Anti-Redskins add to run during game 3 of NBA finals

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by T@T

Do you seriously think Redskin is on the same plain for racism as Slanty-eye?

This whole thing is beyond stupid IMO.

The fact that it is even a discussion is exactly that - stupid. It is stupid that a racist name is allowed to exist in sports. Stupid that the owner is opposing it. Stupid that folks actually try to argue NOT to change the name. Stupid that people don't seem to grasp that the name Redskin is on the some plain as Slanty-eye.

Yup.

Stupid indeed.

[JiriHrdina]

A slightly old column from Bill Simmons on this:
http://grantland.com/features/rename...gton-redskins/

"I fear you’ll find out the hard way that if your team name only exists because there happened to have been a genocide, then it might be time to think up a new name."

Seriously how can anyone in their right mind disagree with this?

CORRECTION: The column is on Grantland but is from Dave Zirin.

[dissentowner]

It is an obvious racist name against people who were here long before the white man was. Should not even be a discussion, change it.

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

The thing is that at some point, in the near future the name WILL be changed. And years later we will all look back and feel embarrassed that it didn't happen sooner (if we don't feel that way already). It is inevitable.

So just get on with it already and CHANGE THE DAMN NAME.

Absolutely right.

The name will change and it will be because of public education and pressure from ads like this. Good ad by the way. Advertisers and sponsors will begin to stray away from endorsing the team when they start to hear about it from their customers. As soon as Snyder begins to lose any revenue you can bet the name will change. At the moment, I don't believe there's been any negative financial impact but the tide is certainly shifting in that direction. Money talks.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

The thing is that at some point, in the near future the name WILL be changed. And years later we will all look back and feel embarrassed that it didn't happen sooner (if we don't feel that way already). It is inevitable.

So just get on with it already and CHANGE THE DAMN NAME.

Sorry Jiri. It won't change nor should it.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Sorry Jiri. It won't change nor should it.

To quote Dave Zirin from that column I posted:

History tends to be unkind to those who make bold proclamations against change.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Sorry Jiri. It won't change nor should it.

Never much of a progressive eh?

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

To quote Dave Zirin from that column I posted:

History tends to be unkind to those who make bold proclamations against change.

Just telling you it's not going to happen.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by strombad

Never much of a progressive eh?

I just don't believe it's a racist term nor was that ever the intention of the name when chosen by the franchise. Politics and sports don't mix especially when it's arguably the most powerful sports league in the world with the best lawyers money can buy.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I just don't believe it's a racist term nor was that ever the intention of the name when chosen by the franchise.

You honestly believe that? You seem like an intelligent guy overall, I can't believe you'd be unintelligent when it comes to this.

It's obviously racist.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by nik-

You honestly believe that? You seem like an intelligent guy overall, I can't believe you'd be unintelligent when it comes to this.

It's obviously racist.

Did you read the article I posted in its entirety? Why do you guys think it's racist? Because a small group of lobbyists told you it was? I personally believe history matters and I don't fall in line with those that like to pick and choose their own versions of history to suit their own personal cause.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I just don't believe it's a racist term nor was that ever the intention of the name when chosen by the franchise.

That seems to be pretty common with you, but I just think you seem to ignore what is going on around you and the power of these movements just because you "don't believe" in the cause.

Redskins is racist. That's not a logically debatable statement, it's simply fact.

You can think what you want, but the name will change, it along worth a few others I'm sure.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Did you read the article I posted in its entirety? Why do you guys think it's racist? Because a small group of lobbyists told you it was?

The article is irrelevant.

If a portion of the group for which the term is targeted finds it racist - it IS racist.

The true origins of the word don't matter even a little bit.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by strombad

That seems to be pretty common with you, but I just think you seem to ignore what is going on around you and the power of these movements just because you "don't believe" in the cause.

Redskins is racist. That's not a logically debatable statement, it's simply fact.

You can think what you want, but the name will change, it along worth a few others I'm sure.

Show me the facts. I already provided an article that was factual.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Until this is about money then nothing will be done. The only reason Sterling was banned was because it affected the bottom line. If you knew even a little about Sterling before this you knew he was a racist, but it didn't hurt business before. This time it did. Same has to happen for the Redskins to change.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Did you read the article I posted in its entirety? Why do you guys think it's racist? Because a small group of lobbyists told you it was? I personally believe history matters and I don't fall in line with those that like to pick and choose their own versions of history to suit their own personal cause.

I think it's racist because if you applied a similar term to any other minority group it would be really racist. So there's no difference. "The Red Man" "Redskin" it's the same thing.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

The article is irrelevant.

If a portion of the group for which the term is targeted finds it racist - it IS racist.

The true origins of the word don't matter even a little bit.

Why Jiri? Exactly when did it become racist?

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by nik-

I think it's racist because if you applied a similar term to any other minority group it would be really racist. So there's no difference. "The Red Man" "Redskin" it's the same thing.

So Red Man is somehow worse than Indian? Technically Indian or Eskimos is akin to calling a team the Asian's with a logo depicting an Asian man's face. Like I said in another thread you either force all the teams with names using a race of people or you leave them all alone.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Show me the facts. I already provided an article that was factual.

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwor...ly-word-151717
The trademark Redskins was declared harmful by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, Redskins is a pejorative term for Native Americans and is a registered trademark that disparages an entire group and perpetuates a centuries old stereotype. The logo and term Redskins should never have been registered as a federally protected trademark, according to the report.

http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/208...ngton-redskins
The current chairman and chief of the Penobscot Nation, Chief Kirk Francis, recently declared that “redskins” is “not just a racial slur or a derogatory term” but a painful “reminder of one of the most gruesome acts of ... ethnic cleansing ever committed against [our] people.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel...b_3210179.html
I mean, literally -- if you look up the word Redskin in the dictionary, it's defined simply as, "Used as a disparaging term for a Native American." This isn't even really debatable, the name is offensive not because of any sort of allusion or interpretation -- it's defined as a racial slur.

http://deadspin.com/redskins-a-nativ...ous-1445909360
Whether or not the term "Redskin" is inherently racist is the wrong question. The more appropriate question is, "Would it be acceptable to name a professional sports team according to the color of someone else's skin?" Would it ever be cool to have a sports team called the Washington Blackskins? It seems appropriate; D.C. is Chocolate City. But, um, hell no. San Francisco Yellowskins? Naw, cousin. Won't work.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

So Red Man is somehow worse than Indian? Technically Indian or Eskimos is akin to calling a team the Asian's with a logo depicting an Asian man's face. Like I said in another thread you either force all the teams with names using a race of people or you leave them all alone.

Well a lot of people are pissed off over the Chief Wahoo too.