Daniel Snyder: Redskins will 'never' change team name

[Townie72]

There are plenty of "Native Americans" who have spoken out against the use of the term "Redskin" to describe them. I think it is maybe you who has a belief that somehow they are too dumb to voice their own opinions and therefore must be puppets of the liberals. Somehow, these Native Americans have no right to their opinion and must therefore have been brainwashed. Unless they go along with you, their opinion is invalid.

Look at the research surveys I cited.

In each of these two credible surveys, the Native Americans said they don't care, aren't offended, etc.

I'm afraid your comment on "plenty of Native Americans" is just your opinion.

 

[Townie72]

I'll ask again--does the 9% (your statistic) not have the right to speak out against what they find offensive?

Sure. But a 9% group doesn't have to get what they demand.

 

[Shenexon]

I see the problem.

I meant to say "Liberals who spend time and effort trying to help protected classes who THEY BELIEVE are too dumb to know they ought to be hurt and offended.

Townie, normally I like what you write but this time I'm kind of disappointed. I think as a society we decided some time ago to discourage words that demean others due to their heritage. I won't elaborate on the words, but most ethnic groups in this country have had words used against them including the Polish, Germans, Jews, Puerto Ricans, Hispanics, Chinese, Japanese, African-Americans, Irish, Italians, Russians, native Americans, whites, etc., etc., etc. While there is an element of political correctness, much of the reasoning is to promote civility within our culture, to reduce friction between societal elements, and to establish high standards for our humanity. Beyond ethnicities, we also have had a multitude of words used against people in many other situations and have discouraged them as a society in the same way we discourage other behaviors through various kinds of legal, civil, & sociological sanctions.

While I'm not personally offended by the name Redskins, I appreciate the argument that the name on its face is a slur. The diversity of our society increases daily and the way we treat each other matters. I'm a great believer in tradition but not all of our traditions pass the test of time. Is it ok to use other slurs that we've discouraged for many decades? I don't believe the answer is yes. It's not a matter of protected classes, it's a matter of respect.

 

[xc84]

Look at the research surveys I cited.

In each of these two credible surveys, the Native Americans said they don't care, aren't offended, etc.

I'm afraid your comment on "plenty of Native Americans" is just your opinion.

It's not my opinion. I can cite them. Some care, some don't. If even 9% of Native Americans "care", you can't say "Native Americans don't care". Just do a search or look above for the Oren Lyons citation (or does he not have a brain too?). I am not discounting that the majority of Native Americans said they don't mind but sometimes the way questions are framed skews the results. I respect the opinion of the majority and minority...even if just 9%. That does not make them brainless puppets as you have inferred.

 

[xc84]

Sure. But a 9% group doesn't have to get what they demand.

I bet the majority of Onondagans believe they own claim to 2.5 million acres from PA to Canada. Maybe even 90%. I am sure you would agree that they are right and should have title then because it is the majority.

 

[xc84]

I'm afraid your comment on "plenty of Native Americans" is just your opinion.

Ok. Let's assume the poll you site is accurate and has a solid representative sample of people who have Native American ancestry. That makes about 468,000 in the US offended by the nickname of the Washington Redskins. That's plenty of Native Americans in my opinion.

 

[Cadillac]

Marrone is behind this, somehow

 

[Townie72]

Townie, normally I like what you write but this time I'm kind of disappointed. I think as a society we decided some time ago to discourage words that demean others due to their heritage. I won't elaborate on the words, but most ethnic groups in this country have had words used against them including the Polish, Germans, Jews, Puerto Ricans, Hispanics, Chinese, Japanese, African-Americans, Irish, Italians, Russians, native Americans, whites, etc., etc., etc. While there is an element of political correctness, much of the reasoning is to promote civility within our culture, to reduce friction between societal elements, and to establish high standards for our humanity. Beyond ethnicities, we also have had a multitude of words used against people in many other situations and have discouraged them as a society in the same way we discourage other behaviors through various kinds of legal, civil, & sociological sanctions.

While I'm not personally offended by the name Redskins, I appreciate the argument that the name on its face is a slur. The diversity of our society increases daily and the way we treat each other matters. I'm a great believer in tradition but not all of our traditions pass the test of time. Is it ok to use other slurs that we've discouraged for many decades? I don't believe the answer is yes. It's not a matter of protected classes, it's a matter of respect.

So you think that this discussion "promoted civility" and "reduces friction between societal elements"?

I'd say it does pretty much the opposite.

The native Americans have way, way bigger problems than the what the mascot of the Washington NFL team is.

Years ago, when I was an undergrad, I worked at a resort ranch in Paradise Valley, AZ for a few months and there were some Native Americans on the staff. The Arizonans treated them like dogs. No bad names ... but they just abused them. I was appalled.

I have been on some Reservations in the past few years. Ramshackle housing, house trailers, and alcohol abuse are rampant. And some are worried about the mascot of the Washington NFL franchise.

 

[Scooch]

I'm just curious... would anyone walk up to a person of Native-American descent and say "what's up, redskin?"

 

[Shenexon]

The native Americans have way, way bigger problems than the what the mascot of the Washington NFL team is.

We all have bigger problems than the name of Dan Snyder's team. Changing the name wouldn't affect how they play but it would eliminate the debate over whether the name is obsolete.

 

[CaliCuse]

Ok. Let's assume the poll you site is accurate and has a solid representative sample of people who have Native American ancestry. That makes about 468,000 in the US offended by the nickname of the Washington Redskins. That's plenty of Native Americans in my opinion.

Must you have Native American ancestry to be offended by that name? Many white Americans arr offended with characterizations of those with b/black or yellow hued skin color. Euphemisms exist for both that are insulting. Go ahead and try to name a franchise using one of those descriptions.The news networks would have a field day with the outrageA good time would be after the Cleveland trio slowly gets played out entirelyOnly N Korea missile launch could get a preference at that time.

 

[xc84]

Must you have Native American ancestry to be offended by that name?

Nope. However, I was just just referencing the poll cited as a reason that the name is not really offensive and my comment that "plenty" of Native Americans are offended. It was just one thread in the argument...not the entire argument.

 

[xc84]

We all have bigger problems than the name of Dan Snyder's team. Changing the name wouldn't affect how they play but it would eliminate the debate over whether the name is obsolete.

Exactly. There are always "bigger problems". You name a problem and I can probably name a bigger one. That does not mean the first one should not be addressed.

 

[alphaorange]

There are some of the most pigheaded opinions on display in this thread. Near the top of my list would be the thought that there is some way of appeasing 100% of the people all of the time. Although that is not specifically stated, it is certainly easy enough to infer based on statements and questions surrounding specific percentages of whole groups. Sorry if some people get their sensibilities hurt by the way some things are but there is ALWAYS somebody, somewhere that is offended about thing. Tell me how we solve a problem when remedying one groups complaints offends a different group? Jesus, people need to get a thicker skin.

 

[thorpedo]

But its NOT the Native Americans who are pressing for change (except for a few self-appointed "leaders" trotted out by Media and the lefties)

You have no bloody idea which way the trend is.

This isn't about Native American opinion. This is about the self-worth of Liberals.

Robert Samuelson in today's Washington Post nails the sentiment exactly (Although he is talking about Obamacare")

"Obamacare’s advocates ignored these ambiguities. They were too busy flaunting their moral superiority. Universal health insurance is a legitimate goal, but 2009 — in the midst of a major economic crisis — was the wrong time to pursue it. Predictably, it polarized public opinion and subverted confidence for what seem to have been, based on the available evidence, modest likely public health improvements. The crusade for universal coverage has been as much about advocates’ sense of self-worth as about benefits for the uninsured."

I'll paraphrase it ... The pressure to change this name comes from a small group --- containing almost no Native Americans --- who want to flaunt their moral superiority and this is more about their self-worth than it is the Native Americans, who really don't care.

Insert slow clap for you well said and backed up.

 

[thorpedo]

Marrone is behind this, somehow

Lmao

 

[Townie72]

I bet the majority of Onondagans believe they own claim to 2.5 million acres from PA to Canada. Maybe even 90%. I am sure you would agree that they are right and should have title then because it is the majority.

 

[xc84]

There are some of the most pigheaded opinions on display in this thread. Near the top of my list would be the thought that there is some way of appeasing 100% of the people all of the time.

Exactly. There is never a way to make everyone happy. I agree 100%. However, I don't think anyone on this thread thinks there is a way to make everyone happy. I'm still looking for someone to reply to Scooch as to whether they would greet Native Americans this way: "what's up, redskin?" Seems this should be an easy answer, y'know?

 

[Townie72]

Exactly. There are always "bigger problems". You name a problem and I can probably name a bigger one. That does not mean the first one should not be addressed.

Except none of the others issues are being addressed in any meaningful way. Instead we yammer about silly things like the name of the DC NFL franchise and Cleveland Indian mascot and the Saltine Warrior.

People can bring this up. But they should be immediately told that it's trivial to everybody but them.

 

[ImperialOrange]

Exactly. There is never a way to make everyone happy. I agree 100%. However, I don't think anyone on this thread thinks there is a way to make everyone happy. I'm still looking for someone to reply to Scooch as to whether they would greet Native Americans this way: "what's up, redskin?" Seems this should be an easy answer, y'know?

I'm curious who think its ok or consistanly walks up and says "Whats up (insert colour here)skin". Doesn't really matter what color you put in there you're probably better off to go with sir, or maam or you know refer to someone by their name if you're so inclined to ask it.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I'm just curious... would anyone walk up to a person of Native-American descent and say "what's up, redskin?"

That would be like in Blast From the Past when the guy emerges from the shelter, sees a black woman, hugs her and yells "My lucky stars... a Negro!"

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[Townie72]

I'm just curious... would anyone walk up to a person of Native-American descent and say "what's up, redskin?"

No one would say that to a total stranger, because in that context it comes away as an attack.

I grew up in a University town with a healthy mix of ethnicities. We called one another "Mics" and "Wops" and "Bo-hunks" and "Mackeral Snappers" and then we played every sport imaginable together. Nobody got mad because there was no venom in any of it.

We have somehow developed a subset of citizens that is trying to make sure no ones feelings --- especially theirs --- is ever hurt.

 

[Scooch]

No one would say that to a total stranger, because in that context it comes away as an attack.

I grew up in a University town with a healthy mix of ethnicities. We called one another "Mics" and "Wops" and "Bo-hunks" and "Mackeral Snappers" and then we played every sport imaginable together. Nobody got mad because there was no venom in any of it.

We have somehow developed a subset of citizens that is trying to make sure no ones feelings --- especially theirs --- is ever hurt.

So context matters. So randomly calling someone a "redskin" would be considered a slur, in a certain context.

So a team named the "New York Wops" in 1935 probably wouldn't be called that today.

Got it.

I really don't care what the team is called, but if you are going to support calling it Redskins then own it. Stop with the "my generation is better than yours", "damn libruls", bullish!t, and own it. The word is a slur in at least a certain context. Own that you don't care, own that you're comfortable with a derogatory term being a team name.

At least be honest and stop wth the passive aggressive nonsense.

 

[Nahson]

The definition of words change.

"Gay" used to mean happy. It's meaning has changed over time.

Few people, if anyone, associate the term "Redskins" with anything but the Washington DC football team.

Poll after poll have shown that the native American population is indifferent. Of course, people who claim to be their representatives are outraged. Not surprisingly. If they couldn't stir up some outrage they wouldn't have jobs and couldn't be interviewed on TV as to how outraged they are.

This is a silly issue raised by silly people.

People who obsess about this sort of thing badly need to reassess their priorities in life.

A silly, non-consequential argument raised by silly, non-consequential people.

Good for Dan Snyder and I'm not a fan of his. I hope the heads of the silly people who raise this stupid issue explode in indignation.

What if the team name was the Black Skins? That would never stand and there would be a ton of outrage. I think its racist and see their point. I would prefer if the name didn't change but that’s coming from a white guy who really has no dog in this fight. Inherently, it is wrong.

 

[Townie72]

So context matters. So randomly calling someone a "redskin" would be considered a slur, in a certain context.

So a team named the "New York Wops" in 1935 probably wouldn't be called that today.

Got it.

I really don't care what the team is called, but if you are going to support calling it Redskins then own it. Stop with the "my generation is better than yours", "damn libruls", bullish!t, and own it. The word is a slur in at least a certain context. Own that you don't care, own that you're comfortable with a derogatory term being a team name.

At least be honest and stop wth the passive aggressive nonsense.

Actually I am taking issue with the people who are raising it as a concern. I am challenging both the logic and their motivation for doing so.Especially their motivation for doing so. Their sensibilities must dominate in their mind.

I really think these people ought to shouted down. It's silly. It's a distraction. Their concerns are a monument to the trivial.