|
|
PLEASE NOTE: The Reality TV World Message Boards are filled with desperate
attention-seekers pretending to be one big happy PG/PG13-rated family. Don't
be fooled. Trying to get everyone to agree with you is like herding cats,
but intolerance for other viewpoints is NOT welcome and respect for other
posters IS required at all times. Jump in and play, and you'll soon find out
how easy it is to fit in, but save your drama for your mama. All members are
encouraged to read the
complete guidelines.
As entertainment critic Roger
Ebert once said, "If you disagree with something I write, tell me so, argue
with me, correct me--but don't tell me to shut up. That's not the American way."
|
|
"I suppose we should mention the redskins controversy"
kingfish 17379 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
06-18-14, 03:01 PM (EST)
|
"I suppose we should mention the redskins controversy" |
The US patent office cancelled the Redskin football team's right to trademark "Redskins". Or something to that legal effect.http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/18/news/companies/patent-office-redskins/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 (Yawn.). OK, not the most divisive controversy around, but it’s a slow day. And I would bet that not even Native Americans are too wound up over this. Some are though, and they started the lawsuit that led to this ruling. As usual, appeals are in the offing.
So, the patent office is just now coming to this conclusion. They began as the Boston Braves (no complaint there? And is not “Redskins” a logical successor for “Braves”?) in 1932 and became the Redskins in 1937. That’s nearly 80 years of insults to the Native Americans. I think that maybe by now the Native American’s complaint might have worn a bit thin and that maybe they should recognize that it’s a compliment that the football team selected them to epitomize their fighting spirit. Actually, I assume that the use of that term was meant in that positive way. They were proud of their team, and wanted a nickname that represented America, strength, and a proud heritage. To take offence at that seems silly and thin skinned to me. Not to appear insensitive, but I am basically insensitive to their complaint. I understand that Redskins was originally a derogatory reference for Native Americans, and when used that way I can understand them getting their back up over it. But as used in the NFL, no one has it in their mind that they are referring to Native Americans when they announce the football scores; they’re referring to the football team from Washington DC. And, unless you are a Cowboys fan (watch out Jerry, the cattle workers of the west may want their name back!), it isn't and never was meant as a derogatory reference. And the precedent it sets? The prophylactics company may sue the USC Trojans? Or may Greece would? Throw the Mich. Spartans into the mix (look out Hobbes). And my beloved Aggies! (the use of the term Aggie by UT grads is definitely derogatory, often accompanied by a spitting gesture and a one fingered salute)? Johnny Football? To call someone a John is definitely an insult. No trademark protection for you, Johnny! People are free to take offence at whatever they feel like taking offence at, but there is no right to not be offended.
|
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
kingfish 17379 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
06-23-14, 12:23 PM (EST)
|
3. "RE: I suppose we should mention the redskins controversy" |
There's a difference. A very significant difference IMO.
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PepeLePew13 25296 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
06-24-14, 10:01 AM (EST)
|
7. "RE: I suppose we should mention the redskins controversy" |
I don't know enough about the history behind such words as Blackhawks, but what I would be looking for was whether the word was used in a derogatory manner or the label used to describe the annihilation of a group - redskins fit in this manner as bounties were given for the scalp of a redskin. To a Native, 'redskin' has a powerfully negative connotation. Does 'blackhawk' or 'chief' have such a connotation? Again I'd have to do research into the history behind it, but 'chief' would seem on the surface to be a honorific, a term of respect. There's no such similarity to 'redskin'.
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
Colonel Zoiderg 52 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Hollywood Squares Square"
|
06-24-14, 06:37 PM (EST)
|
14. "RE: I suppose we should mention the redskins controversy" |
The difference between "Redskins" and, say, "Blackhawks," "Chiefs," or even "Blue Jackets" is the story behind the name.Both the Blackhawks and Blue Jackets are named after individuals - respected individuals. Bicker about the Native American figure that the Blackhawks use; the name itself is hardly offensive. The Chiefs? Same story - and named after a white guy who was the mayor of Kansas City, who was nicknamed "the Chief." Tone down the arrowheads if you want - the name is not offensive. Even the Cleveland Indians were named after a former player (if you believe that story, anyway.) Again, tone down or abolish Chief Wahoo and it's probably fine. The Redskins? No such story of origin. It's just a name. It's a name used as a slur - and with genocidal connotations, as once used by George Custer. And it really needs to be changed. But, like any other progress, it will take time, and it will take people coming around to the idea of the team being called, for example, the Warriors. It may take another owner - and that's not a bad thing, since Daniel Snyder's a tool anyway. I'm not sure if the loss of trademark will hold up, but eventually, the name will be changed.
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
kingfish 17379 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
06-26-14, 04:13 PM (EST)
|
23. "RE: I suppose we should mention the redskins controversy" |
LAST EDITED ON 06-26-14 AT 04:44 PM (EST)It's also a question of intent. Any term of endearment can be offensive if presented with mal-intent. And I personally haven't heard the term Redskin used in a negative way, ever. Well, not since I was a kid playing cowboys and indians. Anyway, I don’t think there is any question that the use of the term as it applies to the NFL team is intended to be anything but a designation connotating American honor, valor, and fighting spirit. Why is that bad? That's a story behind the name, too, and a positive one. And Custer? Really Z? You can't seriously be comparing how a term was used in the late 1800’s during Indian wars with how it is used today. And just out of curiousity, how do you know Custer used it? I mean, I agree that it's likely that as they were killing the guys around him and before they killed him (the genocide associated with Custer was of his troops) that he might have understandably called those indians bad names. And so (according to your examples) we forgive every other use of Native American referenced terms, yet condemn the use of the term Redskins? That just reeks of hyper PC bias. And I doubt it will be dropped, not as long as Snyder is alive. He's made that clear.
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
Colonel Zoiderg 52 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Hollywood Squares Square"
|
06-27-14, 01:13 PM (EST)
|
25. "RE: I suppose we should mention the redskins controversy" |
>It's also a question of intent. >Any term of endearment can >be offensive if presented with >mal-intent. And I personally haven't >heard the term Redskin used >in a negative way, ever. >Well, not since I was >a kid playing cowboys and >indians. Anyway, I don’t think >there is any question that >the use of the term >as it applies to the >NFL team is intended to >be anything but a designation >connotating American honor, valor, and >fighting spirit. Why is that >bad? That's a story behind >the name, too, and a >positive one. That story is just made up on the fly by Daniel Snyder in order to protect the trademark of an overrated, bloated team. George Marshall said it himself he wasn't trying to honor Native Americans with the name. All there is behind the name Redskins is that they just couldn't call the team the Braves anymore and improvised. >And Custer? Really Z? You can't >seriously be comparing how a >term was used in the >late 1800’s during Indian wars >with how it is used >today. And just out of >curiousity, how do you know >Custer used it? I mean, >I agree that it's likely >that as they were killing >the guys around him and >before they killed him (the >genocide associated with Custer was >of his troops) that he >might have understandably called those >indians bad names. George Custer's exact quote: "Exterminate the whole fraternity of redskins." I was assigned a book for a law class that contained this direct quote from Custer (oddly enough, the book had nothing to do with Native Americans, but it did link to another atrocity.) And if Custer was using the name directed at an enemy, does that justify calling a team the Japs, the Chinks, or the Krauts? (Actually, a high school somewhere once called themselves the Chinks - they wisely changed it.) >And so (according to your examples) >we forgive every other use >of Native American referenced terms, >yet condemn the use of >the term Redskins? That just >reeks of hyper PC bias. "Redskins" seems to be the one that bothers people more than anyone. That and Chief Wahoo of the Cleveland Indians, which is being phased out anyway and frankly looks ridiculous even independent of being racist. The same with Chief Knockahomer that the Braves used to use - he's gone. But the Seminoles, Fighting Illini, and Fighting Sioux have tribal support. If we wanted to be hyper-PC, ALL the Native American names, or anything REMOTELY Native American, would have to be changed. For that matter, goodbye Fighting Irish. We could even take it to the logical absurdity and abolish all nicknames that involve illegal behavior, like Pirates, Raiders, or Buccaneers. Oilers? They pollute and destroy the Earth. And heaven forbid we use the name of an endangered animal. Hell, let's get rid of all nicknames and just make people take names like they do in European soccer. Or, y'know, we could just draw the line at the stuff that we can all recognize is noticeably offensive to enough sane people and give the rest of them a rest. >And I doubt it will be >dropped, not as long as >Snyder is alive. He's made >that clear. Follow the money. If he loses his trademark and it's upheld on appeal, then sooner or later, enough counterfeit Redskins merchandise is going to cut into the NFL's bottom line and the owners are going to force Snyder's hand. Even if he doesn't, the money may be better if they change the name anyway. Teams update their logos and appearances every now and then anyway. The Redskins' logo could benefit from a modernization anyway - updating the name would just be another facet of that.
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
kingfish 17379 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
06-27-14, 02:15 PM (EST)
|
26. "RE: I suppose we should mention the redskins controversy" |
LAST EDITED ON 06-27-14 AT 02:16 PM (EST)I appreciate the Custer quote, I didn't know that. Still, it doesn't change the inappropriateness of using a term that was a slur in the late 1800's as a present day slur. I just don’t think it is still used that way very much more often than any of those others you cite. Okies used to be a slur during the depression. Yet no one that I’ve heard is suggesting that Oklahoma change its symbolic name. Meanings change over time, and the only yardstick that should count (IMO) is the intent. Again, no matter whose story you believe as to why the team was named the Redskins, no one is claiming it was to denigrate the American Indian. But even so, if you want to go back even further in history, “Redskin” was a legal term in treaties previously used by Native Americans themselves, not a term of denigration. Quote from Wikipedia: ”During the late 18th and early 19th centuries, European Americans wanted a term which all could use to refer to all Native Americans in negotiating treaties that involved different tribes. They adopted the color metaphors used at that time for race pointing to continental origins: white men, black men and red men. The first use of red skin was among a small group in the region first settled by the French, who used the term peaux rouges, their translation of the native word the local tribes used for themselves. The Patent’s Office decision is going to be appealed, and until a final decision is reached (years down the road) the team doesn’t lose any Trademark protection. And, as indicated by the 2-1 vote of the Patent board, it isn’t a slam dunk that the decision will ever be upheld. Dan Snyder is reportedly dead set against a name change, so I wouldn’t bet the house that he will ever give in, even if it does cost him some merchandising revenue.
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
kingfish 17379 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-01-14, 08:37 AM (EST)
|
29. "RE: Finally;" |
LAST EDITED ON 07-01-14 AT 10:37 AM (EST)Apparently I can't do tongue-in-cheek sarcasm either, so I will attempt to label those comments. The Big Brother comment was sarcasm. You could have also appropriately referenced Phillip from Survivor, the faux FBI agent from the buzzard feather tribe. However the claims of indigenous ancestry for both are questionable. But to the point at hand, neither was called a Redskin, in spite of being immersed in corrosive environments where the use of very many other derisive terms was utilized. (Begin tongue-in-cheek) To any stray steer, Maverick is considered a particularly offensive name. Dallas should change their name to the PC acceptable "Unbranded Motherless Bovines". Would you walk up to a wandering unbranded steer and call him a Maverick? I think you’d get your clock cleaned if you did. And since "Boy" is also label of derision, both the Dallas Cowboys and the Oklahoma State Cowboys should change their names to the "Young People Who Tend Cattle". The racial and misogynistic implications of the term "Boy" are insulting and just too much for a decent society to bear. (End tongue-in-cheek)
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
Colonel Zoiderg 52 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Hollywood Squares Square"
|
07-02-14, 08:43 PM (EST)
|
30. "RE: Finally;" |
>LAST EDITED ON 07-01-14 >AT 10:37 AM (EST) > >Apparently I can't do tongue-in-cheek sarcasm >either, so I will attempt >to label those comments. The >Big Brother comment was sarcasm. >You could have also appropriately >referenced Phillip from Survivor, the >faux FBI agent from the >buzzard feather tribe. However the >claims of indigenous ancestry for >both are questionable. But to >the point at hand, neither >was called a Redskin, in >spite of being immersed in >corrosive environments where the use >of very many other derisive >terms was utilized. I could pretty well tell the Big Brother comment was sarcasm. I also tried to devolve into some level of insanity with my answer. Evidently I failed in that insanity. >(Begin tongue-in-cheek) > >To any stray steer, Maverick is >considered a particularly offensive name. > > >Dallas should change their name to >the PC acceptable "Unbranded Motherless >Bovines". Would you walk up >to a wandering unbranded steer >and call him a Maverick? >I think you’d get your >clock cleaned if you did. > > >And since "Boy" is also label >of derision, both the Dallas >Cowboys and the Oklahoma State >Cowboys should change their names >to the "Young People Who >Tend Cattle". The racial and >misogynistic implications of the term >"Boy" are insulting and >just too much for a >decent society to bear. > >(End tongue-in-cheek) If you really wanted to, you could find fault in damn near any sports team. The Tigers are named after an endangered species. The Bears are offensive to gay men. The Cardinals refer to Catholic hierarchy?
This is about as tongue-in-cheek as it gets here.
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
|
|
kingfish 17379 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
06-24-14, 01:24 PM (EST)
|
10. "RE: I suppose we should mention the redskins controversy" |
LAST EDITED ON 06-24-14 AT 01:35 PM (EST) Well, one significant difference between Darkie, Blackie, (and I assume you were appropriately tiptoeing around using the N word) and Redskins is that Redskins was chosen to represent a football team in the 30’s, without any intention of disparaging anybody, but with (and this is my assumption) the idea of representing a team with a symbol of fighting spirit, with an identifiable American brand, and to borrow from the pride of the American Indian. That is completely the opposite of an insult to Native Americans and their ancestors. It should be considered a grand compliment, I believe.
Another significant difference is in degree (do I really have to mention this? I guess so). The N word is an almost universally disparaging term. And quite simply, Redskins is not. Less so even than Redneck, Cracker, Yankee, Québécois, Kraut, etc. Sure, they are offensive to others to some degree or another, but none are (especially including Redskins) as universally offensive as the N word. So, where do we draw the line? It should be clear that the N word (or Darkies, or Blackies, if that really is a literal comparison) is not in the same league as Redskins, even though superficially they do each refer to skin color, and are more about ethnic origins. To me that is an illogical, specious, comparison. When used in the context of the NFL, it is not a reference to American Indians. Many names and words have various meaning depending on the intent and context of their usage, and by now, after 80+ years of usage, Redskins is not a reference to the American Indians when talking football. The Redskins are the NFL team that represents Washington DC. ETA: It occurs to me that any and all college football players whose ancestors were indigenous to North America would kill (not literally) to be called a Washington Redskin. In years past, in the 1800’s I believe, it was a general term of disparagement. I believe that use of the term as a disparagement is not widespread anymore. The widespread use of the term is in reference to football. And if there are some who cling to the thought that what their ancestors resented should be continued for eternity, and refuse to see it any other way, that is their right. And they are offended as is their right. But nobody has the right to not be offended. It may have been a term of offense at one time, but IMO the use of that sobriquet in naming the NFL team has erased, and even reversed that stigma. OK, this is my cynicism showing here, but I bet that if you could delve into the true motivations of those behind the lawsuit, you would find a that their motives are 100% for financial gain, and that their feelings of being disrespected are 100% an act. It is just very thin skinned at bestI believe, and, at worst dishonest, to act offended over a term that is no longer an more than ordinarily offensive term.
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
|
|
kingfish 17379 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
06-24-14, 10:20 PM (EST)
|
17. "RE: I suppose we should mention the redskins controversy" |
LAST EDITED ON 06-25-14 AT 08:32 AM (EST)LAST EDITED ON 06-24-14 AT 10:27 PM (EST) You asked for differences. Do you still cling to the notion that there is no significant difference between the N word and Redskin? The fact the we can actually write the word Redskin with impunity, and we recoil from writing the N word is in itself a tipoff, if one was needed. To me, that is just a silly comparison, and that you and Pepe can't see the difference is profoundly disturbing.
You are completely wrong in your last statement. I would have no reason to walk up to a stranger and call him or her anything, for you to imagine that I or anyone would is offensive, and (IMO) belies a flaw in your character as well as in your thinking. Nor am I offended by any of the attempts on your part to offend me. I have a thick skin which can be penetrated, but those attempts were inane and unimaginative. Try harder next time. I am a calm and serene cracker redneck grits eating southerner. And any sports team that wishes to use that as a symbol is more than welcome to. As for your links, I'll check them out tomorrow, but I did caveat my remarks with IMOs. They were my opinions. I have a right to them, and I have a right to express them, as you do yours.
I also have a source for the historical facts I cited, which I will try to find again. Tomorrow. Wiki I think.
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
|
|
kingfish 17379 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
06-26-14, 08:45 AM (EST)
|
20. "RE: I suppose we should mention the redskins controversy" |
I'm cool. You're cool. We're all cool.But you did make what seemed to me to be an offensive suggestion, that I walk up to someone and call them a name. I wouldn't do that, and if I did, it probably wouldn't matter what name I used, I'd still get my clock cleaned. I understand that you meant it as a hypothetical, not as a literal thing, so my bad on the misunderstanding. And you did suggest words that might be used to offend me. I’m usually pretty proof against that because I’ve had practice. Have you met Estee? She makes insulting fun and creative. Difference of opinion, no harm no foul, and I enjoy debating with you. I argue forcefully sometimes, and that comes across as being riled. But I'm usually pretty cool. Serenity sometimes doesn't come across well with the written word.
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
Estee 56856 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
06-24-14, 11:04 AM (EST)
|
8. "RE: I suppose we should mention the redskins controversy" |
Now taking offers to enter the ownership cartel for the upcoming Alabama Crackers.
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Colonel Zoiderg 52 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Hollywood Squares Square"
|
06-25-14, 10:08 AM (EST)
|
19. "RE: I suppose we should mention the redskins controversy" |
>Perhaps my written sarcasm doesn't come >across as well as if >I was able to speak >it. Or (for Pepe) sign >it with facial gestures. Sarcasm in written form is like a soup sandwich. It never really works. **waits for someone to show me a functional soup sandwich** **gets really hungry** >I didn't really take offense at >that. Nor would I at >the term Redneck. Or Cracker. >Or Mudbug. That would be >as silly (IMO) as taking >offense at the NFL team >being called the Redskins. Or >the Chiefs. Or the Raiders, >etc. There actually was a baseball team in Atlanta called the Crackers for a while. And a Negro League team called the Black Crackers. This is either baffling or demonstrative that "Crackers" was not meant as the slur against white folks. Or both. I'm going with both. I actually had no idea what Mudbug meant - had to Google it. So if it has any offensive connotations - or any connotations at all - I am not aware of it. Probably, y'know, because I'm from Ohio. >And any team symbol of any >kind of "Fish" has obviously >been given a high honor. >Kudos to the Marlins and >the Dolphins (close enough), and >if any team wanted to >be called the Kingfish, why >I'd be very honored. I >still might sue if there >was any money there, but >secretly I'd be tickled to >death. If a team called itself the Kingfish, the first name that comes to mind for me is Huey Long, former governor of Louisiana. It's not at all without precedent to name a team after a politician - see my above example of the Chiefs. >And if you were to tell >me that your response was >sarcasm on your part, Col. >Zoidberg, that I didn't catch, >well, egg on me. No sarcasm. Confusion. That doesn't translate well to the written word either unless I use a ton of question marks.
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
|
|
PepeLePew13 25296 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
06-26-14, 05:52 PM (EST)
|
24. "RE: I suppose we should mention the redskins controversy" |
May I compliment you on your excellent typing skills with these lobster claws of yours?
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
kingfish 17379 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-09-14, 09:06 AM (EST)
|
33. "RE: I suppose we should mention the redskins controversy" |
LAST EDITED ON 07-09-14 AT 12:20 PM (EST)Interesting, I did not know anything about Dan Snyder’s Dad, Gerry. If he were alive he might not agree with his son over keeping the name. My dad and I also disagree over various issues. Possibly you and your dad have also disagreed? Gerry was an advocate of Freedom of Expression. But he seems to also have been a fierce advocate of human rights. And he was very sympathetic with the Native American. Actually, Gerald might have been more conflicted over this issue than an advocate of the name change. I didn’t find anywhere in the article where the elder Snyder thought the name of the Washington NFL team should be changed. The author of the article states that, but not Snyder. So, what's your point? That sons and dads have differing opinions? Given. That some think the name should be changed? Again, that’s a given. That the author of the article is pro-name change? Obvious.
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
Colonel Zoiderg 52 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Hollywood Squares Square"
|
07-09-14, 01:15 PM (EST)
|
34. "RE: I suppose we should mention the redskins controversy" |
It's a tricky thing to argue that any dead person would certainly have wanted something. The simple fact is, we don't know - their belief on one topic may have been totally divergent from everything else, or they may simply believe in one of their principles over another regarding the issue.That said, Daniel Snyder is trying to act as a businessman, and he's coming off as more of a supervillain with a deep wallet. If it were, say, the previous owner, Jack Kent Cooke, behaving in a level-headed manner sand arguing, "There's no need to change the team name. I don't want up to be the Wizards 2.0," and people respected his level-headedness rather than the obnoxious Snyder who's almost just being inflammatory because he can be, we might see this a little differently.
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
|
|
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
|
|