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. Carl23

    Carl23 Member

    269 Messages
    11 Likes Received
    I'll go with the "I don't care that it offends someone" for $20, Bob.

    Really, does it have to be Native Americans that are offended? Hell, I'm white and I *sometimes* get offended when people use the N-Word. Other times, it doesn't bother me. I guess it is the context of the use of the word that is important to me.

    So, in the case of the Redskins, I believe that the team (and fans) use the term in a respectful way. Their fans are proud of their team and they are proud of the name (as they should be as members of the NFCE).
  2. RFKFedEx

    RFKFedEx New Member

    19 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    He's been honored time and again. GPM has his own monument outside of RFK Stadium (still displayed), the lower level portion of seating at FedEx Field was named the GPM Lower level in 1997 (not a joke), and he was a member of the innaugural class of the Pro FB HoF in 1962.

    None of the above would happen today, but we can't erase history. What and how we choose to celebrate is ever evolving. Sports fandom is part of the big picture.




    Values change as we evolve. A majority of people didn't have a problem with GPM in the 1950s. We've learned a lot in society since those days.
  3. Califan007

    Califan007 Well-Known Member

    1,190 Messages
    110 Likes Received
    None of that is "history", though.

    History is the telling of the "story" of an event, place or person. I was assuming "history" was being used as in how people look back at GPM's time as owner of the Skins, not how they viewed him at the time.



    Actually a lot of owners had a problem with GPM's segretation tactics back then...not necessarily because of some overriding sense of doing what's right as much as they understood their teams had a lot to gain by expanding their talent base.
  4. Ntegrase96

    Ntegrase96 Well-Known Member

    2,620 Messages
    1,103 Likes Received
    I'm not suggesting the Redskins change their name, I'm just saying why the defense of the name is BS... or at least the defenses presented in this thread which basically equate to 'They're wrong for being offended because we meant something else'.

    If the Redskins don't care enough to change their name 'soley to the whims and shifting sensitivities of an offended group', then just own up to it and admit that the Redskins fiscal interest outweighs the feelings of the few.

    Just admit you don't care that it offends.


    You would have to be naive to think that a word can't remain offensive even after it's derivation has been revealed and its victims enlightened.

    Are you expecting them to say "Oh that's not what you meant? We have no problem then."? Because that's not what will happen.
  5. Ntegrase96

    Ntegrase96 Well-Known Member

    2,620 Messages
    1,103 Likes Received
    No, no. It could be anyone that could be offended. I just used the group directly impacted by the term at hand here.
  6. NIBGoldenchild

    NIBGoldenchild Active Member

    964 Messages
    31 Likes Received
    There are five Native Americans in this one trademark lawsuit case. I am not aware of any other lawsuits the Washington Redskins have been involved in. There is likely more than five Native Americans provided in this very thread through documentation and video, have stated the opposite. Many of whom, are Chiefs who speak for their separate nations.

    What seems more likely to you? Finding five individuals willing to claim they find a word offensive, or to get thousands of people to volunteer they feel pride and respect in a racist slang term?
  7. NIBGoldenchild

    NIBGoldenchild Active Member

    964 Messages
    31 Likes Received
    Agreed. I would actually be inclined to want the team to change the name if the word was actually used to offend Native Americans, or had ever been used in that manner.

    That is why I did the research to find something concrete. If I was going to take this stance, I wanted to have documentation backing it up. What I found was quite the opposite. A negligent portion of an already small minority found the word offensive, the rest took pride in the word and knew it's roots. All historical documents show the word has never been a racist term, was originated from Native Americans, and all documentation saying the opposite has been proven false.

    Furthermore, if people know the history of the word and it's actual use for the past 300+ years, and if there has been a misrepresentation of what that word means in the past decade, why aren't people more willing to educate the ignorant using the word incorrectly instead of taking legal action against a football team?

    I equally blame the politicians and sportswriters who have been pretending this is some great travesty that must be corrected, and the Washington Redskins franchise who have made little effort in educating the public.
  8. sacase

    sacase Well-Known Member

    4,271 Messages
    59 Likes Received
    Racist
  9. sacase

    sacase Well-Known Member

    4,271 Messages
    59 Likes Received
    They are going through the second lawsuit reference this. I am curious how things are going to play out. From what I gather they won the first only only on appeal due to laches (whatever the hell that is). Sounds like a technicality. The bad part for them is that the longer it goes on, then the more people become sensitive to it and become offended. Hell there is one instance of legislation about it as well as Vincent Grey's comments.

    I am going to be strait with you. I have no dog in this hunt and I am not going to waste my time researching if or if not redskins is racist. Do I think it is? I am not sure, but I can see how it is offensive. But please believe I will take pure pleasure if the redskins loose their trademark and either change the name or loose millions of dollars of merchandise sales. Anything bad for the skins is a great thing. LOL

    Synder comes off as being to prideful in this. I can understand his point, this is HIS team. He should also realize that we are living in a hypersensitive world and that each year, more and more people are going to consider Redskins offensive. Eventually enough people are going to be offended by it, rightly or wrongly. He could turn this into a press coup, work with the group to find a name that either celebrates American Indians in another way or find another name all together. Hell have fan voting. If he does it right he can come out on top and make a whole lot of money in the process and be a celebrated hero. Or he can be the stubborn rich guy who is to prideful to change. Either way it goes, this is not going to go away and more voices are going to call for change. Synder should realize that the Mob of Rome is against him on this.
  10. Cowboysfan570

    Cowboysfan570 Well-Known Member

    1,063 Messages
    55 Likes Received
    It will when they're forced to, just like how they didn't integrate until forced to by Kennedy.

    But hey, if they want to continue their long tradition of defending bigotry so be it, it'll only make it more fun when they lose.
  11. NIBGoldenchild

    NIBGoldenchild Active Member

    964 Messages
    31 Likes Received
    I was not aware that Snyder has owned the team for that long. Thank you for enlightening me. Also, can you please elaborate on said bigotry they are defending?

    Or perhaps, you should read the thread thoroughly before commenting further. :)
  12. Califan007

    Califan007 Well-Known Member

    1,190 Messages
    110 Likes Received
    If I don't care it's precisely because I wanted to understand why it did. The answers given to that question have failed on both a logic and a factual basis 99% of the time.

    The opposite seems to be "I don't care why they're offended...I just care that they are." Not exactly the best stance to take when it comes to asking a multi-BILLION dollar company to change anything.

    And I wish the "other side" who have been leading this charge would simply admit that it has ZERO to do with "Redskin" being an offensive racial slur used throughout history, and own up to the fact that it's all about eliminating ALL aspects of using NA culture for sports teams. If I hear a single person say "It's not that the term 'redskin' is offensive, it's just that I don't want my culture being used as a symbol of a sports franchise," I'd never feel the need to talk about this topic. But that's not what's happening, is it? Nope.

    Instead we are spoon-fed half-truths and urban myths about the term, factually incorrect information, and poll results are being treated as if the Word Of God. It's not enough to just want sports teams to stop using Native American culture out of respect...and these people know that. So instead they build lazy theories as to why "redskin" should be seen as blatantly offensive. They ignore their OWN history concerning the Skins using both the term and the helmet symbol, and prefer their concocted ones. They misrepresent the word, it's origins and definitely misrepresent stuff about the Redskins using the name.

    Seriously ask yourself: why are they concentrating on the Redskins so much? There is a incredibly blatant reason for that, and it's NOT because "Redskin" is the most offensive term and their emblem is the most offensive visual.

    Just say "it has nothing to do with the term 'redskin'...it's has to do with wanting to eliminate all NA culture from sports franchises, period."





    I'm not expecting them to say anything. But I would LOVE It if they STOPPED saying the stuff which has been shown to be revisionist history in order to try and make their point. And I would love it if their supporters--of all colors--would stop using the thought that "Well, it's for a good cause so it doesn't matter if anything they say is true or not." lol...
  13. Califan007

    Califan007 Well-Known Member

    1,190 Messages
    110 Likes Received
    Here's another good article to add to the discussion:

    Redskins Not So Black and White

  14. Califan007

    Califan007 Well-Known Member

    1,190 Messages
    110 Likes Received
    Agree with all of that. And the Skins really do need better PR personnel handling this issue lol...there is an absolute monster way of responding to all of this, but the Skins haven't done it (not yet, anyway).
  15. RFKFedEx

    RFKFedEx New Member

    19 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    So if people would lay off the name issue, you'd be cool with the movement to end unauthorized use of Native themes and imagery. Correct?
    There are several credible theories on the origins of the name, all of which are like deck chairs on the Titanic. None of those theories are going to reverse the growing sentiment of an increasingly educated public.
  16. Califan007

    Califan007 Well-Known Member

    1,190 Messages
    110 Likes Received

    Not quite lol...what I said is I wouldn't be debating it like I am now. I'd still disagree, but there wouldn't be much TO debate. As it stands now, though, whenever something is presented and accepted as "fact" it begs to be researched. If it's shown to be inaccurate, I speak up. And when people in the media also report it as fact, it's beyond irritating because THEY should be doing this research themselves instead of just accepting everything at face value. And when my favorite team's history is being misrepresented and negatively defined through those inaccurate "facts", I definitely speak up.

    However, if they took the stance I mentioned and that you just described, there are no "facts", only personal opinion and desire. And in my eyes it's a far better and far stronger case to make. "We want to have complete ownership of our culture" is a far more persuasive argument than what they're presenting now.





    Actually, the "growing sentiment" of the public is due largely to NOT being educated or informed. If this debate consisted ONLY of things that were factual, researched and of which there was ample evidence and proof, it would bore most people lol. Which of course is why the activists who are/were heading this movement stayed away from that angle...boredom never sparked outrage.

    The more knowledgeable you are about "redskin", it's history and the team's use of the word, the less offended you're likely to be. I wish the public were becoming "increasingly educated" lol...
  17. muck4doo

    muck4doo Well-Known Member

    1,950 Messages
    53 Likes Received
    If a name change ever does occur they should change it to Pigskins. Makes sense for football, they can keep calling themselves "Skins", and hogs would would make more sense too. They could even keep the same damn helmets.
  18. Ntegrase96

    Ntegrase96 Well-Known Member

    2,620 Messages
    1,103 Likes Received
    With regard to the first part (I'm too lazy to break up quote blocks again), that's fair, but it doesn't change the fact that you, ultimately, don't care. That's not to say that you're an inherently evil or insensitive person.

    You did your best to understand a logical reason why someone would be upset and you were unable to find a reason-- doesn't change the fact that that group is still upset.

    It's a lot like having an unhappy girlfriend. You'll have no idea why they're upset, but they are and you just have to atone for it or admit that you couldn't care less because "whatever, she's just being dumb."

    For the second part... somewhat closely related to the first part. Someone who is upset is typically a bit irrational. Usually their claims and demands are a bit irrational.

    Like the example girlfriend, I think that the NA community has the right to complain if they feel that they're offended, regardless of reason or lack thereof since they are in fact the subject at hand.

    Whether or not higher authorities should rule in there favor is another story.
  19. NIBGoldenchild

    NIBGoldenchild Active Member

    964 Messages
    31 Likes Received
    Theories are not facts, and cannot be credible until they are verified. If you have facts that show the origins of the word has a racist origin, please provide them.

    Also, if the public is becoming increasingly educated on the issue they would be less inclined to want the name changed once they've learned what the word actually means.
  20. Idgit

    Idgit Ice up, son. Ice up! Staff Member

    28,709 Messages
    4,566 Likes Received
    There's just no way around the fact that 'Redskins' is a team name that segments its population by skin color and that the group that's segmented that way is a group that's widely considered to have been disadvantaged by the majority on the basis of their culture, race, and heritage. While there's nothing inherently offensive about a skin color based classification of peoples, there are plenty of examples where differentiating on that superficial basis alone leads to bad will between the groups being segmented.

    Yes, it's politically incorrect, and yes, that doesn't really matter to anybody.

    Yes, it's racially insensitive to classify ethnic groups based off of something as superficial as the color of their skin.

    Yes, some people find it offensive, and yes, other people don't.

    And, no, the Redskins shouldn't be required to change their ill-advised and insensitive name just because a vocal minority want to find it very offensive.

    At the end of the day, though enough people are bothered by it that it's become an issue your squatty little beelzebub of an owner felt the need to address it yet again. This little bit of prominent insensitivity is a drop in the bucket given the history of your team, but, yeah, it is another drop in a fairly deep bucket.

Share This Page