Daniel Snyder: Redskins will 'never' change team name

[Orangepace]

Charlie Murphy!

This was my original intent. I actually was thinking about Charlie Murphy spoofs as a way of delivering the information to make it more fun and entertainment.

Btw... Charlie Murphy, IMHO, was the best thing going for the Dave Chappelle show.

 

[xc84]

For all of you who find the word redskin offensive, how many times have you used the word redneck as a derogatory comment about southerners or people from the north country, how many of you have used the word white trash or trailer park trash?

personally if the owner wants to change it change it, if not dont, if you dont like it stop watching the Redskins on TV or any other kind of support.

while your policing the world how about stopping rappers from calling your daughters, mothers, sisters bitches and hoes, how about telling black people to stop calling themslves the n word I find that offensive and probably at least nine percent of the population agrees with me,

Thinking the guy should do the right thing and change the name is different than thinking he should be forced to change the name. Not sure I really get your point except you are admitting that the term "redskin" is a derogatory comment like those others you note. I agree.

 

[Toga]

This was my original intent. I actually was thinking about Charlie Murphy spoofs as a way of delivering the information to make it more fun and entertainment.

Btw... Charlie Murphy, IMHO, was the best thing going for the Dave Chappelle show.

Prince kicked his ass.

 

[xc84]

The acceptability of these words depend on who is using them and what the context is.

But some of our friends on here believe that a slur is a slur and that these words should never be used. "Redskins is a bad word and it shouldn't be used regardless of what people understand by it. It might offend some people and all words that offend anyone should be forbidden."

So the "word police" set about to cleanse the language and culture of any offending term in order to have a "more civility". This of course creates a huge fight and ends up creating a more divided society.

Some of us believe that this obsession over words is a distraction. It's silliness prompted by the moral vanity of the "word police".

I am no more of a "word police" than you are and I read no one here who said this word should be "forbidden". It is a derogatory term and a slur. I don' think it should be "forbidden". If you want to say "redskin" or call people it, you can. That's fine with me. That's your choice as it is for the owner of the Redskins to name his team. Also, I am not hyperventalating nor am I jumping up and down. I am just providing an opinion which happens to be different than yours. However, it seems that your MO is when people do that, you call them names and jump to incorrect conclusions about them.

 

[djcon57]

"People who obsess about this sort of thing badly need to reassess their priorities in life." - Guy who posts most times in topic

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

Someone created this thread. It's for discussion purposes and we all have opinions. I happen to believe that the term "Redskin" is not a term of endearment to Native Americans. It's a racial slur. I have not really discussed anything about changing the team names here. I just spoke about the racial slur "Redskin" that happens to be a team name.

Its not a racial slur. The term was coined and used by American Indians long before the Washington Redskins ever came into being.It was a term of honor.

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

The acceptability of these words depend on who is using them and what the context is.

But some of our friends on here believe that a slur is a slur and that these words should never be used. "Redskins is a bad word and it shouldn't be used regardless of what people understand by it. It might offend some people and all words that offend anyone should be forbidden."

So the "word police" set about to cleanse the language and culture of any offending term in order to have a "more civility". This of course creates a huge fight and ends up creating a more divided society.

Some of us believe that this obsession over words is a distraction. It's silliness prompted by the moral vanity of the "word police".

That's awesome because liberal and Democrat upset me, so lets remove them from the lexicon

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk 2

 

[xc84]

Its not a racial slur. The term was coined and used by American Indians long before the Washington Redskins ever came into being.It was a term of honor.

It's settled then. You have spoken.

 

[Townie72]

"People who obsess about this sort of thing badly need to reassess their priorities in life." - Guy who posts most times in topic

So you are comparing my few posts to the avalanche of articles and op ed pieces and TV commentary on the subject. I'm complimented.

 

[Townie72]

That's awesome because liberal and Democrat upset me, so lets remove them from the lexicon

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk 2

Hard to find any self-confessed Liberals anymore.

In order to confuse the public and mask who they are and what they believe they have become "Progressives" and in a master stroke of camoflage "Moderates".

And it works. People don't like the product? Change the name and you have a new lease on life.

Many years ago, my father owned a milk distribution business (a Dairy, but with no cows or milk processing. They outsourced that to a central plant that did only that and could do it much more efficiently.)

One of the products the milkmen delivered was sour cream and it wasn't much of a seller. So at the suggestion of a consultant, the product was re-named "Devon Style Cream, Sales skyrocketed.

 

[Townie72]

Its not a racial slur. The term was coined and used by American Indians long before the Washington Redskins ever came into being.It was a term of honor.

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk 2

Not in the cowboy movies I watched.

 

[alphaorange]

I am no more of a "word police" than you are and I read no one here who said this word should be "forbidden". It is a derogatory term and a slur. I don' think it should be "forbidden". If you want to say "redskin" or call people it, you can. That's fine with me. That's your choice as it is for the owner of the Redskins to name his team. Also, I am not hyperventalating nor am I jumping up and down. I am just providing an opinion which happens to be different than yours. However, it seems that your MO is when people do that, you call them names and jump to incorrect conclusions about them.

The problem I have with this is that YOU and some others like you have decided what is the right thing to do. As I said earlier, people need to get a thicker skin and focus on the things that matter because they matter to everybody. The is energy wasted on BS that won't make a damn bit of difference in the big picture. Jesus, people...wake up.

 

[Townie72]

The problem I have with this is that YOU and some others like you have decided what is the right thing to do. As I said earlier, people need to get a thicker skin and focus on the things that matter because they matter to everybody. The is energy wasted on BS that won't make a damn bit of difference in the big picture. Jesus, people...wake up.

Alpha - They won't be satisfied until every name of every city, school, product or object or whatever is changed to remove any possibility that any group might be offended. Its a huge priority for the lefties and the left leaning.

No one has a single idea of how to address the poverty and unemployment and alcoholism and despondence on Indian Reservations. But at least they won't be annoyed by the name of a NFL franchise on the Eastern seaboard.

 

[djcon57]

So you are comparing my few posts to the avalanche of articles and op ed pieces and TV commentary on the subject. I'm complimented.

Why do you care about the subject at all? Do you own the Redskins? Fan of the Redskins? Native American?

How does this affect you? Clearly you are obsessed with it.

I don't give a crap either way. Keep the name. Get rid of the name. Be offended. Doesn't matter to me.

Here's ANOTHER thread that you brought it up completely out of nowhere. Obviously this is a big issue in your life:
http://syracusefan.com/threads/pernetti-is-out.50139/page-4#post-608744

 

[Townie72]

Why do you care about the subject at all? Do you own the Redskins? Fan of the Redskins? Native American?

Obviously this is a big issue in your life:
http://syracusefan.com/threads/pernetti-is-out.50139/page-4#post-608744

Yeah, right.

Do you live in DC? Do you get a steady stream of this like Bayside and I and some others do?

There are a few topics that will almost almost get my dander up.

 

[ImperialOrange]

Its not a racial slur. The term was coined and used by American Indians long before the Washington Redskins ever came into being.It was a term of honor.

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk 2

Had no idea to be honest.

 

[xc84]

The problem I have with this is that YOU and some others like you have decided what is the right thing to do. As I said earlier, people need to get a thicker skin and focus on the things that matter because they matter to everybody. The is energy wasted on BS that won't make a damn bit of difference in the big picture. Jesus, people...wake up.

Everyone decides what the right thing to do is. You included. (see your post). Do you really think that only super important things can be discussed on this board? Only things that "really matter"? It's a football board ...get a grip.

 

[Todd Gack]

Its not a racial slur. The term was coined and used by American Indians long before the Washington Redskins ever came into being.It was a term of honor.

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk 2

Can we get a source for this? Most put its first use around the late 1600s, which would coincide with the arrival of the English.

 

[riskylogic]

Most put its first use around the late 1600s, which would coincide with the arrival of the English.

It's a Not-Redskin word, so that is to be expected.

 

[alphaorange]

Everyone decides what the right thing to do is. You included. (see your post). Do you really think that only super important things can be discussed on this board? Only things that "really matter"? It's a football board ...get a grip.

Discuss what you want wherever you want, but let's not pretend that everything is important, which you clearly implied with your responses. Perhaps you need a grip.

 

[fairfaxcuse]

Can we get a source for this? Most put its first use around the late 1600s, which would coincide with the arrival of the English.

This site has a very credible articlehttp://http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002961.html noting that the term represents an early translation for a term that native Americans called themselves and was potentially used by the redskins owner as an ode to his coach who was part Native American. Of course, this doesn't necessarily diffuse all counterarguments against the term (imagine an owner changing a nickname to "insert anycolor"skins), but a very interesting historical aspect of the term.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Bayside44]

Just to make sure you have your facts straight...

He cut the trees to better his view, yes. But he also replanted over $250K worth of the same trees in a Potomac Park. Further, those trees died because they were actually getting too much water because of the way they tapered the ground. So he replanted them. You didn't read that in the Washington post. I wrote the check, so I'm not blowing smoke.

He did attempt to crush that shitty newspaper because it was a personal attack on him. It failed to mention all of the charities he supports, the fact that he did in fact turn the reigns over to Bruce Allen and Mike Shanahan regarding personnel, or the fact that although he does charge for standing room only seats, they seemingly always are sold out, so the price must be appropriate. Oh wait, it mentioned the fact that he donates 2000 seats per game to children's organizations.

You can put whatever stock you want in your little city newspaper, but its no better than a Perez Hilton blog.

I remember the days when his interns were not allowed to park in the employee lots, had to pay to park well over a mile from the stadium and walk to their cars in PG county well after the tailgaters left.

His bone with the city paper was to bankrupt someone who could not financially compete...he didn't pick that fight with the Post or with anyone on 106.7.

Anyone who lives along the Potomac knows the rules about the trees.

And oh yeah...had a 90K seat stadium then build those obstructed view seats...what a champ.

But, happy to see Vinny Cerrato joined our board.

 

[Oakland]

Back it up? No problem. Here's a excerpt from an Annenberg poll that says just about what every other poll of actual Native Americans every time there has been one of these name change efforts at colleges or for pro sports franchises.


How's that?

The name Redskins does offend 100% of hyper-sensitive Liberals who spend time and effort trying to help protected classes who are too dumb to know they ought to be hurt and offended. After all if it offends their sensibilities, it MUST offend others. Or so they feel.

Are you saying that American Indians are a protected class?

 

[Townie72]

Are you saying that American Indians are a protected class?

I'm not sure if they are officially a "protected class". It's hard to keep track. Protected classes are, of course, those who are not equal with the rest of us under the law. They receive special protection and benefits the rest of us do not driven by various Liberal fantasies, myths and, of course, guilt.

Using logic that would make The Queen of Hearts dizzy, we are all equal here under the Law except for those that are not equal. And, crimes against some of us are different crimes because of who they are. So we are equal here ... but we are not because some are special.

If the Native Americans are not a protected class, they are Liberal favorites as aggrieved victims of white oppression.We stole their lands, etc., etc.

 

[qdawgg]

So you've dodged the question 2 - 3 times now. Does it anger you that conservatives created the whole "attack on Christmas" in order to stick up for helpless Christians whose traditions and culture are being attacked by the mainstream media?

I'm assuming since there are similarities between that topic and this issue, you think conservatives are just as silly as the liberals who are defending Native Americans who may not want defending. That would be the logical conclusion anyway. I couldn't imagine you would find it revolting for liberals to act in one way and yet find the same behavior by conservatives as virtuous.