Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7 8 9 10 11 LastLast
Results 121 to 135 of 158
  1. #121
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Nelson, BC
    Posts
    19,415
    I like how this Chief thinks of the name.,, and these comments are 5 days old... so it’s not old..This is why I oppose the change.., there are many different views and opinions And a very vocal group, not proven to be the majority, don’t like it, why do we do things That take away something from all so as not to offend a few ?

    I have some Irish heritage. Do I get to say I’m offended and remove all imagery of leprechauns, st patties day and the fighting Irish at Notre dame? And don’t say it’s different. It is the exact same. Racism knows no skin colour, it is itself racist if one race is excluded from being a victim because of their race.

    And in the big picture does changing a name that is some 90 years old because of money, and that the reason for this change... fix anything ?

    And is this aboriginal person below wrong because he isn't offended ? Why doesn’t his opinion count?

    Chief Walt “Red Hawk” Brown of the Cheroenhaka Tribe, don’t find the name offensive at all. Brown sees it as a representation of his community in broader popular culture — something that doesn’t come around all that often.

    “This is a strong symbol that represents my people, my culture, my traditions,” Brown said. “Redskins. Because we are Redskins. That’s what we are.”

    He’s strongly opposed to the name being changed. He sees the “eradication” of these symbols as an attack on his culture — an attempt to ignore the experiences of his people.

    In Brown’s mind, people who are opposed to the name “Redskins” don’t understand its historical roots.

    “We used red paint for healing,” Brown said. “We used it when we went to war. Our skins were red — red from the sun and red from the particular root that we used to put the red paint on our faces, on our arms and on our legs.”

    He sees the removal of Native imagery and references as essentially an attempt to whitewash history.

    “The solution is to educate, not to eradicate,” he said.
    Last edited by EddieMac; 07-13-2020 at 06:27 PM.
    http://s7.postimg.org/hjr8fcmaz/EM2.jpg

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Johnstown , PA
    Posts
    7,122
    Quote Originally Posted by EddieMac View Post
    I like how this Chief thinks of the name.,, and these comments are 5 days old... so it’s not old..This is why I oppose the change.., there are many different views and opinions And a very vocal group, not proven to be the majority, don’t like it, why do we do things That take away something from all so as not to offend a few ?

    I have some Irish heritage. Do I get to say I’m offended and remove all imagery of leprechauns, st patties day and the fighting Irish at Notre dame? And don’t say it’s different. It is the exact same. Racism knows no skin colour, it is itself racist if one race is excluded from being a victim because of their race.

    And in the big picture does changing a name that is some 90 years old because of money, and that the reason for this change... fix anything ?

    And is this aboriginal person below wrong because he isn't offended ? Why doesn’t his opinion count?

    Chief Walt “Red Hawk” Brown of the Cheroenhaka Tribe, don’t find the name offensive at all. Brown sees it as a representation of his community in broader popular culture — something that doesn’t come around all that often.

    “This is a strong symbol that represents my people, my culture, my traditions,” Brown said. “Redskins. Because we are Redskins. That’s what we are.”

    He’s strongly opposed to the name being changed. He sees the “eradication” of these symbols as an attack on his culture — an attempt to ignore the experiences of his people.

    In Brown’s mind, people who are opposed to the name “Redskins” don’t understand its historical roots.

    “We used red paint for healing,” Brown said. “We used it when we went to war. Our skins were red — red from the sun and red from the particular root that we used to put the red paint on our faces, on our arms and on our legs.”

    He sees the removal of Native imagery and references as essentially an attempt to whitewash history.

    “The solution is to educate, not to eradicate,” he said.
    that bold part...that is an absolutely excellent point that most simply will not even consider

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Anywhere I want on 18 wheels
    Posts
    8,791
    Quote Originally Posted by johnlimburg View Post
    When the corporate money got involved, it was just a matter of time regardless of how unpopular it would be. Are the Vikings next ? Wouldn't surprise me.
    People have criticized Dan Snyder for only changing the name because of money.

    I donít get this, especially from those who point out that he said he would never change the name.

    The moment he said that was the moment we all knew only the money would make the name change.

    Colin Kaepernick isnít out of the league because he kneeled. Heís out of the league because he messed with the money.

    Once you mess with the money you have to go. Thatís why the Redskins name has to go. Itís just now messing with the money. It wasnít messing with the money before. It is now.

    I am in favor of removing all names that reduce Native Americans to a mascot. That is the only reason I support changing the Redskinsí name. I donít buy into the popular argument, because no one can prove that Native Americans, as a whole, are offended by the name.
    Negs are Cowardly Acts of Nonsense. I wonít Back Down.
    No Matter How Stupid Your Comments Are!
    Still Not Backing Down!!!

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Derby, Kansas, United States
    Posts
    27,351
    Quote Originally Posted by EddieMac View Post
    I like how this Chief thinks of the name.,, and these comments are 5 days old... so it’s not old..This is why I oppose the change.., there are many different views and opinions And a very vocal group, not proven to be the majority, don’t like it, why do we do things That take away something from all so as not to offend a few ?

    I have some Irish heritage. Do I get to say I’m offended and remove all imagery of leprechauns, st patties day and the fighting Irish at Notre dame? And don’t say it’s different. It is the exact same. Racism knows no skin colour, it is itself racist if one race is excluded from being a victim because of their race.

    And in the big picture does changing a name that is some 90 years old because of money, and that the reason for this change... fix anything ?

    And is this aboriginal person below wrong because he isn't offended ? Why doesn’t his opinion count?

    Chief Walt “Red Hawk” Brown of the Cheroenhaka Tribe, don’t find the name offensive at all. Brown sees it as a representation of his community in broader popular culture — something that doesn’t come around all that often.

    “This is a strong symbol that represents my people, my culture, my traditions,” Brown said. “Redskins. Because we are Redskins. That’s what we are.”

    He’s strongly opposed to the name being changed. He sees the “eradication” of these symbols as an attack on his culture — an attempt to ignore the experiences of his people.

    In Brown’s mind, people who are opposed to the name “Redskins” don’t understand its historical roots.

    “We used red paint for healing,” Brown said. “We used it when we went to war. Our skins were red — red from the sun and red from the particular root that we used to put the red paint on our faces, on our arms and on our legs.”

    He sees the removal of Native imagery and references as essentially an attempt to whitewash history.

    “The solution is to educate, not to eradicate,” he said.
    I don't disagree that things like leprechauns and other irish related symbolism can have the same impacts, I'm not going to sit here and say that it's two different things or that one is ok and another isn't. A week ago I may have argued that case (as I did in saying white face in white chicks and black face were different) After a good conversation with Cory Winget and Frenchy, I have changed my thoughts on that.

    Really idealistically we shouldn't use caricatures and promote stereotypes for any race, white, black, yellow, green purple... but we do, and you are right, racism is racism, regardless of skin color. Irish people also have a history of slavery in our country that often gets overlooked.

    I concede your point as valid, I'm not going to argue against it and while I see your point, I'm still happy with the Redskins name change and agree with it, I won't however make any attempt to change your mind further on the subject (or anyone elses)


  5. #125
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    14,392
    Quote Originally Posted by broncolee View Post
    People have criticized Dan Snyder for only changing the name because of money.

    I donít get this, especially from those who point out that he said he would never change the name.

    The moment he said that was the moment we all knew only the money would make the name change.

    Colin Kaepernick isnít out of the league because he kneeled. Heís out of the league because he messed with the money.

    Once you mess with the money you have to go. Thatís why the Redskins name has to go. Itís just now messing with the money. It wasnít messing with the money before. It is now.

    I am in favor of removing all names that reduce Native Americans to a mascot. That is the only reason I support changing the Redskinsí name. I donít buy into the popular argument, because no one can prove that Native Americans, as a whole, are offended by the name.
    Fair enough, and I agree with what you said about the money. I wonder though, with this being as unpopular as every poll ever conducted has indicated, does it affect the money coming in just from another direction, the consumer ? I find the corporate money who put the pressure on the Washington ownership group quite hypocritical though. When they invested that money into the previously named "Redskins", were they not aware of the team name and it's associated connotations which have been discussed for years ? I don't like that aspect because their "threats" weren't based on a change Washington made after their initial investment, it was something they willingly and knowingly invested in at one point of time. I wonder if the corporate money who threatened to not back the team any longer would have had a legal fight on their hands if they broke a contract on no meaningful grounds if the Redskins name remained in place.

  6. #126
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    1,572
    Very late to the debate but here is my view.

    If you were to give a name to Washington DC's football team right here, right now, in July 2020; would you chose the Redskins? Obviously not. At best it's anachronistic. At worst it's highly offensive.

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Nelson, BC
    Posts
    19,415
    Quote Originally Posted by johnlimburg View Post
    Fair enough, and I agree with what you said about the money. I wonder though, with this being as unpopular as every poll ever conducted has indicated, does it affect the money coming in just from another direction, the consumer ? I find the corporate money who put the pressure on the Washington ownership group quite hypocritical though. When they invested that money into the previously named "Redskins", were they not aware of the team name and it's associated connotations which have been discussed for years ? I don't like that aspect because their "threats" weren't based on a change Washington made after their initial investment, it was something they willingly and knowingly invested in at one point of time. I wonder if the corporate money who threatened to not back the team any longer would have had a legal fight on their hands if they broke a contract on no meaningful grounds if the Redskins name remained in place.
    Excellent point,,,
    http://s7.postimg.org/hjr8fcmaz/EM2.jpg

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Bear Valley in The 5280
    Posts
    14,599
    Quote Originally Posted by johnlimburg View Post
    Fair enough, and I agree with what you said about the money. I wonder though, with this being as unpopular as every poll ever conducted has indicated, does it affect the money coming in just from another direction, the consumer ? I find the corporate money who put the pressure on the Washington ownership group quite hypocritical though. When they invested that money into the previously named "Redskins", were they not aware of the team name and it's associated connotations which have been discussed for years ? I don't like that aspect because their "threats" weren't based on a change Washington made after their initial investment, it was something they willingly and knowingly invested in at one point of time. I wonder if the corporate money who threatened to not back the team any longer would have had a legal fight on their hands if they broke a contract on no meaningful grounds if the Redskins name remained in place.
    The thing is that there was always money to be made.

    These corporate sponsors may have never agreed with the name but there was little they could do about it since there'd always be another company looking to invest.
    This was the perfect time to force a change if they were in fact unhappy with the name. I don't believe that to be the case but with all the current happenings around the country, why not!
    Last edited by Sam_Z; 07-14-2020 at 08:14 AM.

  9. #129
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    36,652
    Quote Originally Posted by BroncosFanInPA View Post
    Changing the name redskins isn't going to change anything in regards to racism & in fact i would go as far as to say the things going on in this country over the past month or so actually may make matters worse by just driving a wedge further between some...

    some of the stuff going on lately has gotten completely out of hand
    Maybe so, but some of what I see/read is warranted. And too bad if some don't like it. Are they the offended ones? Heck, I'm not offended. I am not Indigenous, so what gives me the right to think I know better. Same goes for any issues involving race. Unless you are a in specific offended group, how can you know how it feels?

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    13,981
    Quote Originally Posted by CanDB View Post
    Maybe so, but some of what I see/read is warranted. And too bad if some don't like it. Are they the offended ones? Heck, I'm not offended. I am not Indigenous, so what gives me the right to think I know better. Same goes for any issues involving race. Unless you are a in specific offended group, how can you know how it feels?
    By that logic then you should not have an opinion for or against.

  11. #131
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    36,652
    Quote Originally Posted by EddieMac View Post
    ................

    I have some Irish heritage. Do I get to say I’m offended and remove all imagery of leprechauns, st patties day and the fighting Irish at Notre dame? And don’t say it’s different. It is the exact same. Racism knows no skin colour, it is itself racist if one race is excluded from being a victim because of their race.
    So are you offended by the leprachaun imagery? Just a question. If you are, as are many others, then I can see it.

    Maybe Fighting Irish is offensive to you and others. I can't answer, because I am not Irish, at least not what my ancestry test states..

    The line is not easy to find, but I think the questions around offensiveness involve historical beginnings, how many offended, and how long the discussion.

  12. #132
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    36,652
    Quote Originally Posted by Rastic View Post
    By that logic then you should not have an opinion for or against.
    Disagree with your logic completely. If someone is offended, or some group, and there is substantiated reasons for it, I tend to listen. And if what I hear is reasonable, I have the right to an opinion. It's called being objective, and it involves some intellect. Not emotion. Not "hey, we like it that way".

    If your logic was true, none of us could be a Judge, unless we only judged things we were a part of.

    Give open mindedness and fairness some validation.

  13. #133
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Nelson, BC
    Posts
    19,415
    Quote Originally Posted by CanDB View Post
    So are you offended by the leprachaun imagery? Just a question. If you are, as are many others, then I can see it.

    Maybe Fighting Irish is offensive to you and others. I can't answer, because I am not Irish, at least not what my ancestry test states..

    The line is not easy to find, but I think the questions around offensiveness involve historical beginnings, how many offended, and how long the discussion.
    Apparently it doesn’t matter if I am or am not... if I could be offended..,it shouldn’t exist.., according to current standards.
    http://s7.postimg.org/hjr8fcmaz/EM2.jpg

  14. #134
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Nelson, BC
    Posts
    19,415
    Quote Originally Posted by CanDB View Post
    Maybe so, but some of what I see/read is warranted. And too bad if some don't like it. Are they the offended ones? Heck, I'm not offended. I am not Indigenous, so what gives me the right to think I know better. Same goes for any issues involving race. Unless you are a in specific offended group, how can you know how it feels?
    Quote Originally Posted by Rastic View Post
    By that logic then you should not have an opinion for or against.
    Quote Originally Posted by CanDB View Post
    Disagree with your logic completely. If someone is offended, or some group, and there is substantiated reasons for it, I tend to listen. And if what I hear is reasonable, I have the right to an opinion. It's called being objective, and it involves some intellect. Not emotion. Not "hey, we like it that way".

    If your logic was true, none of us could be a Judge, unless we only judged things we were a part of.

    Give open mindedness and fairness some validation.
    You contradict your self heavily here, so maybe the attack on rastic should be reigned in. You say you cannot know how it feels, yet you a argue you can have an opinion. But by your own logic you have no idea, so your opinion is based on other people’s, meaning it is essentially regurgitating Other people’s. Not your own. Because you cannot have an idea because you are not them. So either you are parroting someone else’s opinion, or your is completely random.


    There is some lesson to be told here about objective/subjective reasoning... but I feel it’ll be lost based on what I have read so far. ( see what I did there ? )
    Last edited by EddieMac; 07-14-2020 at 09:52 AM.
    http://s7.postimg.org/hjr8fcmaz/EM2.jpg

  15. #135
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    13,981
    I'm all for open mindedness.

    But...

    Do not be so open-minded that your brains fall out.
    G.K. Chesterton

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •