The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Orange Mane Discussion > Orange Mane Central Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



View Poll Results: Will they ever be forced to change their name?
Yes 28 35.44%
No 51 64.56%
Voters: 79. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-29-2013, 11:31 AM   #51
Johnykbr
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Broncos_OTM View Post
Scallpimg was a white mans tradition the natives adopted...
Not totally accurate. First recorded cases on record began in the Middle East thousands of years ago then worked its way through Europe. However, there were recorded cases amongst South American/Central American civilizations and North American tribes prior to Europeans coming ashore.

It joined western folklore after the Mexican government put a bounty on Apache Indians in the early 19th century and Scalping was considered the premier method to prove and collect. Indians and cowboys/outlaws took it from there and even then it was actually pretty rare.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2013, 11:33 AM   #52
Johnykbr
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Do I want them to? No. Do I think they will be forced one day? Yes. Not by a mandate but ownership after Snyder goes will eventual bow to external pressure.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2013, 11:41 AM   #53
bpc
"Nemo Me Impune Lacessit"
 
bpc's Avatar
 
1 sword keeps another in the sheath

Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 13,692

Adopt-a-Bronco:
TJ Ward
Default

Doesn't Congress have something better to do than worry about sports teams and what names they go by?

I normally hate SNyder, but kinda dig the middle finger he's throwing up.

BTW, i'm native america for real, and in Kahn's standards. lol. Doesn't offend me either way. Most Indians will say the same. Liberals, peta, feminists, and those who want damages will claim how much anguish it has caused, setting the US back 300-400 yrs.
bpc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2013, 11:53 AM   #54
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,894

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoMan4ever View Post
i am of the belief that they won't change their name now. but give it some time and more whiny b****es claiming that it is wrong to have anything that can be construed as an offensive or racial name and the No Fun League will force a change. and once that happens, say goodbye to the Indians in baseball and the Blackhawks in hockey.

god i hate that everything needs to be PC now.
Lol nothing construed,redskin is a racial slur.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2013, 12:08 PM   #55
Kid A
Ring of Famer
 
Kid A's Avatar
 
I don't need love. I just need wins

Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,254

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Rahim Moore
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetmeck View Post
Its racist in your mind and anyone's else's mind that thinks that way...........get over it.
Look, I'm not claiming any great offense here. I will watch some Redskins games next year and probably not take much notice.

But you can't completely disregard the double standard in accepting Redskins as an a-okay team name while (I hope) thinking it unthinkable to buy gear for a team named the Wetbacks. It's a cop out to respond by saying "get over it" instead of even attempting to show why a racial slur is an acceptable name for a sports team.

Just because a racist term has become culturally normalized does not make it ok; that's actually a good argument for []not[/I] allowing it to continue to be associated with a widely known sports franchise.

Get it over with: rename them the Shanahans and all they have to do is replace the logo's headdress with a visor.
Kid A is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2013, 12:21 PM   #56
ColoradoDarin
Not Too Shabby Poster
 
ColoradoDarin's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: St Augustine, FL
Posts: 7,403

Adopt-a-Bronco:
T J Ward
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SonOfLe-loLang View Post
Kamau Bell had the idea to keep the name, but change their logo to a white guy with horrible sunburn. I'm all for it.

But of course its offensive. And if they changed the name, we'd all get used to it and move on with our lives.
This...?

ColoradoDarin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2013, 12:22 PM   #57
MileHighMagic
Ho-Slayer
 
MileHighMagic's Avatar
 
SAUCED

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 1,450

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Dave Logan
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kid A View Post
Just because there are bigger political issues in existence doesn't mean this isn't something that at least the NFL and Washington organization shouldn't be made to address.

It's a racist name. You would not call a Native American a redskin to their face. Even avoiding the "should Native/Indian mascots be used at all" question, the Redskins are clearly the furthest over the line. Yes, you will find polls of Native Americans who say they don't care. But there are also polls / petitions from plenty of them who find it equivalent to the n-word.

Do we need total consensus from any ethnic community to establish that a controversial word with, at the very least, a very racist history to it maybe shouldn't be used for one of the biggest sports teams in the country? I would say no.

It's not being overly PC or touchy to say maybe the team in our nation's capitol shouldn't be branded with a racial slur for a group of people who were nearly massacred out of existence in that area of the country. It's just a gross anachronism, a name they got back in the 1930s when you could also freely call blacks, asians, and other minorities any number of slurs without controversy. Times have fortunately changed. Why keep celebrating an ugly relic of that era?
REP
MileHighMagic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2013, 12:50 PM   #58
ZONA
Ring of Famer
 
ZONA's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 9,843

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Chris Harris
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaylore View Post
I think all Native Americans should just assimilate. We should get rid of all reservations and they should just join the general populace. This insistence on keeping themselves separated from society is racist. Everything about it is nationalist and racist. I'm technically native American since I was born in America. Their whole premise is similar what black people try to argue with reparations saying "your great-great-grandfather screwed my great-great-grandfather and by bloodline you owe me."

They should be assimilated. Resistance is racist.
I get what you're trying to imply. Time to move on basically. I don't think there is anything wrong with keeping your heritage alive but I do think we should phase out the reservations. Their tribes and people were conquered ions ago. Most of it was barbaric but what part of war isn't. This land is now America, and we all share it. I think we need to phase out reservations. But I also don't see anything wrong with the government declaring some places as "historic" just the same as a national park would be and there can be no buying of this land or building cities and what not. It would be treated just like a national park. Nobody owns it, anybody can go there.
ZONA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2013, 12:52 PM   #59
TerrElway
Pro Bowler
 

Join Date: May 2003
Location: Northern Utah
Posts: 546
Default

I'm blond with Scandinavian ancestry and the Minnesota Vikings piss me off. I want that name changed immediately.

Also, the Yankees is an offensive name. Also, many animals just want to be left alone to live their life and it is offensive that teams would name themselves after such animals portraying them as vicious. So teams should just be called Team A or Team B.

Also, the word team is offensive. What about those who prefer solitude or those left out? Perhaps it would be best to call them "Fairly Organized Human Conglomerations Consisting of Those Who Choose to Participate".

Yeah. That'll work.
TerrElway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2013, 12:58 PM   #60
Willynowei
Some dude
 
Willynowei's Avatar
 
Football is a wonderful thing.

Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: NY
Posts: 3,018

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Ryan Clady
Default

lol. That's all i have to say about this entire discussion.
Willynowei is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2013, 01:00 PM   #61
SonOfLe-loLang
Young Buck
 
SonOfLe-loLang's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 19,134

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Thunder (RIP)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TerrElway View Post
I'm blond with Scandinavian ancestry and the Minnesota Vikings piss me off. I want that name changed immediately.

Also, the Yankees is an offensive name. Also, many animals just want to be left alone to live their life and it is offensive that teams would name themselves after such animals portraying them as vicious. So teams should just be called Team A or Team B.

Also, the word team is offensive. What about those who prefer solitude or those left out? Perhaps it would be best to call them "Fairly Organized Human Conglomerations Consisting of Those Who Choose to Participate".

Yeah. That'll work.
Don't be ridiculous. While I personally (though im not Native American) don't see the real problem with Braves/Chiefs/Indians, Redskins is obviously a step beyond. Would it matter if it changed? Why do you so desperately want to hold on to a name?
SonOfLe-loLang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2013, 01:01 PM   #62
DenverDynamite
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

I have difficulty with the idea of forcing a private organization like an NFL team to change its branding. Look, if this was a high school mascot one could collect signatures and put the issue to a vote, but, with a private organization one must vote with their dollars. I don't see the NFL or the Redskins for that matter losing cash over this. Plus, a survey was taken a few years back questioning individuals who identified themselves as American Indian or Native American, of that sample 91% did NOT find the name Redskins as offensive.

http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycent...s_09-24_pr.pdf
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2013, 01:03 PM   #63
Denver Bronco56
Head Coach
 
Denver Bronco56's Avatar
 
The Greatest

Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 223
Default

The term in today's lingo is not offensive, atleast in my mind it is more a reference to indians than a derogatory phrase. It simply is a reference to a group of people, neither bad nor good... simply a word that is tied to a team. It wont be changed and shouldnt be either.

If anyone is offended by the name Redskins..they should have an issue with any sports team making reference to indians(Braves, Seminoles etc..) because all are referencing a time in history where the indian people were warriors.... If anything it makes people remember the indian people as a proud race that were feared in battle.


And what would we do without the Cowboys and Redskins rivalry, we all played cowboys and indians growing up as kids... it has to stay.
Denver Bronco56 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2013, 01:04 PM   #64
Drunken.Broncoholic
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverDynamite View Post
I have difficulty with the idea of forcing a private organization like an NFL team to change its branding. Look, if this was a high school mascot one could collect signatures and put the issue to a vote, but, with a private organization one must vote with their dollars. I don't see the NFL or the Redskins for that matter losing cash over this. Plus, a survey was taken a few years back questioning individuals who identified themselves as American Indian or Native American, of that sample 91% did NOT find the name Redskins as offensive.

http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycent...s_09-24_pr.pdf
It's usually not the particular groups themselves that find stuff like this offensive. It's the idiots who assume someone else is offended and therefore pushes their feelings onto others.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2013, 01:05 PM   #65
Denver Bronco56
Head Coach
 
Denver Bronco56's Avatar
 
The Greatest

Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 223
Default

Another thing to think about is anyone can find something offensive, but like it was said earlier... money speaks and i dont think Snyder or the NFL is going to have an issue with the money side of defending the name.
Denver Bronco56 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2013, 01:06 PM   #66
55CrushEm
Dynamic Duo
 
55CrushEm's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: North of Boston, MA
Posts: 6,175

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Quanterus Smith
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverDynamite View Post
I have difficulty with the idea of forcing a private organization like an NFL team to change its branding. Look, if this was a high school mascot one could collect signatures and put the issue to a vote, but, with a private organization one must vote with their dollars. I don't see the NFL or the Redskins for that matter losing cash over this. Plus, a survey was taken a few years back questioning individuals who identified themselves as American Indian or Native American, of that sample 91% did NOT find the name Redskins as offensive.

http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycent...s_09-24_pr.pdf
Of course. It's always the UNsilent minority that is offended. It didn't offend them 10 or 20 years ago, though. But now that it's chic to be offended at just about everything......well, there you go.
55CrushEm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2013, 01:08 PM   #67
DenverDynamite
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drunken.Broncoholic View Post
It's usually not the particular groups themselves that find stuff like this offensive. It's the idiots who assume someone else is offended and therefore pushes their feelings onto others.
I think in this case it is a small group with an agenda, and the NFL is a very high profile target.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2013, 01:15 PM   #68
errand
Ring of Famer
 
errand's Avatar
 
Forgot more than you'll ever know

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Western NC mountains
Posts: 17,246
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kid A View Post

Get it over with: rename them the Shanahans and all they have to do is replace the logo's headdress with a visor.

sure...then they'd have to worry about being sued for copyright infringement by the Spurriers

errand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2013, 01:18 PM   #69
Kid A
Ring of Famer
 
Kid A's Avatar
 
I don't need love. I just need wins

Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,254

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Rahim Moore
Default

The only thing worse than uber-PC people, are people who avoid thinking through any argument by immediately launching into slippery slopes. But, okay, let's take a ride down those slopes anyway:

Quote:
Originally Posted by TerrElway View Post
I'm blond with Scandinavian ancestry and the Minnesota Vikings piss me off. I want that name changed immediately.

Redskins isn't offensive for referring to an ethnic group's ancestry. It's offensive for using a slur to do so. At least within this discussion, nobody is asking the Blackhawks or Seminoles to change their names.

Also, the Yankees is an offensive name.

Yankee is a fairly mild derogative term...and in the baseball team's case was adopted by the group of people it refers to (Northern Americans). Not a case of, you know, a group of white people in naming their team after a racial slur for a group their ancestors oppressed.

Also, many animals just want to be left alone to live their life and it is offensive that teams would name themselves after such animals portraying them as vicious. So teams should just be called Team A or Team B.

Also, the word team is offensive. What about those who prefer solitude or those left out? Perhaps it would be best to call them "Fairly Organized Human Conglomerations Consisting of Those Who Choose to Participate".

Would you concede there are words that are offensive? That there are, at least occasionally, legitimate reasons for people to be offended? Asking that the NFL not celebrate racial slurs isn't exactly political correctness run amok. If this were an argument about the Raiders and Buccaneers having "too violent" of mascots, I'd agree with you. But that isn't the discussion here. At all.

Yeah. That'll work.
Kid A is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2013, 01:24 PM   #70
Dr. Broncenstein
Nacho Nacho Fan
 
Dr. Broncenstein's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sterile Fields
Posts: 13,409

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Dookie Nacho
Default



Artistic impression of what having red skin might look like.
Dr. Broncenstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2013, 01:25 PM   #71
Denver Bronco56
Head Coach
 
Denver Bronco56's Avatar
 
The Greatest

Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 223
Default

I will point out one of my friends growing up was Native American and he is a Redskins/Braves/Florida State fan because he liked that they were "native american teams"


so again i think this is just a group of people trying to get some media play and attention, nothing will come out of it.
Denver Bronco56 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2013, 01:26 PM   #72
baja
It is what it Is.
 
baja's Avatar
 
Pay attention.

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 58,689

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Chase Vaughn
Default

What if they were called the Jungle Bunnies, how would that fly. Surely that is no more offensive to African Americans than Redskins is to Native Americans.
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2013, 01:31 PM   #73
Denver Bronco56
Head Coach
 
Denver Bronco56's Avatar
 
The Greatest

Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 223
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baja View Post
What if they were called the Jungle Bunnies, how would that fly. Surely that is no more offensive to African Americans than Redskins is to Native Americans.
One is blatently derogatory... whilst one has acquired a different meaning over time. I do not think Redskins is a darogatory term anymore.... its mearly a reference to indians, sure it originally was similar to dropping the N bomb, but in todays lingo it is mearly a sports team that's mascot is an indian
Denver Bronco56 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2013, 01:34 PM   #74
Dr. Broncenstein
Nacho Nacho Fan
 
Dr. Broncenstein's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sterile Fields
Posts: 13,409

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Dookie Nacho
Default

When Houston held their contest to name their franchise mascot, I suggested the Honkeys. I think they must have misplaced my entry. The Texans isn't nearly racist enough to offset such offensively racist names like the Chiefs and the Stealers.
Dr. Broncenstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2013, 01:34 PM   #75
DivineLegion
The Surgeon Cometh
 
DivineLegion's Avatar
 
Tic' Toc' The Manning Clock

Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: The Peak of Good Living
Posts: 4,783

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Nate Irving
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by errand View Post
so if the Redskins kept their mascot but named the team, say the Warriors....you're OK with that?

I think if this change is going to come about, it'll have to be the fans who buy the tickets and perhaps even the NFL owners who apply the pressure to do so. Personally I think the owners can keep the name if they want because people need to get over themselves....but by the same token can care less if they change it of their own accord. I just hate it when the government forces people to do things like buy healthcare insurance, and change the name of their NFL franchise.
I've never heard anyone dispute the Blackhawks name. If I'm not mistaken that is the name if a regional tribe, you know, what was refenced earlier as a respectful means of referencing Native Americans.

Last edited by DivineLegion; 05-29-2013 at 01:36 PM..
DivineLegion is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:03 AM.


Denver Broncos