Changing a name is really easy. Snyder could do it in about a day. He just doesn't want to.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Changing a name is really easy. Snyder could do it in about a day. He just doesn't want to.
What money is being spent? You think polls and articles and all the things bitching about the Redskins name are free? It may not be a fortune but if these people would shut the hell up and donate the pennies they waste to issues than matter to native people it might actually make a difference.
And you proved exactly why it is hard to change, sure it would be easy for Snyder to change it but trying to force someone to change their way of thinking is probably the most difficult thing to do and exactly why it will never happen.
The polls and articles are actually revenue generating items... they make money, they don't spend it. No one's writing an article if there isn't revenue in it, page clicks or otherwise. It seems like your real issue here is that people are expending energy on this, not money. Which is tantamount to saying that people care about something you don't think they should care about... fair enough, but come on, since when is that news.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
To me, this is a complete waste of time, effort and money. Are some people offended by the names of the indians and redskins, of course they are. Are people offended about the Vikings, I'm sure there's some Sweedish person who is, heck I"m sure there's a homosexual out there who's probably offended by the team name the Flames. It seems that now a days everyone is offended by something and it actually seems like more of those people are the ones who have nothing to do with the actual "offensive" thing to begin with. My wife is Aboriginal/Indian/Native Canadian or whatever you want to call it and our son is 50%. She isn't offended by these names and she makes a great point about it all; these names weren't used to offend anyone to begin with, if anything they were used to show pride. The owners of these teams didn't name them these names because they were making fun of them, they gave them these names to empower them and their namesakes should feel proud of themselves. If all this goes through I really hope that Shawn Fanning, Sean Parker & John Fanning do everything they can to make Pittsburgh change the name of their baseball team.
__________________
Fan of the Flames, where being OK has become OK.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Poe969 For This Useful Post:
If changing a name was so easy it would be changed already. Look at all this money wasted on the name of a sports team when that money could be put to better use.
Naw...Snyder just doesn't want to do it. There's also a portion of the population who feels that casual racism of the 1930s is "tradition". I guess not offending "traditionalists" is something to worry about...
The Redskins also have a bit of a history. They were also the last team in the NFL to integrate, which didn't happen until 1962.
I also don't see the huge financial cost you're referring to. They'd have to change the name on the stadium outside. Logos get re-designed every few years anyways though, so that's probably not an actual cost. The Anaheim Mighty Ducks became the "Ducks" very recently. Was that a huge cost? Doubtful. Teams tweek their names and logos constantly.
To me, this is a complete waste of time, effort and money. Are some people offended by the names of the indians and redskins, of course they are. Are people offended about the Vikings, I'm sure there's some Sweedish person who is, heck I"m sure there's a homosexual out there who's probably offended by the team name the Flames. It seems that now a days everyone is offended by something and it actually seems like more of those people are the ones who have nothing to do with the actual "offensive" thing to begin with. My wife is Aboriginal/Indian/Native Canadian or whatever you want to call it and our son is 50%. She isn't offended by these names and she makes a great point about it all; these names weren't used to offend anyone to begin with, if anything they were used to show pride. The owners of these teams didn't name them these names because they were making fun of them, they gave them these names to empower them and their namesakes should feel proud of themselves. If all this goes through I really hope that Shawn Fanning, Sean Parker & John Fanning do everything they can to make Pittsburgh change the name of their baseball team.
Are you seriously comparing the actual name of a long-departed group to a term that is more akin to the N-word, or similar ethnic slurs? I don't have an issue with, for example, the Seminoles (as long as they don't). But "Redskins" is not a comparable.
if you think Redskins is at the same level as the N word then I think you're one of those people who will be offended by anything, including any answer I can provide. Maybe it's just me and the people I know but I haven't met anyone who's offended by the team name Redskins
__________________
Fan of the Flames, where being OK has become OK.
I mean, "Redskins" obviously not the same as the N word. That should be fairly obvious to anyone just on the basis that we're all quite happily saying "Redskins" in here, but cannot bring ourselves to say the actual N word. However, they're also clearly analogous.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
if you think Redskins is at the same level as the N word then I think you're one of those people who will be offended by anything, including any answer I can provide. Maybe it's just me and the people I know but I haven't met anyone who's offended by the team name Redskins
Not equal to, but in the same vein. It's a slur. Here's a test: walk up to a Norwegian-Calgarian and call him a Viking. Now walk over to the Tsu T'inna and start calling people Redskins. See if there's any difference in reaction.
if you think Redskins is at the same level as the N word then I think you're one of those people who will be offended by anything, including any answer I can provide. Maybe it's just me and the people I know but I haven't met anyone who's offended by the team name Redskins
Now you have.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to GioforPM For This Useful Post:
Not equal to, but in the same vein. It's a slur. Here's a test: walk up to a Norwegian-Calgarian and call him a Viking. Now walk over to the Tsu T'inna and start calling people Redskins. See if there's any difference in reaction.
Considering the poll that this bump is all about, I'm not sure the reaction would be all that much different.
The Following User Says Thank You to RyZ For This Useful Post:
I mean, "Redskins" obviously not the same as the N word. That should be fairly obvious to anyone just on the basis that we're all quite happily saying "Redskins" in here, but cannot bring ourselves to say the actual N word. However, they're also clearly analogous.
NSFW
Count me as a guy who doesn't care. Wouldn't care if the new Vegas team was called Las Vegas Crackers.
If we really are living in free country shouldn't a man be able to name his football team whatever he wants?
The problem is that there are a growing amount of people who think that if they are offended by something their rights have somehow been violated. Nobody has the right to never be offended.
If you find the name Redskins to be offensive, that's fine. But it is not Dan Snyders issue. It's yours.
If we really are living in free country shouldn't a man be able to name his football team whatever he wants?
The problem is that there are a growing amount of people who think that if they are offended by something their rights have somehow been violated. Nobody has the right to never be offended.
If you find the name Redskins to be offensive, that's fine. But it is not Dan Snyders issue. It's yours.
so if I"m offended by people who get offended easily, does it mean that you're not allowed to be offended because it's offensive to me or do we just have to deal with this like adults and move on?
This whole debate comes off as some people saying they don't like something so it should be changed no matter what. It's not illegal, it's not immoral and to most people it's not even offensive. It just seems like a small percentage of people beating the same drum over and over...wait, can I say beating a drum or is that racist in some way?
__________________
Fan of the Flames, where being OK has become OK.
so if I"m offended by people who get offended easily, does it mean that you're not allowed to be offended because it's offensive to me or do we just have to deal with this like adults and move on?
This whole debate comes off as some people saying they don't like something so it should be changed no matter what. It's not illegal, it's not immoral and to most people it's not even offensive. It just seems like a small percentage of people beating the same drum over and over...wait, can I say beating a drum or is that racist in some way?
I guess if "they" ever become a protected group? I think there's an obvious distinction between a minority group that was historically treated like they were and the group you mention.
Actually, no, I don't think there should be difference.
Anybody can rally a few people again anything, and suddenly it becomes something that the broader populace now needs to tippy-toe around.
Were native American's mistreated (both in Canada and the US)? Sure they were, no doubt. There are people here that can make the excellent case that they still are, but I'll leave that to those that know.
Does that mean that a small percentage of a minority group that was mistreated 250+ years ago should be able to carry more weight than a small percentage of a majority group that wasn't mistreated?
Of course not. Either way it is a minority share of the small percentage of people AFFECTED who are concerned about this (native Americans) and a small percentage of people who aren't who are busy telling EVERYONE that we should be concerned.
Can I admit that something that something is racist while also not being offended on behalf of others? Or is it all one way or the other.
Racism is the belief that a particular race is superior or inferior to another, that a person’s social and moral traits are predetermined by his or her inborn biological characteristics.
I would argue that the Logo and name are offensive, not racist.
