pdaj said:
K.C.'s AA team is in Springdale, AR, and they are called the Naturals:
http://www.milb.com/index.jsp?sid=t1350
More so for Arkansas being "The Natural State" vs the movie, but they claim it's a combination of both.
Palefaces: Redskins' Name OK
- Thread starter Marbleheader
- Start date
- Status
K.C.'s AA team is in Springdale, AR, and they are called the Naturals:
http://www.milb.com/index.jsp?sid=t1350
More so for Arkansas being "The Natural State" vs the movie, but they claim it's a combination of both.
DrewDawg said:
Last time I saw a bunch of these was walking the boardwalk in Virginia Beach. Each store had one displayed in the window.
Looks like it. I'm trying to figure out what his hat is in the first one, though.DrewDawg said:
https://twitter.com/maddogunleashed/status/332921553429884928
@MadDogUnleashed: Daniel Snyder is 100% right. Never change the Washington Redskins name. They've been the Redskins for 80 years and suddenly we're offended?
@MadDogUnleashed: Daniel Snyder is 100% right. Never change the Washington Redskins name. They've been the Redskins for 80 years and suddenly we're offended?
So, I'm sure that Dan "That's Anti-Semitic" Snyder isn't changing the name short of a Supreme Court decision, which puts any action off for a long time.
Unless Robert Griffin III can be convinced to make this an issue. Something along the lines of a twitter message saying "Never understood the team name was a racial slur. I apologize. I would not play for a team called the Negros and I'm not going to play for a team called the Redskins. So, change the name or trade me."
Name change paperwork would be filed with the NFL by noon the next day, problem solved. Danny Boy needs to be reminded who is actually important. Franchise QB? Yep. Shithead owner? Not so much.
Unless Robert Griffin III can be convinced to make this an issue. Something along the lines of a twitter message saying "Never understood the team name was a racial slur. I apologize. I would not play for a team called the Negros and I'm not going to play for a team called the Redskins. So, change the name or trade me."
Name change paperwork would be filed with the NFL by noon the next day, problem solved. Danny Boy needs to be reminded who is actually important. Franchise QB? Yep. Shithead owner? Not so much.
RGIII did tweet about it.
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/050213-654557-robert-griffin-attacks-tyranny-of-political-correctness.htm
Also, something I didn't know:
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/050213-654557-robert-griffin-attacks-tyranny-of-political-correctness.htm
Also, something I didn't know:
Of course it isn;t clear if the story is true, and even more interesting there is some doubt whether Dietz was really Native American. The story first came up when he tried to use it to get out of the draft in 1918, the story he and his mother told is that her baby was stillborn so her husband went and got a baby from a Native American girl he had impregnated.DrewDawg said:
DrewDawg said:
I'm too lazy to look up a source past Wikipedia. Go here and follow the footnotes.
Short version: Washington's team name was adopted to honor a guy who claimed to be Native American, but was proved to be a liar, twice, in a court of law. He was an identity thief.
Yeah, I never bought the Lone Star Dietz story. The team was named the Boston Braves because they played in Braves field and switched to Redskins when they moved to Fenway. (Fun fact: the last time the Lions beat the Redskins on the road, the game was played in Fenway.) It appears to me that Redskins was just an evolution (or devolution, if you prefer) from the original Braves name. I think the Dietz thing was just a neat (if fraudulent*) coincidence that the team and/or media was willing to play up.
DrewDawg said:
No inference taken. We're cool.
As a long-time follower of this controversy (I once met one of the plaintiffs in one of the suits filed in the late 80s), I've long found the "but we named the team after Dietz!" objection to be akin to the "I have a black friend!" line.
Of all the BS involved in this case, actual Native Americans find the invocation of Dietz to be the most offensive part because Dietz tried to squirm out of military service with his lies about being Native American. Having talked to many Native American veterans of WWII, the combination of fake indian + draft dodger makes Dietz a particularly reviled figure.
soxfan121 said:
So it would be more like the equivalent of "but I have a black friend!" but that friend turns out to be a douchebag racist in blackface...?
soxfan121 said:
Plus the 'we named the team after Dietz' thing is obviously a lie. They were called the Braves when they played on the same field as the Boston Braves baseball team. Then they moved to the same field that the Boston Red Sox played on and their team name was changed to the Red... skins. Obviously, they were playing off the Red Sox name.
drleather2001 said:
It's meme-worthily dumb. You can insert any bad thing that was going on for decades.
"We've been segregating facilities for decades, and suddenly we're offended?"
"We've been selling weaponry to regimes with horrible human rights records for decades, and suddenly we're offended?"
"We've been throwing Christians to the lions for decades, and suddenly we're offended?"
I am trying to figure out why the hell Redskins would also be the mascot name for a school in Navajo nation.
http://nhonews.com/Main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=15418
So depending WHERE the name is used and who uses it, it is ok. Its offensive or it is not, cant have it both ways here.
http://nhonews.com/Main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=15418
So depending WHERE the name is used and who uses it, it is ok. Its offensive or it is not, cant have it both ways here.
riboflav said:
Worth noting in this context that neither group believes whites can use it. It may or may not be OK for the high school to use it. Either way, it's not OK for the NFL Franchise to use it.
Nobody was making a big stink of this for a very long time so why now? Let's stop acting like native americans and all black people would go out of their way to change the name of the Kentucky Palefaces if they existed. Nobody is running around worried about the 'fighting irish' or the Boston University ShutUpAndGetMeABeer's. That's their name, right?
Is it racist when used in the original term? Yes. It is unacceptable behavior? Yes, or course! If I cured cancer and blew up Yankee stadium would I still get creamed for this post? Yes. Do I care? Donkey Balls. Continuing...
Do native americans spend hours crying about the holocaust? No. Move on god damnit.
This is such pc nonsense. Ask a native american what they think of us and they'll tell you things that'll make your pale faces blush. Ask the average white person about what they think of native americans and it's nothing but ass kissing and guilt. Which, to a degree, is very respectful but it highlights why these pc gymnastics are not necessary. Few countries have opened its doors to as many different cultures nor highlighted their ugly racist pass like our country has. No need to have random bullies abuse it more for the sake of power or some other b.s cause ($$). The point is that the COUNTRY needs to be less racist (that counts non white people, sorry) and the opportunities need to exist for all and all people need to feel they can live a quality life - that is what should matter most - and for the majority of this nation to be honest with our past and not pretend it didn't exist. That is more important than crying about the name of a team owned by a scumbag who will hopefully watch his QB fall into a sinkhole in week 3 (go giants).
Let's move on - but I'll make a deal with you. When the dolphins move to Alabama and are called the Alabama N--erCottonPickers then we can start a new thread asking for the NFL to change the name. Until then, breathe slowly (I bet half this board fainted by now) and hope Gronk's arm doesn't gangrene. That's more god damn important. (Awaits banning. Waives goodbye. Tips hat and thanks you all for the fish)
Is it racist when used in the original term? Yes. It is unacceptable behavior? Yes, or course! If I cured cancer and blew up Yankee stadium would I still get creamed for this post? Yes. Do I care? Donkey Balls. Continuing...
Do native americans spend hours crying about the holocaust? No. Move on god damnit.
This is such pc nonsense. Ask a native american what they think of us and they'll tell you things that'll make your pale faces blush. Ask the average white person about what they think of native americans and it's nothing but ass kissing and guilt. Which, to a degree, is very respectful but it highlights why these pc gymnastics are not necessary. Few countries have opened its doors to as many different cultures nor highlighted their ugly racist pass like our country has. No need to have random bullies abuse it more for the sake of power or some other b.s cause ($$). The point is that the COUNTRY needs to be less racist (that counts non white people, sorry) and the opportunities need to exist for all and all people need to feel they can live a quality life - that is what should matter most - and for the majority of this nation to be honest with our past and not pretend it didn't exist. That is more important than crying about the name of a team owned by a scumbag who will hopefully watch his QB fall into a sinkhole in week 3 (go giants).
Let's move on - but I'll make a deal with you. When the dolphins move to Alabama and are called the Alabama N--erCottonPickers then we can start a new thread asking for the NFL to change the name. Until then, breathe slowly (I bet half this board fainted by now) and hope Gronk's arm doesn't gangrene. That's more god damn important. (Awaits banning. Waives goodbye. Tips hat and thanks you all for the fish)
Jesus, I don't even know where to start with this one.
Let's start here.
B) Small sample size, but of my Native American friends (which, SSS, numbers at about 3), not one of them has expressed any anti-White folk sentiment to me, or on any form of social media I've seen them on. Anti-government, perhaps, but not anti-White Folk
And last, but not least,
All I'm hearing is "Whaa Whaa people can say mean things about white people but we can't say mean things about them!". Which, while usually true, is pretty much a self inflicted wound on this country. "Not running from our past", as you so eloquently put it, isn't anything you seemed to advocate at all. It's acknowledging that there are a lot of groups in this country that have dealt with, and still deal with, institutional racism. And making it clear that racist terms are not allowable in the every day lexicon is a good way to help put that IN the past. That whole entire post read like something out of the N*****-guy episode of South Park.
Let's start here.
I don't understand why this right here is not enough.
They may not, but I'm pretty sure if there were a team called the Kansas Kikes, most Native Americans would agree it wasn't appropriate.
A) Wow. Jeez. It's almost as if there were some kind of history or event that "white people" are ashamed of that would prejudice Native Americans against them!
B) Small sample size, but of my Native American friends (which, SSS, numbers at about 3), not one of them has expressed any anti-White folk sentiment to me, or on any form of social media I've seen them on. Anti-government, perhaps, but not anti-White Folk
Exactly what is this abuse you're claiming? The quest for the bill to remove the trademark is not a lawsuit for damages, or money, or anything of the sort. It's a way to have them change the team name. No money would be paid out by Snyder or the Redskins organization to anyone.
And last, but not least,
Even if this were true, which I'm not conceding, your point is what? "Don't be better than that, set the bar lower"?
All I'm hearing is "Whaa Whaa people can say mean things about white people but we can't say mean things about them!". Which, while usually true, is pretty much a self inflicted wound on this country. "Not running from our past", as you so eloquently put it, isn't anything you seemed to advocate at all. It's acknowledging that there are a lot of groups in this country that have dealt with, and still deal with, institutional racism. And making it clear that racist terms are not allowable in the every day lexicon is a good way to help put that IN the past. That whole entire post read like something out of the N*****-guy episode of South Park.
Have you asked them about the Washington Redskins? SSS for sure, but I'm always curious. The only American Indian I've heard in person answer the question was a huge fan of the name.PBDWake said:
I am friends with some Native Americans. When asked about the Redskins, or other instances of white America continuing to be vaguely racist (mostly through most of America pretending they don't exist), they mostly roll their eyes and laugh in that sad, exhausted, way that signals "Yea, well, what can you do, right?"
Most NA's (the ones I know prefer the term Indians, because it isn't a white-washing (pun intended) of their history with white people) have far bigger problems, like having no money, car, suffering from severe alcoholism, or living in a storage shed on some sun-burnt reservation. But that doesn't mean smaller issues should be ignored. White people came up with the ugly name Redskins; it's just as much white people's responsibility to stop using it as much as anyone else's.
Most NA's (the ones I know prefer the term Indians, because it isn't a white-washing (pun intended) of their history with white people) have far bigger problems, like having no money, car, suffering from severe alcoholism, or living in a storage shed on some sun-burnt reservation. But that doesn't mean smaller issues should be ignored. White people came up with the ugly name Redskins; it's just as much white people's responsibility to stop using it as much as anyone else's.
Because, given the 'awaits banning' comment, he's playing the martyr gambit, imagining that he's saying something bold and insightful that 'pc culture' doesn't 'let' him say, and that some kind of liberal elite is going to smack him down for his 'courage.' Therefore, banning just feeds the troll and confirms his dipshit worldview. Relentless mockery is the better option.
I'm not a liberal. I am a moderate and generally go issue by issue. I hate political labels. That being said what abty said is... well... I don't think it should make him welcome here. It's ignorant and offensive. It's partly what he said and also how he said it. He'd have to try hard to be more offensive.
If he hangs around, he might see how wrong he is. If he's banned, he'll find some sympathetic echo chamber to reinforce his views.
I think, people having noted how bad that post is, we can just leave it and get on with the discussion?
I submit: The Washington Impeachment Proceedings.
I think, people having noted how bad that post is, we can just leave it and get on with the discussion?
I submit: The Washington Impeachment Proceedings.
What I don't really get is why anyone gives a shit about maintaining a team name for 'historical' reasons. It's such a meaningless thing. So many team's names are completely random and stupid anyways. Plus, the way teams move from city to city, who gives a fuck?
First off I'm not an accountant,but i know enough to get into trouble.
I wonder if there is a financial/accounting/tax reason that Snyder is against changing the name. When he acquired the team ($800 million) a significant part of that acquisition price was probably for "goodwill", ie. the name and trademarks etc. of the team that are identified as important to future revenue generation. I'm just speculating, but if the name & trademarks of the franchise are changed and deemed no longer critical to future revenue generation, it might either require an accelerated write-off of the goodwill, or call into question past and future taxes.
I wonder if there is a financial/accounting/tax reason that Snyder is against changing the name. When he acquired the team ($800 million) a significant part of that acquisition price was probably for "goodwill", ie. the name and trademarks etc. of the team that are identified as important to future revenue generation. I'm just speculating, but if the name & trademarks of the franchise are changed and deemed no longer critical to future revenue generation, it might either require an accelerated write-off of the goodwill, or call into question past and future taxes.
Super Nomario said:
I'm happy about this in a perverted way. Snyder's insistence on keeping the name and his refusal to even acknowledge that it's offensive just make it easier to hate the team. My Redskins hatred started on October 27, 1986, my first fall in the DC area, when I couldn't get a bar to put on Game 7 of the World Series (on even 1 of about a half dozen TVs) because the Redskins were playing on Monday Night Football. It only grew over the years, thanks to the completely disproportionate interest in the team down here. (The all-consuming Redskins mania in DC has diminished over the tenure of the Snyder era, but 20 years ago, if you were out shopping or doing something else during a Skins game, people reacted like there must be something wrong with you.) Thanks in large part to RGIII, I actually found my dislike of the Redskins tempering a bit last season for the first time, notwithstanding Snyder's prior douchebaggery. Now I feel a renewed enthusiasm for my abject hatred for the team, the organization and the owner and I will resume actively rooting against them every week (like I have for most of the last 27 years).
Abty's "Tom Brady isn't that great because Matt Cassel led the Pats to 11 wins" is still far more offensive.
I'm Irish. I think the ND logo is 100 kinds of offensive Punch magazine caricature of the Irish. And similarly, I think that Chief Wahoo and the redskins are fucked up and racist.teddykgb said:
Old Fart Tree said:
At the risk of getting off topic, I've often thought about the possible offensiveness of the ND logo/mascot.
Recently though - actually, since the start of this thread which has prompted me to start thinking about such things more - I've come to realize that the logo is a leprechaun, not an Irish person (that was probably obvious to most people). I think I only associated "fighting" with a negative stereotype of the Irish (as in drunken aggression, Irish are associated with drinking...) since I saw that Simpsons episode where there was a St. Patrick's Day parade float dedicated to drunken Irish poets that stops to let them get off and beat up people or something. Also, IIRC, there was an old SNL recurring skit about a morning TV show in Ireland where the father/son hosts drank and fought every episode. Now that I thought it through, however, I'm pretty sure that it is meant in the same sense as the Muskingum Fighting Muskies, the Campbell Fighting Camels, or the Carroll Fighting Saints; that is, as in "our team fights really hard" as opposed to "the preceding noun is something aggressive that fights a lot".
So, now I think that there is no reason to find it offensive. Maybe I'm being naive here, but I don't think so. Rather, I think that it's just that I hadn't thought it through before.
In all seriousness, I'd love to hear opposing views because maybe I'm missing something.
Super Nomario said:
Full disclosure: I particularly like Ireland, the Irish people in general, their art/music/culture, their beer and their whiskey. I am only moderately drunk right now; but I'm not Irish, though sometimes I wish I were.
- Status