OT: Redskins

TimeB0mb

Junior
Joined
Nov 29, 2015
Messages
6,684
In today's day and age, if that Buddhist temple wasn't already built many moons ago, I think they'd decide not to include a swastika because of what it's now associated with, regardless of intent.

Did the Washington Redskins intend to offend anyone with the team name? Of course not, it was just about football. Sadly, if you look hard enough, you'll find a triggered little group somewhere that demands change. Look no further than our own Sebastian. They took away his damn pipe. It's a sad, triggered world we live in with so many people in their feelings.
Are you kidding about the pipe? That is ridiculous.

I saw an article today about that sh!tbag Trump released from prison last week. Anyways the article said he had just used a racist word in an interview. I was curious what it was, and apparently he said "negro." Now I know we don't use that word much anymore, but is it actually a racist word? Or is it the context that reflects the speaker of the word is racist? There is the United Negro College Fund. If I tell someone I donated to them, am I only allowed to use the acronym UNCF?
 
Last edited:

Midlo Cane Fan

804 to 239 to 804
Joined
May 19, 2018
Messages
3,153
Are you kidding about the pipe? That is ridiculous.

I saw an article today about that sh!tbag Trump released from prison last week. Anyways the article said he had just used a racist word in an interview. I was curious what it was, and apparently he said "negro." Now I know we don't use that word much anymore, but is it actually a racist word? Or is it the context that reflects the speaker of the word is racist? There is the United Negro College Fund. If I tell someone I donated to them, am I only allowed to use the acronym UNCF?
when I was growing up, caucasian meant white and negro meant black. Nothing racist about it.
 
Joined
Jun 28, 2017
Messages
1,648
when I was growing up, caucasian meant white and negro meant black. Nothing racist about it.
- In 2020, not when you were growing up Of course - unless you’re the most precocious baby on the planet, it’s racist.
- And the context of that interview in 2020 and HOW he said it (according to the interviewer who claims it’s on tape) … it’s racist.
- And as an operative for Nixon (And his most recent president associations) along with then colleague Lee Atwater, he’s not afforded the benefit of the doubt.

So just because you, and the poster you’re responding to, don’t “see“ racism, doesn’t mean it’s not there. It seems like you both (along with @Poptimus ) are the ones who’re “triggered”.
 

Midlo Cane Fan

804 to 239 to 804
Joined
May 19, 2018
Messages
3,153
- In 2020, not when you were growing up Of course - unless you’re the most precocious baby on the planet, it’s racist.
- And the context of that interview in 2020 and HOW he said it (according to the interviewer who claims it’s on tape) … it’s racist.
- And as an operative for Nixon (And his most recent president associations) along with then colleague Lee Atwater, he’s not afforded the benefit of the doubt.

So just because you, and the poster you’re responding to, don’t “see“ racism, doesn’t mean it’s not there. It seems like you both (along with @Poptimus ) are the ones who’re “triggered”.
Nothing "triggered" about my post either. I was simply recalling that "negro" wasn't used as a racist term back then. Nothing more, nothing less. But giving a response full of colorfully descriptive bullet points over a generically bland statement could be misconstrued as "triggered".
 
Joined
Jun 28, 2017
Messages
1,648
Nothing "triggered" about it either. I was simply recalling that "negro" wasn't used as a racist term back then. But giving a response full of colorfully descriptive bullet points over a generically bland statement could be misconstrued as "triggered".
Not triggered at all. It is what it is. But using your comments, while accurate - historically, it gives cover to a post trying to explain away any use of the word. Again, consider the source. To not accept that context … is blind ignorance or … being triggered.
 

TheOriginalCane

All ACC
Joined
Dec 22, 2011
Messages
8,952
Is it the word redskin that's offensive or the association of the word with native Americans? For example if some guy named John Redskin bought the team then named it after himself, would there still be outrage?

I'd imagine they'd have the same problem that John Hitler would have if he bought the Cleveland Browns and tried to change the name.
 

TimeB0mb

Junior
Joined
Nov 29, 2015
Messages
6,684
I'd imagine they'd have the same problem that John Hitler would have if he bought the Cleveland Browns and tried to change the name.
I get it. But I don't agree with it ( Interesting example though since the Browns are named after the owner, not the color as most people think). If that's the dudes real family name, why does he have to pay the price for something some other dude did? Are people really unable to process that football team owner Hitler is not the same person as Adolf Hitler? Honestly, I've never had a reaction to someone's name being the same as some horrible historical figure. It's like someone who's last name is Castro. I'm Cuban but if someone opened Castro's Sandwiches I wouldn't demand he change the name because Fidel Castro took everything my family owned.
 

CANEMC

Sophomore
Joined
Jan 25, 2017
Messages
3,760
Seminoles next?

0C77BE0B-CA53-484A-B12E-F72ECC0917C4.jpeg
 

TerragonSix

Milk Haulin' 'Cane
Joined
Aug 5, 2015
Messages
2,944
Are you kidding about the pipe? That is ridiculous.

I saw an article today about that sh!tbag Trump released from prison last week. Anyways the article said he had just used a racist word in an interview. I was curious what it was, and apparently he said "negro." Now I know we don't use that word much anymore, but is it actually a racist word? Or is it the context that reflects the speaker of the word is racist? There is the United Negro College Fund. If I tell someone I donated to them, am I only allowed to use the acronym UNCF?
The sad thing is, 'Knee-Grow', (the way Americans pronounce it), comes from the Spanish word 'Negro', which means 'black'.

As for context, I think George Carlin had it nailed.

 

Rellyrell

All-ACC
Joined
Dec 19, 2013
Messages
15,721
U know; The Redskins could’ve easily gone back to their original name: The Braves. Snyder could’ve easily amended this back when this first became an issue. Most Native Americans I know (and I’m part Cheyenne) have no issues w the Braves b/c it represents their fierce warriors. Redskin is a racial epithet used to describe Native Americans.

Snyder could’ve gotten way ahead of this. They could’ve changed their logo back to the spear or had an encircled spear with feathers attached.

Yet this mofos arrogance, lack of leadership and organizational skills have left this man’s pants around his ankle and his dyck in his hand w/ no team name in 2020. Lol. Franchise has been around since ‘33, and this dude went from “we’ll never change our name or brand” to, no name at all. Lol. Now, they look like Bama NE. Lol. Top 5 worst owner in sports.
 

TemplarCane

Anti-Postmodernist / Critical Theory Denier
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Messages
5,819
Are you kidding about the pipe? That is ridiculous.

I saw an article today about that sh!tbag Trump released from prison last week. Anyways the article said he had just used a racist word in an interview. I was curious what it was, and apparently he said "negro." Now I know we don't use that word much anymore, but is it actually a racist word? Or is it the context that reflects the speaker of the word is racist? There is the United Negro College Fund. If I tell someone I donated to them, am I only allowed to use the acronym UNCF?
I do not believe the word Negro is a slur in of order itself, like the ‘n-word’. It is a slur when used in the statement like ‘I don’t want to argue with any Negro’. This isn’t different than the word Mexican or Oriental. If used in context to insult someone, the word is used as a slur.

This was the take by Mo Kelly, the gentleman interviewing Stoner.
 
Last edited:

TemplarCane

Anti-Postmodernist / Critical Theory Denier
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Messages
5,819
In today's day and age, if that Buddhist temple wasn't already built many moons ago, I think they'd decide not to include a swastika because of what it's now associated with, regardless of intent.

Did the Washington Redskins intend to offend anyone with the team name? Of course not, it was just about football. Sadly, if you look hard enough, you'll find a triggered little group somewhere that demands change. Look no further than our own Sebastian. They took away his damn pipe. It's a sad, triggered world we live in with so many people in their feelings.
George Preston Marshall changed the name from Braves to avoid confusion with the Boston Braves. He may not have intended to offend but probably wouldn’t have cared if he did. Marshall was publicly racist, refusing to sign black players until 1962 when the government threatened to revoke his lease on DC Stadium (later changed to RFK Stadium).

I agree some people can be triggered by the slightest perceived offense but I don’t consider the Redskin name controversy one of those cases.
 
Last edited:

matty1

Freshman
Joined
Nov 5, 2011
Messages
864
They are safe as they got sign off from the tribe. Hell I think they are gonna try to convince Washington to use their name as well for a big payday.
So one group can sign off for the white people?? One person/group can sign off for the whole nation.? Seminoles has to go if it offends anyone! That's what the people who are trying to take over this country want to do. The Seminole nation can't grant special status to that name to anyone.
 
Top