Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Redskins Appear to Be Considering Namechange

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Bronco51 View Post
    Daniel Snyder doesn’t have to change the name. He has said in the past he will never change it. People have been wanting the name changed for a long time. But, now that people have been wanting to take their money elsewhere, now Snyder is considering it. That is on him. How much is keeping the Redskins name worth to him?

    If I were him I would change it immediately for one simple reason, money. Not sponsors threatening to withhold money, but rather the amount of money they'll make with a name change. Change the name, the logo and the colours, rake in boatloads in merchandise sales, both from people wanting to buy the old Redskins stuff before it's completely gone and people switching to the new stuff.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Peanut View Post
      One of my pet peeves is having non-Asians tell me that certain words are not offensive to Asians. Who cares about being PC? It's about decency and respect.

      There's been enough Native Americans that have complained about certain teams' names (yes, I know there are some that do not care). I am not going to be one that stands there and shake my head and tell them "You're being too sensitive".
      It's out of some people's sense of decency and respect that the changing of names, images and chants Native Americans find offensive and insulting has been going on for at least fifty years, so it's not new.

      When my wife and I attended Western State College at Gunnison in the early Seventies, WSC played the conference rival Adams State Indians from Alamosa every year. In 1995 ASC changed their team name to the Grizzlies.

      That's a relatively innocuous one compared to the NFL team in DC. Natives refer to it as the R-word. You're right that some don't care, but not many. The Native population of my state is a little over 10%.

      Before retirement I was one of the faculty co-sponsors of the Native Student Union. We had Dine (i.e., Navajo), Pueblos (there are 19 tribes of them in NM) and Apaches. The vast majority of them were offended by the R-word and quite a few of them were sports fans. A number of them had relatives who had participated in athletics at the Carlisle Indian School. Some were on our football team.

      Back in the Nineties sometime, I was returning from a Fall turkey hunt in western NM and we were trying to find a radio station with a Sunday NFL game to hear on the drive home. The only one in that area that was clear was KTNN the Voice of the Navajo Nation from Window Rock, Arizona. They were big Niner fans at the time. At the same time the All-Indian Rodeo was being broadcast from Tingley Coliseum in ABQ. So, they constantly interrupted the football game with updates from the rodeo. I found it more amusing than my companions. A true all sports broadcast by and for sports fans.

      For about the last ten years before she retired my wife was chair of the Modern, Classical and Native Languages Dept. at her school. They had Spanish, French, German, Navajo and ASL. The Navajo program was large, about four sections. The issue of the R-word was pretty constant among all her students at that time. When some of her non-Native students complained in the manner of bronx and EM on this thead, she pointed out that when a group as non-vocal and unobtrusive as Natives complain about something they find rude, insulting and racist, we non-Natives would do ourselves well to shut up and listen ... because they don't usually talk very loud or long.

      I hope the R-word is stricken from the NFL team in DC. It would be a good way to put the racist legacy of George Preston Marshall behind them. His statue was quietly removed from old RFK stadium recently, I believe.

      I was born and raised in the South by southerners. There were certain words that my brother and I knew my mother should never hear leave our mouths and the N-word was at the top of the list. She taught us that word was hateful because it was intended to belittle, hurt and put a certain group "in their place". The R-word is one of those, too, IMO.
      Last edited by samparnell; 07-07-2020, 07:50 PM.
      "Stultum est timere quod vitare non potes." ~ Publilius Syrus

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by EddieMac View Post
        With statues being pulled down, names changing, etc. history is being revised through erasure, and that scares me.. you cannot move forward if you don’t know where you came from..
        You don't need statues and derogatory nicknames to know history ... if you have access to a library.
        "Stultum est timere quod vitare non potes." ~ Publilius Syrus

        Comment


        • #19
          Good posts Sam!:thumb:

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by samparnell View Post
            You don't need statues and derogatory nicknames to know history ... if you have access to a library.
            But I would argue that a statue reaches people that wouldn't go to a library.

            It's alarming that we're using today's ideals to change people from hundreds of years ago when times were very very different. People can have done great things that changed things for the better forever and deserve recognition while also having done things that were okay at the time, but that are now frowned upon.

            An example from Canada would be the Famous Five, which was a group of five women who fought tirelessly for women's suffrage, and gained that right. One became a judge, one a Member of Canadian Parliament, two became members of the Alberta Legislature (our version of a state government), and the 5th founded The Victorian Order of Nurses.

            All terrific women, all deserving of recognition and statues. However they were also anti-non white immigration. They also campaigned for the forced sterilization of insane and "mentally deficient" people. Both things are horrifying when judged through the 2020 lens, but when judged through the lens of the time, it was normal.

            So it becomes do we hold them up for the overwhelming positive or do we crush them for what is now an overwhelming negative, but wasn't at the time they were alive? Or couldn't we just celebrate them for the positive while also acknowledging that they had some very serious warts?
            Last edited by Butler By'Note; 07-07-2020, 08:37 PM.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Butler By'Note View Post
              But I would argue that a statue reaches people that wouldn't go to a library.

              It's alarming that we're using today's ideals to change people from hundreds of years ago when times were very very different. People can have done great things that changed things for the better forever and deserve recognition while also having done things that were okay at the time, but that are now frowned upon.

              An example from Canada would be the Famous Five, which was a group of five women who fought tirelessly for women's suffrage, and gained that right. One became a judge, one a Member of Canadian Parliament, two became members of the Alberta Legislature (our version of a state government), and the 5th founded The Victorian Order of Nurses.

              All terrific women, all deserving of recognition and statues. However they were also anti-non white immigration. They also campaigned for the forced sterilization of insane and "mentally deficient" people. Both things are horrifying when judged through the 2020 lens, but when judged through the lens of the time, it was normal.

              So it becomes do we hold them up for the overwhelming positive or do we crush them for what is now an overwhelming negative, but wasn't at the time they were alive? Or couldn't we just celebrate them for the positive while also acknowledging that they had some very serious warts?
              Do you require a statue to inform you of the Famous Five? Confederate leaders did things that were frowned on at the time. Things that led to the bloodiest war in U.S. History. George Preston Marshall manifested an attitude in words and deeds that he was able to do because of his wealth and power and influence on his peers. They were frowned on during his lifetime by courts of law. We'll see if his statue is seen in public again in the future. We don't need it to inform us about his character. History is a better teacher than statues which can be misleading.
              "Stultum est timere quod vitare non potes." ~ Publilius Syrus

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by samparnell View Post
                It's out of some people's sense of decency and respect that the changing of names, images and chants Native Americans find offensive and insulting has been going on for at least fifty years, so it's not new.

                When my wife and I attended Western State College at Gunnison in the early Seventies, WSC played the conference rival Adams State Indians from Alamosa every year. In 1995 ASC changed their team name to the Grizzlies.

                That's a relatively innocuous one compared to the NFL team in DC. Natives refer to it as the R-word. You're right that some don't care, but not many. The Native population of my state is a little over 10%.

                Before retirement I was one of the faculty co-sponsors of the Native Student Union. We had Dine (i.e., Navajo), Pueblos (there are 19 tribes of them in NM) and Apaches. The vast majority of them were offended by the R-word and quite a few of them were sports fans. A number of them had relatives who had participated in athletics at the Carlisle Indian School. Some were on our football team.

                Back in the Nineties sometime, I was returning from a Fall turkey hunt in western NM and we were trying to find a radio station with a Sunday NFL game to hear on the drive home. The only one in that area that was clear was KTNN the Voice of the Navajo Nation from Window Rock, Arizona. They were big Niner fans at the time. At the same time the All-Indian Rodeo was being broadcast from Tingley Coliseum in ABQ. So, they constantly interrupted the football game with updates from the rodeo. I found it more amusing than my companions. A true all sports broadcast by and for sports fans.

                For about the last ten years before she retired my wife was chair of the Modern, Classical and Native Languages Dept. at her school. They had Spanish, French, German, Navajo and ASL. The Navajo program was large, about four sections. The issue of the R-word was pretty constant among all her students at that time. When some of her non-Native students complained in the manner of bronx and EM on this thead, she pointed out that when a group as non-vocal and unobtrusive as Natives complain about something they find rude, insulting and racist, we non-Natives would do ourselves well to shut up and listen ... because they don't usually talk very loud or long.

                I hope the R-word is stricken from the NFL team in DC. It would be a good way to put the racist legacy of George Preston Marshall behind them. His statue was quietly removed from old RFK stadium recently, I believe.

                I was born and raised in the South by southerners. There were certain words that my brother and I knew my mother should never hear leave our mouths and the N-word was at the top of the list. She taught us that word was hateful because it was intended to belittle, hurt and put a certain group "in their place". The R-word is one of those, too, IMO.
                If you posted this in Canada..you would be blasted for using Indian and native in your posts...showing it is so subjective as to what is actually offensive...
                sigpic

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Butler By'Note View Post
                  But I would argue that a statue reaches people that wouldn't go to a library.

                  It's alarming that we're using today's ideals to change people from hundreds of years ago when times were very very different. People can have done great things that changed things for the better forever and deserve recognition while also having done things that were okay at the time, but that are now frowned upon.

                  An example from Canada would be the Famous Five, which was a group of five women who fought tirelessly for women's suffrage, and gained that right. One became a judge, one a Member of Canadian Parliament, two became members of the Alberta Legislature (our version of a state government), and the 5th founded The Victorian Order of Nurses.

                  All terrific women, all deserving of recognition and statues. However they were also anti-non white immigration. They also campaigned for the forced sterilization of insane and "mentally deficient" people. Both things are horrifying when judged through the 2020 lens, but when judged through the lens of the time, it was normal.

                  So it becomes do we hold them up for the overwhelming positive or do we crush them for what is now an overwhelming negative, but wasn't at the time they were alive? Or couldn't we just celebrate them for the positive while also acknowledging that they had some very serious warts?
                  Amen to this... well said..
                  sigpic

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Butler By'Note View Post
                    But I would argue that a statue reaches people that wouldn't go to a library.

                    It's alarming that we're using today's ideals to change people from hundreds of years ago when times were very very different. People can have done great things that changed things for the better forever and deserve recognition while also having done things that were okay at the time, but that are now frowned upon.

                    An example from Canada would be the Famous Five, which was a group of five women who fought tirelessly for women's suffrage, and gained that right. One became a judge, one a Member of Canadian Parliament, two became members of the Alberta Legislature (our version of a state government), and the 5th founded The Victorian Order of Nurses.

                    All terrific women, all deserving of recognition and statues. However they were also anti-non white immigration. They also campaigned for the forced sterilization of insane and "mentally deficient" people. Both things are horrifying when judged through the 2020 lens, but when judged through the lens of the time, it was normal.

                    So it becomes do we hold them up for the overwhelming positive or do we crush them for what is now an overwhelming negative, but wasn't at the time they were alive? Or couldn't we just celebrate them for the positive while also acknowledging that they had some very serious warts?
                    Good post. Its nice to see some balance and common sense being applied.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by samparnell View Post
                      Do you require a statue to inform you of the Famous Five? Confederate leaders did things that were frowned on at the time. Things that led to the bloodiest war in U.S. History. George Preston Marshall manifested an attitude in words and deeds that he was able to do because of his wealth and power and influence on his peers. They were frowned on during his lifetime by courts of law. We'll see if his statue is seen in public again in the future. We don't need it to inform us about his character. History is a better teacher than statues which can be misleading.
                      So by your argument all statues should go? We don’t need any of them? I mean. We can go read, right?
                      sigpic

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by EddieMac View Post
                        So by your argument all statues should go? We don’t need any of them? I mean. We can go read, right?
                        I just don't understand how the pyramids of Giza are not being pulled down. They were built by slaves so surely need to go. Then we can go through the entire worlds monuments and buildings with a fine tooth comb and see what is left by the end of it..... I wonder how much of the past can live up to the incredibly moral and righteous people of 2020.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by bronx_2003 View Post
                          I just don't understand how the pyramids of Giza are not being pulled down. They were built by slaves so surely need to go. Then we can go through the entire worlds monuments and buildings with a fine tooth comb and see what is left by the end of it..... I wonder how much of the past can live up to the incredibly moral and righteous people of 2020.
                          The tearing down of statues here is reminiscent of the scenes from the ME over the last decade... ISIS blowing up ancient historical sites because it didn't align with their belief system and how they wanted to tell history.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by EddieMac View Post
                            So by your argument all statues should go? We don’t need any of them? I mean. We can go read, right?
                            Just wondering...if people are willing to toss statues on a pyre that have stood the test of time (up to the year 2020 that is), are books really that far behind?

                            "Cancel culture" feels more and more like the Langoliers as they consume world history.
                            To infinity...and beyond.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Lumiere View Post
                              Just wondering...if people are willing to toss statues on a pyre that have stood the test of time (up to the year 2020 that is), are books really that far behind?

                              "Cancel culture" feels more and more like the Langoliers as they consume world history.
                              :thumb:....................
                              sigpic

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by samparnell View Post
                                Do you require a statue to inform you of the Famous Five? Confederate leaders did things that were frowned on at the time. Things that led to the bloodiest war in U.S. History. George Preston Marshall manifested an attitude in words and deeds that he was able to do because of his wealth and power and influence on his peers. They were frowned on during his lifetime by courts of law. We'll see if his statue is seen in public again in the future. We don't need it to inform us about his character. History is a better teacher than statues which can be misleading.
                                But if the statue is already there, and we're already honouring them, why should we now tear it down? Removing history doesn't erase it, and people are more likely to learn the good and bad about someone if we allow them to stand. I'M NOT in any way talking about Confederate statues, frankly I'm not sure why there would be statues to honour those who committed treason?

                                Another Canadian example, McGill University is one of the most prestigious universities in Canada, it actually might be the top University in Canada. It's got a long and distinguished list of graduates which includes 12 Nobel Laureates and 145 Rhodes Scholars. It was founded in 1821. So it's both extremely historic and prestigious.

                                There are now some suggesting that the name must be changed because James McGill, the person who donated the land and the initial money for the school in his will, once owned slaves. This was in the late 1700's and early 1800's when it was unfortunately allowed.

                                So do we rename the 200 year old academic institution because the founder did something that was allowed at the time?

                                How far do we go in ripping down statues and changing names? What things do we consider acceptable and allow to stand and what do we deem is unacceptable and we remove? Who makes the decision? Because we can probably find reasons to remove honours for every single person if we look hard enough, or we judge harshly enough.
                                Last edited by Butler By'Note; 07-08-2020, 01:22 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X