Page 3 of 4
Re: Name Change News
Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2013 1:35 pm
by langleyparkjoe
Google "Redskins" and a NFL team comes up.
Re: Name Change News
Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2013 1:49 pm
by Deadskins
riggofan wrote:Deadskins wrote:riggofan wrote:I guess if they were saying the team was being intentionally racist or something that would qualify.
They say that in almost every discussion on this topic. They also compare the name to the "N" word, which I think is over the top as well. But I agree with you on the Scandanavians being offended by the Vikings name and other similar arguments.
Really? You've honestly seen or heard the name change crowd make the case that Dan Snyder is using the name "Redskins" to intentionally disparage Native Americans? I don't know if I buy that. I just don't think I've ever heard anyone suggest that, would be interested to see a link or quote or something. I think the argument is more about ignorance, than about being intentionally racist.
No, but I've seen George Preston Marshall being accused of naming the team that because he was a racist, and the fact that the Danny won't change the name showing that he is racist as well. There was a New York Times editorial a couple of weeks ago comparing Snyder's refusal to change the name to George Wallace standing in the schoolhouse door, and comparing Obama's weighing in to Kennedy working behind the scenes to get GPM to integrate the team. When I get home, I'll post a link to it.
Re: Name Change News
Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2013 1:52 pm
by Cappster
No matter what, the will always be the "Sons of Washington" to me.
Re: Name Change News
Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2013 1:53 pm
by Deadskins
riggofan wrote:Deadskins wrote:riggofan wrote:I guess if they were saying the team was being intentionally racist or something that would qualify.
They say that in almost every discussion on this topic. They also compare the name to the "N" word, which I think is over the top as well. But I agree with you on the Scandanavians being offended by the Vikings name and other similar arguments.
Really? You've honestly seen or heard the name change crowd make the case that Dan Snyder is using the name "Redskins" to intentionally disparage Native Americans? I don't know if I buy that. I just don't think I've ever heard anyone suggest that, would be interested to see a link or quote or something. I think the argument is more about ignorance, than about being intentionally racist.
No, but I've seen George Preston Marshall being accused of naming the team that because he was a racist, and the fact that the Danny won't change the name showing that he is racist as well. There was a New York Times editorial a couple of weeks ago comparing Snyder's refusal to change the name to George Wallace standing in the schoolhouse door, and comparing Obama's weighing in to Kennedy working behind the scenes to get GPM to integrate the team. Interestingly, Mike Wise's recent editorial used the exact same "Snyder on the wrong side of history" verbiage the NYT editorial did. When I get home, I'll post a link to it.
Re: Name Change News
Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2013 2:02 pm
by langleyparkjoe
Cappster wrote:No matter what, the will always be the "Sons of Washington" to me.
+10
Re: Name Change News
Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2013 2:15 pm
by StorminMormon86
riggofan wrote:Really? I'll bet you $50 I can go back through the two threads on this topic and copy 20 posts from people writing about why Native Americans shouldn't be offended by the name. Would you agree?
This is exactly my point. I think fans can (and should) support the name and still be men enough to admit that yeah, there may be a valid argument against the name. If you can do that, I think you can have a grown up discussion about resolving the issue.
Should have said the majority of people who want to keep the name. But both sides are using the "yeah you should be offended" or "no way should they be offended" arguments. It's silly. It's a sports team name.
Re: Name Change News
Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2013 7:33 pm
by Deadskins
Deadskins wrote:When I get home, I'll post a link to it.
http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location= ... ®i_id=0
Re: Name Change News
Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 1:34 am
by hanburgerheel
My brother and I were at the HHH Metrodome for the Vikings game and were decked-out in full Redskin regalia and did not see ONE, SINGLE PROTESTOR anywhere around the entire stadium! We saw no one.
Re: Name Change News
Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 8:37 am
by grampi
riggofan wrote:grampi wrote:I KNOW I'm part of the majority...it's no big secret that the vast majority of people want the Redskins name to stay, so I don't see how anyone could think I'm part of ANY fringe group...
Oh you're clearly part of a fringe.
How do you figure? It's a fact that MOST people want the name change issue to go away and for the name to remain the same...
Re: Name Change News
Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 9:11 am
by StorminMormon86
hanburgerheel wrote:My brother and I were at the HHH Metrodome for the Vikings game and were decked-out in full Redskin regalia and did not see ONE, SINGLE PROTESTOR anywhere around the entire stadium! We saw no one.
They showed hundreds of them on television last night.
Re: Name Change News
Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 10:39 am
by riggofan
grampi wrote:riggofan wrote:grampi wrote:I KNOW I'm part of the majority...it's no big secret that the vast majority of people want the Redskins name to stay, so I don't see how anyone could think I'm part of ANY fringe group...
Oh you're clearly part of a fringe.
How do you figure? It's a fact that MOST people want the name change issue to go away and for the name to remain the same...
I want the name to remain the same too, but I completely disagree with your arguments and your opinion of the opposition. So, one of us is in the fringe. I'm going with you and your nutty tea party arguments.
Re: Name Change News
Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 10:57 am
by Deadskins
StorminMormon86 wrote:hanburgerheel wrote:My brother and I were at the HHH Metrodome for the Vikings game and were decked-out in full Redskin regalia and did not see ONE, SINGLE PROTESTOR anywhere around the entire stadium! We saw no one.
They showed hundreds of them on television last night.
Really? When? I must have been peeing or something.
Re: Name Change News
Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 11:05 am
by StorminMormon86
Deadskins wrote:StorminMormon86 wrote:hanburgerheel wrote:My brother and I were at the HHH Metrodome for the Vikings game and were decked-out in full Redskin regalia and did not see ONE, SINGLE PROTESTOR anywhere around the entire stadium! We saw no one.
They showed hundreds of them on television last night.
Really? When? I must have been peeing or something.
I think it was immediately after the game went off, they switched to NBC News 4 and showed an aerial shot of it. Or mabye it was a commercial promo for the upcoming news. Either way, there was a lot of people protesting.
Re: Name Change News
Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 11:19 am
by Deadskins
StorminMormon86 wrote:Deadskins wrote:Really? When? I must have been peeing or something.
I think it was immediately after the game went off, they switched to NBC News 4 and showed an aerial shot of it. Or mabye it was a commercial promo for the upcoming news. Either way, there was a lot of people protesting.
I'm in Atlanta, I don't get the local DC news. I watched the game on NFLN
Re: Name Change News
Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 1:40 pm
by riggofan
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2013/11/0 ... fore-game/Nearly 700 protesters marched 20 blocks to the Metrodome on Thursday night, rallying in hopes that the Washington Redskins football team will change its mascot name, as the squad was in town to play the Minnesota Vikings.
Re: Name Change News
Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 1:48 pm
by riggofan
grampi wrote:How do you figure? It's a fact that MOST people want the name change issue to go away and for the name to remain the same...
Btw why do you think this is even a relevant fact? Most people want the name to stay the same so therefore we shouldn't change it? That's completely false.
I'm sure in 1920 the majority of men were against allowing women to vote. Did that somehow mean they were right because they were "in the majority"? Was George Wallace right to block the doors because the majority of people in Alabama were against integration?
I'm not arguing that these situations are comparable to the name change. But popular opinion and being "in the majority" does not mean what you're implying it does.
Re: Name Change News
Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 2:15 pm
by SkinsJock
it does not really matter about how many OR why people are offended by the team's name …
all that matters is that Dan Snyder has considered the pros and cons and he has decided that the name is not offensive TO HIM
THAT IS ALL THAT MATTERS - it's his team and he does not feel that the name is offensive
END OF STORY
I hope those that are offended take great offense at the fact that Roger Goodell is not forcing Dan to change the name - he's an ass
Re: Name Change News
Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 4:13 pm
by riggofan
SkinsJock wrote:it does not really matter about how many OR why people are offended by the team's name …
all that matters is that Dan Snyder has considered the pros and cons and he has decided that the name is not offensive TO HIM
THAT IS ALL THAT MATTERS - it's his team and he does not feel that the name is offensive
Yeah, yeah, nobody can legally change the name but Dan Snyder. What does that have to do with anything?
It doesn't change the fact that there is a loud public debate about the name going on right now. It doesn't change the facts of the argument or the fact that 700+ people were out there protesting or that the national media is hammering him on it. The issue isn't whether or not Snyder can or wants to change the name. The issue is whether or not the Native Americans can bring enough pressure on him to make him change the name.
Re: Name Change News
Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 4:44 pm
by SkinsJock
I guess my point is that Dan has heard from the fans, he has discussed the issue with Roger and he has thought about the concerns of those that feel the name is offensive and should be changed
AFTER all that thought and consideration, Dan has decided to keep the name …
it appears that there are still people that are convinced that some how, some way, Dan should be made to change the name ….
WHY - he thought about it and he's decided to keep the name
END OF STORY
those that do not agree should stop wasting everyone's time by continuing a 'debate' that is OVER
Re: Name Change News
Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 4:49 pm
by SkinsJock
riggofan - do you honestly think that there is even a slight chance that Dan Snyder is going to change his mind
that's the answer - now, we all know that those opposed to the name do not really know Snyder very well but someone should 'educate' them and MAYBE they could spend their energies trying (I'm sure this will not be easy) to do something worthwhile …. for a change
Re: Name Change News
Posted: Sat Nov 09, 2013 9:09 am
by grampi
riggofan...Here is why I don't think the people protesting the team name have a legitimate argument. The team name, used in this context, is being used in a positive way. There is nothing derogatory about naming a sports team the Redskins, or any other Indian name for that matter. Now if someone, or some organization was calling this group, or any other group of native Americans Redskins, THEN they would have a reason to protest. As it is, the protesters are misdirecting their anger, and I believe they know it's misdirected and are doing so solely because they know going this route will garner them the most media attention. And what's with the Tea Party comment? Does literally EVERYTHING have to be tied to some political position?
Re: Name Change News
Posted: Sat Nov 09, 2013 11:40 am
by Irn-Bru
SkinsJock wrote:riggofan - do you honestly think that there is even a slight chance that Dan Snyder is going to change his mind
I'm worried that could be the case. Snyder is strong-willed, no doubt, but the public pressure has been intense. I think he survives this particular wave, though, which should set things up for another 10 years or so. (Maybe I'm being excessively optimistic.)
Re: Name Change News
Posted: Sat Nov 09, 2013 12:08 pm
by SkinsJock
Irn-Bru wrote:SkinsJock wrote:riggofan - do you honestly think that there is even a slight chance that Dan Snyder is going to change his mind
I'm worried that could be the case. Snyder is strong-willed, no doubt, but the public pressure has been intense. I think he survives this particular wave, though, which should set things up for another 10 years or so. (Maybe I'm being excessively optimistic.)
I believe that, while there has been a lot of pressure, Snyder thinks he's got a lot of support to keep the name and that he's being 'bullied' to make a change …
Re: Name Change News
Posted: Sat Nov 09, 2013 8:40 pm
by Countertrey
riggofan wrote:SkinsJock wrote:it does not really matter about how many OR why people are offended by the team's name …
all that matters is that Dan Snyder has considered the pros and cons and he has decided that the name is not offensive TO HIM
THAT IS ALL THAT MATTERS - it's his team and he does not feel that the name is offensive
Yeah, yeah, nobody can legally change the name but Dan Snyder. What does that have to do with anything?
It doesn't change the fact that there is a loud public debate about the name going on right now. It doesn't change the facts of the argument or the fact that 700+ people were out there protesting or that the national media is hammering him on it. The issue isn't whether or not Snyder can or wants to change the name. The issue is whether or not the Native Americans can bring enough pressure on him to make him change the name.
700??? Seriously??? A whole 700???? Wow... that's clearly a major protest...
Many of them were wearing insensitive Vikings accoutrements, btw...
Re: Name Change News
Posted: Sat Nov 09, 2013 9:23 pm
by Kilmer72
Irn-Bru wrote:SkinsJock wrote:riggofan - do you honestly think that there is even a slight chance that Dan Snyder is going to change his mind
I'm worried that could be the case. Snyder is strong-willed, no doubt, but the public pressure has been intense. I think he survives this particular wave, though, which should set things up for another 10 years or so. (Maybe I'm being excessively optimistic.)
I believe it is coming and I hope I am wrong. For example... In the PC world things change as in the words negro,African American, Black and so on. If you were to call a group something, that was used and never meant to be an insult, they still might be offended (even if they call themselves that and that is the pc way of putting things at that time). In this case I believe it is Snyders fault for saying NEVER in caps. I laughed when he said it, but now I wished he never did.
It was probably just going to blow over like usual if he never said that. I am also looking at the tiny group that was offended that is now growing because people are telling them they should be offended and what wrongs with you join the cause. This snowball rolling down the hill is getting bigger. If it goes to court and the Redskins win it still wont end until the Supreme court judges it. I know that sounds far fetched but, I am trying to explain how this can actually turn out to be what we thought would never happen. There is also the pressure (financially) that could change his mind.