Archive

Redskins Name Change

  • LJ
    sleeper;1529483 wrote:No you aren't. You clearly cannot be if you think the name Cowboy isn't offensive. LJ, until you know the pain that the name has personally caused me, only then can you make such a statement. But if you know anyone in the Cowboys organization, tell them about $5 million dollars makes it all better.
    *sigh* now you are just talking yourself in circles. Racial infighting now huh?
  • sleeper
    queencitybuckeye;1529481 wrote:Why would Cowboys be offensive to whites, there were and are cowboys of all colors.
    Oh really? Another jackass who doesn't understand the pain that the name causes me every day that I wake up. I'm offended QCB, it does not matter why, but I'M OFFENDED. It offends me and it needs to be changed.
  • WebFire
    queencitybuckeye;1529481 wrote:Why would Cowboys be offensive to whites, there were and are cowboys of all colors.
    There were and are Indians as well.
  • HitsRus
    Why would Cowboys be offensive to whites, there were and are cowboys of all colors

    Good point..... This characature offends me.
  • bases_loaded
    Lol obummer had the Blackhawks at the White House. No problem with that name or their mascot Tommy Hawk. Dan Snyder must've forgot to pay his socialist dues.
  • OSH
    LJ;1529226 wrote:I am a middle class white male with no native american ties. Not my place to determine if it's offensive or not. I'm sick of middle class white males getting all uppity about shit that doesn't concern them. If the tribes find it offensive, change it. If they don't, leave it alone.
    LJ;1529413 wrote:im a white male and it doesnt offend me, so no I wouldn't want them to change their name. no govt entity should force them to either.
    LJ;1529449 wrote:ummmm. no. just fucking no. not even comparable.
    It sure is. What "class" you are a member of really doesn't matter when trying to treat people with respect, recognizing injustice, or being a social activist.

    Hence, the abolition of slavery. The white males (and probably females) were behind the abolition of slavery. It wasn't slaves that were able to abolish the practice, it was white people. So...if white people never fought for the slaves' rights, then slavery could still exist (or at least exist longer than it did).

    And, tribes DO find it insensitive with Native American mascots. They cannot get things changed by themselves and/or they have different people helping fight their fight. That's really not that uncommon. Back to the homosexual marriage battle, there are many non-homosexuals who are behind the pro-homosexual marriage battle. Why? They aren't homosexual so they are not ones who should determine what is good for homosexuals. What about Holocaust? There are many non-Jewish folks who helped during the Holocaust and save lives. There were also millions of Germans who didn't do anything because they were left alone and not slaughtered. They turned the other cheek on the slaughter and said, "at least I'm not bad like those Nazis."

    Everyone needs allies. One doesn't have to be a member of a particular sect, group, class, etc. in order to help a certain cause.
  • Manhattan Buckeye
    "Everyone needs allies. One doesn't have to be a member of a particular sect, group, class, etc. in order to help a certain cause."

    I agree with that sentiment.

    But the question is whether that person is advocating change for the right or wrong reason. I find it very difficult to believe that the Bob Costas and Peter King's of the world give a ratt's butt about American Indians - they are just doing this because it makes them seem like they are taking a stand. The Redskins have been the Redskins for decades. Where was Bob Costas and Peter King in 2003, or 1993, or 1983, or 1973. Did they suddenly find religion in 2013? The whole thing is a media created joke.

    "    They cannot get things changed by themselves and/or they have different people helping fight their fight."

    Absolutely horseshit. If American Indians were truly offended they wouldn't need rich, white liberals fighting for them. The fact is most don't care, and those that do barely find it offensive. If Irish-Americans were offended by the Celtics logo would they need German-Americans to fight for them? Of course not.

    This is a media-fueled non-troversy.
  • queencitybuckeye
    WebFire;1529525 wrote:There were and are Indians as well.
    Casino AND Slurpee
  • queencitybuckeye
    sleeper;1529486 wrote:Oh really? Another jackass who doesn't understand the pain that the name causes me every day that I wake up. I'm offended QCB, it does not matter why, but I'M OFFENDED. It offends me and it needs to be changed.
    As an animal lover, I'm offended by your negative characterization of jackasses. Not nice to compare them to me.
  • LJ
    You are comparing people not liking a name and logo with people being enslaved and people being massacred. Not even comparable. Not at all.
  • sleeper
    queencitybuckeye;1529629 wrote:As an animal lover, I'm offended by your negative characterization of jackasses. Not nice to compare them to me.
    Some would take it as a compliment.
  • sleeper
    LJ;1529632 wrote:You are comparing people not liking a name and logo with people being enslaved and people being massacred. Not even comparable. Not at all.
    Right because Native Americans never killed anyone and are completely innocent.
  • queencitybuckeye
    sleeper;1529677 wrote:Some would take it as a compliment.
    No one or nothing is complimented by being compared to me. :)
  • OSH
    Manhattan Buckeye;1529613 wrote:But the question is whether that person is advocating change for the right or wrong reason. I find it very difficult to believe that the Bob Costas and Peter King's of the world give a ratt's butt about American Indians - they are just doing this because it makes them seem like they are taking a stand. The Redskins have been the Redskins for decades. Where was Bob Costas and Peter King in 2003, or 1993, or 1983, or 1973. Did they suddenly find religion in 2013? The whole thing is a media created joke.

    Absolutely horseshit. If American Indians were truly offended they wouldn't need rich, white liberals fighting for them. The fact is most don't care, and those that do barely find it offensive. If Irish-Americans were offended by the Celtics logo would they need German-Americans to fight for them? Of course not.

    This is a media-fueled non-troversy.
    But where does the "most don't care" and "many do care" line start or stop? There are between 1/4 and 1/3 (estimation in 2002) of all Native Americans that do care. There are also Native American groups that have protested continuously -- see: Oneida Nation. Does there really need to be 100% opposing the racism in order for there to be legitimacy?

    But, there are many people that need help "fighting the fight." If they don't have the ability to make waves, I mean...who can really fight the $30 billion non-profit NFL? The Native Americans and their allies were able to battle University of North Dakota to change their mascot -- however controversial that was.
    LJ;1529632 wrote:You are comparing people not liking a name and logo with people being enslaved and people being massacred. Not even comparable. Not at all.
    Funny...Native Americans were enslaved and massacred too...
  • Manhattan Buckeye
    "But where does the "most don't care" and "many do care" line start or stop?"

    In the information age, when they are noisy enough to make a difference...as of now when rich, white journalists are making the arguments for them, it doesn't really work. I notice you aren't posting a facebook, or twitter, or whatever social media group initiative that actually involves the American Indians that advocates the change...because they don't care enough to deal with it.

    It is the definition of a non-troversy.
  • enigmaax
    I did a quick poll of my American Indian friend from high school. 100% of him doesn't care about the Redskins name because he is too busy drinking and gambling on the reservation, where he moved after high school. But he did say they could use his likeness as a mascot for a couple bucks.
  • LJ
    OSH;1529741 wrote:Funny...Native Americans were enslaved and massacred too...

    Funny.... That's not the issue we are discussing and has nothing to do with the issue we are discussing. We get it, you are a random white guy who is pissed about the Redskins name and want other white folks to feel the same. Comparing the use of a name and a mascot to slavery and the holocaust is just asinine.

    Also, you tried to compare it to gay marriage. If people treated it like I did, ie not caring about it because it doesn't affect me, gay marriage would already be legalized and not an issue. Why? because people would leave shit alone that doesn't hurt them in their day to day lives.
  • BoatShoes
    HitsRus;1529528 wrote:


    Good point..... This characature offends me.
    But does it really? If you really are offended and there are others who are similarly situated you are free to lobby your case to the Cowboys to see if they might agree to accommodate you. Likewise, they're free not to. Offense is like attraction. It is not a choice. It's not like Native Americans choose or are cajoled into being offended by evil self-hating white liberals despite your fantasies with regard to the latter. They just are offended. They'd prefer the term Redskin be relegated to the dust bin of history. So be it. They're free to deliberate with the owners of the team on the matter like rational men and women. If Dan Snyder wants to keep calling his team a name that Native Americans are offended by so be it and he is and should be free to do so. Native Americans should be equally free to lobby their own opinion on the matter.
  • Me?
    BoatShoes;1529760 wrote:But does it really? If you really are offended and there are others who are similarly situated you are free to lobby your case to the Cowboys to see if they might agree to accommodate you. Likewise, they're free not to. Offense is like attraction. It is not a choice. It's not like Native Americans choose or are cajoled into being offended by evil self-hating white liberals despite your fantasies with regard to the latter. They just are offended. They'd prefer the term Redskin be relegated to the dust bin of history. So be it. They're free to deliberate with the owners of the team on the matter like rational men and women. If Dan Snyder wants to keep calling his team a name that Native Americans are offended by so be it and he is and should be free to do so. Native Americans should be equally free to lobby their own opinion on the matter.
    9 in 10 Native Americans are not bothered by the name Redskins per a 2004 study. And why should they be. It has nothing to do with people being offended and everything to do with you and others being liberal clowns and trying to find a victim in ANYTHING that you can exploit for political capital. The sad part about that for you is that you almost certain aren't even smart enough to know that that is why you're advocating for a name change, you just blindly follow the leader.
  • BoatShoes
    Me?;1529805 wrote:9 in 10 Native Americans are not bothered by the name Redskins per a 2004 study. And why should they be. It has nothing to do with people being offended and everything to do with you and others being liberal clowns and trying to find a victim in ANYTHING that you can exploit for political capital. The sad part about that for you is that you almost certain aren't even smart enough to know that that is why you're advocating for a name change, you just blindly follow the leader.
    LOL, IDGAF about the name change and I'm not advocating for one. What I can't understand is why some people get their jimmy's rustled when there are people who actually do want to lobby for it to be changed. You claim that 9/10 Native Americans are apathetic but there is a mobilized contingent that do and they're free to lobby for whatever changes they want.

    If 9/10 Irish people weren't offended by a Rowdy looking Leprechaun and the name Fighting Irish but a vocal contingent of Irish people were, it would be the same. Groups of people however small are free to associate together lobby for whatever proposed changes they'd like.
  • Me?
    HAHA...yeah, because the 3 dudes holding signs outside of Cleveland Indians games really make me want to change everything and pander to them. Listen to you...someone who I'm sure is in love with the idea of majority rule when it comes to something like Obamacare, yet still trying to pander to a minority (however small) any time you can to score political capital. I would say something like "just admit it", but again, the sad part is you don't even know you're doing it--you don't even realize that you're full of shit. You're just a brainwashed drone that follows a leader. You don't have independent, rational cells in your brain. They've all been conditioned. You know what I can't understand? Why someone would get their "jimmy's rustled" over 60,000+ people in a stadium every Sunday CELEBRATING AND ROOTING FOR the REDSKINS. How offensive!!!
  • BoatShoes
    Me?;1529826 wrote:HAHA...yeah, because the 3 dudes holding signs outside of Cleveland Indians games really make me want to change everything and pander to them. Listen to you...someone who I'm sure is in love with the idea of majority rule when it comes to something like Obamacare, yet still trying to pander to a minority (however small) any time you can to score political capital. I would say something like "just admit it", but again, the sad part is you don't even know you're doing it--you don't even realize that you're full of shit. You're just a brainwashed drone that follows a leader. You don't have independent, rational cells in your brain. They've all been conditioned. You know what I can't understand? Why someone would get their "jimmy's rustled" over 60,000+ people in a stadium every Sunday CELEBRATING AND ROOTING FOR the REDSKINS. How offensive!!!
    LoL. Maybe your beef should be with the NFL and Dan Snyder who actually take the time to provide a hearing for the pleas of such an insolent and inconsequential minority group.
  • Me?
    Only due to pressure from douche bags like you who can't find anything better to do with their life than go to bat for the ONE PERCENT of the Native American population who has an issue with the name Redskins. You mean there is a story that you can tie race and emotion to and the media all signed up to talk about it and blow it up?!?! NO WAY!
  • BoatShoes
    Me?;1529837 wrote:Only due to pressure from douche bags like you who can't find anything better to do with their life than go to bat for the ONE PERCENT of the Native American population who has an issue with the name Redskins. You mean there is a story that you can tie race and emotion to and the media all signed up to talk about it and blow it up?!?! NO WAY!
    LOL. Sorry. Native Americans are perfectly capable of making their case and garnering the respect of others of their particular point of view all on their own.
  • Me?
    So, there was a study done 9 years ago, and 90% of them made their case. They don't care. So, explain yourself and the desire that anyone has for a name change. Of course, while at the same time, holding true to your belief that they can make their own case and the knowledge that 90% of them don't care...go ahead.