re: Wouldn't "Washington Bluecoats" be a great new name for the Redskins?

LINK

quote:

---

If you want to call my position ignorant, so be it.

---

Your position is honest.

Your statement that this movement is a fad is ignorant.

quote:

---

The fact that a small minority may be offended is just too bad. I am offended by many things in this country of far more consequence than the name of a team. But since I am in the minority, I have to deal with those things.

---

Irrelevant.

quote:

---

I think he has the right to keep a name that has a proud tradition.

---

What he does not have is the right to keep a name that has a "proud tradition" in a world devoid of an increasing number of voices who will point out the ignorance of the idea that that tradition is proud and place upon him social pressure to change. The world Snyder would prefer does not exist.

quote:

---

I doubt that "The Windtalkers" who were honored last season (and who were wearing Redskin jackets) were offended by the name.

---

Irrelevant.

quote:

---

While I respect the views of the 8 indians who were on the Daily Show, my position is unchanged. I give everybody the benefit of the doubt as to whether they are sincere in their beliefs, but my conscience is quite clear. I believe that Snyder has a right to keep the name of his team. I can assure you that the vast majority of the residents of D.C. and Redskin fans are proud of the name; would not want to change it; and do not feel that the name is offensive.

Will I fight a name change - no, it doesn't really matter much to me. My only opposition is to the minority forcing a business owner to change a name.

---

Honest.

quote:

---

I'm a Cherokee and it is neither racist nor offensive. I love the name. Why do you want to strip the American Indian imagery that I love from the NFL to replace it with a generic name?

---

Uncle Tomahawk.

quote:

---

quote:
I doubt that "The Windtalkers" who were honored last season (and who were wearing Redskin jackets) were offended by the name.

Irrelevant.

---

So, we should simply accept that some indians are offended and change the name despite that fact that a number of indians are not offended? Whose "sensitivity" are we to be concerned about?

quote:

---

Do you just take the most liberal position on everything?

---

^^^Ignorance.

From the AP piece regarding The Daily Show controversy.

quote:

---

Virginia state Sen. Chap Petersen, a Democrat who represents Fairfax, recently helped create the "Redskins Pride Caucus" to show support for the beleaguered football team's name.

---

This isn't a liberal/conservative issue. Don't be stupid enough to be corralled into one herd or another. Think for yourself.

(1) I think it is understood, and there is no argument, that some are offended by the issue of the name.

quote:

---

I have not said what anyone should or should not do (other than be honest and educated).

---

(2) If you agree with point (1), isn't the discussion being held in a vacuum since no solution or options are being discussed?

That's an interesting way to put it. I'll tell you the angle from which I'm shooting, and maybe that'll make sense; sorry if it doesn't directly answer your question:

I am guessing that the name change is inevitable. Being that I have no emotional attachment to or aversion from the name itself, I am fine with a change (as with no change). I also understand why people (whether Native American or not) would take legitimate offense to the idea of a dictionary-defined racial slur being used as the nickname for a team they support, a team that represents their community, or a team that is a member of a league they enjoy supporting. (I do not take offense at the name, but I do view the use of a racial slur as a team name to be very stupid, and I find the refusal to be open to changing the name to be defiant in a misguided way. It is not a case of moral indignation, hence my not "demanding" that the name be changed, though if I were the owner, I would change it.)

The only thing I find morally wrong here is dishonesty, and maybe to a lesser extent, ignorance and spite.

Let me be clear: there is dishonesty on both sides of this debate. If you are interviewed by The Daily Show about your position that they should keep the name, and you say incredulously, "Well maybe we need to have some of these supposed people who are actually offended enter this debate," and then when TDS gives you eight of them, and your mind enters its fetal position and you end up in tears, it's because you have been confronted with your dishonesty, and you are shamed.

If you are a sports announcer, and you make a proclamation that you are not using the term "Redskins" anymore because of your view that it is racist, it is reasonable to suspect that part of the announcer's message is, "I am better than you."

I find these instances of dishonesty to be obvious and silly, and I enjoy pointing them out.

Another example of dishonesty: The NFL will penalize a player for using racial slurs on the field, but they will pay him to wear "Redskins" on his uniform. Textbook hypocrisy.

quote:

---

It will never be changed in our lifetime. I'll put money on it.

---

my thing is, it's easy to pile on the Redskins bc they suck now, but where were these "change the name" people when they were winning three Super Bowls in 11 years?

In the annals of American racism, naming a pro sports team after a semi-racial slur is so low on the totem pole it isn't even funny.

Seriously, people are upset that a sports team is embracing the proud warrior culture of a defeated people? Honestly? It isn't like they named the team the Washington Alcoholics and used a caricature of an Indian.

If it does have to change it will, sadly, be some name out of a committee which means it will be some nonsensical, nondescript name like the "Hope" or the "Wave" so as to ensure it will offend no one but the people who actually support the team. Washington Colonials doesn't sound half bad, though that would be somewhat offensive to mirror real life so closely.