Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Washington Redtails?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Washington Redskins
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Jeezy Fanatic


Joined: 29 Mar 2007
Posts: 23060
Location: The DMV; Proud Alumnus of the University of Miami, Class of 2011
PostPosted: Fri May 03, 2013 9:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

turtle28 wrote:
Thaiphoon wrote:
turtle28 wrote:
skinsfanLA wrote:
turtle28 wrote:
RSkinGM wrote:
http://entertainment.verizon.com/news/news_gallery.php?provider=1013
my question to such a survey is were people told the definition of the term before the votes on the poll?

You know most people have no clue what the term "Redskins" actually means. Before I joined this board, I didn't. I'd have to believe if a poll was represented to all NFL fans and they were told the definition of what the term "Redskins" is before the poll, most would say change the name.


Quote:
"This is a really good example of why you never put racism up to a popular vote, because racism will win every time," she said. "It's not up to the offending class to say what offends the offended."
Basically, it's not up to the majority to determine if the minority is offended by something.


You had no idea what Redskins meant?

Neither does anyone, the history of the term is generally given one of three etymologies:

1. It was originally a term used to describe a tribe in Canada that painted their bodies with red ochre then applied to all Native Americans.

2. It refers to skin pigmentation (some historians believe it was used by Native Americans to differentiate themselves from the settlers, others believe it was used by settlers)

3. It was a term that came from the color of war paint some Native American tribes used before going into battle. Most of the more hostile tribes used either Red or White clay that they painted on their bodies,. Sometimes both.

The scalping thing is a very recent invention.

Wikipedia wrote:
According to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), the term "redskin" came from the reddish skin color of some Native Americans, as in the terms red Indian and red man. The OED cites instances of its usage in English dating back to the 17th century and cites a use of red in reference to skin color from 1587. Multiple theories fight for prominence as to the true historical origin of the word. One theory, mentioned above, is that the term was meant as merely a physical indicator, similar to the words "white" and "black" for Caucasians and Africans, respectively. Another theory holds that it was first used by Native Americans during the 1800s as a way of distinguishing themselves from the ever-growing white population. Another theory is that the term "Red Indian" originated to describe the Beothuk people of Newfoundland who painted their bodies with red ochre, and was then generalized to North American indigenous people in general.
well I could see how 2 of the 4 definitions would be seen as offensive and racist.

No one calls a team the "whiteskins", "black skins", "brown skins", or "yellow skins" do they?


Actually not true. There was a High School on an Indian Reservation which changed their mascot to the "Fighting Whiteys". The logo was of a smiling Caucasian male in a polo with a popped up collar.

EDIT: Shoulda read further down. SkinsfanLA beat me to it!
Well that should be changed also. I would think a lot of people would find that offensive.


More like awesome
_________________


Where you go we'll follow! Let's go USMNT!!!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Typical_Lions


Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 2343
PostPosted: Fri May 03, 2013 10:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I find the whole debate fascinating from a linguistics and historical standpoint and I think we are keeping the debate on topic and civil here.

To touch on the slippery slope argument for a moment I think it is important for all to know that the slippery slope argument is known as a logical fallacy. You can read plenty of stuff online detailing the premise. Using it in support of any argument is weak.

Quote:
This thread was in response to the DC council saying the Redskins should change their name, not because of the trial that would drop the trademark. Hence all the talk of a name change


It started there yes but a DC council member wanting to change the name is not that relevant to the discussion because it means nothing because it can change nothing. What really matters is the Trademark office's decision. And this decision will probably take a very long time and the group that filed the complaint will likely lose anyway.

Great name and song skinsfanLA!

I still would like to hear from supporters of keeping the name the same if you would publicly call an American Indian a redskin to their face?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
skinsfanLA


Joined: 19 Aug 2005
Posts: 5273
Location: In Thaiphoon's Head
PostPosted: Fri May 03, 2013 12:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Typical_Lions wrote:
I find the whole debate fascinating from a linguistics and historical standpoint and I think we are keeping the debate on topic and civil here.

To touch on the slippery slope argument for a moment I think it is important for all to know that the slippery slope argument is known as a logical fallacy. You can read plenty of stuff online detailing the premise. Using it in support of any argument is weak.

Quote:
This thread was in response to the DC council saying the Redskins should change their name, not because of the trial that would drop the trademark. Hence all the talk of a name change


It started there yes but a DC council member wanting to change the name is not that relevant to the discussion because it means nothing because it can change nothing. What really matters is the Trademark office's decision. And this decision will probably take a very long time and the group that filed the complaint will likely lose anyway.

Great name and song skinsfanLA!

I still would like to hear from supporters of keeping the name the same if you would publicly call an American Indian a redskin to their face?


Ok, I know I said that my last post would be it, but I had to address this.

First, I agree with you that this is a fascinating discussion form a socio-political and linguistic standpoint.

Second, thanks for the props on the song!

I know a slippery slope is a logical falicy. But so is changing the name if "one person is offended" you have to fight flawed logic with flawed logic sometimes.

Would I call a Native American a Redskin? Provably not, but, it depends on the situation. Is it a term they use? Is it something that offends them? (because it does offend 9% of American Indians and 11% of the population of the US) Does that person know you well and know you have no malice when saying it?

Would you call someone a Redneck to their face? It depends on the situation, right? If they identify as a redneck and call themselves one you might. If you are a good friend who's intentions the person in question knows? Maybe. If not, probably not.

If you were going to use a derogatory term when talking to/about a Native American, Redskin wouldn't be on the list either, it is an outdated term that is only used these days to describe one thing, the NFL franchise in DC. There are many more vile an disgusting things you could use. It seems to me that Redskin is ONLY a proper noun that describes a team. No more, no less.

If you use a word, no matter the word, in a particular tone, it will always come across as a slur.

Lastly, about the term Yankee. It is EXACTLY the same as Redskin. It once was a very popular term to describe a group of people in a derogatory manner. It was originally used in the late 1700s by the British to describe the colonists negatively (Yankee Doodle Dandy is actually a very demeaning song about Americans, but we owned it and now it is a nursery rhyme). When the Civil War started, southerners comondeered the word as a pejoritive to describe Norhterners. Now it is really only used to describe a baseball team. Just because Americans and Northerners aren't a race doesn't mean the term wasn't pejorative when used 100-200 years ago.
_________________
DavidatMIZZOU wrote:
If you're paying for steak, and you get it well done, just order a burger.

SnA ExclusiVe wrote:
Ahhhh the old "unnamed source". It's been way too long, my very credible friend!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
turtle28


Joined: 21 Nov 2007
Posts: 62702
Location: MD/DC/VA depends on the hr!
PostPosted: Fri May 03, 2013 12:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't think you understood what I mean skinsfanLA.

Yankee doesn't put down an entire race. It is talking about an area of the country, not a race.

Redskins does/did, whatever.

To me, that's a huge difference.

http://riggosrag.com/2013/05/03/a-bad-defense-of-the-redskins-name/

Good read here for those who don't read the washington times.... Laughing

A Bad Defense of the Redskins Name:

I actually change my position on the name "Redtails" after learning what the "Redtails" are, I actually would be proud if they named the team that.

Quote:
“David Grosso, an “independent” at-large councilman, says he will introduce a resolution demanding that Dan Snyder change the name of his Washington Redskins to the “Washington Redtails,” presumably to honor the Tuskegee Airmen, the black fighter pilots who wrote tales of heroism across the skies above World War II battlefields.”

Why is Grosso’s independence in quotes here? And how does one “write” a “tale” of “heroism” “across the skies”? Presumably that is harder than writing an editorial for a dying newspaper.

“The tails of their planes were painted red, and they terrorized the enemy like a linebacker going after a running back.”

The Tuskegee Airmen were truly the Terry Tate of World War II
.


It'd be pretty awesome to have the team named after the Tuskegee Airmen from WWII. Cool
_________________
RIP SSFmike23md
Quote:
Days until: Today; @ Texans 8
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
RSkinGM


Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 3754
Location: Richmond, Va
PostPosted: Fri May 03, 2013 1:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

turtle28 wrote:
I don't think you understood what I mean skinsfanLA.

Yankee doesn't put down an entire race. It is talking about an area of the country, not a race.

Redskins does/did, whatever.

To me, that's a huge difference.


Wasn't there a minor league baseball team,,in the South--Called "The Crackers.. ahhh, yes, The Atlanta Crackers ... whatever happened to them? I doubt too many "rednecks" protested the name .. Say Turtle ,, would you call a Redneck a RedNeck to his face ??? Laughing Laughing Laughing
Lock it up ..over the line .. No wait-- Crackers, RedNecks ,,neither a race nor a political party.. Whew ,, dodged that one Shhh
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
turtle28


Joined: 21 Nov 2007
Posts: 62702
Location: MD/DC/VA depends on the hr!
PostPosted: Fri May 03, 2013 1:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RSkinGM wrote:
turtle28 wrote:
I don't think you understood what I mean skinsfanLA.

Yankee doesn't put down an entire race. It is talking about an area of the country, not a race.

Redskins does/did, whatever.

To me, that's a huge difference.


Wasn't there a minor league baseball team,,in the South--Called "The Crackers.. ahhh, yes, The Atlanta Crackers ... whatever happened to them? I doubt too many "rednecks" protested the name .. Say Turtle ,, would you call a Redneck a RedNeck to his face ??? Laughing Laughing Laughing
Lock it up ..over the line .. No wait-- Crackers, RedNecks ,,neither a race nor a political party.. Whew ,, dodged that one Shhh
I have actually. Haha, family members though and people I work with. I actually did it this week, jokingly because I was at a rally for work on monday and everyone had rednecks because we were out in the sun all day. I got a few chuckles from the guys. But last time I checked no major sports franchise was glorifying that derogatory term... were they?

As for the Crackers history, here you go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta_Crackers

Quote:
For 60 years (until 1961), the Crackers were part of the Class AA Southern Association, a period during which they won more games than any other Association team, earning the nickname the "Yankees of the Minors". In 1962, the Association disbanded.

The team then played in Richmond, Virginia, in the International League as the Braves' Class AAA farm team, the Richmond Braves, through the 2008 season. The team moved to newly built Coolray Field in Buford, Georgia, in Gwinnett County, Georgia, northeast of Atlanta, in 2009 and now plays as the Gwinnett Braves, thus marking a homecoming of sorts. The close proximity of the Class AAA and MLB clubs makes for a near zero delay when players are called up or sent down.
So... The Association disbanded in the 60's... yeah, seems about the right time for names such as that to go away form proffesional sports. Wink Laughing

Then the team began playing in Richmond through 2008 as the Richmond Braves because they were affiliated with the Atlanta Braves... (I'm guessing that's how you know of them.)

So it seems to me that they changed their name from the "crackers" to the "Braves."

Ahah! A name change, what a novel idea! Laughing Wink
_________________
RIP SSFmike23md
Quote:
Days until: Today; @ Texans 8
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
RSkinGM


Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 3754
Location: Richmond, Va
PostPosted: Fri May 03, 2013 1:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

turtle28 wrote:
RSkinGM wrote:
turtle28 wrote:
I don't think you understood what I mean skinsfanLA.

Yankee doesn't put down an entire race. It is talking about an area of the country, not a race.

Redskins does/did, whatever.

To me, that's a huge difference.


Wasn't there a minor league baseball team,,in the South--Called "The Crackers.. ahhh, yes, The Atlanta Crackers ... whatever happened to them? I doubt too many "rednecks" protested the name .. Say Turtle ,, would you call a Redneck a RedNeck to his face ??? Laughing Laughing Laughing
Lock it up ..over the line .. No wait-- Crackers, RedNecks ,,neither a race nor a political party.. Whew ,, dodged that one Shhh
I have actually. Haha, family members though and people I work with. I actually did it this week, jokingly because I was at a rally for work on monday and everyone had rednecks because we were out in the sun all day. I got a few chuckles from the guys. But last time I checked no major sports franchise was glorifying that derogatory term... were they?

As for the Crackers history, here you go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta_Crackers

Quote:
For 60 years (until 1961), the Crackers were part of the Class AA Southern Association, a period during which they won more games than any other Association team, earning the nickname the "Yankees of the Minors". In 1962, the Association disbanded.

The team then played in Richmond, Virginia, in the International League as the Braves' Class AAA farm team, the Richmond Braves, through the 2008 season. The team moved to newly built Coolray Field in Buford, Georgia, in Gwinnett County, Georgia, northeast of Atlanta, in 2009 and now plays as the Gwinnett Braves, thus marking a homecoming of sorts. The close proximity of the Class AAA and MLB clubs makes for a near zero delay when players are called up or sent down.
So... The Association disbanded in the 60's... yeah, seems about the right time for names such as that to go away form proffesional sports. Wink Laughing

Then the team began playing in Richmond through 2008 as the Richmond Braves because they were affiliated with the Atlanta Braves... (I'm guessing that's how you know of them.)

So it seems to me that they changed their name from the "crackers" to the "Braves."

Ahah! A name change, what a novel idea! Laughing Wink


Thanks for the History lesson-- I guess it that it was buried in the back of mind.. I went to many Braves games over the years..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
skinsfanLA


Joined: 19 Aug 2005
Posts: 5273
Location: In Thaiphoon's Head
PostPosted: Fri May 03, 2013 3:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

turtle28 wrote:
I don't think you understood what I mean skinsfanLA.

Yankee doesn't put down an entire race. It is talking about an area of the country, not a race.

Redskins does/did, whatever.

To me, that's a huge difference.


Oh, I understood. I just don't understand why you would be so narrow in your definition of a pejorative. If you take issue with Redskins, you should also have a problem with Yankees because both used to be derogatory terms to describe someone bassed on an attribute they have no control of. Yankee, just like Redskins, is a historic term that was oroginally demeaning a group of people bassed on a trait. The trait is not skin tone, but where they were born. Another thing that nobody can help. So why do you take issue with Redskin and not Yankee?

Why is it different? Is it because one is skin tone and one isn't? That seems narrow minded and silly. If that's the case, you are saying you can disparage people as long as it has nothing to do with the color of their skin.

The thing is, neither term holds any negative weight in today's world. they are just historic sports franchises. In my entire life, I have actually heard Southerners use "Yankee" as a pejorative more than I've ever heard anyone use the term Redskin in the pejorative. And, like I've said, I have been to tons of areas that have large American Indian populations.

200 years ago Yankee was said with the same bile, hatred and contempt as racist words used today. Jus because its not bassed on race, but location doesn't change the fact that it was, at one time, a word used to put a specific group of people down. I don't understand why you see such a difference.

So, why not change the name of the New York Baseball team? Because its silly, Redskins, like Yankee, is no longer considered anything but a team name by 91% of the "offended" people and 89% of the population as a whole. I can live with those numbers because you will always be able to find 10% of people who are offended by almost anything.
_________________
DavidatMIZZOU wrote:
If you're paying for steak, and you get it well done, just order a burger.

SnA ExclusiVe wrote:
Ahhhh the old "unnamed source". It's been way too long, my very credible friend!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
turtle28


Joined: 21 Nov 2007
Posts: 62702
Location: MD/DC/VA depends on the hr!
PostPosted: Fri May 03, 2013 3:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'd say most people know what the term "Yankee" is and they aren't offended but most people don't know what the term "Redskins" refers to, so they don't know whether to be offended by it or not, so in a generic poll such as the one that was run earlier this week, most people said no they weren't offended but I don't believe most people have a clue what the term means.

On the flip side almost all Americans know what a Yankee is and they aren't offended by that, it's been accepted and embraced.

The term Redskin I'd say hasn't really been accepted or embraced, it's just no one outside of some Sports fans and some native Americans knows what it means.

If you're going to run a true good poll, you need to have a definition of what the term means, then run the damn poll. I guarentee you if that was done, the poll numbers would be flipped to 10% for (most probably biased Redskins fans) to 90% against the name Redskins.
_________________
RIP SSFmike23md
Quote:
Days until: Today; @ Texans 8
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Typical_Lions


Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 2343
PostPosted: Fri May 03, 2013 4:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Talking about the word yankees is not really relevant to this topic but to add some information anyway the origin of the word yankee is originally thought to be a derisive nickname for Dutch or English living in the New England States. My source for this is the OED.

Also, during the war with the Revolutionary War the British used the term yankee as an insult. However, regardless of the intentions of the British the Americans did not view the word as an insult an gladly referred to themselves as yankees.

Source, Library of Congress:
By 1781, when the British surrendered at Yorktown, being called a "Yankee Doodle" had gone from being an insult to a point of pride, and the song had become the new republic’s unofficial national anthem.
http://www.loc.gov/teachers/lyrical/songs/yankee_doodle.html

So now that that comparison is out of the way the debate can focus back to the real word in question. One of the difficulties in ascertaining how charged the word redskin lies in that there are not that many American Indians around anymore, and even more when you include those that do not identify as American Indian even if it is there heritage.

@skinsfanLA I don't think using flawed logic to fight flawed logic is a good idea in a real debate. It works in politics sure but if we are honestly debating then it does not apply.

In regard to all the conditions you apply to whether or not you call someone a redskin or redneck or whatever I think that should be a clue as to whether or not that word is completely innocent.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
skinsfanLA


Joined: 19 Aug 2005
Posts: 5273
Location: In Thaiphoon's Head
PostPosted: Fri May 03, 2013 8:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Truly the last thing I will say in the topic:
First, while Yankee was a term of national pride after the revolutionary war, it was re-commandeered as hate speech by the south during the Civil War to refer to northerners. So, in my opinion, it is relevant, seeing as it was a derogatory term around the same time Redskin was.

Second, the slippery slope is valid if you are going to allow the most offended person in the world of billions on any given subject decide I that subject is offended as in the Mike Wise article where he says "If even one person is offended the name should change" as I said earlier, this is the comment I was referring too, and this comment ONLY. In that theoretical situation a slippery slope is most definitely valid, because you would be asking someone who is offended by the name "Cowboys" of that therm was OK. How would that work out? It would be a slippery slope indeed.

Chief of Inuit tribe is honored by the name of the DC NFL Franchise. Says Redskin is a term of endearment among his people.

Quote:
“It’s actually a term of endearment that we would refer to each other as,” he explained. “When we were on the reservation, we would call each other, ‘Hey, what’s up redskin?’ We would nickname it just ‘skins.’”

“‘Redskin’ isn’t something given to us by the white man or the blue eyes, it was something in the Native American community that was taken from us. [It’s] used also as a term of respect, because that’s how we were. We respected each other with that term.”


Quote:
Dodson said he was upset that much of the discussion over the Redskins name was being led by people outside of the Native American community.

“[I am] Irritated. Irritated is a polite term to say,” he said. “When you have people trying to represent our nation, you should be from our nation. Don’t represent our nation if you don’t even have an ounce of blood in you.

“It’s wrong, and it’s going to be stopped as long as I’m on this earth—that’s for sure.”

_________________
DavidatMIZZOU wrote:
If you're paying for steak, and you get it well done, just order a burger.

SnA ExclusiVe wrote:
Ahhhh the old "unnamed source". It's been way too long, my very credible friend!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
turtle28


Joined: 21 Nov 2007
Posts: 62702
Location: MD/DC/VA depends on the hr!
PostPosted: Fri May 03, 2013 10:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9235381/poll-majority-approve-washington-redskins-name


Quote:
In Washington, debate over the name has increased in recent months. In February, the National Museum of the American Indian held a daylong symposium on the use of Indian mascots by sports teams. Museum director Kevin Gover, of the Pawnee Nation, said the word "redskin" was "the equivalent of the n-word."
that's a pretty strong comment there.

Did Dodson attend the symposium in February?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/02/AR2005100201139_2.html

Quote:
Goddard acknowledged it is impossible to know whether the chiefs said "redskin" in their own languages, but interpreters in many contexts and with many tribes in this time period treated the word as an expression that only Indians used. The same is true of "white-skin."

Three years after the Washington encounter, Black Thunder spoke at Portage des Sioux, and his use of "redskin" made its way into print, as did the words of other chieftains. Once in popular culture, the expression began to lose its ceremonial context -- even as it acquired the connotations that Native Americans have come to loathe.

An 1871 novel spoke of "redskinned devils." The Rocky Mountain News in 1890 described a war on the whites by "every greasy redskin." The Denver Daily News the same year reported a rebellion by "the most treacherous red skins
."


Lastly, you have to think about who changed the name of the Boston Braves to the Boston Redskins. None other than George Preston Marshall. People want to talk about the history of the Washington Redskins and the 3 Super Bowls, two nfl championships and Sammy Baugh, but they are overlooking the man who named the team "The Redskins."

People need to study his history. He was the last man to integrate a NFL franchise in 1962 and he only did so under pressures fom the Federal Government during the civil rights era of the 60s. I don't think it's a coincidence at all that he changed the name of the Boston Braves to the Redskins 80 years ago, which appears to be a racial term. Confused
_________________
RIP SSFmike23md
Quote:
Days until: Today; @ Texans 8
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Typical_Lions


Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 2343
PostPosted: Sat May 04, 2013 12:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

skinsfanLA wrote:


Second, the slippery slope is valid if you are going to allow the most offended person in the world of billions on any given subject decide I that subject is offended as in the Mike Wise article where he says "If even one person is offended the name should change" as I said earlier, this is the comment I was referring too, and this comment ONLY. In that theoretical situation a slippery slope is most definitely valid, because you would be asking someone who is offended by the name "Cowboys" of that therm was OK. How would that work out? It would be a slippery slope indeed.



Slippery slope is never valid. I am not sure why you are arguing that it is. Maybe you have a different understanding of what slippery slope means in terms of logical thinking.

It does not matter what the Mike Wise article says. He has an opinion and that is fine but nobody would logically agree to such a premise as he has.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
THESKINSFAN21


Joined: 14 Jul 2011
Posts: 4298
Location: West Palm Beach
PostPosted: Sat May 04, 2013 6:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why isnt this thread locked? I see some really ignorant posts in here,something isn't necessarily offensive just because people are offended by it. There is no hatred behind the term used by the football team or fans, if they change the Skins name why can't they change any other teams name in the nfl that people may be offended by? It's a football team,the word has never been used by the organization for anything other than team name,no deep rooted, conspiracy, hidden agenda name. Once again,if you changed everything/name that someone was offended by then the country certainly wouldn't be the land of the free. Its a team that Snyder owns,he can call it whatever he wants,if you don't like it don't be a part of it.....simple. Arguing will get you nowhere,HAIL TO THE REDSKINS!!! Cool Lock this thread up btw,stupid how race is being brought up over a football team thats been around over 80 years....
_________________

mike23md on the sig
David Amerson-48 Tackles 12 PD 2 INT 1 TD 1 FF
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
RSkinGM


Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 3754
Location: Richmond, Va
PostPosted: Sat May 04, 2013 10:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

THESKINSFAN21 wrote:
Why isnt this thread locked? I see some really ignorant posts in here,something isn't necessarily offensive just because people are offended by it. There is no hatred behind the term used by the football team or fans, if they change the Skins name why can't they change any other teams name in the nfl that people may be offended by? It's a football team,the word has never been used by the organization for anything other than team name,no deep rooted, conspiracy, hidden agenda name. Once again,if you changed everything/name that someone was offended by then the country certainly wouldn't be the land of the free. Its a team that Snyder owns,he can call it whatever he wants,if you don't like it don't be a part of it.....simple. Arguing will get you nowhere,HAIL TO THE REDSKINS!!! Cool Lock this thread up btw,stupid how race is being brought up over a football team thats been around over 80 years....


Seems a bit oxymoronic to call for locking up the thread and at the same time referring to "the land of free".. Guess the posters here should only post opinions with which you agree..
As for being ignorant comments, I think most have been well thought out, historical and sincere..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Washington Redskins All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 5 of 7

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group