Redskins' Dan Snyder Announces Creation of Foundation to Help Native Americans

Sorry thats effing weak. Question why is he offended now? Strange that someone would be fan all this time of a racist, insensative franchise...

it has nothing to do with any sensitivity to the name .. its actually quite the opposite.

if and when the skins do change names, I could see people like him seeing it as an opportunity to cut ties. really it comes down to not liking the owner, fed ex field and not really associating with the DC yuppy/stuffy fan base vs the ravens who have a solid well run organization and down to earth fans.

for me .. going to skins games at fed ex really kinda sucks on all levels (cost, crappy parking, lots of bad seats, fans telling you to sit down when the skins are on D, etc..). i dont think i could switch. personally i dont think he would actually be able to go through with it either.

but if the skins continue to suck over the next few years and then have to change names .. i could see a noticeable segment of fans leaving the B&G.

i just thought it was interesting that he would even talk about an escape route. he is no fair weather skins fan.

The problem, of course, is twofold:

(1) The mere fact that you hold, and others share, an opinion does not mean it is reasonable. Further, unreasonable opinions may be entitled to a respectful "hearing" if presented in a civil manner, but the opinion itself is not due any "respect" - if by respect you mean some level of acceptance.

(2) Many people holding minority opinions seem to believe that they are only heard or respected if their opinions are accepted and acted upon by the majority.

By every poll taken, the vast majority of the Native American community does not take issue with Skins name. Those who do have been heard. Respectfully so. The minority is not, however, now entitled to have their opinions accepted or acted upon out of "respect".


"I have heard what you said and understand the basis for your opinion. Nonetheless, I disagree with it and, with all due respect to you as a person, I believe that (1)your opinion that cannibalism should be an acceptable societal norm is idiotic and barbaric and (2) you are wrong for holding that opinion. Further, the majority of people have the same opinion as I do and we will punish you if you try to eat any one.

The Native American who object have been heard, their arguments understood but simply not accepted by the majority of NA people, much less by the majority of non-NA people. Nothing more is required. Thank you. Period.

Appologies in advance if this is more suited for Debating with the enemy:

Fair enough but keep in mind I did preface it with the condition that the view can't be "hog wash." Though it would be an extreme example, just because pedophiles are of a minority and have a view that their activities should be accepted doesn't mean that we need to look into protecting them from majority rule.

On the other hand as much as it pains me to admit the proposition that the name Redskin is a racial slur is certainly a valid argument. Myself and many other Redskin fans certainly don't see it that way but its certainly not entirely without merit. After all if you were in a competitive debate with a million dollar payout upon winning which side would you rather take?

Bill of Rights Institute: Majority Rule versus Minority Rights | Bill of Rights Institute (http://billofrightsinstitute.org/resources/educator-resources/americapedia/americapedia-constitution/majority-rule-minority-rights/)
The Founders had great respect for the will of the majority, but also understood that, as James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 10, “the great danger in republics is that the majority will not respect the rights of minority.” President Thomas Jefferson proclaimed in his first inaugural address, “All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression.”
Independent judicial protection of rights by judges who are appointed and serve for life helps to ensure justice and the protection of individual rights. Citizens can also practice the civic values of consideration and respect in their daily lives in order to further ensure that the rights of the minority are respected.

This certainly doesn't suggest that the Redskins need to automatically change their name but at the very least it does provide justification for the team name to have its 'day in court.'

it has nothing to do with any sensitivity to the name .. its actually quite the opposite.

if and when the skins do change names, I could see people like him seeing it as an opportunity to cut ties. really it comes down to not liking the owner, fed ex field and not really associating with the DC yuppy/stuffy fan base vs the ravens who have a solid well run organization and down to earth fans.

for me .. going to skins games at fed ex really kinda sucks on all levels (cost, crappy parking, lots of bad seats, fans telling you to sit down when the skins are on D, etc..). i dont think i could switch. personally i dont think he would actually be able to go through with it either.

but if the skins continue to suck over the next few years and then have to change names .. i could see a noticeable segment of fans leaving the B&G.

i just thought it was interesting that he would even talk about an escape route. he is no fair weather skins fan.

A name change would definitely create an instant opportunity for me to emotionally detach myself from Snyder and his renamed team. The Redskins would in essence become a team I use to love and support that moved to another city. I would be free from Snyder and the shitty deal he has been offering fans since he became an owner.

There is no shame in wanting more from your team and moving on doesn't make you less of a fan. I will always be a Redskins fan much in the same way I will always be a Sonics fan.

Redskins nickname issue too divisive for sudden change - Sporting News (http://beta.sportingnews.com/article/4575987-washington-redskins-name-change-native-americans-offended-percentage-pride-daniel-snyder-foundation-research?modid=http://t.co/o5GbtfxekM)

Redskins nickname issue too divisive for sudden change - Sporting News (http://beta.sportingnews.com/article/4575987-washington-redskins-name-change-native-americans-offended-percentage-pride-daniel-snyder-foundation-research?modid=http://t.co/o5GbtfxekM)

If true this would certainly go a long way towards making the case of the name not being a racial slur, at least in terms of its orgins:
"There are some that give the term Redskin a negative connotation— to indicate that it was created by the white man to offend the Indians— but in reality the term ‘Redskins’ came from the Indians,” he said. “And they referred to themselves oftentimes— in treaty negotiations, in meetings with the early settlers —as ‘Redskins.’ So it’s not a term that the white man created; it’s actually a term that the Indians themselves created.


Regardless always able to count on good stuff from Ross Tucker.

Edit; didn't see the article already posted, my bad. Probably time to update my version of Tapatalk.

Really good article though.


Good read from Ross Tucker

http://beta.sportingnews.com/article/4575987-washington-redskins-name-change-native-americans-offended-percentage-pride-daniel-snyder-foundation-research?modid=https://www.google.com/