Snyder Camp Upset!!

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Hog1

Washington...........wizards...sick
AND I heard the other day, they are thinking of changing it back to Bullets? I guess it is no longer offensive to have an object of death and destruction representing your team?
PC.......go figure.........

.......it's becuase handguns are legal in DC again.:headbange

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Despite the struggles under Snyder the Redskins are one of the NFL's most storied franchises. Changing the identity of the team would be a bad idea if it's just for a PR move.

You mean like the ..."Baltimore Colts" or the Cleveland uhh Baltimore Ravens.

[ArtMonkDrillz]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I'll just repost what I did a couple of years ago when we talked about a name change for the Redskins:

It admittedly does get increasingly difficult to pretend that the team's name does not have some other connotation. And the really cold fact is that, because Native Americans have been so marginalized in our society (once their society), that the offensiveness passes unnoticed because there is really no one around to hear the tree fall in the forest. A name that gave that kind of depiction to Blacks or Ricans like me would get shouted down because there are enough people in that constituency with enough of a relevant voice sure to tell society that that is unacceptable.

Couple of ironies though. One is that the fact is that when you say the word "Redskins" in so-called mainstream U.S. society, what people think of first IS the football team, and NOT the ethnic group. Another is that research (which I don’t have right in front of me right now) reveals that Native Americans themselves throughout the years at all levels of sport have themselves named their teams Redskins. Hmm.

When people talked about "ni**ers" that word was laced with hatred and a misguided superiority at the time it was being said, with violence, lynchings, separate restrooms, back of the bus, you name it. But when we say the word Redskins today, there is no associated hatred or sense of supremacy vis a vis Native Americans; the word comes out of the mouth without any associated negative baggage. Sure, it is the same "word," but the substance is not the same at all. The prevailing argument is that we should dispense with the word because it is offensive and does not represent our society today. But since we know that it does not represent today's society, then the alleged offensive substance of the word has already been rendered meaningless !

Even on the team itself, I don't remember anyone thinking Mark Rypien was dumb or reviled as the quarterback because he was Native American; of course not. So, where is the real offensiveness? What was that we learned in school, "sticks and stones may break my bones..."

Growing up for me (and I’m sure others), the name depicted bravery and glory etc. and that, as far as the Washington Redskins were concerned specifically to be called a "true Redskin" was a badge of honor in the sports world and in the local community, as it stood for humble guys who worked hard on the field with great teamwork and gave to the community off of it. It was hardly disparaging at all and really had nothing to do with offending Native Americans b/c again, Redskin conjured up the image of Darrell Green and Art Monk, not Sitting Bull.

As a minority myself, I sometimes find it perplexing that other minorities in the U.S. would look so quickly to self-identify as hyphenated, and to marginalize themselves by choosing to direct their collective energy to take up the cause of being offended by labels and semantics.

This is an OUTSTANDING post! I especially like the line in bold because a word has no inherent meaning, it is what we all say it is. When the vast majority of people hear the word "Redskins" they think of the football team the same way that when the vast majority of people hear the word "cracker" they think of a snack food.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by ArtMonkDrillz

This is an OUTSTANDING post! I especially like the line in bold because a word has no inherent meaning, it is what we all say it is. When the vast majority of people hear the word "Redskins" they think of the football team the same way that when the vast majority of people hear the word "cracker" they think of a snack food.

No you didn't, I know you just did not compare a racist term with a snack food???

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Giantone

No you didn't, I know you just did not compare a racist term with a snack food???

crack·er (krkr)
n.
1. A thin crisp wafer or biscuit, usually made of unsweetened dough.
2. One that cracks, especially:
a. A firecracker.
b. A small cardboard cylinder covered with decorative paper that holds candy or a party favor and pops when a paper strip is pulled at one or both ends and torn.
c. The apparatus used in the cracking of petroleum.
d. One who makes unauthorized use of a computer, especially to tamper with data or programs.
3. Offensive
a. Used as a disparaging term for a poor white person of the rural, especially southeast United States.
b. Used as a disparaging term for a white person.

[Longtimefan]

[QUOTE/

a. Used as a disparaging term for a poor white person of the rural, especially southeast United States.
b. Used as a disparaging term for a white person. [UNQUOTE/

The term /cracker, straight from the vocabulary of one Brandon Lloyd. Disparaging is to say distasteful, not likable/unwanted. It's been argued that "Redskin" ranks in the same category as many of our other well known slangs utilized to characterize ethnicity. Do we really want our sports franchises named some of those names?

[CRedskinsRule]

The point is that cracker is used in everyday speech, and that contextually, it is not offensive.

The same is true with Redskins, when used in media, or most normal daily speech the context does not lead to the disparaging notion that had existed one time long ago, but instead recalls tradition, honor, and overspending on lazy free agents.

[skinsfan69]

I wonder if Snyder will get sick of all the heat he takes and sell the team.

[ArtMonkDrillz]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

The point is that cracker is used in everyday speech, and that contextually, it is not offensive.

The same is true with Redskins, when used in media, or most normal daily speech the context does not lead to the disparaging notion that had existed one time long ago, but instead recalls tradition, honor, and overspending on lazy free agents.

Exactly.

[diehardskin2982]

The media can come off as a gang- when you go against one, you go against them all. Therefore all the local media has taken this as a battle in the war to bring Snyder down. When you read or listen to the radio everything concerning the lawsuit is spinned negative on snyder to sway society's perspective that this is a frivaless lawsuit.

I really wonder what will happen if Snyder wins in court? It will set a prescident, no more yellow journalism, what a thought!

[Hog1]

I like to do what seems reasonable and makes sense. I don't always get there, but that is the goal.
SO, I do my own survey among my email list (about 50), my family, mom, etc.
I ask, "What does the term Redskin make you think of" (some old, some young)? Well I got some smartass shit...like bad football, chaos, etc(to be expected).
Not one person associated the term Redskin with a derogatory characterization of the American Indian. I personally have never, in my lifetime heard anyone use that term other than for the Wash Redskins. EXCEPT in a couple of Very old....crappy...Hollywood Cowboy movies.

[mlmpetert]

wow, not sure how this thread turned this way..... but ill add to it:


90% of Native Americans are cool with the Washington Redskins name:
Annenberg Public Policy Center



Can we go back to the Danny Boy bashing?

[diehardskin2982]

Hog 1 how many of the people you interviewed are american Indian? You cannot tell one race what is/ isnot offensive to them.

Imagine there is a tv show on called "wet-back" and was on for a long time, so much so that everyone associated wet-back with the funny tv show of that name. It still doesn't make the term is any less offensive to hispanics.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Hog1

I like to do what seems reasonable and makes sense. I don't always get there, but that is the goal.
SO, I do my own survey among my email list (about 50), my family, mom, etc.
I ask, "What does the term Redskin make you think of" (some old, some young)? Well I got some smartass shit...like bad football, chaos, etc(to be expected).
Not one person associated the term Redskin with a derogatory characterization of the American Indian. I personally have never, in my lifetime heard anyone use that term other than for the Wash Redskins. EXCEPT in a couple of Very old....crappy...Hollywood Cowboy movies.

and J.M. Barrie's Neverland

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by diehardskin2982

Hog 1 how many of the people you interviewed are american Indian? You cannot tell one race what is/ isnot offensive to them.

Imagine there is a tv show on called "wet-back" and was on for a long time, so much so that everyone associated wet-back with the funny tv show of that name. It still doesn't make the term is any less offensive to hispanics.

While I wished that was true, that actually isn't. I was in a conversation with an African-American man one day and we got on the subject of race. He basically stated to me that while it is very offensive to the black race for white people to use racial slurs against black people, it is widely acceptable for black people to use racial slurs against white people. He justified it by saying that the words that black people used on white people were more or less "silly" names and should not be taken to offense like the names that a racist white person would use to describe black people. Now, have no idea if this truly is the belief amongst all black people in this country, but that is just what he stated. He also went on to state that white people should never use the term "boy" if talking about a black male, but it was OK for blacks to use the term "boy" in describing white males.

So, I would say, based on this info this gentleman had presented to me, it would seem like that rule doesn't apply to all. I'm hoping this was just his thoughts and nothing that is widely accepted amongst minorities, otherwise I would question the validity of fighting for equality. I, myself, would find any word that is used to disparage a race offensive. But, I think one should also consider the contextin which the word is being used. For instance, computer guys like myself find it a compliment to be called "computer geeks". We feel that is the highest form of flattery one could ever receive in the I.T. world. But, growing up through school, if you were called a geek, you were someone who was very unpopular, backwards, and would only find friends with other geeks. Maybe it's because most of us geeks grow up to be bosses of the "non-geeks"? Who knows?

I said all that to say, when we talk about racial slurs, are we just talking about the word itself? Shouldn't we also consider what context the word is being used? Just a thought.