Jump to content

Redskins shareholders attempting to force name change


Matts4313

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, lancerman said:

I don’t think it’s a slippery slide either. Could you imagine a team called the “Darkskins” that has a picture of an African Warrior as the logo? Or a team called “Yellowskins” that has a feudal Japan stereotype as the the logo. 
 

Tangibly there is no difference. It is a stereotype of a skin color for the name and then using imagery of another culture. It’s not like the Vikings using the actual name of a group of people. It’s an appearance based name based on a stereotype white people created. There’s no acceptable equivalent 

I don't think anyone is saying this name shouldn't be changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, JTagg7754 said:

I don't think anyone is saying this name shouldn't be changed.

I don't think it should be changed. If we changed everything based on a miniscule percentage of people offended by it then there wouldn't be team names or mascots optional. There will always be someone offended by anything that's out there.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was expecting this the moment Goodell read the players' statement. Maybe Snyder limps by and is able to keep the name for now, but he should realize at this point that not changing the name is a losing proposition. 

"Should" is the operative word here though. Snyder is going to make this an ego thing and get himself bloodied for no absolutely no gain whatsoever.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, THESKINSFAN21 said:

I don't think it should be changed. If we changed everything based on a miniscule percentage of people offended by it then there wouldn't be team names or mascots optional. There will always be someone offended by anything that's out there.

I understand what you're saying and this is the slope I'm referring to when PETA was introduced into the conversation if the name were hypothetically changed to Pigskins as stated prior. This is different though. You're not wrong that there will ALWAYS be someone offended by something these days b/c that's absolutely the truth and people thrive on whining. Again though, this is different. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, THESKINSFAN21 said:

I don't think it should be changed. If we changed everything based on a miniscule percentage of people offended by it then there wouldn't be team names or mascots optional. There will always be someone offended by anything that's out there.

Here's the tough part. It's unfortunately because Native Americans make up, what, 1% of the US population? But if most of them find it reprehensible shouldn't that demand action? There's a reason a very specific group has an issue with it... you connect the dots from there.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, MikeT14 said:

Here's the tough part. It's unfortunately because Native Americans make up, what, 1% of the US population? But if most of them find it reprehensible shouldn't that demand action? There's a reason a very specific group has an issue with it... you connect the dots from there.

The more damning reasons to change it are the documented impact that negative connotations in media have on Native American populations. The American Psychological Association has presented research on this for years. Here's their (very well sourced, scathing) statement on it:

https://www.apa.org/about/policy/mascots.pdf

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

The more damning reasons to change it are the documented impact that negative connotations in media have on Native American populations. The American Psychological Association has presented research on this for years. Here's their (very well sourced, scathing) statement on it:

https://www.apa.org/about/policy/mascots.pdf

Yeah it's almost like our culture tokenizing and stereotyping Native peoples was bad and damaging. And has had profound long term effects on them as a people and a culture.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Matts4313 said:

Actually just saw a great comment. They change their names to the "Pigskins" as their OL has historically been called "the hogs". Can still call themselves the 'Skins. Can change their logo to something that looks like a football or a pig. 

Or keep the name but change the logo to a potato. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seriously doubt a name change would accomplish anything beyond a few months of good publicity for the shareholders and the team, which is bound to evaporate as soon as they start playing games and limp on to another losing season.

The shareholders should think of more productive things to do with their time, like ousting one of the most hated team owners in the NFL.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, y*so*blu said:

I seriously doubt a name change would accomplish anything beyond a few months of good publicity for the shareholders and the team, which is bound to evaporate as soon as they start playing games and limp on to another losing season.

The shareholders should think of more productive things to do with their time, like ousting one of the most hated team owners in the NFL.

I can't think of any better plan to undermine Dan Snyder's grip on the team than setting up a situation where he has to publicly comment on race in today's climate tbh.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

I can't think of any better plan to undermine Dan Snyder's grip on the team than setting up a situation where he has to publicly comment on race in today's climate tbh.

I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy. ^_^

Edited by y*so*blu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...