't make any progress whatsoever (which I find amusing about openly liberal websites with have names that incorporate terms like 'change' or 'progress').

We've even seen that kind of stifling or damaging rhetoric here already.

I'm not sure how certain you can be saying that - the owner of the redskins at the time who chose the name was a proud racist

Avatar image for musicalmac
#68 Posted by musicalmac (24894 posts) -

@Makhaidos said:

@musicalmac said:

@Makhaidos said:

Your question was, do I know what the term "Cracker" means or infers.

My answer: Yes.

How is that not answering your question?

Or do you want something more elaborate? Okay: The term "Cracker," when applied to a racial context, infers to the cracking of a slave owner's whip. It's a racial epithet.

Now, you answer my question: Do you know what "redskin" means or infers?

Hey, you did it! So you think "yankee" and "cracker" are on the same level? You inferred that earlier in the thread.

Avoiding my question again. You do that a lot.

I hadn't finished my line of questioning. You may want to stop before someone pulls the "h" word out on you, especially when you're avoiding questions.

The other thing you have to know is that you're not entitled to a response simply because you ask for one. Though I'll say that the term "redskin" doesn't quite subtly infer as much as "cracker", in my opinion. But that's just an opinion -- you can choose whether or not that's offensive to you.

Avatar image for Makhaidos
#69 Posted by Makhaidos (2162 posts) -

@surrealnumber5 said:

@Makhaidos: but a name cant be discriminatory, only people can be.

even if my name were koontree lynchings III that would not make me racist.

It wouldn't make you a racist, but I would question the people who named you that.

Avatar image for surrealnumber5
#70 Posted by surrealnumber5 (23044 posts) -

@Makhaidos said:

@musicalmac said:

@Makhaidos said:

@musicalmac said:

@Makhaidos said:

I don't think it was intentionally meant to be offensive; then again, neither was the name "redskin" in the first place. Nor was the term "Negro." Language evolves. As to what triggers it, figure the answer out to that and you can teach a sociology class.

Are you offended by the team's name? What triggered this recent focus on a professional football team's name?

I'm offended by any attempt at racism, sexism, or discriminatory practice, regardless of my own orientation, like all decent people should be. ;)

Right, but there's the problem -- it wasn't the intent of the Redskins organization to offend. If we choose to be unreasonable with our discussion points, we won't make any progress whatsoever (which I find amusing about openly liberal websites with have names that incorporate terms like 'change' or 'progress').

We've even seen that kind of stifling or damaging rhetoric here already.

Intention to offend doesn't mean offense doesn't occur. If I'm raised all my life to call gay people "fags," and don't know any better, I may not mean offense when I call a gay person a "***." That doesn't change the offense of the situation; if I'm a good person who doesn't want to offend, I apologize, change my expression and move on. The opposite of what you want the Redskins to do.

thanks for coming right out and saying it, you only wish to allow what you approve of, the view of a true bigot.

Avatar image for Makhaidos
#71 Posted by Makhaidos (2162 posts) -

@musicalmac said:

@Makhaidos said:

@musicalmac said:

@Makhaidos said:

Your question was, do I know what the term "Cracker" means or infers.

My answer: Yes.

How is that not answering your question?

Or do you want something more elaborate? Okay: The term "Cracker," when applied to a racial context, infers to the cracking of a slave owner's whip. It's a racial epithet.

Now, you answer my question: Do you know what "redskin" means or infers?

Hey, you did it! So you think "yankee" and "cracker" are on the same level? You inferred that earlier in the thread.

Avoiding my question again. You do that a lot.

I hadn't finished my line of questioning. You may want to stop before someone pulls the "h" word out on you, especially when you're avoiding questions.

The other thing you have to know is that you're not entitled to a response simply because you ask for one. Though I'll say that the term "redskin" doesn't quite subtly infer as much as "cracker", in my opinion. But that's just an opinion -- you can choose whether or not that's offensive to you.

Ah, so you're entitled to a response, but I'm not. I see now.

You have no argument, which is why you don't respond. Your opinions aren't based in fact or any sort of logic, and instead are mere reactionary responses to a change that you dislike to a policy you never questioned. That's all I need to say here.

Avatar image for musicalmac
#72 Posted by musicalmac (24894 posts) -

@Makhaidos said:

Intention to offend doesn't mean offense doesn't occur. If I'm raised all my life to call gay people "fags," and don't know any better, I may not mean offense when I call a gay person a "***." That doesn't change the offense of the situation; if I'm a good person who doesn't want to offend, I apologize, change my expression and move on. The opposite of what you want the Redskins to do.

I'm for careful and critical action, and if that means changing the name of the Redskins then so be it. I cannot with confidence speak to how offensive the term "redskin" is to a nation of people within the United States. Just because it could be deemed offensive doesn't mean people are choosing to take offense to it. If you have sources that point to an overwhelming outcry from a community, I'd love to see it.

Avatar image for musicalmac
#73 Posted by musicalmac (24894 posts) -

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

I'm not sure how certain you can be saying that - the owner of the redskins at the time who chose the name was a proud racist

Was he? That's a surprise to me, I truly was unaware. It does seem weird to me that a racist would name a football team after something he hated, though.

Don't you think?

Avatar image for Makhaidos
#74 Posted by Makhaidos (2162 posts) -

@surrealnumber5 said:

@Makhaidos said:

@musicalmac said:

@Makhaidos said:

@musicalmac said:

@Makhaidos said:

I don't think it was intentionally meant to be offensive; then again, neither was the name "redskin" in the first place. Nor was the term "Negro." Language evolves. As to what triggers it, figure the answer out to that and you can teach a sociology class.

Are you offended by the team's name? What triggered this recent focus on a professional football team's name?

I'm offended by any attempt at racism, sexism, or discriminatory practice, regardless of my own orientation, like all decent people should be. ;)

Right, but there's the problem -- it wasn't the intent of the Redskins organization to offend. If we choose to be unreasonable with our discussion points, we won't make any progress whatsoever (which I find amusing about openly liberal websites with have names that incorporate terms like 'change' or 'progress').

We've even seen that kind of stifling or damaging rhetoric here already.

Intention to offend doesn't mean offense doesn't occur. If I'm raised all my life to call gay people "fags," and don't know any better, I may not mean offense when I call a gay person a "***." That doesn't change the offense of the situation; if I'm a good person who doesn't want to offend, I apologize, change my expression and move on. The opposite of what you want the Redskins to do.

thanks for coming right out and saying it, you only wish to allow what you approve of, the view of a true bigot.

Only a bigot would think efforts to reduce bigotry are signs of bigotry.

Avatar image for musicalmac
#75 Posted by musicalmac (24894 posts) -

@Makhaidos said:

Ah, so you're entitled to a response, but I'm not. I see now.

You have no argument, which is why you don't respond. Your opinions aren't based in fact or any sort of logic, and instead are mere reactionary responses to a change that you dislike to a policy you never questioned. That's all I need to say here.

Of course I'm not entitled to a response, but you chose to respond. Not once did I say you owed me anything. You have to think and communicate critically, otherwise things get muddy. Please do your best to do so.

I'll quote myself here to clarify my position once more for you here --

@musicalmac said:

I'm for careful and critical action, and if that means changing the name of the Redskins then so be it. I cannot with confidence speak to how offensive the term "redskin" is to a nation of people within the United States. Just because it could be deemed offensive doesn't mean people are choosing to take offense to it. If you have sources that point to an overwhelming outcry from a community, I'd love to see it.

That's fairly simple.

Avatar image for surrealnumber5
#76 Posted by surrealnumber5 (23044 posts) -
@Makhaidos said:

@surrealnumber5 said:

@Makhaidos said:

@musicalmac said:

@Makhaidos said:

@musicalmac said:

@Makhaidos said:

I don't think it was intentionally meant to be offensive; then again, neither was the name "redskin" in the first place. Nor was the term "Negro." Language evolves. As to what triggers it, figure the answer out to that and you can teach a sociology class.

Are you offended by the team's name? What triggered this recent focus on a professional football team's name?

I'm offended by any attempt at racism, sexism, or discriminatory practice, regardless of my own orientation, like all decent people should be. ;)

Right, but there's the problem -- it wasn't the intent of the Redskins organization to offend. If we choose to be unreasonable with our discussion points, we won't make any progress whatsoever (which I find amusing about openly liberal websites with have names that incorporate terms like 'change' or 'progress').

We've even seen that kind of stifling or damaging rhetoric here already.

Intention to offend doesn't mean offense doesn't occur. If I'm raised all my life to call gay people "fags," and don't know any better, I may not mean offense when I call a gay person a "***." That doesn't change the offense of the situation; if I'm a good person who doesn't want to offend, I apologize, change my expression and move on. The opposite of what you want the Redskins to do.

thanks for coming right out and saying it, you only wish to allow what you approve of, the view of a true bigot.

Only a bigot would think efforts to reduce bigotry are signs of bigotry.

silencing speech is good now, because the free market of ideas failed the world so greatly, right?

in what land does you getting offended give you the right to silence people? but it is all good because the people you are silencing are those you disagree with so they dont count as people anyway, right?

equality under the law is not you getting to set the standards of discourse for others.

Avatar image for Makhaidos
#77 Edited by Makhaidos (2162 posts) -

@surrealnumber5 said:

@Makhaidos said:

@surrealnumber5 said:

@Makhaidos said:

@musicalmac said:

@Makhaidos said:

@musicalmac said:

@Makhaidos said:

I don't think it was intentionally meant to be offensive; then again, neither was the name "redskin" in the first place. Nor was the term "Negro." Language evolves. As to what triggers it, figure the answer out to that and you can teach a sociology class.

Are you offended by the team's name? What triggered this recent focus on a professional football team's name?

I'm offended by any attempt at racism, sexism, or discriminatory practice, regardless of my own orientation, like all decent people should be. ;)

Right, but there's the problem -- it wasn't the intent of the Redskins organization to offend. If we choose to be unreasonable with our discussion points, we won't make any progress whatsoever (which I find amusing about openly liberal websites with have names that incorporate terms like 'change' or 'progress').

We've even seen that kind of stifling or damaging rhetoric here already.

Intention to offend doesn't mean offense doesn't occur. If I'm raised all my life to call gay people "fags," and don't know any better, I may not mean offense when I call a gay person a "***." That doesn't change the offense of the situation; if I'm a good person who doesn't want to offend, I apologize, change my expression and move on. The opposite of what you want the Redskins to do.

thanks for coming right out and saying it, you only wish to allow what you approve of, the view of a true bigot.

Only a bigot would think efforts to reduce bigotry are signs of bigotry.

silencing speech is good now, because the free market of ideas failed the world so greatly, right?

in what land does you getting offended give you the right to silence people? but it is all good because the people you are silencing are those you disagree with so they dont count as people anyway, right?

equality under the law is not you getting to set the standards of discourse for others.

Who's silencing them? They're changing a name, not being shoved into a gulag camp.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to be an asshole--and the government has rules about asshole-speech.

Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
#78 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

@musicalmac said:

@Makhaidos said:

Intention to offend doesn't mean offense doesn't occur. If I'm raised all my life to call gay people "fags," and don't know any better, I may not mean offense when I call a gay person a "***." That doesn't change the offense of the situation; if I'm a good person who doesn't want to offend, I apologize, change my expression and move on. The opposite of what you want the Redskins to do.

I'm for careful and critical action, and if that means changing the name of the Redskins then so be it. I cannot with confidence speak to how offensive the term "redskin" is to a nation of people within the United States. Just because it could be deemed offensive doesn't mean people are choosing to take offense to it. If you have sources that point to an overwhelming outcry from a community, I'd love to see it.

Here's a list of the tribes and national organizations that are against the use of the name redskins

I don't know how you define "overwhelming outcry" but you are certainly wrong in your characterization that American Indians aren't taking offense to the redskins team name in large numbers.

Avatar image for themajormayor
#79 Posted by themajormayor (25615 posts) -

@Makhaidos said:

@surrealnumber5 said:

braves, cowboys, Yankees, vikings, ect....

. . .None of which are racist or offensive. Find a team called the "Negroes" or the "Wetbacks," then you'll have an equal standing.

Cowboys and Yankees are pretty offensive.

Avatar image for musicalmac
#80 Posted by musicalmac (24894 posts) -

@surrealnumber5 said:

silencing speech is good now, because the free market of ideas failed the world so greatly, right?

in what land does you getting offended give you the right to silence people? but it is all good because the people you are silencing are those you disagree with so they dont count as people anyway, right?

equality under the law is not you getting to set the standards of discourse for others.

While this is somewhat tangential, it's compelling nonetheless. While I don't fully agree with the every letter, I certainly appreciate the sentiment.

Too often people are unwilling to assault their ears or eyes with opinions that may differ from their own. Choosing to sympathetically imagine every opinion is far more progressive than working to stifle those same opinions, and, some might argue, is even courageous.

Avatar image for AmazonTreeBoa
#81 Posted by AmazonTreeBoa (16745 posts) -

@jasean79 said:

Even though a 2004 poll of Native Americans determined that 90 percent aren't bothered by the name. My, how far we've come in 10 years' time.

Haven't you figured it out? Today's American wants the government to do their thinking for them....What a fucking joke this and our government is.

Avatar image for musicalmac
#82 Posted by musicalmac (24894 posts) -

@Makhaidos said:

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to be an asshole--and the government has rules about asshole-speech.

Can you provide examples of "a-hole" speech so we can see what you would support suppressing?

Avatar image for surrealnumber5
#83 Posted by surrealnumber5 (23044 posts) -

@Makhaidos said:

@surrealnumber5 said:

@Makhaidos said:

@surrealnumber5 said:

@Makhaidos said:

@musicalmac said:

@Makhaidos said:

@musicalmac said:

@Makhaidos said:

I don't think it was intentionally meant to be offensive; then again, neither was the name "redskin" in the first place. Nor was the term "Negro." Language evolves. As to what triggers it, figure the answer out to that and you can teach a sociology class.

Are you offended by the team's name? What triggered this recent focus on a professional football team's name?

I'm offended by any attempt at racism, sexism, or discriminatory practice, regardless of my own orientation, like all decent people should be. ;)

Right, but there's the problem -- it wasn't the intent of the Redskins organization to offend. If we choose to be unreasonable with our discussion points, we won't make any progress whatsoever (which I find amusing about openly liberal websites with have names that incorporate terms like 'change' or 'progress').

We've even seen that kind of stifling or damaging rhetoric here already.

Intention to offend doesn't mean offense doesn't occur. If I'm raised all my life to call gay people "fags," and don't know any better, I may not mean offense when I call a gay person a "***." That doesn't change the offense of the situation; if I'm a good person who doesn't want to offend, I apologize, change my expression and move on. The opposite of what you want the Redskins to do.

thanks for coming right out and saying it, you only wish to allow what you approve of, the view of a true bigot.

Only a bigot would think efforts to reduce bigotry are signs of bigotry.

silencing speech is good now, because the free market of ideas failed the world so greatly, right?

in what land does you getting offended give you the right to silence people? but it is all good because the people you are silencing are those you disagree with so they dont count as people anyway, right?

equality under the law is not you getting to set the standards of discourse for others.

Who's silencing them? They're changing a name, not being shoved into a gulag camp.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to be an asshole--and the government has rules about asshole-speech.

says the guy that is picking and choosing what groups can be subject to his "asshole-speech" and who cant.

radskins bad
yankees good
braves good (again exactly the same thing as redskin)

if homage cannot be made to native Americans neither can it be done to any other groups of persons.
equality under the law, something you seem to be against because those other names do not offend you.

what grounding do you even have? do you even have a drop of native blood to boil?

Avatar image for musicalmac
#84 Posted by musicalmac (24894 posts) -

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

Here's a list of the tribes and national organizations that are against the use of the name redskins

I don't know how you define "overwhelming outcry" but you are certainly wrong in your characterization that American Indians aren't taking offense to the redskins team name in large numbers.

Is there any explanation of the timing of this outcry or what catalyzed it to this point? I hesitate to form strong opinions without the ability to do so from a position of strength. Right now, I feel as if there are too many questions and not enough answers.

Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
#85 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

@musicalmac said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

I'm not sure how certain you can be saying that - the owner of the redskins at the time who chose the name was a proud racist

Was he? That's a surprise to me, I truly was unaware. It does seem weird to me that a racist would name a football team after something he hated, though.

Don't you think?

Not necessarily, especially when considering that football is a very brutal, some might go so far to call it a savage and barbaric, sport. The negative stereotypes attributed to American Indians - that they were a savage, uncivilized, barbaric people - fall inline very comfortably with the qualities one would want to emphasize in a football team name.

Avatar image for surrealnumber5
#86 Posted by surrealnumber5 (23044 posts) -

@Makhaidos said:

@surrealnumber5 said:

"damn yanks" is a more known and popularized term than "redskin" that whole civil war thing seemed to have a larger cultural impact than indians ever did. so yes, when compared to yankee, redskin is a poop joke.

i dont have a problem with either, i like language.

We didn't name the team the "damn yanks."

and no one ever said anything racist about "washington redskins"

good job.

Avatar image for musicalmac
#87 Posted by musicalmac (24894 posts) -

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

Not necessarily, especially when considering that football is a very brutal, some might go so far to call it a savage and barbaric, sport. The negative stereotypes attributed to American Indians - that they were a savage, uncivilized, barbaric people - fall inline very comfortably with the qualities one would want to emphasize in a football team name.

Perhaps, but we don't know. I can't make a presumption my reality. Until then, what we have before us are questions that require critical thought.

My gut reaction was just that, an immediate reaction to something I don't understand. It's something I still don't fully understand because I feel there are still too many unanswered questions.

Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
#88 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

@musicalmac said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

Here's a list of the tribes and national organizations that are against the use of the name redskins

I don't know how you define "overwhelming outcry" but you are certainly wrong in your characterization that American Indians aren't taking offense to the redskins team name in large numbers.

Is there any explanation of the timing of this outcry or what catalyzed it to this point? I hesitate to form strong opinions without the ability to do so from a position of strength. Right now, I feel as if there are too many questions and not enough answers.

I don't see why the timing is very relevant, but for what it's worth people have been speaking out against the team's name for decades. The fact that actually movement is being made on this issue at this particular point in time isn't that shocking to me - this movement to change the name coincides with the recent successes of other progressive movements such as the LGBT movement, feminist movements, drug liberalization movements, ect. Broadly speaking this is a period in time where the country as a whole has shown an increased appetite to address social issues in this country that have historically been ignored.

Avatar image for musicalmac
#89 Posted by musicalmac (24894 posts) -

@musicalmac said:

@Makhaidos said:

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to be an asshole--and the government has rules about asshole-speech.

Can you provide examples of "a-hole" speech so we can see what you would support suppressing?

I'm really hoping you feel like sharing on this. I'm incredibly curious to hear what you have to say.

Avatar image for musicalmac
#90 Posted by musicalmac (24894 posts) -

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

I don't see why the timing is very relevant, but for what it's worth people have been speaking out against the team's name for decades. The fact that actually movement is being made on this issue at this particular point in time isn't that shocking to me - this movement to change the name coincides with the recent successes of other progressive movements such as the LGBT movement, feminist movements, drug liberalization movements, ect. Broadly speaking this is a period in time where the country as a whole has shown an increased appetite to address social issues in this country that have historically been ignored.

Do you mean ignored as in the government hasn't been involved? If you want my opinion, I don't think the government should be very involved in any social matters. (I say any as a means to encompass not EVERY issue EVER, but to say that on a whole -- in general-- I'd like the government to not involve themselves in regulating social issues)

I'd be more likely to vote for a candidate who speaks more to the economy, budgets, honesty, and responsible leadership more than one who speaks to hot-button social issues.

Avatar image for comp_atkins
#91 Edited by comp_atkins (34389 posts) -

i can't care much about this either way.

it's a a huge victory? not really, it's just the stupid name of a football team. is it a tyrannical overreach of government and the pc police? not really, it's just the stupid name of a football team.

Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
#92 Edited by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

@musicalmac said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

I don't see why the timing is very relevant, but for what it's worth people have been speaking out against the team's name for decades. The fact that actually movement is being made on this issue at this particular point in time isn't that shocking to me - this movement to change the name coincides with the recent successes of other progressive movements such as the LGBT movement, feminist movements, drug liberalization movements, ect. Broadly speaking this is a period in time where the country as a whole has shown an increased appetite to address social issues in this country that have historically been ignored.

Do you mean ignored as in the government hasn't been involved? If you want my opinion, I don't think the government should be very involved in any social matters. (I say any as a means to encompass not EVERY issue EVER, but to say that on a whole -- in general-- I'd like the government to not involve themselves in regulating social issues)

I'd be more likely to vote for a candidate who speaks more to the economy, budgets, honesty, and responsible leadership more than one who speaks to hot-button social issues.

No I mean ignored as in out of the public conscious.

Avatar image for jasean79
#93 Posted by jasean79 (2593 posts) -

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@musicalmac said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

I'm not sure how certain you can be saying that - the owner of the redskins at the time who chose the name was a proud racist

Was he? That's a surprise to me, I truly was unaware. It does seem weird to me that a racist would name a football team after something he hated, though.

Don't you think?

Not necessarily, especially when considering that football is a very brutal, some might go so far to call it a savage and barbaric, sport. The negative stereotypes attributed to American Indians - that they were a savage, uncivilized, barbaric people - fall inline very comfortably with the qualities one would want to emphasize in a football team name.

That's a stretch.

Avatar image for whipassmt
#94 Posted by whipassmt (15375 posts) -

"ThinkProgress". As Troy Landry says "some people see progress in a land without wilderness, I see a cage". Just goes to show, one's man's progress is another mans cage. One man thinks he's a progressive, other men think he's a cager.

Avatar image for branketra
#95 Posted by BranKetra (51726 posts) -

In order to properly understand the reason for this cancellation, one must learn the reasoning for the movement going on in the United States. With a more holistic perspective, I believe things like this be more accepted.

Avatar image for open-casket
#96 Posted by Open-Casket (72 posts) -

Then, shouldn't they change "The White House," to multi-cultural center?

Avatar image for Master_Live
#98 Posted by Master_Live (18817 posts) -

Avatar image for branketra
#99 Posted by BranKetra (51726 posts) -

@open-casket said:

Then, shouldn't they change "The White House," to multi-cultural center?

That depends on if Muhammad Ali was correct when he insinuated the home of an acting U.S. president was originally named to be for caucasians. Besides that, your alternative is somewhat of a general name for a major center of the U.S. government.

Inb4 the Pentagon.

To say something more bluntly, that is not really related.

Avatar image for dave123321
#100 Posted by dave123321 (35333 posts) -

Why is this small degree of cultural sensitivity being deemed a bad thing