What should the Washington Redskins change their name to?

page: 7
21
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74




That's what grown ups do,


Yeah it is political correctness.

All the grown ups see PC for what it truly is.

A sad joke.

Don't say anything 'bad' that someone else just might be dumb enough to believe.

edit on 18-6-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 08:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
How about people dont use a word that means scalped indian head, i know its hard for americans to understand how offensive that can be.

You seem to forget Duke it should be ok to treat the Native Americans like second class citizens. They should change their name to the Washington Caucasians.



posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 08:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
How about people dont use a word that means scalped indian head, i know its hard for americans to understand how offensive that can be.

You seem to forget Duke it should be ok to treat the Native Americans like second class citizens. They should change their name to the Washington Caucasians.


Why not ?

That is what they are doing to gun owners.

And native Americans were where the first gun control was implimented in this country.

A lesson we should all learn from.



posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 08:56 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96



I think the name was chosen as an homage to native Americans.

You think this even though many Native American groups came out protesting the name?
The Redskins started in 32 they were still trying to wipe out the Native Americans back then.



posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 08:57 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

It's okay Neo. You'll get your binky back.



posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 08:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
That's what grown ups do, when they realize something offends someone they stop doing it, they don't throw themselves on the floor screaming how unfair it is and that they can do whatever they want because it's a free country. Can and should are two different things, I guess the children around here haven't quite made it to that life lesson yet.



So if I see 2 men who are making out in front of me and I told them what they are doing is offending me should they stop doing it? It is harmless act but who do you think will throw the fit on how unfair it is?

Everybody will find something that's offensive to them it's called life and we all need to deal with it.



posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 08:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

No nitpicking here, but don't grown ups also learn how not to throw a fit about every tiny thing that might offend their sensibilities?

There are things that do offend me (very little) but I walk past with nothing more than a shake of my head. It is what it is and I know the entire world doesn't exist to make me comfortable.

I can understand and respect your opinion (seriously here) on the name change because at least you don't think they should be forced to change it. That is what grown ups do. We can all express disagreement or displeasure without forcing others to live the way we think they should or forcing them to do the things we think they should.

I would stand up for folk's right to say that they think the name should be changed. I can not stand up for the folks that are trying to force them to change it.
edit on 6/18/2014 by Kangaruex4Ewe because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 09:00 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96



And native Americans were where the first gun control was implemented in this country.

Yes right after they were forced onto reservations and given rotten food to live on and blankets infected with smallpox and measles to sleep under. If you think the gun owners in this country is being treated like the Natives then you seriously need to take a few history lessons.



posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 09:02 PM
link   
a reply to: buster2010




You think this even though many Native American groups came out protesting the name?


I think people need to do a little research before commenting , and passing court decisions.

Case in point:



he Washington Redskins were originally known as the Boston Braves. In 1933, co-owner George Preston Marshall changed the name to the Redskins, possibly in recognition of the then–head coach William Henry "Lone Star" Dietz, who claimed to be part Sioux


en.wikipedia.org...

And yet 'redskin' is 'disparaging'.
edit on 18-6-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 09:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: neo96



And native Americans were where the first gun control was implemented in this country.

Yes right after they were forced onto reservations and given rotten food to live on and blankets infected with smallpox and measles to sleep under. If you think the gun owners in this country is being treated like the Natives then you seriously need to take a few history lessons.


Yep.

Sure did.

Took their land, killed their people, made them live on crap land.

Then after a couple of hundred years after ALL that.

'Decided' a word was 'offensive'.

The same people who did all that.

What a joke.

Funny that the native Americans were racists back then calling us 'white men', and all that .
edit on 18-6-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 09:10 PM
link   
Well since we are being stupid here my idea's are

The Washington rouge skins

The off white lads group

Someone stole our name skins

or the end of the dopler effect skins

job done



posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 09:30 PM
link   
a reply to: dukeofjive696969

I have to admit, I never knew that's what it meant. If what you say is true, then I take back my comments and apologise for joining in the bully fest.



posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: thesaneone

The key word there is harmless.

As another poster has repeatedly pointed out, the name Red Skins isn't harmless. It's exactly the same thing as if some one wanted to name a famous sports team the Nazi's or Death Camp or Gas Chamber. It is a term that is associated with a genocide.



posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 10:08 PM
link   
Just had a thought.

Assume for a moment that it is offensive. Why should they be forced to change an offensive name? What principle is there that says they can't name it what they want? Is it a question of fairness or kindness? I understand that some don't like it, but why does that have much weight?



posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 10:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: buster2010




You think this even though many Native American groups came out protesting the name?


I think people need to do a little research before commenting , and passing court decisions.

Case in point:



he Washington Redskins were originally known as the Boston Braves. In 1933, co-owner George Preston Marshall changed the name to the Redskins, possibly in recognition of the then–head coach William Henry "Lone Star" Dietz, who claimed to be part Sioux


en.wikipedia.org...

And yet 'redskin' is 'disparaging'.

The word brave isn't offensive that's what they called male warriors. Really don't know much about the Natives huh?
I can claim to be a Martian it doesn't mean it's true though.



posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 10:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: neo96



And native Americans were where the first gun control was implemented in this country.

Yes right after they were forced onto reservations and given rotten food to live on and blankets infected with smallpox and measles to sleep under. If you think the gun owners in this country is being treated like the Natives then you seriously need to take a few history lessons.


Yep.

Sure did.

Took their land, killed their people, made them live on crap land.

Then after a couple of hundred years after ALL that.

'Decided' a word was 'offensive'.

The same people who did all that.

What a joke.

Funny that the native Americans were racists back then calling us 'white men', and all that .

No the word was always offensive but there wasn't any laws back then now was there? And the white men called themselves white men.



posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 11:04 PM
link   
a reply to: charles1952

Would you be opposed to Alabama getting a team called the Noosemakers?



posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 11:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Bone75

How about people vote with their wallets? I highly doubt folks would line up and pay to see a team with that name. I have absolutely no issue with those who dislike anything. We all have things we dislike.

What I, (and most others here) take issue with is someone being forced to change a name because people are offended. I would not like seeing a team called The Noosemakers. I would not pay or support in any way a team that chose that name. If enough people do that, then one either figures out that changing the name would be beneficial or go out of business all together. Even with a name like that, I would not want people to lose the right to use it.

Why?

Because next it's another word or phrase that gets banned. We can't just start banning words we find distasteful or offensive. You open the door for the speech police. As much as I hate the slippery slope analogy, that is what I see this becoming if they are forced to change their name.

Today it's Redskins, tomorrow it's another word or phrase deemed inappropriate, next it's talking about your displeasure of our leaders. Is that stretching it a bit? Maybe right now, but maybe not so much in the future.
edit on 6/18/2014 by Kangaruex4Ewe because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe

Were you aware that redskins was referring to the scalps of dead Indians? I would imagine that like myself, most people aren't.



posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 11:31 PM
link   
The Washington Oklahoma.

Oklahoma essentially translates to 'red people'.





new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join