Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Daniel Snyder Again Defends Redskin Team Name


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1 Anybodyhome

Anybodyhome

    USN Retired

  • Joined: 07-July 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 7,509
  • Reputation: 2,427
  • LocationWherever I May Roam
HUDDLER

Posted 09 October 2013 - 03:31 PM

http://espn.go.com/n...n-redskins-name

 

His statement:

"I've listened carefully to the commentary and perspectives on all sides, and I respect the feelings of those who are offended by the team name," Snyder wrote. "But I hope such individuals also try to respect what the name means, not only for all of us in the extended Washington Redskins family, but among Native Americans too."

That's much softer than what he told USA Today Sports in May: "We'll never change the name. It's simple. NEVER -- you can use caps."

 

Insert other racial epithet here in same comment:

"I've listened carefully to the commentary and perspectives on all sides, and I respect the feelings of those who are offended by the team name," Snyder wrote. "But I hope such individuals also try to respect what the name means, not only for all of us in the extended Washington N***** family, but among other n****** too."

That's much softer than what he told USA Today Sports in May: "We'll never change the name. It's simple. NEVER -- you can use caps."

 

Is it because the Native American population doesn't threaten to burn down buildings and riot across the country that nobody seems to understand how many people it offends, but the fact that it does offend- period? Because the Native American population is so small, it's okay to offend such a sub-segment of this country's population?

 

It's a symbol, my ass. The swastika is a symbol as well, so is a burning cross...



#2 TheRed

TheRed

    California Dreamin'

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 14,912
  • Reputation: 7,763
  • LocationCharlotte, NC
HUDDLER

Posted 09 October 2013 - 03:56 PM

Somehow this sort of thing was deemed acceptable in the 1930's when the name originated. The fact it is about to be 2014, and the name still exists, baffles me. Not to mention the owner that came up with the name was a known racist. This should have happened long ago.



#3 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 18-October 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,037
  • Reputation: 2,231
HUDDLER

Posted 09 October 2013 - 04:09 PM

this is really pretty simple, and is not comparable to the Braves or the Indians...



#4 KillerKat

KillerKat

    To Hell With Bell

  • Joined: 26-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 20,383
  • Reputation: 4,551
HUDDLER

Posted 09 October 2013 - 04:22 PM

The overall opinion that all Native Americans are offended by the name is false. There are Native's that don't find it offensive at all and actually are proud of it.  

 

It's always funny when a race is overly offended for another one.

 

Comparing it to the N word is laughable.



#5 Porn Shop Clerk

Porn Shop Clerk

    Honky

  • Joined: 22-January 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,247
  • Reputation: 4,031
HUDDLER

Posted 09 October 2013 - 04:26 PM

yeah genocide and slavery are on two entirely different levels

 

 


  • CCS PIE'd this

#6 TheRed

TheRed

    California Dreamin'

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 14,912
  • Reputation: 7,763
  • LocationCharlotte, NC
HUDDLER

Posted 09 October 2013 - 05:09 PM

The overall opinion that all Native Americans are offended by the name is false. There are Native's that don't find it offensive at all and actually are proud of it.  

 

It's always funny when a race is overly offended for another one.

 

Comparing it to the N word is laughable.

 

So I take it that you have spoken with literally every single Native American to get this "overall" opinion then, correct?



#7 PanthersClinic

PanthersClinic

    MEMBER

  • Joined: 05-January 13
  • posts: 949
  • Reputation: 452
ROOKIE

Posted 09 October 2013 - 07:43 PM

I don't see what the big deal is. I never have considered it offensive or racist and I still don't get it. We call white people white, black people black, Indians red, Asians yellow.

 

Changing the name will damage the history of the team and the league. It's also not profitable. Snyder will lose money changing the name.

 

The US government or a Indian financial group should compensate the Redskins for their financial losses for changing the name. Only then would I support the name being changed. Someone has to pay to design a new logo, someone has to pay to put it on the stadium, someone has to pay to create new merchandise to replace the old.

 

Snyder is a Jew and he did not name the team. He is a businessman and he'd be a really poor businessman if he supported changing the name.



#8 PhillyB

PhillyB

    sườn núi phía đông thứ ba của mặt trời

  • Joined: 29-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 22,925
  • Reputation: 18,350
  • Locationthird spur east of the sun
HUDDLER

Posted 09 October 2013 - 08:15 PM

it is implicitly offensive and therefore the only excuse to keep it is if literally no one cares

 

....but a lot of people do, and given the historical context their voices should carry more weight than their mere numbers.



#9 Porn Shop Clerk

Porn Shop Clerk

    Honky

  • Joined: 22-January 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,247
  • Reputation: 4,031
HUDDLER

Posted 09 October 2013 - 08:28 PM

some paleface doesn't think redskin is offensive.   nothing to see here guys.



#10 TheRumGone

TheRumGone

    mountain man

  • Joined: 06-December 12
  • posts: 11,388
  • Reputation: 9,239
  • LocationAsheville, NC
SUPPORTER

Posted 10 October 2013 - 03:38 PM

it is still a racist name regardless if it offends people or not.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users