Ketch's 10 Thoughts From The Weekend (Time for Ash to go 8 Mile)

[Ignatius J Reilly]

Ketch, I look back at 100 years ago and I see blacks being tortured, intimidated, subjugated, and murdered and hung throughout the Jim Crow South. If in 100 years ago the worst thing my great-great grandchildren can say about me is that I did not think the Redskin football team name was racist, then I think I'm doing pretty good.

 

[Ketchum]

Originally posted by ATXHorn4425:


I don't think we should change everything that offends a few people, sorry.

What's a few people? How many people need to be offended before you simply agree to use another word... yanno.. because that is such a sacrifice?

Originally posted by ATXHorn4425:


If this was actually a big deal, it would have been changed a long, long time ago. .

Signed, slavery, women's rights and gay rights.

Wait, oops.

Originally posted by ATXHorn4425:


But the vast majority of Native Americans don't care, and neither do the rest of us. .

How do you know that? Again, why not just use another word? I would contend that....

a. enough people do care.
b. the amount of people who care doesn't matter. Just do the right thing.

Originally posted by ATXHorn4425:


The problem with using your moral outrage on non-issues like this is that eventually the public gets PC fatigue, and then real problems become harder to solve.

What real problems are you trying to solve that keeps you from being open-minded on this?

 

[Ketchum]

Originally posted by jspirohorn:
Is it seriously that hard not to call someone a name they do not want to be called?

Again, I'm always surprised at those that ride for this cause strongly.

As big of a sacrifice as it is to use another word, maybe just try. Not trying out of spite is misguided.

 

[Ignatius J Reilly]

I still think the problem is that you perceive yourself as standing on the moral high ground.

"Do the right thing".

Okay, let's do the right thing and allow a branded franchise that never intended to be racist the right to retain a name they have had for over half a century.

C'mon, let's do the right thing.

 

[Ketchum]

Originally posted by Baguette:
"Don't use a word that others find offensive!?? Wow! That list would go & on ad infinitum/ad nauseum .

Are you otherwise able to keep fro saying racist words on a daily basis?

 

[Ketchum]

Originally posted by Ignatius J Reilly:
Ketch, I look back at 100 years ago and I see blacks being tortured, intimidated, subjugated, and murdered and hung throughout the Jim Crow South. If in 100 years ago the worst thing my great-great grandchildren can say about me is that I did not think the Redskin football team name was racist, then I think I'm doing pretty good.

Don't put your evolving on cruise control. There's more work to be done.

 

[Ignatius J Reilly]

I am evolving. I want gays to have the right to be married. I think we owe the minority community more socioeconomic attention. I want more Hispanics to have rights to citizenship. I am actually a fairly liberal guy these days. I just don't think the Washington Redskins name is racist. Sorry.

This post was edited on 5/5 9:55 PM by Ignatius J Reilly

 

[VALonghorns]

Reilly for the win

Four months ago on DC area station, leader of one of the biggest Indian Tribes in Virginia said---The Redskin name is about 100th on there list of worries and concerns. Jobs, health care and addition issues make this issue seam silly to them.

Maybe George Soros and some other rich billionaires can buy the team from Snyder---and change the name to whatever they want. Nobody likes Snyder anyway.

 

[JBR2009]

Originally posted by VALonghorns:

Reilly for the win

Four months ago on DC area station, leader of one of the biggest Indian Tribes in Virginia said---The Redskin name is about 100th on there list of worries and concerns. Jobs, health care and addition issues make this issue seam silly to them.

Maybe George Soros and some other rich billionaires can buy the team from Snyder---and change the name to whatever they want. Nobody likes Snyder anyway.

Ok well it's very easy to knock number 100 their list so let's do it.

 

[Ketchum]

Originally posted by Ignatius J Reilly:
I still think the problem is that you perceive yourself as standing on the moral high ground.

"Do the right thing".

Okay, let's do the right thing and allow a branded franchise that never intended to be racist the right to retain a name they have had for over half a century.

C'mon, let's do the right thing.

I've said it numerous times and I'll say it again, the original intent doesn't matter AT ALL.

Offending parties don't get to tell the offended how they should feel. If they had named the team Blackskins to honor black people in America, do you think the team name would stand, even if it was not originally intended to be an insult?

 

[Ketchum]

Originally posted by Ignatius J Reilly:
I am evolving. I want gays to have the right to be married. I think we owe the minority community more socioeconomic attention. I want more Hispanics to have rights to citizenship. I am actually a fairly liberal guy these days. I just don't think the Washington Redskins name is racist. Sorry.

This post was edited on 5/5 9:55 PM by Ignatius J Reilly

And I'm telling you that others believe it to be, which makes what you think not very important.

What would happen if the team was named the Blackskins?

 

[Ketchum]

Originally posted by VALonghorns:

Four months ago on DC area station, leader of one of the biggest Indian Tribes in Virginia said---The Redskin name is about 100th on there list of worries and concerns. Jobs, health care and addition issues make this issue seam silly to them.

It's about principles, my man. Using the issues of jobs and health care within the tribal community as a means of denying a simple matter of respect is wrong, short-sighted and potentially dangerous.

Asking you the same question, what if the team was named the Blackskins? Would it have been changed?

Stop pretending that you're about respecting these other issues when such a simple one as using another word to call the team is such an important battle that must be won.

 

[Ketchum]

Originally posted by JBR2009:

Originally posted by VALonghorns:

Reilly for the win

Four months ago on DC area station, leader of one of the biggest Indian Tribes in Virginia said---The Redskin name is about 100th on there list of worries and concerns. Jobs, health care and addition issues make this issue seam silly to them.

Maybe George Soros and some other rich billionaires can buy the team from Snyder---and change the name to whatever they want. Nobody likes Snyder anyway.

Ok well it's very easy to knock number 100 their list so let's do it.

bingo.

99 problems, but the team name ain't one.

 

[VALonghorns]

Ketch, your moral arrogance is a little hard to stand in this thread. Hope the majority of us that think your comparison of Sterling`s comments/Redskins name is silly, can be worthy of you some day, maybe in 100 years.

PC police shot down Condi Rice this week as speaker at Rutgers, diversity to them are liberals, socialist and communist.

 

[dallashorn02]

Originally posted by VALonghorns:

Ketch, your moral arrogance is a little hard to stand in this thread. Hope the majority of us that think your comparison of Sterling`s comments/Redskins name is silly, can be worthy of you some day, maybe in 100 years.

PC police shot down Condi Rice this week as speaker at Rutgers, diversity to them are liberals, socialist and communist.

Ketch believes the comparison is valid because he honestly feels the NBA's actions because they "want to do the right thing" and that this somehow proves the NBA has a zero tolerance policy on race issues. So the argument is which league "wants to do the right thing". However, I don't believe for a second this is about doing the right thing.

I believe the NBA doesn't give a rat's ass about doing the right thing from a moral perspective and is motivated by the public/media outrage which might affect their brand, image, and finances. Their motives are the same as the NFL. Both parties are acting in manners which protect their brand, image, and finances. It just so happens the outcomes go in different directions.

That the NBA is this morally superior league is laughable. I don't really have an a strong on opinion on whether the Redskins should or shouldn't change their name. What I do believe is that both leagues have very similar motives to their decision making practices.

 

[Ketchum]

Originally posted by VALonghorns:

Ketch, your moral arrogance is a little hard to stand in this thread. Hope the majority of us that think your comparison of Sterling`s comments/Redskins name is silly, can be worthy of you some day, maybe in 100 years.

You didn't answer my last question.

 

[Ketchum]

Originally posted by dallashorn02:

Ketch believes the comparison is valid because he honestly feels the NBA's actions because they "want to do the right thing" and that this somehow proves the NBA has a zero tolerance policy on race issues. So the argument is which league "wants to do the right thing". However, I don't believe for a second this is about doing the right thing.

I believe the NBA doesn't give a rat's ass about doing the right thing from a moral perspective and is motivated by the public/media outrage which might affect their brand, image, and finances. Their motives are the same as the NFL. Both parties are acting in manners which protect their brand, image, and finances. It just so happens the outcomes go in different directions.

That the NBA is this morally superior league is laughable. I don't really have an a strong on opinion on whether the Redskins should or shouldn't change their name. What I do believe is that both leagues have very similar motives to their decision making practices.

You don't think the NBA is ahead of the curve in comparison to the NFL in terms of dealing with race-related issues? Not even a little?

 

[Ignatius J Reilly]

Originally posted by Ketchum:

Originally posted by Ignatius J Reilly:
I am evolving. I want gays to have the right to be married. I think we owe the minority community more socioeconomic attention. I want more Hispanics to have rights to citizenship. I am actually a fairly liberal guy these days. I just don't think the Washington Redskins name is racist. Sorry.


This post was edited on 5/5 9:55 PM by Ignatius J Reilly

And I'm telling you that others believe it to be, which makes what you think not very important.

What would happen if the team was named the Blackskins?

You are really throwing some mud against the wall and wishing it to stick. I've never heard of a black person referred to as a Blackskin. With that said, if the name had been around a while and was founded as more of a term of endearment without any intended racism whatsoever, I would not have a problem with it. But I am kicking myself for answering this question, because it so silly.

So if there are Irish people who do not like the stereotype of them being rowdy, jail cell dwellers, do they have the right to be offended by the Notre Dame mascot? And if they are offended, since those who offend don't have the right to decide whether it's offensive, should they not change the name?

Survey after survey shows that the majority of people in the USA do not find the NFL Redskins as racist. Who put you in charge of delegating whose opinion weighs more? No, not all Native Americans are offended by the term. Anadarko, Olahoma, the self-proclaimed "Indian Capitol of the World" with almost half of it's population being Indian, has a historic theater right smack in the middle of town. The name? The Redskin Theatre.

Yes, the argument that it is akin to calling a black person a Blackskin is ridiculous. And if you think it is, you are channeling your best Shawshank Redemption and being purposefully obtuse or just straight up intellectually dishonest.

 

[Ignatius J Reilly]

Originally posted by Ketchum:

Originally posted by dallashorn02:


Ketch believes the comparison is valid because he honestly feels the NBA's actions because they "want to do the right thing" and that this somehow proves the NBA has a zero tolerance policy on race issues. So the argument is which league "wants to do the right thing". However, I don't believe for a second this is about doing the right thing.

I believe the NBA doesn't give a rat's ass about doing the right thing from a moral perspective and is motivated by the public/media outrage which might affect their brand, image, and finances. Their motives are the same as the NFL. Both parties are acting in manners which protect their brand, image, and finances. It just so happens the outcomes go in different directions.

That the NBA is this morally superior league is laughable. I don't really have an a strong on opinion on whether the Redskins should or shouldn't change their name. What I do believe is that both leagues have very similar motives to their decision making practices.

You don't think the NBA is ahead of the curve in comparison to the NFL in terms of dealing with race-related issues? Not even a little?

Perhaps to someone stubbornly and unwillingly failing to cede that the race-related issues had totally different intrinsic details, perhaps. Like I've said, you don't know what the NBA would do with a franchise related to race and you don't know what Goodell would do if he had evidence of an owner on tape caught in an act of bigotry.

 

[VALonghorns]

What is your last question? Seams like this is much more a pressing issue to you then this Virginia tribe.

On Sterling`s comments---I would hope about 99% of our country would fine them out of line and think he deserved what he got.
On Redskin`s name, I have seen polls where over 2-1 people do not have a problem or feel they should be made to change it.

You compared the two---and then sit on high moral ground and tell the rest of us to be better.

I think Condi Rice should be able to speak at any University in the country, also think any women, black or minority that does not take the liberal big gov`t. view of things---should not be a target to have racist and hateful comments said about them.
We should be better than that

 

[Ignatius J Reilly]

By the way, I find it a little silly that we're celebrating the NBA for their swift action. This is an owner that was actually sued by the US government and settled with them amidst very serious accusations including discriminating against housing blacks and other minorities, settled another racial discrimination suit in 2003, and received a wrongful termination suit from Elgin Baylor with many included egregious racist and overt allegations.

Yeah, took over 10 years to dispose of a huge bigot who owns a franchise in the league. So much swifter than Goodell would have done.

 

[longhornmjc]

cool...a 4 page thread about the redskins...

 

[JBR2009]

Originally posted by VALonghorns:

What is your last question? Seams like this is much more a pressing issue to you then this Virginia tribe.

On Sterling`s comments---I would hope about 99% of our country would fine them out of line and think he deserved what he got.
On Redskin`s name, I have seen polls where over 2-1 people do not have a problem or feel they should be made to change it.

You compared the two---and then sit on high moral ground and tell the rest of us to be better.

I think Condi Rice should be able to speak at any University in the country, also think any women, black or minority that does not take the liberal big gov`t. view of things---should not be a target to have racist and hateful comments said about them.
We should be better than that

The fact is it is an issue. Whether high or low on the list. You keep making the same argument that 2-1 don't care and polls this and one virginia tribe that. Fact is 33 out of 100 people do care and some obviously care a lot they tie it to their identification and culture which means a whole lot to those people.

Really it is a fairly simple change that would mean a lot to people who are very proud of their culture. I am not saying (and I think I am getting to ketch's argument as well) that the redskin's name is right or wrong. It is that making the kind gesture to change the name out of respect to a culture, whether or not the people that identify with that culture 100% care, would be a good thing.

I get there has been some fiery (borderline idiotic) rhetoric from both sides. Especially many who have no business commenting on sports (Harry Reid cough). It is just such an easy concession. It is not like the name of an athletic organization affects us all that much.

This post was edited on 5/6 1:30 PM by JBR2009

 

[Ignatius J Reilly]

JBR, with all due respect, it is anything BUT a "simple name change".

 

[ATXHorn4425]

Originally posted by Ketchum:

Originally posted by ATXHorn4425:


I don't think we should change everything that offends a few people, sorry.

What's a few people? How many people need to be offended before you simply agree to use another word... yanno.. because that is such a sacrifice?

Originally posted by ATXHorn4425:


If this was actually a big deal, it would have been changed a long, long time ago. .

Signed, slavery, women's rights and gay rights.

Wait, oops.

Originally posted by ATXHorn4425:


But the vast majority of Native Americans don't care, and neither do the rest of us. .

How do you know that? Again, why not just use another word? I would contend that....

a. enough people do care.
b. the amount of people who care doesn't matter. Just do the right thing.

Originally posted by ATXHorn4425:


The problem with using your moral outrage on non-issues like this is that eventually the public gets PC fatigue, and then real problems become harder to solve.

What real problems are you trying to solve that keeps you from being open-minded on this?

The amount of people that care does matter. And the vast majority of Native Americans don't. Read their quotes, and look at the data. The outrage just isn't there. And who am I to tell those Native Americans that they should be pissed off?

And this thread and others like it is a perfect example of PC fatigue. You think everyone would be pushing back so hard against changing the name if they weren't bombarded with ridiculous sensitivities all the time? Like I said, save your moral outrage for something that matters, because eventually most people stop taking stuff like this seriously.

 

[JBR2009]

Originally posted by Ignatius J Reilly:
JBR, with all due respect, it is anything BUT a "simple name change".

What is it then?

I have a hard time believing a rebranding is not well within the marketing capabilities of the team. Can you point to any real damage it would do?

 

[Ketchum]

Originally posted by Ignatius J Reilly:
Perhaps to someone stubbornly and unwillingly failing to cede that the race-related issues had totally different intrinsic details, perhaps. Like I've said, you don't know what the NBA would do with a franchise related to race and you don't know what Goodell would do if he had evidence of an owner on tape caught in an act of bigotry.

Of course, they ave different intrinsic details. Nobody is saying they are exactly the same.

What I am stubbornly point out is that...

a. These are the two race-related issues of the day in the respective sports, so there is a natural comparison to the way the two stories are handled that can be applied in the discussion we are having.
b. You can look at the way the two leagues have approached the issues and with the sense of urgency they've used to make general observations about each.

I know that an NBA franchise wouldn't have a team named the blackskins or redskins... why does the NFL? Would the NFL allow a team to be called the blackskins, even if they original intent was not to be offensive?

 

[Ignatius J Reilly]

You do not know that the NBA would have a team called the Redskins if they had been established 50 years ago. That's conjecture.

Whereas the NFL set a precedent with the Rooney Rule in organized sports in hiring black coaches and are the only league to address racial language used on the field, history indicates that the NBA was anything but swift in kicking a known bigot out of the league. And not just any bigot, a known owner of a professional franchise with a laundry list of just despicable racial accusations against him.

 

[Ignatius J Reilly]

JBR,

Absolutely it would hurt. The Redskins are worth over 1.5 billion dollars. This isn't a minor deal. They're one of the most valuable franchises in professional sports.

To put it in perspective, can you imagine the Cowboys overnight changing their name and waking up tomorrow a Dallas Outlaws fan?

How much would it hurt? I don't know. Maybe a lot. Maybe hardly at all. But undoubtedly it would have a at least some negative impact on Redskin fans and franchise value. I don't think the owner and fans should be bullied by a vocal minority on such a subjective matter into taking the risk.

This post was edited on 5/6 2:18 PM by Ignatius J Reilly

 

[JBR2009]

Originally posted by Ignatius J Reilly:
JBR,

Absolutely it would hurt. The Redskins are worth over 1.5 billion dollars. This isn't a minor deal. They're one of the most valuable franchises in professional sports.

To put it in perspective, can you imagine the Cowboys overnight changing their name and waking up tomorrow a Dallas Outlaws fan?

How much would it hurt? I don't know. Maybe a lot. Maybe hardly at all. But undoubtedly it would have a at least some negative impact on Redskin fans and franchise value. I don't think the owner and fans should be bullied by a vocal minority on such a subjective matter into taking the risk.

This post was edited on 5/6 2:18 PM by Ignatius J Reilly

I am not suggesting they get bullied into it. What I am saying is that if the decision were mine (it very clearly is not) I would change the name and stem the tide before it becomes a forced issue and frame it as a PR success. An unforced correction that is sensitive to but not mandated by a "vocal minority".

Like MLK said it is "Almost always the creative deidicated minority that make the world a better place."

It is my belief that the value of the redskins has little or nothing to with the redskins name. I would disagree that it would have a negative impact at all. The opportunity to rebrand creates a terrific opportunity to connect to the community. It would also undoubtedly create a bump in jersey/memorabilia sales of both the new stuff and the old. I would imagine that this would more than make up for the cost of any design changes.

This is all my opinion though. I understand your point I think we just differ which is fine. I appreciate the debate over it. Very interesting stuff to see both sides.