Keep On Hailing to the Redskins, you P.C. DBs!

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Evan!

Evan!

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2006
Messages
11,835
Reaction score
115
Location
Charlottesville, VA
In a world where people are starving to death, being killed by sectarian violence, being forced into slavery, and generally having what can be seen by all measures as sh!tty lives...

...some people have nothing better to do than whine about the "racially insensitive" name of our team. Well, score one for common sense.

Go spend your money and time on helping victims in Darfur and Zimbabwe, and STFU about trivial **** like this, that will never actually affect anyone outside of their own fragile f*ckin' heads.
 
blacklab said:
No kidding, we need to do something about secretarian violence.
Click to expand...

Word...take the money that they're wasting on the lawyer fees for this tripe and send it to a Darfur genocide fund or something. It's not that hard. I mean, if you really want to give some money away, why not give it to someone who really needs it, and not some ****** lawyer who specializes in trivial suits like this one.
 
Sounds like it was dismissed on a procedural issue:

But a U.S. district judge in Washington says the plaintiffs waited too long to bring their case to court. She added that her ruling does not decide "the appropriateness of Native American imagery for team names."
Click to expand...

Common sense was not ruled on at all.
 
Evan! said:
Well, score one for common sense.
Click to expand...
It'd be nice if the judge had actually used common sense, but she ruled against the suit on a technicality, and there's probably another suite on the way. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/11/AR2008071102060.html?hpid=sec-metro
The judge repeated a view she expressed in her 2003 opinion, writing, "the Court again reiterates . . . that 'this opinion should not be read as making any statement on the appropriateness of Native American imagery for team names.' " ...
...Philip Mause, a lawyer representing the Native Americans, said they would appeal the decision. "We're not happy," he said....
...Six younger Native Americans, represented by Mause, filed a separate complaint with the trademark office in 2006.

Because the new batch of activists is younger, Mause says he believes they will be able to overcome the timing issue raised by Kollar-Kotelly.

"It's unfortunate that we are spending so much time going back and forth on this [delay] issue, because I believe the issue ultimately will have to be addressed on the merits," Mause said.
Click to expand...

and so, this:
BuffaloSabresBrewer said:
Thats hilarious. What a waste of tax payer's money.
Click to expand...
will continue :(

EDIT: yeah, what olllllo said :mug:
 
Ooops! I was making a joke(check the spelling of 'sectarian'). Those b!tches are crazy up around my cube. :D

But I totally agree with you. Tons of economic and human resources in the country are wasted on non-value add blather.
 
The term redskin was a very derogatory word used on Native Americans. It is equivalent to the "N" word that is now associated with the black members of our community.

Would it be a waste of money if someone sued me for starting a team called the St Louis "N" words, while of course using the word, not just the letter associated with it?

I don't think most people would think that. Yet for some reason, the same type of thinking does not apply for the Native Americans. People think that just because it doesn't effect them that it doesn't cause harm to people. It is a very offensive team name and should be changed.
 
I agree, who are we to say that something shouldn't offend someone else?

If the "Greasy Wops" was a team, or the "Cleveland Crackers" ,somebody would sure as hell sue.
 
Not to offend anyone, but consider these team names:

New York Niggaz (anyone remember the Chris Rock bit?)
Chicago Chinks
Boston Micks
Los Angeles Beaners
Seattle Superslanteyes

I think we'd all agree that these names are unacceptable...and nobody would think of giving a organization any of these names. I tend to agree with cubbies on this one...it's a racial slur now, and back when the Washington Redskins were created. We also shouldn't need a court ruling for people to realize it. You'd think the owners would take the opportunity to state the obvious.
 
cheezydemon said:
I agree, who are we to say that something shouldn't offend someone else?

If the "Greasy Wops" was a team, or the "Cleveland Crackers" ,somebody would sure as hell sue.
Click to expand...
I agree...:rockin:

As for Africa or anywhere else...it's been going on for 10's of thousands of years...our generation can't stop their way of living/dying no matter how much money you throw at it.:mad:
 
cubbies said:
The term redskin was a very derogatory word used on Native Americans. It is equivalent to the "N" word that is now associated with the black members of our community.
Click to expand...

But that negative connotation is obviously no longer attached to this team and its name as it stands.
Would it be a waste of money if someone sued me for starting a team called the St Louis "N" words, while of course using the word, not just the letter associated with it?
Click to expand...

Yeah. Our culture is too damn caught up in words, and too eager to be offended. If it's your team, then you should be able to call it what you want. If enough people are bothered by it, it'll hurt your business and the team will fail. I just really don't agree with this whole "that offends me so I'm gonna sue" mentality. Hell, I'm of Irish heritage, and you don't see me suing ND because 'Fighting Irish' is offensive because it implies that we're angry people who just like to fight.

I forgot where it was that it said we have the right to never be offended. Sh*t, I'm offended by crap every day...but it's only when someone is offended by something that is racial, religious or nationality-related, that we need to go to court to sort it all out.
 
cubbies said:
You'd think the owners would take the opportunity to state the obvious.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the cynic in me says they should step up and change the name on their own, as a "goodwill" gesture to the Native American community.

The core fan base would be all up in arms for about two weeks...and then the team would sell a sh!tload of new merchandise.

A PC PR win, and a ton of new merchandise revenue.
 
TwoHeadsBrewing said:
While you may feel this way...I wonder how a native american would feel about the term "redskin".
Click to expand...

I'm sure there are plenty of people who are offended by it. I never denied that. And by extension, it's their right to boycott the team, or even to clog the courts and spend $$ trying to make sure they're not offended anymore. As I said, it's just my opinion that it's wasteful and trivial.
 
At least it is an actual Native American group that is filing the complaint, and truth be told redskin is an ethnic slur. Although I doubt any real menace was ever intended in choosing the nickname.

But if it were any other ethic group, I doubt it would be tolerated.
 
Sing it with me Evan!

"Hail to the Redskins, hail victory, braves on the warpath, FIGHT FOR ALL DC!!!!!!!!!!!!"

is it freaking preseason yet? NFL Network is NOT fulfilling my Redskins and Pat-Riots twitch I have...or that's just the mini siezures I have, I dunno yet
 
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040925/ap_on_sp_fo_ne/fbn_redskins_indians
Poll: Skins' Nickname Offends Few Indians

Fri Sep 24, 8:40 PM ET


WASHINGTON - A poll of American Indians found that an overwhelming majority of them are not bothered by the name of the Washington Redskins (news).

Only 9 percent of those polled said the name of the NFL team is "offensive," while 90 percent said it's acceptable, according to the University of Pennsylvania's National Annenberg Election Survey, released Friday.


Annenberg polled 768 Indians in every state except Hawaii and Alaska from Oct. 7, 2003, to Sept. 20, 2004.


The survey found little disparity between men and women or young and old. However, 13 percent of Indians with college degrees said the name is offensive, compared with 9 percent of those with some college and 6 percent of those with a high school education or less. Among self-identified liberals, 14 percent found the term disparaging, compared with 6 percent of conservatives.


The franchise began in Boston as the Braves but was purchased in 1932 by George Preston Marshall, who changed the name to honor head coach William "Lone Star" Dietz, an American Indian. The team kept its monicker after moving to the nation's capital in 1937.


The name and feather-wearing mascot have since been challenged.


A panel of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office canceled the team's trademarks in 1999 on the grounds that the name disparages American Indians in violation of federal trademark law. But last year, a federal judge ruled the team can keep its name, finding insufficient evidence to conclude it is an insult to American Indians.


Some Indian leaders are still pressing their case, noting that many schools with similar mascots referencing Indians have made name changes in recent years.
Click to expand...

This is an older article that has since been removed so the link does not work.
I was trying to find the story about the part in bold. It is my understanding that George Preston Marshall actually actually consulted with William Dietz's family on the name change and it was the FAMILY'S idea to change it to the Redskins. I could not however, find an article to support this (although I am positive I've read it somewhere, which of course does not make it true).

Personally, I think the name is questionable, but the mascot is very respectful. It's defiantly a far cry from "Chief Wahoo" which I consider to be derogatory.

Chief Wahoo: clownish, brainless, cartoon
Cleveland_Chief_Wahoo_c224_large.jpg

CLE46-50.jpg

CLE51-72-80.jpg


VS.

The Redskins logo: classy, respectable, noble
redskin-main_Full.jpg

In my opinion anyway.
 
I'm a Cleveland Indians fan. I always thought the logo (the Indian face with a feather) was stupid and even inappropriate. I don't have an answer for that- the word Indian is not meant to be derogatory, of course. But no way should it be changed to the Cleveland Native Americans.

I'm also a Marquette University fan. They were formerly known as the Warriors. Now, I guess it could be racist, but I think Warrior can connote other things than native Americans. They are now the Marquette Golden Eagle. Remember when the Florida Seminoles talked about a change?

I think it's important to be sensitive to racial slurs. Just because they've been the Redskins for a long time doesn't make it right.
 
oh, I get called out on wrong lyrics from my buddies all the time...oh well

Still, I cannot freaking wait to get to go to FedEx this year....it's such a magical place...you know, the only stadium for what, 12 years in a row to sell out every game...that place is awesome, even when Dallas and Philthy fans show up
 
HighPlainsDrifter said:
For me personally, an American citizen, I am offended by the use of the term "Cowboys" by a certain team in Texas. :)
Click to expand...



you know, me too! I think that what should happen is that tem gets disbanded forever, and those players can't play anymore in the NFL! That would be great, but that is more likely to happen than the Eagles playing the Cowboys, and the Giants plane crashes into the stadium during the game...we'd be in the playoffs as NFC East champs forever!!!!
 
98EXL said:
oh, I get called out on wrong lyrics from my buddies all the time...oh well

Still, I cannot freaking wait to get to go to FedEx this year....it's such a magical place...you know, the only stadium for what, 12 years in a row to sell out every game...that place is awesome, even when Dallas and Philthy fans show up
Click to expand...

so which game are we going to anyway? :tank:
 
YooperBrew said:
I'm a Cleveland Indians fan. I always thought the logo (the Indian face with a feather) was stupid and even inappropriate. I don't have an answer for that- the word Indian is not meant to be derogatory, of course. But no way should it be changed to the Cleveland Native Americans.

I'm also a Marquette University fan. They were formerly known as the Warriors. Now, I guess it could be racist, but I think Warrior can connote other things than native Americans. They are now the Marquette Golden Eagle. Remember when the Florida Seminoles talked about a change?

I think it's important to be sensitive to racial slurs. Just because they've been the Redskins for a long time doesn't make it right.
Click to expand...

I agree Yooper, just because for the last seventy years, it's been the name of a franchise that I love and support does not mean it should be exempt from change. That would be like saying "We've had slaves for over a hundred years, we can't change now." But, what should it be changed to? Is Warriors offensive? I don't think so, but I'm sure someone does. Washington Warriors I like it.
On the other hand, I personally LOVE the logo for reasons mentioned in my previous post and would hate to see it go.

Also, if they had stuck with the Braves name I think they would still be in the same boat they are in today.
 
Evan! said:
so which game are we going to anyway? :tank:
Click to expand...

I dunno, we should figure out via Teh PM System when you and I plus the SWMBO's should get tix. We are jonsing so bad...probably should start looking for tix now actually
 
TwoHeadsBrewing said:
New York Niggaz (anyone remember the Chris Rock bit?)
Chicago Chinks
Boston Micks
Los Angeles Beaners
Seattle Superslanteyes
Click to expand...

To me the difference is in intention of the nickname when given. Redskins, to me, means a bad ass mutha on a horse who will kick your ass and take your hair. The concept of badassedness equates well to the game of football, and I think that's the way the name was intended originally. A Redskin was someone to be afraid of, an unstoppable force.

The team names you have listed above have no bearing on their sport, and are purely derogatory in nature. Should we be taken aback by the wicked slider of the Beaners pitching staff? Probably not. Now, if you named the team after slang term for an Aztec warrior, the connotations would be entirely different. The nickname would be intended to convey that the team is a force to be reckoned with, not just a racial slur.
 
olllllo said:
Being offended is a function of who you are. That you are not offended is not proof that it is non-offensive.
Click to expand...


I had to read that aloud a couple of times.

I may be totally off here, and regardless of what was posted earlier, just because a few people find something offensive, does that really make it so? To stretch this out wayyyyyyy faaaar, if I got 1000 people to agree that guys who have more than 2 piercings that are visible and are in public is offensive, does it make it so (and yeah, I'm in that group)?

It just seems like a small group of people can complain and get thier way, one person can sue because they think they deserve compensation for usually thier stupidity.

Seems like everything is going downhill in a sense of what's right and wrong, because of a few small percentage points...we have to make everything better for a few, whilst pissing off more people, who either a) don't care, or b) have more important things to worry about

Oh dear god, this thread is now gonna turn to crap in 3....2....1....
 
You're ascribing to me a postion on the merits of the suit. You do not know my position.
I am responding to the argument that because the individual that posted that they are not offended, then it is not a racial slur.

I submit that that is not true.
 
olllllo said:
You're ascribing to me a postion on the merits of the suit. You do not know my position.
I am responding to the argument that because the individual that posted that they are not offended, then it is not a racial slur.

I submit that that is not true.
Click to expand...

have you just completed some crazy verbage class today, or am I just so out of it that I cannot understand what you are saying? All that comes to mind are things like "is this that party to whom I am speaking to" and the "Redundant Office of Redundancy" lol I'm so lost...stupid Monday
 
I find it incredibly ironic that I just edited the title of this thread to abbreviate "*****ewads" to something recognizable but more acceptable for viewing on the "New Posts" page.

Sorry to censor, but there are a few members who view this forum at work.
 
To me the difference is in intention of the nickname when given. Redskins, to me, means a bad ass mutha on a horse who will kick your ass and take your hair.
Click to expand...

Does the fact that there are Redskinettes change your meaning at all?

20060802183309990001


XL: My point is that I believe that the name does legtimately offend some people. Whether that should result in a lawsuit is not and should not be decided on a popularity vote.

The suit will see the court some day and it should be decided on so that all parties can move on.
 
olllllo said:
You're ascribing to me a postion on the merits of the suit. You do not know my position.
I am responding to the argument that because the individual that posted that they are not offended, then it is not a racial slur.
I submit that that is not true.
Click to expand...

I wasn't clear(imagine that!). I'm not saying that if offense is not taken then no slur has occured. I guess I just meant that there is intent to consider as well when you're about to take offense.

:off:How do all of you skins fans feel about Coach Zorn? I have actually met him a few times and was a huge fan when I was a kid. He's a good guy but a little preachy, not sure how that will go over in the locker room.
 
Yakima 300

Latest posts

Back
Top