Paintrain's all encompassing 'discuss all things offseason' thread (Version 2.0)

[takethecake]

I dunno, I feel like if they changed the name to...say, the Braves, and kept the colors pretty much the same, keep the arrowhead/spear logo.. I feel like it wouldn't really be too different. I don't really care too much either way; for me it's just getting to the point that the endless discussion is starting to bug me, and I think we all know it will never stop unless the name changes.

[scowan]

I want to ask you guys a question about the offensive name Redskins which some find offensive and others do not. First, I know its the NFL and they are big and I know its the Washington Redskins and they are big, BUT if any of you were personally offended by a business's name, what would you personally do? My first response would be that I just wouldn't do business with them, support them, or shop in their store if that was the case. End of story. So now to bring it to the Redskins, if you don't like their name or find it offensive, don't go to their games, buy their merchandise or otherwise support their business. If other suppliers (other NFL teams) want to play them and are OK with it, if other people want to watch their games, buy their mechandise or otherwise keep them in business, why does Congress care, or anyone else care? If you want to support or buy let's say Hell's Angels merchandise or maybe Gay and Lesbian merchandise or pornographic merchandise and it offends me, in America where we have the right to choose what and where we buy and support private business, why should others who are offended FORCE their ideas and beliefs on you for those businesses to change?

What am I missing here? This whole politically correct additude in this country has gotten crazy.

[over the mountain]

scowan - this is not an apples to apples comparison bc a strong argument could be made that the redskins and the NFL are private and not businesses open to the public (like a 7-11 or a bakery) and that the redskins, by their name alone, are not refusing service to anyone but ...

back in the 60's the Civil Rights Act was passed which basically said that you cannot discriminate against a person because of their race, joining other protected categories such as gender, religion, age, handicap.

Shortly thereafter, a Motel refused to allow black people to stay at the motel. The SCOTUS ruled that a business open to the public cannot discriminate against business invitees based upon race. The Federal Civil Rights Act extended to businesses only doing business in a particular state under the Interstate Commerce Clause.

That laid the ground work that a business open to the public cannot refuse service based upon a protected class/category.

In '05 or '06, conservatives tried to pass the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to federally define marriage as between a man and woman. The SCOTUS ruled against DOMA and added "sexual preference" to the list of protected categories you cannot discriminate against.

last year a baker refused service to a lesbian couple bc of their sexual preference. The Court ruled that the bakery, as a business open to the public, could not discriminate against the couple and had to bake the cake. The bakery decided to close shop.

if you are a private organization, you can deny membership for any reason you want (see Augusta nat'l)

Short answer - while the Redskins are not refusing a service to the native americans like the baker did the lesbian couple .... eventually the Fed Govt may be able pull any and all federal benefits, incentives etc

im not a fan of telling offended people to just close their eyes or cover their ears when offensive conduct is being conducted in the public arena

[Alvin Walton]

Yea well I'm Frank Schmedley from The League of Farmer Tanned White Guys and I say the name is not offensive and the government should gtfo.

[punch it in]

I think that if the name Redskins was offensive to Native Americans a long time ago, that it is not anymore. Hence the name Redskins being proudly worn by a handful of highschool football teams made up primarily of Native Americans. All of this talk does nothing but make it offensive again.

[scowan]

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

Yea well I'm Frank Schmedley from The League of Farmer Tanned White Guys and I say the name is not offensive and the government should gtfo.

Well if you are now a farmer tanned white guy you now have "red skin" and I know you are not offended.

On a serious note, I guess there is no real incentive to change the name for Dan Snyder until he tries to get a new stadium and starts asking for public money to help him build it. Then the Redskin name haters will come out of the wood work I'm sure.

I am really trying hard to find a way to make this offensive for me so I can understand. I am not an American Indian, I am a 45 year old white guy from Kentucky. Even if they called the team the Washington Honkys or the Washington Rednecks, I'm still just not getting offended. Maybe I just have thicker skin, I don't know. Someone needs to give me, a white guy, a name that will really offend me so I can understand. I'm conservative so maybe if you called me a liberal Democrat I might get it.

[Starry Plough]

For what it's worth, I was brought up a Roman Catholic in sectarian Northern Ireland. Now, as I got older I learned not to buy into organised religion on any level, and instead interpret things in my own personal way, but whatever, I won't get into that.

Anyway, there are a number of slurs exchanged between Protestants and Catholics here due to beliefs be them religious, political, or indeed tribal. Two in particular I find particularly offensive to Catholics (and I'm not alone) then are Taig and Fenian.

As the latter was often used to describe an Irish warrior, I've met folk from outside of Ireland who would therefore interpret it as a term of endearment as someone who fought against oppression and tyranny. Something to be proud of if you will. Unfortunately however, that is just not the case, and if someone suggested a team in any area of sport was to be dubbed the Fenians, I guarantee there would be international condemnation.

Now, if I get criticised as not understanding or appreciating what it means to grow up following the Redskins, then of course I get that. There is an identity by association, even, and in some cases especially where team sport is concerned (I know families who live and die by Gaelic football). I guess I'm merely saying I can empathise with concerns within the Native American community, but if the team name were to change, then I'd still follow them regardless.

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by scowan

Well if you are now a farmer tanned white guy you now have "red skin" and I know you are not offended.

On a serious note, I guess there is no real incentive to change the name for Dan Snyder until he tries to get a new stadium and starts asking for public money to help him build it. Then the Redskin name haters will come out of the wood work I'm sure.

I am really trying hard to find a way to make this offensive for me so I can understand. I am not an American Indian, I am a 45 year old white guy from Kentucky. Even if they called the team the Washington Honkys or the Washington Rednecks, I'm still just not getting offended. Maybe I just have thicker skin, I don't know. Someone needs to give me, a white guy, a name that will really offend me so I can understand. I'm conservative so maybe if you called me a liberal Democrat I might get it.

Well to play devils advocate the white man from Kentucky hasnt exactly endured the hardships that the native american has. Which is why you are not necessarily offended imo.
That being said it boils down to are native americans offended by the name. According to studies - they are not.

[skinsfanthru&thru]

Redskins LB Keenan Robinson is (finally) healthy, working with starters | Comcast SportsNet Washington

It's really nice seeing a player like Robinson whose gone through multiple injuries make his presence felt especially at a pretty huge position of need for the team. Hopefully he keeps making strides and becomes another solid pick for the team even if it took more time than everyone had hoped it would take.

[ethat001]

I think they should keep the name. But it's ironic that our town had the Bullets and Redskins. Somehow Bullets was more offensive to everyone.. It's not like we're strangers to name-change.

It took me a decade to call them the Wizards, and I still don't like it. Imagine it would be the same if the Skins changed their name.

[Dirtbag59]

I freaking knew George Preston Marshall would do something from the grave to sabotage this. Honestly the fact that Joe Gibbs became our coach back in the 80's most have been to fix some negative karmic imbalance caused by good old George Preston Marshall. Only good thing the guy ever did was allow Jack Kent Cooke a chance to buy part ownership back in 1961.

1933 news article refutes cherished tale that Redskins were named to honor Indian coach - The Washington Post

The proof is in a July 6, 1933, edition of the Hartford Courant, which Witten unearthed after the sports Web site MMQB tipped him off about it.

The edition includes a short Associated Press dispatch quoting Marshall saying: “The fact that we have in our head coach, Lone Star Dietz, an Indian, together with several Indian players, has not, as may be suspected, inspired me to select the name Redskins.”

Instead, Marshall explains, he gave up “Braves” to avoid confusion with a Boston professional baseball team of the same name. He apparently picked the Redskins name so he could keep the existing Native American logo.

Honestly this whole controversy has pulled me both ways many times. And though I hate coming across articles like the one above theres others that make me feel.....less guilty about supporting the team keeping the name.

Redskins name change not as easy as it sounds - ESPN

"I've talked to our students, our parents and our community about this and nobody finds any offense at all in it," says Tim Ames, the superintendent of Wellpinit schools. "'Redskins' is not an insult to our kids. 'Wagon burners' is an insult. 'Prairie n-----s' is an insult. Those are very upsetting to our kids. But 'Redskins' is an honorable name we wear with pride. … In fact, I'd like to see somebody come up here and try to change it."

If the above quote sounds familiar its the same one cited in BA's open letter to the senators demanding a name change.

With that said I kind of feel like the name change issue has gotten to the point where it deserves its own 2014 thread.

So anyone that wants to light that batch of fireworks with the 5 cm fuse have at you.

[irish]

Originally Posted by scowan

Well if you are now a farmer tanned white guy you now have "red skin" and I know you are not offended.

On a serious note, I guess there is no real incentive to change the name for Dan Snyder until he tries to get a new stadium and starts asking for public money to help him build it. Then the Redskin name haters will come out of the wood work I'm sure.

I am really trying hard to find a way to make this offensive for me so I can understand. I am not an American Indian, I am a 45 year old white guy from Kentucky. Even if they called the team the Washington Honkys or the Washington Rednecks, I'm still just not getting offended. Maybe I just have thicker skin, I don't know. Someone needs to give me, a white guy, a name that will really offend me so I can understand. I'm conservative so maybe if you called me a liberal Democrat I might get it.

Its only a matter of time before the name is changed.

You are correct about the new stadium Scowan. Like most things this will end up being about $ and when DS decides he needs a new stadium and wants public $ to build it (there is no chance he will shell out his own dough for a stadium) he will change the name. Of course he will spin it to make it sound like its not about $ and he will use "we fought the good fight t keep the name" language but make no mistake about it, the name change will be all about $.

[mooby]

Hell hath no fury like a trending corporate hashtag on Twitter.

[Ruhskins]

I don't know why the people that are against the Redskins name are picking on one team, instead of calling for a sweeping change among all teams with Native American names. I know people feel that if they can get to the Redskins, it will be easier to deal with the other teams. But as a Redskins fan, I find it hard to think of our team name to be that offensive, when you have the the Cleveland Indians with their ridiculously racist logo/mascot.

I guess they are taking advantage of a team that has an owner who is not very popular. But I also feel that by targeted one team, they force the team and fans to go on the defensive.

[SmootSmack]

How many people even think of Native Americans when you say "Redskins" anyway? That's a word associated with the football team in the minds of most. Nobody thinks about the Natives, or maybe I should cares...which I guess is what's really offensive