NFL rich guy says "Redskins" ok, Cherokee can't hold their whiskey


#1

[Read the post]


#2


#3


#4

You know, I think the Logo is fine, certainly they could come up with a better name with a less archaic term. We have had several NFL teams change identities in the past couple decades. The Chiefs have managed to have a non-offensive name or mascot or logo.

AND - think about it - it is a money making scheme. EVERYONE will have to get the new apparel, coffee mugs, car window flags, baby onesies, dog leashes, etc etc.


#5


#6

wow, old age gets to us all I guess, he forgot to even use the words squaw or papoose anywhere!


#7

Late stage capitalism?


#8

very late stage


#9

The problem with “Redskins” isn’t just that it is, as you say, archaic, but that its origins are in genocidal practices. Wikipedia: “Professor Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz states that the settlers were paid bounties and they gave a name to the mutilated and bloody corpses they left in the wake of scalp hunts: redskins.”

It’s as tasteful and appropriate as naming a football team the Gassed Jews.

As for the logo being okay, I think that judgment is best left to those people who are being caricatured. (Hint: they hate it.)


#10

Well if a billionaire says it’s okay, who am I to disagree?


#11
  1. The logo isn’t a caricature.

  2. The historical sources to suggest that “redskin” originated from and refers to bloody scalps from bounties is lacking. The evidence that it referred to the Native Americans and the general color of their skin is not. You can find examples of Indians using the term to describe themselves, as well as “whiteskins” to describe European settlers. http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2013/12/18/redskins_the_debate_over_the_washington_football_team_s_name_incorrectly.html

I think “colored” is a similar word - archaic, some times used as a derogatory term, at one point was considered the more polite term than others, and some times used as a self identifying term.


#12

Excellent video.


#13


#14

I’d be careful which neighborhoods you espouse that opinion in.


#16

The word is offensive on its own but that’s still only part of the problem. The real issue is turning an entire ethnic group into a mascot, particularly when that ethnic group was subjected to a generations-long genocidal campaign by the ancestors of the people who own the franchise.

Can you imagine a bunch of white people naming their sports franchise “The Washington Coloreds” or “The Cleveland Negroes”?


#17

Where did I disagree? Let me repeat my whole comment.

I’d be careful which neighborhoods you espouse that opinion in.


again… where did I even go anywhere near there?

Go attend to the windmills?


#18
  1. I don’t know how you are defining caricature, and I don’t want to debate it, but it is at the very least the misappropriation of cultural property.

  2. The slate article’s information is mixed; it even includes the information that "the 1898 Webster’s Collegiate dictionary labeled red-skin “often contemptuous,”… but more importantly, you are assuming that the only credible history is western academic history, and giving no credit at all to the oral traditions of native people. I lean in the other direction.

But it all comes down to this: what you think doesn’t matter; what I think doesn’t really matter, either, because I’m not Indian, and I would be willing to bet that you are not either. Indians don’t like the name, Indians don’t like the logo. They are the only legitimate stakeholders in this issue. You don’t get to decide if their grievances are valid; you do not own their identity.


#20

Says who?

The Kansas City Chiefs should also change their name to avoid giving offense, according to Amanda Blackhorse, the lead plaintiff in the case that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office just decided against the Redskins.

“I’m not sure there’s anything the [Chiefs] can do at this point other than look for another name,” Blackhorse told the Kansas City Star. “They could be the team that says, ‘You know what? We understand the issue and we don’t want to be Dan Snyder and fight this in court forever. We want to do the right thing and move forward and avoid this entire battle.’ I’m sure fans will be upset, but still, that’s doing the right thing. If they want to be sensitive to Native American people, that’s the thing to do.”


#31

i didn;t say you tried. i said you did.

Reflex requires zero trying, friend.

But hey, I’m probably not being clear again, amirite?


#33
  1. I have never said that If I am not offended, others don’t have the right to be. At the same time - and this is just bigger picture, not specific to this discussion - not every feeling every person has is 100% valid. ETA - including me.

  2. What have I been offended about? I can’t recall every expression being actually offended on BB, though I can’t remember everything. Something seems to be standing out in your mind.

  3. Don’t worry, I never leave my moms basement. All my Cheetos and Mt Dew are delivered by Amazon.

  4. I’ll be careful not saying “colored” around my GF or her neighborhood. Thanks for your concern.