Washington Redskins are changing their name and logo

From what I know, Redskins owner Dan Snyder would never change the name. He's only doing it because of sponsors, Fed Ex threatening to withdraw naming rights, and stuff like that. Now that's wrong I believe. A lot of people are trying to force their will these days and that ain't right either.

Just wait the money in the U.S. will be changed. There's several presidents on it that owned slaves. Mark my words George Washington time on the $1 bill is limited!

Geeky white people with too much time on their hands! This made me laugh but it's really quite pathetic.

A huge irony - and I've mentioned this is various areas before - John Adams is on no money!
(He never owned a slave - unlike Washington, Jefferson and even abolitionist Ben Franklin for a short time!)

Adams was a lifelong abolitionist! He abhorred slavery. Not to mention he drove the push for independence, was on the Declaration Committee, was an emissary to multiple countries in Europe (including Great Britain after the revolution), was the first Vice President and second President! And the first President to father a future President!

There are no major monuments to Adams (for anyone to topple), few statues, and his head is not carved between Washington & Jefferson on Mount Rushmore (where it should be).

Why? (Was it the "Alien & Sedition Act"? Thought to be his one big policy mistake.)
Was it because he wasn't tall and handsome like Washington & Jefferson?

Sorry to go slightly off-topic.

Adams...he made good peanut butter

And his cousin is still making good Beer!

Oh damn, that's right!

This is a bit of trivia: the character of John Adams from the play & movie 1776 was actually an amalgam of John and Samuel Adams.
Almost all the lines for John Adams are taken directly from his writings, quotes and correspondences with his wife (Abigail), but his role in the push towards independence incorporates some aspects of his second cousin Sam who was also a delegate to the first & second Continental Congress and a signer of the Declaration of Independence.

The only issue is that we are all inherently egocentric and don’t really care about any of this stuff. Now we have hand-held internet masheens and a voice. Real lives don’t mirror the electrical sentiments.

If somebody is bothered by something, why not be compassionate about change. You really only care about your opinion being right.

That seems like a really bad posture, just in life: don't do the reasonable thing because they'll think they won? Just do it anyway, forget what it "looks like." If it was reasonable to change before (and it was), it's reasonable to change now. It doesn't become unreasonable because someone's decided to use it as a proxy in the culture wars, or whatever. Or, as the quote goes: "Never take the wrong side of an issue because your opponent has taken the right side."

Now, I agree that some of the outrage on behalf of others is a little silly, particularly when we see polls suggesting most Native-Americans don't mind or don't care. But that's just a counterargument to some of the rhetoric generalizing about them as a group, and not a reason to keep it. It's a crappy, insensitive name a reasonable person could be reasonably offended by, and that's reason enough to change it.

Case in point, re: proxy for the culture war. None of this has anything to do with the name change, yet it gets a whole paragraph anyway.

Judge each case on the merits and do the right thing. If you start figuring out which side of the scoreboard this is going on and letting that dictate your position, you'll end up opposing good ideas and supporting bad ones just to "win." That's just, to use an amusingly topical word, just tribalism.

I always felt that changing the name of the team was going to happen eventually. There are better ways to honor Native Americans. But to be fair, I disapprove of modern "social justice" in its current form: yell like a child until you get what you want. The Grapes of Wrath had a story about real social justice, which is why it's such a great movie, but much of what's going on in this scene is an insult to what it used to be about.


With that done, there is a small part of me that always said, "They could have chosen something that's not used as a slur." So I'll stand for this decision, but not as strongly as the average Native American might since I'm white. I'll let the Native Americans do most of the speaking. My problems with the modern social justice scene only involves reactions towards small things. I think a major league football team name is a bit bigger than that.

I love reading Yoda's political posts. They really dig into the truth without steering too far to one side of the political spectrum, and without offending anyone.

A member of my wife's tribe, Coquille, played for The Washington Redskins, here is what he has to say about it.

Washington NFL team’s name only preserves Native American stereotypes

This guy is not saint though.

Key to HUD's cashbox

I grew up a Washington Redskins fan here in Maryland, the championship teams of the '80s and '90s are forever beloved, I have been to games at RFK and FedEx Field, have bought jerseys and other merchandise over the decades, and I am very happy to see the name finally go. It is beyond time.



I'd go for the Washington Diesels!

__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra

I am not going to comment on the specific name issue, considering I don't know much about the team or Native American history.


But I will speak on the overall 'Cancel Culture' and that is NEVER GIVE IN TO THE MOB.


A mob will never be satisfied and once it tastes blood, it will crave more. We have already normalised violence towards people who think differently, by throwing lazy generalisations and that's getting worse. People are casually calling for others to be killed simply for having a different perspective. And there is no desire to look at the nuances.


We can make the right or moral changes in our societies through discussions. You do them after taking in every viewpoint into consideration. That is how liberal societies functions.


Unfortunately, we are blessed with opportunistic politicians who crave to the vocal few and a media which is more interested in narrative rather than truth.


This is a recipe for disaster and with each passing day we are becoming more and more uncivilised. And that is only going to lead to more blood.

The problem is when doing the right thing and "giving into the mob" are the same action. In that case, the rubric "NEVER GIVE INTO THE MOB" will actually lead you to avoid doing the right thing, which is why it's not a great rule.

Anyway, it's the intent: if you're doing it for the right reason, you're not giving in. It just happens to coincide. Do the right thing and if/when they keep demanding more, draw the line there. Don't draw the line well well before that point in anticipation. Draw it where it should actually be drawn.

Are you saying that if one wants to make a cultural change one is always a member of a mob? That’s seems an unfair assumption.

__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.

I have a question: has any professional U.S. sports team changed their name because it was deemed insensitive? Or would the Washington Redskins be the first?

Name of the game is money. Not justice. Not political correctness. Not propriety. ****ing money.

At this point I don't get how anyone can't see that profits is all.

__________________
"This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." -Baruch Spinoza