1. Welcome to CowboysZone!  Join us!  Come on!  You know you want to!

Snyder Says Redskins name will never change

Discussion in 'NFL Zone' started by sbark, May 11, 2013.

  1. sbark

    sbark Well-Known Member Zone Supporter

    3,786 Messages
    278 Likes Received
    http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013...er-on-name-debate-well-never-change-the-name/

    Here’s what Snyder told USA Today in full:
    “We will never change the name of the team. As a lifelong Redskins fan, and I think that the Redskins fans understand the great tradition and what it’s all about and what it means, so we feel pretty fortunate to be just working on next season.
    “We’ll never change the name. It’s that simple. NEVER — you can use caps.
    “I think the best way is to just not comment on that type of stuff,” Snyder said in response to a question about Amanda Blackhorse, a Navajo woman leading the charge for the team to lose its federal trademark. “I don’t know her.”
  2. newlander

    newlander Well-Known Member

    8,205 Messages
    123 Likes Received
    an insufferable turd.
  3. NIBGoldenchild

    NIBGoldenchild Well-Known Member

    1,011 Messages
    42 Likes Received
    The word isn't a slur against Native Americans. It has never been used that way, and it's original intent was used by both White Settlers AND Native Americans. The term derives from the use of some Native American tribes who wore red warpaint to battle. It has nothing to do with someone's genetic skin tone.

    Furthermore, Ms. Blackhorse recently made an appearance on a local radio station. She stated even if the team changed their names to the Washington Warriors, she would still find the name to be offensive and racist. When the host asked her to elaborate, she stated that any mascot based off someone's culture is offensive to her. Although she has a right to her opinion, it goes without saying she is in a huge minority with her logic.
  4. 17yearsandcounting

    17yearsandcounting Benched

    2,391 Messages
    1,677 Likes Received
    Someone's worried.
  5. NIBGoldenchild

    NIBGoldenchild Well-Known Member

    1,011 Messages
    42 Likes Received
  6. NIBGoldenchild

    NIBGoldenchild Well-Known Member

    1,011 Messages
    42 Likes Received
    No, annoyed that some people in politics and the media have to manufacture a social issue in order to make themselves look relevant.
  7. 17yearsandcounting

    17yearsandcounting Benched

    2,391 Messages
    1,677 Likes Received
  8. NIBGoldenchild

    NIBGoldenchild Well-Known Member

    1,011 Messages
    42 Likes Received
    And? Two completely different teams, correct?

    Completely irrelevant to this discussion of the term Redskins. Also doesn't change the FACT that the word is, and never has been, racist.
  9. Hoofbite

    Hoofbite Well-Known Member

    32,586 Messages
    2,243 Likes Received
    I'm not sure the derivation of the word is relevant. How it was used and with what intent changes over time. I would also point out that your listed derivation is one of a few out there. If you're gonna cite one you might as well cite them all.

    "Nothing to do with genetic skin tone" is pretty disingenuous. It's clearly a descriptor or skin color. Even if you have convinced yourself otherwise, the rest of world knows that to be true.

    What else is she supposed to say? She's trying to argue that her culture is being disparaged. She'd be an idiot to say, "use this aspect of my culture but not that aspect for your team names".

    I've never personally asked a Native American if they take offense to it but then again I really don't care enough to do so because the word doesn't have any sort of sentimental value to me. I don't see the need for any person to justify why they would take offense let alone speak on behalf of an entire population.

    In high school, we were the "Braves". We had a similar Native American head on all of our stuff. It was tiled into the floor of the building. They've been the Braves forever, pre-1900. If they changed, so be it. Times change as do cultural norms and opinions on what is acceptable and what is not.
  10. NIBGoldenchild

    NIBGoldenchild Well-Known Member

    1,011 Messages
    42 Likes Received
    Ok, there is also no evidence the word was ever used as a slur either. What are these other listed derivations? I've only read of one, and it was proven to be inaccurate. So historically it's just as a term of respect and endearment, and it's only relevant use since then has been among the tribes.

    How is it "clearly" a descriptor of skin color? War paint is not a genetic skin tone.

    So the fact that her culture actually isn't be disparaged means nothing? :confused:

    She's an idiot regardless for not even knowing the historical reference of the meaning, and basically saying that all mascots aside ones based on animals or inanimate objects, are offensive.
  11. NIBGoldenchild

    NIBGoldenchild Well-Known Member

    1,011 Messages
    42 Likes Received
    To think that traditions have to change because a minority has a new opinion about it is spineless and pathetic. This country would do better not to bend over backwards for every overly sensitive person who needs a therapist. Especially when in this case, next to no one is offended and the individuals championing the "cause" are non-Native American politicians and sportswriters with personal ambitions.
  12. SilverStarCowboy

    SilverStarCowboy The Actualist

    7,507 Messages
    409 Likes Received

    Delusional are the people that change with the wind.
  13. Hoofbite

    Hoofbite Well-Known Member

    32,586 Messages
    2,243 Likes Received
    How it was used first or by who doesn't matter. Most derogatory words weren't first used in a derogatory manner. Over time however they have acquired negative connotations.

    You're being ignorant because you're a fan of the team. I get that. But clinging to the idea that it doesn't appeal to the most superficial identifiable trait humans possess is over the top. It's self evident as to why it's a descriptor of skin color.

    Not to mention the mascot on the helment just happens to be a Native American sans war paint. Which means that when the mascot was chosen the war paint aspect wasn't triggered by the name "Redskin", just the Native American.

    But here's an idea. Lets swap out the Native American for a white guy with red face paint. You cool with that?

    Not what I said. I said she simply can't be expected to compromise on an issue of cultural reference when she's making an argument about disparaging her culture. Once you compromise you've drawn a line that is largely based on personal opinion and her argument because less worthwhile because she's essentially saying, "I'm okay with this type of representation but not this other type of representation".

    The simple answer is, "well that's you".

    The historical meaning doesn't matter. The Spanish word for "black" used to be nothing more than a descriptor of the color black, in Spanish. Then it was adopted as an English descriptor of race.

    Words don't have meaning until people give them meaning. Saying it was first used to describe face paint completely ignores the evolution of the word over the next couple hundred years. If you're clinging to some sort of historical perspective, you're not making a strong case for yourself because here in the real world today (and apparently since the time the Redskins chose their mascot), the term has no widespread understanding of war paint.
  14. Hoofbite

    Hoofbite Well-Known Member

    32,586 Messages
    2,243 Likes Received
    Ignorant are those who piss into it.
  15. Idgit

    Idgit Ice up, son. Ice up! Staff Member

    32,024 Messages
    7,761 Likes Received
    Lol. 'Redskins' has nothing to do with genetic skin tone. Got it. Whatever lets you sleep better at night.

    No negative stereotypes perpetuated there. You just want heap more respect for America's indigenous peoples.

    Both sides just need to smoke'um peace pipe and get back to collecting heap-big wampum from all those gate receipts.

    Go, Dixie!
  16. Hoofbite

    Hoofbite Well-Known Member

    32,586 Messages
    2,243 Likes Received
    Thinks about what you're saying. Not in general as it pertains to minorities but in this specific instance.

    "My personal fandom is more important than the grievances that people have with a direct reference to the skin tone of a specific race because all those people are just overly sensitive".

    FWIW, the name doesn't really offend me personally. To be honest I think Chief Wahoo of the Cleveland Indians is far more demeaning in that he's an caricature of Native Americans and has exaggerated features and a somewhat of a mischievous tone in looking out of the corner of his eyes and giving that sort of disingenuous smile. That said I can understand why someone might taken offense to it even if they aren't Native American.
  17. Califan007

    Califan007 Well-Known Member

    1,223 Messages
    131 Likes Received
    The problem with this seemingly never-ending debate is that it's way too full of half-truths, urban myths, talking points and righteous indignation. I prefer to argue and debate facts rather than individual perceptions.

    And when it comes to facts, I prefer to rely on detailed research done by expert linguists rather than anecdotal "proof" by individuals that can't be proven or disproven.

    Awhile ago I ran across a letter that a Native American woman wrote to some newspaper, I think:

    The only problem here? That story has never been proven to be even slightly true.

    This poor woman claims she "sees the bloody pieces of scalps that were hacked off our men, women and even our children" when she hears the name "Redskins". But it's not history that put that associated that image with the term "Redskin"...it's political activists who put those images in her head. Suzan Harjo was the one who first pushed the idea that "Redskin" derived from what bounty hunters called the scalps of Native Americans. But even SHE acknowledges that there is nothing that proves this directly or even indirectly:

    If you are even remotely intellectually honest, you'll laugh your *** off at her rationalizations in that paragraph lol...

    First, she says that while neither the words "Red" OR "Skin"--nonetheless "Redskin"--have been shown in any bounty documents, the fact that scalps are made of skin is more than enough proof that "Redskin" originated from this barbaric practice. "Blood is red, and scalps are made of skin" seems to be her "evidence" as to the origins of "Redskin".

    Second, she says that a scalp by itself is insufficient evidence that it's the scalp of a Native American. Hence the reason they started using "Redskin". But if the scalp itself is not sufficient enough to prove it's from a Native American, how is simply calling it a "Redskin" suddenly considered sufficient proof? lol...jeebus.

    Lastly, she ends up completely dismissing the factual, written word accounts from both private citizens, historians, linguists and even the U.S. government as simply "white men must have misunderstood" it when any Native Americans called themselves a "Red Skin" or "Red Man"...then--get this--goes on to say the NA's "likely said they were a Red, Blood, or Related Person or Man".

    Did you get that?...If any Native Americans at the time said the words "Red" or "Blood" to describe and define themselves, we shouldn't read anything into it concerning the origins of "Redskin"....yet if documents and written records about bounties for Native American scalps don't even mention the words "Red" or "Skin" in them, we should still make the assumption that "Redskin" derived from there lol!



    My own views on the debate:

    1) The "How would you feel if they were called the Blackskins?" argument (the one above). Redskin does not equate to Brownskin, Yellowskin, Blackskin, or any other moronic example along those lines. It's actually rather insulting to apply a "one size fits all" approach towards the very real histories of different racial groups and the terms/names that have been applied to them in efforts to control and subjugate. It's like those who insist(ed) in calling Bush and Obama "Hitler" and likening America to Nazi Germany.

    2) The "Redskin comes from native Americans being scalped" myth. Nobody who repeats this nonsense has ever actually done research on the name...they just repeat talking points.

    3) "Redskin is an unequivocal racial slur" stance. The reality is more along the lines of "If you really squint enough and let your mind bend in certain directions, you can probably imagine a scenario in which someone would call a native American a 'Redskin' in an attempt to insult them."

    4) "The majority of Native Americans find the name offensive" stance. Taking this stance ignores the numerous native American schools who use the name 'Redskins' for their team/mascot, the very real history of how the Skins got their helmet logo, the actual origin of the term, the actual reasons for naming the team "Redskins", and a whole host of other aspects, facts and issues concerning the name...and instead have decided that a poll taken last Tuesday automatically trumps every argument and stance in existence.

    5) "Times have changed, people are offended by the name now" argument. This one pretty much says the only thing that matters is how we feel today. Only, that's NOT the only thing that matters.

    Anyone uses any of those arguments above, I automatically know they're clueless on the subject. There IS an intelligent discussion to have on the topic, but as long as the stuff above keeps dictating the direction of the discussion it means an intelligent debate will never occur.
  18. Idgit

    Idgit Ice up, son. Ice up! Staff Member

    32,024 Messages
    7,761 Likes Received
    Well, if nothing else, this is a very carefully considered rationalization of why a race-specific term that many find offensive is not, in fact, offensive at all.
  19. SkinsHokieFan

    SkinsHokieFan Well-Known Member

    2,253 Messages
    45 Likes Received
    For once Lavar Arrington had a good point on his show yesterday.

    If you were to walk in an airport today yelling "REDSKINS, REDSKINS, REDSKINS!" people would look at you wondering "why on earth is this guy talking about the Washington Redskins in May? Its not even football season"

    If you were to walk in an airport today yelling "N WORD, N WORD, N WORD" you will probably get your kicked, or at best be asked to leave the premises.
  20. Califan007

    Califan007 Well-Known Member

    1,223 Messages
    131 Likes Received
    Again...is being called "white", "black" or a "person of color" offensive?

    And I prefer to describe it as a factual and analytical assessment of the term "Redskin" rather than an anecdotal and emotional one.

Share This Page