Snyder Camp Upset!!

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by diehardskin2982

Hog 1 how many of the people you interviewed are american Indian? You cannot tell one race what is/ is not offensive to them.

Imagine there is a tv show on called "wet-back" and was on for a long time, so much so that everyone associated wet-back with the funny tv show of that name. It still doesn't make the term is any less offensive to hispanics.

No, I cannot...or at least should not. I don't really know how many are actually insulted and offended by the American Indian thing.
I am confident the Batallions of attorneys are so offended, they have their hands out for endless compensation. (JoeRedskin not withstanding)
I am confident the ACLU's and their knock off organization are offended enough to offer more of the same.
I am confident there will be no shortage of.....deeply offended and insulted parties any time a "settlement check" might become available.
BUT I am not so sure how many people would be offended and insulted about this issue if the monetary enrichment, media spotlight were removed and the Armies of advisors went away?
BTW, my survey group had one American Indian known....not sure how many are still in the closet?

[warpaint]

I will side with Snyder from what i heard last night but i will read this whole thread first..

If we were winning again I dont really think there would be that much of a thing.

[diehardskin2982]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

While I wished that was true, that actually isn't. I was in a conversation with an African-American man one day and we got on the subject of race. He basically stated to me that while it is very offensive to the black race for white people to use racial slurs against black people, it is widely acceptable for black people to use racial slurs against white people. He justified it by saying that the words that black people used on white people were more or less "silly" names and should not be taken to offense like the names that a racist white person would use to describe black people. Now, have no idea if this truly is the belief amongst all black people in this country, but that is just what he stated. He also went on to state that white people should never use the term "boy" if talking about a black male, but it was OK for blacks to use the term "boy" in describing white males.

So, I would say, based on this info this gentleman had presented to me, it would seem like that rule doesn't apply to all. I'm hoping this was just his thoughts and nothing that is widely accepted amongst minorities, otherwise I would question the validity of fighting for equality. I, myself, would find any word that is used to disparage a race offensive. But, I think one should also consider the contextin which the word is being used. For instance, computer guys like myself find it a compliment to be called "computer geeks". We feel that is the highest form of flattery one could ever receive in the I.T. world. But, growing up through school, if you were called a geek, you were someone who was very unpopular, backwards, and would only find friends with other geeks. Maybe it's because most of us geeks grow up to be bosses of the "non-geeks"? Who knows?

I said all that to say, when we talk about racial slurs, are we just talking about the word itself? Shouldn't we also consider what context the word is being used? Just a thought.

As a black man let me tell you that the statement that man told you is not true and not the feeling of our race. I cannot tell you that if I called you a "cracker" is a joke and should not be offensive to you, especially if it hurt your feelings. Many times society groups have taken a negative term like the N-word or geeks and used it amonst themselves in an indearing way. However that does not change the original context being indeed very negative.

We all now the history of the Redskins and the fact is that when the name was changed from the Braves, it was changed under the leadership of a racist biggot. The Redskins have a long and established history as a team, but it doesn't make the name any less right. Money or no money being involved.

[SirClintonPortis]

29. As a direct and proximate result of the above-described conduct by Defendants, and each of them, Mr. Snyder has suffered general and special damages in an amount of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000), including damage to Mr. Snyder's reputations and standing in the community, shame, mortification, hurt feelings, embarrassment, humiliation, damage to peace of mind, emotional distress, and injury in his occupation. Although the full nature, extent, and amount of these damages are currently unknown, this Complaint will be amended at or before trial to insert such information if such amendment is deemed necessary by the Court

Man, I wish I had the money to sue for hurt feelings. I know some would like to sue me.

[SkinDogg]

Mark Rypien is half Cherokee?

[Defensewins]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

While I wished that was true, that actually isn't. I was in a conversation with an African-American man one day and we got on the subject of race. He basically stated to me that while it is very offensive to the black race for white people to use racial slurs against black people, it is widely acceptable for black people to use racial slurs against white people. He justified it by saying that the words that black people used on white people were more or less "silly" names and should not be taken to offense like the names that a racist white person would use to describe black people. Now, have no idea if this truly is the belief amongst all black people in this country, but that is just what he stated. He also went on to state that white people should never use the term "boy" if talking about a black male, but it was OK for blacks to use the term "boy" in describing white males.

So, I would say, based on this info this gentleman had presented to me, it would seem like that rule doesn't apply to all. I'm hoping this was just his thoughts and nothing that is widely accepted amongst minorities, otherwise I would question the validity of fighting for equality. I, myself, would find any word that is used to disparage a race offensive. But, I think one should also consider the contextin which the word is being used. For instance, computer guys like myself find it a compliment to be called "computer geeks". We feel that is the highest form of flattery one could ever receive in the I.T. world. But, growing up through school, if you were called a geek, you were someone who was very unpopular, backwards, and would only find friends with other geeks. Maybe it's because most of us geeks grow up to be bosses of the "non-geeks"? Who knows?

I said all that to say, when we talk about racial slurs, are we just talking about the word itself? Shouldn't we also consider what context the word is being used? Just a thought.

A true test of any name or word that you question might be a racially charged word: would you in good conscious go up to a Native American and call him a redskin?
We should not use racially charged words or names, especially those that refer directly to peoples skin color. For a for a group of people that were mistreated just because of their ethnicity and because they were not white, like Native Americans or African Americans. It is better stop the practice of using that name or word. I really do not care how long the name Redskins has been used.
Would I stop being fan of the team if they changed the name? No.

You talk about considering words in their context of how they are being used.
Consider this:
Mr Snyder (a Jew) owner of the Washington REDSKINS is suing someone (another jew) because they drew horns on a picutre of him and Mr Snyder called it anti-semitic. But he is ok with using the name Redskins when referring to Native Americans, a race of people his team is named for. Warped.
Kind of like your african american friend who thinks it is ok to be racist against whites. It is not ok. It should never be ok.

[Longtimefan]

The following is an excerpt from a 2006 Washington Post article that clearly depicts how the term "crackers" could be used in an inflammatory way. It's a word seldom heard when referring to any peoples'. It caught my attention as it reminded me of the Lloyd situation in San Fran which I mentioned earlier.

By: Howard Bryant
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 7, 2006

In San Francisco, Lloyd fought with team leader Fred Beasley, a fullback who said Lloyd was not a team player, as well as running back Kevan Barlow, who suggested that Lloyd was more interested in a possible career as a rap musician than being a winning football player. Lloyd angered 49ers public relations executives by referring in his rap lyrics to the predominately white members of the San Francisco media as "crackers."

ps/ I doubt the 49ers pr exec's. would be angry had they not felt the reference offensive.

[SmootSmack]

Hey LTF, question for you since you've been a, wait for it....longtime fan. Back in the 50s, 60s, 70s; was there the same amount of buzz about the name? Were people clamoring for a change back then?

[Longtimefan]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Hey LTF, question for you since you've been a, wait for it....longtime fan. Back in the 50s, 60s, 70s; was there the same amount of buzz about the name? Were people clamoring for a change back then?

Absolutely not.

However, during the 60's the NCAI, Nations Congress of American Indians created a campaign to eliminate negative stereotyping of Native American people. They have long been opposed to mascots that portray Indians in a negative light. Names like Redskins, Braves, and Seminoles are believed to demean their native traditions.

The saga has continued to the highest court in the land finally making a ruling. I look for it to be an issue of contention as long as there's an ear to hear.

Supreme Court won't rule on racist NFL team name

[Longtimefan]

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

Dan Snyder has a Type A personality. I'm not one to usually throw out these things, but he fits the description to a T. He's a tight-wad. He's a control freak. He thinks he could do it "his" way.

Yeah, perhaps he does want to win, but wanting to win doesn't mean having empathy with regards to other fans and their experience or the players. Hell, he didn't give a shit about Dan Turk.

A decade of futility would give even the casual fan reason to pause. The graphics depicted here are proof there's much work to be done.

Daniel Snyder

[freddyg12]

Originally Posted by Longtimefan

Absolutely not.

However, during the 60's the NCAI, Nations Congress of American Indians created a campaign to eliminate negative stereotyping of Native American people. They have long been opposed to mascots that portray Indians in a negative light. Names like Redskins, Braves, and Seminoles are believed to demean their native traditions.

The saga has continued to the highest court in the land finally making a ruling. I look for it to be an issue of contention as long as there's an ear to hear.

Supreme Court won't rule on racist NFL team name

to add to this, the very name "Indian" is derived from mistaken geographic identity, yet many Native Americans still call themselves Indians. The group you note above reminded me of that.

[freddyg12]

Media wrap up of reaction to the suit:

The Early Lead - The hits just keep coming over Dan Snyder's City Paper lawsuit

The recurring theme; he can't win in court & this is doing more to damage his rep than help it. I'd say that's on par w/the reaction here.

[CRedskinsRule]

Well that article was just a re-hash of other articles. It's pretty easy to keep the hits coming when you are the one that keeps repeating them...

[freddyg12]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Well that article was just a re-hash of other articles. It's pretty easy to keep the hits coming when you are the one that keeps repeating them...

Hence, I posted it was a wrap up. Not sure what you meant in 2nd sentence, or rather who it was directed to.

If you haven't scoured the web for every article about it, this one shows you that a few journalists have done pieces on it. Yet to see anyone coming to Snyder's defense & saying this suit makes sense as a PR move.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by freddyg12

Hence, I posted it was a wrap up. Not sure what you meant in 2nd sentence, or rather who it was directed to.

If you haven't scoured the web for every article about it, this one shows you that a few journalists have done pieces on it. Yet to see anyone coming to Snyder's defense & saying this suit makes sense as a PR move.

I was talking about the post. The article is titled and The Hits Just Keep Coming, but really it's just a wrap up of the same story told multiple ways. To compare/contrast; the SB started with a whimper due to the snow. If a week later they rehashed all the stories about the snow, you would not title it the snow keeps coming - no, the snow came and reporters found various ways to report on the same story. That is what happened with the Snyder story.

In contrast; the SB started with Snow, then Seatgate, then the (minor) roof leak, and the filing of the lawsuit by Cowboys season ticket holders. There, the hits (or different negative situations) just kept coming. So, the title may have been appropriate in that context.

In DS' context, the only way you could say the hits keep coming is if you are referring to negative articles about the same situation, and in that case the post is as i said, in a position to keep the hits coming simply by repeating and rehashing the same information over and over.

You want to make it a wrap up article then say Reviewing Snyder's gaffe, or what the press says, or whatever. That's fine. My point is simply that there wasnt a new "hit" or negative situation w/regards to DS in that "article"