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. NIBGoldenchild

    NIBGoldenchild Well-Known Member

    1,010 Messages
    42 Likes Received
    Simply put, it's meaningless to use a completely different word, with completely different history as a reason to dismiss the obvious truth that "redskin" has never been an offensive word. The "N word" has a long history rooted in racism, "redskin" does not.

    Fine, be disturbed. :rolleyes:

    Dictonary definitons based off what? Where did they get their information from? Has that information been verified? Why is it that if the word is so offensive, we can't find any instance where it was used in an offensive manner? If the word is so offensive, why are the people who should be offended, not offended? Even the language used in your dictionary suggest they have no evidence backing their definition.

    Not only have I brought evidence of it's origin (which you conveniently dismiss), I've linked a video of a current Native American Chief who stated the word isn't offensive to Native Americans at all(which you ignore). To claim I am "blindly" backing my argument is to claim I have no basis for my reasoning. To claim I have no basis for my reasoning considering everything provided, is simply stupid.

    What is actually disturbing to me, is how you can ignore a mountain of evidence and personal testimony from the actual people who should be offended, and believe a simple dictionary definition with no point of reference. Ridiculous.
  2. burmafrd

    burmafrd Well-Known Member

    41,855 Messages
    1,695 Likes Received
    I dismiss PC which is all that is. You can post as much as you want does not mean you are saying anything. Coming from you I am not surprised at all.

    Its called what is important in life- and you clearly do not understand it.
  3. Califan007

    Califan007 Well-Known Member

    1,223 Messages
    131 Likes Received
    The American Heritage dictionary (and others) didn't define "redskin" as derogatory until the mid 1990's. until then it was defined as simply another term for Native American. Weird considering it was supposed to have been an offensive racial slur with a common usage as such in our nation's history.

    What changed?
  4. Idgit

    Idgit Ice up, son. Ice up! Staff Member

    31,949 Messages
    7,698 Likes Received
    We all have different things that are important to us, burm. I value thoughtful arguments, in general. So I was interested in his take and thought the way you dismissed it was rude. But that's just my opinion.
  5. Idgit

    Idgit Ice up, son. Ice up! Staff Member

    31,949 Messages
    7,698 Likes Received
    I don't doubt this one bit, but I'd be interested if you had access to the two definitions.
  6. SkinsFan28

    SkinsFan28 Active Member

    1,015 Messages
    24 Likes Received
    Interesting, in the context of native americans, I could see a group finding the name Cowboys as offensive, since they were the ones trying to kill them.

    I hope they never change it, but I also hope the media spinning it doesn't create so much hoopla from a non-existent issue to where it does honestly become one.
  7. Califan007

    Califan007 Well-Known Member

    1,223 Messages
    131 Likes Received
    Here you go...


  8. RFKFedEx

    RFKFedEx New Member

    19 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Snyder's "NEVER" comment is a metaphorical George Wallace standing in the school house door. The history books will not be kind.
  9. Califan007

    Califan007 Well-Known Member

    1,223 Messages
    131 Likes Received
    That's because the "N word" radically and DRASTICALLY changed from it's original use, and ended up being used as a term of derision and offense as well as a very real tool of terrorism. "Redskin" has not undergone anything even remotely similar, ever.

    Not to mention "Redskin" originated from Native Americans themselves...it's what they called themselves. Black Americans did not originate the usage of the "N word" when referring to themselves. In fact, that wasn't really done until the 1960's when Black Americans looked to take control of the "N word" and it's violent and racist history and turn it around to mean something completely different.

    Again, don't try and apply some "one size fits all" template to racial slurs. And just a tip: don't use The Phrase Finder for factual research on historical linguistics lol...it's a "definitions for dummies" type of summary at best.


    See my post above. And the real question should be, why did the definition of 'redskin' change so drastically over the past 20 years? Follow-up question: If the term 'redskin' has always been seen as an offensive racial slur towards Native Americans and has always been used as such over the past 300 years, why did dictionaries wait until freakin' 1993 to define it as such? They definitely did NOT do that with the "N-word", "Kike", "Wetback", etc, etc.


    Do you even know what the word "blind" means? lol...If he were "blindly backing" the word 'Redskin' it would mean he's doing so without needing to see any proof. If you read his posts and did NOT see the proof and evidence he uses to support his stance, then I don't think he's the blind one.
  10. Califan007

    Califan007 Well-Known Member

    1,223 Messages
    131 Likes Received
    The "history books" will judge Snyder on team success, Super Bowl wins, and the gross value of the franchise....not this.
  11. sacase

    sacase Well-Known Member

    4,304 Messages
    83 Likes Received
    But you have the actual people who are offended suing the team not once but multiple times....Sounds like they are offended to me.
  12. Califan007

    Califan007 Well-Known Member

    1,223 Messages
    131 Likes Received
    The question is, though: is being offended enough?
  13. Ntegrase96

    Ntegrase96 Well-Known Member

    2,904 Messages
    1,406 Likes Received
    Some of the points being argued in this thread are embarrassing.

    You cannot tell a person what is or is not offensive to them. Etymology has no bearing on that. I don't see how you can argue that. Even if the word has evolved from humble beginnings into an offensive word, it can still offend someone.

    Just because the Washington Redskins had the name before it supposedly became offensive doesn't mean that it's not offensive. How does that concept elude some of you? Whether it be a misunderstanding of intentions with the name Washington Redskins is irrelevant.

    Now if you want to come out and say "I don't care that it offends someone" then just say that. You can't make everyone happy.

    The only real argument against the name change is that it doesn't seem like many Native Americans are speaking out against it, meaning they're not terribly offended by the moniker.
  14. RFKFedEx

    RFKFedEx New Member

    19 Messages
    0 Likes Received

    Whats the first thing (football) people think of when they hear the name George Preston Marshall?
  15. Ntegrase96

    Ntegrase96 Well-Known Member

    2,904 Messages
    1,406 Likes Received
    Well seeing how Cowboys and Indians didn't really clash on a large scale, it would be somewhat crazy.
  16. JoeyBoy718

    JoeyBoy718 Well-Known Member

    4,392 Messages
    1,785 Likes Received
    Good post. I would say count me as someone who "don't care that it offends someone." I have common sense. I wouldn't stand for a blatantly offensive name. You could argue some people do find Redskins to be blatantly offensive, but if you want to say that, then anyone can find any name blatantly offensive. Pretty soon a group of disgruntled tall people will sue the Giants.
  17. Califan007

    Califan007 Well-Known Member

    1,223 Messages
    131 Likes Received
    It's not irrelevant.

    50 years ago Native Americans not only took pride in have the Redskins be called the Redskins, they actively participated in how the Redskins would present itself to the NFL and the world.

    40 years later the majority of Native Americans said they didn't find "Redskins" offensive.

    8 years after that, the majority of Native Americans said they do find the term offensive.

    If you are saying private companies need to tailor their corporate identities solely to the whims and shifting sensitivities of an offended group, you're at best naive and at worst shortsighted. 20 years from now the majority of Native Americans might feel that, as long as the identity is respectful and consults with Native American groups on its identity, then everything's A-OK. Should the Skins then be allowed to return to being known as "Redskins"?

    It's also important to understand WHY the offended group feels offended. The last two official public "hearings" or panels or whatever they that the offended parties held mentioned the whole "Redskin=Indian scalps" myth as one big reason why they feel the term if offensive. So should a company change it's brand name because of a belief in something that never happened? Again, if you think so you're at best naive and at worst shortsighted.

    There needs to be something solid, concrete and factual to base a change of this magnitude on. Saying "They're offended" is none of those. And saying "it's just a football team" grossly underestimates exactly how much is tied up into corporate identities.
  18. JoeyBoy718

    JoeyBoy718 Well-Known Member

    4,392 Messages
    1,785 Likes Received
    I wouldn't be surprised if 20 years from now a court rules that every team name and mascot is offensive, and team names are replaced with product names and team logos/mascots are replaced with product logos. But I don't care. I'll still be a die hard fan of the Dallas Vagisils.
  19. Califan007

    Califan007 Well-Known Member

    1,223 Messages
    131 Likes Received
    Most non-Redskins fans won't know who he is.

    Most who do know who he is will first think he was owner of the Redskins, and little else.

    They won't associate too much success with him (most of the Skins' success with him as owner occurred too long ago). So next on the list would be that he was a racist, even if they don't know why he was.

    Was history "kind" to GPM? No, and he didn't deserve for it to be. Not changing the Skins' name is nowhere near the same importance or on the same level as enforcing segregation on his team and promoting it league-wide (or in Wallace's case doing so in public schools and announcing it on public school steps to the media).
  20. Califan007

    Califan007 Well-Known Member

    1,223 Messages
    131 Likes Received
    LOL!! [IMG]

Share This Page