Seattle Times banning the word "Redskins"

Politics, Religion, Salsa Recipes, etc. Everything you shouldn't bring up at your Uncle's house.

Is the word/term Redskin derogatory?

Yes
7
58%
No
3
25%
Maybe
2
17%
 
Total votes : 12

Re: Seattle Times banning the word "Redskins"

Postby burrrton » Mon Jun 23, 2014 12:46 pm

So the question is what was the appeals court saying with that decision?


You probably know more about this than I do, but I thought by excluding it from their rationale, it was acknowledged (in legal circles) they were saying "We're not going to decide what's 'offensive' ourselves", which seems reasonable, and which is why this recent decision struck many of the legal beagles I read as a surprise, essentially saying "Eh, now we *are* going to decide what's 'offensive' ourselves."

That, or they feel the name's offensiveness has now been established, although I have trouble seeing how they could come to that conclusion now if they couldn't then, ya know?
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: Seattle Times banning the word "Redskins"

Postby kalibane » Mon Jun 23, 2014 1:09 pm

Totally reasonable and totally my take on it. That being said... they still totally passed the buck and if it was really a clear cut thing they wouldn't have been so worried about setting a precedent that they essentially abstained.

Just knowing how sensitive Judges are to being overturned it's still going to be interesting.
kalibane
Legacy
 
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 3:42 pm

Re: Seattle Times banning the word "Redskins"

Postby RiverDog » Mon Jun 23, 2014 10:57 pm

[quote="NorthHawk"So you wouldn't feel at all hesitant to call a Native American a Redskin to his face?
None at all?
B
If you have any hesitancy or doubt at all, then you know that it's a term that shouldn't be used.[/quote]

It would depend on the context, tone of voice, facial expressions, etc. The PC book says I'm not supposed to call an Asian an Oriental, but having worked with a good number of them, I haven't run into any that found the term offensive.

But to answer your question, no, I would not necessarily be afraid to call a NA a redskin.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Seattle Times banning the word "Redskins"

Postby kalibane » Tue Jun 24, 2014 8:48 am

That's kind of a cop out Riv (whether intended or not).

We all adhere to the "N-word" being the gold standard of unacceptable words but there are certain contexts where even with that word a certain white person can get away with calling a certain black person by that epithet.

The guy you have worked with for years is not representative of the population at large. If you were introduced to someone for the first time who happened to be Native American, would you be comfortable referring to his ethnicity as being "Redskin"? If you need a special context to call someone by a particular label it'd kind of a problem.

P.S. are you still walking around calling Asian's "oriental"? Maybe it's just your dealing with older generations who are innured to that term being it was common parlance 40 year ago or so but I wouldn't recommend continuing to use that term outside of familiar company."Oriental" as an offensive word isn't just part of the PC dictionary. The asian folk that I grew up with don't like that term at all.
kalibane
Legacy
 
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 3:42 pm

Re: Seattle Times banning the word "Redskins"

Postby RiverDog » Tue Jun 24, 2014 5:23 pm

kalibane wrote:That's kind of a cop out Riv (whether intended or not).

We all adhere to the "N-word" being the gold standard of unacceptable words but there are certain contexts where even with that word a certain white person can get away with calling a certain black person by that epithet.
Th
The guy you have worked with for years is not representative of the population at large. If you were introduced to someone for the first time who happened to be Native American, would you be comfortable referring to his ethnicity as being "Redskin"? If you need a special context to call someone by a particular label it'd kind of a problem.

P.S. are you still walking around calling Asian's "oriental"? Maybe it's just your dealing with older generations who are innured to that term being it was common parlance 40 year ago or so but I wouldn't recommend continuing to use that term outside of familiar company."Oriental" as an offensive word isn't just part of the PC dictionary. The asian folk that I grew up with don't like that term at all.


Better make that plural. I work with well over 150 "Asian" folks, most of whom I know by name, and yes, I do consider them to be representative of the group. I'm not kidding about the number, either, as the plant I work at employs well over 500 FTE's, and a full 1/3 are Asian or Pacific Islander, and the work I do brings me into contact with each and every one of them at one point or another over the course of a calendar year.

To answer your question, I don't refer to them as Asian or Oriental. I refer to them as to their country of origin, ie Vietnamese, Laotian, Korean, Chinese, etc., as I know each well enough to know where they or their ancestors came from. It honestly doesn't bother them one way or another how they are referred to as I've never heard any of them correct someone that calls them 'oriental', as I'm not the only backwards, toothless hillbilly that might happen to slip up and use that term when trying to describe a person with Asian physical features. As long as I've lived, I've never heard the term used in a derogatory fashion, nor have I ever been correct by an Asian. As a matter of fact, the only times I've ever been corrected has been courtesy of some Caucasian, self appointed PC policemen/policewomen.

If you want to insult an Asian, don't call them an Oriental. There's other terms one could choose that have a lot more impact.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Seattle Times banning the word "Redskins"

Postby kalibane » Tue Jun 24, 2014 6:55 pm

Nice job getting on a soap box and dodging the question at the same time River. :lol:
kalibane
Legacy
 
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 3:42 pm

Re: Seattle Times banning the word "Redskins"

Postby RiverDog » Tue Jun 24, 2014 7:45 pm

kalibane wrote:Nice job getting on a soap box and dodging the question at the same time River. :lol:


You asked if I still went around calling Asians Orientals, and I said no. As far as your other question about my being comfortable calling a NA a redskin, I think I already answered that in a response to a previous query, but the answer to that is it depends on the context, facial expressions, etc. I haven't had the pleasure of associating with a lot of NA's recently, or at least not the way I did in college. I'm not used to using the term 'redskin'. The term I was brought up on was 'indian'. I wouldn't think one way or another to call a NA a 'redskin.'. If my intent was to insult a NA, I could think of more hurtful terms than 'redskin', at least as far as my own understanding of street language goes.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Seattle Times banning the word "Redskins"

Postby Hawktown » Thu Jun 26, 2014 9:54 am

some NA's don't like the term NA some prefer indian, Some Asian's don't like oriental while some prefer it, some blacks don't like african american while some prefer it, hell some like to called brown, whites don't seem to care if they are crackers and some may not like it. Cracker does not bother me AT ALL. The N word is a term of endearment for some blacks while some can't stand it but if a white were to say it in a non derogatory way and was in the wrong place at the wrong time, that person would be beaten to death but it is cool for them to call any race whatever they want without issue most of the time. May not be cool but it is what it is and anyone forcing anything on anyone is just wrong unless they are oppressed by the legal system or a job. Which i have mixed feelings on the hiring someone against your will. This was supposed to be a FREE country was it not???

I hope you get the point that you cannot please everyone and at some point someone is going to find SOMETHING offensive. People need to just quit acting like pansies and just accept that what you don't like, others have no problem with and that is completely inevitable. Where will it end, i don't know but if they change the name of the REDSKINS (which was not meant to be racial) then what is next? Changing the white house to the grey house? Changing the word terrorist to someone who is fighting for their beleifs, (Martyr) just because we have to look out for a minorities feelings even if they want to blow us sky high? how about changing the name Fighting Irish because i have a lot of Irish in me but i am not a fighter? Fighting Irish does not offend me though just like most other things. Lets change the LA Angels name because they are clearly NOT ANGELS, so are the religious offended? Maybe some? I could go on all day with this nonsense. If we changed everything just because SOMEONE or GROUP is offended then we might as well throw out freedom of speech and the rest of the constitution. I am sure someone is offended by the constitution somewhere? Terrorists again maybe?

When will it all end, all the whining and crying to force something down someones throat just because someone is offended and not physically getting hurt? Those who are offended are usually a small minority within the circle they are trying to defend. This does not make sense to me at all!
Hawktown
Legacy
 
Posts: 392
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 10:15 pm
Location: Renton, WA 98058

Re: Seattle Times banning the word "Redskins"

Postby Hawktawk » Fri Jun 27, 2014 12:18 pm

It was reported yesterday that a group of young Indians are suing the Cleveland baseball franchise for 2 billion dollars over their Chief Wahoo mascot. And thus it begins. Atheists will be the ones to protest the Angels and Saints. Hell I'm Swedish and I don't much like the name Vikings as it depicts my ancestors as murdering pillaging thugs. Where does it stop honestly?

This is the most diverse, tolerant nation on earth. The whining needs to stop, the pansies need to buck up and get a life.The PC police need to go flagellate themselves.
Hawktawk
Legacy
 
Posts: 8481
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:57 am

Re: Seattle Times banning the word "Redskins"

Postby c_hawkbob » Fri Jun 27, 2014 12:37 pm

As far as the Indians and the Chiefs or the Vikings or whoever I agree with the general sentiment in here. Even the Chief Wahoo logo, though not a tribute, is a silly thing to get you panties in a wad about, mascots are traditionally cartoonish, I don't see that as reflecting badly upon the Native American culture any more than I find this guy:
Image
... as reflecting poorly on the Swedish culture, but I still say the word Redskins is an epithet and should be clearly and obviously out of bounds.
User avatar
c_hawkbob
Legacy
 
Posts: 6941
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 3:34 pm
Location: Paducah Kentucky, 42001

Re: Seattle Times banning the word "Redskins"

Postby Seahawks4Ever » Fri Jun 27, 2014 9:57 pm

I understand Daniel Snyder took out a copy right on the name 'Washington Warriors" a few years ago. Sounds like he knows the writing is on the wall I don't see why he just doesn't make the switch, look how much money he is going to make as fans have to go out and buy all new gear.

It turns I was wrong, I thought Cleveland had retied Chief Wahoo several years ago. Since First Nations people don't consider themselves Indians because their ancestors were not indigenous to India I don't see why they keep complaining about the Cleveland MLB ball club using the name "Indians".

I have a wee bit of Cherokee blood in me from my fathers side but then so do a lot of people. We have a tin type of a great uncle of my grand father's where there is a female Cherokee sitting next to him and you can certainly tell she wasn't a white woman. My dad never met her but his dad(my grand father) grew up on their homestead, they raised him after his parents died. My dad had jet black hair and was considered "swarthy". He looked like he had a tan during the winter and only got darker during the summer. Me, I took after my Irish/Scandinavian roots, light brown hair that turned blond during the summer and freckles instead of tanning very well.

Though I consider myself a white man I still have an affinity for rights of Native Americans or as many wish to be called now First Nations People. I agree that Snyder should change the name of the football club but the other protests such as with the Chiefs or Braves are silly. In high school we used the Tumbleweeds character Limpid Lizard in the same way Chief Wahoo is used but we were forced to drop it. Our high school though are still considered "Indians", that is something that many high schools and even Stanford Alumni can't say anymore.
Seahawks4Ever
Legacy
 
Posts: 1480
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 12:56 pm

Re: Seattle Times banning the word "Redskins"

Postby RiverDog » Sat Jun 28, 2014 4:11 pm

Seahawks4Ever wrote:I understand Daniel Snyder took out a copy right on the name 'Washington Warriors" a few years ago. Sounds like he knows the writing is on the wall I don't see why he just doesn't make the switch, look how much money he is going to make as fans have to go out and buy all new gear.

It turns I was wrong, I thought Cleveland had retied Chief Wahoo several years ago. Since First Nations people don't consider themselves Indians because their ancestors were not indigenous to India I don't see why they keep complaining about the Cleveland MLB ball club using the name "Indians".

I have a wee bit of Cherokee blood in me from my fathers side but then so do a lot of people. We have a tin type of a great uncle of my grand father's where there is a female Cherokee sitting next to him and you can certainly tell she wasn't a white woman. My dad never met her but his dad(my grand father) grew up on their homestead, they raised him after his parents died. My dad had jet black hair and was considered "swarthy". He looked like he had a tan during the winter and only got darker during the summer. Me, I took after my Irish/Scandinavian roots, light brown hair that turned blond during the summer and freckles instead of tanning very well.

Though I consider myself a white man I still have an affinity for rights of Native Americans or as many wish to be called now First Nations People. I agree that Snyder should change the name of the football club but the other protests such as with the Chiefs or Braves are silly. In high school we used the Tumbleweeds character Limpid Lizard in the same way Chief Wahoo is used but we were forced to drop it. Our high school though are still considered "Indians", that is something that many high schools and even Stanford Alumni can't say anymore.


Perhaps it's because a large majority of a very dedicated fan base, about 80% according to a poll in the Washington Post, do not think the name should be changed. Snyder is only doing what any good owner should do, ie be responsive to his fan base.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Seattle Times banning the word "Redskins"

Postby Hawktawk » Sat Jun 28, 2014 7:02 pm

I remember a few years back when these stupid radical activists first started this campaign the Potomac Indian Tribe issued a statement in favor of keeping the name as it was. They were branded as" scouts riding with the cavalry." Its really no different than a black conservative being branded an Uncle Tom. How in the hell is that any less racially inflammatory? But its do as I say, not as I do for these type of people. Freedom of speech and expression and individuality is the casualty ultimately and America becomes a little less free.
Hawktawk
Legacy
 
Posts: 8481
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:57 am

Re: Seattle Times banning the word "Redskins"

Postby Eaglehawk » Sun Jun 29, 2014 9:24 am

PC Police back at it. Now the Apache helicopter is racist. As Hawktown said, this sht will never end. I think its something done on purpose to try to divide Americans to the upcoming crisis that will strike. What, I do not know, I just have a feeling that's all. Stay tuned folks. United we stand divided we fall brothers. And please keep on reading alternative news on the internet. That's all I have to say.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... pache-chi/
User avatar
Eaglehawk
Legacy
 
Posts: 1301
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:28 pm
Location: Somewhere in China

Re: Seattle Times banning the word "Redskins"

Postby RiverDog » Mon Jun 30, 2014 6:20 am

Here's an interesting article about the subject, and this jumped out at me:

What gets far less attention, though, is this:

There are Native American schools that call their teams Redskins. The term is used affectionately by some natives, similar to the way the N-word is used by some African-Americans. In the only recent poll to ask native people about the subject, 90 percent of respondents did not consider the term offensive, although many question the cultural credentials of the respondents.


http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/ ... is-a-slur/

Like I said before, if someone can produce a credible, reliable survey that finds a clear majority of NA's find the name offensive, I'll advocate that they change the name. But I keep seeing information like the article above that seems to indicate the opposite.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Seattle Times banning the word "Redskins"

Postby Seahawks4Ever » Wed Jul 02, 2014 12:08 am

I saw that story in the Seattle Times, I also noticed they were wearing State Champion shirts. They are Native Americans and they don't want no part of the controversy, and they don't want to be forced to change their name either.
Seahawks4Ever
Legacy
 
Posts: 1480
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 12:56 pm

Re: Seattle Times banning the word "Redskins"

Postby Feez » Wed Jul 02, 2014 9:27 am

as a Native American/Alaskan I can say Yes the name is a racial epitaph and it by that nature is derogartory. it doesn't matter where it orginated with whom or why the fact is it is now a racial epitaph it needs to go. it isn't an honor and we aren't mascots plain and simple.
User avatar
Feez
Legacy
 
Posts: 123
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:53 am

Re: Seattle Times banning the word "Redskins"

Postby c_hawkbob » Fri Jul 03, 2020 4:32 pm

c_hawkbob wrote:It's offensive period. Arguing about the degree of offensiveness or the percentage of Native Americans that find it so is semantics.

And it FINALLY looks like it might get changed; FedX, The team's primary sponsor has asked for a name change and Nike has pulled team products from it's' website. The local sportscaster here said it looks as thought the team will have a new name by the beginning of the 2020 season.

About damn time.
User avatar
c_hawkbob
Legacy
 
Posts: 6941
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 3:34 pm
Location: Paducah Kentucky, 42001

Re: Seattle Times banning the word "Redskins"

Postby RiverDog » Fri Jul 03, 2020 4:40 pm

c_hawkbob wrote:It's offensive period. Arguing about the degree of offensiveness or the percentage of Native Americans that find it so is semantics.


c_hawkbob wrote:And it FINALLY looks like it might get changed; FedX, The team's primary sponsor has asked for a name change and Nike has pulled team products from it's' website. The local sportscaster here said it looks as thought the team will have a new name by the beginning of the 2020 season.

About damn time.


My position remains the same as it was when this thread was started. If a significant number of native Americans feel the term is offensive and advocate removing it, then I'm all for it. But every poll I've ever seen taken has shown that a resounding majority of NA's aren't offended by the nickname.

Perhaps with today's increased sensitivity towards monuments, flags, and other symbols that the majority of Native American's attitude has changed, and if that's the case, I'll gladly jump on the bandwagon.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Seattle Times banning the word "Redskins"

Postby I-5 » Fri Jul 03, 2020 6:37 pm

It's simple. Money talks, so now the team is finally taking action. I'm not cynical about it though; f anything it does show that public opinion plays a role, if not directly, then indirectly, in influencing change.
User avatar
I-5
Legacy
 
Posts: 1691
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2013 12:41 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Seattle Times banning the word "Redskins"

Postby Aseahawkfan » Fri Jul 03, 2020 8:15 pm

Might as well change it at this point. Who wants the headache.
Aseahawkfan
Legacy
 
Posts: 7327
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 12:38 am

Re: Seattle Times banning the word "Redskins"

Postby RiverDog » Sat Jul 04, 2020 5:33 am

I-5 wrote:It's simple. Money talks, so now the team is finally taking action. I'm not cynical about it though; f anything it does show that public opinion plays a role, if not directly, then indirectly, in influencing change.


Yea, this issue is pretty hard to ignore when the company that owns the naming rights to your stadium is pressuring the team. There's also stories that they will not be able to get approval to build their new stadium in DC unless they change the name:

D.C. deputy mayor John Falcicchio told the Post that there is “no viable path” to stadium approval unless the name is changed. That sentiment was also echoed by Rep. Raul Grijalva, who chairs the House Natural Resources Committee that oversees control the land. Grijalva called the Redskins name “racist” and added that the project was a “non-starter” unless Snyder chooses to “step into this century” and find a new nickname.

https://larrybrownsports.com/football/r ... ame/557172

If the pols withhold approval of the new stadium due to the nickname, Snyder could sue and likely win via the courts as it's not a justifiable reason to withhold approval of a project, but it would be a huge PR mistake to take that route. Nor would it be a good choice to build outside DC after Snyder's oft expressed desire to move back into the district. That tact would look just as bad as taking the matter to court.

The team just announced that "in light of recent events", they are reviewing the team's nickname. I suspect that they probably will cave into pressure so they can put the issue behind them and avoid the distraction.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Seattle Times banning the word "Redskins"

Postby NorthHawk » Sat Jul 04, 2020 6:25 am

I don't think it's a matter of caving in, rather it's a matter of doing the right thing. Finally.

Dwayne Haskins suggested calling them the Red Tails as the Red Tailed Hawk is native to the area and it
pays tribute to the Tuskegee Airmen. He said it would also only mean a small change to the song and
be called Hail to the Red Tails.
Sounds like a good idea to me.
NorthHawk
Legacy
 
Posts: 10617
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 11:57 am

Re: Seattle Times banning the word "Redskins"

Postby c_hawkbob » Sat Jul 04, 2020 7:05 am

Me too.
User avatar
c_hawkbob
Legacy
 
Posts: 6941
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 3:34 pm
Location: Paducah Kentucky, 42001

Re: Seattle Times banning the word "Redskins"

Postby RiverDog » Sat Jul 04, 2020 8:37 am

While they're at it, they might as well change BOTH names, Washington and Redskins. After all, George Washington was a slave owner.

The Cleveland Indians are considering a name change as well. Not sure about the rest of you, but I was unaware that the team wasn't always called the Indians:

The Indians – previously known as the Forest Citys, Spiders, Bluebirds, Bronchos and Naps before adopting their current name in 1915 – said they’ve been paying attention to changing times and may change along with them.

https://www.foxnews.com/sports/mlbs-cle ... ame-change

There's a number of other major league professional franchises with names that are by all accounts inoffensive that are used to represent native Americans, such as Braves, Warriors, Chiefs, and Black Hawks. And what about the Patriots? Certainly many of those folks are former slave owners. If Washington and Jefferson are no longer appropriate icons for our society, why shouldn't Bob Kraft change their name to something more politically correct? Where do we draw the line?

Cbob, before you say it, yes, what I've said above is absurd, but that's my point. This name change movement could quickly get out of hand and do more harm than good in repairing the wounds our country has suffered during these crazy times.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Seattle Times banning the word "Redskins"

Postby c_hawkbob » Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:22 am

This name change movement could quickly get out of hand and do more harm than good in repairing the wounds our country has suffered during these crazy times.


Totally disagree. There is no harm in changing a name of a thing to offend less people. Never to late to do the right thing.
User avatar
c_hawkbob
Legacy
 
Posts: 6941
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 3:34 pm
Location: Paducah Kentucky, 42001

Re: Seattle Times banning the word "Redskins"

Postby RiverDog » Sat Jul 04, 2020 12:07 pm

This name change movement could quickly get out of hand and do more harm than good in repairing the wounds our country has suffered during these crazy times.


c_hawkbob wrote:Totally disagree. There is no harm in changing a name of a thing to offend less people. Never to late to do the right thing.


And I totally disagree with that. Suppose there's a group of people that claim they are offended by the fact that Washington state is the only state in the union named after a slave holder. Would you support changing the name so as to offend less people?

And don't laugh. There's already movements to change the name of high schools and colleges that bear Washington's name.

https://crosscut.com/2016/09/george-was ... -of-oregon

This has the potential of inflaming a cultural war, the same type of nonsense that made it possible for a racist pig like Donald Trump to get elected President. His base feeds off this BS.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Seattle Times banning the word "Redskins"

Postby Aseahawkfan » Sat Jul 04, 2020 1:46 pm

RiverDog wrote:While they're at it, they might as well change BOTH names, Washington and Redskins. After all, George Washington was a slave owner.

The Cleveland Indians are considering a name change as well. Not sure about the rest of you, but I was unaware that the team wasn't always called the Indians:

The Indians – previously known as the Forest Citys, Spiders, Bluebirds, Bronchos and Naps before adopting their current name in 1915 – said they’ve been paying attention to changing times and may change along with them.

https://www.foxnews.com/sports/mlbs-cle ... ame-change

There's a number of other major league professional franchises with names that are by all accounts inoffensive that are used to represent native Americans, such as Braves, Warriors, Chiefs, and Black Hawks. And what about the Patriots? Certainly many of those folks are former slave owners. If Washington and Jefferson are no longer appropriate icons for our society, why shouldn't Bob Kraft change their name to something more politically correct? Where do we draw the line?

Cbob, before you say it, yes, what I've said above is absurd, but that's my point. This name change movement could quickly get out of hand and do more harm than good in repairing the wounds our country has suffered during these crazy times.


That change to Washington might happen at some point. People aren't going to become more tolerant of previous slave owning as time goes on.

If we're being real here, no one encourages people to name things after Hitler. For some reason some people can't accept that the slave trade was every bit as evil and bad as the Holocaust. It was that level of moral evil. One of the worst human tragedies in recent history. The people involved in it are often viewed in the same way by the people that were oppressed. I don't know if you've spent much time reading on slavery, but if you did you would be offended. The first hand accounts of slaves and the books written by slave owning Americans on how to treat your slaves and ensure their long-term servitude are utterly disgusting.
Aseahawkfan
Legacy
 
Posts: 7327
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 12:38 am

Re: Seattle Times banning the word "Redskins"

Postby RiverDog » Sat Jul 04, 2020 2:43 pm

Aseahawkfan wrote:That change to Washington might happen at some point. People aren't going to become more tolerant of previous slave owning as time goes on.


It won't happen in our lifetimes.

Besides, why stop with slavery? There were other atrocities committed by other Presidents throughout the course of our history. some equally as morally wrong as the forefathers owning slaves. Why not expunge Franklin Roosevelt's name from any memorials/high schools, etc? After all, he signed an executive order that without a trial or even an accusation imprisoned tens of thousands of American citizens and confiscated their property simply due to their ancestry. Instead, we hail Roosevelt as the best POTUS in the 20th century. Should not he be re-examined according to our 21st century moral standards as we are examining Washington and Jefferson's 16th century practices? Or how about Harry Truman, who dropped the A-bomb on civilians that posed absolutely no military threat?

Washington and Jefferson were the biproducts of a corrupt society. They were not the cause of it and had no active participation in either the implementation or the defense of it. Slavery was practiced for centuries before them and for decades after their deaths. It was a completely legal, morally acceptable practice in the 16th century. That doesn't excuse them from their sins, but it does qualify them to some degree.

Aseahawkfan wrote:If we're being real here, no one encourages people to name things after Hitler. For some reason some people can't accept that the slave trade was every bit as evil and bad as the Holocaust. It was that level of moral evil. One of the worst human tragedies in recent history. The people involved in it are often viewed in the same way by the people that were oppressed. I don't know if you've spent much time reading on slavery, but if you did you would be offended. The first hand accounts of slaves and the books written by slave owning Americans on how to treat your slaves and ensure their long-term servitude are utterly disgusting.


I disagree. Yes, slavery was utterly disgusting, but it doesn't trump the Holocaust. IMO the systematic execution of millions of men, women, and children in a process that often included ghoulish experiments on live humans was a way worse crime against humanity than slavery. It's not even close. If I am given a choice of life under the bondage of slavery or being tortured to death, I'll take slavery.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Seattle Times banning the word "Redskins"

Postby c_hawkbob » Sat Jul 04, 2020 4:28 pm

Jeez Riv, the straw man examples of things you'd be more comfortable arguing against just keep getting farther and farther out there don't they?

And I'd call the slave trade and the holocaust a push on the "how evil is this" scale. And you could put the genocide of the indigenous American peoples right up there with them.
User avatar
c_hawkbob
Legacy
 
Posts: 6941
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 3:34 pm
Location: Paducah Kentucky, 42001

Re: Seattle Times banning the word "Redskins"

Postby RiverDog » Sat Jul 04, 2020 4:55 pm

c_hawkbob wrote:Jeez Riv, the straw man examples of things you'd be more comfortable arguing against just keep getting farther and farther out there don't they?


Don't act as if my argument is some bizarre thought or opinion. Our laws define murder as a more serious crime than unlawful imprisonment or any other crime that does not involve the taking of a human life. And don't interpret my statements as my being 'comfortable' with arguing that slavery was in any way, shape, or form moral. I'm simply saying that slavery is at a point on a continuum that is slightly below murder.

c_hawkbob wrote:And I'd call the slave trade and the holocaust a push on the "how evil is this" scale. And you could put the genocide of the indigenous American peoples right up there with them.


Up there, sure. But not equal. Murder trumps enslavement.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Seattle Times banning the word "Redskins"

Postby Aseahawkfan » Sat Jul 04, 2020 11:51 pm

RiverDog wrote:I disagree. Yes, slavery was utterly disgusting, but it doesn't trump the Holocaust. IMO the systematic execution of millions of men, women, and children in a process that often included ghoulish experiments on live humans was a way worse crime against humanity than slavery. It's not even close. If I am given a choice of life under the bondage of slavery or being tortured to death, I'll take slavery.


It's not a way worse crime. I highly suggest you read up on American slavery. You will see what was done was the following:

1. The reduction of the African man to the state of an animal to be bought and sold at will in perpetuity including killing him if you felt it was necessary much like killing a hobbled horse or sick dog.

2. The breeding of the African man like livestock to the point where he did not know his own children. Often selling the children taken from their mothers on the slave market.

3. The breaking of the spirit of another human being to reduce them to an animal state where they believe they are permanently inferior including their children who were taught at a young age to obey their masters. This included a combination of psychological and physical abuse to reduce humans to this state.

4. The indoctrination of an entire society of people on a racial hierarchy that supported the reduction of the African man to a slave state much as the Nazis indoctrinated much of the German population to believe the Jew inferior and an enemy.

So let's just say I feel you should do some reading on American slavery and read what it took to reduce an entire group of men and women to an animal slave state where they were considered chattel across an entire society. What kind of physical and mental torture it took on them. How many died during the Trans-Atlantic crossing since they were treated like animals tossed into a cargo ship with those surviving being sold and those getting too sick tossed overboard or allowed to die below until their bodies were tossed overboard or burnt.

Riverdog, this is what I have been trying to illustrate to you in these discussion. And some dayI hope you read up on American slavery from deeper sources like slave accounts and books written by people on how to "Train Your Slave" and the like. American slavery was a systematic effort across many European societies and contnued in America to reduce a group of human beings to a animal slave state in perpetuity. Not like the slavery you read of in the Bible or common tribal slavery or indentured servitude, but a real systemized effort to turn humans into livestock.

That crime is easily on par with the Nazi movement. American slavery took a group of people put their lives completely in the hands of people that viewed them as nothing more than animals who lived and died on their whim and were only as valuable as their economic value made them. They couldn't have families of their own. They often couldn't know their children. They couldn't stop their children from being sold. They couldn't protect their families. They couldn't be men and women. It was the systematic destruction of the human spirit.

I learned to despise American slavery because I read up on it. The version you see in movies, in the general history books, and documentaries does not do justice to how terrible and evil American slavery was. So let's just say we very much disagree. Seeing your children bought and sold before your eyes while you can do nothing is every bit as bad as seeing them killed.

It's why I have I been trying to explain to you that the African man will have a difficult time ever respecting The Founders of this nation. They perpetuated an evil ever bit as bad as Nazi Germany for far longer than Nazi Germany. Nazi Germany lasted 20 years? American slavery lasted 74 years as America and 400 year as a European institution not including segregation and general racism. It was absolutely terrible and once of the worst recorded human crimes in history.

That is why I am so proud of Abraham Lincoln and why I consider him such a truly great man. Most politicians can only manage a few things at a time. Most nations that engage in a Civil War are completely ripped apart, often for decades after the war. Yet somehow Abraham Lincoln successfully held a nation together after a Civil War while abolishing slavery during the same 5 year period. Lincoln was an amazing man. I am thankful he was an American.

I'll see if I can find you some good short articles on what I'm talking about. American slavery was terrible including The Trans-Atlantic trips to bring slaves here that killed so many.
Aseahawkfan
Legacy
 
Posts: 7327
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 12:38 am

Re: Seattle Times banning the word "Redskins"

Postby RiverDog » Sun Jul 05, 2020 4:23 am

There is no more need for you to lecture me on slavery than there is for me to lecture you on the Holocaust, so please, quit talking down to me by suggesting that I "read up".

I understand both events. They are both reprehensible, as are many other occurrences in American as well as world history. My opinion remains that the taking of a human life or lives, as was done in a systematic and barbaric way during the Holocaust, is at the top of the pyramid when it comes to ultimate sins. No other crime against an individual or group of individuals is the moral, or in today's society legal, equivalent to murder. Period. End of discussion.

It's about time that we agree to disagree on this particular aspect of this topic.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Seattle Times banning the word "Redskins"

Postby c_hawkbob » Sun Jul 05, 2020 7:08 am

RiverDog wrote:There is no more need for you to lecture me on slavery than there is for me to lecture you on the Holocaust, so please, quit talking down to me by suggesting that I "read up".

I understand both events. They are both reprehensible, as are many other occurrences in American as well as world history. My opinion remains that the taking of a human life or lives, as was done in a systematic and barbaric way during the Holocaust, is at the top of the pyramid when it comes to ultimate sins. No other crime against an individual or group of individuals is the moral, or in today's society legal, equivalent to murder. Period. End of discussion.

It's about time that we agree to disagree on this particular aspect of this topic.

It was a ridiculous place to take this conversation in the first place, particularly over the horrors of a billionaire being forced to find a new name for his team instead of a racial epithet.
User avatar
c_hawkbob
Legacy
 
Posts: 6941
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 3:34 pm
Location: Paducah Kentucky, 42001

Re: Seattle Times banning the word "Redskins"

Postby RiverDog » Sun Jul 05, 2020 8:12 am

RiverDog wrote:There is no more need for you to lecture me on slavery than there is for me to lecture you on the Holocaust, so please, quit talking down to me by suggesting that I "read up".

I understand both events. They are both reprehensible, as are many other occurrences in American as well as world history. My opinion remains that the taking of a human life or lives, as was done in a systematic and barbaric way during the Holocaust, is at the top of the pyramid when it comes to ultimate sins. No other crime against an individual or group of individuals is the moral, or in today's society legal, equivalent to murder. Period. End of discussion.

It's about time that we agree to disagree on this particular aspect of this topic.


c_hawkbob wrote:It was a ridiculous place to take this conversation in the first place, particularly over the horrors of a billionaire being forced to find a new name for his team instead of a racial epithet.


Agreed, at least with the first part.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Seattle Times banning the word "Redskins"

Postby Aseahawkfan » Sun Jul 05, 2020 4:22 pm

RiverDog wrote:There is no more need for you to lecture me on slavery than there is for me to lecture you on the Holocaust, so please, quit talking down to me by suggesting that I "read up".

I understand both events. They are both reprehensible, as are many other occurrences in American as well as world history. My opinion remains that the taking of a human life or lives, as was done in a systematic and barbaric way during the Holocaust, is at the top of the pyramid when it comes to ultimate sins. No other crime against an individual or group of individuals is the moral, or in today's society legal, equivalent to murder. Period. End of discussion.

It's about time that we agree to disagree on this particular aspect of this topic.


Here is a nice brief up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade#:~:text=The%20Atlantic%20slave%20trade%2C%20transatlantic,16th%20to%20the%2019th%20centuries.

1.2 to 2.4 million people estimated to have died just on the journey from Africa due to being treated as property and their lives lost just a cost of doing business.

The slaver nations including those that allowed it were every bit as bad as the Nazis.

I think it ties into the Redskins naming insofar as people have to start accepting that people have been mad about these things for years, but gave up because there was no movement to get it done. There was not sufficient political will and power for wronged groups to force change. Now that this opportunity has presented itself, they are exerting the power to rid America of symbols, names, and "heroes" that are not people they feel should be revered in the manner they are. As quiet as it goes sometimes, these folks do not forget. I knew it was coming because almost every time I talk with a person of African descent on politics, Washington, Jefferson, and the other slaver Founders come up as a topic. They have made it more than clear that they don't consider those men to be "heroes" or the Founders of their freedom. They are slavers and oppressors in their viewpoint and looked upon similar to other despots and dictators. I don't talk to many Native American folk, but I would imagine it is similar for them but with much smaller representation.

And more of the coming tide of washing away those symbols of our dark past is coming. Just like getting this Redskins name is getting rid of a symbol of America's dark past. It won't stop as the years wear on as much as some wish it would.

I'll leave it there.
Aseahawkfan
Legacy
 
Posts: 7327
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 12:38 am

Re: Seattle Times banning the word "Redskins"

Postby I-5 » Tue Jul 07, 2020 2:10 pm

If we're going to change place names more than mascots, I think public enemy number one would be Columbus. Truly a despicable human everywhere he went. Ironically, his name is almost ubiquituous in both North and South America. That's a lot of name changes...but he would deserve it IMO
User avatar
I-5
Legacy
 
Posts: 1691
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2013 12:41 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Seattle Times banning the word "Redskins"

Postby RiverDog » Tue Jul 07, 2020 4:33 pm

I-5 wrote:If we're going to change place names more than mascots, I think public enemy number one would be Columbus. Truly a despicable human everywhere he went. Ironically, his name is almost ubiquituous in both North and South America. That's a lot of name changes...but he would deserve it IMO


There's an interesting controversy going on in Walla Walla that started long before the BLM movement regarding a statute of Christopher Columbus that has been in place in front of the county courthouse for over a century. As you noted, Columbus was not a very nice guy, although one has to qualify his behavior by noting that he lived during a very barbaric time that trumps even those that our founding fathers lived in. Within the past week, the statute was vandalized. and county officials are contemplating its future.

The problem is that the statute was donated as a gift to the county by 98 Italian American families, of which many direct decedents of theirs still live in the county and several of whom are personal friends of mine, that wanted a representative of their heritage in front of the county courthouse so they selected Christopher Columbus as their icon, commissioned an architect, and erected the statute with their own funds.

https://www.union-bulletin.com/news/cou ... 2c5c9.html

I doubt that those who that vandalized it knew the history behind the statute, but if they did, do you think it would have mattered to them or were they simply experiencing some sort of orgy by engaging in destructive behavior just for the thrill it gave them? I tend to believe in the latter.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Seattle Times banning the word "Redskins"

Postby I-5 » Thu Jul 09, 2020 7:46 pm

Yeah, that’s too bad about the story behind the funding of the statue...they couldn’t have chosen a more notorious representative of their heritage, but in their defense, a lot of the things we know now about him didn’t really come to light until the 21st century. You’re right that the back story didn’t matter much, though. You can call it an orgy, and minimize Columbus as ‘not a very nice guy’, but I don’t view him as acting on par with the times. He was a major figure and influence of the times he lived in, so I don’t quite see him as merely a participant.
User avatar
I-5
Legacy
 
Posts: 1691
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2013 12:41 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Seattle Times banning the word "Redskins"

Postby Aseahawkfan » Thu Jul 09, 2020 8:39 pm

RiverDog wrote:There's an interesting controversy going on in Walla Walla that started long before the BLM movement regarding a statute of Christopher Columbus that has been in place in front of the county courthouse for over a century. As you noted, Columbus was not a very nice guy, although one has to qualify his behavior by noting that he lived during a very barbaric time that trumps even those that our founding fathers lived in. Within the past week, the statute was vandalized. and county officials are contemplating its future.

The problem is that the statute was donated as a gift to the county by 98 Italian American families, of which many direct decedents of theirs still live in the county and several of whom are personal friends of mine, that wanted a representative of their heritage in front of the county courthouse so they selected Christopher Columbus as their icon, commissioned an architect, and erected the statute with their own funds.

https://www.union-bulletin.com/news/cou ... 2c5c9.html

I doubt that those who that vandalized it knew the history behind the statute, but if they did, do you think it would have mattered to them or were they simply experiencing some sort of orgy by engaging in destructive behavior just for the thrill it gave them? I tend to believe in the latter.


Hmm. Does the intent behind the donation usurp the atrocities Columbus is accused of? They could pick someone with a better background than Columbus. It's real hard to overlook his mistreatment of the natives.
Aseahawkfan
Legacy
 
Posts: 7327
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 12:38 am

PreviousNext

Return to Off Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests