GA Russell Posted October 22, 2013 Report Share Posted October 22, 2013 The Onion is in the news today for its report on the Redskins controversy. http://www.theonion.com/articles/redskins-kike-owner-refuses-to-change-teams-offens,34292/ What do you think? Have they gone too far this time, or are they just letting Management know what it feels like? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawn Posted October 22, 2013 Report Share Posted October 22, 2013 People get "offended" over WAY too much shit in this screwed up society we live in, I'm personally happy that The Onion frequently calls bullshit on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Train Posted October 22, 2013 Report Share Posted October 22, 2013 (edited) I think they're making a point; especially about him. There was also the Washington City lawsuit which he ended up dropping, Hilarious part is he filed the lawsuit in NYC and not DC.http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2011/02/02/snyder-sues/http://deadspin.com/5750980/dan-snyder-cries-anti+semitism-in-letter-that-manages-to-be-racist Edited October 22, 2013 by Blue Train Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Nessa Posted October 22, 2013 Report Share Posted October 22, 2013 Once you enter the world of "the Onion" you are up for grabs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Litweiler Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 My brother in Madison claims that The Onion was best when it was published there, before it moved to NYC. The Onion is in the news today for its report on the Redskins controversy. http://www.theonion.com/articles/redskins-kike-owner-refuses-to-change-teams-offens,34292/ What do you think? Have they gone too far this time, or are they just letting Management know what it feels like? That is hilarious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erwbol Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 No, not going too far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Kart Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 My brother in Madison claims that The Onion was best when it was published there, before it moved to NYC. The Onion is in the news today for its report on the Redskins controversy. http://www.theonion.com/articles/redskins-kike-owner-refuses-to-change-teams-offens,34292/ What do you think? Have they gone too far this time, or are they just letting Management know what it feels like? That is hilarious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GA Russell Posted October 23, 2013 Author Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 I believe that the controversy rests on a factual dispute. I read in (I think) the Wall Street Journal the other day that 90% of American Indians nationwide aren't offended by the name. Those objecting to it are basing their complaint on the premise that the Indians are offended. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Kart Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 I believe that the controversy rests on a factual dispute. I read in (I think) the Wall Street Journal the other day that 90% of American Indians nationwide aren't offended by the name. Those objecting to it are basing their complaint on the premise that the Indians are offended. Be that as it may, to me the controversy rests on the fact that the term originated as a disparaging one and was applied as such from the outside; no Native American ever woke up and said, "Hey, I'm going to call myself a redskin." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danasgoodstuff Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 (edited) http://www.theonion.com/articles/god-reveals-he-occasionally-eats-humans,34264/ how 'bout this? http://www.theonion.com/articles/weird-man-begins-every-morning-by-dousing-his-nake,34304/ that's funny! And what about names like Cheif or Scout or just Indians, which are admiring, at least on the surface? And how 'bout some freaking jobs on the Rez and to heck with what anyone calls their darn sports teams? Edited October 23, 2013 by danasgoodstuff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Kart Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 http://www.theonion.com/articles/god-reveals-he-occasionally-eats-humans,34264/ how 'bout this? http://www.theonion.com/articles/weird-man-begins-every-morning-by-dousing-his-nake,34304/ that's funny! And what about names like Cheif or Scout or just Indians, which are admiring, at least on the surface? And how 'bout some freaking jobs on the Rez and to heck with what anyone calls their darn sports teams? Chiefs, Scouts, and Indians are fine with me -- for the reason you cite and as long as the accompanying team images and associated behavior (e.g. the Atlanta Braves' tomahawk chop) aren't racial caricatures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 I'd like to know who the WSJ polled to get that 90%. I mean, if I ask the right sample population, I can get 90% of it to not be offended by anything. For that matter, what "nation" did they poll in, if you know what I mean... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GA Russell Posted October 23, 2013 Author Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 Jim, I'm pretty sure that I threw the article out. But it quoted one fellow as saying that not only is he not offended, but the Redskins are his favorite team! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 Not saying that it's cut-and-dried either way, or that there's a unanimity of opinion, just that 90% seems awfully high under any circumstances, and...times change, ya' know? I remember a number of really offensive product names from my youth that no longer exist, and also slogans & images that have changed over time to reflect a less patronizing attitude. Given that the team is in DC, why not give them a name that's truly reflective of the nation's capital, like...the Washington Fuckups. I don't think anybody of any social or political persuasion would be offended by that these days, eh? In the meantime, the next time when in New Mexico, visit the Zuni Pueblo, maybe take the poll there. OTOH, the next time when in Oklahoma, take the poll of the Chickasaw tribe while they're counting the money from Winstar. I just want to know which group(s) and in what proportion(s) the WSJ poll was aimed towards to get that 90%, because I could get 90% the other way very easily. Needless to say, I am less than convinced by the results of anybody's opinion polls. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Nessa Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 I remember a number of really offensive product names from my youth that no longer exist, and also slogans & images that have changed over time to reflect a less patronizing attitude. My people are eternally grateful for the disappearance of Dreft and Halo. We sleep better without those slurs hanging around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kh1958 Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 Not saying that it's cut-and-dried either way, or that there's a unanimity of opinion, just that 90% seems awfully high under any circumstances, and...times change, ya' know? I remember a number of really offensive product names from my youth that no longer exist, and also slogans & images that have changed over time to reflect a less patronizing attitude. Given that the team is in DC, why not give them a name that's truly reflective of the nation's capital, like...the Washington Fuckups. I don't think anybody of any social or political persuasion would be offended by that these days, eh? In the meantime, the next time when in New Mexico, visit the Zuni Pueblo, maybe take the poll there. OTOH, the next time when in Oklahoma, take the poll of the Chickasaw tribe while they're counting the money from Winstar. I just want to know which group(s) and in what proportion(s) the WSJ poll was aimed towards to get that 90%, because I could get 90% the other way very easily. Needless to say, I am less than convinced by the results of anybody's opinion polls. The Washington Casinos? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 What kind of a name was Dreft, anyway. I never understood that, and oh by the way, don't sleep quite so well, it sill exists! http://www.dreft.com/ And, really? http://www.dreft.com/faqs/index.jsp Almost as funny as The Onion! Not saying that it's cut-and-dried either way, or that there's a unanimity of opinion, just that 90% seems awfully high under any circumstances, and...times change, ya' know? I remember a number of really offensive product names from my youth that no longer exist, and also slogans & images that have changed over time to reflect a less patronizing attitude. Given that the team is in DC, why not give them a name that's truly reflective of the nation's capital, like...the Washington Fuckups. I don't think anybody of any social or political persuasion would be offended by that these days, eh? In the meantime, the next time when in New Mexico, visit the Zuni Pueblo, maybe take the poll there. OTOH, the next time when in Oklahoma, take the poll of the Chickasaw tribe while they're counting the money from Winstar. I just want to know which group(s) and in what proportion(s) the WSJ poll was aimed towards to get that 90%, because I could get 90% the other way very easily. Needless to say, I am less than convinced by the results of anybody's opinion polls. The Washington Casinos? The Capital City Whores! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry_L Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 (edited) Do two wrongs make a right? I guess so. Two eyes for an eye! A friend of mine used to call them the Deadskins when they had the oldest average player age. They should make that the new name, and change the logo to a skull or a zombie. Or how about the Washington Gridlocks? Filibusters? Lobbyists? Edited October 23, 2013 by Jerry_L Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Magnificent Goldberg Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 The new Malaysian owner of Cardiff City Football Club - The Bluebirds - received death threats when he changed the colour of the team's strip from blue to red. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-23817070 Bluebirds Unite: Cardiff fans walk remembers club's 'heritage' MG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Ayers Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 (edited) In the UK the Onion could be prosecuted for racism, correctly in my book. In case you are interested in the bizarro-world version of this, check this out http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-24422742 Edited October 23, 2013 by David Ayers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skeith Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 About 10 years ago, I was driving through much of the Navajo Reservation, which I believe is the largest native american reservation in the US. I passed what appeared to be several public schools and was surprised to see references to what I guessed were the name of the sports teams of the schools which were "the Braves" or "Warriors" and the like... I do not remember seeing any references to "Redskins", but I was surprised at what I did see. But there have been complaints about the Atlanta Brave's name....but maybe it is an issue of we can call ourselves that, but you can't? I don't know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neal Pomea Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 (edited) Home of broken treaties and the Trail of Tears, if ever there was a city that did NOT deserve the honor of aligning its team's name with Indians in any way, positive OR negative, it's Washington DC. Time for a change. It's like naming your team Wall Street Life Savings Losers. (we meant it in a NICE way!) Edited October 23, 2013 by Neal Pomea Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
medjuck Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 I was seriously weighing this matter a couple of weeks ago trying to transpose it: Would it be ok to call a team The Miami Jews? Probably.Seems to me the equivalent of Braves or Indians (the problem with the latter team being their mascot/logo who sort of looks Jewish to me).But the equivalent of Redskins would be The Miami Hebes if not the Miami Kikes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry_L Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 (edited) I was seriously weighing this matter a couple of weeks ago trying to transpose it: Would it be ok to call a team The Miami Jews? Probably. Seems to me the equivalent of Braves or Indians (the problem with the latter team being their mascot/logo who sort of looks Jewish to me). But the equivalent of Redskins would be The Miami Hebes if not the Miami Kikes. Washington D.C. doesn't have a significant Native American population, so this is not a relevant equivalence, sorry. Do you think the name should be changed to better reflect D.C.s racial composition? That's a minefield I would not recommend entering. Edited October 23, 2013 by Jerry_L Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.