by daysofourlives » Mon Oct 28, 2013 1:52 pm
by Footy Chick » Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:33 pm
Gatt_Weasel wrote:if they (Walkerville) dont win the flag ill run around the block of my street naked :) you can grab a chair and enjoy the view
by OnSong » Mon Oct 28, 2013 4:12 pm
by Failed Creation » Mon Oct 28, 2013 4:59 pm
OnSong wrote:The Vancouver Grizzlies had to change their name because it was offensive to wives.
by Wedgie » Mon Oct 28, 2013 5:44 pm
Footy Chick wrote: it still doesn't answer my question though on why it's still allowed to be used in this day and age if it's so offensive.
Armchair expert wrote:Such a great club are Geelong
by The Sleeping Giant » Mon Oct 28, 2013 6:17 pm
Wedgie wrote:Footy Chick wrote: it still doesn't answer my question though on why it's still allowed to be used in this day and age if it's so offensive.
There's been requests to change it and protests for years and years, the owner outright refuses to change it.
by Spargo » Mon Oct 28, 2013 6:54 pm
by Psyber » Mon Oct 28, 2013 7:06 pm
Wedgie wrote:Psyber wrote:heater31 wrote:The Washington Redskins were one of the last if not the last organisations in the NFL to sign black players to their roster.
Had pick 1 in the 1962 draft, selected the previous year's Heisman trophy winner (Ernie Davis a black man) and traded immediately to Cleveland....
Surely the "Redskins" and the "Braves" were not called that to dishonour the American Indian tribes, but in recognition and identification with their courage and fighting spirit. So, it was in reality a form of honouring them. How does that now become racist and denigrating? Just because the words are NOW seen as such by the PC police?
Are you serious?
Calling a NFL team the Redskins is no different to calling an AFL side the Abbos.
Redskins is an offensive, disparaging, insultive and taboo term.
The last time it was used as a common term for indigenous was the 19th century!
The term Redskin to indigenous Americans is exactly the same as the term Nigger is to African Americans.
Just because you're ignorant there's no need to play the PC card.
by The Sleeping Giant » Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:32 pm
Psyber wrote:Wedgie wrote:Psyber wrote:heater31 wrote:The Washington Redskins were one of the last if not the last organisations in the NFL to sign black players to their roster.
Had pick 1 in the 1962 draft, selected the previous year's Heisman trophy winner (Ernie Davis a black man) and traded immediately to Cleveland....
Surely the "Redskins" and the "Braves" were not called that to dishonour the American Indian tribes, but in recognition and identification with their courage and fighting spirit. So, it was in reality a form of honouring them. How does that now become racist and denigrating? Just because the words are NOW seen as such by the PC police?
Are you serious?
Calling a NFL team the Redskins is no different to calling an AFL side the Abbos.
Redskins is an offensive, disparaging, insultive and taboo term.
The last time it was used as a common term for indigenous was the 19th century!
The term Redskin to indigenous Americans is exactly the same as the term Nigger is to African Americans.
Just because you're ignorant there's no need to play the PC card.
Your own prejudice is showing there, mate, and the underlined amounts to a form of abuse...
I was thinking more of the "Braves", and I don't know when the "Redskins" were formed and what the general attitude about the term was then.
I doubt you do either.
Do you really imagine any one would name a team just to insult a people?
Respect for that fighting spirit is what naming teams is about.
That's why they use "Tigers" and "Lions" and "Hawks" here...
by wristwatcher » Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:50 pm
by Wedgie » Tue Oct 29, 2013 7:45 am
Psyber wrote:Wedgie wrote:Psyber wrote:heater31 wrote:The Washington Redskins were one of the last if not the last organisations in the NFL to sign black players to their roster.
Had pick 1 in the 1962 draft, selected the previous year's Heisman trophy winner (Ernie Davis a black man) and traded immediately to Cleveland....
Surely the "Redskins" and the "Braves" were not called that to dishonour the American Indian tribes, but in recognition and identification with their courage and fighting spirit. So, it was in reality a form of honouring them. How does that now become racist and denigrating? Just because the words are NOW seen as such by the PC police?
Are you serious?
Calling a NFL team the Redskins is no different to calling an AFL side the Abbos.
Redskins is an offensive, disparaging, insultive and taboo term.
The last time it was used as a common term for indigenous was the 19th century!
The term Redskin to indigenous Americans is exactly the same as the term Nigger is to African Americans.
Just because you're ignorant there's no need to play the PC card.
Your own prejudice is showing there, mate, and the underlined amounts to a form of abuse...
I was thinking more of the "Braves", and I don't know when the "Redskins" were formed and what the general attitude about the term was then.
I doubt you do either.
Do you really imagine any one would name a team just to insult a people?
Respect for that fighting spirit is what naming teams is about.
That's why they use "Tigers" and "Lions" and "Hawks" here...
Armchair expert wrote:Such a great club are Geelong
by OnSong » Tue Oct 29, 2013 8:35 am
by The Sleeping Giant » Tue Oct 29, 2013 9:00 am
by Psyber » Tue Oct 29, 2013 10:22 am
The Sleeping Giant wrote:Psyber wrote: Your own prejudice is showing there, mate, and the underlined amounts to a form of abuse...
I was thinking more of the "Braves", and I don't know when the "Redskins" were formed and what the general attitude about the term was then.
I doubt you do either.
Do you really imagine any one would name a team just to insult a people?
Respect for that fighting spirit is what naming teams is about.
That's why they use "Tigers" and "Lions" and "Hawks" here...
And Swans.
by MatteeG » Tue Oct 29, 2013 10:38 am
helicopterking wrote:Flaggies will choke. Always have.
by RustyCage » Tue Oct 29, 2013 10:41 am
OnSong wrote:I think you're missing the point Wedgie. What Psyber is saying is he is feels there is no prejudice behind the use of the name, as it more so honours those people, as opposed to negatively vilifying them.
by HH3 » Tue Oct 29, 2013 10:54 am
by OnSong » Tue Oct 29, 2013 11:04 am
pafc1870 wrote:OnSong wrote:I think you're missing the point Wedgie. What Psyber is saying is he is feels there is no prejudice behind the use of the name, as it more so honours those people, as opposed to negatively vilifying them.
The native Indians themselves want it changed, and have been pushing for it for years.
by The Sleeping Giant » Tue Oct 29, 2013 11:18 am
Psyber wrote:The Sleeping Giant wrote:Psyber wrote: Your own prejudice is showing there, mate, and the underlined amounts to a form of abuse...
I was thinking more of the "Braves", and I don't know when the "Redskins" were formed and what the general attitude about the term was then.
I doubt you do either.
Do you really imagine any one would name a team just to insult a people?
Respect for that fighting spirit is what naming teams is about.
That's why they use "Tigers" and "Lions" and "Hawks" here...
And Swans.
There are always exceptions I guess...
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |