NFL Obama Says Redskins Should Change Their Name

nobbyiscool

Cancelled
WWE Board Goosed Sweet F.A Sikh Volunteers Charity Match Tasmanian Team NFL Fantasy Comp Champion Armchair Endzone Major Comp Champion
Aug 11, 2006
21,110
23,507
There is disagreement amongst Native Americans around the term "Redskin" historically being a slur, with many disputing that it was.


Here's what it means historically to others:

Spencer Phips, a British politician and then Lieutenant Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Province, issued the call, ordering on behalf of British King George II for, “His Majesty’s subjects to Embrace all opportunities of pursuing, captivating, killing and Destroying all and every of the aforesaid Indians.” They paid well – 50 pounds for adult male scalps; 25 for adult female scalps; and 20 for scalps of boys and girls under age 12.

These bloody scalps were known as “redskins.”

The mascot of the Washington Redskins, if the team desired accuracy, would be a gory, bloodied crown from the head of a butchered Native American.

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/news/true-redskins-meaning

As I said, I can use google to find anything that supports my argument as well. In a world of 7 million, it's not too difficult for all of us to find something printed that suits our own agenda.
 
A recent study by the California State University, San Bernadino reports 67% of Native Americans find the Washington Redskins name and imagery racist. http://www.buzzfeed.com/lindseyadler/native-americans-offended-by-racial-slur#28ooivb

A) That is the massively debunked research I mentioned earlier, and then;



- the 2004 poll that I believe you're alluding was only 768 participants. If you know anything about research or science, you know that's a ridiculous number to try and draw inferences from in a country as big as the US. It was also widely criticised. The researchers didn't check that participants were Native Americans for a start

B) This study used 400 people. From one specific region of the country. Thats 368 LESS.
Pick your battles.
 
I've said nothing that is disresectful to you nobby, but you're now insulting me and abusing me.

I'm happy to discuss this issue rationally, but i'll no longer be replying to posts with that same attitude.
 
Sep 6, 2005
144,453
94,362
AFL Club
Fremantle
Ok so you finally can admit the word RED SKIN is racially driven. Let's focus now Chad on the etymological point.

So red skin is therefore akin to N;gger as both words are used to describe a people by the mere color of their skin.

It's exactly the same as terms redhead or ranga and blondey... Terms simplifying a person to a physical feature in order to distinguish, set apart. Hence, racism. Look that word up.

So following along. If Washington was called the Washington Zipperheads, would YOU think that was an inappropriate name to call a football team and WHY? WHY is the term zipperhead inappropriate?

Please answer genuinely as I reach the final point after you answer properly
 

nobbyiscool

Cancelled
WWE Board Goosed Sweet F.A Sikh Volunteers Charity Match Tasmanian Team NFL Fantasy Comp Champion Armchair Endzone Major Comp Champion
Aug 11, 2006
21,110
23,507
I've said nothing that is disresectful to you nobby, but you're now insulting me and abusing me.

I'm happy to discuss this issue rationally, but i'll no longer be replying to posts with that same attitude.

You aren't though!

As I keep saying, you keep misquoting people and misrepresenting people to support your own argument or to argue points that no one made; you also ignore the points you don't want to answer. (You could not possibly have missed the point of the post above where I quoted 5 different things to prove a point... and you start talking about one of those bits of research)

That is absolutely disrespectful where I come from.
 
You aren't though!

As I keep saying, you keep misquoting people and misrepresenting people to support your own argument or to argue points that no one made; you also ignore the points you don't want to answer.

You and GG are doing the exact same thing.

You'll note above, I specifically and in plain English told GG I do not believe that "Redskin" is the same as the N word, but he's now implying that I agreed it was.

So get off your high-horse.
 
Sep 6, 2005
144,453
94,362
AFL Club
Fremantle
Yes, the word "Redskin" is a representation of a specific race/culture.

Dude that's RACIST. Representation of a specific race. Derr. So therefore it IS the same as n,gger because both words are a representation of a race. And if you could just answer my zipperhead question then you finally come to where I'm going with this and why YOU don't consider the two words similarly offensive. I'm just about to explain why they are if you can answer the zipperhead question properly.
 

nobbyiscool

Cancelled
WWE Board Goosed Sweet F.A Sikh Volunteers Charity Match Tasmanian Team NFL Fantasy Comp Champion Armchair Endzone Major Comp Champion
Aug 11, 2006
21,110
23,507
I'll re-post the facts that I posted earlier, then I'm going to quit.

There is clearly no reasoning with someone who believes their football has the right to tell people that they shouldn't be offended by something based on the fact that an alleged majority - according to one dud poll - isn't offended; or based on the fact that other teams also use terms relating to Native Americans that aren't in and of themselves racist.

You, Chadwiko
- turned a debate about the Redskins into an argument about the Chiefs
- suggested that the Chiefs - an honorary title - is equivalent to Redskin, a clearly derogatory one.
- are trying to claim that the underbelly of discontent around the Chiefs is somehow in the same league as the public outcry about Washingtons name.
- believe you can speak for all Native Americans by saying said outcry is only coming from white people.
- started misquoting people to... as you say, shift the goal posts to suit your own motives.
- despite saying you weren't doing this, went down the typical Washington route of talking about a "majority" of Native Americans despite it being clear to everyone that this point is completely irrelevant.

Life has a funny way of educating us, of making us open our eyes.

When the moment comes that you truly get an understanding of what cultural sensitivity means, I hope you're open minded enough to accept that lesson.
 
Alright, so it's clear that despite my providing evidence and articles, it's totally fine for you guys to ignore them, but the second I don't drop everything and acknowledge the ones you post, i'm an arsehole.

You are both so caught up in trying to be right and morally superior that you have completely missed the multiple times when I've said I believe the name will change because it offends some people.

Neither of you really wants to debate this issue. You both just want to "win".

That's a waste of time so have fun on your pedestals.
 
When the moment comes that you truly get an understanding of what cultural sensitivity means, I hope you're open minded enough to accept that lesson.

This part is absolutely hilarious. I 100%, unequivocally guarantee, would-bet-money-on-it, that i'm much MUCH more qualified than you on cultural sensitivity.

Hahaha. Thanks for giving me a good laugh to end this nonsense on noddy. That was good.
 

nobbyiscool

Cancelled
WWE Board Goosed Sweet F.A Sikh Volunteers Charity Match Tasmanian Team NFL Fantasy Comp Champion Armchair Endzone Major Comp Champion
Aug 11, 2006
21,110
23,507
Alright, so it's clear that despite my providing evidence and articles, it's totally fine for you guys to ignore them, but the second I don't drop everything and acknowledge the ones you post, i'm an arsehole.

You are both so caught up in trying to be right and morally superior that you have completely missed the multiple times when I've said I believe the name will change because it offends some people.

Neither of you really wants to debate this issue. You both just want to "win".

That's a waste of time so have fun on your pedestals.

Now you're just arguing like my girlfriend. No one suggested you were an a-hole. A shithouse debater, and a shithouse representative for your point of view maybe - but no one said you're an a-hole. Once again, I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth.

On your belief that it'll be changed - yeah, I've read it a few times.

You know why it wasn't worth debating? Because for as long as there are irrational fans like you who are so determined to tell people that this isn't racist, it won't change. You need to understand why this name is racist before you will accept the change.
 
And before I leave since you're so caught up on this, i'll respond individually to these points, because the fact is you are blatantly wrong and are misquoting me/doing exactly what you said I was doing.

My responses in bold

You, Chadwiko
- turned a debate about the Redskins into an argument about the Chiefs No I didn't. I simply said that a number of the same Native Americans who are offended by the term "Redskins" are also offended by any Native American cultural misappopriation. And it is a factual, valid aspect of this discussion
- suggested that the Chiefs - an honorary title - is equivalent to Redskin, a clearly derogatory one. And i've said time and time again, there exists factual and valid disagreements that the term "Redskin" is derogatory.
- are trying to claim that the underbelly of discontent around the Chiefs is somehow in the same league as the public outcry about Washingtons name. No I haven't. Obviously there is significantly more opposition to the name "Redskin"
- believe you can speak for all Native Americans by saying said outcry is only coming from white people. I've never said anything even remotely close to this. You are lying.
- started misquoting people to... as you say, shift the goal posts to suit your own motives. Show me where I misquoted someone. If you can, i'll apologise. I have not edited anyones words.
- despite saying you weren't doing this, went down the typical Washington route of talking about a "majority" of Native Americans despite it being clear to everyone that this point is completely irrelevant. Where did I do this exactly?
 

nobbyiscool

Cancelled
WWE Board Goosed Sweet F.A Sikh Volunteers Charity Match Tasmanian Team NFL Fantasy Comp Champion Armchair Endzone Major Comp Champion
Aug 11, 2006
21,110
23,507
This part is absolutely hilarious. I 100%, unequivocally guarantee, would-bet-money-on-it, that i'm much MUCH more qualified than you on cultural sensitivity.

And I know for a fact that you're talking out your arse, because you would not be defending this if you had the first clue; you would not be reducing complaints to being from white men; you would not be generalising; you would not be suggesting that people shouldn't feel offended by this name; you wouldn't be making comparisons between "levels" of offensiveness (as you did earlier today)

edit: and on the post above this?

Again, I'm not reading it, because again, I know you'll just have readjusted the debate once again to suit your own agenda. I got to your first response about how the Chiefs became involved in this debate, and I already know how the rest of your post is going to go.
 
F*ck, you're both so desperate to be the "winner" here it's pathetic.

I'll say it again, in plain simple English, so you can both get it through your heads.

Yes, I accept that some people find the name "Redskin" racist. But i'm not so blindly devoted to one side of the argument that I completely ignore the other side, where there exists very real and valid disagreement within Native American culture about the term being derogatory/racist in nature.

Yes, I think the name will change because of the above.

And yes, because I think the Redskins name will change, all teams in the NFL/MLB/NHL/CFL that use Indigenous culture as their imagery will change.

And yes, I consider these all to be 1 big issue, not individual seperate issues.
 
GG I don't accept the premise of how you phrased your question. It's clear you're aiming for a "gotcha!" moment and it's nonsense.

I also have never heard the term "zipperhead" and don't know what it is.

Goodnight.
 
Sep 6, 2005
144,453
94,362
AFL Club
Fremantle
ETYMOLOGY.

Yes, the word "Redskin" is a representation of a specific race/culture.

Dude that's RACIST. Representation of a specific race. Derr. So therefore it IS the same as n,gger because both words are a representation of a race. And if you could just answer my zipperhead question* then you finally come to where I'm going with this and why YOU don't consider the two words similarly offensive. I'm just about to explain why they are if you can answer the zipperhead question properly.

*
GG said:
If Washington was called the Washington Zipperheads, would YOU think that was an inappropriate name to call a football team and WHY? WHY is the term zipperhead inappropriate?

==========

I don't need Chad for this because his genuine reply would've been something along the lines of this....

Chad: "Yes, I would think it was inappropriate if the team was called Washington Zipperheads. It's inappropriate because it's an established derogatory term, an accepted racial slur against Asians. But Redskins isn't inappropriate because it's debatable 'imo' whether it is a derogatory term, a racial SLUR, especially given how I quoted a section where the term 'redskin' was something the Native Americans themselves came up with to differentiate themselves from white man."

GG: "I'm glad you mentioned the last part there. Because it does not matter whether the Native Americans themselves came up with that name, or whether, white men came up with that term (which there is just as much evidence to support it came from the butchering of Native Americans). It does not matter at all because we're firstly MERELY establishing the fact that ETYMOLOGICALLY the term 'redskin' is racially driven, derived from that basis of representing a race in order to differentiate it from other races, to set it apart. And THAT by definition is 'Racism' and 'Racist'."

Chad: "So what? What's your point? I just told you that I don't consider 'redskin' and 'n,gger' or 'zipperhead' as similarly offensive. The latter two are slurs, the first one isn't."

GG: "Do you even know WHY you don't consider 'redskin' a slur, why you don't consider it similar to the other two? Because simply the term has still not YET been granted consensus agreement that is is a slur, derogatory....because there are people like you, and many others, who continue to resist the push for it to be considered a slur! See, at one point in time, the terms 'abo', 'n,gger', 'zipperhead', 'wetback', 'kike', etc etc, were once considered NOT slurs, not inappropriate, not offensive. Well, there wasn't a SENSITIVITY shown to those races at that time. So there wasn't a regard. Eventually tho, society and humankind changes, more sensitive to a whole range of issues like respect and acceptance of all people and all types. Words even like 'homo' and 'r,****', not just racial ones. That comes from a PUSH by a minority of people who feel strongly enough to start the discussion, a catalyst for eventual change, as more and more people -- whites and non-whites all starting to stand up against it....which is happening today with many broadcasters etc speaking up about it and saying they'll not use the term. Over time, eventually those other words got ACCEPTED as inappropriate terms....all those racial words, plus 'homo', 'r,****', etc. So now we come to 2014 where YES, YOU and millions of people would find the team name Washington Zipperheads inappropriate for a football team. Cringe-worthy. Such that if a team STARTED UP TODAY and tried to even call itself Zipperheads it wouldn't be allowed. Because TODAY it is inappropriate, accepted so. But if a team started in 1924 and called itself Boston Zipperheads, with a nice respectful image of Confucious on the helmet....there would've been 60+ years of it being ingrained as ok....until a rumbling started happening in the late 1960's (like happened with the Redskins name, the push started back then)....and continued on into 2014 where you have millions of people and 80 years of it being ingrained into the culture of the Washington football team and the NFL and that team's fans.....a big debate happening, the team and fans refusing to change, etc. Similarly, ten years from now, if a team tried to start up calling itself Redskin it would be met with opposition and not allowed, because roughly ten years from now, it WILL be by consensus agreement around the world accepted as a racial slur and insensitive. You're ALREADY seeing that change happening today, with many high school and college teams changing their former name of 'redskin' and any logos considered to be inappropriate. The change is happening, it's gradual, and yes there are still teams around who havent yet changed (like Cleveland Indians logo, and Washington Redskins team), but the push keeps happening, and as you yourself agree -- yes eventually Washington will change their name to Warriors or something else. And when that happens, YOU will suddenly consider the term 'redskin' to be a racial slur because it will be accepted globally as a racial slur. It already is!! Look it up in the dictionary!

Chad: "But if it's true that the Native Americans themselves started calling themselves that, then that cannot be a racial slur."

GG: "Firstly, as if they would themselves decide to call themselves that, and proudly. The African-Americans didn't start calling themselves Negros and N;gger. The term Negro is Latin for black. Latin is the stem of the English language. White man called them Blacks, Blacky, Negros, N,ggers, etc, to differentiate them, set them apart, and derogatorily so. But....that's even not that important. You see today many African-Americans call each other 'n,gger', and sometimes they use that term amongst themselves in an amicable way, and sometimes they use that term amongst themselves to speak DOWN to a certain type of African-American, like a good-for-nothing gangster hoodlum type. So it's irrelevant whether they willingly use the term amongst themselves or not. The point of contention is that people of non-African descent should not use that term towards THEM. As the usage of it by people of another race is only to set them apart on a racial basis and derogatorily so. People are not allowed to do that to OTHERS. But people are allowed to do that to themselves. Similarly, irrespective whether Native Americans originated the term (they didnt, but even if they did), the fact is it's inappropriate, disrespectful and derogatory for NON-native-americans to use that term towards Native-Americans. Even when the word 'redskin' finally gets global acceptance of being a racial slur (it already is anyway), native-americans are totally allowed to go around calling themselves 'redskins' if they want, just like the African-Americans do -- sometimes amicably, sometimes to diss a certain type of Native-American that in their culture they consider a hoodlum or bad or deserving of death.

Chad: "So what's your point?!"

GG: "You don't consider it racist is only a matter of time before you do. Your stance right now is MERELY continuing to deny and hinder that PROCESS of change that is occurring and gradually gaining steam. It's always a minority that stands up initially. Someone has to make a stand, start a chain reaction, start the discourse. Just like all other social changes in history, everything always starts with a minority of people starting to alert others, to make the majority AWARE of their feelings/beliefs. Today we do NOT invoke slurs against homosexuals...because EVENTUALLY the minority voice got heard, and the numbers grew, and the push kept pushing, and eventually we get to today where even things like Gay Marriage is being legalized. That it's a minority voice is totally irrelevant....BECAUSE it's always a minority that begins the process. That's how everything happens. That's how society works....a minority feels wronged by something (whether it be sexuality, race, or mere politics/economics, like older people complaining about some Economic Budget that makes their life harder, etc).

Chad: "I still don't get you. What are you asking ME to do? What are you criticizing me about exactly?"

GG: "I'm asking you to THEREFORE understand it's a racial slur, gaining steam, and for YOU to ADOPT that attitude that it IS insensitive to them, and to slap yourself right, to change your dialogue/monologue from "i dont consider it a racial slur and washington shouldn't change their name" to one of "i will start accepting that it IS a racial slur and to join the push for the name to change, or at least to AGREE with the push happening asap." Just like you did from your youth to adulthood for words like 'r,****', 'homo', 'n,gger' etc.
 
You're just so far out of touch from reality it's not funny.

Come back to Earth.

The crux of your argument assumes that the name Redskins STARTED as a derogatory term. That's simply not true.

Once you realise that you're basing your entire argument off something that is incorrect, the rest falls apart.

You wasted a lot of effort there for a swing-and-a-miss GG.

Keep trying.
 
Sep 6, 2005
144,453
94,362
AFL Club
Fremantle
You're just so far out of touch from reality it's not funny.

Come back to Earth.

The crux of your argument assumes that the name Redskins STARTED as a derogatory term. That's simply not true.

Once you realise that you're basing your entire argument off something that is incorrect, the rest falls apart.

You wasted a lot of effort there for a swing-and-a-miss GG.

Keep trying.

It doen't matter if it started as or didn't start as....you clearly didn't read or comprehend. The point is TODAY it is derogatory....it has been for many years. But today it is. And so YOU should be accepting the winds of change and agreeing with the change .... if you are a human being who similarly changed their attitude about the words r,****, f,ggot, etc, from your youth (when those words were ok) to today as an adult (when those words are not ok).
 
It doen't matter if it started as or didn't start as....you clearly didn't read or comprehend. The point is TODAY it is derogatory....

And my point is you clearly can't read or comprehend either, because as i've said many many times now, there is a lot of disagreement amongst Native Americans as to whether the term is racist or derogatory.

You can try and spin that as "well they just don't think it's racist YET but they WILL", but that is simply not the case and it is not your place to dictate what Native Americans should and should not find offensive.
 
Sep 6, 2005
144,453
94,362
AFL Club
Fremantle
And my point is you clearly can't read or comprehend either, because as i've said many many times now, there is a lot of disagreement amongst Native Americans as to whether the term is racist or derogatory.

You can try and spin that as "well they just don't think it's racist YET but they WILL", but that is simply not the case and it is not your place to dictate what Native Americans should and should not find offensive.

It doesn't matter....the change is happening. Again, you fail to comprehend. At one time words weren't considered derogatory by whomever, them or others. It's always a minority that begins the change. You trying to nip the change in the minority bud is what the problem is. You are called on to change, to embrace the push, to not be a racist enabler.
 
You act like i've said I don't think the name should change. That's never been the case. You're so desperate to fit me into your pre-conceived little box of what you think my position is, and the reality is completely different.
 
Back