I don't think lobbyists care much about morals. Ask Jack Abramoff.

There are plenty of areas where native americans own land that would be ideal for mineral and hydrocarbon extraction. You don't want them realizing your company sponsors a team name that they wouldn't want to be called.

Bringing up 1971 is only important in the context of people saying "this only became an issue in the last year!" Clearly, certain segments of the Native American population have been offended by the word for, at a minimum, 40+ years. That's not me thumbing my nose at someone, that's relating historical facts surrounding the argument...

 

I'm arguing as to why the name should change. If Native American groups decided, "you know what, not offended any more" then I would probably change my stance... but that hasn't happened.

 

But there are indians that either were never offended by it, or are no longer offended by it.

 

Obviously this has been a pretty big issue, but I wouldn't count on the name changing any time soon. You would think they would have just forced him to change it by now if they could.

Snyder should just make an offer for all the people who want the name changed. Come up with a billion dollars and he'll change the name. After taking out enough to cover all the things that will need to be changed (uniforms, signs, etc.) the rest gets donated to American Indian causes. Then people can put their money where the fauxrage is. Or not.

I get a chuckle out of some of these sports announcers and writers who are now deciding to declare there distaste for the name Redskins. so....last year and the year before you had no problem using the "racist" name in your broadcasts/articles but NOW you've all seen the light or decided to come out of the shadows with your outrage??

 

GMAFB

I get a chuckle out of some of these sports announcers and writers who are now deciding to declare there distaste for the name Redskins. so....last year and the year before you had no problem using the "racist" name in your broadcasts/articles but NOW you've all seen the light or decided to come out of the shadows with your outrage??

 

GMAFB

 

Pretty much.

That kind of sounds like every movement in history.

Pretty good read on both sides of the Chief Illiniwek debate, including quotes from the "current" Chief (an American Indian).

 

http://theclassical.org/articles/the-chief

 

I still think, as a kid, watching the Chief during the halftime show, getting the entire crowd behind him, was one of the coolest experiences at any sporting event I've ever been to. It sucks that my son will never get to experience that.

I think this photo does a good job illustrating how hokey "the chief" was. I never really cared much one way or the other when I was there.

 

 

I'll never understand why some people get so emotionally attached to team names, logos, or mascots, though. This is just ridiculous:

Past directors have received death threats after declaring Chief Illiniwek culturally insensitive to American Indians, in addition to more tangible actions; Wanda Pillow, who held Singson’s seat when the Chief was retired in February 2007, once went for a drive, only to discover that the lug nuts had been removed from the wheels of her car.

I think this photo does a good job illustrating how hokey "the chief" was. I never really cared much one way or the other when I was there.

 

 

I'll never understand why some people get so emotionally attached to team names, logos, or mascots, though. This is just ridiculous:

 

Sure it was hokey, but he does make a good point that the Chief was never used like a mascot, running around the field trying to make people laugh. He was a symbol 99% of the time, and a halftime piece the remaining 1%.

 

It just frustrates me when people claim it's all racist and a big insult when clearly the students/alumni/fans ADORED the Chief. They loved every minute of it. It's been 7 years since his last performance and the crowd still goes nuts when he randomly shows up. They don't do that because they like seeing a guy make fun of American Indians, they like it because they like the Chief and the entire tradition behind it, including their own personal memories of it.

 

And yes, fans can be really stupid.

Edited August 27, 201411 yr by Jenksismybitch

Sure it was hokey, but he does make a good point that the Chief was never used like a mascot, running around the field trying to make people laugh. He was a symbol 99% of the time, and a halftime piece the remaining 1%.

 

It just frustrates me when people claim it's all racist and a big insult when clearly the students/alumni/fans ADORED the Chief. They loved every minute of it. It's been 7 years since his last performance and the crowd still goes nuts when he randomly shows up. They don't do that because they like seeing a guy make fun of American Indians, they like it because they like the Chief and the entire tradition behind it, including their own personal memories of it.

 

And yes, fans can be really stupid.

right, but that doesn't mean that the Chief or other similar mascots aren't still inherently hurtful or demeaning. Whether or not you intend or even realize you're saying or doing something offensive doesn't change that.

The New York Daily news announced in an editorial that they will no longer use the Redskins name nor print the logo in the paper.

 

http://m.nydailynews.com/opinion/sack-article-1.1926865

"See guys! Look how much we care!"

If they are supposed to be sports REPORTING, then they need to mention the name as long as it is the Washington Redskins. Otherwise they are editorializing instead of reporting. The masses just want the news, the score, the facts. We don't give a s*** how you as a writer 'feel' about anything. And the NFL needs to tell its announcers to do their jobs are report the games. If players get fined for expressing opinions and such during games by even wearing an 'unapproved' headband, then announcers need to be fined for not using the official name of one of the teams they are broadcasting.

If they are supposed to be sports REPORTING, then they need to mention the name as long as it is the Washington Redskins. Otherwise they are editorializing instead of reporting. The masses just want the news, the score, the facts. We don't give a s*** how you as a writer 'feel' about anything. And the NFL needs to tell its announcers to do their jobs are report the games. If players get fined for expressing opinions and such during games by even wearing an 'unapproved' headband, then announcers need to be fined for not using the official name of one of the teams they are broadcasting.

 

While I do think the name should be changed, this post is also 100% correct.

"The Washington NFL team" pretty clearly identifies what they're talking about.

They should just change the name to the Tribe or Braves or something that's not offensive.

Snyder should just make an offer for all the people who want the name changed. Come up with a billion dollars and he'll change the name. After taking out enough to cover all the things that will need to be changed (uniforms, signs, etc.) the rest gets donated to American Indian causes. Then people can put their money where the fauxrage is. Or not.

Not a bad take. Except he hadn't been playing the "cost" card on this issue until recently. That's an interesting idea, though.

 

I get a chuckle out of some of these sports announcers and writers who are now deciding to declare there distaste for the name Redskins. so....last year and the year before you had no problem using the "racist" name in your broadcasts/articles but NOW you've all seen the light or decided to come out of the shadows with your outrage??

 

GMAFB

Again, a pretty good take. I'm amazed in this day and age of political correctness the league allows the name "Redskins" to continue on, though. It's totally offensive (IMO).

If they are supposed to be sports REPORTING, then they need to mention the name as long as it is the Washington Redskins. Otherwise they are editorializing instead of reporting. The masses just want the news, the score, the facts. We don't give a s*** how you as a writer 'feel' about anything. And the NFL needs to tell its announcers to do their jobs are report the games. If players get fined for expressing opinions and such during games by even wearing an 'unapproved' headband, then announcers need to be fined for not using the official name of one of the teams they are broadcasting.

What would happen to an NFL player on that team who decided to black out the name on his uniform?

"The Washington NFL team" pretty clearly identifies what they're talking about.

But that isn't their name or brand. Cry all you want to, but for now the name is the Redskins and as a member of the NFL with that name they have every right and expectation to be called that name, not some made up feel-good version that people want to use to feel good about themselves. At least as far as broadcasts go. Go call the Yankees the New Your Baseball team and see how that goes over. They have money, time etc. invested in the name/brand and to not use it is to dilute it. Unless they started referring to all the teams as something else, like The New England NFL Team' or something, it is just wrong.

But that isn't their name or brand. Cry all you want to, but for now the name is the Redskins and as a member of the NFL with that name they have every right and expectation to be called that name, not some made up feel-good version that people want to use to feel good about themselves. At least as far as broadcasts go. Go call the Yankees the New Your Baseball team and see how that goes over. They have money, time etc. invested in the name/brand and to not use it is to dilute it. Unless they started referring to all the teams as something else, like The New England NFL Team' or something, it is just wrong.

 

The team doesn't have any sort of right to demand that others use the name instead of a different but clear reference to them. Unless there's something specifically in the TV/announcer contracts with the NFL, the NFL can't dictate that.

 

What would they dictate, anyway? Announcers shorten teams' names all the time: "Chicago really needs to stop the run here!" "The Pats need a quick turnover to stay in it!" "Washington is playing great on defense tonight." Maybe they should just start calling them by their official corporate name, Pro-Football, Incorporated.

The team doesn't have any sort of right to demand that others use the name instead of a different but clear reference to them. Unless there's something specifically in the TV/announcer contracts with the NFL, the NFL can't dictate that.

 

What would they dictate, anyway? Announcers shorten teams' names all the time: "Chicago really needs to stop the run here!" "The Pats need a quick turnover to stay in it!" "Washington is playing great on defense tonight." Maybe they should just start calling them by their official corporate name, Pro-Football, Incorporated.

The NFL is all about sameness in regards to things like that. Uniforms, etc. They can insist that the teams be called by their names if they want to. They have the leverage. While you are right there are times when they shorten names or just say the city, there are specific times they do say the full names, like end of quarters and such. Say the name. That is your job. Report on the game, not give us your opinions and biases.

Have any announcers, as opposed to sports reporters, announced that they won't be using the full name? I have to say I'd be surprised if the TV networks would let them do that given the importance of NFL advertising revenue.

The NFL is all about sameness in regards to things like that. Uniforms, etc. They can insist that the teams be called by their names if they want to. They have the leverage. While you are right there are times when they shorten names or just say the city, there are specific times they do say the full names, like end of quarters and such. Say the name. That is your job. Report on the game, not give us your opinions and biases.

So why is it ok for people to criticize Roger Goodell's decisions on like the Ray Rice suspension? "Not give us your opinions and biases"?

yeah, that sort of ignores that the job of the color commentary is to give us opinions and biases, or when they give their opinions on reviews, play choice, strategy, etc.

yeah, that sort of ignores that the job of the color commentary is to give us opinions and biases, or when they give their opinions on reviews, play choice, strategy, etc.

Supposed to comment on the play that just happened.