How is this constitutional. Actually how is FCC censorship constitutional to begin with? Free country my ass.
So, you'd be totally cool with nudity, sexual content, cuss words, etc on TV then? Because, that's what you're saying.
You can't have it both ways. You're either against censorship of things that are, "OMG! Think of the children!" category or, you're completely against censorship and, you don't care what's out there for consumption.
everyone agrees the government has better things to do
Broadcasters should start calling them everything but Redskins and mock the FCC by saying the Washington "potato skins" "red hats" "thin skins" "red bloods.," etc.
the ox that the government wants to gore is something you like or a freedom you don't want to lose?
Wake-up people, this isn't about the use of the word, it's about being comfortable with giving the government the authority to decide for us what we can and cannot listen to or cheer for.
Four years ago, nobody cared now it's more of a government priority than protecting the president or controlling ebola.
RE: RE: While I can support them changing the name
How is this constitutional. Actually how is FCC censorship constitutional to begin with? Free country my ass.
So, you'd be totally cool with nudity, sexual content, cuss words, etc on TV then? Because, that's what you're saying.
You can't have it both ways. You're either against censorship of things that are, "OMG! Think of the children!" category or, you're completely against censorship and, you don't care what's out there for consumption.
I would be fine with eliminating that censorship. But I don't have TV, cable or satellite, so it wouldn't impact my life or my kids either way. I do have an issue with the precedent set with a move like this. If it were to happen though the bright side would be it screws with a division rival. Personally I have never understood the bugaboo about "curse words". The spoken language is limiting enough without eliminating the use of some words.
I was watching the "Chiefs" Monday. An Indian riding on a horse with a spear, Ikoye banging on a drum, tomahawk chops and indian chants from the fans. This is WAY more than the Redskins do.
Dislike Snyder, but what about the KC Chiefs, Cleveland Indiams, the Atlanta Braves, and many college teams?
I think they should change their name to the Washington War Party. Leave the logo just as it is.
I was watching the "Chiefs" Monday. An Indian riding on a horse with a spear, Ikoye banging on a drum, tomahawk chops and indian chants from the fans. This is WAY more than the Redskins do.
Dislike Snyder, but what about the KC Chiefs, Cleveland Indians, the Atlanta Braves, and many college teams?
I think they should change their name to the Washington War Party. Leave the logo just as it is.
But didn't Indians do all of those things? Riding horses, fighting with tomahawks, banging drums. I don't see the issue. Easy to get carried away with these things. The Redskins name is only offensive because of the "skin" part.
If anyone took the time to read instead of insist that America is going to become Totalitarian or applaud the FCC for taking the right steps proactively to resolve this would realize that this stems from a petition filed by a guy who seems to love to attach his name to lightning rod topics (smoking, obesity, etc.), with no additional content besides a 2 sentence soundbite from an FCC suit.
Just as the Phil Simms thread last week, where posters were criticizing him for being an activist and wearing his politics on his sleeve (when he was just answering a question as to whether or not he'd take advantage of the CBS Sports Exec's decision to allow broadcasters to choose whether or not they use the team) people are reacting to a single sentence headline and projecting the rest.
For those that can't be bothered to read - an apparent attention whore files a petition to prevent WWXX-FM (ESPN channel in DC) from renewing its licence due to using the term. FCC rep says they'll review, adds his opinion that the term is antiquated. Article goes on to state what could happen and how opinion on the term is changing. The government isn't censoring everything, there aren't going to be fines for using the term. This is one guy trying to make life even harder for the people keeping the name.
Big Brother is not leading an assault on your social liberties, but reading is pretty hard, huh?
RE: I don't understand why when some people are told
If anyone took the time to read instead of insist that America is going to become Totalitarian or applaud the FCC for taking the right steps proactively to resolve this would realize that this stems from a petition filed by a guy who seems to love to attach his name to lightning rod topics (smoking, obesity, etc.), with no additional content besides a 2 sentence soundbite from an FCC suit.
Just as the Phil Simms thread last week, where posters were criticizing him for being an activist and wearing his politics on his sleeve (when he was just answering a question as to whether or not he'd take advantage of the CBS Sports Exec's decision to allow broadcasters to choose whether or not they use the team) people are reacting to a single sentence headline and projecting the rest.
For those that can't be bothered to read - an apparent attention whore files a petition to prevent WWXX-FM (ESPN channel in DC) from renewing its licence due to using the term. FCC rep says they'll review, adds his opinion that the term is antiquated. Article goes on to state what could happen and how opinion on the term is changing. The government isn't censoring everything, there aren't going to be fines for using the term. This is one guy trying to make life even harder for the people keeping the name.
Big Brother is not leading an assault on your social liberties, but reading is pretty hard, huh?
If anyone took the time to read instead of insist that America is going to become Totalitarian or applaud the FCC for taking the right steps proactively to resolve this would realize that this stems from a petition filed by a guy who seems to love to attach his name to lightning rod topics (smoking, obesity, etc.), with no additional content besides a 2 sentence soundbite from an FCC suit.
Just as the Phil Simms thread last week, where posters were criticizing him for being an activist and wearing his politics on his sleeve (when he was just answering a question as to whether or not he'd take advantage of the CBS Sports Exec's decision to allow broadcasters to choose whether or not they use the team) people are reacting to a single sentence headline and projecting the rest.
For those that can't be bothered to read - an apparent attention whore files a petition to prevent WWXX-FM (ESPN channel in DC) from renewing its licence due to using the term. FCC rep says they'll review, adds his opinion that the term is antiquated. Article goes on to state what could happen and how opinion on the term is changing. The government isn't censoring everything, there aren't going to be fines for using the term. This is one guy trying to make life even harder for the people keeping the name.
Big Brother is not leading an assault on your social liberties, but reading is pretty hard, huh?
Well if they can't read then this post was for naught. =)
RE: I don't understand why when some people are told
In comment 11893425 Hammer said:
Who said this was a duplicate thread? [/quote]
It's not. But a duplicate thread to this one had to be locked because, for whatever reason, it wasn't deleted when the thread starter was made aware that it was a duplicate.
It would be really sad to see the Trail of Tears left behind as they watch 'Murica give way to these pussification efforts. I mean, their grandmother is 1/20th Injun and she doesn't care one bit. Just wait until the National Association of Individuals Taller than Average Height (NAITAH) come for our beloved Giants moniker. These slopes have never been slippier my friend.
It would be really sad to see the Trail of Tears left behind as they watch 'Murica give way to these pussification efforts. I mean, their grandmother is 1/20th Injun and she doesn't care one bit. Just wait until the National Association of Individuals Taller than Average Height (NAITAH) come for our beloved Giants moniker. These slopes have never been slippier my friend.
A listener filed a complaint, and the FCC is considering it. That is what they do. I have a lot of issues with the FCC (and I've worked in broadcasting for 25 years), but this isn't one of them.
It will not, and should not, pass. It has no support within the FCC. I despise the Redsk*ns name, but this is no way to go about changing it. You can't penalize a station for airing an organization's legal name.
The Redskins were founded in 1932 and it took over 80 years
to discover that that name was offensive to Native Americans? I don't think so. What about the four high schools with a large majority of Native American students that used the name Redskins for their team? They must be awfully stupid.
The fact is that this is about the media. They love to go on crusades like this one and bring down obnoxious people like Snyder. The media is relentless and they will win.
But then out of their great concern for Native Americans will they follow up with stories about the poverty, unemployment and drug abuse rampant on reservations? Of course not. Coverage of the Redskins' name brings out thousands of emotional partisans. Coverage of Native American unemployment just brings out yawns.
RE: The Redskins were founded in 1932 and it took over 80 years
to discover that that name was offensive to Native Americans? I don't think so. What about the four high schools with a large majority of Native American students that used the name Redskins for their team? They must be awfully stupid.
The fact is that this is about the media. They love to go on crusades like this one and bring down obnoxious people like Snyder. The media is relentless and they will win.
But then out of their great concern for Native Americans will they follow up with stories about the poverty, unemployment and drug abuse rampant on reservations? Of course not. Coverage of the Redskins' name brings out thousands of emotional partisans. Coverage of Native American unemployment just brings out yawns.
Same regurgitated bullshit. People have been bitching about the name for forty years. That people are listening now doesn't mean nobody was complaining decades ago. And to say that the American public could stand to care more about the people than a dumbshit mascot is perfectly fine, but it's a sad bit of dishonesty to pretend the name's backers give a shit about Native Americans.
Could you give an example of people bitching about the
Redskins name forty years ago. Or did you just pull that number out of your ass.
In 1968, the National Congress of Americans started a public initiative to remove offensive, denigrating or stereotypical depictions of themselves in pop culture and media. Included in the initiative were the Cleveland Indians and their logo (which would have a defamation lawsuit filed against in 1972) and the Washington Redskins - along with a number of other items.
That puts it at 46 years.
RE: RE: Could you give an example of people bitching about the
Redskins name forty years ago. Or did you just pull that number out of your ass.
In 1968, the National Congress of Americans started a public initiative to remove offensive, denigrating or stereotypical depictions of themselves in pop culture and media. Included in the initiative were the Cleveland Indians and their logo (which would have a defamation lawsuit filed against in 1972) and the Washington Redskins - along with a number of other items.
That puts it at 46 years.
National Congress of American Indians, that is.
RE: RE: Could you give an example of people bitching about the
Redskins name forty years ago. Or did you just pull that number out of your ass.
In 1968, the National Congress of Americans started a public initiative to remove offensive, denigrating or stereotypical depictions of themselves in pop culture and media. Included in the initiative were the Cleveland Indians and their logo (which would have a defamation lawsuit filed against in 1972) and the Washington Redskins - along with a number of other items.
That puts it at 46 years.
It's the job of organizations that have been formed to advance the causes of their group to come up with this shit. The usually self-appointed members just sit around and come up with stuff to complain about. That's why they're there, that's what they get paid to do -- to bring up an issue, complain about it and try to win everyone over to it.
When I was on the Board of Directors of the Writers Guild, we were called into a meeting with an outside group who were organized to "protect" Italian-Americans against the way they were portrayed on television shows. They had some letitimate objections, which everyone on the board took to heart, but there were also other demands that bordered on censorship. Don't use the word Mafia, don't give Italian names to members of the organization they didn't want us to mention, do more stories where Italians are great and good, don't show Italian Americans who speak English with an Italian accent ... and the list goes on. (Turns out one of the complainants was a guy I went to high school with. We went out later for something to eat and he sheepishly said that a bunch of the stuff the group had demanded were over the top, but ..... )
In the Redskin's case, they're helped by the development of political correctness and their zealots, the media who're looking for a hot story to fill all the time and space they have to fill, and elitist liberals who don't miss a chance to complain about the country in as many ways as they can.
The group says they speak for all Native Americans, and this is bullshit. They SAY they speak for them because that's what they say. They have to justify their jobs. So, instead of figuring ways to fight alcoholism among their people, ways to bring commerce to their people and handle the many problems that truly affect the daily lives of their people, they fight for this stupid name. Why? Because it's easy to do. Write press releases, make a few appearances and generally bitch about the name. The other stuff is too hard to do, so they avoid it.
Would it be all right if I object to the word "nigger" even if I don't work tirelessly to resolve the problems of black people?
How about a team named the Niggers? Would it be all right if I objected to that?
This is a very weak argument that totally misses the point of the post, which is to point out what I think and suspect is the dynamic at work in the entire issue.
It approaches apples vs. oranges. Everyone except racists know nigger is an historically hurtful and denigrating word.
Yes, there have been movies that used Redskins, as in Cowboys vs. Indians or Redskins, in the same manner
Are people these days going around calling a Native American, Redskin, as people referred to blacks as niggers, and sadly, still do. I'd be interested in you pointing out instances where the word is used in the country in that context.
The name as used is referring to the team has always meant something strong and positive. The complainers are hijacking that use and trying to replace it with what they SAY is insulting. Does the native american population feel this way? You don't know, and that's what counts, not what these groups say.
I don't think native americans think as a monolith. And I think it is the nfl franchise that hijacked an offensive term long ago and now claim it as noble for the simple reason of it having survived a few decades.
I don't think native americans think as a monolith. And I think it is the nfl franchise that hijacked an offensive term long ago and now claim it as noble for the simple reason of it having survived a few decades.
I agree about your "monolith" observation which, if so, sheds doubt on how "offensive" the native american population thinks the word, in the TEAM context, is.
I take your point about the NFL "hijacking" an offensive term and translating into something noble. It's a plausible explanation.
But let me ask you this: Back then, why would a professional sport's team hijack an "offensive term" as its franchise name and logo? Why would you go to the trouble of trying to re-define a word that everyone might think is offensive? You're in a business. Why make decisions that would harm your ability to make money.
If it was offensive back then, would you as a franchise owner say, "hey, let's use Redskins." Common sense suggests to me that that's highly improbable scenario.
I see what you're saying. So, yes, Marshall was a racist.
But unless you were in his mind, or show some evidence of Marshall's motive for naming the team "Redskins" you can't really make that statement.
Look at the long picture. If you're right Marshall's thought process may have gone something like this: Hmmm, I hate everything not white and not wasp. So I want my team's name to somehow represent that hate. Hmmmm, can't name them kikes, or dagos, or micks, or niggers (or even negros -- . I know, I'll name my team "Redskins." That'll get them. Cowboy movies say it so I got some cover there. Washington Redskins. Everytime anyone says it, it'll be a slap in the face to indians. Yeah, that's great." This is moronic, not racist, IMO.
They were the Braves. They also had massive financial loses in their first year of operation.
He renamed them "Redskins" - likely to tie into the team that shared their stadium at Fenway (the Red Sox, obviously), but this was also at the height of Native-sploitation (if that term even exists). There was a national curiosity with Native American athletes in that period of time, spurred on by the likes of Jim Thorpe, etc.
To capitalize, Marshall turned up the "red face" to 11, hiring a coach that was faking his Native heritage (Dietz) and going as far as to reportedly asking him to come out in full regalia (complete with headdress) and launching a media bonanza to attract an audience to a floundering team by latching onto some of the "big deals" of that time - those with association to Pop Warner, Native Athletes, etc.
Then again, this was the man who spearheaded keeping the league segregated and proudly played Dixie before home games. Only federal intervention in the early 60s lead to the team allowing anyone of color to join the team. Getting inside the head of Marshall would likely be an uncomfortable situation for most.
I think the reality is likely it was a cheap marketing campaign by a renowned racist to attempt to get people into the stands, being revised by both sides - one side applying Marshall's awful track record as a human being as a slam dunk to show its clearly racist and the other revising history to imply they changed the name from "Brave" to "Redskin" to honor someone who wasn't even a Native American.
They were the Braves. They also had massive financial loses in their first year of operation.
He renamed them "Redskins" - likely to tie into the team that shared their stadium at Fenway (the Red Sox, obviously), but this was also at the height of Native-sploitation (if that term even exists). There was a national curiosity with Native American athletes in that period of time, spurred on by the likes of Jim Thorpe, etc.
To capitalize, Marshall turned up the "red face" to 11, hiring a coach that was faking his Native heritage (Dietz) and going as far as to reportedly asking him to come out in full regalia (complete with headdress) and launching a media bonanza to attract an audience to a floundering team by latching onto some of the "big deals" of that time - those with association to Pop Warner, Native Athletes, etc.
Then again, this was the man who spearheaded keeping the league segregated and proudly played Dixie before home games. Only federal intervention in the early 60s lead to the team allowing anyone of color to join the team. Getting inside the head of Marshall would likely be an uncomfortable situation for most.
I think the reality is likely it was a cheap marketing campaign by a renowned racist to attempt to get people into the stands, being revised by both sides - one side applying Marshall's awful track record as a human being as a slam dunk to show its clearly racist and the other revising history to imply they changed the name from "Brave" to "Redskin" to honor someone who wasn't even a Native American.
Forgot one line...
However, given the troubling nature of the term itself - especially in present-day society, I'm not sure the historical context of how the name was established is that relevant.
I suppose it's not possible that since Boston had a baseball team called "The Braves," he didn't want any marketing confusion and wanted to distinguish the team from the baseball team.
Whenever I say I'm a Giants fan, many, many people think I mean San Francisco.
But you all think his racism caused him to use Redskins, so be it. It's confirmation bias at its best.
i'm willing to see a change of name if even ten percent of the
Native Americans are offended by it. And "Indians" should go next since it shows a caricature of an Indian originally used when the "Indians" were thought to be in India.
The treatment of the American "Indians" is one of the darkest in our history, and almost nobody understands what we did. People actually think that Nixon deserved to be impeached for covering up a minor, inept burglary at the local Democratic headquarters. Andrew Jackson defied a direct order from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and ordered a march of the Cherokee from Florida to North Dakota. About 4,000 of the 15,000 involved died along the way. No calls for his impeachment.
Changing the name of the Redskins will not help any of the Native Americans. Since most are stuck on private reservations, Americans don't see their plight. The media when this stupid controversy is over or while it's going on should highlight the problems of the Indians. Obama should name a commission to investigate the problems and have it report back to Congress actions that can be taken to help.
RE: i'm willing to see a change of name if even ten percent of the
Native Americans are offended by it. And "Indians" should go next since it shows a caricature of an Indian originally used when the "Indians" were thought to be in India.
The treatment of the American "Indians" is one of the darkest in our history, and almost nobody understands what we did. People actually think that Nixon deserved to be impeached for covering up a minor, inept burglary at the local Democratic headquarters. Andrew Jackson defied a direct order from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and ordered a march of the Cherokee from Florida to North Dakota. About 4,000 of the 15,000 involved died along the way. No calls for his impeachment.
Changing the name of the Redskins will not help any of the Native Americans. Since most are stuck on private reservations, Americans don't see their plight. The media when this stupid controversy is over or while it's going on should highlight the problems of the Indians. Obama should name a commission to investigate the problems and have it report back to Congress actions that can be taken to help.
True and good. The only thing I fear about a commission is that in D.C. a commission stays a commission and nothing gets done.
So, you'd be totally cool with nudity, sexual content, cuss words, etc on TV then? Because, that's what you're saying.
You can't have it both ways. You're either against censorship of things that are, "OMG! Think of the children!" category or, you're completely against censorship and, you don't care what's out there for consumption.
Quote:
We'll tolerate you as long as you agree with us. People need to wake the fuck up.
You do understand that this argument can be turned around and pointed at Rightwing tolerance of other issues, right?
I do. Which is why I think it's an awful precedent.
I can't think of any that are banned, but I don't know any others that are used as an identity for a corporation.
Also, I don't know the answer to this but I was wondering if they show Huckleberry Finn/Tom Sawyer and how they handle the dialect there?
I'm even OK with the public shaming people who decide to continue to use it.
I'm not OK with the government censoring the word.
Need more coffee.
Wake-up people, this isn't about the use of the word, it's about being comfortable with giving the government the authority to decide for us what we can and cannot listen to or cheer for.
Four years ago, nobody cared now it's more of a government priority than protecting the president or controlling ebola.
Quote:
How is this constitutional. Actually how is FCC censorship constitutional to begin with? Free country my ass.
So, you'd be totally cool with nudity, sexual content, cuss words, etc on TV then? Because, that's what you're saying.
You can't have it both ways. You're either against censorship of things that are, "OMG! Think of the children!" category or, you're completely against censorship and, you don't care what's out there for consumption.
Dislike Snyder, but what about the KC Chiefs, Cleveland Indiams, the Atlanta Braves, and many college teams?
I think they should change their name to the Washington War Party. Leave the logo just as it is.
Dislike Snyder, but what about the KC Chiefs, Cleveland Indians, the Atlanta Braves, and many college teams?
I think they should change their name to the Washington War Party. Leave the logo just as it is.
But didn't Indians do all of those things? Riding horses, fighting with tomahawks, banging drums. I don't see the issue. Easy to get carried away with these things. The Redskins name is only offensive because of the "skin" part.
Just as the Phil Simms thread last week, where posters were criticizing him for being an activist and wearing his politics on his sleeve (when he was just answering a question as to whether or not he'd take advantage of the CBS Sports Exec's decision to allow broadcasters to choose whether or not they use the team) people are reacting to a single sentence headline and projecting the rest.
For those that can't be bothered to read - an apparent attention whore files a petition to prevent WWXX-FM (ESPN channel in DC) from renewing its licence due to using the term. FCC rep says they'll review, adds his opinion that the term is antiquated. Article goes on to state what could happen and how opinion on the term is changing. The government isn't censoring everything, there aren't going to be fines for using the term. This is one guy trying to make life even harder for the people keeping the name.
Big Brother is not leading an assault on your social liberties, but reading is pretty hard, huh?
Who said this was a duplicate thread?
Just as the Phil Simms thread last week, where posters were criticizing him for being an activist and wearing his politics on his sleeve (when he was just answering a question as to whether or not he'd take advantage of the CBS Sports Exec's decision to allow broadcasters to choose whether or not they use the team) people are reacting to a single sentence headline and projecting the rest.
For those that can't be bothered to read - an apparent attention whore files a petition to prevent WWXX-FM (ESPN channel in DC) from renewing its licence due to using the term. FCC rep says they'll review, adds his opinion that the term is antiquated. Article goes on to state what could happen and how opinion on the term is changing. The government isn't censoring everything, there aren't going to be fines for using the term. This is one guy trying to make life even harder for the people keeping the name.
Big Brother is not leading an assault on your social liberties, but reading is pretty hard, huh?
BUT THIS ISN'T AMERICA ANYMORE
Just as the Phil Simms thread last week, where posters were criticizing him for being an activist and wearing his politics on his sleeve (when he was just answering a question as to whether or not he'd take advantage of the CBS Sports Exec's decision to allow broadcasters to choose whether or not they use the team) people are reacting to a single sentence headline and projecting the rest.
For those that can't be bothered to read - an apparent attention whore files a petition to prevent WWXX-FM (ESPN channel in DC) from renewing its licence due to using the term. FCC rep says they'll review, adds his opinion that the term is antiquated. Article goes on to state what could happen and how opinion on the term is changing. The government isn't censoring everything, there aren't going to be fines for using the term. This is one guy trying to make life even harder for the people keeping the name.
Big Brother is not leading an assault on your social liberties, but reading is pretty hard, huh?
Well if they can't read then this post was for naught. =)
Who said this was a duplicate thread? [/quote]
It's not. But a duplicate thread to this one had to be locked because, for whatever reason, it wasn't deleted when the thread starter was made aware that it was a duplicate.
Wallowing in ignorance = good?
Also, sometimes "the right thing to do" and "being PC" do intersect.
BUT THIS ISN'T AMERICA ANYMORE
I do feel bad for those threatened by this.
It would be really sad to see the Trail of Tears left behind as they watch 'Murica give way to these pussification efforts. I mean, their grandmother is 1/20th Injun and she doesn't care one bit. Just wait until the National Association of Individuals Taller than Average Height (NAITAH) come for our beloved Giants moniker. These slopes have never been slippier my friend.
Quote:
BUT THIS ISN'T AMERICA ANYMORE
I do feel bad for those threatened by this.
It would be really sad to see the Trail of Tears left behind as they watch 'Murica give way to these pussification efforts. I mean, their grandmother is 1/20th Injun and she doesn't care one bit. Just wait until the National Association of Individuals Taller than Average Height (NAITAH) come for our beloved Giants moniker. These slopes have never been slippier my friend.
Hahaha. Good posts.
I deleted mine, along with the Annette thread. Happy?
It will not, and should not, pass. It has no support within the FCC. I despise the Redsk*ns name, but this is no way to go about changing it. You can't penalize a station for airing an organization's legal name.
The fact is that this is about the media. They love to go on crusades like this one and bring down obnoxious people like Snyder. The media is relentless and they will win.
But then out of their great concern for Native Americans will they follow up with stories about the poverty, unemployment and drug abuse rampant on reservations? Of course not. Coverage of the Redskins' name brings out thousands of emotional partisans. Coverage of Native American unemployment just brings out yawns.
The fact is that this is about the media. They love to go on crusades like this one and bring down obnoxious people like Snyder. The media is relentless and they will win.
But then out of their great concern for Native Americans will they follow up with stories about the poverty, unemployment and drug abuse rampant on reservations? Of course not. Coverage of the Redskins' name brings out thousands of emotional partisans. Coverage of Native American unemployment just brings out yawns.
Same regurgitated bullshit. People have been bitching about the name for forty years. That people are listening now doesn't mean nobody was complaining decades ago. And to say that the American public could stand to care more about the people than a dumbshit mascot is perfectly fine, but it's a sad bit of dishonesty to pretend the name's backers give a shit about Native Americans.
Washington Evening Star cartoon, January 1972
Source: Washington Post article - ( New Window )
In 1968, the National Congress of Americans started a public initiative to remove offensive, denigrating or stereotypical depictions of themselves in pop culture and media. Included in the initiative were the Cleveland Indians and their logo (which would have a defamation lawsuit filed against in 1972) and the Washington Redskins - along with a number of other items.
That puts it at 46 years.
Quote:
Redskins name forty years ago. Or did you just pull that number out of your ass.
In 1968, the National Congress of Americans started a public initiative to remove offensive, denigrating or stereotypical depictions of themselves in pop culture and media. Included in the initiative were the Cleveland Indians and their logo (which would have a defamation lawsuit filed against in 1972) and the Washington Redskins - along with a number of other items.
That puts it at 46 years.
National Congress of American Indians, that is.
In comment 11896502 UAGiant said:
Quote:
Redskins name forty years ago. Or did you just pull that number out of your ass.
In 1968, the National Congress of Americans started a public initiative to remove offensive, denigrating or stereotypical depictions of themselves in pop culture and media. Included in the initiative were the Cleveland Indians and their logo (which would have a defamation lawsuit filed against in 1972) and the Washington Redskins - along with a number of other items.
That puts it at 46 years.
It's the job of organizations that have been formed to advance the causes of their group to come up with this shit. The usually self-appointed members just sit around and come up with stuff to complain about. That's why they're there, that's what they get paid to do -- to bring up an issue, complain about it and try to win everyone over to it.
When I was on the Board of Directors of the Writers Guild, we were called into a meeting with an outside group who were organized to "protect" Italian-Americans against the way they were portrayed on television shows. They had some letitimate objections, which everyone on the board took to heart, but there were also other demands that bordered on censorship. Don't use the word Mafia, don't give Italian names to members of the organization they didn't want us to mention, do more stories where Italians are great and good, don't show Italian Americans who speak English with an Italian accent ... and the list goes on. (Turns out one of the complainants was a guy I went to high school with. We went out later for something to eat and he sheepishly said that a bunch of the stuff the group had demanded were over the top, but ..... )
In the Redskin's case, they're helped by the development of political correctness and their zealots, the media who're looking for a hot story to fill all the time and space they have to fill, and elitist liberals who don't miss a chance to complain about the country in as many ways as they can.
The group says they speak for all Native Americans, and this is bullshit. They SAY they speak for them because that's what they say. They have to justify their jobs. So, instead of figuring ways to fight alcoholism among their people, ways to bring commerce to their people and handle the many problems that truly affect the daily lives of their people, they fight for this stupid name. Why? Because it's easy to do. Write press releases, make a few appearances and generally bitch about the name. The other stuff is too hard to do, so they avoid it.
How about a team named the Niggers? Would it be all right if I objected to that?
How about a team named the Niggers? Would it be all right if I objected to that?
This is a very weak argument that totally misses the point of the post, which is to point out what I think and suspect is the dynamic at work in the entire issue.
It approaches apples vs. oranges. Everyone except racists know nigger is an historically hurtful and denigrating word.
Yes, there have been movies that used Redskins, as in Cowboys vs. Indians or Redskins, in the same manner
Are people these days going around calling a Native American, Redskin, as people referred to blacks as niggers, and sadly, still do. I'd be interested in you pointing out instances where the word is used in the country in that context.
The name as used is referring to the team has always meant something strong and positive. The complainers are hijacking that use and trying to replace it with what they SAY is insulting. Does the native american population feel this way? You don't know, and that's what counts, not what these groups say.
I agree about your "monolith" observation which, if so, sheds doubt on how "offensive" the native american population thinks the word, in the TEAM context, is.
I take your point about the NFL "hijacking" an offensive term and translating into something noble. It's a plausible explanation.
But let me ask you this: Back then, why would a professional sport's team hijack an "offensive term" as its franchise name and logo? Why would you go to the trouble of trying to re-define a word that everyone might think is offensive? You're in a business. Why make decisions that would harm your ability to make money.
If it was offensive back then, would you as a franchise owner say, "hey, let's use Redskins." Common sense suggests to me that that's highly improbable scenario.
Surely you're aware of this.
Surely you're aware of this.
Your point being .... ?
But unless you were in his mind, or show some evidence of Marshall's motive for naming the team "Redskins" you can't really make that statement.
Look at the long picture. If you're right Marshall's thought process may have gone something like this: Hmmm, I hate everything not white and not wasp. So I want my team's name to somehow represent that hate. Hmmmm, can't name them kikes, or dagos, or micks, or niggers (or even negros -- . I know, I'll name my team "Redskins." That'll get them. Cowboy movies say it so I got some cover there. Washington Redskins. Everytime anyone says it, it'll be a slap in the face to indians. Yeah, that's great." This is moronic, not racist, IMO.
He renamed them "Redskins" - likely to tie into the team that shared their stadium at Fenway (the Red Sox, obviously), but this was also at the height of Native-sploitation (if that term even exists). There was a national curiosity with Native American athletes in that period of time, spurred on by the likes of Jim Thorpe, etc.
To capitalize, Marshall turned up the "red face" to 11, hiring a coach that was faking his Native heritage (Dietz) and going as far as to reportedly asking him to come out in full regalia (complete with headdress) and launching a media bonanza to attract an audience to a floundering team by latching onto some of the "big deals" of that time - those with association to Pop Warner, Native Athletes, etc.
Then again, this was the man who spearheaded keeping the league segregated and proudly played Dixie before home games. Only federal intervention in the early 60s lead to the team allowing anyone of color to join the team. Getting inside the head of Marshall would likely be an uncomfortable situation for most.
I think the reality is likely it was a cheap marketing campaign by a renowned racist to attempt to get people into the stands, being revised by both sides - one side applying Marshall's awful track record as a human being as a slam dunk to show its clearly racist and the other revising history to imply they changed the name from "Brave" to "Redskin" to honor someone who wasn't even a Native American.
He renamed them "Redskins" - likely to tie into the team that shared their stadium at Fenway (the Red Sox, obviously), but this was also at the height of Native-sploitation (if that term even exists). There was a national curiosity with Native American athletes in that period of time, spurred on by the likes of Jim Thorpe, etc.
To capitalize, Marshall turned up the "red face" to 11, hiring a coach that was faking his Native heritage (Dietz) and going as far as to reportedly asking him to come out in full regalia (complete with headdress) and launching a media bonanza to attract an audience to a floundering team by latching onto some of the "big deals" of that time - those with association to Pop Warner, Native Athletes, etc.
Then again, this was the man who spearheaded keeping the league segregated and proudly played Dixie before home games. Only federal intervention in the early 60s lead to the team allowing anyone of color to join the team. Getting inside the head of Marshall would likely be an uncomfortable situation for most.
I think the reality is likely it was a cheap marketing campaign by a renowned racist to attempt to get people into the stands, being revised by both sides - one side applying Marshall's awful track record as a human being as a slam dunk to show its clearly racist and the other revising history to imply they changed the name from "Brave" to "Redskin" to honor someone who wasn't even a Native American.
Forgot one line...
However, given the troubling nature of the term itself - especially in present-day society, I'm not sure the historical context of how the name was established is that relevant.
Whenever I say I'm a Giants fan, many, many people think I mean San Francisco.
But you all think his racism caused him to use Redskins, so be it. It's confirmation bias at its best.
The treatment of the American "Indians" is one of the darkest in our history, and almost nobody understands what we did. People actually think that Nixon deserved to be impeached for covering up a minor, inept burglary at the local Democratic headquarters. Andrew Jackson defied a direct order from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and ordered a march of the Cherokee from Florida to North Dakota. About 4,000 of the 15,000 involved died along the way. No calls for his impeachment.
Changing the name of the Redskins will not help any of the Native Americans. Since most are stuck on private reservations, Americans don't see their plight. The media when this stupid controversy is over or while it's going on should highlight the problems of the Indians. Obama should name a commission to investigate the problems and have it report back to Congress actions that can be taken to help.
The treatment of the American "Indians" is one of the darkest in our history, and almost nobody understands what we did. People actually think that Nixon deserved to be impeached for covering up a minor, inept burglary at the local Democratic headquarters. Andrew Jackson defied a direct order from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and ordered a march of the Cherokee from Florida to North Dakota. About 4,000 of the 15,000 involved died along the way. No calls for his impeachment.
Changing the name of the Redskins will not help any of the Native Americans. Since most are stuck on private reservations, Americans don't see their plight. The media when this stupid controversy is over or while it's going on should highlight the problems of the Indians. Obama should name a commission to investigate the problems and have it report back to Congress actions that can be taken to help.
True and good. The only thing I fear about a commission is that in D.C. a commission stays a commission and nothing gets done.