Moderator: Community Team
Metsfanmax wrote:I think that it became legit when Bob Costas weighed in.
saxitoxin wrote:Serbia is a RUDE DUDE
may not be a PRUDE, but he's gotta 'TUDE
might not be LEWD, but he's gonna get BOOED
RUDE
thegreekdog wrote:This topic is from another thread (as to whether morality is inherent or changing... I'm sure someone will come up with better words).
Over the past few months, media, entertainment, and political folks have been increasingly up in arms over the football team name "Redskins" (Washington's NFL team). The issue is the bigotry associated with the name (not just the skin color reference, but the history behind the term itself and the people associated with the term). While I'm not offended by the name, I see no compelling reason to keep the name if other folks are offended.
What is annoying me is that these media, entertainment, and political folks are coming out of the proverbial woodwork to be the most vehement that the name needs to change. Now, the Washington team has had this name since 1933 (they were the Boston Braves in 1932). Many of these media, entertainment, and political figures have had active and public voices in the United States long before 2013. So, why the vehemence and outrage now? Why not in 1947 or 1972 or 1986 or 1999 or 2008 or 2012?
The basic questions are these:
- Is this name more offensive in 2013 than it was in any other period since 1933?
- Why do people feel the need to be outraged now and not in any other period since 1933?
- How much weight do we place on the opinions of people who used the term "Redskins" profusely for years before suddenly changing their values and/or moral compass in 2013?
*Fun note - The Tampa Bay Rays were formerly called the Tampa Bay Devil Rays. A group of Christians got the name changed a few years ago, even though a devil ray is an actual, you know, animal.
The Redskins thing is simply a vocal group imposing it's influence unduly and the team (potentially) caving to a special interest group.
mrswdk wrote:African American Socks. Get with the times, boy.
saxitoxin wrote:Serbia is a RUDE DUDE
may not be a PRUDE, but he's gotta 'TUDE
might not be LEWD, but he's gonna get BOOED
RUDE
mrswdk wrote:Boston Black Sox.
saxitoxin wrote:Serbia is a RUDE DUDE
may not be a PRUDE, but he's gotta 'TUDE
might not be LEWD, but he's gonna get BOOED
RUDE
Serbia wrote:Blue Jays.
Bollocks.
Night Strike wrote:Serbia wrote:Blue Jays.
Bollocks.
They're still stuck in Canada.....do they really count as an MLB team?![]()
And thanks, I knew I was forgetting somebody
notyou2 wrote:Night Strike wrote:Serbia wrote:Blue Jays.
Bollocks.
They're still stuck in Canada.....do they really count as an MLB team?![]()
And thanks, I knew I was forgetting somebody
Please elaborate on what you mean by "stuck in Canada".
saxitoxin wrote:Serbia is a RUDE DUDE
may not be a PRUDE, but he's gotta 'TUDE
might not be LEWD, but he's gonna get BOOED
RUDE
Serbia wrote:notyou2 wrote:Night Strike wrote:Serbia wrote:Blue Jays.
Bollocks.
They're still stuck in Canada.....do they really count as an MLB team?![]()
And thanks, I knew I was forgetting somebody
Please elaborate on what you mean by "stuck in Canada".
Maybe their travel visas expired.
Bollocks.
Night Strike wrote:Serbia wrote:Blue Jays.
Bollocks.
They're still stuck in Canada.....do they really count as an MLB team?![]()
And thanks, I knew I was forgetting somebody
Nobunaga wrote:The Redskins thing is simply a vocal group imposing it's influence unduly and the team (potentially) caving to a special interest group.
Switch Devil Rays for Redskins in that sentence. I see no real difference.
I do agree that the term Redskins might be offensive - I can imagine not liking that much were I of native blood.
But the question remains - Can a privately owned company be forced to change its name because some people are offended?
Phatscotty wrote:What about the 50-60-70-80 and 90% Native American Indian schools who rock the name 'Redskins' on their sports teams....do we have to teach them to be offended too
but hey if the native americans do not have an issue with it then I share their view.
notyou2 wrote:I feel that "Redskins" is offensive, because it is a derogatory name, but not necessarily "Chiefs or Braves". Calling a native "chief" is derogatory if he isn't a chief, but speaking of chiefs isn't.
Phatscotty wrote:What about the 50-60-70-80 and 90% Native American Indian schools who rock the name 'Redskins' on their sports teams....do we have to teach them to be offended too
Cu I'm guessing this is the new racism of our time where everyone can do it EXCEPT white people
Users browsing this forum: No registered users