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

How can we live in a modern, racially tolerant society yet vehemently hold on to such a derogatory term! "Redskins" has a negative connotation surrounding it; there's nothing positive about the word. You wouldn't name a team "Cotton Pickers", so why is Redskins any different? Why are the Redskins excused when their use of the word "Redskin" is no different than that of other racial or gay slurs that are widely deemed inappropriate for everyday use? Fans are cheering on a team that belittles an entire people and it is unacceptable!

Ok so let me tell you....

.... nevermind its not worth my time or energy.

Prowl33 wrote:Ok so let me tell you....

.... nevermind its not worth my time or energy.

He's not here to discuss.... Please consider not feeding.

I am 100% here to discuss and it's a completely valid stance! Lemme hear what your thoughts are.

To give my opinion, and I dont want to "discuss" because that typically involves one trying to change the others opinion. My opinion wont change, youre entitled to yours and I dont want to tell you to change it.

The Redskins team was established in 1932 with a name nlt intended to be a slur or offensive in any way. The team has gone through the year patenting/copywriting the name, logo, etc. The legal dispute has to do with that portion of things, and by law the name needed to be challenged and labeled offensive at that time. It was not so that to me is null and void.

Now lets talk about today. First in general I believe we are in a society where its cool to be offended. You get to make a big deal about it and get youre 15 minutes of fame (not saying you specifically, but people in general overuse being offended and take the meaning and validity away from those who truely are) from slang terms to the pledge of allegiance in school to now having to label our year as 2015 me (modern era) vs

Im white, cracker is a racially derogatory term used against whites, (not comparing racism, just the example of an offensive term) but im not trying to change every box of saltine's

Then finally if you are going to be offended by "Redskins" then you should equally be against the numerous highschool teams by that name, the braves and other native american named teams that can be used in a begative matter, Thanksgiving, and anything that represents the people who contributed to the genocide of native americans (Cowboys are known for the hunting down and killing of native Americans)

Really the BULK of this has started and continued as part of Political publicity, followed by groups of people that want to get in a news paper on TV to have their name mentioned, followed by a few that actually consider it offensive.

For the people it very honestly offends, im sorry it does, I really am, but based on the number of people that is, and how the Redskins represent the name, its nowhere near grounds for even a consideration of a name change.

please don't feed the trolls ...

morr5030 wrote:How can we live in a modern, racially tolerant society yet vehemently hold on to such a derogatory term! "Redskins" has a negative connotation surrounding it; there's nothing positive about the word. You wouldn't name a team "Cotton Pickers", so why is Redskins any different? Why are the Redskins excused when their use of the word "Redskin" is no different than that of other racial or gay slurs that are widely deemed inappropriate for everyday use? Fans are cheering on a team that belittles an entire people and it is unacceptable!

Political Correctness..................RUN AMUCK

zip it............shut it

morr5030 wrote:How can we live in a modern, racially tolerant society yet vehemently hold on to such a derogatory term! "Redskins" has a negative connotation surrounding it; there's nothing positive about the word. You wouldn't name a team "Cotton Pickers", so why is Redskins any different? Why are the Redskins excused when their use of the word "Redskin" is no different than that of other racial or gay slurs that are widely deemed inappropriate for everyday use? Fans are cheering on a team that belittles an entire people and it is unacceptable!

Sorry guys I have to ask a few question, I’ve turned down numerous interviews on the topic because it’s a no win situation…if you want to change the name you’re a sellout if you want to keep it you’re a racists!!

I’ve always been enamored by those who are “offended” by words that society tells they are offensive. While I myself am not easily offended, I recognized that there are words that do hurt and offend. I’m certainly not the authority on what is and isn’t offensive but I’ve always wanted to ask a few questions to people who are offended and in particular those who are offended by the “R” word which leads me to my first question…
If Redskins rise to other offensive terms as you say why don’t we all say the “R” word when referring to the word Redskin? I heard it use half a dozen times on ESPN the other day.
Can you tell me specifically how your life is altered or changed by a football team calling themselves Redskins…do you lose sleep is sex not as good?
Is there anything else you’re offended by and what are you doing about it…let’s use the “N” word as an example. I hear and see this word more today that I ever have, do you know why that is?
Do the music and movie industries offend you with their continuous use of the word?
I’ve been told if you put an “A” on the end of the word and not an “ER” that it is not considered offensive, how bout we put a “Z” on the end of Redskinz would that be less offensive?? Just as people tell me the use of the “N” is contextual, shouldn’t there be some context applied to the use of the word Redskins in this case?
You may think I’m kidding but I’m not…love to hear your thoughts. You see I’ve chosen to think for myself and decide what I do and don’t like…what I let in or don’t let in to my life. We have something called the free market here in our country and if I don’t like something or think its offensive, guess what I do…I don’t watch, support, or use it!! The reason we have music, movies, and other forms of entertainment that use what you say are offensive words is because there’s a market for it. Football is in the entertainment business and the Redskins are a part of that business, in case you haven’t notice there is a huge market for this business…did you notice how many people watch the Super Bowl.
All that said…if and when we decide that the term Redskins has to go...so be it!! My only request is that we allow the free market to play out. I guarantee you when September rolls around and the Redskins play their first Sunday home game, if they come out to find only 10 or 20 fans in the stadium….the name will change on Monday!! We already have precedence for this… remember Donald Sterling?? Look at how quickly he was force to sell the team, I wish I could say it was done for the right reasons but at the end of the day the Clippers had no market with him has the owner. The same thing could easily happen to the Redskins if fans, players, owner and the league did something….but it will happen sooner if the $ponsor$ do it first!!

morr5030 wrote:such a derogatory term! "Redskins" has a negative connotation surrounding it

Can you explain to me why it's derogatory, and what the negative connotation is?

Please. Just stop.

morr5030 wrote:How can we live in a modern, racially tolerant society yet vehemently hold on to such a derogatory term! "Redskins" has a negative connotation surrounding it; there's nothing positive about the word. You wouldn't name a team "Cotton Pickers", so why is Redskins any different? Why are the Redskins excused when their use of the word "Redskin" is no different than that of other racial or gay slurs that are widely deemed inappropriate for everyday use? Fans are cheering on a team that belittles an entire people and it is unacceptable!

Welcome aboard.

Look, I understand that you've got a perspective you want to share, and I believe you when you say you're interested in learning whether there are any arguments on the other side of the issue that can withstand scrutiny. All of that is fine.

But you have to keep in mind that yours isn't the first post on this topic on THN. It's not even the 20th or 50th. This conversation has been done to death, particularly by drive-by posters who come here just to spark a thread and then leave after they've had their fill. Us regulars who support the team keeping its name are expected to trot out fresh arguments every single time this happens. It gets old.

The bad news is that I and a lot of other people aren't going to make the effort to rewrite things we've said a dozen times before. The good news is that everything we have to say on this topic, we've said a dozen times before. So if you really are interested in hearing what someone else has to say, and if you're really interested in understanding how anyone can hold a view you've deemed "unacceptable," I suggest you look at the following threads — which are representative of this debate on THN and not exhaustive, by the way. You can find just about any viewpoint you like and arguments to support it looking through them and other similar threads on the board you can find by searching.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=40265
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=39828
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=40414
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=40268
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=40251
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=40058

I know it's a poor substitute for interacting with people in back-and-forth conversation, but I hope you'll understand why I (and others) just can't be bothered to continue writing the same things over and over and over. The debate might be fresh to you but it's stale as hell to us.

Hail to the Redskins.

Jeeze. It's clear that it's another "racist name so y'all suck" thread. He is not here to discuss. He is not here to understand our pov... he is not hear to gain a perspective, or to share his. He is here to provoke, to take shots in passing to assuage some deep feeling of inadequacy and guilt, and to demand that we change. There is no discuss. There is no understand. There is no accept. There is no tolerate. There is only provocation, insults, and foot stomping.

I would add, Bru, that posting with the sole intent of provocation and disruption is a violation of our forum rules. We encourage genuine discussion regarding our disagreements... but clearly, when your first thread and first post is purely combative, there is no such intent here.

riggofan wrote:Please. Just stop.

Was that directed at me? If so, I would ask you the same questions I asked him. If your answer is, "because the dictionary says it is," then that is not good enough for me. I am seriously asking these questions. I don't expect the OP to respond, because like CT pointed out, it was a troll thread, and I doubt he will be back to follow up. I know we've been over this a thousand times, but no one has ever given me what I consider to be a valid answer. As best as can be determined, the word is American Indian in origin. It is used proudly by many Indian schools on reservations, and is supported by the tribes local to DC. The logo was designed by, and added to the helmets at the behest of, Indians. So why should I take for granted that the word is inherently racist, just because it contains both the word "red" and the word "skins?"

It's pretty obvious.

Deadskins wrote:

riggofan wrote:Please. Just stop.

Was that directed at me?

Nope.

But you might take a look at what Irn Bru wrote too.

The debate might be fresh to you but it's stale as hell to us.

riggofan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

riggofan wrote:Please. Just stop.

Was that directed at me?

Nope.

But you might take a look at what Irn Bru wrote too.

The debate might be fresh to you but it's stale as hell to us.

I did, and agree..

DarthMonk wrote:It's pretty obvious.

Really? I don't think it is.

Well, we got it cleared up. That's the important thing.

Deadskins wrote:

DarthMonk wrote:It's pretty obvious.

Really? I don't think it is.

riggofan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

riggofan wrote:Please. Just stop.

Was that directed at me?

Nope.

But you might take a look at what Irn Bru wrote too.

The debate might be fresh to you but it's stale as hell to us.

More like very ovious.

With yet another Alabama signing how about the Washington Redtide.

JK of course.

DarthMonk wrote:With yet another Alabama signing how about the Washington Redtide.

JK of course.

Nah, still offensive to Washingtonians.

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:

DarthMonk wrote:With yet another Alabama signing how about the Washington Redtide.

JK of course.

Nah, still offensive to Washingtonians.

Silly me.

Wow, what a thread res.

In my opinion, I think DEHog said all there needs to be said. Done.

Justice Hog wrote:In my opinion, I think DEHog said all there needs to be said. Done.

We're in the business of believing the 1st Amendment trumps (pun intended) the right of individuals to take offense to language upon which we have all agreed. We use the English language to communicate. Words in the English language exist to communicate specific ideas. Other words do not communicate the same ideas. That is why there are different words. The way I look at it is if you're offended by words in the English language find a language with no words you consider offensive, and good luck with that. If the word Redskins offends you don't use it. Expecting others to live by your subjective morality is a fool's errand.

Having said that, if the Redskins organization didn't have a long and storied history of racist ownership this would be far less of an issue.