The Redskins "name"
- Thread starter CGI_Ram
- Start date
-
To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
- Status
iced said:
You're arguing for the sake of arguing.
The poll you refer to was a question on a voting card. No one checked to see if the respondents were actually "Native American". The largest Indian organizations disagree with it's findings.
The man LED the effort to ban blacks. For 13 years. When blacks were being hired by the NFL he STILL refused for another 17 years. His WILL prohibited his foundation from supporting integration in any way. That's a racist.
So if you were talking to a person who self identifies as a "Native American" you would refer to people as redskins in front of them? Yeah, I doubt it. The fact that you even hesitate shows you understand it's a slur. It's no different than wetback or chink.
RamzFanz said:
Lmao no I'm not.
Is this the first poll you've ever seen? You think they really go and verify 100% ever candidates information? And why would you vote if you weren't Indian... your logic here isn't making any sense.
Blacks were already banned, hell they weren't playing in the NFL in the 1930s. The Civil rights act of 1964 is what gave blacks the majority of their rights today.
So you're expecting me to be shocked that there was a racist owner against blacks, so that must make his "Redskin" name evil and tarnishing?
yea,that makes sense... "I hate Indians and I'm racist but I want my Football team to be named after one of those people I look down upon."
If you walked up to a native american and referred to him as a chief, that would be more insulting then Redskin.
and yea, I am native american.. and yea, I claimed myself as one when I enlisted in the military.
EastRam said:
You're talking about stopping a team from moving. That's an act. The Redskins aren't changing their name. In order for the NFL to "stop them", they would have to be doing something. Keeping the name they have had for 75 years is not doing something. It is not an act.
They can't change that. The NFL does not have that power. Go ahead and find me any legal document that gives the league that power.
This is what happens if the NFL and Owners try that...this is what Snyder's legal team says, "The NFL and other franchises are acting as a singular entity and impeding the Redskins' ability to compete by attacking our brand and team name...two of our most valuable assets."
And guess what...that's a pretty impossible argument to refute. It's a winning argument.
The NFL DOES NOT HAVE THAT SORT OF POWER. They can stop a team from moving because it's a future act and they have that power in the league documents they agree to. They do not have the power to change a 75 year old name. It's not new conduct. It's not new at all.
BUT THEY WON'T DO IT ANYWAYS. They only care about the money...and the Redskins aren't hurting their wallets. Changing the name is a bad business move...and the league/owners know that.
Sorry guys...the power simply isn't there for that sort of change...they would lose in court and that would give the players significant leverage which is something they desperately want to avoid.
jrry32 said:
Where I disagree is your going straight to court.
The bigger picture is if the NFL gets heat to change the name.
No they don't have the current power to say hey Mr. Daniel please change the Washington name. The NFL is bigger than Washingtons football team.
When heat is applied they will strong arm Daniel to change the name. If it comes down to how much money Daniel son will lose, the NFL will let him into the piggy bank.
To me something like this will be handled in house and will never get to a court.
There is a lot of misinformation here.
The first is that "Redskins" is not a slur.
That's nonsense. It originated as a slur, in media history it is often preceded with "dirty" or "savage". When it originated, these people were hunted for bounties and their skin was removed as evidence of the kill.
The second is that there is no objection to the name.
This group represents 250 groups and is far from the only one that has been asking for a name change for over 40 years.
http://www.ncai.org/resources/ncai-publications/Ending_the_Legacy_of_Racism.pdf
The third is that it is benign and not harmful.
"Empirical evidence in a 2004 study by Dr. Stephanie Fryberg, a preeminent cultural and social psychology scholar and an enrolled member of the Tulalip Tribes in Washington state, showed that the use of American Indian-based names, mascots, and logos in sports have a negative psychological effect on Native peoples and positive psychological consequences for European Americans. Additionally, Fryberg has concluded that these mascots have negative effects on race relations in the United States."
These findings are supported by both the American Psychological Association and the American Sociological Association.
The fourth is that this argument is about being PC or a Professional Protester.
I'll never be accused of being PC by anyone who knows me. I'll also never be accused of being racist. Any person with open eyes who knows the history of the term Redskin and the person who named the team would logically come to the finding that it's racist. While some "Native Americans" may not find it offensive, the largest groups and tribes do. That's enough for me.
Would I ever describe someone as a Redskin? No, because I'm not a racist inasmuch as person can try not to be.
The first is that "Redskins" is not a slur.
That's nonsense. It originated as a slur, in media history it is often preceded with "dirty" or "savage". When it originated, these people were hunted for bounties and their skin was removed as evidence of the kill.
The second is that there is no objection to the name.
This group represents 250 groups and is far from the only one that has been asking for a name change for over 40 years.
http://www.ncai.org/resources/ncai-publications/Ending_the_Legacy_of_Racism.pdf
The third is that it is benign and not harmful.
"Empirical evidence in a 2004 study by Dr. Stephanie Fryberg, a preeminent cultural and social psychology scholar and an enrolled member of the Tulalip Tribes in Washington state, showed that the use of American Indian-based names, mascots, and logos in sports have a negative psychological effect on Native peoples and positive psychological consequences for European Americans. Additionally, Fryberg has concluded that these mascots have negative effects on race relations in the United States."
These findings are supported by both the American Psychological Association and the American Sociological Association.
The fourth is that this argument is about being PC or a Professional Protester.
I'll never be accused of being PC by anyone who knows me. I'll also never be accused of being racist. Any person with open eyes who knows the history of the term Redskin and the person who named the team would logically come to the finding that it's racist. While some "Native Americans" may not find it offensive, the largest groups and tribes do. That's enough for me.
Would I ever describe someone as a Redskin? No, because I'm not a racist inasmuch as person can try not to be.
RamzFanz said:
-sigh-
it goes back even farther than that..yea, there is a lot of misinformation here - and you're providing it.
First off - this is an opinion that it is a slur. But I think you're arguing for the sake of arguing - majority of Native Americans don't find it offensive, yet you keep on arguing that is and dismissing evidence that goes against it, only because you disagree with them.
The term Redskin, as well as as the first origins of calling races by color came out in the mid-to-late 1700s by a German doctor named Johann Blumenbach (shocker that a German came out with a way of dividing races right?)
This was Blumenbach's classification system from the late 1700s -
Whites - Caucasian (Based on the stupid fact they found most "white skulls" around the caucus mountains, which is believed to be near where christ supposedly existed)
Mongolians/Asian - yellow
Malayan - brown
Ethiopian/african - black
Americans/indians - red
A lot of his "findings" come from his "studying of each race's skulls symmetry"
Lol
Edit: Words also have different interpretations to different people. You run up and call a niner fan a Seahawks (while you may be right), they'll take it as a homosexual reference..say it to someone from france, they think you're calling them a cigarette.
At this point, it is about political correctness. There are some people that take offense to it, but the majority of native american's don't. Just because you don't like that the poll that didn't go as far as to verify everyone individually (Which would be the first poll to ever do this lol), doesn't discount the results any differently. I'm not going to go fill out a black, mexican, jamaican, canadian, etc. questionnaire because I'm not one of those people.
I don't know what your agenda is - the only thing I can tell is that it's not a matter if the word is truly found to be considered by most native american's... And am I shocked that some tribes might find it offensive? No... Call someone from the Dominican republic Mexican or somethin other than their heritage and see how upset they get.. Some of those tribes, especially the Sioux, were known for their violence. Some tribes aren't found of how their ancestors were..
LesBaker said:
Lol I don't know why believes this.. He continues to think that the NFL has the power here, but I've already pointed out once a team needs 75% of the OWNER'S VOTE to move the team.
not the NFL, the OWNER...
iced said:
No, blacks were not already banned. I'm trying not to make personal remarks as you have but you continue to make false statements. There were professional black football players and coaches as far back as 1902.
Marshall LED the effort to ban blacks in 1933 and was helped by the great depression.
While the NFL reverted back to an integrated sport 13 years later when THE RAMS were forced to integrate in order to move to LA, Marshall refused for ANOTHER 17 YEARS.
Yes, you would name a team "Redskins" as a slur. He changed it AWAY from BRAVES to REDSKINS which was a derogatory name at the time and still is. The person you say he "honored" with the derogatory term redskin was already shown to be a fraud and NOT an Indian.
RamzFanz said:
The problem is you're making all of this about one man, Marshall, without any regard to the popular thought during that time period...
Marshall must have been the only racist right? Because the entire country wasn't fighting or soon to be fighting segregation and truly equal civil rights, right? The majority public didn't have a racist mind at all back then right?
:roll:
He changed it to honor a man whom was claiming to be an american indian; a secret that the man kept from his own wife....But I'm sure you believe Marshall knew about it right?
Yea, I'm sure they knew all about it and only set out with malicious intentions..
If he felt the same way about the Indians that he did the blacks, he wouldn't have named his team after it...People don't name their football team after someone they supposedly look down upon
iced said:
The NFL does has the power to block an NFL team from moving. The NFL put the current rules in place for a team to move to prevent court intervention like da Raiders and Rams. And to protect their market.
They weren't successful in blocking movement in the past but they are now and all the owners have signed off on the rules dictating movement.
As far as owners and the NFL is concerned. When I say NFL I'm referring to the Owners.
Believe the NFL (owners as you like to refer)
can and will force Daniel son change his team name, should the topic heat up even further.
This will never get to court. The other NFL owners will not stand beside Daniel and support him if and when this case gets heard. They the NFL (owners) will also not be in position to sit by and watch. They will act to protect the NFL as a whole.
EastRam said:
That's the problem - the NFL is separate from the owners. Always has been and always will be. That's why whenever goodell meets with the owners, it's often called "A meeting between the NFL and Owners."
You're also working with the mindset that the owners think its offensive - which clearly they don't. if they wanted to pressure them, they would have already..but why bother?
The NFL isn't going to spend the well over $100+ million to change the name because a few people are finding it offensive while it has a 75 year history.
Not gonna happen.
And even if they wanted to, they couldn't do anything Legally. They don't have any ground room. Not only is it a violation of anti trust, you can easily make the case for violating the 1st amendment. Outside the Redskins, no one can do anything.
EastRam said:
Of course they're not going to court because that is a card the players can pull on them later. Which is why the NFL owners would never attempt to "force" Snyder to change the name. They are supposed to be competing businesses. They cannot force him to change his brand or logo.
To me, something like this isn't going to be handled.
The Redskins are #3 in the NFL in team value, operating income and revenue. They're not just profitable...they're ridiculously profitable.
The NFL Owners are savvy businessmen(for the most part)...they aren't going to act on emotion. In terms of business and money, changing the team name and logo is bad business. It only risks hurting their bottom-line. The "offended" people aren't the Redskins target market...thus, they don't care about them.
Why would the NFL bribe Snyder to change the team name? That would only cost them more money in the end. They are going to look out for their wallets...and the Washington Redskins are VERY GOOD for their wallets.
Well it seems the vote is overwhelmingly against the PC position on this,I'd say there comes a time when objecting becomes objectionable especially when your outrage isn't shared by three out of four people.
NOW if anyone WANTS to tell me I'm a racist because I don't agree with their definition of what it constitutes ,I'll just tell em "you've gone too far ".
NOW if anyone WANTS to tell me I'm a racist because I don't agree with their definition of what it constitutes ,I'll just tell em "you've gone too far ".
jrry32 said:
Lol right
jrry32 said:
exactly... it's about the benjamins - plus can you imagine how much of the fan base would be pissed off? After spending all the money over the years on merchandise, only to have to spend money again on new merchandise (some of those people go all out, dressing like indians too)
- Status