U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Pro Football
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-24-2013, 02:33 PM
 
Location: Greensboro, NC
5,756 posts, read 4,231,898 times
Reputation: 3829

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. GE View Post
Actually this is not true.. the N-word started off as neutral term.

The N-Word wikipedia page:
"N***** is a noun in the English language. The word originated as a neutral term referring to black people, as a variation of the Spanish/Portuguese noun negro, a descendant of the Latin adjective niger ("color black").[1] Often used slightingly, by the mid 20th century, particularly in the United States, its usage had become unambiguously pejorative, a common ethnic slur usually directed at people of Sub-Saharan African descent."

I wont post the link to keep from writing the word.



And Redskins is considered negative...

This is from the first two sentences of the wikipedia page on the term Redskins.

"Redskin" is a racial descriptor for the indigenous peoples of the Americas and one of the color metaphors for race used in North America and Europe since European colonization of the Western Hemisphere. The term is controversial as it is considered to be the equivalent to "n*****" by some[1], but equivalent to "black" by others.[2] The current consensus falls somewhere between these two extremes as having "usually negative" connotations.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_(slang)

Finally... The historical documentation and facts you speak of for either word is up for interpretation because they are descriptors. There is nothing that proves either word is more negative or more harmless from an origin perspective. Therefore the interpretation of the words are up to individuals, not the masses and therefore cannot be proven either way.
You just contradicted yourself. If a connotation of a word is open for interpretation by an individual and cannot be proven either way, then so would its origin being considered "neutral". Who decided the origin was neutral? You? John Doe? Who? Therefore, you can't prove that what I have researched is wrong information, and definitely not with Wikipedia as your source. Wikipedia entries can be edited by anybody and everybody at any given time, and using that site as a source for "factual" information is just lazy at best.

And the funny thing is, there has actually been a Native American to chime in and say the sport's team name does not offend him. Sure, we could question his validity, but I've read surveys that were conducted on Indian reservations, all found the majority were not offended by the team name, and even a few of them were fans of the team and felt honored by the name. So, since you believe that the negative connotation of a word cannot be proven, then supporting the idea of forcing an NFL franchise to change its moniker based on an unproven interpretation is an illogical move to support.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-24-2013, 06:05 PM
 
Location: The "Rock"
2,551 posts, read 2,413,834 times
Reputation: 1322
Quote:
Originally Posted by skinsguy37 View Post
You just contradicted yourself. If a connotation of a word is open for interpretation by an individual and cannot be proven either way, then so would its origin being considered "neutral". Who decided the origin was neutral? You? John Doe? Who? Therefore, you can't prove that what I have researched is wrong information, and definitely not with Wikipedia as your source. Wikipedia entries can be edited by anybody and everybody at any given time, and using that site as a source for "factual" information is just lazy at best.

And the funny thing is, there has actually been a Native American to chime in and say the sport's team name does not offend him. Sure, we could question his validity, but I've read surveys that were conducted on Indian reservations, all found the majority were not offended by the team name, and even a few of them were fans of the team and felt honored by the name. So, since you believe that the negative connotation of a word cannot be proven, then supporting the idea of forcing an NFL franchise to change its moniker based on an unproven interpretation is an illogical move to support.
When did I say they should change the name? Please tell me... because I said no such thing.

In addition... the crux of my post is purposely contradictory because I'm outlining how your statement of factual documentation on the two words being wrong. Simple and plain...

Spin it however you want to feel better... But they were wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-28-2013, 10:32 AM
 
Location: Greensboro, NC
5,756 posts, read 4,231,898 times
Reputation: 3829
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. GE View Post
When did I say they should change the name? Please tell me... because I said no such thing.
No, you didn't specifically say "they should change the name". You specifically said, "yea its offensive... period." So if your opinion is that much a matter of fact, then you would support a name change.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. GE View Post
In addition... the crux of my post is purposely contradictory because I'm outlining how your statement of factual documentation on the two words being wrong. Simple and plain...

Spin it however you want to feel better... But they were wrong.
Simple and plain, prove they are wrong. You cannot. The burden of proof is upon you, and sorry, but no amount of self-envy on your part is going to be enough for you to simply say I'm wrong without proof, other than Wikipedia.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2013, 01:22 PM
 
10,691 posts, read 11,695,682 times
Reputation: 6043
http://files.redskins.com/pdf/A-Lett...Dan-Snyder.pdf

Check this
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2013, 04:07 PM
 
Location: Northwest Peninsula
3,236 posts, read 1,602,978 times
Reputation: 1742
Quote:
Originally Posted by X-Greensboro Resident View Post
In short, it's well documented that I am a Washington Redskins fan. Over the last few years, there has been a lot of talk about the name being offensive which I totally understand but I never even thought about it that way...It's a football team from my hometown, it's the Redskins, no big deal.

But within the last week, there was an article in the Kansas City Star about this issue and there has been a lot of chatter about this on Sports Talk radio shows among other places, so I started to really think about it and researched the word and found all kinds of history behind it. I'm really starting to feel that it is offensive! I'm even feeling a little wierd having a license plate on my car that reads "Redskins" with the team logo! I am just starting to feel like it has such a brutal, negative meaning that goes WAY beyond football.......

What are you thoughts? Anyone else offended by this?
No...Would the name have to be changed to satisfy just a few people. That is unAmerican.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2013, 04:26 PM
 
Location: Vineland, NJ
8,483 posts, read 10,467,331 times
Reputation: 5401
If your going to change the Redskins name than other teams should to change their names as well, such as the Cleveland Indians, Atlanta Braves, Chicago Blackhawks, and Florida State Seminoles. It would be hypocritical to let those other teams off the hook as those names can be seen as offensive as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2013, 10:20 AM
 
322 posts, read 445,780 times
Reputation: 728
I personally never had a problem with a sports team being named the Redskins, Indians, Braves, etc., however I'm also not Native American. When Native Americans do publicly claim that some of these names are offensive I think that people should actually sit down and listen. I live in the D.C. area and know for a fact that the fans of the Redskins (I'm a Cowboys fan btw) don't want anything to do with their team changing the name. This feeling amongst fans is so prevalent that I've even had a co-worker actually get visibly upset when I didn't agree with him about the Redskins keeping the name!

Here's my thing. People seem to have this need to tell others what they should and shouldn't be offended by. I'm not offended by the use of some racial or homophobic slurs but I can see how these slurs would have an effect on those to whom they are directed. Someone mentioned that Daniel Snyder conducted a survey and found that 80% of the people did not find the name Redskins offensive. Well of course 80% of the people that you survey aren't going to find the name offensive if the survey is conducted in your own stadium ! But the fans in D.C. eat this stuff up as proof that the name can't possibly be offensive.

To be honest, I won't be affected one way or another if the name doesn't get changed. But I'd just like to ask...What negative outcome would there be if the Redskins did change their name? Would fans stop going to the games(?)--doubtful. Would the team not be able to attract free agents anymore(?)--unlikely. Would Dan Snyder's bottom line be adversely affected(?)--again, unlikely. So why is everyone so adamantly opposed to at least sitting down with the offended party and have an open and frank discussion? Daniel Snyder and the fans are always using the word "Tradition" or some nebulous talk about the "Values" that the name symbolizes. If the values that YOU think the name embodies does not line up with the what the name symbolizes to the actual people it pertains to, then that isn't much of an argument. Also, using a principal that can't actually be quantified (like tradition) as an reasoning for not changing the name is another hollow argument.

Snyder probably wouldn't admit it but there's a significant reason why the Redskins are singled out as opposed to teams like the Chicago Blackhawks or the Florida State Seminoles. Whereas the Blackhawks and Seminoles have proactively made the effort to reach out to Native American tribes in order to establish a rapport and an ongoing dialogue--the Redskins have done no such thing. Instead, the most recent owners (Jack Kent Cook and Daniel Snyder) have chosen to take the opposite approach and act dismissive toward anyone who dares to say that their team's logo is offensive. So when Daniel Snyder says that his team will never change the name from the Redskins, while not even attempting to hear the other side, it's no surprise to me that this "dead horse" is continually beaten.

Make no mistake, as the owner he certainly has the right to keep the name as is; and as I said before it wouldn't bother me either way. I just wonder if he and the team's fans understand that after 46 years of fighting, this issue isn't going to just magically go away; no matter how much they get tired of dealing with it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2013, 11:33 AM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
13,343 posts, read 17,408,219 times
Reputation: 19654
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly View Post
If your going to change the Redskins name than other teams should to change their names as well, such as the Cleveland Indians, Atlanta Braves, Chicago Blackhawks, and Florida State Seminoles. It would be hypocritical to let those other teams off the hook as those names can be seen as offensive as well.
Well, since Seminoles/Blackhawks/Indians/Braves are not considered slurs, I doubt very many Native Americans find them objectionable.

Cleveland Injuns? probably.
Kansas City Chiefs? no.
Chattanooga Chinks? definitely.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2013, 12:00 PM
 
Location: Vineland, NJ
8,483 posts, read 10,467,331 times
Reputation: 5401
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaypee View Post
Well, since Seminoles/Blackhawks/Indians/Braves are not considered slurs, I doubt very many Native Americans find them objectionable.

Cleveland Injuns? probably.
Kansas City Chiefs? no.
Chattanooga Chinks? definitely.
They are all exploiting Native American names.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2013, 12:05 PM
 
3,723 posts, read 3,880,228 times
Reputation: 2774
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaypee View Post
Well, since Seminoles/Blackhawks/Indians/Braves are not considered slurs, I doubt very many Native Americans find them objectionable.

Cleveland Injuns? probably.
Kansas City Chiefs? no.
Chattanooga Chinks? definitely.
I believe Florida State has the blessing of the Seminole tribe to use the Seminole name. So there's no controversy there. Their use of the logo and the mascot is done so in an unoffensive manner.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Pro Football
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top