What is your take?

AVGWarhawk · 03-07-13, 12:09 PM

Quote:

The Redskins name has been a debated topic through the years that has heated up once again this offseason. Vincent Gray, the mayor of D.C., said there would need to be a "discussion" about a name change if the Redskins wanted to return to the district (they currently play their games in Landover, Md.) in January. The following month Native Americans held a daylong symposium at the National Museum of the American Indian in Washington, D.C. discussing the offensive nature of the Redskins nickname.

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2013/3/7...trademark-case

Platapus · 03-07-13, 12:27 PM

My take? Honestly? I don't care.

I really can't imagine anyone being offended by the use of the term "redskin" in such a positive context as the name of a major sports team.

Someone would have to demonstrate actual damages against Native Americans because of the use of the term Redskin. Is any NA being discriminated against because of the NFL team name?

The only negative context is when the Redskins suck, which they often do.

However, just because I am not offended does not mean that others are not offended.

But this does bring up the question: are there instances where people should not care whether other people are offended by the use of a word/phrase?

Is there a difference between not liking something and being "offended"?

Pretty much anything will offend someone. Is there a minimum number of objectors that will make the objection "legitimate"?

Are there categorizes of "objections" that are more important than others?

Basically, is there some instance where the appropriate response is "I realize that you find it objectionable but I am not changing it"?

Armistead · 03-07-13, 12:44 PM

We can call them the Washington R word...

AVGWarhawk · 03-07-13, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Armistead

We can call them the Washington R word...

This is the road it is leading to. However, the Atlanta Braves, now that is a name some can be ok with? Cleveland Indians? Could a native American be offended as he is referenced to Cleveland. Possibly a city he does not like? It gets a bit tiresome to say the least.

Takeda Shingen · 03-07-13, 01:21 PM

I can understand why a Native American would be upset with the name. A chief or a brave are generic terms, while a Redskin is a pejorative. I mean, you wouldn't name a sports team the N_ _ _ _ _ _, right? So, fine change the name to something else. NFL teams have done it before. Houston's franchise returned as the Texans. Tennessee dropped the Oilers mantle to be the Titans (which has a whole lot to do with the state of Tennessee). Baltimore went with the Ravens rather than trying to get back the name Colts. So, not a big deal in my eyes.

AVGWarhawk · 03-07-13, 01:30 PM

Probably more so a big deal to the fans of the R-skins. A small minority in the larger scheme of things.

A name change might be good.

As for the Ravens/Colts, it was best the Colts keep that name in Indy. What a bad taste left in Baltimore's mouth when they loaded and left in the middle of the night. New team, new franchise, new name. Just worked for the best.

mookiemookie · 03-07-13, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

I can understand why a Native American would be upset with the name. A chief or a brave are generic terms, while a Redskin is a pejorative. I mean, you wouldn't name a sports team the N_ _ _ _ _ _, right?

Agreed. The Stanford Indians? Marquette Warriors? Never should have been changed. FSU Seminoles, Utah Utes, Illinois Illini? Those are awesome names, and anyone offended by having a tribe's name as your team mascot (which are usually known for their positive traits of bravery, fearlessness, strength, power, etc.) should have their head examined.

Now Redskins is a different story. It's a slur. There's no two ways about that. And just because something has been around a long time doesn't mean it's ok. I think they should take a long hard look at changing their name.

AVGWarhawk · 03-07-13, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus

Is there a difference between not liking something and being "offended"?

Yes, I think there is a difference. Offended seems somehow more forceful or colorful.

I think the word "offended" is sometimes overused.

03-07-13, 12:27 PM	#2
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,360 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	My take? Honestly? I don't care. I really can't imagine anyone being offended by the use of the term "redskin" in such a positive context as the name of a major sports team. Someone would have to demonstrate actual damages against Native Americans because of the use of the term Redskin. Is any NA being discriminated against because of the NFL team name? The only negative context is when the Redskins suck, which they often do. However, just because I am not offended does not mean that others are not offended. But this does bring up the question: are there instances where people should not care whether other people are offended by the use of a word/phrase? Is there a difference between not liking something and being "offended"? Pretty much anything will offend someone. Is there a minimum number of objectors that will make the objection "legitimate"? Are there categorizes of "objections" that are more important than others? Basically, is there some instance where the appropriate response is "I realize that you find it objectionable but I am not changing it"? __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

03-07-13, 12:44 PM	#3
Armistead Rear Admiral Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: on the Dan Posts: 10,880 Downloads: 364 Uploads: 0	We can call them the Washington R word... __________________ You see my dog don't like people laughing. He gets the crazy idea you're laughing at him. Now if you apologize like I know you're going to, I might convince him that you really didn't mean it.

03-07-13, 01:30 PM	#6
AVGWarhawk Lucky Jack Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: In a 1954 Buick. Posts: 28,253 Downloads: 90 Uploads: 0	Probably more so a big deal to the fans of the R-skins. A small minority in the larger scheme of things. A name change might be good. As for the Ravens/Colts, it was best the Colts keep that name in Indy. What a bad taste left in Baltimore's mouth when they loaded and left in the middle of the night. New team, new franchise, new name. Just worked for the best. __________________ “You're painfully alive in a drugged and dying culture.” ― Richard Yates, Revolutionary Road

03-07-13, 01:21 PM	#5
Takeda Shingen Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2000 Posts: 8,643 Downloads: 19 Uploads: 0	I can understand why a Native American would be upset with the name. A chief or a brave are generic terms, while a Redskin is a pejorative. I mean, you wouldn't name a sports team the N_ _ _ _ _ _, right? So, fine change the name to something else. NFL teams have done it before. Houston's franchise returned as the Texans. Tennessee dropped the Oilers mantle to be the Titans (which has a whole lot to do with the state of Tennessee). Baltimore went with the Ravens rather than trying to get back the name Colts. So, not a big deal in my eyes.