If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(National Review)   Slate, New Republic and Mother Jones refuse to print "Redskins." "If we're feeling sassy we'll call them 'The Washington [Redacted]'"   (nationalreview.com) divider line 38
    More: Stupid, Redskins, Mother Jones, Colgate University  
•       •       •

513 clicks; posted to Sports » on 13 Aug 2013 at 9:11 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-08-13 10:16:58 AM
3 votes:
Most valuable sports franchises in the world (slideshowy):

1)  Manchester United
2) Real Madrid
3) New York Yankees
4) Dallas Cowboys
5)  Washington Redskins

Ferrari?  Ranked 15th.

So, I doubt they're going to throw away the 5th most valuable sports brand *in the world* because of some web page butthurt.

Don't like the Skins?  Root for the Cowboys.  Nobody promised you a world where you wouldn't be "offended".
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-08-13 08:34:53 AM
3 votes:

cman: Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that those who are biatching the loudest about using the "Redskin" name are really damn white?


Yes, there are plenty of whites who like to see themselves as the defenders of the downtrodden, but it could just be that they are the ones with most of the magazines and web-sites.

I can imagine how black people would like it is some team called themselves the "black-skins".
2013-08-13 10:35:25 AM
2 votes:

Cubicle Jockey: "Redskins" was a slur at the time the team was formed.


Chosen specifically because the owner (GP Marshall) was a gigantic racist. It's no accident that the Skins were the last team to integrate.
2013-08-13 10:28:54 AM
2 votes:

machoprogrammer: Fighting Irish is still ok, right?

The NCAA wants the University of North Dakota Fighting Souix to change their name, even though the Souix tribe doesn't give a crap


Trust me. Most tribes don't give a crap.
2013-08-13 10:11:19 AM
2 votes:

Spade: cman: Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that those who are biatching the loudest about using the "Redskin" name are really damn white?

fark their white savior guilt complex.


I've never understood the minority approach to white guilt. Is it better to have a person not like you because of your color or to have a white person defend you because they feel you are not capable (isn't that insidiously more racist)? Maybe it's the 'enemy of my enemy' deal.

Meh, Redsdkins, Schmedskins...it's just a word. Grow up people.
2013-08-13 09:47:19 AM
2 votes:
I hate political correctness and I think using a name like Sioux, Seminoles, Blackhawks is fine but there is simply no way you can say Redskins is not a racial slur and there is no way the team would be named that today
2013-08-13 09:35:32 AM
2 votes:

FlashHarry: i'm a big fan of tradition, but "redskin" is pretty much the native american version of "spearchucker."


I grew up on a reservation and was unaware for years that I was supposed to be offended by the term "redskin"

It still doesn't bother me one bit.
2013-08-13 09:24:29 AM
2 votes:
"Hey guys. Bleeding heart liberals are being all bleeding heart so lets make ourselves look like racist morons instead of just shutting up."
2013-08-13 09:08:20 AM
2 votes:
i'm a big fan of tradition, but "redskin" is pretty much the native american version of "spearchucker."
2013-08-13 09:00:31 AM
2 votes:
2013-08-13 07:27:21 AM
2 votes:
Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that those who are biatching the loudest about using the "Redskin" name are really damn white?
2013-08-13 10:17:00 PM
1 votes:

GRCooper: Theaetetus: GRCooper: No, there's no reason to change one of the most successful/popular brands *in the world* because it offends some people.

The bigger question is should the government protect such a successful brand, in spite of the fact that it's a racist slur? Maybe the owners can keep using it if they want, but should they have federal protection on the mark?

Despite the fact that "racist slur" is entirely subjective?


Just because you say something is a fact doesn't mean it's true.
2013-08-13 09:51:38 PM
1 votes:

BigJake: Dafatone: How does that make sense?

It makes more sense than allowing the fruit bats of the world to dictate how the rest of us live our lives. I don't care if that woman thinks it looks like a noose, and I'm not going to go a single step out of my way to mollify her burgeoning mental illness. I'm also not going to stop doing about a billion things the religious right would like for people to stop doing, or anti-[insert cause here] activists would like me to stop doing, or a toothless HOA would like me to stop doing within reason. Opinions are like assholes as they say, but it feels like more and more of the time someone else having an opinion about something means YOU need to Stop (or Start) Doing Things. No, I'm not gonna go veg. No, I'm not gonna stop using birth control. No, I'm not gonna take down a thing that looks like a noose in your eyes only. No, I'm not buying a Prius as my next vehicle. No, I'm not gonna get really angry about having a black president. BACK THE FARK OFF.

(please note that final line isn't directed at you specifically)


Part of the problem is the internet.  You hear about tons and tons and tons of people asking neighbors to take down ornaments, and suddenly it seems like everyone is complaining about something.  When in reality, almost all of these incidents have nothing to do with you and are nowhere near your world, and the woman complaining about a "noose" isn't 10,000 women angry at 10,000 "nooses", but one woman with one problem in her world.
2013-08-13 08:30:30 PM
1 votes:

BigJake: Dafatone: There's a weird segment of the population that, when something is possibly offensive, defends the possibly offensive thing.

There's an even weirder portion of the population that, when something possibly offends them, thinks that makes it someone else's problem, and that those someone elses are somehow obligated to Do Something.


Let's set aside the skins, cause you're gonna have a lot of allegiances and whatnot there.

I referenced an article where a guy hung up a Halloween ornament that his neighbor thought looked like a lynching.  It did not resemble a lynching very much.  She asked the guy to take it down and he said no.  Now, I'm not saying that he should have taken it down, but if he had done so, that would have been a nice thing to do.  A lot of people here thought he had an obligation to keep it up, just to continue to piss her off.

How does that make sense?
2013-08-13 05:57:07 PM
1 votes:

IAmRight: //again, if the best you can say about it is that it doesn't matter to most people, then WHY THE F*CK DO YOU CARE SO MUCH THAT IT STAYS THE SAME? Do you really just feel the need to stick it to the 10% that are offended by it, because you're that much of an asshole?


There's a weird segment of the population that, when something is possibly offensive, defends the possibly offensive thing.

Fark threads built around "person is offended by some thing that really isn't that bad" are pretty common.  Everyone gathers to laugh at the person in question, who in many cases is pretty silly and misinterpreting whatever it is that offends them.  Nobody ever says "gee, if this person is so upset about this, maybe their neighbor could take down the Halloween ornament that really looks nothing like a noose but is upsetting this person anyway."

It's as if there's a moral imperative to stand behind things that are close to but not quite offensive.
2013-08-13 01:49:35 PM
1 votes:

Cubicle Jockey: http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/downloads/political_commu ni cation/naes/2004_03_redskins_09-24_pr.pdf


Who the f*ck wrote the question?

"The professional football team in Washington calls itself the Washington Redskins. As a Native American, do you find that name offensive or doesn't it bother you?"

Hey, if 90% of people don't care one way or another about something, but 10% are significantly offended, we should keep something that's insignificant to us. After all, it' only a constant reminder of hate to 10% of their population!

Foxxinnia: There is inherently nothing wrong with the term Oriental. All it means is "of the East." Yet it was the word used in the past and in the past people were mad racist and therefore the word itself becomes racist.


Well, it's basically a one-word term for "they all look alike."

Kellner21: However, I find it hard to believe that someone can be truly hurt by a word.


So, do you believe that someone can be made happy by a word (or set of words)? Do you believe that words can convey any kind of emotion, and cause a reaction in other people? Or does the power of words and language stop magically when it comes to the ability to hurt people?

GRCooper: /insert the ITG "I'm not here to educate you" retort


That's quite clear.
2013-08-13 12:31:05 PM
1 votes:

Theaetetus: GRCooper: Theaetetus: GRCooper: Theaetetus: GRCooper: No, there's no reason to change one of the most successful/popular brands *in the world* because it offends some people.

The bigger question is should the government protect such a successful brand, in spite of the fact that it's a racist slur? Maybe the owners can keep using it if they want, but should they have federal protection on the mark?

Despite the fact that "racist slur" is entirely subjective?

If I'm offended that cocaine kills many people, should Coca-Cola lose trademark protection?

Is "cocaine" a race? Your analogy is misplaced.

But let's look at the law:
15 USC 1052: No trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall be refused registration on the principal register on account of its nature unless it--
(a) Consists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute...A racist slur disparages living and dead people, and brings them into contempt. A name of a drug, even an illegal one, does not. Nor is the name itself immoral or scandalous.

I like how you don't address the salient point - that Redskin being a racial slur is entirely subjective.

I did address the salient point, with a direct quotation from the statute. I like how you ignored that and made yourself look like an idiot.

File suit if you think you have a case

The suit has already been filed and won on exactly those grounds. As noted above, it was reversed by the appellate court because the suit had been brought too late, not because it was flawed on the merits. So, yeah, you're wrong.


No, it was dismissed on grounds that it was filed too late AND that it was unsupported by substantial evidence. So, yeah, you're wrong
2013-08-13 12:14:34 PM
1 votes:

Theaetetus: GRCooper: No, there's no reason to change one of the most successful/popular brands *in the world* because it offends some people.

The bigger question is should the government protect such a successful brand, in spite of the fact that it's a racist slur? Maybe the owners can keep using it if they want, but should they have federal protection on the mark?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Co ns titution

Yes.
2013-08-13 12:06:34 PM
1 votes:

Theaetetus: GRCooper: Theaetetus: GRCooper: No, there's no reason to change one of the most successful/popular brands *in the world* because it offends some people.

The bigger question is should the government protect such a successful brand, in spite of the fact that it's a racist slur? Maybe the owners can keep using it if they want, but should they have federal protection on the mark?

Despite the fact that "racist slur" is entirely subjective?

If I'm offended that cocaine kills many people, should Coca-Cola lose trademark protection?

Is "cocaine" a race? Your analogy is misplaced.

But let's look at the law:
15 USC 1052: No trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall be refused registration on the principal register on account of its nature unless it--
(a) Consists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute...A racist slur disparages living and dead people, and brings them into contempt. A name of a drug, even an illegal one, does not. Nor is the name itself immoral or scandalous.


I like how you don't address the salient point - that Redskin being a racial slur is entirely subjective.

File suit if you think you have a case
2013-08-13 11:48:07 AM
1 votes:
The answer is Slate, New Republic, and Mother Jones.

What are 3 "news" outlets nobody cares about?

Correct!
2013-08-13 11:44:29 AM
1 votes:
I've said for a few weeks now -- just as i said with Imus' "nappy headed hos" dustup - the media's double standard on ethnic slurs is laughable.  Imus got fired, Riley Cooper is a pariah, yet the same folks calling for their heads on platters have no quarrel with "Redskin".

i'm a native american and i don'thave a problem with some names. i think it is cool as shiat that the Army, for example, named its rotary winged assault craft things like "Kiowa", "Apache", "Chinook", etc.  i don't have a problem with atlanta braves (the mascot is another thing, though) or the celevaland indians.  but, there is a line, as with many things, and it is just unconscionable that the pro team from washington has this name.

and before we start in with the "don't you guys have better things to worry about, like alcoholism, literacy, blah blah blah", every issue has its time.  and more to the point, that i am indian does not mean that i am stuck in that cycle of destructive behavior.  some indians have things called "degrees" and make $125K a year.  shocking, innit?
2013-08-13 11:40:38 AM
1 votes:
Yeah, but are they referring to [redacted] as womyn? Because if not, they're just mere tools of The Patriarchy.
2013-08-13 11:38:29 AM
1 votes:
So three non-sports blogs are going to take a stand that nobody will remember next week, while taking this week to loudly pat themselves on the back for doing so.

Good show, guys.
2013-08-13 10:53:46 AM
1 votes:

meanmutton: GRCooper: Most valuable sports franchises in the world (slideshowy):

1)  Manchester United
2) Real Madrid
3) New York Yankees
4) Dallas Cowboys
5)  Washington Redskins

Ferrari?  Ranked 15th.

So, I doubt they're going to throw away the 5th most valuable sports brand *in the world* because of some web page butthurt.

Don't like the Skins?  Root for the Cowboys.  Nobody promised you a world where you wouldn't be "offended".

Wait, there's an NFL rule that says you have to give away a team for free if you change its name?


No, there's no reason to change one of the most successful/popular brands *in the world* because it offends some people.
2013-08-13 10:23:14 AM
1 votes:
Fighting Irish is still ok, right?

The NCAA wants the University of North Dakota Fighting Souix to change their name, even though the Souix tribe doesn't give a crap
2013-08-13 10:20:26 AM
1 votes:
The way racial slurs against native americans and other first peoples are tolerated and even celebrated is f*cking pathetic. We really should all be better than this.
2013-08-13 10:18:04 AM
1 votes:

factoryconnection: chimp_ninja: And yes, there's no way a new team would ever use a term 1/10th as offensive.

Of course, no one is publicly freaking out about the UNCF or NAACP to change their names, although both organizations are now just basically a "I dare you to speak the full name of this organization on air, white newscaster" at this point.  "Redskins" is said with regularity and aplomb with regards to football on air and in print.



Neither "Negro" or "Colored People" were slurs at the time of their incorporation into those organizations' names.
"Redskins" was a slur at the time the team was formed.
2013-08-13 10:01:48 AM
1 votes:

dittybopper: The other thing to consider is that while the name may be mildly offensive to some, it's actually a kind of compliment.

In the United States, we generally name football teams after people and animals that we deem to have great courage and fighting ability.  There are some local exceptions, of course, but you don't see the opposite.  There is no team called the "North Dakota Milquetoasts" or the "Wyoming Possums".


It's not the fact that they named themselves after Native Americans.  It's the fact that they used a racial slur to do it.
2013-08-13 10:01:31 AM
1 votes:

Willas Tyrell: Trapper439: Just wait until the people in Mumbai and Delhi hear what Cleveland calls its rounders team.

They probably won't give a crap, since unlike "Redskins" there is nothing inherently offensive about "Indians." Or Braves, or Warriors, or Seminoles, or Illini, etc.


Actually, someone (white) told me (mi wuk) that I should be offended by "Indian" because I'm not from India. I just can't work up the rage.
2013-08-13 09:54:09 AM
1 votes:
The other thing to consider is that while the name may be mildly offensive to some, it's actually a kind of compliment.

In the United States, we generally name football teams after people and animals that we deem to have great courage and fighting ability.  There are some local exceptions, of course, but you don't see the opposite.  There is no team called the "North Dakota Milquetoasts" or the "Wyoming Possums".
2013-08-13 09:46:13 AM
1 votes:
Just wait until the people in Mumbai and Delhi hear what Cleveland calls its rounders team.
2013-08-13 09:45:15 AM
1 votes:
No DC sports fan wants the name to change because of how badly they farked that up with the Bullets.
2013-08-13 09:42:09 AM
1 votes:
Up next:
t2.gstatic.com
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-08-13 09:30:13 AM
1 votes:
upload.wikimedia.org
2013-08-13 09:20:26 AM
1 votes:

factoryconnection: The "change it" people are too outraged and the "keep it" people are too protective from "PC gone wild."


It's weird that people take such a strong sense to keep using that word, knowing its history.  I can understand indifference, but not the heels-dug-in, you'll-pry-that-word-and-my-feral-pig-from-my-cold-dead-hands insistence on wanting to keep it.

And yes, there's no way a new team would ever use a term 1/10th as offensive.

I liked the suggestion of the "Washington Pigskins".  The pig is their unofficial mascot anyway, it keeps the flow of the name, and it incorporates old-school football slang.
2013-08-13 09:16:37 AM
1 votes:

cman: Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that those who are biatching the loudest about using the "Redskin" name are really damn white?


It's just you.
2013-08-13 09:10:22 AM
1 votes:

cman: Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that those who are biatching the loudest about using the "Redskin" name are really damn white?


I think so.  I do think Native Americans have a problem with the name but I haven't really looked into it...

But that does remind me of a CSB - One of my good friends is Chinese (Cantonese, came here in her mid 20s).  I remember one day when she used the word "Oriental".  I told her that some people here in America get offended over that.  She was floored as to why and then commented that they were probably ABCs or white people.
2013-08-13 08:54:52 AM
1 votes:
Hand-wringing aside, the Slate piece was actually well-written and reasoned.  TL;DR version: Is "Redskins" that bad?  No.  Is it completely tacky?  Yes.  Would a new team in the last 20-30 years have ever called themselves "Redskins?"  Hell no.

But now it is a political issue, and that means that the heels are dug in permanently.  The "change it" people are too outraged and the "keep it" people are too protective from "PC gone wild."
 
Displayed 38 of 38 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report