Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Hey if he can pay for all the free stuff with existing tax revenues, fine.
They've been the Redskins since 1932. Before that they were the Boston Braves.
The NCAA may have made that determination in the FSU case, but in others, no.
I suggest there is enough concern that the term promotes racism to warrant its withdrawal. I am not an historian, nor am I even an American, but I would bet that the term has a history of being used in ways that promotes divisiveness, suspicion of native Americans, and other negative things. Obviously, there are some occasions when we legitimately need to classify people according to their skin colour. But because, for whatever reason, we humans are arguably very easily inclined to unhealthy "us vs them" tribalistic thinking, we should make every effort to avoid thinking in terms of skin colour differences. And while, for example, medical experts need to be able to say that race A is more susceptible to disease X than race B, there is no earthly reason why we need to draw skin colour distinctions when it comes to naming sports teams.
Here is another reason why the name may be a problem: it arguably trivializes and caricatures native American culture. Imagine if someone proposed that a new New York football team be called the "New York Rabbis". I expect many would be offended, and I think rightly so. Why? Because the rabbinic tradition, I believe, has, in fact, made many contributions to the advancement of human knowledge and culture. To name a football team after it is at least a little disrespectful to that tradition, I suggest. A Jew, and especially a rabbi, would probably not want this respected tradition used as a label for a bunch of 25 year old millionaires battling over a leather ball. I suspect that native Americans feel the same way when the term "Redskin" is used for a football team - it kind of cartoon-izes their cultural tradition. And that is not really helpful or constructive.
No, not for the use of the word "red" - the name Boston RedSox or even Cincinnati Reds is fine (I assume the Cincinnati name is not connected to Native Americans, unlike the "Redskins" name.
Of course not - you are leaping to conclusions. And your statement is at least a little ironic - your use of the term "the political Left" is, I suggest, a term that does the exact same (bad) thing that using a name like "Redskin" does - it appeals to a simplistic, and mistaken for that matter, worldview in which the world is split into a good "us" and a bad "them".
The Tomahawk Chop. My Chiefs do it too, but they have officially done away with all Indian imagery, beside the arrowhead. Their mascot is some kind of weird armadillo thing.
