Random Commanders Thoughts

[Goaldeje]

Come on FS. You're asking me for a principle that can't possibly be defined as a one size fits all. My Grandmother is turning 95 in a month and still uses the N-word fairly frequently. We've had to have some... fun discussions about that word and the time period she grew up in and the geography and the history and etc with our kids when we visit. If my kids start wandering around using that word, I would say that situation is vastly different from the use of the word Redskins, yet you want me to come up with some sort of guiding principle for both?

Situations vary. History evolves. I tend to side much more closely with Boone espoused idea that words should not hold the power over many people that they apparently do. I also come at this from a faith perspective. Paul wrote that if you are causing your brother to stumble, even if you are NOT sinning, you should stop what you are doing that is causing your brother to stumble. This debate causes great consternation on both sides, which is a shame in my eyes. I do not give any credence to the FB/Twitter fools who are clicking "like" and this somehow makes them feel better about their lives. But those Native Americans that this causes pain to should be considered, not summarily dismissed. As should those Native Americans who take pride in the name be considered by the other side of this fight.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

If you're going to apply the context argument to "Redskins," then you've also got to accept situational ethics for different groups that are offended, IMO.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

 

[Bulldog]

People who are saying there should be a dialogue on the name issue are no different than Snyder because the end game for them is to effect change not listen.

Never once have I heard someone calling for a dialogue admit that as a result of that discussion they are open to having the team keep the name as an alternative.

Thus what sounds reasonable on the surface is just a different tactic to use now that a frontal assault has not been successful.

 

[Boone]

Amen Bulldog - you just said clearly and concisely what I've tried before to verbalize and been unable to...

 

[Lanky Livingston]

People who are saying there should be a dialogue on the name issue are no different than Snyder because the end game for them is to effect change not listen.

Never once have I heard someone calling for a dialogue admit that as a result of that discussion they are open to having the team keep the name as an alternative.

Thus what sounds reasonable on the surface is just a different tactic to use now that a frontal assault has not been successful.

Right, but you can swap sides in that statement and it remains true.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

 

[Nobody]

Change it or don't, I just wish they'd make a definitive decision and move on. The debate is god damn tiring!!

They've made a definitive decision and moved on. There is no debate, there hasn't been for a long time. One small side says change it, the other massive side ignores them and tells them to quit complaining. It's never getting changed.

 

[fansince62]

Come on FS. You're asking me for a principle that can't possibly be defined as a one size fits all. My Grandmother is turning 95 in a month and still uses the N-word fairly frequently. We've had to have some... fun discussions about that word and the time period she grew up in and the geography and the history and etc with our kids when we visit. If my kids start wandering around using that word, I would say that situation is vastly different from the use of the word Redskins, yet you want me to come up with some sort of guiding principle for both?

Situations vary. History evolves. I tend to side much more closely with Boone espoused idea that words should not hold the power over many people that they apparently do. I also come at this from a faith perspective. Paul wrote that if you are causing your brother to stumble, even if you are NOT sinning, you should stop what you are doing that is causing your brother to stumble. This debate causes great consternation on both sides, which is a shame in my eyes. I do not give any credence to the FB/Twitter fools who are clicking "like" and this somehow makes them feel better about their lives. But those Native Americans that this causes pain to should be considered, not summarily dismissed. As should those Native Americans who take pride in the name be considered by the other side of this fight.

so..this ends where I expected. there is no standard.

situational ethics...btw...is a very dangerous place to be. principles...especially like these...should be enduring.

I recognize that you are reluctant to pass ANY recommendations on what actions should flow from a decision or how they should be enforced. IMO...that flows from the fact that the whole prescriptive content of this is nebulous.

so...on the surface...your idea about how to deal with differences of opinion has merit.

1) how do you measure the pain? how do you separate out competing motives to get at the pain as a main variable? in this case, for example, it is very obvious that some of the loudest complainants have financial incentives. others are playing on ideology that has nothing to do with pain.

2) since there are differences in opinion on this (hence the whole conversation abt target percentages) why is it the impacts to the folks who are implicitly labeled racists are never considered? there seems to be an assumption here that denying the use of some word or phrase is a cost free decision. somehow, it seems, the argument is that the same word can offend others to the core....but still others through a simple act of will can drop any pretensions to a word/phrase and the connotations (positive) it might have. kind of a conflicting view if you ask me.

this whole thread proves one point: this is, at best, am ambiguous concept the ramifications of which are not well thought out....let alone what actions should flow from it.

for me personally, I'm most interested in the action side of the ledger. I ask again, what action should flow from a decision that some set of people dislike a word (for whatever reason)? publicize that there are people who are negatively impacted and by that possibly influence its use? ban the use of the word? penalize those who use the word?

in this case, are those demanding a name change claiming that Dan Snyder, every player who wears an equipment tee shirt w/Redskins on it, every fan with a Redskin man room/pennant/ballcap, etc., is a racist?

 

[Ax]

Right side of history my ass.

Changing the name does NOTHING, except to further Nation Pussification. Period.

 

[Nobody]

You're building a straw man.

I lean towards changing the name because I wish to be on the right side of history.

I don't know, sounds like a cop out to me. That's not a reason to support anything.

There's no denying that the word 'Redskin' has been used as a racial descriptor.

I believe we're moving to a time where racial descriptors of any kind will make everyone uncomfortable.

I've been all over this country, and what I notice most is the racial homogeneity that's taking over. It's a result of folks liking to have sex with others regardless of color or creed.

I personally think you might be wandering into line crossing territory bringing this into the discussion the way you have, but let's not get this confused - color descriptor and racial descriptor are absolutely not the same thing. When somebody is referred to as light skinned, fair skinned, etc. it is not a reference to their race. It's accurately describing appearance.

 

[Henry]

First and foremost, I don't want the name to change. I like the name. I grew up with the name. I have, for most of my life, been aware of how European settlers and after that the American government treated Native Americans, and I have not equated the Redskin name or logo with any sort of 'White man superiority' or anything. It's just the name of my team.

But the name is going to change. It's coming. Whether we all want to admit it or not, cultures change and evolve and sensibilities change and certain concepts fall in and out of favor. It's not an indication of The Decline of Civilization or The End of America or anything like that. It's natural evolution. I don't think the sustained campaign against the name is just white men telling redskins how to feel. I think it's also that we, as a society, no longer want to categorize people by skin color, period. Such practice has led to some very ugly things in this country's past, and people of all stripes are interested in moving beyond that. Years ago, identifying people by the color of their skin was no big deal. People these days feel uncomfortable doing that.

There's a reason I don't talk about this much. It makes me sad that this societal change is backing up on the one team I care about. I don't want it to change, and if it does I might just hang up my hat because, well, I've already talked about that. But it's coming. I don't think there's much doubt about that at this point.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

It would be sad to lose a fan of your caliber, Henry, but I understand. The NFL is a shadow of its former self these days, and the many hypocrisies in discipline, hiding the effects of commissions from players, and what seems to be worse and worse reffing are turning me off as well. Not to mention all the damn rule changes.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

 

[CounterTrey]

I can't agree fully Henry. I too have been all around the country and all around the world. Some white people aren't comfortable categorizing people by skin color or using that as a descriptor but I can't agree at all that other races aren't. The term Caucasian is almost never used (as opposed to African American) and I see people calling each other and themselves racial descriptors all the time. I do agree that things are evolving but the problem to me is the lack of accuracy in painting any of these pictures and that's where people "dig in". The prevailing sentiment seems to be that the loudmouths will get their way just by being loud and annoying long enough. I'm not sure that's true at all in this case. They DON'T have facts on their side and certainly don't have the popular opinion of tither the people that are subject of this debate or the general public overall. Even with the overwhelming majority of journalists putting in an epic whine campaign to have this changed, it's still barely even made a dent in public opinion or Indian opinion.

 

[Fear The Spear]

What's wrong with naming the team after a tribe name, or something similar ?
That way we can keep the whole theme, and no-one can complain.
Basically, pick a name that most closely resembles the original name, that no-one can say is offensive.
Not something generic and vague like "warrior". We can find something much closer to the original than that.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

What's wrong with naming the team after a tribe name, or something similar ?
That way we can keep the whole theme, and no-one can complain.
Basically, pick a name that most closely resembles the original name, that no-one can say is offensive.
Not something generic and vague like "warrior". We can find something much closer to the original than that.

One of my suggestions, which I think would be really cool, was to name them after a local tribe, similar to what the Seminoles did. A portion of the profits would go to the tribe, and it would be much more noble.

The Washington Powhatan
The Washington Erie
The Washington Susquehannock
The Washington Nanticoke


Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

 

[Win4us]

Anyone else get tired of hearing Charley Casserly on NFLN? That whole crew seems kinda annoying nowadays.

 

[Ax]

What's wrong with naming the team after a tribe name, or something similar ?
That way we can keep the whole theme, and no-one can complain.
Basically, pick a name that most closely resembles the original name, that no-one can say is offensive.
Not something generic and vague like "warrior". We can find something much closer to the original than that.

I'd go the opposite direction. If they want to kill the Redskins, then kill them and be done with it. The team, the history, everything dies.
Move the team to Los Angeles, and call them the Los Angeles Deadskins. Logo to be a Zombie. Colors, shades of gray.
The insane zombie craze would make the NFL, and Snyder, gazillions. Which he they could use to continue to finance the First Americans Foundation.
Then the numbnut PC butt plugs can find another worthless effort to pursue.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

That's possibly the biggest overreaction of all time.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

 

[Ax]

That's possibly the biggest overreaction of all time.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

No, it's just not bending over and asking for more.

Edit: It's also a financially brilliant idea.

 

[micks113]

First and foremost, I don't want the name to change. I like the name. I grew up with the name. I have, for most of my life, been aware of how European settlers and after that the American government treated Native Americans, and I have not equated the Redskin name or logo with any sort of 'White man superiority' or anything. It's just the name of my team.

But the name is going to change. It's coming. Whether we all want to admit it or not, cultures change and evolve and sensibilities change and certain concepts fall in and out of favor. It's not an indication of The Decline of Civilization or The End of America or anything like that. It's natural evolution. I don't think the sustained campaign against the name is just white men telling redskins how to feel. I think it's also that we, as a society, no longer want to categorize people by skin color, period. Such practice has led to some very ugly things in this country's past, and people of all stripes are interested in moving beyond that. Years ago, identifying people by the color of their skin was no big deal. People these days feel uncomfortable doing that.

There's a reason I don't talk about this much. It makes me sad that this societal change is backing up on the one team I care about. I don't want it to change, and if it does I might just hang up my hat because, well, I've already talked about that. But it's coming. I don't think there's much doubt about that at this point.

I agree with you except for hanging up the fandom part. I don't really discuss the issues about it all because it is to me, irrelevent. The Redksins name has become synonymous with something other than a racial slur. Just like names for products that become so entrenched that the product will always be known by the name rather than what it really is. Like tissue. Its call Kleenex because the name Kleenex became so attached to the meaning of tissue that the law actually considers the name to be what it is, rather than "tissue". There are many examples of this in life. The Redskins name simply does not infer racial slur anymore due to the passage of time and the use of the name as something other than a racial slur.

In addition the Redskins name is trademarked and belongs to the team. It is the brand that can never be taken away. Even if the name changes, the trademark remains and is highly valuable as intellectual property on the books of the Washington Redksins. That will never go away unless "sold".

How does Redskins nation have its cake and eat it to? Here's my solution, a simple minded one but one I can live with.

First, drop the use of Redskins altogether. Don't have a name after the City, leave it blank in defiance to the NFL who will undoubtedly force a change in the future. That would screw them and their brand.

Second, spin off the trademark into another, arms-length company, also owned by Snyder, but unaffiliated with the NFL. That would prevent anyone else from capitalizing on the name Redskins and also allow that company to continue to sell products with the name. The NFL can't sue because it no longer exists as part of the NFL officially, and our name as already mentioned, will not have anything behind "Washington". Snyder will still make his money, and can still be sold and passed to a new owner, who would want those related revenues.

This will allow the team to keep the logo and colors etc, but remove the name Redskins altogether. You can buy your "Redskins" gear from the unaffiliated third party if you want to.

Third, sue the NFL for damaging the brand of the franchise. While it may be good for the NFL brand, the franchise brand has been harmed and is due compensation. A precedent has to be set, to prevent this from happening to other NFL teams, or any professional sports franchise.

I can live without the official NFL branded Redskins name. But what I don't want is any other name adopted. It will never feel right. Keep the uniforms, colors and logos, and let the league and other teams lose their cut of any revenue that would have been made from the sale of NFL licensed Redskins products. Screw them, the league has already screwed us. Tell them to take that cap penalty and stick it.

 

[CounterTrey]

That's possibly the biggest overreaction of all time.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

No, that would be trying to change the name because of a supposed slur use that never took place. The overreaction to something that sounds bad but in reality never was.