DC in Da House w/o a Doubt Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 It's not like naming a team N*ggers AT ALL. AT ALL. It'd be like naming a team the Blackskins. Offensive? Yeah. Unspeakably offensive and anywhere close to as offensive as the word N*ggers would be? No where near.Your analogy doesn't really hold water. "Blackskin" wasn't a common racial slur used towards blacks. "Redskin" was a common racial slur used towards Indians. Therefore, Ice_Cap's comparison actually makes more sense.The n-word is immensely more offensive. My proof? Common sense along with the question, do you think only 9% of African Americans would find a team named the N*ggers offensive? I don't think so. Therefore, his comparison is still mediocre at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lights Out Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 I'm sure the number would be 100%. However, Indians have arguably many more issues to worry about than African-Americans in this day and age than the name of a sports team. POTD: 2/4/12 3/4/12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IceCap Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 It's not like naming a team N*ggers AT ALL. AT ALL. It'd be like naming a team the Blackskins. Offensive? Yeah. Unspeakably offensive and anywhere close to as offensive as the word N*ggers would be? No where near.Your analogy doesn't really hold water. "Blackskin" wasn't a common racial slur used towards blacks. "Redskin" was a common racial slur used towards Indians. Therefore, Ice_Cap's comparison actually makes more sense.The n-word is immensely more offensive. My proof? Common sense along with the question, do you think only 9% of African Americans would find a team named the N*ggers offensive? I don't think so. Therefore, his comparison is still mediocre at best.Only 9% of natives claimed they had a problem with the team using the word "redskin" as a name. I think a far greater percentage of them would feel offended if you called them a "redskin" to their face. Also, the comparison is still apt. Both "n*gger" and "redskin" were derogatory terms used for centuries. You have yet to answer the question how one is ok for a team name while the other isn't. You're now informed that the term's nature as a slur predates the team's adoption of it as a name. So now that this point of confusion has been done away with, answer the more pressing question. PotD 26/2/12 1/7/15 2020 BASS Spin the Wheel, Make the Deal Regular Season Champion 2021 BASS NFL Pick'em Regular Season Champion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC in Da House w/o a Doubt Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 I'm sure the number would be 100%. However, Indians have arguably many more issues to worry about than African-Americans in this day and age than the name of a sports team.Bingo. I agree 100%. In fact I even said the same thing earlier.It's not like naming a team N*ggers AT ALL. AT ALL. It'd be like naming a team the Blackskins. Offensive? Yeah. Unspeakably offensive and anywhere close to as offensive as the word N*ggers would be? No where near.Your analogy doesn't really hold water. "Blackskin" wasn't a common racial slur used towards blacks. "Redskin" was a common racial slur used towards Indians. Therefore, Ice_Cap's comparison actually makes more sense.The n-word is immensely more offensive. My proof? Common sense along with the question, do you think only 9% of African Americans would find a team named the N*ggers offensive? I don't think so. Therefore, his comparison is still mediocre at best.Only 9% of natives claimed they had a problem with the team using the word "redskin" as a name. I think a far greater percentage of them would feel offended if you called them a "redskin" to their face. Also, the comparison is still apt. Both "n*gger" and "redskin" were derogatory terms used for centuries. You have yet to answer the question how one is ok for a team name while the other isn't. You're now informed that the term's nature as a slur predates the team's adoption of it as a name. So now that this point of confusion has been done away with, answer the more pressing question.Ice_Cap I guess we just gotta agree to disagree. Nice healthy argument, no hard feelings. I gotta go watch the Nationals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IceCap Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 Awesome. Hope they win. Gotta pull for the former Canadian club. Have a good one. PotD 26/2/12 1/7/15 2020 BASS Spin the Wheel, Make the Deal Regular Season Champion 2021 BASS NFL Pick'em Regular Season Champion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lights Out Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 I'm sure the number would be 100%. However, Indians have arguably many more issues to worry about than African-Americans in this day and age than the name of a sports team.Bingo. I agree 100%. In fact I even said the same thing earlier.That still doesn't change the fact that the name is offensive and ought to be changed.But at the risk of belaboring the point, I'll also agree to disagree. POTD: 2/4/12 3/4/12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnySeoul Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 lmao...some of you have a hard time picking up on sarcasm on this thread and the BFBS one. haha JohnnySeoul's WikipageIF ONE IS CONSIDERED RACIST, THEN BOTH MUST BE CONSIDERED RACIST.BOTTOM LINE: NEITHER ONE IS RACIST. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moseph Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 I am just kind of curious, if the term Redskin is so offensive, why don't we have to bleep out a letter like you do with the term n*gger? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IceCap Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 I am just kind of curious, if the term Redskin is so offensive, why don't we have to bleep out a letter like you do with the term n*gger?Apples and oranges. Someone with a deeper sociological background could probably provide you with a more satisfactory answer. What I can say beyond a shadow of a doubt is that both words are racial slurs. As such neither word is appropriate for a pro sports franchise in the 21st century to use. PotD 26/2/12 1/7/15 2020 BASS Spin the Wheel, Make the Deal Regular Season Champion 2021 BASS NFL Pick'em Regular Season Champion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loogodude90 Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 I am just kind of curious, if the term Redskin is so offensive, why don't we have to bleep out a letter like you do with the term n*gger?Native Americans do not have the same amount of political power in this country that African-Americans do. That's why. WIZARDS ORIOLES CAPITALS RAVENS UNITED Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IceCap Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 I am just kind of curious, if the term Redskin is so offensive, why don't we have to bleep out a letter like you do with the term n*gger?Native Americans do not have the same amount of political power in this country that African-Americans do. That's why.Also, a pro sports team using the term "redskin" has normalized the word to a majority of people. A real tragedy that such a slur could be normalized, but here we are. Who knows? If some pro team in the 1920s used the name "N*ggers" maybe that word would be normalized and that team's fanbase would be rallying in support of it. PotD 26/2/12 1/7/15 2020 BASS Spin the Wheel, Make the Deal Regular Season Champion 2021 BASS NFL Pick'em Regular Season Champion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnySeoul Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 I am just kind of curious, if the term Redskin is so offensive, why don't we have to bleep out a letter like you do with the term n*gger?Probably because Native Americans for the most part keep to themselves...which doesn't justify it either. Ok, I suppose I'll be honest and stop the sarcasm for at least this comment (won't happen often ). Redskins is wrong, but because of how deeply it is now rooted into NFL history and a deep fanbase, the chances of it going away are slim to 0% chance. JohnnySeoul's WikipageIF ONE IS CONSIDERED RACIST, THEN BOTH MUST BE CONSIDERED RACIST.BOTTOM LINE: NEITHER ONE IS RACIST. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnySeoul Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 I am just kind of curious, if the term Redskin is so offensive, why don't we have to bleep out a letter like you do with the term n*gger?Probably because Native Americans for the most part keep to themselves...which doesn't justify it either. Ok, I suppose I'll be honest and stop the sarcasm for at least this comment (won't happen often ). Redskins is wrong, but because of how deeply it is now rooted into NFL history and a deep fanbase, the chances of it going away are slim to 0% chance.It has never really offended me because I don't think of Native Americans when someone says, "Redskins". I've always thought of the Washington Redskins. Same applies to Chief Wahoo. All I've ever seen in that logo is a happy cartoon character that a city has embraced and loves like no other. JohnnySeoul's WikipageIF ONE IS CONSIDERED RACIST, THEN BOTH MUST BE CONSIDERED RACIST.BOTTOM LINE: NEITHER ONE IS RACIST. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IceCap Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 If the word "redskin" only referred to the football team in this day and age, that would be one thing. Sadly, it's still used as a racial slur directed towards Natives among less enlightened circles. PotD 26/2/12 1/7/15 2020 BASS Spin the Wheel, Make the Deal Regular Season Champion 2021 BASS NFL Pick'em Regular Season Champion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lights Out Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 Same applies to Chief Wahoo. All I've ever seen in that logo is a happy cartoon character that a city has embraced and loves like no other.Let me guess - it's a Cleveland thing. Us less-enlightened yokels from other areas of the country wouldn't understand. POTD: 2/4/12 3/4/12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnySeoul Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 Same applies to Chief Wahoo. All I've ever seen in that logo is a happy cartoon character that a city has embraced and loves like no other.Let me guess - it's a Cleveland thing. Us less-enlightened yokels from other areas of the country wouldn't understand. Nah...Chief Wahoo is one of the most recognizable logos in sports. Yea, I know that doesn't justify it. I'm biased cause I think it's one of the best logos out there. JohnnySeoul's WikipageIF ONE IS CONSIDERED RACIST, THEN BOTH MUST BE CONSIDERED RACIST.BOTTOM LINE: NEITHER ONE IS RACIST. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 It can simultaneously be a great logo and inexcusably racist. The two aren't mutually exclusive. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loogodude90 Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 It can simultaneously be a great logo and inexcusably racist. The two aren't mutually exclusive.Uh, I definitely disagree with that. Any chance the logo has at being great is kind of killed by the fact that it's inexcusably racist. There's a reason that you rarely hear anyone publicly praise the swastika or Stormfront logo from a design standpoint. And it has nothing to do with their design. WIZARDS ORIOLES CAPITALS RAVENS UNITED Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 People were praising the hammer and sickle in another thread. Couldn't get in on that one. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 I don't think anyone can deny that the swastika is an exceptional logo. Was for centuries before the Nazis stole it. The Nazis were evil, but they recognized good design when they saw it. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.