What is Digg?Sponsored by AVG
Not All Free Anti-Virus Software Is Created Equal view!
free.avg.com - 2.4 million people a week get AVG Anti-Virus Free, for the best protection against web threats.
200 Comments
- KORGOTH, on 11/16/2009, -6/+52It's funny because there would be a ***** if the team was called the Blackskins and had a tarbaby for their mascott. Double standards are awesome!
- RoboPimp3000, on 11/16/2009, -5/+37In my opinion the name is somewhat offensive, but it should not be up to the government to decide that. Let the teams decide their own names and let the public decide if they want to support them.
- FloorModel, on 11/16/2009, -13/+44good! there's Pc and there's too PC. In a better world this would be the worst of the ills we face in the US.
Let the team and school team names stand and let's focus on real issues in this country. - sd2001, on 11/16/2009, -0/+29Dugg for using an entire paragraph talking about using that word without actually using it in context. It's not as easy as it may seem.
- ndevito1, on 11/16/2009, -3/+30They can win in the courts...but can they win on Sunday?
- Eurynom0s, on 11/16/2009, -20/+45I think a certain word, "the", is offensive. In fact I find it absolutely vile, and I mention it only so that everyone can know what I'm talking about. It offends my religious and moral sensibilities. I demand my right to not be offended be honored; I demand this vile word be banned from public discourse!
- HeDiggMe, on 11/16/2009, -14/+362 wins for my Skins this week. Hail Victory!
- capheine, on 11/16/2009, -6/+19If Irish people root for Notre Dame and the Boston Celtics, how come American Indians don't root for the Redskins? *****, if there was a team called the New York Half-British One-Quarter-German One-Quarter-Dutch Guys, I would root my ass off for them.
- gimpsta, on 11/16/2009, -0/+13Up to about its primary school days a child thinks, naturally, only of play. But many a form of play contains disciplinary factors. “You can’t do this,” or “that puts you out,” shows a child that it must think, practically or fail. Now, if, throughout childhood, a brain has no opposition, it is plain that it will attain a position of “status quo,” as with our ordinary animals. Man knows not why a cow, dog or lion was not born with a brain on a par with ours; why such animals cannot add, subtract, or obtain from books and schooling, that paramount position which Man holds today.
- directedition, on 11/16/2009, -9/+21Apparently mentioning a physical characteristic is considered offensive these days. You don't have to append judgment (good, bad, etc), only acknowledge it, and it's considered offensive.
Also, is "colored people" considered offensive? It's old-timey enough that I would imagine it is. But at the same time, the NAACP has it in their name. - oldhick, on 11/16/2009, -2/+13Who is this "we"? I didn't do any of the things you've mentioned.
- kthoma22, on 11/16/2009, -14/+25I mean we could never get away with team names such as Long Island Guineas, Boston Micks, El Paso Wetbacks, Atlanta *****, or Seattle Chinks so I guess why should it be any different for Native Americans?
- ModernProgressi, on 11/16/2009, -4/+15You don't have a constitutional right to not be offended.
- blackfog, on 11/16/2009, -11/+22It is pretty sad this wasn't considered a worthy case of racism by the Supreme Court. The fact is, our culture is very desensitized negative remarks regarding Native American due to turning them into commodities (Redskins, Braves, Seminoles, etc.) This isn't always offensive but it borders the line often. An example is the Braves who have a Tomahawk chop with a Native American themed chant which can be interpreted as a mockery of what was/is a prideful community. But I digress...
This is a case of government not protecting the rights of the small. The fact is, there is a large degree of the population that isn't clued in to how the Redskins can be considered derogatory. I would love for there to be a team called the Blackskins with a Mammy-themed mascot and see how many people are up in arms then.
This is racism, pure and simple and just because it has become a commodity that benefits more people than it hurts, doesn't mean it should exist. - drmangrum, on 11/16/2009, -0/+10I would like to hear the fight song for such a team.
- skinturtle, on 11/16/2009, -4/+14I don't think the name was ever chosen to be a insult to anyone....that would be a stupid move for a football team esepecially. It was probably chosen for some aspect of it that symbolized strength I would think.
- braingilbreath, on 11/16/2009, -6/+15I find the Celtics team name offensive to Irish people. Not all Irish people are magic leprechauns.
- bschonec, on 11/16/2009, -2/+11If they have to change names then Cracker Barrel does too.
- papashawn, on 11/16/2009, -0/+9They should change it to rednecks and have the mascot be the banjo kid from deliverance
- amawg9, on 11/16/2009, -17/+25Sorry guys Redskins is not cool. I don't think it's "too PC" to not want a team named after a derogatory name. i.e. there is nothing wrong with the Chiefs or Seminoles, but Redskins in my mind crosses that invisible line of respect.
- falco217, on 11/16/2009, -0/+8Now try making a paragraph without using the letter e!
- bobburn1, on 11/16/2009, -7/+15As and Amerindian, I applaud this decision. ***** being PC.
- macslut, on 11/16/2009, -10/+17Just change the ***** name. How hard is that?
Stop ***** whining about being "too PC". Native Americans were practically wiped out in this country and ***** over beyond belief. They aren't asking for justice here, they're just asking a very profitable organization to stop using their image and the now commonly accepted as derogatory name.
Take advantage of the opportunity to upgrade to a more modern name and image. - T8erT0T, on 11/16/2009, -0/+7...you mean a Trail of Tears?
- Ferretman, on 11/16/2009, -11/+18A good win for common sense!
- mwalker05, on 11/16/2009, -2/+9so if there were a team called the Nebraska Brown Skins, and their mascot was a guy wearing a turban, you don't think it would be offensive? because its pretty much the same thing.
- travsb, on 11/16/2009, -1/+8see denver broncos
- travsb, on 11/16/2009, -2/+8so fighting irish is cool then?
- Yargh, on 11/16/2009, -0/+6If you're worried about derogatory, change the Indians mascot.
- bandomac, on 11/16/2009, -0/+6Private vs. Public. Right on!
- DDRSkata, on 11/16/2009, -1/+7While I acknowledge that it's gotten less offensive through its use in this context, it's still pretty racist. People would think differently if it was the Charleston Coloreds or the Tuscon Towelheads.
- Bartboy919, on 11/16/2009, -0/+6"The" sure has qualities that define a certain race or group in a disparaging way...
- superkeer, on 11/16/2009, -7/+13If there was a team from New Jersey called the "Jews," we'd be up in arms. If there was a team from Harlem called the "Blacks," we'd be dizzy with amazement that such a team could name itself so.
And those aren't even racial slurs.
It's astonishing to me that we've come so far as to eliminate the acceptance of every race's slurs but the one that actually suffered the most during the formative years of this nation. I think it has to do with the fact that there are so few Native Americans left and that so few of us actually know a true Native American.
And you should really think about that. They used to own this land from coast to coast, and now they're such a diminished people that we laugh at the "PC-ness" of the effort to have their racial slur removed from being the trademark of a multi-billion dollar sports franchise. - ironrex, on 11/16/2009, -14/+20I have mixed feelings about this. While it's been shown that redskins is a name that native Americans once accepted and preferred to be called, its connotation has changed over time. And while I don't want my team to seem racially insensitive, there is something to be said for tradition.
In the end, I lean towards the line of thought that says words are just a container for meaning. The Washington Redskins are meant to honor the native Americans, not disparage them. - consonance, on 11/16/2009, -0/+5***** you, the only people will agree with you are the Macs.
- bandomac, on 11/16/2009, -0/+5Neither did I, but I do see what the US government did to the native people as the travesty it was. Native Americans HAVE been crapped on in this country, but I don't think changing a team name will improve their lot much.
- CallMeRooster, on 11/16/2009, -0/+5http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_Whites
- Jaime2000, on 11/16/2009, -0/+5Why don't you try a book?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadsby_%28novel%29 - JamesBondQ, on 11/16/2009, -0/+4This has happened with ever word that we've ever used to describe a minority, because as soon as the term is common knowledge it seems less intellectual than it did before, and people go out looking for a new word to use to correct people, and usually its a less useful word anyway. I don't see why the word deaf needed to be replaced by the longer phrase "hearing impaired" (just an example) other than to make people feel important by telling people what words they can and cannot use.
- nepidae, on 11/16/2009, -2/+6Damn white people using color to classify people.
- harpoonhank420, on 11/16/2009, -5/+9the difference is those are trying to piss people off
- termerjur, on 11/16/2009, -2/+6The n word that was used to empower slave owners and racists is discouraged.
This words used to justify the genocide of the original Native American tribes however has not yet reached or registered in the American conscience. - morcheeba, on 11/16/2009, -0/+4Ah, but social things aren't that simple. Meaning gets attached to words & will stigmatize them - even if, technically, they are purely descriptive.
- hereticoftruth, on 11/16/2009, -0/+4Although I am sure the Redskin's name was originally meant as an honorific, I can see why a people may be offended by it's use by others who do not show respect to their culture. After all, Little Black Sambo bleached white before he disappeared from public consciousness not because he started out as a derogatory reference but because lowlifes in white society used it that way before a moral majority stood up for racial equality. Had there been no racism, the children's story would have remained in a positive light. So do the right thing. Find a better name for yourselves.
- nepidae, on 11/16/2009, -2/+6If you care about them owning this land so much, then give them any land you own, and make sure you only rent from them. Look, the natives fought amongst themselves as well, you can only define borders based on a single point in time. Go back 1000 years and the map would look completely different from 300 years ago.
- drunkenvthokie, on 11/16/2009, -2/+6The NFL shouldn't just give us the name Redskins and then take it away... who do they think they are, Indian givers? /s
- pilot3033, on 11/16/2009, -2/+6What is the constitutional argument though? You're dealing with a social problem, not a legal one. You can't rule "redskins" unconstitutional when it is a valid expression of free speech. If you find the name offensive then petition the team to change their name or try to start a campaign to educate the country on the connotation that the name now holds.
Personally, I think most people don't even think about native americans when they think about the team. - crazyhorse13, on 11/16/2009, -0/+4The NY Mutts.
- FloorModel, on 11/16/2009, -2/+6braingilbreath, you mean you don't all look like Lucky from Lucky Charms? I'm sad now. It will make my yellow moons, pink hearts, orange stars and green clovers less magically delicious.
- pilot3033, on 11/16/2009, -1/+5And that takes away its power. Not many make the association and thus not many use the term as a way to offend or insult a native american. Words change meaning all the time, especially over multiple decades or centuries.
Even if the word still held the same connotation, the fact of the matter is the team is protected by the first amendment. -
Show 51 - 100 of 203 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is