SA Footy

The Washington Rednecks might be more appropriate

I'll be the first to admit - I am fairly ignorant to most American stuff - 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.


But then who knows why Americans do anything

Im guessing Money talks... the same reasons that 12 year old kids can pick up a gun from their parents bedroom and shoot their teachers dead.

The Vancouver Grizzlies had to change their name because it was offensive to wives.

OnSong wrote:The Vancouver Grizzlies had to change their name because it was offensive to wives.

Furthermore, they had to move to Memphis, because their name was offensive to Canadians...

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.

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.

I can remember in the 90's there was plenty of controversy over the atlanta braves tomahawk chop. The Cleveland Indians have been asked to change their nickname for decades.

Kansas City Chiefs, Chicago Black Hawks, San Diego Padres........

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...

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...

And Swans.

Sebastian Vettel. Piece of scum!!!

Cancer .....

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...

I'm prejudiced because I abhor a derogatory racist term being used as a name of a sporting organisation?
Geezus mate, you've been spending way too much time with those Liberal spin doctors again!

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.

I abhor people finding any excuse to play the "racist" card and this is a prime example of that.

I think the word "racist" should only apply when hate or negative discrimination is the main motivator behind it.

Calling your team the "Braves" would be akin to calling your team the "Vikings", or the "Crusaders", to epitomise fighting spirit, as opposed to some sort of negative, hateful discrimination.

Beating up a guy because he's black. That's racist. Naming your team after a race, known for their bravery and honourable traits, I can't fathom how that could be seen as racist or offensive..

Native Americans find it offensive, and have done for many years.

I can understand why a rich white man doesn't though.

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...

Always thought the Redskins were named after those red lollies..

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.

Theres talk they may change their name to the Bravehearts.

A neighbor of the team owner has registered the name for "entertainment purposes, including football games".

HOWEVER!!! The Redskins owner claims not to know his neighbor personally and knows nothing about it.

We will see.

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.

I'd check that fact and I'm not referring to just one team here. I'm sure there are plenty embroiled in this situation.

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...

They can give a nasty nip.