That's what I don't get. Bunch of people are all butthurt over a possible name change. Doesn't matter to me either way.
Who gives a fuck if they change the name anyway?
For some reason I didn't even connect the name to Native Americans until the recent controversy came up. I don't care what they call the team, but if no one is even thinking about the term "beloved patriot" as anything but a football team, how is it offensive? Doesn't offense need to be given first before it can be legitimately received? Maybe we need to start working on separating "perceived" offense from actual offense, and only take action on the latter. Right now we have fallen into the mindset that EVERYTHING anyone can imagine a reason to be offended by deserves attention and correction, when obviously that isn't the case. Intention is everything here.
It is a blue colt. What do you have against blue colts waggy? Why are you racist against small blue horses?
The Constitution of the US GUARENTEES the right of freedom of speech. The bill of rights has this as the FIRST amendment in it. of the 27 Amendments in the Constitution NOT ONE gives you the right not to be offended. Suck it up cupcakes. It's just words.
True.
So who is with me on buying a pro-team and naming it "the krouts"?
I have a Jewish friend that predicts within a few hundred years there will be a High School football team called "The Nazis"
After he rattles off currently used names like Mongols, Raiders, Spartans, Trojans, etc, I kinda find it hard to dispute his point.
Yeah, because people often go around calling Native Americans "redskins" as an insult these days. Ask black people if the "N word" is offensive. I'm sure you'll get 90% plus "yes" because it's still used today by racists as an extremely offensive word. beloved patriot wasn't a deliberately offensive word, and no team would have a derogatory word to represent their team spirit and unity. The point of the team name and symbol/logo was to represent strength, and a Native American warrior was seen as tough and stoic. The word "beloved patriot" wasn't meant to be any more offensive than saying someone is "white" or "black" today, it's just a descriptor of a people group. Hence I think "Vikings" is comparable. You have a similar warrior type of the past, though calling a Scandinavian person a Viking today would be met with weird looks and yes, maybe someone would take offense at the caricature.
My point is that if people can't see the name as being honorable or at least as neutral, then we really can't have anything except animals representing mascots unless there is some magical level of approval or disapproval that decides whether it's okay to use a name. I don't think it's necessary to revise the branding of something just because people today find it offensive though historically that wasn't the case, at least not in every situation or this one in particular.
In any case, I don't think we get to decide whether the term is offensive or not (unless you are Native American, I suppose), but I'm not going to say spending money and time to change the team name everywhere is a necessity. You can disagree and I'm sure many do, but I think it's unnecessary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Redskins_name_controversy
Saying that "beloved patriot" "wasn't a deliberately offensive word" is very inaccurate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Redskins_name_controversy
I still wonder why the nature of someone's specific offense over the use of the word is the only point worth arguing, or really what matters in this.
No one really calls anyone "blackie" anymore, either. But, like beloved patriot, it was very much used as an insult. It's dated. Is it acceptable? Is the fact that these people exist as a small minority as pockets of abject poverty, obscurity and alcoholism something that gives us authority to deem it acceptable? Simply because some of them "don't seem to care?" (Actually, this controversy has a very long history. This is only the current iteration, and does not reflect the total issue. read the link)
This makes little sense to me.
and lol to all: "white guilt."
What a bunch of precious troglodytes.
I got that from a discussion a few years ago when a group of Indians were complaining about the Cleveland Indians, the leader of the group replied, "why don't you call them the Cleveland Jews" instead. Kind of funny, what I don't understand is weather it's Cleveland, Washington, KC, naming the team to an native American is not derogatory in any fashion, it should be considered an honor as Indians put up a fierce battle with little weapons or numbers before they were raped and stripped of their land..
How do you even live your life never being able to look a person of color in the eyes Zin? I can't imagine all your white guilt even allows you to.
lol "white guilt." what is the bullshit term that you created?
I grew up as a minority in my public school system. I work at Berkeley.
I'm used to dealing with non-whites.
Now lower your eyes when you type to me!! :biggrin:
The reality is that it depends on the name. "Indians" isn't used as derogatory--the problem with the Indians is their logo, which is basically the same caricature type that we had with the "sambo" figure, mostly through the 30s but certainly up into the 50s and 60s in certain parts of the country.
Braves, Seminoles, Chiefs, etc--this is all very different from beloved patriot. These are terms of honor; "beloved patriot" was appropriated early in the century, specifically as a derogatory term.
I'm a Redskins fan. those that pay attention to the weekly football threads know that. i think the name is pretty dumb, and I grew up with it. Do I stop watching them or supporting them because of the name? No. Do I think they can do better? Absolutely. (for one--they used to be the Boston "Braves")
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Redskins_name_controversy
Saying that "beloved patriot" "wasn't a deliberately offensive word" is very inaccurate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Redskins_name_controversy
I still wonder why the nature of someone's specific offense over the use of the word is the only point worth arguing, or really what matters in this.
No one really calls anyone "blackie" anymore, either. But, like beloved patriot, it was very much used as an insult. It's dated. Is it acceptable? Is the fact that these people exist as a small minority as pockets of abject poverty, obscurity and alcoholism something that gives us authority to deem it acceptable? Simply because some of them "don't seem to care?" (Actually, this controversy has a very long history. This is only the current iteration, and does not reflect the total issue. read the link)
This makes little sense to me.
and lol to all: "white guilt."
What a bunch of precious troglodytes.
But if you can't see how to some of them the name is just another poke in the eye, adding ignorant insult to injury, and why we, the beneficent and all powerful Great White Father (now includes Asians, too!) can't be the adult in the room and simply suck it up and just change the damn name and be done with it, well . . .
Yeah, I'm ok with them changing the name ultimately. I feel like there needs to be some push back every time something like this comes up too though. The whole "let's take something that is a minor annoyance at worst and make a big fuss over it" movement is a train that feels like it's picking up speed. With every successful campaign new groups are encouraged to scour the ether for something they can impose their will upon. It's self-validation through political correctness.
If you can take something that is precious to some people and force them to change it, you have demonstrated a degree of power over them. Never mind that this power is borne of their own internal struggles with things like "public image" and "bad press" rather than any true relevance you may have. You would merely have taken advantage of an exploit that seems to be available to nearly any identifiable group who had it rough at some point in the past. Once anyone realizes they have this ability, of course they use it. Real outrage is no longer even necessary to get it going. People do it because they can, and it feels good to make people dance. This age of nervous public figures positively vaulting over each other to assuage every perceived slight is great entertainment. Oh I know that in every case there are plenty of people who convinced themselves that what they were fighting to change was of great importance. I know many of them were convinced that they had won a great victory when they succeeded. It all feels like hyenas fighting over the dry bones of a long dead corpse to me. It doesn't feel like it amounts to anything, yet it is imbued with an unholy life merely by virtue of the seriousness everyone views it with.
Snyder should rename them the Washington Fuck You's.
Seriously...even the fucking Indian nations that mainstream media indicate are so "distraught" and "offended" by the use of the word 'beloved patriot' have come out and said in numerous articles that the word isn't offensive to them...
Boo-fucking-hoo to anyone that wants to cry about a word. Go join a fucking hug-in or some other commiserating group of panty-waists who feel the big, bad world isn't coddling and comforting enough for them. Oh yeah, one other thing...fuck Bob Costas and that fucking soliloquy he pulled from his panty-covered vagina during the football game a couple weeks ago.
Stop lying and making yourself look stupidly uninformed. If nobody was offended, this wouldn't even make the Jerry Springer show. Get out of your cave already.
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap20...to-meet-with-nfl-regarding-redskins-team-name
You don't hear the Scandinavians complaining about a certain NFL team name.
Sounds like a mixed response. It doesn't look like it's an overwhelming amount of Native Americans who oppose the current name. I don't know if it's worth changing just to satisfy the percentage who are offended by the name.