The Washington Redskins

Discussion in 'On The Field' started by LonghornCatholic, Aug 6, 2014.

  1. Brad Austin

    Brad Austin 2,500+ Posts

    Forget this now I'm pissed and demand a mascot fav team had the nerve to brand themselves Cowboys...I'm no outlaw or thief as the term was used in late 1800's America.

    In the Tombstone area in the 1880s, the term "Cowboy" or "cow-boy" was used pejoratively to describe men who had been implicated in various crimes.[14] One loosely organized band was dubbed "The Cowboys," and profited from smuggling cattle, alcohol, and tobacco across the U.S./Mexico border.[15][16] The San Francisco Examiner wrote in an editorial, "Cowboys [are] the most reckless class of outlaws in that wild country...infinitely worse than the ordinary robber."[14] It became an insult in the area to call someone a "cowboy," as it suggested he was a horse thief, robber, or outlaw. Cattlemen were generally called herders or ranchers.[15]
  2. HornSwoggler

    HornSwoggler 1,000+ Posts

    A national election should be held to rename our national capital's NFL team. Straight majority wins. No electoral college BS!

    I propose Washington Wafflers in honor of our beloved House of Representatives, Senate and President.

    Of course, that might be offensive to owners and customers of Waffle House, Denny's, IHOP and other breakfast chains.
  3. FireRC

    FireRC 500+ Posts

    I don't understand all the people acting as if this whole issue is hurting freedom. The owner hasn't been forced by law to change anything, yet. If that happens, then there is some issue with the loss of freedom but otherwise that is a red herring.

    Just about any other name regarding American Indiana is not offensive like Redskins. If Snyder could get an AI tribe to endorse his use of their tribe name, ala Seminoles or Utes, it would be fine. Hell, even calling them the Indians or Warriors would be fine. Redskins is just a stupid holdover name that many support simply because they think they are losing something otherwise.

    Cowboys doesn't imply thievery or outlaws, that's just stupid.
    • Like Like x 1
  4. LonghornCatholic

    LonghornCatholic Catholic like Sarkisian

    I don't think he was so much trying to imply something.
    He was honestly arguing a fair point with some historical facts about the term "cowboys".

    Are you implying the facts are stupid, or he is?
  5. Htown77

    Htown77 5,000+ Posts

    I do not know how anyone can argue with the rock solid argument that some people do not like the name, therefore it must changed. One could argue it should be up to the fans that actually watch the team, support the team financially, or get any joy out of the existence of the professional football franchise in the D.C. area. I think we can all agree that the opinions of anyone who finds the name offensive, especial if they do not watch the redskins or follow football at all, are far more important. I will go ahead and add another point as to why the name should be changed.

    America has already removed most of the Native Americans. Now we just need to remove all references to Native Americans in sports team names, state names, etc. and the average person not well educated in American history can completely forget Native Americans ever existed.

    If the NCAA had successfully gotten the Utah Utes and Illinois Fighting Illini to change their names, we could have collectively forgotten those tribes existed. Unfortunately, due to those names, college sports fans and students who attend those schools will be aware of the existence of the Ute and Illini tribes.

    The Redskin name and logo, featured prominently in our nation's capital, reminds us that America used to be populated with Native Americans. If we can change the name to Washington Wildcats, or something like that, one less reminder of this and we can spend a little less time having Native Americans enter our thoughts. When Native Americans enter people's thoughts, it can cause some to feel bad about what the government did to the Native Americans. We do not want that bad feeling to occur. We do not want people to feel less patriotic of have even a slightly lesser view of the country because of it. Really, what makes "redskins" even more offensive than it already is, is that people are reminded what happened to the native americans and might feel bad. NO ONE SHOULD EVER HAVE TO FEEL BAD. There is no greater harm that can befall a human, than feeling bad because of an abstract thought or image. We must save people from the harm of hurt feelings that comes with seeing certain collections and arrangements of color and hearing certain sounds. People should only see things and hear things they like and that make them feel good. If anyone does anything that someone does not like, they should stop. It is the right thing to do.

    Please change the name because with the over prominence of reminders of the existence Native Americans in 21st century American life, we could certainly use one less.

    NCAA attempt to ban native american mascots

    Maybe after this we can move on to more offensive things. I am sure there are millions of people in the middle east that find the stars and stripes offensive. I see them on TV getting so offended that they burn our flag. Think of how many we could make happier by changing that arrangement of colors they find offensive?

    (all of the above was written facetiously)
  6. Mr. Fiesta

    Mr. Fiesta 1,000+ Posts

    I know of a town whose mascot are the Savages. In all their signs, shirts, etc., they also have an Indian's profile. Is that okay?
  7. HornSwoggler

    HornSwoggler 1,000+ Posts

    Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!! They must be forced to change it immediately. Where is it? I will lead the charge against this affront to humanity.
  8. Statalyzer

    Statalyzer 10,000+ Posts

    This has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment or "free speech". I'm not saying Congress should force them to change they name. I'm saying they should change it.

    This has nothing to do with political correctness. PC would ban teams from being called Braves, Utes, Seminoles, Chiefs or Warriors. But saying that changing Redskins necessitates changing Chiefs or Warriors also is a slippery slope fallacy.

    Naming teams for tribes or tribal qualities is not the same as naming a team for a supposed skin color. There should not be a team named the Redskins just like there should not be teams named the Yellow Peril, or the Darkies. Would you be ok with the Washington Yellow Peril and a slant-eyed Mr Miyagi type character as the mascot? Would you be ok with the Washington Darkies and a blackface minstrel show on the sidelines? That is the proper analogy for the current situation, not "oh no first we'll have to stop calling teams the Braves, then the Irish, and after that we'll have to stop calling teams Cowboys, then they'll come for teams called.... etc etc etc"
  9. LonghornCatholic

    LonghornCatholic Catholic like Sarkisian

  10. I_Dont_Exist

    I_Dont_Exist 1,000+ Posts

    Here's what offends me. The phrase "drink the koolaid" which never existed prior to the jonestown massacre in Guyana. 918 people including hundreds of innocent children died as a result of a mass "suicide" by being forced to drink poison koolaid. Yet I've seen and heard the phrase used countless times since including right here on hornfans. When people stop using that I'll start worrying about this ******* *** stupid debate.
  11. l00p

    l00p 10,000+ Posts

    Keep in mind that the basketball team changed their name from Bullets to Wizards to not offend the majority black population. They thought it brought out negative views on the high crime, violence and problems in the city. Don't want to offend anybody or be negative so let's change the name to Wizards.

    This was their mentality. I lived there at the time and my housemates and I were very much into this story as we were huge sports guys. They were all life long Bullets fans. Still are.

    Granted, Daniel Snyder did not own the team. I just thought it was a bit interesting the big rush and push to change a name most likely not stirring up negative perceptions towards blacks in that city.
  12. Gadfly

    Gadfly 250+ Posts

    Osage REPRESENT! I don't meet the blood quantum, but that's my little piece of native blood.

    9% of those identifying themselves as Native American find the name offensive. I'm glad they aren't messing with the Chiefs.
    The Link
  13. Statalyzer

    Statalyzer 10,000+ Posts

  14. I_Dont_Exist

    I_Dont_Exist 1,000+ Posts

    You presume correctly. As a white libertarian it's not my place to feel offended or demand a change in the name. Koolaid drinkers knows no racial or political identity.
  15. centexorange

    centexorange 1,000+ Posts

    The point that pisses me off about this is it isn't the Indian nation pissed off about this. Correct me if im wrong but isn't it the white folk blowing it out of proportion? If I saw the Indian nation upset I would say yes drop it. But they don't seem to have a problem with it.
  16. 4th_floor

    4th_floor From now on, I want you all to call me Loretta.

  17. centexorange

    centexorange 1,000+ Posts

    Wow Longhorn Cath you opened up a hornets nest. My opinion I truly believe if the Indian nation was truly offended by this and came out in force then im all behind the change. But when a bunch of white and black folk with not a single drop of red blood are griping it tends to piss me off.
  18. Hoop

    Hoop 500+ Posts

  19. zork

    zork 2,500+ Posts

    buy the team and then name it what you want. or if the nfl decides to force them by whatever rules they have in place then they will change it. otherwise Snyder, as owner, should do as he wants within the rules.

    Racism or prejudice is as much about intent as it is the words. Does Snyder intend to disparage with the name? It was named that way when he bought the team so I would guess he doesn't feel it is a big deal. He seems pretty clear that he won't change it.
  20. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    New case probably resolves the trademark part of this issue

    2. The disparagement clause violates the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause. Contrary to the Government’s contention, trademarks are private, not government speech. Because the “Free Speech Clause . . . does not regulate government speech,” Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U. S. 460, the government is not required to maintain viewpoint neutrality on its own speech. This Court exercises great caution in extending its government-speech precedents, for if private speech could be passed off as government speech by simply affixing a government seal of approval, government could silence or muffle the expression of disfavored viewpoints.
  21. beer_dog

    beer_dog 100+ Posts

    Next time you see an Indian in person, walk up to him and call him a Redskin. You will get your answer.
    • Like Like x 1
  22. Htown77

    Htown77 5,000+ Posts

    Interesting opinion after the "free speech does not apply license plates" decision.

Share This Page