The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

riggofan wrote:Who said I agree with Costas? I actually don't agree that the team should change its name. But I can listen to Bob Costas express his opinion about the name of a freaking football team without feeling that he needs to "burn in hell".

riggofan wrote:If the whole political correctness part of this debate is annoying, I can assure you that the insane and ignorant overreactions by the other side of the debate are just flat out disturbing.

riggofan wrote:And btw claiming that the only thing people used the term Redskins for was "to describe the type of paint Native Americans from Delaware" has to be one of the STUPIDEST things I have ever heard. Like some rancher in Texas who called a pack of comanches "redskins" was really just thinking about the facepaint of the Delaware native americans. lol. Give me a freaking break. The reason the word is an issue is because at some point it has been used as an ethnic slur. End of story.

StorminMormon86 wrote:The term WAS originated because of that. The origins of the word was not derogatory in any way.

StorminMormon86 wrote:Over time it began to be used as a slur.

Irn-Bru wrote:I agree with SM86 that what was particularly annoying about Costas's "weighing in" is its timing. The whole bandwagon atmosphere around the name change right now it just obnoxious. At least with Snyder in charge we know the Skins can just ride out this particular fad. I'm not so sure we'll survive the next one 5-10 years down the line.

StorminMormon86 wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:I agree with SM86 that what was particularly annoying about Costas's "weighing in" is its timing. The whole bandwagon atmosphere around the name change right now it just obnoxious. At least with Snyder in charge we know the Skins can just ride out this particular fad. I'm not so sure we'll survive the next one 5-10 years down the line.

Eventually someone (be it Snyder or the next owner) will cave in. I'm surprised Snyder hasn't changed it, honestly. Think of the money to be made with all new apparel, etc.

chiefhog44 wrote:

StorminMormon86 wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:I agree with SM86 that what was particularly annoying about Costas's "weighing in" is its timing. The whole bandwagon atmosphere around the name change right now it just obnoxious. At least with Snyder in charge we know the Skins can just ride out this particular fad. I'm not so sure we'll survive the next one 5-10 years down the line.

Eventually someone (be it Snyder or the next owner) will cave in. I'm surprised Snyder hasn't changed it, honestly. Think of the money to be made with all new apparel, etc.

I can tell you first hand that if this team changes its name, I am out. I live in Chicago and have no tie to DC except for the Skins. Snyder would lose me a many several thousand like me. I cheer for them because of the name. I cheer for them because I grew up loving them, but just like the Bullets who I dropped for the Bulls, I would move on. He knows how much money he would lose. This fan base is not just in DC, it's world wide, and many would not follow with a name change.

chiefhog44 wrote:I can tell you first hand that if this team changes its name, I am out. I live in Chicago and have no tie to DC except for the Skins. Snyder would lose me a many several thousand like me. I cheer for them because of the name.

SkinsJock wrote:The Indianapolis Colts are NOT the Baltimore Colts ...

The Cleveland Browns moved to Baltimore and the name was changed .. the Browns fans did not cheer for the Baltimore Ravens even though that was the same 'team - AND even though, at the time, they did not have a team

The Washington Redskins are not the same team if they change their name


THANKFULLY - Snyder will not let the name be changed

DaSkinz Baby wrote:Heck one of the greatest Indians was named Crazy Horse, what's next a campaign to change that because it insults horses??

In re the (Washington) Redskins. Should the name be changed?

I don’t like being lectured by sportscasters about ethnic sensitivity. Or advised by the president of the United States about changing team names. Or blackmailed by tribal leaders playing the race card.

I don’t like the language police ensuring that no one anywhere gives offense to anyone about anything. And I fully credit the claim of Redskins owner Dan Snyder and many passionate fans that they intend no malice or prejudice and that “Redskins” has a proud 80-year history they wish to maintain.

The fact is, however, that words don’t stand still. They evolve.

Fifty years ago the preferred, most respectful term for African Americans was Negro. The word appears 15 times in Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech. Negro replaced a long list of insulting words in common use during decades of public and legal discrimination.

And then, for complicated historical reasons (having to do with the black power and “black is beautiful” movements), usage changed. The preferred term is now black or African American. With a rare few legacy exceptions, Negro carries an unmistakably patronizing and demeaning tone.

If you were detailing the racial composition of Congress, you wouldn’t say: “Well, to start with, there are 44 Negroes.” If you’d been asleep for 50 years, you might. But upon being informed how the word had changed in nuance, you would stop using it and choose another.

And here’s the key point: You would stop not because of the language police. Not because you might incur a Bob Costas harangue. Not because the president would wag a finger. But simply because the word was tainted, freighted with negative connotations with which you would not want to be associated.

Proof? You wouldn’t even use the word in private, where being harassed for political incorrectness is not an issue.

Similarly, regarding the further racial breakdown of Congress, you wouldn’t say: “And by my count, there are two redskins.” It’s inconceivable, because no matter how the word was used 80 years ago, it carries invidious connotations today.

I know there are surveys that say that most Native Americans aren’t bothered by the word. But that’s not the point. My objection is not rooted in pressure from various minorities or fear of public polls or public scolds.

When I was growing up, I thought “gyp” was simply a synonym for “cheat,” and used it accordingly. It was only when I was an adult that I learned that gyp was short for gypsy. At which point, I stopped using it.

Not because I took a poll of Roma to find out if they were offended. If some mysterious disease had carried away every gypsy on the planet, and there were none left to offend, I still wouldn’t use it.

Why? Simple decency. I wouldn’t want to use a word that defines a people — living or dead, offended or not — in a most demeaning way. It’s a question not of who or how many had their feelings hurt, but of whether you want to associate yourself with a word that, for whatever historical reason having nothing to do with you, carries inherently derogatory connotations.

Years ago, the word “retarded” emerged as the enlightened substitute for such cruel terms as “feeble-minded” or “mongoloid.” Today, however, it is considered a form of denigration, having been replaced by the clumsy but now conventional “developmentally disabled.” There is no particular logic to this evolution. But it’s a social fact. Unless you’re looking to give gratuitous offense, you don’t call someone “retarded.”

Let’s recognize that there are many people of good will for whom “Washington Redskins” contains sentimental and historical attachment — and not an ounce of intended animus. So let’s turn down the temperature. What’s at issue is not high principle but adaptation to a change in linguistic nuance. A close call, though I personally would err on the side of not using the word if others are available.

How about Skins, a contraction already applied to the Washington football team? And that carries a sports connotation, as in skins vs. shirts in pickup basketball.

Choose whatever name you like. But let’s go easy on the other side. We’re not talking Brown v. Board of Education here. There’s no demand that Native Americans man the team’s offensive line. This is a matter of usage — and usage changes. If you shot a remake of 1934’s “The Gay Divorcee,” you’d have to change that title too.

Not because the lady changed but because the word did.

Hail Skins.

riggofan wrote:Wow, what a reasonable, well thought out article from Charles Krauthammer of all people today.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... rc=nl_most

I'd cut out some quotes, but the whole thing is a must read.

In re the (Washington) Redskins. Should the name be changed?

I don’t like being lectured by sportscasters about ethnic sensitivity. Or advised by the president of the United States about changing team names. Or blackmailed by tribal leaders playing the race card.

I don’t like the language police ensuring that no one anywhere gives offense to anyone about anything. And I fully credit the claim of Redskins owner Dan Snyder and many passionate fans that they intend no malice or prejudice and that “Redskins” has a proud 80-year history they wish to maintain.

The fact is, however, that words don’t stand still. They evolve.

Fifty years ago the preferred, most respectful term for African Americans was Negro. The word appears 15 times in Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech. Negro replaced a long list of insulting words in common use during decades of public and legal discrimination.

And then, for complicated historical reasons (having to do with the black power and “black is beautiful” movements), usage changed. The preferred term is now black or African American. With a rare few legacy exceptions, Negro carries an unmistakably patronizing and demeaning tone.

If you were detailing the racial composition of Congress, you wouldn’t say: “Well, to start with, there are 44 Negroes.” If you’d been asleep for 50 years, you might. But upon being informed how the word had changed in nuance, you would stop using it and choose another.

And here’s the key point: You would stop not because of the language police. Not because you might incur a Bob Costas harangue. Not because the president would wag a finger. But simply because the word was tainted, freighted with negative connotations with which you would not want to be associated.

Proof? You wouldn’t even use the word in private, where being harassed for political incorrectness is not an issue.

Similarly, regarding the further racial breakdown of Congress, you wouldn’t say: “And by my count, there are two redskins.” It’s inconceivable, because no matter how the word was used 80 years ago, it carries invidious connotations today.

I know there are surveys that say that most Native Americans aren’t bothered by the word. But that’s not the point. My objection is not rooted in pressure from various minorities or fear of public polls or public scolds.

When I was growing up, I thought “gyp” was simply a synonym for “cheat,” and used it accordingly. It was only when I was an adult that I learned that gyp was short for gypsy. At which point, I stopped using it.

Not because I took a poll of Roma to find out if they were offended. If some mysterious disease had carried away every gypsy on the planet, and there were none left to offend, I still wouldn’t use it.

Why? Simple decency. I wouldn’t want to use a word that defines a people — living or dead, offended or not — in a most demeaning way. It’s a question not of who or how many had their feelings hurt, but of whether you want to associate yourself with a word that, for whatever historical reason having nothing to do with you, carries inherently derogatory connotations.

Years ago, the word “retarded” emerged as the enlightened substitute for such cruel terms as “feeble-minded” or “mongoloid.” Today, however, it is considered a form of denigration, having been replaced by the clumsy but now conventional “developmentally disabled.” There is no particular logic to this evolution. But it’s a social fact. Unless you’re looking to give gratuitous offense, you don’t call someone “retarded.”

Let’s recognize that there are many people of good will for whom “Washington Redskins” contains sentimental and historical attachment — and not an ounce of intended animus. So let’s turn down the temperature. What’s at issue is not high principle but adaptation to a change in linguistic nuance. A close call, though I personally would err on the side of not using the word if others are available.

How about Skins, a contraction already applied to the Washington football team? And that carries a sports connotation, as in skins vs. shirts in pickup basketball.

Choose whatever name you like. But let’s go easy on the other side. We’re not talking Brown v. Board of Education here. There’s no demand that Native Americans man the team’s offensive line. This is a matter of usage — and usage changes. If you shot a remake of 1934’s “The Gay Divorcee,” you’d have to change that title too.

Not because the lady changed but because the word did.

Hail Skins.

riggofan wrote:Wow, what a reasonable, well thought out article from Charles Krauthammer of all people today.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... rc=nl_most

I'd cut out some quotes, but the whole thing is a must read.

In re the (Washington) Redskins. Should the name be changed?

I don’t like being lectured by sportscasters about ethnic sensitivity. Or advised by the president of the United States about changing team names. Or blackmailed by tribal leaders playing the race card.

I don’t like the language police ensuring that no one anywhere gives offense to anyone about anything. And I fully credit the claim of Redskins owner Dan Snyder and many passionate fans that they intend no malice or prejudice and that “Redskins” has a proud 80-year history they wish to maintain.

The fact is, however, that words don’t stand still. They evolve.

Fifty years ago the preferred, most respectful term for African Americans was Negro. The word appears 15 times in Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech. Negro replaced a long list of insulting words in common use during decades of public and legal discrimination.

And then, for complicated historical reasons (having to do with the black power and “black is beautiful” movements), usage changed. The preferred term is now black or African American. With a rare few legacy exceptions, Negro carries an unmistakably patronizing and demeaning tone.

If you were detailing the racial composition of Congress, you wouldn’t say: “Well, to start with, there are 44 Negroes.” If you’d been asleep for 50 years, you might. But upon being informed how the word had changed in nuance, you would stop using it and choose another.

And here’s the key point: You would stop not because of the language police. Not because you might incur a Bob Costas harangue. Not because the president would wag a finger. But simply because the word was tainted, freighted with negative connotations with which you would not want to be associated.

Proof? You wouldn’t even use the word in private, where being harassed for political incorrectness is not an issue.

Similarly, regarding the further racial breakdown of Congress, you wouldn’t say: “And by my count, there are two redskins.” It’s inconceivable, because no matter how the word was used 80 years ago, it carries invidious connotations today.

I know there are surveys that say that most Native Americans aren’t bothered by the word. But that’s not the point. My objection is not rooted in pressure from various minorities or fear of public polls or public scolds.

When I was growing up, I thought “gyp” was simply a synonym for “cheat,” and used it accordingly. It was only when I was an adult that I learned that gyp was short for gypsy. At which point, I stopped using it.

Not because I took a poll of Roma to find out if they were offended. If some mysterious disease had carried away every gypsy on the planet, and there were none left to offend, I still wouldn’t use it.

Why? Simple decency. I wouldn’t want to use a word that defines a people — living or dead, offended or not — in a most demeaning way. It’s a question not of who or how many had their feelings hurt, but of whether you want to associate yourself with a word that, for whatever historical reason having nothing to do with you, carries inherently derogatory connotations.

Years ago, the word “retarded” emerged as the enlightened substitute for such cruel terms as “feeble-minded” or “mongoloid.” Today, however, it is considered a form of denigration, having been replaced by the clumsy but now conventional “developmentally disabled.” There is no particular logic to this evolution. But it’s a social fact. Unless you’re looking to give gratuitous offense, you don’t call someone “retarded.”

Let’s recognize that there are many people of good will for whom “Washington Redskins” contains sentimental and historical attachment — and not an ounce of intended animus. So let’s turn down the temperature. What’s at issue is not high principle but adaptation to a change in linguistic nuance. A close call, though I personally would err on the side of not using the word if others are available.

How about Skins, a contraction already applied to the Washington football team? And that carries a sports connotation, as in skins vs. shirts in pickup basketball.

Choose whatever name you like. But let’s go easy on the other side. We’re not talking Brown v. Board of Education here. There’s no demand that Native Americans man the team’s offensive line. This is a matter of usage — and usage changes. If you shot a remake of 1934’s “The Gay Divorcee,” you’d have to change that title too.

Not because the lady changed but because the word did.

Hail Skins.

DaSkinz Baby wrote:Personally if we are forced to change the name, I would hope we can be something close, like the Washington Braves, personally I think a name change is ridiculous and some people are just consistent whiners that need to complain about things that make no sense. Welcome the America 21st century. This country should worry about the mass killings against the Indian's and Columbus having a Federal Holiday and he massacred how many Indians? How many Indians were killed when they were forced onto reservations? America should stop this crazy campaign and compensate them better than worrying about a football name. Heck one of the greatest Indians was named Crazy Horse, what's next a campaign to change that because it insults horses??

grampi wrote:

DaSkinz Baby wrote:Personally if we are forced to change the name, I would hope we can be something close, like the Washington Braves, personally I think a name change is ridiculous and some people are just consistent whiners that need to complain about things that make no sense. Welcome the America 21st century. This country should worry about the mass killings against the Indian's and Columbus having a Federal Holiday and he massacred how many Indians? How many Indians were killed when they were forced onto reservations? America should stop this crazy campaign and compensate them better than worrying about a football name. Heck one of the greatest Indians was named Crazy Horse, what's next a campaign to change that because it insults horses??

You know, this whole thing isn't about changing the name so much for me (though it has been the team name for over 80 years now and is now a tradition) as it is about principle. It seems the thing to do these days if you don't like something and you're part of a fringe/minority group, all you have to do is protest it, and eventually they'll get their way...I hate the whole notion of the few forcing the many to make concessions just to please them, and every time these groups are successful, it only serves to fuel the fire for other fringe groups to do the same...it's the same thing with these people who either don't celebrate or believe in Christmas complaining every year about nativity scenes being displayed on public property...complain loud enough and long enough and it will be taken down...majority be damned!