The name will changed by the end of the decade I think. The pressure is just going to continue to mount.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10430475/senator-threatens-nfl-tax-exempt-status-washington-redskins-name
The letter
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/politics/letter-to-roger-goodell-on-redskins-name/803/
QuoteLawmakers warn NFL about Redskins
Updated: February 10, 2014, 9:43 AM ET
By John Keim | ESPN.com
The fight to change the Redskins name won't die. And it's become an issue among the nation's lawmakers.
Two members of Congress will send a letter to NFL commissioner Roger Goodell on Monday, telling him to publicly announce support for a name change -- and that the NFL can no longer ignore the issue.
The letter, obtained by multiple media outlets, was written by Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.). Cantwell is chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, while Cole is a senior member of the appropriations committee -- and a member of the Chickasaw Tribe.
"The National Football League can no longer ignore this and perpetuate the use of this name as anything but what it is: a racial slur," the letter stated, according to the New York Times.
Cantwell told the newspaper the Indian Affairs Committee would "definitely" examine the NFL's tax-exempt status as a means to apply pressure.
"You're getting a tax break for educational purposes, but you're still embracing a name that people see as a slur and encouraging it," Cantwell told the Times.
The letter reiterated that stance, telling the NFL it's on the "wrong side of history." That's why, it stated, that the NFL should "take a formal position in support of a name change."
The Redskins have received "more than 7,000 letters and emails" in favor of keeping the name, with "almost 200 from people who identified themselves as Native Americans or as family members of Native Americans," the team said in a statement released Monday.
The statement included three letter excerpts from fans of Native American descent, all either supporting the Redskins name or saying it was not offensive to them.
The Redskins also cited a 2004 survey that said 90 percent of Native Americans were not bothered by the Redskins name. The lawmakers' letter criticized the team for clinging to "decade-old public opinion polling."
Goodell has declined to take a formal stance on the debate in the past. Before the Super Bowl, he told reporters, "I've been spending the last year talking to many of the leaders in the Native American communities. We are trying to make sure we understand the issues. Let me remind you: This is the name of a football team, a football team that's had that name for 80 years and has presented the name in a way that it has honored Native Americans."
The lawmakers' letter rebutted Goodell's statement, calling the name "an insult to Native Americans."
Redskins owner Dan Snyder has been adamant that he won't change the name. But he has received steady pressure, and protests, over the past year. In May, 10 members of Congress sent letters to Snyder, Goodell, the 31 other owners and Redskins sponsor FedEx, urging the franchise to change the name. Cole was part of that group as well.
That group introduced a bill last March that would "cancel the federal registrations of trademarks using the word redskin in reference to Native Americans."
Redskins spokesman Tony Wyllie said in a statement, "With all the important issues Congress has to deal with such as a war in Afghanistan to deficits to health care, don't they have more important issues to worry about than a football team's name? And given the fact that the name of Oklahoma means 'Red People' in Choctaw, this request is a little ironic."
(https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/7851742464/h3EE2EDCD/)
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 10, 2014, 10:09:35 AM
The name will changed by the end of the decade I think. The pressure is just going to continue to mount.
Should have changed it twenty years ago. Now the club is really going to get put through the shitter.
Why's the NFL tax exempt?
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 10, 2014, 10:16:01 AM
Why's the NFL tax exempt?
In theory it is a non-profit.
In practice they have good lobbyists.
The individual franchises pay taxes, though. What would be gained by removing the NFL's tax-exempt status?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 10, 2014, 11:29:35 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 10, 2014, 10:16:01 AM
Why's the NFL tax exempt?
In theory it is a non-profit.
In practice they have good lobbyists.
Is it just the NFL or all professional leagues?
Major League baseball is not. Don't know about the rest.
The NHL is tax exempt in the USA.
White guilt is a funny thing.
Quote from: derspiess on February 10, 2014, 11:47:37 AM
What would be gained by removing the NFL's tax-exempt status?
We'd have shown them.
Quote from: Neil on February 10, 2014, 01:17:10 PM
White guilt is a funny thing.
Eh if the name was the Kraut Jew Killers I would want that one changed to.
The NFL is NOT tax-exempt. Its revenues get get passed down to the teams and the teams pay taxes on it.
Quote from: derspiess on February 10, 2014, 11:47:37 AM
The individual franchises pay taxes, though. What would be gained by removing the NFL's tax-exempt status?
Except the Green Bay Packers, of course.
Chief Wahoo is next! Down with the Feds!
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 10, 2014, 06:50:36 PM
The NFL is NOT tax-exempt. Its revenues get get passed down to the teams and the teams pay taxes on it.
The NFL is a separate organization from the individual franchises and it is tax exempt.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 10, 2014, 07:21:42 PM
The NFL is a separate organization from the individual franchises and it is tax exempt.
Sure but it's a pass-through entity for those funds. It has no profit, right?
I thought the NFL was a simply a trade association in name, and the teams were the profiting parties, along with other separate entities as NFL Properties, Inc.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 10, 2014, 06:50:36 PM
The NFL is NOT tax-exempt. Its revenues get get passed down to the teams and the teams pay taxes on it.
Apparently it's explicitly in the tax code:
QuotePreviously, a sentence in Section 501(c)6 had granted not-for-profit status to "business leagues, chambers of commerce, real-estate boards, or boards of trade." Since 1966, the code has read: "business leagues, chambers of commerce, real-estate boards, boards of trade, or professional football leagues."
Why doesn't baseball get the exemption? Apparently golf and hockey do :mellow:
Interesting that getting rid of the exemption seems to attract support from both parties, Tom Coburn's very keen for example.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 10, 2014, 08:06:23 PM
Tom Coburn's very keen for example.
He'll find a way to be a douchebag about it, I'm sure.
Wasn't there a connection regarding the NFL's tax exempt status, and MLB's lack of it, with the fact that the NFL has a salary cap, and MLB does not?
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 10, 2014, 08:06:23 PM
Why doesn't baseball get the exemption?
My guess is because there's no pooled revenue in baseball.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 10, 2014, 08:09:29 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 10, 2014, 08:06:23 PM
Why doesn't baseball get the exemption?
My guess is because there's no pooled revenue in baseball.
Oh yeah, that too. So probably the entire economic structural differences between the two organizations.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 10, 2014, 08:09:29 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 10, 2014, 08:06:23 PM
Why doesn't baseball get the exemption?
My guess is because there's no pooled revenue in baseball.
This is true; disparity in team payrolls, ticket sales, independent revenue streams like television networks, etc.
Hell, the reason the Orioles don't spend any money anymore is because of their revenue deal from MASN, which they share with the Nationals, which suits Peter Asbestos just fine. No reason for a risky return on investment like payroll when the money's flowing in from MASN's Nationals and their fans. Why spend money on winning when the Nationals are doing it for you?
Quote from: Valmy on February 10, 2014, 06:12:31 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 10, 2014, 01:17:10 PM
White guilt is a funny thing.
Eh if the name was the Kraut Jew Killers I would want that one changed to.
I feel differently.
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 10, 2014, 08:09:14 PM
Wasn't there a connection regarding the NFL's tax exempt status, and MLB's lack of it, with the fact that the NFL has a salary cap, and MLB does not?
According to the IRS (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopick03.pdf), the NFL's special exemption has to do with the player pension program.
Quote from: Neil on February 10, 2014, 01:17:10 PM
White guilt is a funny thing.
So is white privilege. It'd be a wash, except: white.
I never cared for the name and don't care either way if they keep it, but it isn't a name to demean Amer Indians. I think it comes from the practice of some Indians who painted themselves red before battle to show ferocity.
Heh, maybe to get even with the Senator the team should move out of Washington DC. That may not change its tax status but the revenue from the team, players and stadium would be gone from DC.
Quote from: KRonn on February 11, 2014, 10:28:09 AM
I never cared for the name and don't care either way if they keep it, but it isn't a name to demean Amer Indians. I think it comes from the practice of some Indians who painted themselves red before battle to show ferocity.
The meaning of words change over time.
Now, in 2014, the term "Redskin" is a slur.
Even some Navajo codetalkers were bought off to say it's not a slur...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fprod.static.redskins.clubs.nfl.com%2F%2Fassets%2Fimages%2Fimported%2FWAS%2Fcenterpieces%2F2013-Centerpieces%2Fhome-page-centerpieces%2FFans%2FCode_Talkers.JPG&hash=d8e9f4d27da9b4ab7b25ee80603dc9dd76e2473b)
Redskins is a racist slur, and Chief Wahoo is a racist caricature. I don't see how anybody with more than a passing knowledge of American history can really argue otherwise in good faith. It's pretty far from a "PC" interpretation.
Whether as a society we're OK with racial slurs/caricatures in professional sports is a different question. So is whether it's worth it to change the traditional names/logos of teams.
I consider myself to have at least a passing knowledge of American history and am unaware of historical cases of redskin being used as a slur. I've always considered it a neutral descriptor, as much of a slur as the word "Indian."
I've pointed out before that French Canadians, who historically loved the hell out of their Indians, called them peaux-rouges. Quebecois posters have confirmed that peaux-rouges does not carry any negative connotations.
Quote from: KRonn on February 11, 2014, 10:28:09 AM
I never cared for the name and don't care either way if they keep it, but it isn't a name to demean Amer Indians. I think it comes from the practice of some Indians who painted themselves red before battle to show ferocity.
And nigger isn't a name to demean blacks, because it comes from the French word for "black."
QuoteHeh, maybe to get even with the Senator the team should move out of Washington DC. That may not change its tax status but the revenue from the team, players and stadium would be gone from DC.
Heh, this is a joke, right? Because the Redskins moved out of DC years ago.
I consider myself to have at least a passing knowledge of American history and am well aware of many historical cases of redskin being used as a slur. I am unaware of any cases where it was used as a compliment.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 11, 2014, 12:08:22 PM
I consider myself to have at least a passing knowledge of American history and am unaware of historical cases of redskin being used as a slur. I've always considered it a neutral descriptor, as much of a slur as the word "Indian."
Would you ever say something like "My bar trivia team is really diverse: we've got me, a half-Korean; Bill, a black guy; Jill, a Mexican; and Steve, a redskin"? That doesn't seem remotely possible. Whereas ".... Steve, an Indian" definitely does.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on February 11, 2014, 12:23:11 PM
Would you ever say something like "My bar trivia team is really diverse: we've got me, a half-Korean; Bill, a black guy; Jill, a Mexican; and Steve, a redskin"? That doesn't seem remotely possible. Whereas ".... Steve, an Indian" definitely does.
I would not, because it's an archaic term.
I also wouldn't say "Lee Ham-Fong, a Celestial," but that doesn't make Celestial a slur.
Do you have any specific examples of redskin being used as a slur?
I don't have anything in mind. But many epithets used by people to describe their enemies tend to take on negative connotations during and after the conflict. So, you might say that this example: "VALUE OF AN INDIAN SCALP: Minnesota Paid Its Pioneers a Bounty for Every Redskin Killed" (http://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=LAH18971024.2.212#) is just using it as a neutral descriptor, but I'd say the context makes it impossible to treat it that way today
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on February 11, 2014, 12:36:45 PM
I don't have anything in mind. But many epithets used by people to describe their enemies tend to take on negative connotations during and after the conflict. So, you might say that this example: "VALUE OF AN INDIAN SCALP: Minnesota Paid Its Pioneers a Bounty for Every Redskin Killed" (http://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=LAH18971024.2.212#) is just using it as a neutral descriptor, but I'd say the context makes it impossible to treat it that way today
Well yeah, the history of American-Indian interaction has been filled with conflict. But by this logic we would have to consider "Indian" to be a slur as well. As shown by your own example.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 11, 2014, 12:08:22 PM
I consider myself to have at least a passing knowledge of American history and am unaware of historical cases of redskin being used as a slur. I've always considered it a neutral descriptor, as much of a slur as the word "Indian."
I've pointed out before that French Canadians, who historically loved the hell out of their Indians, called them peaux-rouges. Quebecois posters have confirmed that peaux-rouges does not carry any negative connotations.
Historically, nope, not a slur. Natives would even refer to themselves as "redskins".
But in 2014 (and for the previous 50 years)? A slur.
Would you call a sports team the "slant-eyes" and use a horribly cliched chinese person as a mascot? "slant eyes" is just a descriptor of the epicanthic fold, right?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 11, 2014, 12:38:27 PM
Well yeah, the history of American-Indian interaction has been filled with conflict. But by this logic we would have to consider "Indian" to be a slur as well. As shown by your own example.
"Indian" was always the dominant term in areas where whites were at least ostensibly trying to co-exist with natives; even though it was founded in an "archaic" time also, it's not called the Bureau of Redskin Affairs for nothing. More importantly, it's been the primary term of self-identification for the group it describes for a long time -- I've never heard of people talking about their redskin ancestors or membership in a redskin tribe. Which takes a lot further away from the realm of a slur, even though "Native American" is an option that isn't linked with the...more fraught...era of white-Indian relations.
I get that it's not on the same level as "nigger," however.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on February 11, 2014, 12:51:00 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 11, 2014, 12:38:27 PM
Well yeah, the history of American-Indian interaction has been filled with conflict. But by this logic we would have to consider "Indian" to be a slur as well. As shown by your own example.
"Indian" was always the dominant term in areas where whites were at least ostensibly trying to co-exist with natives; even though it was founded in an "archaic" time also, it's not called the Bureau of Redskin Affairs for nothing. More importantly, it's been the primary term of self-identification for the group it describes for a long time -- I've never heard of people talking about their redskin ancestors or membership in a redskin tribe. Which takes a lot further away from the realm of a slur, even though "Native American" is an option that isn't linked with the...more fraught...era of white-Indian relations.
I get that it's not on the same level as "nigger," however.
The word "Indian" is a lot more complicated then the word "redskin", which is pretty open and shut.
But Indian... lots of competing factors going on. Historically of course it's a centuries old mistake - Columbus thinking he had visited India. As such native people can be peeved at it's continued use for that reason. Legally however, it has a very specific legal definition - as you say it is the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and we have the Indian Act which legally defines who is and is not an "Indian". Amongst native people it's developed a usage almost like nigger does amongst blacks - they'll use it is a somewhat self-disparaging manner (e.g. someone who is always late is working on Indian time), but similar use would be inappropriate for a white to use.
I've never heard the term redskin used outside of a football context.
Quote from: Barrister on February 11, 2014, 12:45:44 PM
Historically, nope, not a slur. Natives would even refer to themselves as "redskins".
But in 2014 (and for the previous 50 years)? A slur.
With absolutely no knowledge of the history of the word or its common usage, if what you say is true, I don't think they should change their name (absent evidence the name was a slur when it was originated). I'm sure this will be considered a horrible analogy, but "colored" is considered a slur (and it is), then why is NAACP okay? The Redskin franchise has a lot of history and the name is linked to the community for generations, even if it isn't a civil rights organization.
Quote from: Barrister on February 11, 2014, 12:45:44 PM
Historically, nope, not a slur. Natives would even refer to themselves as "redskins".
But in 2014 (and for the previous 50 years)? A slur.
Would you call a sports team the "slant-eyes" and use a horribly cliched chinese person as a mascot? "slant eyes" is just a descriptor of the epicanthic fold, right?
First of all, I don't know why you and others are conflating the Redskins issue with the Chief Wahoo issue. Chief Wahoo is a ridiculous caricature and should have been axed eons ago. The Redskins logo is not; he's a total badass.
Second of all, physical descriptors are not necessarily slurs; otherwise you'd have to take offense if I called you white.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 11, 2014, 01:10:12 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 11, 2014, 12:45:44 PM
Historically, nope, not a slur. Natives would even refer to themselves as "redskins".
But in 2014 (and for the previous 50 years)? A slur.
With absolutely no knowledge of the history of the word or its common usage, if what you say is true, I don't think they should change their name (absent evidence the name was a slur when it was originated). I'm sure this will be considered a horrible analogy, but "colored" is considered a slur (and it is), then why is NAACP okay? The Redskin franchise has a lot of history and the name is linked to the community for generations, even if it isn't a civil rights organization.
Or the United Negro College Fund. Heck, MLK used the term!!!!!1111
Some of the finer distinction in terminology are probably much akin to "Jew" and "Jewish", the former is usually considered offensive more for historical use than logical basis of the word itself.
And hasn't forms of "First Nation" mostly all-but budged out other terms of address in Canada by now?
Quote from: alfred russel on February 11, 2014, 01:10:12 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 11, 2014, 12:45:44 PM
Historically, nope, not a slur. Natives would even refer to themselves as "redskins".
But in 2014 (and for the previous 50 years)? A slur.
With absolutely no knowledge of the history of the word or its common usage, if what you say is true, I don't think they should change their name (absent evidence the name was a slur when it was originated). I'm sure this will be considered a horrible analogy, but "colored" is considered a slur (and it is), then why is NAACP okay? The Redskin franchise has a lot of history and the name is linked to the community for generations, even if it isn't a civil rights organization.
I would think the obvious difference is that the Washington Redskins aren't actually linked to any indian groups in any way.
It's well established that affected groups can use whatever term they want in any manner they want (be it nigger, queer or whatever) but that doesn't make it okay for other groups to use those same words.
By the way, I think it was wrong to force the UND Fighting Sioux to change their name.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 11, 2014, 01:12:38 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 11, 2014, 12:45:44 PM
Historically, nope, not a slur. Natives would even refer to themselves as "redskins".
But in 2014 (and for the previous 50 years)? A slur.
Would you call a sports team the "slant-eyes" and use a horribly cliched chinese person as a mascot? "slant eyes" is just a descriptor of the epicanthic fold, right?
First of all, I don't know why you and others are conflating the Redskins issue with the Chief Wahoo issue. Chief Wahoo is a ridiculous caricature and should have been axed eons ago. The Redskins logo is not; he's a total badass.
Second of all, physical descriptors are not necessarily slurs; otherwise you'd have to take offense if I called you white.
I don't think anybody is taking issue with the Redskins logo, they could call themselves the Washington Navajos (or whatever tribe inhabited that area) with the same logo and it would be okay.
Calling one white isn't a slur, but if you were a minority and somebody called you, dunno, "milk skin" then I'm sure it would be.
Quote from: Barrister on February 11, 2014, 12:45:44 PM
Historically, nope, not a slur. Natives would even refer to themselves as "redskins".
So, if a black man refers to himself as a "nigger," that means that "nigger" is not a slur?
Didn't think so. Your argument fails.
"Redskin" has been a slur or, at best, a neutral term as far back as history records the term. I cannot think of a single context in which I have seen it used as a compliment, though you are free to correct my ignorance. "Red man" is different - and merely archaic, rather than racist.
Quote from: celedhring on February 11, 2014, 01:28:20 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 11, 2014, 01:12:38 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 11, 2014, 12:45:44 PM
Historically, nope, not a slur. Natives would even refer to themselves as "redskins".
But in 2014 (and for the previous 50 years)? A slur.
Would you call a sports team the "slant-eyes" and use a horribly cliched chinese person as a mascot? "slant eyes" is just a descriptor of the epicanthic fold, right?
First of all, I don't know why you and others are conflating the Redskins issue with the Chief Wahoo issue. Chief Wahoo is a ridiculous caricature and should have been axed eons ago. The Redskins logo is not; he's a total badass.
Second of all, physical descriptors are not necessarily slurs; otherwise you'd have to take offense if I called you white.
I don't think anybody is taking issue with the Redskins logo, they could call themselves the Washington Navajos (or whatever tribe inhabited that area) with the same logo and it would be okay.
I don't know about that. The Stanford Indian didn't have terrible term nor was it a hideous caricature and it got dropped. I think there is something to be said for an ethnicity not wanted to be represented as a mascot. (Unless that group is in control and/or empowered by said representation.)
Quote from: grumbler on February 11, 2014, 01:33:03 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 11, 2014, 12:45:44 PM
Historically, nope, not a slur. Natives would even refer to themselves as "redskins".
So, if a black man refers to himself as a "nigger," that means that "nigger" is not a slur?
Didn't think so. Your argument fails.
"Redskin" has been a slur or, at best, a neutral term as far back as history records the term. I cannot think of a single context in which I have seen it used as a compliment, though you are free to correct my ignorance. "Red man" is different - and merely archaic, rather than racist.
You should look more closely at my posts in this thread. Heck, you should even look at the next line in my post, which you cropped out.
Quote from: BarristerHistorically, nope, not a slur. Natives would even refer to themselves as "redskins".
But in 2014 (and for the previous 50 years)? A slur.
Quote from: garbon on February 11, 2014, 01:35:22 PM
Quote from: celedhring on February 11, 2014, 01:28:20 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 11, 2014, 01:12:38 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 11, 2014, 12:45:44 PM
Historically, nope, not a slur. Natives would even refer to themselves as "redskins".
But in 2014 (and for the previous 50 years)? A slur.
Would you call a sports team the "slant-eyes" and use a horribly cliched chinese person as a mascot? "slant eyes" is just a descriptor of the epicanthic fold, right?
First of all, I don't know why you and others are conflating the Redskins issue with the Chief Wahoo issue. Chief Wahoo is a ridiculous caricature and should have been axed eons ago. The Redskins logo is not; he's a total badass.
Second of all, physical descriptors are not necessarily slurs; otherwise you'd have to take offense if I called you white.
I don't think anybody is taking issue with the Redskins logo, they could call themselves the Washington Navajos (or whatever tribe inhabited that area) with the same logo and it would be okay.
I don't know about that. The Stanford Indian didn't have terrible term nor was it a hideous caricature and it got dropped. I think there is something to be said for an ethnicity not wanted to be represented as a mascot. (Unless that group is in control and/or empowered by said representation.)
I think that's overreaction, but well, I'm white. Fair enough.
Quote from: Barrister on February 11, 2014, 01:38:24 PM
You should look more closely at my posts in this thread. Heck, you should even look at the next line in my post, which you cropped out.
I cropped out all the stuff that wasn't relevant to the point in contention. The argument that some Indians used the term "redskin" for themselves (and I am not sure that this is even true, as every case I have seen cited to prove this point turns out to be a case where the term "redskin" was used by a translator, so it didn't come from an Indian after all).
I don't think that you can make a historical case for the term not being a slur. At best, it was sometimes used on a neutral fashion. At worst, it was blatant racism. There is no math in which the historical "slur" plus "maybe-not-a-slur" equals a historical "not a slur at all."
The fact that substantial numbers of people see it as a slur today doesn, of course, make it a slur today, as you noted. That's not in contention between us.
Quote from: celedhring on February 11, 2014, 01:45:49 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 11, 2014, 01:35:22 PM
Quote from: celedhring on February 11, 2014, 01:28:20 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 11, 2014, 01:12:38 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 11, 2014, 12:45:44 PM
Historically, nope, not a slur. Natives would even refer to themselves as "redskins".
But in 2014 (and for the previous 50 years)? A slur.
Would you call a sports team the "slant-eyes" and use a horribly cliched chinese person as a mascot? "slant eyes" is just a descriptor of the epicanthic fold, right?
First of all, I don't know why you and others are conflating the Redskins issue with the Chief Wahoo issue. Chief Wahoo is a ridiculous caricature and should have been axed eons ago. The Redskins logo is not; he's a total badass.
Second of all, physical descriptors are not necessarily slurs; otherwise you'd have to take offense if I called you white.
I don't think anybody is taking issue with the Redskins logo, they could call themselves the Washington Navajos (or whatever tribe inhabited that area) with the same logo and it would be okay.
I don't know about that. The Stanford Indian didn't have terrible term nor was it a hideous caricature and it got dropped. I think there is something to be said for an ethnicity not wanted to be represented as a mascot. (Unless that group is in control and/or empowered by said representation.)
I think that's overreaction, but well, I'm white. Fair enough.
WHile I think the Redskins are a pretty easy and obvious case, there are other situations where it's much murkier.
I mentioned the UND Fighting Sioux. They were caught up in the same NCAA issues as Stanford. The University was told to go and get the blessing of the two local Sioux tribes to be allowed to use the name. I voted in favour. The other simply never had a vote. It wasn't good enough, and they had to change their name despite being a very respectful and positive use of Sious symbols and name.
Quote from: Barrister on February 11, 2014, 10:59:47 AM
Quote from: KRonn on February 11, 2014, 10:28:09 AM
I never cared for the name and don't care either way if they keep it, but it isn't a name to demean Amer Indians. I think it comes from the practice of some Indians who painted themselves red before battle to show ferocity.
The meaning of words change over time.
Now, in 2014, the term "Redskin" is a slur.
Yeah, that's a good point. And as others have pointed out as well, the origin of the phrase may not be so much positive after all, and just as much was used as a slur or to demean.
Quote from: celedhring on February 11, 2014, 01:28:20 PM
I don't think anybody is taking issue with the Redskins logo, they could call themselves the Washington Navajos (or whatever tribe inhabited that area) with the same logo and it would be okay.
I understand that. But people are conflating the two issues.
QuoteCalling one white isn't a slur, but if you were a minority and somebody called you, dunno, "milk skin" then I'm sure it would be.
But the issue on the table is the name Redskins, not Prune Skins.
(Or beet skins.)
Quote from: Barrister on February 11, 2014, 01:56:01 PM
WHile I think the Redskins are a pretty easy and obvious case, there are other situations where it's much murkier.
I mentioned the UND Fighting Sioux. They were caught up in the same NCAA issues as Stanford. The University was told to go and get the blessing of the two local Sioux tribes to be allowed to use the name. I voted in favour. The other simply never had a vote. It wasn't good enough, and they had to change their name despite being a very respectful and positive use of Sious symbols and name.
I also think people should just get over themselves. I can't think of a single team name that would offend me. Maybe that is because I'm white. But I'm of Italian ancestry, and if Dan Snyder wants to call the team some derogatory name toward Italians, I don't care. If he wants to single me out and change the name to "AR's Female Ancestors were all Dirty Whores", I really don't care about that either. I just think it would be a hard name to fit on a jersey.
Quote from: Valmy on February 10, 2014, 06:12:31 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 10, 2014, 01:17:10 PM
White guilt is a funny thing.
Eh if the name was the Kraut Jew Killers I would want that one changed to.
Actually, Fightin' Krauts would be an awesome team name. Think of the mascot possibilities.
For the 2015 NFL season, several name changes were instituted. The Detroit Lions are now known as the Niggers, the San Francisco 49ers are now the Faggots, the New York Giants have been renamed the Guineas, and the New York Jets will from now on be known as the Kikes.
When prompted for comment, Mr. Alfred Russel shrugged and said, "Meh. Doesn't really seem any more offensive than the Redskins."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 11, 2014, 01:12:38 PM
First of all, I don't know why you and others are conflating the Redskins issue with the Chief Wahoo issue. Chief Wahoo is a ridiculous caricature and should have been axed eons ago. The Redskins logo is not; he's a total badass.
I miss Chief Noc-A-Homa :(
Quote from: derspiess on February 11, 2014, 02:20:06 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 10, 2014, 06:12:31 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 10, 2014, 01:17:10 PM
White guilt is a funny thing.
Eh if the name was the Kraut Jew Killers I would want that one changed to.
Actually, Fightin' Krauts would be an awesome team name. Think of the mascot possibilities.
A giant bratwurst.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 11, 2014, 02:22:19 PM
For the 2015 NFL season, several name changes were instituted. The Detroit Lions are now known as the Niggers, the San Francisco 49ers are now the Faggots, the New York Giants have been renamed the Guineas, and the New York Jets will from now on be known as the Kikes.
When prompted for comment, Mr. Alfred Russel shrugged and said, "Meh. Doesn't really seem any more offensive than the Redskins."
I don't think those name changes would be okay. If you picked that up from my posts, you may want to reexamine your interpretation of them, because you have missed something.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 11, 2014, 02:24:04 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 11, 2014, 02:23:08 PM
I miss Chief Noc-A-Homa :(
Refresh my memory.
He had a teepee in the stands at Braves games & would come out & do a dance every time the Braves hit a home run.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Fa%2Fa1%2FNocahoma1.jpg&hash=6a782ffcde577f7d2a8d5220c7913c3acc57d1b0)
Quote from: grumbler on February 11, 2014, 12:10:02 PM
And nigger isn't a name to demean blacks, because it comes from the French word for "black."
No, nigger isn't a name to demean blacks, because the only people who use it are blacks and white suburban teenagers who wish they were black.
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 11, 2014, 02:23:36 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 11, 2014, 02:20:06 PM
Actually, Fightin' Krauts would be an awesome team name. Think of the mascot possibilities.
A giant bratwurst.
Brewers already have that one covered.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F_JQnCHk72fU0%2FS8swI_u_q8I%2FAAAAAAAABYQ%2FJw3gNx_0rCA%2Fs400%2Fsausage-race.jpg&hash=be9834f302872a0399f32ad48b19a3b11deac6b4)
I'm thinking a caricatured Imperial German dude with pickelhaube & monacle.
The difference between Redskin and faggot is that faggot is actually offensive, since it implies that the person being called a faggot is gay. That's the worst thing you can be.
Name should be changed because it's controversial in a negative way, makes poor business sense. No one in the area is going to abandon the team over a name change, and anyone it alienates now is going to be more likely to buy merchandise or tickets after than they are now. Further, some die hard fans will buy more merchandise in the first few years to have new gear with the new team name on it.
As for the NFL tax exempt status, I think Forbes actually had two good articles on it. One that explained pretty accurately that as a 501(c)(6) [trade organization, chambers of commerce...professional football association] it's pretty obvious why the NFL is similar in theory to other 501(c)(6). Probably 99% of the outrage are all the yokels that think non-profit has to mean "charity", when in fact that's what a 501(c)(3) is, which the NFL is not. However, all non-profits are supposed to have certain features, for example not primarily benefiting a small number of individuals who control the non-profit. Under that framework it is actually probably not appropriate that the NFL as we know it is a non-profit. That's the first article I read on Forbes, but the second (http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2013/06/01/nfl-as-tax-exempt-less-than-meets-the-eye/) actually explained that in spite of that, there is probably no positive tax impact for NFL owners to have the NFL as a non-profit.
As a matter of practice, the NFL returns more to its members than they pay in as dues. The dues that the owners pay are tax-deductible just like your membership dues for any trade association are (ex Chamber of Commerce.) The money that comes back is considered taxable revenue for the organization. Because the dues are tax-deductible but the money coming back is normal revenue, essentially that makes it similar to if I buy something for $50 and later sell it for $70, my tax is calculated on the $20 capital gains so the owners are taxed on the full total of their returned revenue from the NFL but have already taken deductions for all their contributions into the NFL coffers meaning effectively they're paying tax on the "gain."
The NFL itself has never had an incentive to book much of a profit and in fact has an incentive to go into the red every year, as the NFL exists for the benefit of the team owners in toto, not for itself. Its leadership is ultimately beholden to the team owners. The Forbes journalist makes a decent argument that if the NFL were a normal LLC with the 32 team owners as its only shareholders then they'd actually get to collectively take cost of business deductions they don't get to take now, in aggregate this would probably mean that professional football as a whole (the 32 team ownership entities collectively) would pay less aggregate tax than it does now. It appears the primary economic benefit in having the NFL umbrella organization a non-profit is certain liabilities are kept on the books of the NFL instead of on the books of the individual teams, but from a tax perspective it's actually doing the exact opposite of what a good tax shelter would do--it increases aggregate taxes paid by its controllers and removing its tax exempt status would likely lead to less total tax revenue derived from professional football.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 11, 2014, 02:14:26 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 11, 2014, 01:56:01 PM
WHile I think the Redskins are a pretty easy and obvious case, there are other situations where it's much murkier.
I mentioned the UND Fighting Sioux. They were caught up in the same NCAA issues as Stanford. The University was told to go and get the blessing of the two local Sioux tribes to be allowed to use the name. I voted in favour. The other simply never had a vote. It wasn't good enough, and they had to change their name despite being a very respectful and positive use of Sious symbols and name.
I also think people should just get over themselves. I can't think of a single team name that would offend me. Maybe that is because I'm white. But I'm of Italian ancestry, and if Dan Snyder wants to call the team some derogatory name toward Italians, I don't care. If he wants to single me out and change the name to "AR's Female Ancestors were all Dirty Whores", I really don't care about that either. I just think it would be a hard name to fit on a jersey.
Even us Spaniards get some fairly silly sports names/mascots and we are long gone from the continent.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Fd%2Fdf%2FCalStateNorthridgeMatadors.png&hash=d4be7ca08fb658f28af91a3736115908645b4e25)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.dailysundial.netdna-cdn.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F01%2Fspring-kick-off.jpg&hash=90836db883a6ed28f794628c8e1fba886ddd13f2)
Quote from: Barrister on February 11, 2014, 01:26:17 PM
I would think the obvious difference is that the Washington Redskins aren't actually linked to any indian groups in any way.
The entire reason the name was picked was to piggyback on the Boston Braves Baseball Club. They could have easily been the Washington Red Sox.
Quote from: celedhring on February 11, 2014, 02:33:00 PM
Even us Spaniards get some fairly silly sports names/mascots and we are long gone from the continent.
There are Mexican Matadors you know. But yeah there are teams called 'The Knights' or 'The Kings' or 'The Barons' even though we have long since done away with aristocratic titles.
Weirdest team name has to be the Demon Deacons.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 11, 2014, 02:41:52 PM
Weirdest team name has to be the Demon Deacons.
And their rival the Blue Devils. They should call the game the 'Satan Bowl'.
Then there's the UC Santa Barbara Gauchos, which I find horribly offensive for obvious reasons.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_22J-FiRu-H0%2FR-FxetBL4BI%2FAAAAAAAAAIg%2FQZIZE8lO5yY%2Fs200%2FUCSB%252BGauchos.jpg&hash=a903bc6846c193e410524f47ff4b072a278e5ace)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ucsbgauchos.com%2Ffan_zone%2FLocos%2Fole.png%3Fmax_height%3D500%26amp%3Bmax_width%3D200&hash=00fcd0eb8aab79f2409b1ec3b5b354e3c87f4681)
:o
Quote from: alfred russel on February 11, 2014, 02:25:44 PM
I don't think those name changes would be okay. If you picked that up from my posts, you may want to reexamine your interpretation of them, because you have missed something.
Which is not what I picked up from your posts. My point was that the slur doesn't cease to be offensive just because it isn't offensive to
you. That's the main difference between that and the others I listed.
Is a Gaucho like Zorro?
No. HEY THAT MAKES IT WORSE
Quote from: Valmy on February 11, 2014, 02:46:58 PM
Is a Gaucho like Zorro?
An Argentine cowboy. With the massive flared pants and the bolos.
How do you all feel about the whole Yid Army/Super Jews issue?
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/football-why-tottenham-and-ajax-fans-have-a-jewish-identity-a-926095.html
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/we_should_all_stand_with_the_yid_army/14136#.Uvqo52J_uSo
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 11, 2014, 05:53:18 PM
How do you all feel about the whole Yid Army/Super Jews issue?
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/football-why-tottenham-and-ajax-fans-have-a-jewish-identity-a-926095.html
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/we_should_all_stand_with_the_yid_army/14136#.Uvqo52J_uSo
Seems all in good fun.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 11, 2014, 05:53:18 PM
How do you all feel about the whole Yid Army/Super Jews issue?
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/football-why-tottenham-and-ajax-fans-have-a-jewish-identity-a-926095.html
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/we_should_all_stand_with_the_yid_army/14136#.Uvqo52J_uSo
I suggest a riot. Burn the mothafucker down. Get some Millwall people involved.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 11, 2014, 02:22:19 PM
...the New York Giants have been renamed the Guineas...
I just had to look this one up, since I've never come across this word as a racial slur at all.
So if I went to the USA and provided the prize money for a horse race that I insisted be called the 1500 Guineas (or similar) in honour of the "1000 Guineas" and the "2000 Guineas" races run in the UK would I immediately be attacked for being a racist? Even though the Guinea in question is a coin?
What'd be wrong with a New York team taking a form of lucre as part of their name. :ph34r:
It is always so cute when people make jokes around things that are considered offensive where they live but are in other places.
Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2014, 07:54:04 AM
It is always so cute when people make jokes around things that are considered offensive where they live but are in other places.
Eh everything is probably offensive to somebody somewhere.
Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2014, 09:13:38 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2014, 07:54:04 AM
It is always so cute when people make jokes around things that are considered offensive where they live but are in other places.
Eh everything is probably offensive to somebody somewhere.
Yeah which is why it isn't really so cute. More like wow, can you believe our resident Mensa brain hasn't heard of something? :o
Quote from: Agelastus on February 12, 2014, 04:11:51 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 11, 2014, 02:22:19 PM
...the New York Giants have been renamed the Guineas...
I just had to look this one up, since I've never come across this word as a racial slur at all.
So if I went to the USA and provided the prize money for a horse race that I insisted be called the 1500 Guineas (or similar) in honour of the "1000 Guineas" and the "2000 Guineas" races run in the UK would I immediately be attacked for being a racist? Even though the Guinea in question is a coin?
What'd be wrong with a New York team taking a form of lucre as part of their name. :ph34r:
Seems like Italian-Americans are the only group keeping the "Guinea" name alive these days.
I prefer the combo "Guinea-Wop."
BTW, does anyone know if there's a connection between doo-wop and WOP?
My favorite "somebody finds something offensive you aren't aware of" moment was when I was invited to a BBQ by some black friends at NYC, after I had been there for roughly a year, and I brought a load of watermelons with me. Man, the stares.
I just really, really like watermelons. :(
Quote from: celedhring on February 12, 2014, 09:40:19 AM
My favorite "somebody finds something offensive you aren't aware of" moment was when I was invited to a BBQ by some black friends at NYC, after I had been there for roughly a year, and I brought a load of watermelons with me. Man, the stares.
I just really, really like watermelons. :(
:lol:
You get the Ed Anger seal of approval.
Quote from: celedhring on February 12, 2014, 09:40:19 AM
My favorite "somebody finds something offensive you aren't aware of" moment was when I was invited to a BBQ by some black friends at NYC, after I had been there for roughly a year, and I brought a load of watermelons with me. Man, the stares.
I just really, really like watermelons. :(
Watermelon is awesome. Why liking something delicious is a sign of racial inferiority I never got. It should be a sign of superiority.
Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2014, 09:46:58 AM
Quote from: celedhring on February 12, 2014, 09:40:19 AM
My favorite "somebody finds something offensive you aren't aware of" moment was when I was invited to a BBQ by some black friends at NYC, after I had been there for roughly a year, and I brought a load of watermelons with me. Man, the stares.
I just really, really like watermelons. :(
Watermelon is awesome. Why liking something delicious is a sign of racial inferiority I never got. It should be a sign of superiority.
I think the idea is that black people were simple for being so easily made happy. I don't think it was a dig on eating watermelon.
Quote from: celedhring on February 12, 2014, 09:40:19 AM
My favorite "somebody finds something offensive you aren't aware of" moment was when I was invited to a BBQ by some black friends at NYC, after I had been there for roughly a year, and I brought a load of watermelons with me. Man, the stares.
I just really, really like watermelons. :(
:lmfao:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 11, 2014, 12:08:22 PM
I've pointed out before that French Canadians, who historically loved the hell out of their Indians, called them peaux-rouges. Quebecois posters have confirmed that peaux-rouges does not carry any negative connotations.
hmm, not sure about that for today. In 17th-18th century, yeah, sure, and they were often called "savages" (sauvages), wich stayed at least through the last colonization era of the 19th early 20th century in Abitibi, Témiscamingue and Lac St-Jean areas.
I am unconvinced that calling them 'peaux-rouges' today wouldn't be derogatory. Who told you that, Oex? Are you sure he wasn't talking about French colonial era?
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 11, 2014, 05:53:18 PM
How do you all feel about the whole Yid Army/Super Jews issue?
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/football-why-tottenham-and-ajax-fans-have-a-jewish-identity-a-926095.html
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/we_should_all_stand_with_the_yid_army/14136#.Uvqo52J_uSo
If I understand it correctly, the names of "Yid Army" and "super Jews" are entirely fan generated and fan supported, right? Tottenham doesn't go around selling a whole bunch of "Yid Army" t-shirts right? (and a quick check of their website seems to confirm this - search function reveals no use of the word "yid").
While the story sounds very empowering, it also seems to give free reign to opposing fan-bases giving in to very explicit anti-semitic references (Making a hissing sound like a gas chamber is unbelievable).
Sounds like the team is striking the right balance - trying to discourage the practice, but not going to an orwellian level trying to dictate what cheers your fans can use.
Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2014, 09:20:17 AM
Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2014, 09:13:38 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2014, 07:54:04 AM
It is always so cute when people make jokes around things that are considered offensive where they live but are in other places.
Eh everything is probably offensive to somebody somewhere.
Yeah which is why it isn't really so cute. More like wow, can you believe our resident Mensa brain hasn't heard of something? :o
Amusingly well remembered, Garbon. :)
Suffice it to say I find the fuss about the "Redskins" name, a name with eighty years historicity in its current context, quite laughable. There's virtually nothing that doesn't manage to offend somebody somewhere.
One would think that American Senators and Representatives had better things to do. Out of interest, is the Senator facing re-election?
Quote from: viper37 on February 12, 2014, 11:41:05 AM
I am unconvinced that calling them 'peaux-rouges' today wouldn't be derogatory. Who told you that, Oex? Are you sure he wasn't talking about French colonial era?
Le renard homosexuel.
Quote from: Agelastus on February 12, 2014, 03:02:30 PM
Suffice it to say I find the fuss about the "Redskins" name, a name with eighty years historicity in its current context, quite laughable. There's virtually nothing that doesn't manage to offend somebody somewhere.
Of course it could also be that in this age of greater tolerance, there's now more of a likelihood that people are willing to pay attention to unnecessary offensive gestures.
I'm not sure just because there is someone somewhere that will be offended about something (and thus everything can offend someone) means that we don't need to consider offense. If only because that's part of being a decent person.
Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2014, 09:01:28 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on February 12, 2014, 03:02:30 PM
Suffice it to say I find the fuss about the "Redskins" name, a name with eighty years historicity in its current context, quite laughable. There's virtually nothing that doesn't manage to offend somebody somewhere.
Of course it could also be that in this age of greater tolerance, there's now more of a likelihood that people are willing to pay attention to unnecessary offensive gestures.
I'm not sure just because there is someone somewhere that will be offended about something (and thus everything can offend someone) means that we don't need to consider offense. If only because that's part of being a decent person.
One can be a decent person while still drawing lines at what one considers to be a sufficient level of offense to be taken seriously. My line seems to be at a different level to yours. Although I'm fairly sure there's a lot of things we'd both agree on as being offensive.
There's been quite a lot of evidence in this thread that the "offense" given by these types of names seems to be felt by only a minority of the people who have a right to be offended. I'd probably be more sympathetic to the cause if this was not the case (not that I'm saying I wouldn't still consider it laughable, just that regardless of my opinion it would clearly be offensive enough to warrant action if the majority of those allegedly slurred were upset about it.)
As I said, the name has been used in the context of the Sports team for eighty years. That ought to give it some legitimacy independent of other usages of the term.
But then again, I do tend to self-identify as a Conservative.
Native Americans are a minority of people in the US. ;)
And no, I don't think appealing to the longevity of being around makes something less offensive. Just means that said group was powerful enough to resist forces of change.
An example on the positive, I would say is something like Aunt Jemima who has moved from horrible caricature to "standard" slave getup to working mother. The mascot had some sort of slave associated clothing up until the 80s but I don't think longevity of practice stands as a good counter argument to modifying her appearance.
Quote from: Agelastus on February 13, 2014, 06:01:51 AM
But then again, I do tend to self-identify as a Conservative.
In this trans-Atlantic discussion, probably not a useful term.
Quote from: garbon on February 13, 2014, 08:02:56 AM
An example on the positive, I would say is something like Aunt Jemima who has moved from horrible caricature to "standard" slave getup to working mother. The mascot had some sort of slave associated clothing up until the 80s but I don't think longevity of practice stands as a good counter argument to modifying her appearance.
Aunt Jemima. I've wondered if the company had gotten any blowback on using that pic or label, and assumed they must have. The picture change is a good idea and the label as an Aunt shouldn't be any problem. Things were very different decades ago when the original mascot and product came out. Plus I use and like that pancake mix.
This is classic Snyder :lmfao:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/ceo-of-new-washington-redskins-foundation-connected-to-defective-federal-contract/2014/03/28/382142b4-b678-11e3-a7c6-70cf2db17781_story.html
QuoteCEO of new Washington Redskins foundation connected to 'defective' federal contract
By Theresa Vargas and Tom Jackman, Published: March 28 E-mail the writers
The man leading a Washington Redskins foundation aimed at helping Native Americans also heads an organization that had a $1 million contract with the Bureau of Indian Affairs terminated after federal investigators found the group's work "unusable."
Gary L. Edwards is the chief executive of the National Native American Law Enforcement Association, which won a contract in 2009 with the bureau that called for recruiting Native Americans to work in law enforcement in Indian country.
The investigation, outlined in a 2012 inspector general's report, found that of the 748 applications the organization supplied, none were usable. One applicant was 80 years old. Several were not U.S. citizens. Of the 514 applications reviewed by the inspector general's office, only 22 were of Indian descent. The inspector general's office advised that the contract be terminated immediately, and it was. But then the bureau paid Edwards's group an additional $600,000 as "settlement costs," meaning it received almost the entire $1 million of the contract.
This week, Redskins owner Daniel Snyder introduced Edwards — first in a letter to fans and then at a meeting with fellow National Football League team owners — as the head of the Washington Redskins Original Americans Foundation. The foundation, according to Snyder's letter, "will address the urgent challenges plaguing Indian country based on what tribal leaders tell us they need most." Already, it has donated 3,000 coats to Native Americans and helped purchased a backhoe for a tribe.
On Tuesday, team General Manager Bruce Allen praised Edwards, a Cherokee and retired deputy assistant director of the U.S. Secret Service, on a Redskins.com video broadcast, saying, "I think we have the right leader in Gary Edwards."
Edwards did not respond to attempts to reach him Thursday, but in a statement released through the team, he said his organization "believes it met and exceeded all of its obligations under the contract with the Bureau of Indian Affairs' Office of Justice Services, and subsequently was paid after the contract was completed."
Team spokesman Tony Wyllie said the team would have no further comment.
The creation of the Redskins foundation and appointment of Edwards comes as the team faces unprecedented pressure to change its name, which has been described by some tribal leaders, lawmakers and civil rights groups as a slur against Native Americans. In an interview Tuesday, Edwards said he has "no problem" with the name.
He became involved with the team, he said, after a former co-worker who lives near Allen suggested that the two meet. He eventually joined team officials, who at times included Snyder and Allen, on trips to more than 26 reservations across 20 states.
At least several of those visits were arranged by Jennifer Farley, a former George W. Bush White House staffer who was linked to the Jack Abramoff scandal. Abramoff, a Washington lobbyist who admitted to running a wide-ranging corruption scheme, was accused of bilking tens of millions of dollars from Indian tribes. Farley, who now runs her own lobbying firm, did not respond to a call for comment.
Edwards said he and Snyder found "some real common ground" as far as "my desire to help my people and his willingness to help the American Indian, his fans and his people." He said he had always dreamed of creating an organization that would benefit Native Americans.
At least once before, when defending the team's name, Redskins officials have failed to thoroughly vet those they work with. Last May, the team featured an interview with Stephen Dodson, "a full-blooded American Inuit chief originally from the Aleutian Tribes of Alaska." He described the name as a "term of endearment," saying, "When we were on the reservation, we would call each other, 'Hey, what's up, redskin?' " It was later discovered he was neither a chief nor full-blooded Indian — but not before NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell used Dodson as an example in support of the name in a letter to members of Congress.
"This is part of a disturbing, but hardly surprising, pattern of behavior by team owner Dan Snyder and his team," said Oneida Indian Nation Representative Ray L. Halbritter, who has led a campaign to force the team to change its name. He condemned the hiring of Farley and Edwards, whom he described as someone "who financially harmed Native Americans."
Edwards is not named in the inspector general's report and instead is referred to as the CEO of the law enforcement association, NNALEA.
The report said the association's proposal stated it would "refer 500 'qualified candidates' to serve in law enforcement positions at various Indian reservations." In the end, 104 applicants were either too young or too old, several did not have driver's licenses, and 47 lacked the educational requirements, according to the report's findings, which were first reported by USA Today.
Edwards had also told the bureau's human resources deputy director that he would focus his recruitment efforts in Indian country, according to the report. But only about 4 percent of the applicants were Native American.
Auditors found discrepancies in the work claimed versus what was actually done. The organization said it had participated in a recruiting fair on a reservation, but an official said there was no recruiting booth or representative in attendance. It also claimed to have put an ad in a South Dakota newspaper, but there was no such record.
The report shows that after the contract was terminated, the bureau paid $600,000 in "settlement costs" in violation of federal policy, bringing the total collected by Edward's company to $967,100.''
The report's conclusion: "We found that BIA awarded a defective contract, disenfranchised potential job applicants, and wasted nearly $1 million of Federal funds." It also found that the bureau's failures allowed "NNALEA the opportunity to take advantage of [the Office of Justice Services] to produce unusable contract deliverables."
In a statement, the Bureau of Indian Affairs said that after "the failed contract" with the association, it improved the guidance it provides for the development of future contracts.
Walter Lamar, an 18-year veteran of the FBI and a founding member of the NNALEA, said he was shocked when the report was released. He left the nonprofit association in the mid-1990s because of disagreements with the organization's direction under Edwards.
"The fact that they would have taken a million dollars from those [BIA] coffers that could have been used for putting more officers on the street or giving more resources to officers, I was extremely dismayed at that," said Lamar, a member of the Blackfeet Nation of Montana. "Somebody got paid a million bucks to do virtually nothing."
Lamar and another former founder of NNALEA said they were surprised by the Redskins' appointment of Edwards, if only because it leaves the impression that other Native American law enforcement agents support the team's name.
In a letter this week, Ted Quasula, former director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs Law Enforcement Services and a founding member of NNALEA, called Edwards a "friend" who was "wrong on this one."
When the association was formed, he wrote, "Believe me, none of us ever came close to thinking our group or any of its members would be supporting the racist term, redskins! Gary, I like to believe even you, at that time, didn't either."
Mike Jones contributed to this report.
The Redskins are really acting stupid over this name shit. Even claiming the club was named that because of their vast respect for native americans. Um...dude the Redskins were named after the Boston Braves baseball club as a marketing thing.
Quote from: Valmy on May 30, 2014, 12:29:55 PM
Um...dude the Redskins were named after the Boston Braves baseball club as a marketing thing.
Snyder probably doesn't know that.
Commercial that will be airing in 8 "select markets" during tonight's NBA Finals game
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mR-tbOxlhvE
Snyder continues to destroy the franchise. Ah well.
After the Clippers owner I am starting to hope the NFL can declare him a racist and force him to sell the team. Make it happen Goddell.
Out of that long list of major tribes, did they leave out the Cherokee? :huh:
I assume they said it and I missed it.
Quote from: sbr on June 10, 2014, 05:48:38 PM
Commercial that will be airing in 8 "select markets" during tonight's NBA Finals game
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mR-tbOxlhvE
LOL, awesome. Suck it, Snyder.
Right? You have to be one out of touch idiot to think the whole 'our name respects the native Americans' shit was going to fly. This dude shouldn't be allowed to run a lemonade stand much less a professional football team.
I don't know why his greedy little ass doesn't want to see the possible revenue streams from a new name and uniform. Think of the merchandising possibilities with a properly vetted, focus group-approved team name and logo.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 10, 2014, 11:18:32 PM
I don't know why his greedy little ass doesn't want to see the possible revenue streams from a new name and uniform. Think of the merchandising possibilities with a properly vetted, focus group-approved team name and logo.
Because that would be thinking like a normal intelligent owner...or at least one approaching the level of Jerrah. Instead we have this motherfucker.
And he's so young, too!
Unfortunately, this is karma playing out: Foreskins fans are paying for Jack Kent Cooke's sin of open collusion with the league and bullying other owners to keep a team out of Baltimore at any cost for 12 years.
So now you are now destined to wander in the NFL wilderness for 40 years, which is approximately how long this little bastard will probably live.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 10, 2014, 11:26:28 PM
And he's so young, too!
Unfortunately, this is karma playing out: Foreskins fans are paying for Jack Kent Cooke's sin of open collusion with the league and bullying other owners to keep a team out of Baltimore at any cost for 12 years.
So now you are now destined to wander in the NFL wilderness for 40 years, which is approximately how long this little bastard will probably live.
How come the Colts and their owner are less responsible? In any case you would have ended up with some shit expansion team instead of a team on the rise that won the Super Bowl five years later. Big tears for you. In any case I always wanted Baltimore to get their team back, I am a freaking Orioles fan to. What was our Karma that cursed us with Angelos?
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2014, 11:35:41 PM
How come the Colts and their owner are less responsible? In any case you would have ended up with some shit expansion team instead of a team on the rise that won the Super Bowl five years later. Big tears for you.
How dare you question my interpretation of those events. HOW DARE YOU
QuoteWhat was our Karma that cursed us with Angelos?
Trading away Curt Schilling, Pete Harnisch and Steve Finley for Glenn Davis, of course.
I never understood what the big deal was with the nickname, I think I still don't but that doesn't matter. Indians themselves have express that they find it distasteful, at the least. It needs to be change.
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 11, 2014, 07:39:43 AM
I never understood what the big deal was with the nickname, I think I still don't but that doesn't matter. Indians themselves have express that they find it distasteful, at the least. It needs to be change.
They did so over twenty years ago. When the Redskins should have changed it. It is just getting sad now. It may have not been considered offensive at the time, I think the Native Americans even called themselves Redskins on occasion. But by the standards of the 1980s or so it is a racial slur.
Half of the 80s were 30 years ago. It's time to start to say 30 years, not 20.
I get that Snyder is an asshole all the time so holding steadfastly on this makes sense. What I don't understand is why Goddel is letting it happen.
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 11, 2014, 08:26:27 AM
Half of the 80s were 30 years ago. It's time to start to say 30 years, not 20.
I get that Snyder is an asshole all the time so holding steadfastly on this makes sense. What I don't understand is why Goddel is letting it happen.
Because the commissioner works for the 32 owners, and none of the other 31 owners wants to give Goddell that kind of power over their franchises.
He can be as heavy handed as he wants against the players, but has to walk a tightrope around the owners. See Irsay, Jim. Do you think it would have taken so long for Goddell to discipline a player who had the same charges against him as Irsay did?
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2014, 11:16:32 PM
Right? You have to be one out of touch idiot to think the whole 'our name respects the native Americans' shit was going to fly. This dude shouldn't be allowed to run a lemonade stand much less a professional football team.
What do you mean it isn't going to fly? Every poll I've seen indicates a healthy majority of Americans are fine with the name.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 11, 2014, 09:31:19 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2014, 11:16:32 PM
Right? You have to be one out of touch idiot to think the whole 'our name respects the native Americans' shit was going to fly. This dude shouldn't be allowed to run a lemonade stand much less a professional football team.
What do you mean it isn't going to fly? Every poll I've seen indicates a healthy majority of Americans are fine with the name.
I mean it is nonsense. The name was never selected as a tribute to the Native Americans, anybody familiar with the team's history in Boston knows that. The fact that a majority of the Americans that are fine with the name is not a reflection of this particular argument by Snyder. It was not intended for them anyway but an attempt to convince the vocal minority that does have a problem.
Quote from: Valmy on June 11, 2014, 09:35:31 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 11, 2014, 09:31:19 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2014, 11:16:32 PM
Right? You have to be one out of touch idiot to think the whole 'our name respects the native Americans' shit was going to fly. This dude shouldn't be allowed to run a lemonade stand much less a professional football team.
What do you mean it isn't going to fly? Every poll I've seen indicates a healthy majority of Americans are fine with the name.
I mean it is nonsense. The name was never selected as a tribute to the Native Americans, anybody familiar with the team's history in Boston knows that. The fact that a majority of the Americans that are fine with the name is not a reflection of this particular argument by Snyder. It was not intended for them anyway but an attempt to convince the vocal minority that does.
Besides throughout the entire existence of America, there have been hateful things that a healthy majority of Americans were fine with.
Quote from: Valmy on June 11, 2014, 09:35:31 AM
I mean it is nonsense. The name was never selected as a tribute to the Native Americans, anybody familiar with the team's history in Boston knows that. The fact that a majority of the Americans that are fine with the name is not a reflection of this particular argument by Snyder. It was not intended for them anyway but an attempt to convince the vocal minority that does have a problem.
I don't think it is nonsense.
You generally don't name teams derogatory things. Generally speaking, the original intent of native american team names was to capture some sense of an honorable and fiercesome spirit for their team. In that way it is a tribute to them.
Now that may have been how the Braves got their name and the big motivation for redskins was to tap into their fan base or have cross promotional activities. But that doesn't mean the same considerations weren't at least a secondary consideration. It isn't as though the naming of the team can only touch on one single thing. Probably the Braves were named the Braves in part because of alliteration, just like the Tennessee Titans. But obviously it wasn't just the alliteration that resulted in those names.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 11, 2014, 10:07:27 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 11, 2014, 09:35:31 AM
I mean it is nonsense. The name was never selected as a tribute to the Native Americans, anybody familiar with the team's history in Boston knows that. The fact that a majority of the Americans that are fine with the name is not a reflection of this particular argument by Snyder. It was not intended for them anyway but an attempt to convince the vocal minority that does have a problem.
I don't think it is nonsense.
You generally don't name teams derogatory things. Generally speaking, the original intent of native american team names was to capture some sense of an honorable and fiercesome spirit for their team. In that way it is a tribute to them.
Now that may have been how the Braves got their name and the big motivation for redskins was to tap into their fan base or have cross promotional activities. But that doesn't mean the same considerations weren't at least a secondary consideration. It isn't as though the naming of the team can only touch on one single thing. Probably the Braves were named the Braves in part because of alliteration, just like the Tennessee Titans. But obviously it wasn't just the alliteration that resulted in those names.
Sure. In the sense that the Redskins are no more or less a tribute than any other Native American sports name was intended to be. Native Americans have long been mythologized in the US as legendary and fearsome warriors. But there was no specific love for them by George Preston Marshall. The only thing he had a deep sentimental attachment to was the Old South. I am just glad the club did not get named the 'Rebels' or something. And if the club was the Washington Braves or Washington Warriors or whatever Snyder would be fine. Just his piss poor luck Marshall chose possibly the worst way to do it.
Quote from: Valmy on June 11, 2014, 10:16:53 AM
I am just glad the club did not get named the 'Rebels' or something.
And so what if they were? It is just a team name. Ole Miss and UNLV are called the Rebels and the sky hasn't fallen. Lots of Civil War names are out there. LSU are named after a confederate group that was nicknamed the tigers. For that matter there are US military installations named after confederate generals.
Hey, at least they're not the Drunken Indians. That'd be a lot worse than being mythologized as a fearsome warrior.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 11, 2014, 10:20:35 AM
And so what if they were?
It would annoy me personally that's all :P
Quote from: derspiess on June 11, 2014, 10:20:44 AM
Hey, at least they're not the Drunken Indians. That'd be a lot worse than being mythologized as a fearsome warrior.
As I said Marshall could have named them the wagon burners or scalpers or alcoholics. It could have been worse.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 11, 2014, 10:20:35 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 11, 2014, 10:16:53 AM
I am just glad the club did not get named the 'Rebels' or something.
And so what if they were? It is just a team name. Ole Miss and UNLV are called the Rebels and the sky hasn't fallen. Lots of Civil War names are out there. LSU are named after a confederate group that was nicknamed the tigers. For that matter there are US military installations named after confederate generals.
I'm kind of surprised we haven't changed the name of Ft. Carson. IIRC he's the most hated white man in some Native American tribes.
Quote from: Valmy on June 11, 2014, 10:16:53 AM
Sure. In the sense that the Redskins are no more or less a tribute than any other Native American sports name was intended to be. Native Americans have long been mythologized in the US as legendary and fearsome warriors. But there was no specific love for them by George Preston Marshall. The only thing he had a deep sentimental attachment to was the Old South. I am just glad the club did not get named the 'Rebels' or something. And if the club was the Washington Braves or Washington Warriors or whatever Snyder would be fine. Just his piss poor luck Marshall chose possibly the worst way to do it.
The Boston Rebels? That wouldn't have made any sense.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 11, 2014, 07:00:00 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 11, 2014, 10:16:53 AM
Sure. In the sense that the Redskins are no more or less a tribute than any other Native American sports name was intended to be. Native Americans have long been mythologized in the US as legendary and fearsome warriors. But there was no specific love for them by George Preston Marshall. The only thing he had a deep sentimental attachment to was the Old South. I am just glad the club did not get named the 'Rebels' or something. And if the club was the Washington Braves or Washington Warriors or whatever Snyder would be fine. Just his piss poor luck Marshall chose possibly the worst way to do it.
The Boston Rebels? That wouldn't have made any sense.
Folks like Paul Revere, Sam Adams, and John Adams might disagree with you.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 11, 2014, 10:20:35 AM
And so what if they were? It is just a team name. Ole Miss and UNLV are called the Rebels and the sky hasn't fallen. Lots of Civil War names are out there. LSU are named after a confederate group that was nicknamed the tigers. For that matter there are US military installations named after confederate generals.
Yeah, but look at all the shit Ole Miss has gone through over their mascot.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on June 12, 2014, 09:32:02 AM
Yeah, but look at all the shit Ole Miss has gone through over their mascot.
To be fair, the black bear is among the stupidest mascots ever.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 12, 2014, 09:35:10 AM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on June 12, 2014, 09:32:02 AM
Yeah, but look at all the shit Ole Miss has gone through over their mascot.
To be fair, the black bear is among the stupidest mascots ever.
Why you have to be hating on the University of Maine?
I miss Col. Reb
The University of Wyoming's mascot is Meth. Or is that the fight song?
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 13, 2014, 06:14:26 PM
I miss Col. Reb
Col. Reb is crying.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6n1KPQmdddY
I can't post a Ed Orgeron youtube clip without the hummer ad he did.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HX7wzhMvbzo
FOOTBALL!
Fuck the Redskins name. What is really important is that someone, anywhere, gives Ed Orgeron a chance to coach in a high profile job again.
[I've heard his name more than a few times for Georgia Tech once they fire Paul Johnson. The thoughts being:
a) Georgia Tech will need a master recruiter to bring in non triple option players (and to be frank, the triple option players suck at even running the triple option)
b) Ed Orgeron is dumb enough to take the job]
Last youtube link, I promise...
You think Reggie Bush was the worst USC scandal, or that Penn State was the only school with coaches stripping down with teenagers in the football facility?
Here is a link of Pete Carroll and the USC coaches going topless with a bunch of high schoolers.
(yes I am stooping low with this one, but there is a better one out there with Carroll waving his shirt over his head, I just cant find it)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rDe-Z_wH84
LOL the US Patent Office just cancelled the Redskins trademark designation. :nelson:
:rolleyes: CALL OFF YOUR DOGS OBAMA
#ThanksObama
I never imagined this process would go quite this badly. But Snyder never ceases to amaze and astound. :frusty:
LOL :lol:
Cafe Press must be doing back flips. They're going to have a hundred new novelty shirts on the market by the end of the week.
Quote from: derspiess on June 18, 2014, 09:30:12 AM
:rolleyes: CALL OFF YOUR DOGS OBAMA
Lol The Patent Office is a Federal agency OUT OF CONTROL
No shit. First the IRS & now this.
Tshirt hell is going to have so much creating offending shirts with that too.
Quote from: derspiess on June 18, 2014, 09:59:53 AM
No shit. First the IRS & now this.
Just wait until the Federal Marine Mammal Commission goes apeshit and criminalizes 9hp trolling motors. OH THE HUGE MANATEE
They should just get out of the way.
The battle against the team that cannot be named continues
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/house-bill-takes-aim-washington-redskins
QuoteHouse bill takes aim at Washington Redskins
02/04/15 09:12 AM
facebook twitter 2 save share group 113
By Jane C. Timm
Democrat Rep. Mike Honda introduced a bill on Tuesday that would cancel the trademarks held by the Washington Redskins NFL franchise.
Native Americans sued – and won – to get the team's trademark protections revoked in June; a decision which the team is appealing, and in the meantime the trademarks remain intact. This bill would retroactively revoke and cancel the team's trademarks.
"It is unbelievable to me that, in the 21st century, a prominent NFL franchise is calling itself by a racial slur," Honda said in a release. "Allowing trademark protection of this word is akin to the government approving its use. Removing that trademark will send a clear message that this name is not acceptable."
The bill – a reintroduced version of legislation the California Democrat brought to the House floor two years ago – is the latest in the decades-long fight between the team and critics who say their name and mascot are offensive because of its history as a slur for Native Americans.
RELATED: Redskins to sue Native Americans
Several government agencies have begun to put pressure on the team: the Federal Communications Commission is considering punishing broadcasters who name the team and the Justice Department is currently defending the Constitutionality of the Landham Act, the law that bars trademarking disparaging terms and was used to cancel the team trademarks in June.
In the last few years, the controversy has intensified, with protests and politicians weighing in on the team name. "We urge you and the National Football League to send the same clear message as the NBA did: that racism and bigotry have no place in professional sports. It's time for the NFL to endorse a name change for the Washington, D.C., football team," 49 legislators wrote in an open letter last May.
Meanwhile, thousands of protesters demonstrated their opposition to the name last November at the #NotYourMascot rally in Minneapolis; in December, Native Americans protested at the Redskins' stadium, the largest protest by the group at the arena ever.
Even President Obama has come out against the moniker, telling the Associated Press in a 2013 interview, "I'd think about changing" the name.
Mike Honda. Talk about trademark issues.
Joe Isuzu Agrees.
So the logic is, the Redskins name is so offensive, others should be allowed to use it too?
QuoteRELATED: Redskins to sue Native Americans
It's about time they did.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 05, 2015, 12:06:49 PM
So the logic is, the Redskins name is so offensive, others should be allowed to use it too?
I guess you could look at it like that, but I think the actual logic is that the name is so offensive that no one should be allowed to build up or maintain a lucrative IP using it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 05, 2015, 10:48:32 AM
Mike Honda. Talk about trademark issues.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvignette3.wikia.nocookie.net%2Fnintendo%2Fimages%2Fe%2Fe9%2FPiston_Honda.gif%2Frevision%2Flatest%3Fcb%3D20090402170546%26amp%3Bpath-prefix%3Den&hash=cd0f9f825f7609f9f74afcc3f4a5fa0736a88c23)
Quote from: derspiess on February 05, 2015, 12:09:12 PM
It's about time they did.
The Redskins are going to teach those redskin savages a lesson.
Good, the government shouldn't endore their name by letting them build a new stadium on public property.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/digger/wp/2015/07/01/obama-administration-rebuffs-d-c-s-efforts-to-bring-back-the-redskins/
Quote
Obama administration rebuffs D.C.'s efforts to bring back the Redskins
By Jonathan O'Connell July 1 at 11:20 AM
Efforts to lure the Washington Redskins back to the District have come up against a potentially insurmountable challenge: the Obama administration's objections to the team's name.
Interior Secretary Sally Jewell told D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser this spring that the National Park Service, which owns the land beneath Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium, was unlikely to accommodate construction of a new stadium for the Redskins unless the team changes its name.
Jewell oversees both national park land and America's trust and treaty relationships with Native American tribes.
Her decision not to extend the District's lease of the RFK land badly hinders Bowser's bid to return the Redskins to D.C. — and boosts efforts to lure the team across the Potomac to Northern Virginia.
Since joining the Obama administration two years ago, Jewell has repeatedly echoed the president's concern that the name is offensive to Native Americans. Last fall she called the name a "relic of the past" that should be changed.
"Personally, I think we would never consider naming a team the 'Blackskins' or the 'Brownskins' or the 'Whiteskins.' So, personally, I find it surprising that in this day and age, the name is not different," Jewell told ABC News.
Jewell reiterated that position with Bowser (D) at an April 27 meeting, telling the mayor that she was unlikely to rework the lease terms for a stadium in part because of the team's name, according to a Department of the Interior spokeswoman, Jessica Kershaw.
Team owner Daniel Snyder, who insists that the moniker honors Native Americans, has vowed never to change it.
Bowser, jockeying with Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) to land the team's new stadium, had inquired with Park Service officials about extending the District's lease for the RFK property to allow for a new stadium. Extending the lease would also require congressional action.
[Tug of war for new Redskins stadium is complicated by name debate]
Jewell "did mention in that meeting that she was uncomfortable with the name," Kershaw said. "The president has said something similar, that he is uncomfortable with the name, and she clearly clarified that position."
A second factor the secretary raised, Kershaw said, was that with just 18 months remaining in the Obama administration, re-working the lease was not likely to be a top concern before the president leaves office. D.C. owns RFK stadium but leases the 190 acres beneath the stadium as well as surrounding parking lots and land from the park service. The lease expires in 22 years.
"Given the timing, this is not likely to be a priority for this administration," Kershaw said.
Robert A. Vogel, regional director of the Park Service, responded formally to the mayor's request for a lease extension in a May 19 letter.
"As I believe the Secretary made clear in our discussion, the NPS will not take a position in support of such an extension at this time," he wrote in the letter, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Post. "You are, of course, free to seek such legislation without NPS support."
The Park Service's position hampers Bowser's bid to return the team to the city from FedEx Field, in Prince George's County, a stadium that is only 18 years old but that the team is trying to vacate before its lease there expires in 2026. Team officials, citing fan complaints about the stadium's configuration, have removed seats from FedEx three times in five years.
Bowser spokesman Michael Czin declined to comment. Redskins spokesman Tony Wyllie also declined to comment.
[Redskins remove seats from FedEx Field – again]
RFK will be largely unused by 2018, when D.C. United is expected to move into a new soccer stadium on Buzzard Point in Southwest. Events DC, the sports and convention arm of the District that operates the property, has been studying how best to use the RFK land into the future.
Officials said they expect to release the results of that study later this summer. That's later than some onlookers expected, but Events DC Chairman Max Brown, a prominent District businessman and lobbyist, said figuring out how to accommodate the interests of many stakeholders "is not just like saying where do you want to put the couch in your living room."
Not only is the RFK land in a flood plain and adjacent to heavily populated Capitol Hill neighborhoods, but the federal lease also restricts use of the land to stadium purposes, recreation and parking. The future of the D.C. Armory, built in 1941, is also being considered.
"We've got a tremendous opportunity here to reuse this site under the constrictions that the NPS mandates for sporting, recreation and other uses," Brown said. "There is a broad opportunity citywide for people to use that space. You've got 18 million tourists who could come use that space. You've got the surrounding community who could use that space."
The restrictions in the Park Service lease could complicate financing of a new NFL stadium because of the way stadium development has evolved in the 55 years since construction began on RFK.
Rarely are stadiums built in urban settings today without shops or hotels nearby, but it isn't clear how much of that would be permitted on the RFK site, which could make financing major improvements difficult.
"There aren't single-use facilities anymore that don't have ancillary uses that support the sports and entertainment," said Gregory A. O'Dell, president and chief executive of Events DC.
NFL owners still insist on including thousands of parking spaces for new stadiums, however, something D.C. Council member Charles Allen (D-Ward 6) and some residents of Capitol Hill don't think is the best use of the property.
One group, a nonprofit called Capitol Riverside Youth Sports Park, is advocating for Events DC to build a series of playing fields with a pavilion for farmers markets on a portion of the site, although that may not preclude a stadium.
"We don't have enough green space in the city," said the group's president, Michael Godec. "We have growing populations of kids and less and less places for them to play."
Although Snyder has openly reminisced about attending the team's games at RFK as a child, McAuliffe is making a determined bid for a new stadium, an effort that includes a hand-offs approach to the team's name and stadium sites that don't require federal approval. Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R) has also pitched the team on remaining in the state.
McAuliffe said 66 percent of the team's season ticket holders live in the commonwealth, as do almost all the players. The team already has its headquarters and practice facilities there as well.
"I would love to have the Redskins come to the Commonwealth of Virginia," McAuliffe said in April. "It's where they belong."
Robert McCartney and Aaron C. Davis contributed to this report.
I wish McAuliffe wasn't so eager to bribe the team to come to northern VA. Let Snyder build his own stadium - he's rich enough.
Quote"Personally, I think we would never consider naming a team the 'Blackskins' or the 'Brownskins' or the 'Whiteskins.' So, personally, I find it surprising that in this day and age, the name is not different," Jewell told ABC News.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg3.wikia.nocookie.net%2F__cb20100925025244%2Flogopedia%2Fimages%2Fb%2Fb2%2FAtlanta_Braves.png&hash=da42da5c068092b683eb6093578a973109b32ddf)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ootpdevelopments.com%2Fboard%2Fattachments%2Footp-mods-logos-graphics-html%2F58106d1160219582-help-w-indians-logo-cleveland_indians.png&hash=58337df3332810f65bb482146a28739125c3aeb4)
There are plenty more with varying degrees of specificity and racist connotations, but it amazes me they can get on the Redskins and not call out the Cleveland Indians.
The Cleveland Indians are probably watching how this all plays out.
DC should be paying them to go away not bribing them to come back. Stupid slurs. I remember as a kid being grateful I was not a Redskins fan in the 50s and 60s when they had a horrible owner and were terrible with no end in sight. Well damn me if the last 20 years have not been far worse.
The Indians catch some shit for their name and especially their logo, but it doesn't seem to be on the same level as the Redskins. At least not yet.
It helps that Chief Yahoo is so somber and impressive looking. And that his name is so historically correct.
What's wrong with the Braves? The Indians have a bad name and a horrible mascot, but to my ignorant knowledge the Braves look "fine".
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on July 02, 2015, 08:52:26 AM
The Indians catch some shit for their name and especially their logo, but it doesn't seem to be on the same level as the Redskins. At least not yet.
Because their name is not a blatant racial slur. Lucky bastards.
The slurs original name was the Braves. If only that had stuck.
Quote from: celedhring on July 02, 2015, 09:08:22 AM
What's wrong with the Braves? The Indians have a bad name and a horrible mascot, but to my ignorant knowledge the Braves look "fine".
Braves means military age Indian male. If you don't like Indians you can't like Braves.
Quote from: Valmy on July 02, 2015, 09:08:55 AM
The slurs original name was the Braves. If only that had stuck.
"The Slurs" sounds like an awful team name.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 02, 2015, 09:27:53 AM
Quote from: celedhring on July 02, 2015, 09:08:22 AM
What's wrong with the Braves? The Indians have a bad name and a horrible mascot, but to my ignorant knowledge the Braves look "fine".
Braves means military age Indian male. If you don't like Indians you can't like Braves.
Yeah, I'm not that knowledgeable about the origin of the word. I dislike "Indian" because it's a misnomer born out of European ignorance.
It's not as bad as Redskins but still insensitive.
Quote from: celedhring on July 02, 2015, 09:34:27 AM
Yeah, I'm not that knowledgeable about the origin of the word. I dislike "Indian" because it's a misnomer born out of European ignorance.
It's not as bad as Redskins but still insensitive.
I'm surprised you haven't seen at least one western in which they talk about "many braves on the warpath."
Quote from: Syt on July 02, 2015, 09:33:44 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 02, 2015, 09:08:55 AM
The slurs original name was the Braves. If only that had stuck.
"The Slurs" sounds like an awful team name.
Maybe but it would get my beloved franchise in less trouble than its actual name :P
Quote from: celedhring on July 02, 2015, 09:34:27 AM
I dislike "Indian" because it's a misnomer born out of European ignorance.
Eh it was just one stubborn guy. But it stuck for some reason, long after Europeans ceased to be ignorant on this point. I guess nobody anticipated the day when there would be more actual Indians in Texas than Native Americans.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 02, 2015, 09:35:55 AM
Quote from: celedhring on July 02, 2015, 09:34:27 AM
Yeah, I'm not that knowledgeable about the origin of the word. I dislike "Indian" because it's a misnomer born out of European ignorance.
It's not as bad as Redskins but still insensitive.
I'm surprised you haven't seen at least one western in which they talk about "many braves on the warpath."
Most classic westerns I have watched, I have watched them in Spanish.
Quote from: celedhring on July 02, 2015, 09:47:14 AM
Most classic westerns I have watched, I have watched them in Spanish.
Ay caramba! Tantos bravos sobre el camino de guera!
Quote from: Valmy on July 02, 2015, 09:37:29 AM
Quote from: celedhring on July 02, 2015, 09:34:27 AM
I dislike "Indian" because it's a misnomer born out of European ignorance.
Eh it was just one stubborn guy. But it stuck for some reason, long after Europeans ceased to be ignorant on this point. I guess nobody anticipated the day when there would be more actual Indians in Texas than Native Americans.
We tried to pretend we knew we were doing all along by calling America "The West Indies" as opposed to the "East Indies".
Probably also Columbus' fault. His ability to see what he wanted to be true rather than what the actual evidence suggested infuriated the Portuguese so much they just let him go back to Spain after they nabbed him in the Azores. If it was difficult for them to deal with I can only imagine what it was like for the Caribbean natives and his poor crew.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 02, 2015, 08:56:16 AM
It helps that Chief Yahoo is so somber and impressive looking. And that his name is so historically correct.
Chief Wahoo. :contract:
But yeah, we've got the Redskins with "Chief Zee," who's basically the equivalent of a blackface actor (the model was an African guy who dressed up as a Native American).
On the other hand, we've got the Cleveland Indians. While the name is slightly less of a slur, the mascot in their logo is something straight out of one of the banned Looney Tunes cartoons from the 1930s and '40s.
You talking about the black fan who comes to the games dressed up? I don't see what that has to do with anything.
Yeah I didn't think he was official or anything. Unless he is putting on red facepaint I don't get the blackface link either.
"Brave" is in the national anthem, so it has to be racist.
Redskins = slur
Indians = meh (though their logo is far worse than the above)
Braves/Chiefs = shouldn't really be any more offensive than the Vikings
I yell "Native American persyn!" when I jump into combat.
I figured Swedes would yell something like "bork bork bork".
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 03, 2015, 07:04:35 AM
I figured Swedes would yell something like "bork bork bork".
It's something else:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.sweden.se%2Fexpat%2Ffiles%2F2011%2F10%2FDSC_9843-e1351540366437.jpg&hash=e0286b8d4a3db47dfa0f890e02dcedb67d008b62)
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 03, 2015, 06:43:23 AM
Redskins = slur
I've never heard anyone use it as a slur or read about anyone using it as a slur. The current attitude that it's a slur seems to me to be largely based on opposition to the team name.
AFAICT it derives from the French peaux-rouges, which again AFAICT was/is a non-pejorative term. Just a neutral descriptor.
Now if the team was called the Washington Prairie Niggers, then I would have to agree.
Ok. But for me personally, I consider it a slur, as I would never think of using the term "blackskins, whiteskins, etc". Even though those are made-up, never-used "slurs", they don't evoke any logical function but to bait an argument.
And my point was more meant to say that I would accept the views of those who see "redskin" as a slur, but think those who would argue that "braves" or "chiefs" are slurs are getting a bit silly.
And I also see that while many are offended by the redskins term, there are many of indigenous heritage who are not. But there is also nothing to really lose (outside of the costs to adjust the affected brand) by capitulating on this issue.
The issue that's on the line is whether an alleged insult is always an insult, or whether that determination is arrived at through consensus.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 03, 2015, 12:03:19 PM
The issue that's on the line is whether an alleged insult is always an insult, or whether that determination is arrived at through consensus.
When has there ever been a consensus that a particular term is improper? Doesn't that bind social discourse to the lowest common denominator?
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 03, 2015, 12:22:47 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 03, 2015, 12:03:19 PM
The issue that's on the line is whether an alleged insult is always an insult, or whether that determination is arrived at through consensus.
When has there ever been a consensus that a particular term is improper? Doesn't that bind social discourse to the lowest common denominator?
I'd say that there is pretty broad consensus that the n-word is improper and more and more agreement that one shouldn't use faggot.
Quote from: Syt on July 03, 2015, 07:38:33 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 03, 2015, 07:04:35 AM
I figured Swedes would yell something like "bork bork bork".
It's something else:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.sweden.se%2Fexpat%2Ffiles%2F2011%2F10%2FDSC_9843-e1351540366437.jpg&hash=e0286b8d4a3db47dfa0f890e02dcedb67d008b62)
That's from Denmark though.
Quote from: garbon on July 03, 2015, 12:34:41 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 03, 2015, 12:22:47 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 03, 2015, 12:03:19 PM
The issue that's on the line is whether an alleged insult is always an insult, or whether that determination is arrived at through consensus.
When has there ever been a consensus that a particular term is improper? Doesn't that bind social discourse to the lowest common denominator?
I'd say that there is pretty broad consensus that the n-word is improper and more and more agreement that one shouldn't use faggot.
Put another way, if everyone agrees through consensus that a term is improper then there is no action which is required. Action is only required when there is a stubborn group who wish to continue to use an offensive term.
The best (only?) example I can think of of failure to ban "insulting" language is black and African American.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 03, 2015, 01:57:39 PM
The best (only?) example I can think of of failure to ban "insulting" language is black and African American.
Sure but it wasn't done on the basis of consensus as you suggest the test should be this time around.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 03, 2015, 01:57:39 PM
The best (only?) example I can think of of failure to ban "insulting" language is black and African American.
For what is it worth, in the few cases at my work, where I needed to describe someone's race (as it happened, to persons of that same race), my cautious attempts to use "African-American" were met with bemusement and laughter, including a jocular "you mean black?" retort (from a person of that same race).
Granted, the amusement was probably far more from my pretty transparent, and self-concious attempt to make sure I was being non-offensive. :P
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 03, 2015, 03:39:33 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 03, 2015, 01:57:39 PM
The best (only?) example I can think of of failure to ban "insulting" language is black and African American.
For what is it worth, in the few cases at my work, where I needed to describe someone's race (as it happened, to persons of that same race), my cautious attempts to use "African-American" were met with bemusement and laughter, including a jocular "you mean black?" retort (from a person of that same race).
Granted, the amusement was probably far more from my pretty transparent, and self-concious attempt to make sure I was being non-offensive. :P
Yeah, context and intention is important.
We should never use terms that offend somebody.
Quote from: The Brain on July 03, 2015, 04:52:36 PM
We should never use terms that offend somebody.
There of course circumstances where it may be appropriate to do so. Naming a sports team is not one of them.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 03, 2015, 06:07:40 PM
There of course circumstances where it may be appropriate to do so. Naming a sports team is not one of them.
I really doubt the term "redskins" was offensive when the team was named.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 03, 2015, 06:09:10 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 03, 2015, 06:07:40 PM
There of course circumstances where it may be appropriate to do so. Naming a sports team is not one of them.
I really doubt the term "redskins" was offensive when the team was named.
I concede it may be somewhat like "negro" (though for myself "redskin" just sounds to my ear like it's naturally pejorative), which seemed perfectly acceptable in the 60's Civil Rights era, but almost no one would use these days.
Well it begs the question why would anyone want to name their sports team something naturally pejorative. Banana Slugs aside, naturally.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 03, 2015, 06:09:10 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 03, 2015, 06:07:40 PM
There of course circumstances where it may be appropriate to do so. Naming a sports team is not one of them.
I really doubt the term "redskins" was offensive when the team was named.
Why?
The 1930s might not be the best era when it comes to determining if something is offensive of not when it comes to race :P
I do not think the name was picked out of any desire to be offensive or crass or crude or anything like that. Nor was it picked out of respect or admiration. It was picked because they were trying to attract the loyalty of Boston Braves fans.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 06, 2015, 11:02:29 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 03, 2015, 06:09:10 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 03, 2015, 06:07:40 PM
There of course circumstances where it may be appropriate to do so. Naming a sports team is not one of them.
I really doubt the term "redskins" was offensive when the team was named.
Why?
Why would you name your team something offensive?
Quote from: Valmy on July 06, 2015, 11:10:04 AM
The 1930s might not be the best era when it comes to determining if something is offensive of not when it comes to race :P
I do not think the name was picked out of any desire to be offensive or crass or crude or anything like that. Nor was it picked out of respect or admiration. It was picked because they were trying to attract the loyalty of Boston Braves fans.
I think the point is that it probably always considered offensive by native americans. Its just that the whites have finally figured that out.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 06, 2015, 11:37:36 AM
I think the point is that it probably always considered offensive to native americans. It just that the whites have finally figured that out.
I don't claim to be an expert on what whites or native americans in the 1930s might have felt about things. I think the point is that it is not relevant now. If it was not insulting to 1930s native americans and this could be proved somehow would that change anything? Of course not.
Quote from: Valmy on July 06, 2015, 11:39:35 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 06, 2015, 11:37:36 AM
I think the point is that it probably always considered offensive to native americans. It just that the whites have finally figured that out.
I don't claim to be an expert on what whites or native americans in the 1930s might have felt about things. I think the point is that it is not relevant now. If it was not insulting to 1930s native americans and this could be proved somehow would that change anything? Of course not.
:huh:
I was responding to Dorsey's comment that name wasn't offensive when it was first used.
Further, if it has always been offensive you say that doesn't change anything?
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 06, 2015, 11:40:47 AM
:huh:
I was responding to Dorsey's comment that name wasn't offensive when it was first used.
It might not have been. So what? The original intent behind choosing the name had nothing to do with a desire to be or not be offensive anyway.
Quote from: Valmy on July 06, 2015, 11:41:50 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 06, 2015, 11:40:47 AM
:huh:
I was responding to Dorsey's comment that name wasn't offensive when it was first used.
It might not have been. So what? The original intent behind choosing the name had nothing to do with a desire to be or not be offensive anyway.
First, the claim that it was never offensive to native americans is likely false. Why is it wrong to address claims that are likely false? History doesn't matter to you? .
Second, if the name has always been offensive to native americans why doesn't that make the case stronger? Wouldn't the case for changing the name be weakened in native americans once thought it was a swell name - to use the vernacular of the time.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 06, 2015, 11:37:36 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 06, 2015, 11:10:04 AM
The 1930s might not be the best era when it comes to determining if something is offensive of not when it comes to race :P
I do not think the name was picked out of any desire to be offensive or crass or crude or anything like that. Nor was it picked out of respect or admiration. It was picked because they were trying to attract the loyalty of Boston Braves fans.
I think the point is that it probably always considered offensive by native americans. Its just that the whites have finally figured that out.
Or more to the point (especially when comparing to terms for blacks that were commonly used, to include "nigger") whites simply did not care one way or the other if Native Americans found it offensive.
It's not like back in the 50s black people were ok with being called niggers by whites - it was just that the whites doing so didn't give a shit what they thought.
Hell, just like white people in South Carolina apparently didn't care what black people thought about a Confederate flag flying over the capitol building. I rather doubt many black people thought that was awesome.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 06, 2015, 11:45:05 AM
First, the claim that it was never offensive to native americans is likely false. Why is it wrong to address claims that are likely false? History doesn't matter to you? .
Sure but we are not talking about ancient history here. We are talking about something today.
QuoteSecond, if the name has always been offensive to native americans why doesn't that make the case stronger? Wouldn't the case for changing the name be weakened in native americans once thought it was a swell name - to use the vernacular of the time.
No because this is not the 1930s. And there are many instances of native americans themselves using names like this for their teams at the time. But you know there also black people doing black face minstrelsy at the time so that probably doesn't mean shit. However, one way or the other, I don't think the standards of that time are applicable today.
The name is considered offensive now. And the stubborn refusal to budge on this issue signals a contempt for the issues at hand. Well actually it signals the remarkable incompetence, stupidity, and arrogance of Dan Snyder.
Quote from: Berkut on July 06, 2015, 11:47:23 AM
It's not like back in the 50s black people were ok with being called niggers by whites - it was just that the whites doing so didn't give a shit what they thought.
That was considered a very vulgar word even amongst whites. No way anybody would have used that word in this sense at the time.
Quote from: Valmy on July 06, 2015, 11:57:50 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 06, 2015, 11:47:23 AM
It's not like back in the 50s black people were ok with being called niggers by whites - it was just that the whites doing so didn't give a shit what they thought.
That was considered a very vulgar word even amongst whites. No way anybody would have used that word in this sense at the time.
Of course - but it was used commonly anyway, because it was vulgar, and the people using it did not care if black people were offended or not.
And I doubt anyone went to Native Americans and asked what they thought about the term "Redskin". Because nobody cared what the answer would be anyway.
Quote from: Berkut on July 06, 2015, 12:08:07 PM
Of course - but it was used commonly anyway, because it was vulgar, and the people using it did not care if black people were offended or not.
They cared very much that it was offensive to black people. It was used specifically to offend them.
QuoteAnd I doubt anyone went to Native Americans and asked what they thought about the term "Redskin". Because nobody cared what the answer would be anyway.
I have seen it claimed that it was no more offensive at the time than calling us 'whites' today. Still it would be weird having a team called the 'whites'. But even if that is true I agree that it was not a consideration when the team name was chosen nor do I think it should be a consideration regarding the name today.
The club claims the name was chosen as a tribute to the courage and bravery and blah blah of the native americans and there was some personal connection that led to the name being chosen. That is historically demonstrable to be a false claim. But even if it was true they still should change it.
Quote from: Berkut on July 06, 2015, 11:47:23 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 06, 2015, 11:37:36 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 06, 2015, 11:10:04 AM
The 1930s might not be the best era when it comes to determining if something is offensive of not when it comes to race :P
I do not think the name was picked out of any desire to be offensive or crass or crude or anything like that. Nor was it picked out of respect or admiration. It was picked because they were trying to attract the loyalty of Boston Braves fans.
I think the point is that it probably always considered offensive by native americans. Its just that the whites have finally figured that out.
Or more to the point (especially when comparing to terms for blacks that were commonly used, to include "nigger") whites simply did not care one way or the other if Native Americans found it offensive.
It's not like back in the 50s black people were ok with being called niggers by whites - it was just that the whites doing so didn't give a shit what they thought.
Hell, just like white people in South Carolina apparently didn't care what black people thought about a Confederate flag flying over the capitol building. I rather doubt many black people thought that was awesome.
Fair point.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 06, 2015, 12:15:22 PM
Fair point.
They might have given a shit if they were aware of it. When the culture around you suggests one thing or the other as normal, you don't know what you don't know. There is probably something horribly offensive we are doing right now that future generations will be totally disgusted we are doing but it is not because we do not give a shit about the issue it is because we are just not aware of it. Plenty of very good people just had these views ingrained into them. The active maliciousness implied strikes me as possibly historically false.
But again that is not the issue. I can forgive people in the 1930s for things, I wasn't there. I might have done them myself. God knows I rooted for this team and it never even registered to me there was a problem with the name until I saw the protests around the 1992 Super Bowl. I just never thought about it. It was not an actively malicious case of not giving a shit what native americans thought.
But we are not talking about white people then we are talking about the dudes running the Redskins now.
Quote from: Valmy on July 06, 2015, 12:26:06 PM
They might have given a shit if they were aware of it. When the culture around you suggests one thing or the other as normal, you don't know what you don't know. There is probably something horribly offensive we are doing right now that future generations will be totally disgusted we are doing but it is not because we do not give a shit about the issue it is because we are just not aware of it. Plenty of very good people just had these views ingrained into them. The active maliciousness implied strikes me as possibly historically false.
I disagree. Within my lifetime, a goodly segment of people in the US treated gay people like shit. They didn't know that was wrong?
Hell go a little bit further back and my parents got rudeness directed their way for being an interracial couple. They didn't know that was wrong?
From what I've heard from my mother, as well, sexism was incredibly rampant in the 80s and 90s in the pharma industry. People didn't know sexism was wrong?
Quote from: garbon on July 06, 2015, 12:31:44 PM
I disagree. Within my lifetime, a goodly segment of people in the US treated gay people like shit. They didn't know that was wrong?
Hell go a little bit further back and my parents got rudeness directed their way for being an interracial couple. They didn't know that was wrong?
From what I've heard from my mother, as well, sexism was incredibly rampant in the 80s and 90s in the pharma industry. People didn't know sexism was wrong?
I don't know. I do remember gay jokes being considered pretty harmless and announcing your uncomfortableness with homosexuality among men was normal. I don't ever remember partaking but I didn't think anything about it. And I don't think the guys saying those things thought they were doing anything wrong either. Today I would make my displeasure very apparent but I doubt that would have happened today.
But even if they did think it correct back then well guess what? Now is not then and I think we have a consensus those attitudes are wrong and should not be tolerated today. I don't think the fact it may or may not have been considered wrong in 1960 particularly relevant to that.
For example, lets say somebody named something that included a gay slur in its name back in 1980 or whatever. Maybe it was considered light hearted and maybe even some gay people at the time had no problem with it and no offense was meant. Still should change it today.
Quote from: Berkut on July 06, 2015, 12:08:07 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 06, 2015, 11:57:50 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 06, 2015, 11:47:23 AM
It's not like back in the 50s black people were ok with being called niggers by whites - it was just that the whites doing so didn't give a shit what they thought.
That was considered a very vulgar word even amongst whites. No way anybody would have used that word in this sense at the time.
Of course - but it was used commonly anyway, because it was vulgar, and the people using it did not care if black people were offended or not.
Sure they cared. They
wanted black people to be offended and demeaned by it.
Quote from: Valmy on July 06, 2015, 12:43:36 PM
For example, lets say somebody named something that included a gay slur in its name back in 1980 or whatever. Maybe it was considered light hearted and maybe even some gay people at the time had no problem with it and no offense was meant. Still should change it today.
Does that mean that Arkansas will have to rename the historic town of Bumfuck? :hmm:
Quote from: Valmy on July 06, 2015, 12:43:36 PM
For example, lets say somebody named something that included a gay slur in its name back in 1980 or whatever. Maybe it was considered light hearted and maybe even some gay people at the time had no problem with it and no offense was meant. Still should change it today.
Mr. Brain says fuck you. :mad:
Quote from: Malthus on July 06, 2015, 12:45:57 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 06, 2015, 12:43:36 PM
For example, lets say somebody named something that included a gay slur in its name back in 1980 or whatever. Maybe it was considered light hearted and maybe even some gay people at the time had no problem with it and no offense was meant. Still should change it today.
Does that mean that Arkansas will have to rename the historic town of Bumfuck? :hmm:
We have towns named everything in this country don't we?
Quote from: Valmy on July 06, 2015, 12:26:06 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 06, 2015, 12:15:22 PM
Fair point.
They might have given a shit if they were aware of it. When the culture around you suggests one thing or the other as normal, you don't know what you don't know. There is probably something horribly offensive we are doing right now that future generations will be totally disgusted we are doing but it is not because we do not give a shit about the issue it is because we are just not aware of it. Plenty of very good people just had these views ingrained into them. The active maliciousness implied strikes me as possibly historically false.
But again that is not the issue. I can forgive people in the 1930s for things, I wasn't there. I might have done them myself. God knows I rooted for this team and it never even registered to me there was a problem with the name until I saw the protests around the 1992 Super Bowl. I just never thought about it. It was not an actively malicious case of not giving a shit what native americans thought.
But we are not talking about white people then we are talking about the dudes running the Redskins now.
In the 70s and 80s I grew up in a community where my Sikh friends were often subjected to racial slurs. The most common were "Paki" and "Hindu" (which showed the complete ignorance of those uttering the slurs but I digress). The Sikhs knew the comments were meant to be racial slurs. The people making the slurs knew they were making racial slurs and the white kids who didn't make the racial slurs knew exactly what was going on.
The notion that because a racial or bigoted comment is common place is in some sense exculpatory is not very convincing to me.
That the owners of the team didn't care that it was a racial slur or not (even after it being brought to their attention) makes a lot more sense to me.
"Hindu" is a slur?
Quote from: dps on July 06, 2015, 12:56:42 PM
"Hindu" is a slur?
You know what a Sikh is right?
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 06, 2015, 12:54:25 PM
In the 70s and 80s I grew up in a community where my Sikh friends were often subjected to racial slurs. The most common were "Paki" and "Hindu" (which showed the complete ignorance of those uttering the slurs but I digress). The Sikhs knew the comments were meant to be racial slurs. The people making the slurs knew they were making racial slurs and the white kids who didn't make the racial slurs knew exactly what was going on.
The notion that because a racial or bigoted comment is common place is in some sense exculpatory is not very convincing to me.
That the owners of the team didn't care that it was a racial slur or not (even after it being brought to their attention) makes a lot more sense to me.
Heh Sikhs have no luck with ignorant bigots - if they aren't being attacked as "Hindu", they are being attacked as "Muslim"!
Quote from: Malthus on July 06, 2015, 01:02:43 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 06, 2015, 12:54:25 PM
In the 70s and 80s I grew up in a community where my Sikh friends were often subjected to racial slurs. The most common were "Paki" and "Hindu" (which showed the complete ignorance of those uttering the slurs but I digress). The Sikhs knew the comments were meant to be racial slurs. The people making the slurs knew they were making racial slurs and the white kids who didn't make the racial slurs knew exactly what was going on.
The notion that because a racial or bigoted comment is common place is in some sense exculpatory is not very convincing to me.
That the owners of the team didn't care that it was a racial slur or not (even after it being brought to their attention) makes a lot more sense to me.
Heh Sikhs have no luck with ignorant bigots - if they aren't being attacked as "Hindu", they are being attacked as "Muslim"!
:D
Too true.
Quote from: Malthus on July 06, 2015, 01:02:43 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 06, 2015, 12:54:25 PM
In the 70s and 80s I grew up in a community where my Sikh friends were often subjected to racial slurs. The most common were "Paki" and "Hindu" (which showed the complete ignorance of those uttering the slurs but I digress). The Sikhs knew the comments were meant to be racial slurs. The people making the slurs knew they were making racial slurs and the white kids who didn't make the racial slurs knew exactly what was going on.
The notion that because a racial or bigoted comment is common place is in some sense exculpatory is not very convincing to me.
That the owners of the team didn't care that it was a racial slur or not (even after it being brought to their attention) makes a lot more sense to me.
Heh Sikhs have no luck with ignorant bigots - if they aren't being attacked as "Hindu", they are being attacked as "Muslim"!
Poor guys. :(
QuoteThe notion that because a racial or bigoted comment is common place is in some sense exculpatory is not very convincing to me.
Well I grew up here and I think so. How else would so many good and polite and wonderful people have had such bigoted and racist views? Many elderly people I knew had changed their views considerably in light of new ways of looking at things. Same with people who did anti-gay stuff in the past. Many things people did in the past seem horrible or appalling today that were considered normal or even virtuous then. We recognize them as objectively wrong, and we should, but I think it is a mistake to project backwards nefariousness or evil necessarily. The past is a foreign country and all that.
But the point is not how insulting or racist the owners of the Redskins were in the 1930s. It could have been, and it probably was, a completely innocent thing with nobody thinking there was anything strange about it.
I mean you get stuff like this even today:
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/08/how-many-native-americans-think-redskins-is-a-slur/
QuoteTommy Yazzie, superintendent of the Red Mesa school district on the Navajo Nation reservation, grew up when Navajo children were forced into boarding schools to disconnect them from their culture. Some were punished for speaking their native language. Today, he sees environmental issues as the biggest threat to his people.
The high school football team in his district is the Red Mesa Redskins.
I don't think there are too many Sikhs calling their local school teams the 'Pakis' or the 'Hindus'. But then you get the whole internalized racism thing and blah blah. It's complicated.
What is not complicated is that we shouldn't have a team called the Washington Redskins in 2015.
Quote from: Malthus on July 06, 2015, 01:02:43 PM
Heh Sikhs have no luck with ignorant bigots - if they aren't being attacked as "Hindu", they are being attacked as "Muslim"!
Eh it is not like places that are informed about Sikhs treat them much better sadly.
Quote from: Valmy on July 06, 2015, 01:11:33 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 06, 2015, 01:02:43 PM
Heh Sikhs have no luck with ignorant bigots - if they aren't being attacked as "Hindu", they are being attacked as "Muslim"!
Eh it is not like places that are informed about Sikhs treat them much better sadly.
Well, at least they will be persecuted for who they are, rather than for who they are not. ;)
QuoteCINNA. Truly, my name is Cinna.
FIRST CITIZEN. Tear him to pieces, he's a conspirator.
CINNA. I am Cinna the poet, I am Cinna the poet!
FOURTH CITIZEN. Tear him for his bad verses, tear him for his bad verses.
CINNA. I am not Cinna the conspirator.
FOURTH CITIZEN. It is no matter, his name's Cinna. Pluck but his name out of his heart, and turn him going.
—Julius Caesar Act III, Scene 3
Quote from: Valmy on July 06, 2015, 01:11:33 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 06, 2015, 01:02:43 PM
Heh Sikhs have no luck with ignorant bigots - if they aren't being attacked as "Hindu", they are being attacked as "Muslim"!
Eh it is not like places that are informed about Sikhs treat them much better sadly.
While we have a pretty poor record here I think things are much better now.
You have to play on the name thing. I worked with a guy when I was delivering pizzas who claimed he got out of being beaten up for being Iranian during the Hostage Crisis by telling his persecutors he was actually Persian. They apologized and moved on.
Quote from: Valmy on July 06, 2015, 01:10:41 PM
What is not complicated is that we shouldn't have a team called the Washington Redskins in 2015.
On that we have a clear agreement.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 06, 2015, 12:57:45 PM
Quote from: dps on July 06, 2015, 12:56:42 PM
"Hindu" is a slur?
You know what a Sikh is right?
Yeah, but I don't see how mistaking one for a Hindu is a slur anymore than, say, thinking I'm a Baptist when I'm actually a Methodist.
Quote from: dps on July 06, 2015, 01:30:07 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 06, 2015, 12:57:45 PM
Quote from: dps on July 06, 2015, 12:56:42 PM
"Hindu" is a slur?
You know what a Sikh is right?
Yeah, but I don't see how mistaking one for a Hindu is a slur anymore than, say, thinking I'm a Baptist when I'm actually a Methodist.
Both Baptists and Methodists are Christians so I am not sure you understand the difference between being a Sikh and a Hindu. A Sikh being called a Hindu is more like a Christian being called a Jew or a Muslim being called either a Jew or a Christian.
That technicality aside, you are missing the intent of the slur. It was meant as an insult. To single them out as being the other.
Quote from: Valmy on July 06, 2015, 01:10:41 PM
QuoteThe notion that because a racial or bigoted comment is common place is in some sense exculpatory is not very convincing to me.
Well I grew up here and I think so. How else would so many good and polite and wonderful people have had such bigoted and racist views? Many elderly people I knew had changed their views considerably in light of new ways of looking at things. Same with people who did anti-gay stuff in the past. Many things people did in the past seem horrible or appalling today that were considered normal or even virtuous then. We recognize them as objectively wrong, and we should, but I think it is a mistake to project backwards nefariousness or evil necessarily. The past is a foreign country and all that.
I think it is a mistake, as I see you doing, to just go oh well it was a different time. I don't see why we would assume that people who did bigoted things simply did it because they were unaware that they were actually being bigoted. Seems to be a convenient whitewashing of prejudice and enmity.
Quote from: garbon on July 06, 2015, 01:49:10 PM
I think it is a mistake, as I see you doing, to just go oh well it was a different time. I don't see why we would assume that people who did bigoted things simply did it because they were unaware that they were actually being bigoted. Seems to be a convenient whitewashing of prejudice and enmity.
Nonsense. It is far more convenient to just say 'look how evil those ignorant people in the past were. We would never do anything like that since we are so much better'. Besides they are not around to defend themselves and you cannot teach lessons to the dead. Ire is better used to those still committing abuses today.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 06, 2015, 01:36:03 PM
Both Baptists and Methodists are Christians so I am not sure you understand the difference between being a Sikh and a Hindu. A Sikh being called a Hindu is more like a Christian being called a Jew or a Muslim being called either a Jew or a Christian.
That technicality aside, you are missing the intent of the slur. It was meant as an insult. To single them out as being the other.
If intent is a critical factor, then the Washington Redskins team name is almost certainly not a slur.
I don't think a Christian being called a Jew is a slur. Even if meant as an insult, it is just stupid.
Quote from: Valmy on July 06, 2015, 01:53:09 PM
Nonsense. It is far more convenient to just say 'look how evil those ignorant people in the past were. We would never do anything like that since we are so much better'.
Of course, no one is saying that. Still if it helps you to imagine that racist people were only racist by accident of the times they were born in, shine on.
Quote from: Valmy on July 06, 2015, 01:53:09 PMBesides they are not around to defend themselves and you cannot teach lessons to the dead. Ire is better used to those still committing abuses today.
Yes, no one in the past who espoused racist, sexist, and/or homophobic views is still around.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 06, 2015, 01:54:21 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 06, 2015, 01:36:03 PM
Both Baptists and Methodists are Christians so I am not sure you understand the difference between being a Sikh and a Hindu. A Sikh being called a Hindu is more like a Christian being called a Jew or a Muslim being called either a Jew or a Christian.
That technicality aside, you are missing the intent of the slur. It was meant as an insult. To single them out as being the other.
If intent is a critical factor, then the Washington Redskins team name is almost certainly not a slur.
I don't think a Christian being called a Jew is a slur. Even if meant as an insult, it is just stupid.
Intent isn't the only thing that creates the slur. Being called a Hindu could be entirely accurate if one was speaking to someone of the Hindu faith. In that case intent would be the only thing that mattered since calling someone a Hindu is not, itself, problematic.
Calling a team the Red Skins is, itself, problematic because it is offensive even if there is no intent to be offensive. But as Berkut pointed out, I think correctly, the owners at the time didn't care what native americans might think about the name. That is hardly a good justification ;)
Quote from: garbon on July 06, 2015, 02:01:40 PM
Yes, no one in the past who espoused racist, sexist, and/or homophobic views is still around.
I think that a lot of straight males around my age (including myself) have been guilty of using homophobic slurs. When I used them I intended to use them in a manner that had a negative rather than a neutral connotation. I and many others have reformed our behavior. But I wont take the easy out of saying everyone else did it. It was wrong and I feel shame for having done it.
Quote from: garbon on July 06, 2015, 02:01:40 PM
Yes, no one in the past who espoused racist, sexist, and/or homophobic views is still around.
If they are then their present views are more of a consideration than their old ones. If somebody was racist in 1960 that is one thing. If somebody still is well that's something else.
QuoteOf course, no one is saying that.
People talk like that all the time. In fact they have talked like that in this thread.
QuoteStill if it helps you to imagine that racist people were only racist by accident of the times they were born in, shine on.
Helps me to understand what factors led to them having those views so as to better understand history rather than just label them as bad? Yes. Because issuing value judgement in that context is not particularly useful. The racism was bad. The people? Well maybe. But I presume that there but by the grace of God go I.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 06, 2015, 02:05:21 PM
I think that a lot of straight males around my age (including myself) have been guilty of using homophobic slurs. When I used them I intended to use them in a manner that had a negative rather than a neutral connotation. I and many others have reformed our behavior. But I wont take the easy out of saying everyone else did it. It was wrong and I feel shame for having done it.
But were you a person who did not give a shit? Might understanding why you did something wrong despite having the best of intentions inform your understanding of human nature rather than just demonizing yourself? How is doing that the easy way out? I do not think that is the easy way out at all. I think that is how one gains wisdom.
Quote from: Valmy on July 06, 2015, 02:42:12 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 06, 2015, 02:05:21 PM
I think that a lot of straight males around my age (including myself) have been guilty of using homophobic slurs. When I used them I intended to use them in a manner that had a negative rather than a neutral connotation. I and many others have reformed our behavior. But I wont take the easy out of saying everyone else did it. It was wrong and I feel shame for having done it.
But were you a person who did not give a shit? Might understanding why you did something wrong despite having the best of intentions inform your understanding of human nature rather than just demonizing yourself? How is doing that the easy way out? I do not think that is the easy way out at all. I think that is how one gains wisdom.
I think it is the easy way out to claim that what I did was not morally and ethically wrong because everyone else was doing it. One gains wisdom by acknowledging and learning from the mistakes of the past. Not by minimizing them. Put another way, if everyone was still using homophobic slurs would I be less culpable if I continued to use them?
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 06, 2015, 02:46:44 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 06, 2015, 02:42:12 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 06, 2015, 02:05:21 PM
I think that a lot of straight males around my age (including myself) have been guilty of using homophobic slurs. When I used them I intended to use them in a manner that had a negative rather than a neutral connotation. I and many others have reformed our behavior. But I wont take the easy out of saying everyone else did it. It was wrong and I feel shame for having done it.
But were you a person who did not give a shit? Might understanding why you did something wrong despite having the best of intentions inform your understanding of human nature rather than just demonizing yourself? How is doing that the easy way out? I do not think that is the easy way out at all. I think that is how one gains wisdom.
I think it is the easy way out to claim that what I did was not morally and ethically wrong because everyone else was doing it. One gains wisdom by acknowledging and learning from the mistakes of the past. Not by minimizing them. Put another way, if everyone was still using homophobic slurs would I be less culpable if I continued to use them?
:hug:
So what would be a good new name for the team? Are there any candidates?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 06, 2015, 03:06:34 PM
So what would be a good new name for the team? Are there any candidates?
"The Battling Yids"? :)
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 06, 2015, 03:06:34 PM
So what would be a good new name for the team? Are there any candidates?
"White Men". The team could donate to white causes, have fans come to the game in white people attire (conveniently most of the fan base already does this, except for those in indian costumes or dressed as pigs), and the team song could be "Hail to the White Man".
I wonder if they'd be able to get away with keeping the logo, and changing the name back to the Braves. :hmm:
Might have been able to pull that off right at the start of the controversy, but seems like it'd be harder to use any Native American-related name the longer it drags on.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 06, 2015, 03:33:29 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 06, 2015, 03:06:34 PM
So what would be a good new name for the team? Are there any candidates?
"White Men". The team could donate to white causes, have fans come to the game in white people attire (conveniently most of the fan base already does this, except for those in indian costumes or dressed as pigs), and the team song could be "Hail to the White Man".
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FeTCcLVZ.png&hash=1a5b842b227063ddbf5d8b15af10d41758ae7986)
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 06, 2015, 02:02:21 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 06, 2015, 01:54:21 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 06, 2015, 01:36:03 PM
Both Baptists and Methodists are Christians so I am not sure you understand the difference between being a Sikh and a Hindu. A Sikh being called a Hindu is more like a Christian being called a Jew or a Muslim being called either a Jew or a Christian.
That technicality aside, you are missing the intent of the slur. It was meant as an insult. To single them out as being the other.
If intent is a critical factor, then the Washington Redskins team name is almost certainly not a slur.
I don't think a Christian being called a Jew is a slur. Even if meant as an insult, it is just stupid.
Intent isn't the only thing that creates the slur. Being called a Hindu could be entirely accurate if one was speaking to someone of the Hindu faith. In that case intent would be the only thing that mattered since calling someone a Hindu is not, itself, problematic.
That was kind of my point, though. I'd never heard of "Hindu" being used as an insult before, so I'm still not clear on why someone would call someone else a Hindu with intent to insult them. Then again, I don't really know anything about anti-Sikh prejudice. I thought that hostility toward Sikhs (at least in the West) was due to people who have a problem with Moslems mistaking them for Moslems, so I don't even see where calling them Hindus comes into play at all.
Great, well now you have been informed. WTF
I bet Nike could make a neat-looking uniform with a B-2 bomber theme and logo. Dunno what the name would be for that. "Spirits" would be stupid.
Let's face it, there's not much cool about DC in particular that sounds sports namey. Maybe a phoenix because it got burned by the British but that would be too confusing. Vampire Squid is already taken by Goldman. What animal eats ravens?
Quote from: dps on July 07, 2015, 01:17:20 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 06, 2015, 02:02:21 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 06, 2015, 01:54:21 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 06, 2015, 01:36:03 PM
Both Baptists and Methodists are Christians so I am not sure you understand the difference between being a Sikh and a Hindu. A Sikh being called a Hindu is more like a Christian being called a Jew or a Muslim being called either a Jew or a Christian.
That technicality aside, you are missing the intent of the slur. It was meant as an insult. To single them out as being the other.
If intent is a critical factor, then the Washington Redskins team name is almost certainly not a slur.
I don't think a Christian being called a Jew is a slur. Even if meant as an insult, it is just stupid.
Intent isn't the only thing that creates the slur. Being called a Hindu could be entirely accurate if one was speaking to someone of the Hindu faith. In that case intent would be the only thing that mattered since calling someone a Hindu is not, itself, problematic.
That was kind of my point, though. I'd never heard of "Hindu" being used as an insult before, so I'm still not clear on why someone would call someone else a Hindu with intent to insult them. Then again, I don't really know anything about anti-Sikh prejudice. I thought that hostility toward Sikhs (at least in the West) was due to people who have a problem with Moslems mistaking them for Moslems, so I don't even see where calling them Hindus comes into play at all.
The issue of people confusing Sikhs with Muslims is very recent. Probably dating back only to 2001 when being a Muslim in the US became a signficant issue. Sadly anti-Sikh prejudice has a very long history in this part of the world. Here is a link if you want to learn a bit more about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komagata_Maru_incident
As for not understanding how "Hindu" can be a racist slur. Well, I guess you just had to be there to understand.
They lost again in court. They plan to appeal, all the way to the Supremes if they have to.
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Federal-Judge-Upholds-Decision-to-Cancel-Redskins-Trademark-Protection-312505471.html
This case is the only excitement Dan Snyder has been able to supply us with since 2012.
I find the Canadian prejudice against Sikhs fascinating. I've never heard of that in the US, nor had I previously heard of it in Canada. As far as Sikhs being insulting by being called Hindus: since one of the tenets of Sikhism is that all religions are true and equal to Sikhism, a Sikh would find it merely amusing, and not at all insulting, to be confused with a Hindu or called Hindu as an insult.
I guess you have to be Canadian to see "Hindu" as an insult, as CC notes.
Quote from: grumbler on July 10, 2015, 08:10:31 AM
I find the Canadian prejudice against Sikhs fascinating. I've never heard of that in the US, nor had I previously heard of it in Canada. As far as Sikhs being insulting by being called Hindus: since one of the tenets of Sikhism is that all religions are true and equal to Sikhism, a Sikh would find it merely amusing, and not at all insulting, to be confused with a Hindu or called Hindu as an insult.
I guess you have to be Canadian to see "Hindu" as an insult, as CC notes.
Ah I'm glad we have grumbler here to tell us what Sikhs think.
Quote from: garbon on July 10, 2015, 08:12:22 AM
Quote from: grumbler on July 10, 2015, 08:10:31 AM
I find the Canadian prejudice against Sikhs fascinating. I've never heard of that in the US, nor had I previously heard of it in Canada. As far as Sikhs being insulting by being called Hindus: since one of the tenets of Sikhism is that all religions are true and equal to Sikhism, a Sikh would find it merely amusing, and not at all insulting, to be confused with a Hindu or called Hindu as an insult.
I guess you have to be Canadian to see "Hindu" as an insult, as CC notes.
Ah I'm glad we have grumbler here to tell us what Sikhs think.
:yes:
Some white guy who admits he had even heard about prejudice against Sikhs in his own country or Canada then goes on to tell us how Sikhs in Canada would react. His insight very helpful in letting us know how Grumbler would react if he was a Sikh living in the Vancouver area in the 1970s and 80s. Thanks for sharing Grumbles.
Quote from: garbon on July 10, 2015, 08:12:22 AM
Quote from: grumbler on July 10, 2015, 08:10:31 AM
I find the Canadian prejudice against Sikhs fascinating. I've never heard of that in the US, nor had I previously heard of it in Canada. As far as Sikhs being insulting by being called Hindus: since one of the tenets of Sikhism is that all religions are true and equal to Sikhism, a Sikh would find it merely amusing, and not at all insulting, to be confused with a Hindu or called Hindu as an insult.
I guess you have to be Canadian to see "Hindu" as an insult, as CC notes.
Ah I'm glad we have grumbler here to tell us what Sikhs think.
Yeah, I have noticed that not many people here have much understanding of the non-Judeo-Christian religions, so I'm glad to provide the understanding that makes you happy. :cheers:
We are all grateful for your ability to search google and then pass yourself off as an expert in Sikh thought.