A good article:
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwor...d-white-145172
Sitting Bull called himself a red man. Clearly it is horrible to say.
Member
A good article:
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwor...d-white-145172
Sitting Bull called himself a red man. Clearly it is horrible to say.
Member
The mayor backpedals.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...s-name-change/
Don't let this stop any of you from faking outrage. I'm offended Baltimore tries to claim Poe as some kind of native hero.
Member
Did he call himself a Redskin? That is the correct nickname currently used by the Southern Maryland NFL franchise.Originally Posted by HAIL2BNG
Member
Spin away.
Member
We can bicker all day about whether $nyder would lose money or not but the fact of the matter is knowing him the way we do, if he thought it would be such a moneymaker or such a "financial boom" as you put it, it would be a done deal.Originally Posted by HAIL2BNG
Wrong on both counts. Show me where anyone has said Snyder would lose money. Also, thanks for ignoring the top selling jersey. Redskins fans would spend millions on new merchandise.
Keep spinning that argument that Redskin is a bad word. When your example of dirty redskin/stinking redskin didn't work, you made up a new thing. They really shouldn't have bars on reservations though with all the rampant alcoholism.
The top selling jersey was due to the excitement of finally landing an exciting playmaker QB. Most would seriously doubt that same delicious excitement would translate to the new football identity, the likelihood is that fans will be pissed and annoyed and as I pointed out, the colors will most likely remain as a lot of people are saying so there won't be a need to make new purchases in the jersey department.
as for your silly contention that redskin isn't a racial slur in the face of the example of the senior lecturer in the American Indian Studies Program at the University of Arizona and a member of the Navajo Nation saying that it is and that it is hurtful to him and his people....AND where a Native American at the Smithsonian symposium openly CHALLENGED Dan Snyder "to attend the next meeting of the National Congress of American Indians and try using that word to people's faces."......well your petulant denial doesn't get any clearer than that.
as for what didn't work...that was your notion that the obvious racist term redskin wasn't the pejorative, that was down right laughable considering the all the objections from Native Americans over the decades.
When given two real world scenarios where you could test your contention that it's not a "bad word" your lame reply was that I made something up.
Md JV football fans like yourself who spin and cling to a hurtful and offensive racialslur keep failing at justifying it's continued use.
It's like watching you drown in a pool of your own urine.
Member
I will wait for you to show how Snyder could possibly lose money and then you can concentrate on showing how the term Redskin is a historically negative term. Using some modern day whiners who think anything but freebies from the government for Indians is offensive.
Member
Originally Posted by HAIL2BNG
Sitting Bull called himself a red man. Clearly it is horrible to say.
serious spin in action
Member
as for your silly contention that redskin isn't a racial slur in the face of the example of the senior lecturer in the American Indian Studies Program at the University of Arizona and a member of the Navajo Nation saying that it is and that it is hurtful to him and his people....AND where a Native American at the Smithsonian symposium openly CHALLENGED Dan Snyder "to attend the next meeting of the National Congress of American Indians and try using that word to people's faces."......well your petulant denial doesn't get any clearer than that.
Md JV football fans like yourself who spin and cling to a hurtful and offensive racialslur keep failing at justifying it's continued use.
It's like watching you drown in a pool of your own urine.
Member
Facts aren't spin. Carry on, fake outrage.serious spin in action
Member
You didn't post a fact, you changed redskin to red man to suit your momentary need.
lol
keep spinning!
Member
I was at the grand opening of that museum and there was a band on stage and the lead singer was decked out in Redskins gear. How offensive!as for your silly contention that redskin isn't a racial slur in the face of the example of the senior lecturer in the American Indian Studies Program at the University of Arizona and a member of the Navajo Nation saying that it is and that it is hurtful to him and his people....AND where a Native American at the Smithsonian symposium openly CHALLENGED Dan Snyder "to attend the next meeting of the National Congress of American Indians and try using that word to people's faces."......well your petulant denial doesn't get any clearer than that.
Md JV football fans like yourself who spin and cling to a hurtful and offensive racialslur keep failing at justifying it's continued use.
It's like watching you drown in a pool of your own urine.
Member
Your obsession with pools of urine is noted.
Member
your consistent childishness on display is entertaining and rewarding.
Member
Member
Right, because your use of jv, pools of urine and completely inability to back up how changing the name could possibly cost Snyder money is the height of maturity. You're awesome.your consistent childishness on display is entertaining and rewarding.
Member
In that aeticle, roughly 1 out of every 10 find it offensive. Is that acceptable to you?
Last edited by NCBirdfan; 02-17-2013 at 11:13 AM.
Member
http://www.ibtimes.com/washington-re...ng-say-1089220One Annenberg election survey released several years ago found that 90 percent of American Indians -- those who should be the most offended -- found the name Redskins acceptable. Conversely, according to Indian Country Today magazine, 81 percent of respondents found the use of American-Indian names, symbols and mascots in professional sports offensive and disparaging. Many Redskins fans themselves are vehemently against the idea of renaming their beloved franchise, but then again, the majority of the football-viewing public is white.
Member
Hail to the Redskins
Hail Vic-tor-y
Braves on the Warpath
Fight for old d.c.
Scalp 'em, swamp 'em -- We will take 'em big score
Read 'em, weep 'em, touchdown - we want heap more
Fight on, Fight on -- 'Till you have won
Sons of Wash-ing-ton. Rah!, Rah!, Rah!
Hail to the Redskins
Hail Vic-tor-y
Braves on the Warpath
Fight for old d.c.
Member
From Marrium-Websters learners dictionary:http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/redskin
red·skin /ˈrɛdˌskɪn/ noun
plural red·skins
[count] informal + offensive : native american ◊The word redskin is very offensive and should be avoided.
Member
From the HOGETTES: 4 Reasons a Redskins Name Change Should Not Bother You
http://www.hogshaven.com/2013/2/8/39...not-bother-you
On my commute to work today, several things came clear regarding the "Redskins" name:
It's the organization we root for and bond with, not a picture or mascot name: does the "Redskins" name mean anything? No. It's the many levels of the organization that make me proud. The mascot has nothing to do with that. If RGIII scored the winning touchdown in Super Bowl XLVIII wearing burgundy and gold with a "W" on his helmet instead of the Redskins, would it matter then? Of course not, we have a Super Bowl parade to get ready for.
Washington Bullets: After going through the pain of losing the Bullets name to the Wizards, I will tell anyone, a Redskins name change will hurt less. I challenge anyone to name a better mascot in any sport than the Bullets. The name was changed in 1997 due to the high violence rate in D.C. and the assassination of Abe Pollin's longtime friend, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. It probably wouldn't have meant much to Abe at the time, but bullets are used every day by our police force and military to keep our country safe when democracy does not work. Either way, after enduring that name change, the Redskins to Warriors or something of the sort will be easy for me (see #1 above).
George Preston Marshall: The guy that gave the Redskins their nickname was the same owner who was last to integrate African Americans into his team. That's downright embarrassing and will always be a black eye on our organization. It's hard for me to defend a nickname when the original Redskins owner has a history of racism. From a NY Times 2011 article, "As his second head coach, Marshall hired William "Lone Star" Dietz, a journeyman coach at the collegiate level whose mother was most likely a Sioux. It was in "honor" of Dietz, who coached the team for just two seasons and who at Marshall's urging willingly put on war paint and Indian feathers before home games, that Marshall changed the team's name to the Redskins. " Anything that distances our franchise from the beliefs of this guy I'm OK with.
"Redskins" does offend people: Via that same NY Times article, "In 1992, the Native American writer and activist Suzan Harjo, who had moved to Washington, D.C., in the 1970s, became the lead plaintiff in a case against the Redskins organization joined by six other Native Americans, including the writer Vine Deloria Jr." A common defense we hear as Redskins fans is "But there are Native Americans that don't find the name offensive." Well, that's great, but when those Indians are nameless while well-known, Native Americans claim it is racist, then that does carry water. Let's be real here. Even Merriam-Webster defines "redskins" as usually offensive: AMERICAN INDIAN. Let's put this a different way. If Washington was just awarded a NFL franchise and the team announced "Redskins" was the leading option, there would no doubt be outrage everywhere. So, because it was inherited from the past it's OK?
Posting Permissions
 |
| Terms of Service | Search/Archive | Feedback | Contact Information | DC50tv | Baltimore Sun | Chicago Tribune | Daily Press | Hartford Courant | LA Times | Orlando Sentinel | Sun Sentinel The Morning Call | The Virginia Gazette Baltimore Sun, 501 N. Calvert Street, P.O. Box 1377, Baltimore, MD 21278 |
Reply With Quote