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

DEHog wrote:I really don’t care one way or another and as an old white guy I certainly don’t have the right to says what is or isn’t offensive to Native Americans…but neither does Dan Snyder or Harry Reid. That part bothers me, the government needs to step aside and allow this to play out within the confines of the NFL and its market.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:It's really not surprising at all. As I stated in my initial post, it has A LOT to do with Snyder and his mouth. Keim kinda details it below. What sucks is, it's becoming a distraction for the players.

riggofan wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:It's really not surprising at all. As I stated in my initial post, it has A LOT to do with Snyder and his mouth. Keim kinda details it below. What sucks is, it's becoming a distraction for the players.

You're probably right. I just remember the name issue popping up twenty years ago and thinking it was just some fringe thing that would never amount to anything. I'm sure new media and the Internet have a lot to do with why its different now.

Agree with you about Snyder. He's not a popular figure to begin with, I'm sure his comments and attitude have exacerbated the issue.

I also think people who have turned this into a political/cultural issue have made a huge mistake. I'm a pretty liberal person who could have cared less about the name of this football team. I'm more than willing to bet a majority of the left have felt the same way and have never given the Redskins name a thought in their lives. When you have the Rush Limbaugh crowd coming out and making this into another Obama issue, I'm sorry but all you've done is stirred the pot in a not good way and helped publicize and raise the profile of this story. You've forced people who don't know Joe Theisman from Joe Piscopo to think about the Redskins name and take a position. And nobody wants to lose.

Btw can we pull out the thread from a few months ago when Snyder created the Redskins Foundation for Redskins or whatever? I'm pretty sure I was told repeatedly in no uncertain terms in that thread that Snyder had worked some ninja PR magic with that move and completely squashed the name controversy. lol.

Kilmer72 wrote:This whole thing just ticks me off. Here is an example of how our government decides what is pc and how they butt in.

A "Generic Government Term"
But objections to the term Native American also arose. The term struck many as dry and bureaucratic, in much the same way that some dislike the Census Bureau's use of Hispanic as an umbrella term to cover the whole of the U.S.'s diverse Spanish-speaking population. As the Bureau of Indian Affairs elaborates:

The term, 'Native American,' came into usage in the 1960s to denote the groups served by the Bureau of Indian Affairs: American Indians and Alaska Native (Indians, Eskimos and Aleuts of Alaska). Later the term also included Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders in some Federal programs. It, therefore, came into disfavor among some Indian groups. The preferred term is American Indian.
Answers to Frequently Asked Questions, from the Bureau of Indian Affairs

Russell Means, the Lakota activist and founder of the American Indian Movement (AIM), has strongly rejected Native American in favor of Indian:

I abhor the term Native American. It is a generic government term used to describe all the indigenous prisoners of the United States. These are the American Samoans, the Micronesians, the Aleuts, the original Hawaiians, and the erroneously termed Eskimos, who are actually Upiks and Inupiats. And, of course, the American Indian.

I prefer the term American Indian because I know its origins . . . As an added distinction the American Indian is the only ethnic group in the United States with the American before our ethnicity . . . We were enslaved as American Indians, we were colonized as American Indians, and we will gain our freedom as American Indians, and then we will call ourselves any damn thing we choose.

"I am an American Indian, Not a Native American!"
statement by Russell Means



Read more: American Indian versus Native American | Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/spot/aihmterm ... z358MFqWcZ

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/aihmterms.html

What matters in the long run is not which term is used but the intention with which it is used.

riggofan wrote:I don't think I want to see politicians weighing in on either side.

Deadskins wrote:

riggofan wrote:I don't think I want to see politicians weighing in on either side.

Just so you know, there are some lining up on the keep-the-name side. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... ucus-fend/

"the agency doesn’t have any record of correspondence from the public about the Redskins‘ name — expressing sentiments one way or another — prior to the board’s June 18 ruling."

The board also pointed to research that found at least 30 percent of American Indians surveyed found the name offensive.

Deadskins wrote:

The board also pointed to research that found at least 30 percent of American Indians surveyed found the name offensive.

What research is this? I've never heard about any polls that come close to 30%. You would think opponents of the name would be publishing that every chance they get.

Now that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has struck a governmental blow against commodified ethnic insults, I’m nervous, because I may have “disparaged” somebody this morning when I buttered my toast. After I put away the Land O Lakes butter with that Indian maiden logo on the box, I bit off a chew of Red Man tobacco and climbed into a Jeep Cherokee. -snip-

government coercion is a lot more harmful than a lousy word. -snip-

The trademark case is indirectly about policing speech. Denial of a trademark registration is not the same as banning the use of a word, no. But it came in concert with several other forms of government pressure, and that fact is concerning enough to put the ACLU and Fox’s Megyn Kelly in the same camp over its free speech implications. -snip-

You don’t really want government agencies to become the arbiter of acceptable words and images. You really don’t. -snip-

“Being offended is the natural consequence of leaving one’s home,” Fran Lebowitz wrote. She added, “I do not like after-shave lotion, adults who roller skate, children who speak French, or anyone who is unduly tan. I do not, however, go around enacting legislation and putting up signs.” -snip-

In his dissent from the trademark decision, USPTO panelist Marc Bergsman observed that “the context” in which a word is used “changes the perception of the term.” For some people the word “Redskins” has lost all of its vicious old meaning and represents their beloved Sonny Jurgensen and Billy Kilmer; for others it’s a hate term. -snip-

no governmental traducing can put that epiphany into the heart of a team owner or the league commissioner, or a fan. There are competing priorities here: anti-disparagement vs. absolute free speech.

DarthMonk wrote:You don’t really want government agencies to become the arbiter of acceptable words and images. You really don’t. -snip-

riggofan wrote:

DarthMonk wrote:You don’t really want government agencies to become the arbiter of acceptable words and images. You really don’t. -snip-

You don't? So you would be cool walking into a grocery store with your kids and seeing cereal boxes with pictures of fully penetrated porn stars labelled "Big T**** O's"?

DarthMonk wrote:I (and many others) would leave and never come back

langleyparkjoe wrote:

DarthMonk wrote:I (and many others) would leave and never come back

That's my stance on it in the end. If you don't like it, you don't have to support it.. simple.

riggofan wrote:

langleyparkjoe wrote:

DarthMonk wrote:I (and many others) would leave and never come back

That's my stance on it in the end. If you don't like it, you don't have to support it.. simple.

That's a fair argument. Free market and all that. So how about the same cereal advertising on tv during the super bowl? How about the same porn-o cereal putting up billboards all over your town where it doesn't matter whether you support it or not? And so what if you never come back to the store or not? Your five year old still just got an eyeful of t**** Os. Maybe you're an elderly person who doesn't drive and this is the only grocery store in your neighborhood? Oh well, guess you're s out of luck.

I'm not trying to make any comparisons to the Redskins name issue btw. I'm just saying that statement about the gov't not getting involved in issues of what people see and hear is a little sketchy.

DarthMonk wrote:I never said the gov't should not be involved. I merely quoted someone who said we don't want the gov't to be the final arbiter on what constitutes an acceptable word or image - you know - like "Redskins" or

riggofan wrote:

DarthMonk wrote:You don’t really want government agencies to become the arbiter of acceptable words and images. You really don’t. -snip-

[size=150]You don't? So you would be cool walking into a grocery store with your kids and seeing cereal boxes with pictures of fully penetrated porn stars labelled "Big T**** O's"?
[/size]
Not sure where you got that quote from, but that's a real head scratcher to me. Government agencies have been regulating acceptable words and images for decades. Not just the USPTO, but the FCC. If people want to argue that there shouldn't be that type of regulation anymore, that's a different story.

riggofan wrote:

langleyparkjoe wrote:

DarthMonk wrote:I (and many others) would leave and never come back

That's my stance on it in the end. If you don't like it, you don't have to support it.. simple.

That's a fair argument. Free market and all that. So how about the same cereal advertising on tv during the super bowl? How about the same porn-o cereal putting up billboards all over your town where it doesn't matter whether you support it or not? And so what if you never come back to the store or not? Your five year old still just got an eyeful of t**** Os. Maybe you're an elderly person who doesn't drive and this is the only grocery store in your neighborhood? Oh well, guess you're s out of luck.

I'm not trying to make any comparisons to the Redskins name issue btw. I'm just saying that statement about the gov't not getting involved in issues of what people see and hear is a little sketchy.

yupchagee wrote:Such ads would cost business. What business would want to that.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:This situation has revealed some truths about Snyder and this organization.


1. Snyder is still an idiot.
2. Bruce Allen and company are "yes men".


Snyder has totally screwed himself. He's been overly demonstrative in his unwillingness to listen. The words and tone of his messages have done nothing but fuel the fire. The twitter campaigns from this organization have backfired and were stupid to begin with. If the NYPD and other organizations haven't taught their PR dept anything, nothing will. SOMEBODY has to grow a pair of balls and Bruce Allen isn't that man. Snyder as usual is his own worst enemy. He cannot protect himself, from himself. Nobody can protect this team from him either. They're all too scared.

This was a bad situation to begin with, but I feel that if he'd simply STFU and not be so abrasive, it would have ended in a stale-mate. But his brashness has forced the fence sitters against him. It's forced people who didn't really give a darn either way to spite him, because he's uber insensitive. He's a moron. And all he did was appease a fanbase that loves him one day and will hate him the other. They're fickle, and he sold out for them and he's gonna lose. He's gonna lose the name, the money and the fanbase. Why? Because he's an idiot and nobody is willing to tell him that he doesn't know it all.

- Dan Snyder, you're a failure. But we already knew that.
- Bruce Allen, I had hopes. But you sir have failed too.

BigRedskinDaddy wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:This situation has revealed some truths about Snyder and this organization.


1. Snyder is still an idiot.
2. Bruce Allen and company are "yes men".


Snyder has totally screwed himself. He's been overly demonstrative in his unwillingness to listen. The words and tone of his messages have done nothing but fuel the fire. The twitter campaigns from this organization have backfired and were stupid to begin with. If the NYPD and other organizations haven't taught their PR dept anything, nothing will. SOMEBODY has to grow a pair of balls and Bruce Allen isn't that man. Snyder as usual is his own worst enemy. He cannot protect himself, from himself. Nobody can protect this team from him either. They're all too scared.

This was a bad situation to begin with, but I feel that if he'd simply STFU and not be so abrasive, it would have ended in a stale-mate. But his brashness has forced the fence sitters against him. It's forced people who didn't really give a darn either way to spite him, because he's uber insensitive. He's a moron. And all he did was appease a fanbase that loves him one day and will hate him the other. They're fickle, and he sold out for them and he's gonna lose. He's gonna lose the name, the money and the fanbase. Why? Because he's an idiot and nobody is willing to tell him that he doesn't know it all.

- Dan Snyder, you're a failure. But we already knew that.
- Bruce Allen, I had hopes. But you sir have failed too.

Howdy fellas. Man, the new place looks nice. Different, but nice. Kudos. Gonna take me a little getting used to, but hey, there are greater tragedies in life. On topic:

I must tell you that I have not been following this grassroots-turned-raging brushfire controversy as closely as most of you have; from the moment it first appeared on my radar I was uneasy, as if there was a genuine threat to the name even though I couldn't identify it. So I more or less pretended it didn't exist hoping it would oblige me by ceasing to exist; that's how I roll. It hasn't, and at this point it seems as if nothing will prevent the eventual loss of a name that I hadn't even freaking theorized could ever be lost. Not in my wildest, THC-laden flights of mental fantasy as a younger man did I ever think this would happen...but it will, and in my lifetime no less. So when I disagree with you on this point, know that it is pure spec, gut feeling, in other words, completely unguided by anything rational. And probably way off the mark. I do not think the Dan precipitated the tidal wave of anti-Redskins sentiment we're seeing now by being vociferously stubborn and unapologetic, or any other boorishness. Granted, as the Dan he cannot improve a potentially bad situation by any tools such as tact, or diplomacy - he is the anti-Carnegie in that respect - but I truly feel this was inevitable and no one at the helm could've done much more than forestall it a bit. JKC today would've been villified BIG-TIME with his "there is not one iota, one chance...." (badly-paraphrased) quote way back when. And JKC was about as suave and dapper as it gets, brother. The man knew how to work someone holding a mic in front of him. So while I have no doubt Herr Snyder has accelerated the process somewhat simply by being himself and doing his thing, I think you err in laying the final outcome at his feet. This, IMHO, was going to happen no matter what. Why I can't say, but the only variable is and ever was the when, not the if.


EDIT: Gents, kindly disregard the opening remark about the new look. A quick search revealed I have apparently already seen it, and liked it then as well. So while I am old and forget stuff now, at least I'm marginally consistent. <sigh> Now where the heck are my keys...?

riggofan wrote:

DarthMonk wrote:You don’t really want government agencies to become the arbiter of acceptable words and images. You really don’t. -snip-

You don't? So you would be cool walking into a grocery store with your kids and seeing cereal boxes with pictures of fully penetrated porn stars labelled "Big T**** O's"?

Not sure where you got that quote from, but that's a real head scratcher to me. Government agencies have been regulating acceptable words and images for decades. Not just the USPTO, but the FCC. If people want to argue that there shouldn't be that type of regulation anymore, that's a different story.

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." Thomas Jefferson

"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government." Thomas Jefferson

DarthMonk wrote:Check the ignition. Nice post bro. Good to have you back. Hail to the Redskins.