Redskins may be getting new name

harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3360
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Redskins may be getting new name

 Sorry, but this is ridiculous and if truth were to be told, it is not even newsworthy and a waste of time from my perspective :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-26127941

 

Washington Redskins: Politicians call for NFL to back new name

Washington Redskins quarterback Kirk Cousins looks for an opening to pass during the first half of an NFL football game against the Dallas Cowboys in Landover, Maryland, on 22 December 2013 The Washington DC American football team has been named the Redskins for eight decades

Two members of the US Congress have called on the head of the largest professional American football league to support changing a team name they deem offensive to Native Americans.

Senator Maria Cantwell and Congressman Tom Cole said the Washington Redskins name was a "racial slur".

The National Football League's Roger Goodell has said it is an "honour".

The team in the US capitol has used the name for 80 years, and its owner Dan Snyder says he will keep it.

But a growing number of journalists, civil rights organisations and Native American groups say the term is racist and offensive and should be changed.

Last year, President Barack Obama, an American football fan, urged the team to consider changing it.

In a letter dated Monday and obtained by the New York Times, Ms Cantwell, a Washington Democrat, and Mr Cole, an Oklahoma Republican, told Mr Goodell, "The terminology used by the Washington football team has been determined to be a slur."

"It is, in fact, an insult to Native Americans," they added. "We are calling on you and the National Football League to take a formal position in support of a name change."

Ms Cantwell is the chairwoman of the Senate Indian affairs committee, and Mr Cole, a member of the Chickasaw Nation, is one of only two Native American members of Congress.

'More important issues'

Mr Snyder has refused to change his team's name, dismissing growing complaints it is offensive.

'More important issues'

Mr Snyder has refused to change his team's name, dismissing growing complaints it is offensive.

Mr Goodell has said he supports keeping the name, saying last month it "honoured" Native Americans. He also cited polling he said suggested the public opposed a name change.

But Ms Cantwell and Mr Cole said defending the name based on public opinion polling "flies in the face of our constitutionally protected government-to-government relationship with tribes".

"The National Football League is on the wrong side of history," they wrote.

Redskins spokesman Tony Wyllie defended the team name and questioned the politicians' attention to the matter.

"With all the important issues Congress has to deal with, such as a war in Afghanistan to deficits to health care, don't they have more important issues to worry about than a football team's name?" he told the Reuters news agency.

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2446
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Why didn't I think of that?

 

 

 

 

                                                       GOOD!

 

 

         

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7573
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
 Firstly, if they can leave

 Firstly, if they can leave ten commandments on walls because historically they've been there for a long time, blah blah... then I don't see the problem with the name.

On the other side of the coin, apparently the NFL is a non-profit that doesn't pay taxes.  If this is true, I think they might need to be a little more politically correct with this team name.

Personally I don't care what you call them, the Eagles are still gonna kick their ass.

 

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15572
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: Firstly, if

Sapient wrote:

 Firstly, if they can leave ten commandments on walls because historically they've been there for a long time, blah blah... then I don't see the problem with the name.

On the other side of the coin, apparently the NFL is a non-profit that doesn't pay taxes.  If this is true, I think they might need to be a little more politically correct with this team name.

Personally I don't care what you call them, the Eagles are still gonna kick their ass.

 

Dems fighting words Mr!

If we never changed usage of words in human history then everyone should say "swa" in early english than "was" and gays should not call themselves gay because it is even to this day used as a slur. Not to mention prior to the wrongful treatment of Natives, Natives themselves came up with that term.

Would it make a difference if the first black gay man ended up on the Redskins team? Shouldn't the lesson be about humanity, not labels, not words?

If language didn't evolve humans wouldn't evolve.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:On the other

Sapient wrote:

On the other side of the coin, apparently the NFL is a non-profit that doesn't pay taxes.  If this is true, I think they might need to be a little more politically correct with this team name.

Yes and no, the NFL is registered as a trade organization, as such they are tax exempt just like professional organizations such as state bar associations, national association of realtors, the chamber of commerce etc. That branch of the NFL also makes absolutely no money, it actually operates at a substantial loss. The only income it receives are the dues from its members (the teams that make up the NFL). Those dues are used to pay salaries and to make loans for the purposes of building/maintaining stadiums. The branch of the NFL that sells jerseys, memorabillia, has a cable channel etc. is a seperate legal entity ("NFL Ventures" if I am not mistaken, too lazy to google it) and is not tax exempt. And of course, the teams themselves are not tax exempt. The only significant funds that go through the NFL are the television rights, which are held in the NFL just long enough to partition it among the teams. Even if you removed tax exempt status from the NFL, it wouldn't pay any taxes, since the entity "NFL" never makes a profit. All the profit is enjoyed by the member teams, which already are for profit entities that pay taxes. So yes, the "NFL" is tax exempt, but every penny that is earned from consumers is taxed. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4856
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
I don't really care one way

I don't really care one way or another but really? Redskins? Is this any different than calling some one a Redneck?

 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15572
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:I

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I don't really care one way or another but really? Redskins? Is this any different than calling some one a Redneck?

 

 

I grew up hating "rednecks" but when you lose stereotypes of all kinds you can see people as individuals. "Redneck" also describes flaming liberals like Willie Nelson and gay supporters like Dolly Parton and Kasy Musgraves. And Woodie Guthrie was a huge labor supporter and hated big business monopolies. I've learned quite a bit about "Rednecks" and like anyone else, they still are individuals. The term is not a slur to me in every context.

It should be more important to Natives to remember that their suffering was a lesson to all of us as a speices, not a lesson that genes make us special by proxy of time period.

Now again, when the Europiens first came over, they asked natives what they could call them. Natives came up with that term. Again, otherwise why do gays still call themselves gay knowing even now "gay" is still used as a slur?

It is the same stupid argument that gets people to call themselves "humanists" or "anti-theists". If you don't hold a belief in a god you are an atheist. Other people's stigmas are not my bagage. "Redskin" or "Redneck" or "atheist" can be used as slurs, but they don't have to be thought of like that. The power is in us, not the word istself. If I were a Native, I'd be more ashamed of the past 20 years of our crappy owner than the team name.

Humans in general need to learn context when it comes to language.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15572
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Sapient

Beyond Saving wrote:

Sapient wrote:

On the other side of the coin, apparently the NFL is a non-profit that doesn't pay taxes.  If this is true, I think they might need to be a little more politically correct with this team name.

Yes and no, the NFL is registered as a trade organization, as such they are tax exempt just like professional organizations such as state bar associations, national association of realtors, the chamber of commerce etc. That branch of the NFL also makes absolutely no money, it actually operates at a substantial loss. The only income it receives are the dues from its members (the teams that make up the NFL). Those dues are used to pay salaries and to make loans for the purposes of building/maintaining stadiums. The branch of the NFL that sells jerseys, memorabillia, has a cable channel etc. is a seperate legal entity ("NFL Ventures" if I am not mistaken, too lazy to google it) and is not tax exempt. And of course, the teams themselves are not tax exempt. The only significant funds that go through the NFL are the television rights, which are held in the NFL just long enough to partition it among the teams. Even if you removed tax exempt status from the NFL, it wouldn't pay any taxes, since the entity "NFL" never makes a profit. All the profit is enjoyed by the member teams, which already are for profit entities that pay taxes. So yes, the "NFL" is tax exempt, but every penny that is earned from consumers is taxed. 

 

It still is privatized socialism we pay for. Building stadiums? No they make us pay for them. Don't ask me to feel sorry for billionaires. Your argument is the same "It is ok when we pick other people's pockets to pay for things I ilke (tax breaks), but robbery when other people vote.

You advocate privitized profits and socialized losses. The real mooches are at the top of the chain. 32 billionaires and you want me to cry for them. Get your head out of your ass buddy.

You bitch about centralized power, well this "NON PROFIT" is just that, 32 people using that as an excuse to blackmail cities into giving them whatever they want. All you are saying is that it is ok when the rich "peacably assemble" but robbery when the other two classes try to do the same.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:It still is

Brian37 wrote:

It still is privatized socialism we pay for. Building stadiums? No they make us pay for them. Don't ask me to feel sorry for billionaires. Your argument is the same "It is ok when we pick other people's pockets to pay for things I ilke (tax breaks), but robbery when other people vote.

They don't force anyone to do anything. All stadium deals between government and teams are voted on- votes that I ALWAYS vote no on and votes that the candidates I support ALWAYS vote no on (and are usually the only candidates in the election who oppose the deal, which is part of why the always lose). I have NEVER supported any fucking stadium deal in any election I have ever been affiliated with, even when I was a card carrying Republican. I am philosophically opposed to government giving ANY private business a single fucking penny for any purpose other than purchasing direct services or goods from that company for the purpose of pursuing a legitimate government goal. It is the President YOU support who is a big fan of "stimulus" and handing out billions to various private companies and subsidizing them.  

 

Brian37 wrote:

 

You bitch about centralized power, well this "NON PROFIT" is just that, 32 people using that as an excuse to blackmail cities into giving them whatever they want. All you are saying is that it is ok when the rich "peacably assemble" but robbery when the other two classes try to do the same.

You are more than welcome to set up your own non profit organization of dishwashers anytime you want to. I don't give a shit. My only beef with trade organizations is when they start getting involved in drafting laws designed to limit their competition, such as laws requiring state licenses to operate in some profession, conveniently offered through the organization with mandatory membership. Laws that I oppose vociferously, and usually find myself a distinct minority, and assholes like you are never on my side because you say the government needs to regulate. My most recent loss in this area was right here in Ohio when they pushed through a law requiring a license to appraise. It was supported by many in my industry because it adds an extra hurdle to entering the industry, reducing competition and increasing the amount we can charge, it was supported by the organizations because it puts money in their pockets and it was supported by idiots like you who blindly support every government regulation because you think it is somehow going to control evil big business and pretty much no one else in the state even knew the law was being voted on. Well I lost, and once again, my political loss is going to lead to more money in my pocket. I consider it a consolation prize.

As far as I know, the NFL has not yet gotten any laws passed that prevent other organizations from having professional football games. Their near monopoly continues to exist mostly because no one wants to watch any other kind of football and the most talented players want to be in the NFL more than the XFL, AFL or LFL. They don't really need any laws to protect themselves, because the mass expense involved with attempting to build a nationwide sports league is a pretty stiff barrier. Ask Vince McMahon.  

Indeed, the NFL organization that is classified non-profit spends a mere $1.5 million per year on lobbying, none of it for new stadiums, and all of their money spent on lobbying WAS taxed. Most of it was spent on federal concussion legislation issues. What you obviously fail to recognize, is that the "NFL" is not an all encompassing organization. It is one small part of what we know as the NFL, and has a limited role. When money is being spent lobbying for a team stadium, that is coming from the owner(s), the team itself, NFL Ventures and possibly other organizations, it is not coming from the "NFL" that is a non-profit trade organization. The NFL commissioners, the various paper pushers and I believe (but not entirely certain) the referees are employed by the non-profit. And that is the point that my initial post to Sapient was attempting to clarify. Because I know when a lot of people see "THE NFL IS NON-PROFIT" in the headlines, they think of the NFL as a whole and all its income producing appendages as all part of one large organization. Legally, and for tax purposes, they are all separate organizations. And the non-profit makes up one small portion that doesn't make a penny of profit and therefore, even if it was not tax exempt, it wouldn't pay a penny more in taxes. 

 

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2012/131/922/2012-131922622-0907a8cd-9O.pdf

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


JesusNEVERexisted
Superfan
JesusNEVERexisted's picture
Posts: 714
Joined: 2010-01-03
User is offlineOffline
 It's just a matter of time

 It's just a matter of time before they do change it! Even some journalists in D.C. simply refer to them as the Washington football team and don't even say "Redskins"!

Click here to find out why Christianity is the biggest fairy tale ever created!! www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm www.JesusNEVERexisted.com


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15572
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: Firstly, if

Sapient wrote:

 Firstly, if they can leave ten commandments on walls because historically they've been there for a long time, blah blah... then I don't see the problem with the name.

On the other side of the coin, apparently the NFL is a non-profit that doesn't pay taxes.  If this is true, I think they might need to be a little more politically correct with this team name.

Personally I don't care what you call them, the Eagles are still gonna kick their ass.

 

DEMS fighting words MR! Even if they changed the name to the Washington Popes, there is only one thing worse losing to the Cowboys, and that is losing to those evil green dirty birds!

I will say this though, I find it absurd that all the owners a billionaires but because of laws the league collectively gets out of paying taxes. More corporate welfare, like GE.

But as far as the name, Natives, long before Europeans started oppressing them, didn't have a word to give them to discribe themselves, they chose that nickname themselves.  Again, like the word "gay" has changed meanings over the years and is still used by gays.

I think too much is being made out of the name. I actually find it more important that billionaires start paying their share.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
California school retires

California school retires divisive Arab mascot

The bearded, snarling mascot with a large hooked nose who wears a head scarf did not appear at Coachella Valley High School's season opening football game on Friday. A belly-dancing genie that often appears with the mascot during halftime was also retired….The Arab mascot has existed since the 1920s to recognize the desert region's reliance on date farming, a traditionally Middle Eastern crop.


 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4856
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote:California

zarathustra wrote:

California school retires divisive Arab mascot

The bearded, snarling mascot with a large hooked nose who wears a head scarf did not appear at Coachella Valley High School's season opening football game on Friday. A belly-dancing genie that often appears with the mascot during halftime was also retired….The Arab mascot has existed since the 1920s to recognize the desert region's reliance on date farming, a traditionally Middle Eastern crop.

 

I would change the name to

The Coachelle Valley High Tusken Raiders

or

Coachelle Valley Fighting Jawas

 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4856
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline