Jon88

Pro Bowler
Messages
19,523
Reaction score
0
the word "redskin" wasn't considered racist or controversial when he made the change, so ascribing racism to his motives in 2013 is silly if not reckless.

It's for people who just want to invent a controversy.
 
Messages
8,660
Reaction score
0
because then the bigots (assuming they exist) win. why give them the satisfaction? conversely, gays took the word "queer" (another pejorative) and smartly co-opted it.
No the bigots win if their bigoted actions are allowed to continue into perpetuity.
 

Jon88

Pro Bowler
Messages
19,523
Reaction score
0
No the bigots win if their bigoted actions are allowed to continue into perpetuity.

Why don't you file a big class action lawsuit and make ticket prices go up for everyone. You guys are good at that.
 
Messages
8,660
Reaction score
0
How much of a consensus do you need? You have to account for the bored asshole contingency who would vote the cowboys change their name just to be a nuisance.

I suppose if the number offended greatly outweighs those offended by the braves and Seminoles etc. then that's something to consider
I don't think this is merely a bored asshole contingency. There is a real movement and actual heat on the Redskins to change the name. There have been bills introduced in Congress, Fuhrer Goodell has made a statement in support of the name and Snyder is having to answer questions every other time he speaks to the media.

As an aside, the mere fact that Goodell is trying to support the name is all I need to support the opposite.
 
Messages
8,660
Reaction score
0
the word "redskin" wasn't considered racist or controversial when he made the change, so ascribing racism to his motives in 2013 is silly if not reckless.
1) How do you know that? and 2) To whom was it not considered racist or controversial?
 

superpunk

Pro Bowler
Messages
11,003
Reaction score
0
pep wins by tko

the justifications by people for the name here is retarded. If you don't give a fuck just say that, don't attempt to make some pathetic argument about how it's not really racist or if we change it "the bigots win" lmfao
 

bbgun

Administrator
Messages
15,013
Reaction score
2,097
No the bigots win if their bigoted actions are allowed to continue into perpetuity.

Again, the bigots are dead, and the word was never a slur to begin with. We don't live in an Orwellian hellhole where we wish words out of existence to placate upper-class white libs.

1) How do you know that?

You're welcome to go to microfilm room at the LOC to find one story back in the day which described the name change as controversial.

and 2) To whom was it not considered racist or controversial?

My guess is pretty much everyone. Hell, it took blacks almost 200 years to object to the word "colored."
 
Messages
2,450
Reaction score
0
consider yourself educated. "redskin" was neutral and descriptive; "godless savages" was an insult.

What did it actually describe, there is no definitive answer to that. I've read at least three different reasons it was used. It was widely used as a pejorative for much of the 19th century forward.
 

bbgun

Administrator
Messages
15,013
Reaction score
2,097
What did it actually describe, there is no definitive answer to that. I've read at least three different reasons it was used. It was widely used as a pejorative for much of the 19th century forward.

The color of their skin, obviously. If you're a white settler and you don't know what to call these people, a standout physical characteristic will have to suffice. Similarly, that's why they called us "pale face."
 
Top Bottom