Search results

I don't think that appropriating a name or hurting people's feelings is tantamount to "discrimination" any more than Broadway's "The Book of Mormon."

You worked with black people? Kudos.

true, so man up and tell us why. enough of this self-defense bullshit.

what a shithead. even though they can't prosecute him again, he can't bring himself to tell the whole truth.

okay, this might be a tad over the line

they don't have the right not to be offended, so ...

where do rednecks go for restitution?

I'm confident that the average American doesn't know who the fuck they are, where they're headquartered, or who their leadership is.

that's in the eye of the beholder. "redskins," like "colored," sounds weird by modern-day, pc-soaked standards, but "offensive" is subjective.

No one's heard of them. Their numbers are few and their power/influence limited. Conversely, everyone's heard of the NAACP. That's my point. Call me when the NA's come up with their own Jesse Jackson.

But the Redskins aren't doing that either. Appropriating Indian terms or images is hardy a nose-to-nose provocation.

Brilliant retort. I'll consider that a white flag.

Unlike blacks, Native Americans don't really have a lot of political clout. If there were an Indian version of the NAACP picketing every game and flooding the talk shows, Snyder might have a change of heart. As it is, NA's don't go to games anyway, so a boycott is useless.

No, it hasn't. When you have a mayor and select congressmen issuing veiled threats against the team, you know you're dealing with a totally different animal. "You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts." -- Daniel Patrick Moynihan

No, it's never been this like. In the past few months alone, we've had Snyder, Goodell, DC's mayor, and US lawmakers issue public statements, yay and nay. This in addition to columnists at prominent newspapers and blogs. What was once a trickle is now an avalanche. This hasn't happened before.

I say we all drink some fire water, topped off by a few puffs on the peace pipe.

It's not a slur; it's an anachronism. It's only a "slur" by modern-day standards.

In terms of its origins, the word is merely descriptive, not racist. White settlers didn't have the benefit of the term "Native Americans," so "redskins" sufficed. Similarly, Indians used "pale face" to describe (not disparage) whites. Just as "colored" (descriptive) is not the same as "******"...