Posted: Fri May 03, 2013 9:07 am
langleyparkjoe wrote:riggofan wrote:lol. WOW.
wut a jerk, you couldn't let it slide like the rest of us huh?
hah. NO! That was freaking HILARIOUS!!!
Sorry for being the jerk though.

Washington football community discussions spanning the Redskins to Commanders era. 20+ years of game analysis, player discussions, and fan perspectives.
https://the-hogs.net/messageboard/
langleyparkjoe wrote:riggofan wrote:lol. WOW.
wut a jerk, you couldn't let it slide like the rest of us huh?
Deadskins wrote:Redskins Reparations wrote:When was the last time a professional sports franchise changed their name due to public pressure and/or political correctness?
Bullets to Wizards?
DarthMonk wrote:Deadskins wrote:Redskins Reparations wrote:When was the last time a professional sports franchise changed their name due to public pressure and/or political correctness?
Bullets to Wizards?
Here's some irony - the logo looks like a guy who just shot himself in the head!
HTTRRG3ALMO wrote:yupchagee wrote:Deadskins wrote:Redskins Reparations wrote:When was the last time a professional sports franchise changed their name due to public pressure and/or political correctness?
Bullets to Wizards?
That wasn't public pressure. The owner did that after the Rabin asasination.
Wow didn't know that. Thought it was a political move.
BTW you guys ever hear of a bakery company called "Bimbo Bakeries"? They're actually a very large company across the nation (not sure if they're international).
I'd think that if we're going after company names, there's a lot worse out there than what we're dealing with.
emoses14 wrote:I empathize with the group of people that feel the name is derogatory. I truly do. I don't think they are fighting the TM protection solely for publicity sake (though publicity helps their cause attract attention and support). I believe and understand their being offended.
I also believe that they are wrong in this fight. SF33, framed it. It isn't just about origin of use, its about the evolution of it and perception over time.
I do believe, sorry, I KNOW, that there are numerous SIGNIFICANT differences between Redskin and the N-Word. The most pertinent for the argument against the anti-Redskin crowd is that though Redskin may be offensive, period, its usage and meaning to everyone other than them is w.r.t the football team in DC. ONLY. So for me the 2 camps of opinion are not the offenders and the offended, but rather the offended and everyone else who uses it in one context only. Sf33 is right on about usage changing. The N-Word has not ever been used for anything other than racist, violent, supremacist, subjugating ends. Not so with Redskin. Hell you can't type the full N-word without touching off a major firestorm, as it should be.
Without looking it up, my bet is the last time anyone can truthfully point to Redskin being used derogatorily was well over 50 years ago. That can't be just brushed aside, nor can the offense this group takes. Some middle ground between "piss off" and "change the name" (that does not involve changing the name) needs to be reached. If I had my druthers, I'd look to Snyder to invite the groups leaders out to his palatial estate to discuss alternatives to their desired end game that works for the offended and everyone else.
aswas71788 wrote:emoses14 wrote:I empathize with the group of people that feel the name is derogatory. I truly do. I don't think they are fighting the TM protection solely for publicity sake (though publicity helps their cause attract attention and support). I believe and understand their being offended.
I also believe that they are wrong in this fight. SF33, framed it. It isn't just about origin of use, its about the evolution of it and perception over time.
I do believe, sorry, I KNOW, that there are numerous SIGNIFICANT differences between Redskin and the N-Word. The most pertinent for the argument against the anti-Redskin crowd is that though Redskin may be offensive, period, its usage and meaning to everyone other than them is w.r.t the football team in DC. ONLY. So for me the 2 camps of opinion are not the offenders and the offended, but rather the offended and everyone else who uses it in one context only. Sf33 is right on about usage changing. The N-Word has not ever been used for anything other than racist, violent, supremacist, subjugating ends. Not so with Redskin. Hell you can't type the full N-word without touching off a major firestorm, as it should be.
Without looking it up, my bet is the last time anyone can truthfully point to Redskin being used derogatorily was well over 50 years ago. That can't be just brushed aside, nor can the offense this group takes. Some middle ground between "piss off" and "change the name" (that does not involve changing the name) needs to be reached. If I had my druthers, I'd look to Snyder to invite the groups leaders out to his palatial estate to discuss alternatives to their desired end game that works for the offended and everyone else.
You can't really use the N word as a comparison. Are you aware that some blacks call each other the N name and consider it a term of endearment? I only found that out recently, surprised the heck out of me. I have been called many names over the years; redskin, injun, indian, Tonto (I knew Jay Silverheels, he was quite a guy. He was a Mohawk from Canada. I consider it a compliment.), Squawman, chief, scalper, redass, among a few others. My feeling is that whether they are an insult or not depends on the reason for being called the name, not the name. My best friend calls me chief but I have been called that in a manner by others that was meant as an insult. This is never going to go away as long as the media is willing to make a deal out of it.
skinsfan#33 wrote:I'm sure there are plenty of Christians that are offended by the name Wizzards due to witchcraft (in their minds) being associated with the devil. Or how about Wiccans who actually practice witchcraft (in their minds) that find the term wizzard offensive.
My point is, you can find a group that can find almost any name offensive.
grampi wrote:This is EXACTLY what irritates about this stupid debate. That people on the pro-Redskins side play stupid about and refuse to acknowledge that the word "Redskins" is a slur and offensive to some people.
So is this the way things work in today's society...if even one person is offended by something it must be changed?
Deadskins wrote:jmooney wrote:While were at it, theives everywhere should request Pittsburgh's name to be changed
Um, it's Steelers, not Stealers.And thieves, not theives.
riggofan wrote:What I wrote is that I wish Redskins fans would quit pretending like the name Redskins doesn't have some baggage to it. It does. You can get all grumpy old man about it all you want and whine about political correctness and all the rest. Its still factually an ethnic slur.
riggofan wrote:skinsfan#33 wrote:I'm sure there are plenty of Christians that are offended by the name Wizzards due to witchcraft (in their minds) being associated with the devil. Or how about Wiccans who actually practice witchcraft (in their minds) that find the term wizzard offensive.
My point is, you can find a group that can find almost any name offensive.
Ok, that is a point.
But if I apply your logic, then it would be completely okay if the team renamed itself the Washington Wetbacks, right? Because, hey, no matter what you name a team itself some group is going to find almost any name offensive.
riggofan wrote:grampi wrote:This is EXACTLY what irritates about this stupid debate. That people on the pro-Redskins side play stupid about and refuse to acknowledge that the word "Redskins" is a slur and offensive to some people.
So is this the way things work in today's society...if even one person is offended by something it must be changed?
Of course not, and I didn't say that at all. I said I don't think the name should be changed.
What I wrote is that I wish Redskins fans would quit pretending like the name Redskins doesn't have some baggage to it. but they are package in a shed that no one has been in for 50 years You can get all grumpy old man about it all you want and whine about political correctness and all the rest. Its no longer used as an ethnic slur.
Again, I'd like to see Skins fans and all the rest just go ahead and own it. We don't agree that the name is that big a deal. Sorry if it bothers anybody, but we're not changing it. That's pretty much the Redskins' response isn't it?
skinsfan#33 wrote:riggofan wrote:grampi wrote:This is EXACTLY what irritates about this stupid debate. That people on the pro-Redskins side play stupid about and refuse to acknowledge that the word "Redskins" is a slur and offensive to some people.
So is this the way things work in today's society...if even one person is offended by something it must be changed?
Of course not, and I didn't say that at all. I said I don't think the name should be changed.
What I wrote is that I wish Redskins fans would quit pretending like the name Redskins doesn't have some baggage to it. but they are package in a shed that no one has been in for 50 years You can get all grumpy old man about it all you want and whine about political correctness and all the rest. Its no longer used as an ethnic slur.
Again, I'd like to see Skins fans and all the rest just go ahead and own it. We don't agree that the name is that big a deal. Sorry if it bothers anybody, but we're not changing it. That's pretty much the Redskins' response isn't it?
Here I change it for you to make your statement more accurate to this century.
grampi wrote:riggofan wrote:What I wrote is that I wish Redskins fans would quit pretending like the name Redskins doesn't have some baggage to it. It does. You can get all grumpy old man about it all you want and whine about political correctness and all the rest. Its still factually an ethnic slur.
It may be an ethnic slur, but I don't believe it's a derogatory one, and I think that's the crux of the matter. No team owner would name their team after a derogatory slur...not even in 1932...calling a Caucasian "white" is also an ethnic slur, but it's also not derogatory...
yupchagee wrote:The only safe names are Hoyas, Hokies & Hoosiers. Nobody knows what any of them are.
Dan Snyder wrote: We'll never change the name. It's that simple. NEVER -- you can use caps.