NFL - Washington name change

[camroc1]

And Ontario, CA.

I live an hour's drive from Dublin.

Not the Dublin I grew up in.

Wendy's Burgers is from a different Dublin again.

I'm not unflattered that so many Americans chose to name their city after mine, but it gets annoying having to qualify which one I'm from.


I worked with a guy from Belfast, Maine. He didn't realise that either it, or Bangor, were the same name as 2 towns in Northern Ireland.

You would have though the the town founders could have gone with New Dublin at least.

In Minnesota we have the mighty small towns of New Prague, New London and New Ulm.

And Bangor, Wales, and Bangor, N Ireland, are of a very similar age - 6th century. It appears that the Welsh one is around 50 years older, but unsure if there are any links.

On google; Bangor itself is an old Welsh word for a 'wattled enclosure'. The name Bangor is derived from the Irish word Beannchor (modern Irish Beannchar) meaning a horned or peaked curve as the shape of Bangor Bay. So that means they were probably quite separate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangor,_Gwynedd
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangor,_County_Down

Not forgetting Bangor, Co.Mayo !

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangor_Erris

[UncleFB]

I occasionally admit I'm wrong, or stand corrected given new information, as everyone should. But I guess if you know absolutely everything already like yourself and Mr Bungle, that's never necessary, right?

Don’t deflect to us as supposedly knowing everything. It’s more a case of you posting paragraph after paragraph on topics you are then shown to know very little about. Your sister is half Chinese and it never entered your mind why the term Redskins might be offensive to Native Americans?

Nah, it's all good, no one should be offended because Wendall wasn't offended.

[Mog The Almighty]

Mog seems to have adopted the if I'm not offended by something then no one's allowed to be, and something something Sam Harris something something Joe Rogan.

Corrected.

Mog is a strange one. Goes in balls deep at the drop of a hat and then has to retract once he has a "fuller" understanding.

Mr Bungle might be onto something.

All nonsense of course.

I occasionally admit I'm wrong, or stand corrected given new information, as everyone should. But I guess if you know absolutely everything already like yourself and Mr Bungle, that's never necessary, right?

UncleFB is also missing the point of the post. You can be offended as you want, but a) nobody has to respect it; b) it's not even worth your own respect; c) it doesn't make you right; and d) it's unhelpful to meaningful conversation. But by all means, be offended. There's no law against that. But if someone tells you to go f-ck yourself you pansy, then you'll just have to sit and spin on it. Taking offence doesn't grant you a single thing. That's the point.

Mog me old china, you could at least give an accreditation for the bit above you lifted straight from Sam Harris.

Get down off your high horse Mr. Sanctimonious.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=99682

I actually got just got a bit confused about what thread I was posting under. It was an honest mistake.

I occasionally admit I'm wrong, or stand corrected given new information, as everyone should. But I guess if you know absolutely everything already like yourself and Mr Bungle, that's never necessary, right?

Don’t deflect to us as supposedly knowing everything. It’s more a case of you posting paragraph after paragraph on topics you are then shown to know very little about. Your sister is half Chinese and it never entered your mind why the term Redskins might be offensive to Native Americans?

Nah, it's all good, no one should be offended because Wendall wasn't offended.

I'll give you credit enough to assume you're not a complete moron and you just missed the several posts on the last page where I explained why that wasn't the point. So go back and have a look.

[UncleFB]

Mog seems to have adopted the if I'm not offended by something then no one's allowed to be, and something something Sam Harris something something Joe Rogan.

Corrected.

Mog is a strange one. Goes in balls deep at the drop of a hat and then has to retract once he has a "fuller" understanding.

Mr Bungle might be onto something.

All nonsense of course.

I occasionally admit I'm wrong, or stand corrected given new information, as everyone should. But I guess if you know absolutely everything already like yourself and Mr Bungle, that's never necessary, right?

UncleFB is also missing the point of the post. You can be offended as you want, but a) nobody has to respect it; b) it's not even worth your own respect; c) it doesn't make you right; and d) it's unhelpful to meaningful conversation. But by all means, be offended. There's no law against that. But if someone tells you to go f-ck yourself you pansy, then you'll just have to sit and spin on it. Taking offence doesn't grant you a single thing. That's the point.

Mog me old china, you could at least give an accreditation for the bit above you lifted straight from Sam Harris.

Get down off your high horse Mr. Sanctimonious.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=99682

I actually got just got a bit confused about what thread I was posting under. It was an honest mistake.

I occasionally admit I'm wrong, or stand corrected given new information, as everyone should. But I guess if you know absolutely everything already like yourself and Mr Bungle, that's never necessary, right?

Don’t deflect to us as supposedly knowing everything. It’s more a case of you posting paragraph after paragraph on topics you are then shown to know very little about. Your sister is half Chinese and it never entered your mind why the term Redskins might be offensive to Native Americans?

Nah, it's all good, no one should be offended because Wendall wasn't offended.

I'll give you credit enough to assume you're not a complete moron and you just missed the several posts on the last page where I explained why that wasn't the point. So go back and have a look.

Your half arsed back peddling that makes no sense whatsoever? Yeah, I read that. There's no point to that little anecdote, and furthermore the fact is you took another whole post to try and make sense of including it and you still failed.

[Mog The Almighty]

Really?

The quality of posters in this place has really gone down. Is the whole forum just a one-up competition nowdays?

I wasn't back peddling. The point is exactly the same as it was the first time I posted that and totally consistent with the other related post on made on the subject (the Sam Harris quote). Taking offence - even when there's some justification for it - gives you nothing.

I think you get the point I'm making but just want to nit-pick and score points instead of discuss the topic which is quite frankly tedious and boring.

And FWIW there's absolutely nothing wrong with "back peddling", "flip flopping" or changing one's mind. In fact people, especially politicians, should do it more often. It just so happens that in this particular case I haven't done that. I never said it was okay to scream "you black c-nt" at people. If you think that's my point you're easy extremely dense or intentionally missing the point.

[mr bungle]

You had no clue Redskins was a derogatory term. You’re a complete fucking idiot. Lucky you’re here to maintain the high standard of posting.

[Mog The Almighty]

You had no clue Redskins was a derogatory term. You’re a complete fucking idiot. Lucky you’re here to maintain the high standard of posting.

And you're boring and tedious.

[UncleFB]

Really?

The quality of posters in this place has really gone down. Is the whole forum just a one-up competition nowdays?

I wasn't back peddling. The point is exactly the same as it was the first time I posted that and totally consistent with the other related post on made on the subject (the Sam Harris quote). Taking offence - even when there's some justification for it - gives you nothing.

I think you get the point I'm making but just want to nit-pick and score points instead of discuss the topic which is quite frankly tedious and boring.

Yeah, that's the reason there's a multitude of posters disagreeing with you. It's more likely they can't stand your garbage logic of in an ideal world offensive things just be met with a shrug of the shoulders and not considered insulting. Or your claim that any offence is just pretend outrage.

Harris' quote is just stupid, it's wishy washy new age garbage that disregards the fact that taking offence in most cases isn't a choice so who the fuck cares about whether it should be respected.

Also, unsurprisingly that you as a member of the 'youtube facts dudes' brigade has resorted to name calling with anyone who dares to challenge you.

[Sensible Stephen]

Geezus christ.

Do you know what you should seriously be asking yourself right now. It's this: why am I making shit up in order to justify my insult-ridden outrage? Think about it. Because if you have to imagine up things in your own head to maintain the rage, maybe the rage isn't actually all that justified.

What actually happened is some other poster made a moderately off-colour joke, and I pointed out that while I would NOT have made the same joke myself, that Shrek is also probably not actually a goose-stepping KKK-member who hates Asians. He's possibly just a guy that had a couple of beers and made a crude joke assuming that people wouldn't lose their shit about it.

Don't make shit up and about me thinking it's okay to call people a "slant-eyed c-nt". That is not even close to what actually occurred. The anecdote in the post above was meant to demonstrate how Salior's capacity to take offence (even when it was obviously intended, unlike in Shrek's joke) is admirably small (instead of Titanic-sized like your own). It had nothing to do with calling someone a "slant eyed ching chong" at all.

And fwiw, my sister is half-Chinese you f**king wingnut.

It's not an off colour insult, no matter how hard you want to scream it. I gave you links showing its historical origins and why it's so offensive to Asians. But you decided it wasn't, because.. reasons.

See, Sailor not getting offended by some racist calling him a black cnut doesn't mean it's ok to call people black cnuts, or that it's not a racial slur or that it's stupid to find it offensive.

Nice to see you are pulling out the ...some of my best friends/siblings are black/Chinese to justify your BS.

[mr bungle]

You had no clue Redskins was a derogatory term. You’re a complete fucking idiot. Lucky you’re here to maintain the high standard of posting.

And you're boring and tedious.

Tedious are your long winded posts complete with your total lack of awareness. These threads all go the same way for you. You wade in, paragraph after paragraph proving how on the pulse you are. It’s once again pointed out to you that you don’t understand the crux of the issue, in this case that the term Redskins has racial connotations. You then back out of the thread gracefully by again posting paragraph after paragraph about how at least when you’re wrong, you acknowledge it and how the quality of posters has dropped compared with the intelligence dripping from your fingertips. You must be painful to know in real life. Cock.

[Anonymous 1]

You had no clue Redskins was a derogatory term. You’re a complete fucking idiot. Lucky you’re here to maintain the high standard of posting.

Other than it sounds pretty derogatory I can see how an incurious person might not know it was. The only time you ever hear it really is in conjunction with Washington or in old westerns where it was always very obviously used by people who thought native Americans were scum.

[mr bungle]

But Mog is just so curious and worldly. He never fails to tell us so.

[Mog The Almighty]

But Mog is just so curious and worldly. He never fails to tell us so.

What is your problem mate?

The Redskins is (was) the name of a massive multi-million dollar sporting franchise, as well as children's lolly-pops. And the people in the picture seemed to be protesting more about it being a mascot than anything else. And still I was quite happy to just shrug my shoulders and agree with you at the drop of a hat. It wasn't a big deal at all to me.

Yet that is your winning point hat you choose too latch onto and bash me over the head with sneering posts for three pages.

You come across like an insecure little prick tbf.

[mr bungle]

Who you calling little?

Just tired of your paragraph upon paragraph of drivel, rinse and repeat. Pretty sure you’re the dumbest pound for pound poster per words typed on this bored.

[lorcanoworms]

And Ontario, CA.

I live an hour's drive from Dublin.

Not the Dublin I grew up in.

Wendy's Burgers is from a different Dublin again.

I'm not unflattered that so many Americans chose to name their city after mine, but it gets annoying having to qualify which one I'm from.


I worked with a guy from Belfast, Maine. He didn't realise that either it, or Bangor, were the same name as 2 towns in Northern Ireland.

There is Derry and a Dublin in Nth Maine, did you ever come across Dublin coke over there.

[madman]

Apparently Ron Rivera has said his preferred name would be Red Roses..

[Floppykid]

Why not just drop the dumb yank mascot shite and go with Washington DC?

As for Redskins, I’m surprised it lasted as long as it did.
Just an outright slur.

[Sensible Stephen]

Mog seems to have adopted the if I'm not offended by something then no one's allowed to be, and something something Sam Harris something something Joe Rogan.

Corrected.

Mog is a strange one. Goes in balls deep at the drop of a hat and then has to retract once he has a "fuller" understanding.

Mr Bungle might be onto something.

All nonsense of course.

I occasionally admit I'm wrong, or stand corrected given new information, as everyone should. But I guess if you know absolutely everything already like yourself and Mr Bungle, that's never necessary, right?

UncleFB is also missing the point of the post. You can be offended as you want, but a) nobody has to respect it; b) it's not even worth your own respect; c) it doesn't make you right; and d) it's unhelpful to meaningful conversation. But by all means, be offended. There's no law against that. But if someone tells you to go f-ck yourself you pansy, then you'll just have to sit and spin on it. Taking offence doesn't grant you a single thing. That's the point.

I agree with Mr Bungles pound for pound comment. Lets play out an example....

Moron: You black cnut.

Mr Smith: You racist.

Mog: Oh go f-ck yourself you pansy, why are you getting so offended. I don't find that offensive, and you shouldn't either. Show me how that is anything more than an off colour insult. I have a sister, she thinks its ok. Well I haven't asked her, but I am sure she would think its ok and its totally relevant to bring her up, because shes different and stuff. So I know what is offensive for real, and this isn't it. I haven't heard it before and I think its just something made up with no history and is surely not racist. Because its not and I'm not. The only bad person here is you for getting offended at nothing.

[Mog The Almighty]

Mate I've already gone out of my way several times to say I wouldn't have made that joke. And making that joke is about 20 times more benign than screaming, "you black c-nt" at someone, which I also obviously would not do. I've tried to explain multiple times that the point of my anecdote is not that it's acceptable and okay to scream abuse at people (racial or not), but it all seems to be falling on deaf ears so I've given up, I don't want to argue about it, although I do feel some need to at-least correct people when they intentionally (or not) talk nonsense about what I think or have said in the past.

[Sensible Stephen]

Mate I've already gone out of my way several times to say I wouldn't have made that joke. And making that joke is about 20 times more benign than screaming, "you black c-nt" at someone, which I also obviously would not do. I've tried to explain multiple times that the point of my anecdote is not that it's acceptable and okay to scream abuse at people (racial or not), but it all seems to be falling on deaf ears so I've given up, I don't want to argue about it, although I do feel some need to at-least correct people when they intentionally (or not) talk nonsense about what I think or have said in the past.

See, I don't have so much problem with 'the joke' rather being called names for saying its racist.

Its one thing to ignore it, but to tell someone that a racist remark is not racist at all, and then to go on and call them names for calling out racism is a total other thing. Thats why you got called a cnut.

[Mog The Almighty]

Fair enough.

[Sensible Stephen]

[Mog The Almighty]

Well I'm glad that appears to be over then.

Now we're friends again, I'll admit it was a bit wrong for me to call you woke. But it was actually aimed at Z who posted before you did and then it just went bananas.

[nicebutdim]

Well I haven't posted here for a very long time. The accusations of the quality of the poster going down are interesting. Perhaps unfounded. However there does definitely seem to be a clear rise in the prima donna.

Not naming names.

[Harveys]

They’re called Redskins. Whether you agree or not at that being offensive, that’s what the main focus is. The Indian imagery obviously goes hand in hand, but there’s more focus on the Washington Redskins than Cleveland Indians.

... and so what?

Okay, I can see that might be a bit on the nose in the context of today's uber-sensitive political landscape but it really shouldn't be. Besides, from the look of those images and the guy with the "Caucasian" T-shirt, they seem way more upset about being used as a mascot than the actual name.

And so what?

Redskin is a slang term for Native Americans in the United States and First Nations in Canada. The term "redskin" underwent pejoration through the 19th to early 20th centuries[1] and in contemporary dictionaries of American English it is labeled "usually offensive",[2] "disparaging",[3][4] "insulting",[5] or "taboo".[6]

I’m all for rallying against the hyper sensitivity becoming more prevalent in today’s society, but I won’t get in behind defending this one. It’s a shitty name, and should go.

Yes, you're right. I agree the name is too much. I didn't realise it had a history of being a racial slur. I'd only heard it in relation to that team and the red lolly sticks I used to buy at the servo when I was a kid.

The point I was making is just that it's a bit silly the people find these things offensive. A story I often tell about Wendell Sailor being called a "black c-unt" by someone in the stands and when asked about how insulting it was, responding with, "well, it was insulting to be called a c-unt anyway".

Obviously you wouldn't call any team, "The NSW Blacks/Negros" or whatever, so understandably the same should apply to Washington. I'm just saying in an ideal world these things should just not be considered insulting. They should be met with a shrug of the shoulders and a, "yeah, and ... so what?".

In the world that we live in, I do agree that the name "Redskins" is just pushing what is socially acceptable (for better or worse) too much and should be replaced. The Indian Chief mascot I have no problem with though and I think if anyone else does, they're just pretending.

In one post you debunked your own argument & acted in a equally sanctimonious “Sam Harris” way “in an ideal world”, well its not, obviously. What you're really saying is, I’m so closed minded I can only see the world through my own eyes and everyone who sees things differently needs to come around so we can all be happy. Not only is that the height of prideful arrogance its pretty deluded.

So what is ideal in your eyes, your ability to be ignorant and indifferent to perceived racial slurs or their ability to not be referenced by their skin colour in a perceived derogatory way? No one is taking away your freedom to say the words if you so chose to use them.

No one would call a team the yellow skins with a picture of an Asian as their mascot. Would they?

[Harveys]

But Mog is just so curious and worldly. He never fails to tell us so.

What is your problem mate?

The Redskins is (was) the name of a massive multi-million dollar sporting franchise, as well as children's lolly-pops. And the people in the picture seemed to be protesting more about it being a mascot than anything else. And still I was quite happy to just shrug my shoulders and agree with you at the drop of a hat. It wasn't a big deal at all to me.

Yet that is your winning point hat you choose too latch onto and bash me over the head with sneering posts for three pages.

You come across like an insecure little prick tbf.

That’s no argument, shitty behaviour that was once concidered completly ok has slowly improved over the centuries in case you haven’t noticed.

I guess along the way there have always been folk on the sidelines disagreeing with it as people just don’t like change.

[Floppykid]

Is Mog saying he didn't know Redskin is a slur?

[Harveys]

Well I haven't posted here for a very long time. The accusations of the quality of the poster going down are interesting. Perhaps unfounded. However there does definitely seem to be a clear rise in the prima donna.

Not naming names.

They just fell through the floor.

[Ali's Choice]

So to sum up Mog's argument, a term like "Redskin" cannot be racist if he isn't personally aware that it is racist.

[mr bungle]

Is Mog saying he didn't know Redskin is a slur?

Incredible considering he has a yellow skinned sister.

[fonzeee]

Why not just drop the dumb yank mascot shite and go with Washington DC?

As for Redskins, I’m surprised it lasted as long as it did.
Just an outright slur.

Yeah nah. Team names > boring bland FC, RFC, etc.

As for the name, it's funny, because in a way the football team being named Redskins helped change the understanding of the word as a slur to that of a badass name for a football team. I mean, what do you think people think of when they hear the word in this day and age? They think about the football team. It is utterly dead as a slur, has been for some time. I would have thought that was a good thing, but oh well.

Of course, a big part of the reason the word no longer calls actual natives to mind is that natives are utterly invisible and totally forgotten about as a people, which is going to continue no matter what they call that football team.

Odd that out of all the issues facing natives, not the least of which being the fact that they're the poorest race in this nation, activists would focus on the name of football team. Apart from when they tried to build that pipeline through that reservation in the Dakotas a few years ago, I literally cannot think of a single time I saw natives/native issues in the news.

It's almost as if there's something other than native welfare motivating these activists. Hmm.

[Mog The Almighty]

PR has degenerated into a clichéd nerd forum of aggressively insecure man-babies trying to one-up each other from behind their keyboard.

This thread (and the train-wreck of a COVID thread which is basically a never-ending shit-fight about a complex scientific subject nobody here knows anything about - hilarious) remind me why my breaks from PR are getting progressively longer.

[Harveys]

You keep telling yourself that champ, you need to believe it

[Pat the Ex Mat]

PR has degenerated into a clichéd nerd forum of aggressively insecure man-babies trying to one-up each other from behind their keyboard.

This thread (and the train-wreck of a COVID thread which is basically a never-ending shit-fight about a complex scientific subject nobody here knows anything about - hilarious) remind me why my breaks from PR are getting progressively longer.

Apart from being banned of course....

[BokJock]

Why not just drop the dumb yank mascot shite and go with Washington DC?

As for Redskins, I’m surprised it lasted as long as it did.
Just an outright slur.

Yeah nah. Team names > boring bland FC, RFC, etc.

As for the name, it's funny, because in a way the football team being named Redskins helped change the understanding of the word as a slur to that of a badass name for a football team. I mean, what do you think people think of when they hear the word in this day and age? They think about the football team. It is utterly dead as a slur, has been for some time. I would have thought that was a good thing, but oh well.

Of course, a big part of the reason the word no longer calls actual natives to mind is that natives are utterly invisible and totally forgotten about as a people, which is going to continue no matter what they call that football team.

Odd that out of all the issues facing natives, not the least of which being the fact that they're the poorest race in this nation, activists would focus on the name of football team. Apart from when they tried to build that pipeline through that reservation in the Dakotas a few years ago, I literally cannot think of a single time I saw natives/native issues in the news.

It's almost as if there's something other than native welfare motivating these activists. Hmm.

Luckily, the team put a big picture of a redskinned guy on the helmets to remind you where the name comes from.

[mr bungle]

[fonzeee]

I'm sure there's supposed to be a point in there somewhere.

[Anonymous 1]

Apparently Ron Rivera has said his preferred name would be Red Roses..

I've got used to "fucking useless cunts"

[nicebutdim]

Why not just drop the dumb yank mascot shite and go with Washington DC?

As for Redskins, I’m surprised it lasted as long as it did.
Just an outright slur.

Yeah nah. Team names > boring bland FC, RFC, etc.

As for the name, it's funny, because in a way the football team being named Redskins helped change the understanding of the word as a slur to that of a badass name for a football team. I mean, what do you think people think of when they hear the word in this day and age? They think about the football team. It is utterly dead as a slur, has been for some time. I would have thought that was a good thing, but oh well.

Of course, a big part of the reason the word no longer calls actual natives to mind is that natives are utterly invisible and totally forgotten about as a people, which is going to continue no matter what they call that football team.

Odd that out of all the issues facing natives, not the least of which being the fact that they're the poorest race in this nation, activists would focus on the name of football team. Apart from when they tried to build that pipeline through that reservation in the Dakotas a few years ago, I literally cannot think of a single time I saw natives/native issues in the news.

It's almost as if there's something other than native welfare motivating these activists. Hmm.

Yours is not a an argument without basis however it is also absurd if it ignores the opinions of those who matter most. Like the Buccaneers, Vikings, Warriors, Highlanders, Sharks, Panthers etc it refers to strength and fierceness, though perhaps in this instance also savagery. However there is perhaps a way to venerate the group better than to use a name/term the group itself consider a racial slur. It wouldn't lets say work for the Detroit Darkies (instead of Zulus) or Maryland Yellowskins (instead of Mongols). Throw is some mascots for added affect. Wouldn't happen, nor should it happen here. I can't speak for the intent when decisions were made to name teams referencing Native Americans, perhaps some noble intent, others not, certainly a big dose of marketing. It does matter but this specific name "Redskins" doesn't require an in depth analysis as the reasons for objection have been clearly made.

The group itself consider it a racist slur and even though Native Americans are low in number they should be listened to and respected on this. There are better ways to venerate them. Using the name like this in whatever context is only empowering if the group it refers to find it empowering. For them to decide. Otherwise it looks like exploitation and certainly there has been and continues to be commercial gain. I mean apparently this has been actively protested against for over 4 decades so it isn't some of the moment culture war manufactured offense. Not that that matters either. Now is the time for wrongs to be righted and uncomfortable societal truths to be outed.... institutional racism, institutional pedophilia, sexual exploitation, institutional brutality. We should be thankful these days have arrived. I only found out the other day that a former teacher at my school sexually abused young boys for over 25 years. These incidents were actively covered up at the time by social services. And when eventually he was taken to court it was thrown out by a draconian judge who gave a pithy Edwardian explanation. Only a couple of years ago did these men finally get justice.

As to your question about why activists focus on this 'small' issue when Native Americans have much larger problems. There has been a huge amount of activism on that too and not much headway (depending on your perspective). So why not win some high profile battles that return to your people some power and dignity. Take the 'small' wins and move on. The psychological issues of America are long, deep and profound. Everything matters especially to those that have been brutalized and denigrated. If they can't win this (and they have been losing for 2 generations) then what chance do they have on other things.

[UncleFB]

Why not just drop the dumb yank mascot shite and go with Washington DC?

As for Redskins, I’m surprised it lasted as long as it did.
Just an outright slur.

Yeah nah. Team names > boring bland FC, RFC, etc.

As for the name, it's funny, because in a way the football team being named Redskins helped change the understanding of the word as a slur to that of a badass name for a football team. I mean, what do you think people think of when they hear the word in this day and age? They think about the football team. It is utterly dead as a slur, has been for some time. I would have thought that was a good thing, but oh well.

Of course, a big part of the reason the word no longer calls actual natives to mind is that natives are utterly invisible and totally forgotten about as a people, which is going to continue no matter what they call that football team.

Odd that out of all the issues facing natives, not the least of which being the fact that they're the poorest race in this nation, activists would focus on the name of football team. Apart from when they tried to build that pipeline through that reservation in the Dakotas a few years ago, I literally cannot think of a single time I saw natives/native issues in the news.

It's almost as if there's something other than native welfare motivating these activists. Hmm.

Yours is not a an argument without basis however it is also absurd if it ignores the opinions of those who matter most. Like the Buccaneers, Vikings, Warriors, Highlanders, Sharks, Panthers etc it refers to strength and fierceness, though perhaps in this instance also savagery. However there is perhaps a way to venerate the group better than to use a name/term the group itself consider a racial slur. It wouldn't lets say work for the Detroit Darkies (instead of Zulus) or Maryland Yellowskins (instead of Mongols). Throw is some mascots for added affect. Wouldn't happen, nor should it happen here. I can't speak for the intent when decisions were made to name teams referencing Native Americans, perhaps some noble intent, others not, certainly a big dose of marketing. It does matter but this specific name "Redskins" doesn't require an in depth analysis as the reasons for objection have been clearly made.

The group itself consider it a racist slur and even though Native Americans are low in number they should be listened to and respected on this. There are better ways to venerate them. Using the name like this in whatever context is only empowering if the group it refers to find it empowering. For them to decide. Otherwise it looks like exploitation and certainly there has been and continues to be commercial gain. I mean apparently this has been actively protested against for over 4 decades so it isn't some of the moment culture war manufactured offense. Not that that matters either. Now is the time for wrongs to be righted and uncomfortable societal truths to be outed.... institutional racism, institutional pedophilia, sexual exploitation, institutional brutality. We should be thankful these days have arrived. I only found out the other day that a former teacher at my school sexually abused young boys for over 25 years. These incidents were actively covered up at the time by social services. And when eventually he was taken to court it was thrown out by a draconian judge who gave a pithy Edwardian explanation. Only a couple of years ago did these men finally get justice.

As to your question about why activists focus on this 'small' issue when Native Americans have much larger problems. There has been a huge amount of activism on that too and not much headway (depending on your perspective). So why not win some high profile battles that return to your people some power and dignity. Take the 'small' wins and move on. The psychological issues of America are long, deep and profound. Everything matters especially to those that have been brutalized and denigrated. If they can't win this (and they have been losing for 2 generations) then what chance do they have on other things.

Agree, fonzee seems to be of the belief it's zero sum, but it never is and it shouldn't be. To take NZ as an example, Maori would work on the big issues (Waitangi Tribunal process to redress historical grievances around land/wealth etc) and the smaller issues (the use of Kia ora as a greeting within a state entity).

It's almost as if there's something other than native welfare motivating these activists. Hmm.

Not allowing racial slurs to be normalised is pretty good motivation.