FCC Considers Banning ‘Redskins’ From Public Airwaves

Try naming an NFL team, "Honkeys, Crackers, Hillbillies, Rednecks, et al", and see if you can get approved without any complaints.

If you do think its offensive, you have every right to fight for its removal, period, as Atsa...., posted also.

 

It's an antiquated term of dubious origin that nobody should give a damn about. Why? Because it's ANTIQUATED. Nobody uses the term "redskin" in anything but a football related sense. aka. nobody means to offend when saying it, so why should anyone get offended for it being said?

Furthermore, nobody has a right to not get offended. If this was such a problem, you'd see Redskins fans ditching their gear and refusing to buy any more until they changed the logo, yet they don't seem to be having a problem staying in business even despite the fact that the Redskins currently suck as a football team and an organization.

If they do change it, I hope they stick it to everyone by renaming themselves "The Scalpers", with a picture of a bloody scalp hanging from a racially generic hand. Since both sides scalped, it's equally insulting to everybody.

 

None of those are racial slurs. White people may find it dumb but we are not Native Americans, so what we think really don't mean (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

I don't understand why this is suddenly a big deal. I mean, it's not like the just changed their name to the Redskins.

 

"First Nations person"??? OMG, you don't mean Native Americans do you? Or even, dare I say it, indians?

 

Why compromise at all? Its a very small but vocal minority of Indians that feel this way.

- - - Updated - - -

This is what i dont understand.. Why after so long.....

- - - Updated - - -

Did they just wake up and find it offensive? Its not like the Redskins are a new team.

 

Because compromise is the decent thing to do, protecting the minority is part of the American ethos, and insisting on retaining an offensive name for a stupid football team is just a dick move.

Nobody cared about professional football 82 years ago. Hell, the teams weren't any better than the college teams of the time. The exponential growth in viewership probably didn't start until the late 70s and early 80s, but even then professional football was understood to be something played by men who hadn't grown up or learned to do anything useful. Today, the NFL is a money-making behemoth whose influence you can't escape without leaving the U.S. Football operates on a much grander scale, and if Dan Snyder likes it that way (and I'm $ure he doe$) then he needs to get with the program and stop being a dick.

 

Good idea.
Lower case D democratic, as in let them decide if they are offended.

Not capital D Democratic, as in tell them they are offended whether they are or not.

 

So all those liberals who are quite effectively throwing lawsuits around when someone says something they think is wrong, like "Redskins".... are Native Americans?

Sure seems to mean **** to them.

 

I do, though I do believe that Indians are from India...

 

Waiting 82 years to insist it is offensive is a dick move.

And I'm sure alllll that money has had no influence whatsoever on any group suddenly deciding (after 82 years) that they're offended by any of it....not that anyone in this country would ever try such a thing <snort>

 

I would argue that the First Amendment prohibits the FCC from banning any content, be it the word "Redskins", other "dirty" words, nudity, sex, violence, etc.. The only reason it's been allowed is a quirk in history, as when television was invented, the US populace was much more religious, and much more willing, desiring even, of having religious instructions influence civil law. Eventually, that will be changed.

 

I don't understand what the argument is about. If they had been named the Atlanta Monkey's, and had a picture of a Black man on their jersey, there would be immediatel reprecussions.

While you might not consider it offensive, it is offensive to other people. I could not agree more, considering the context of the grievance. If the few remaining Indians we have in the country wish not to be offended so blatantly, I think it's the least we can do to accomodate them.

 

They didn't.

Anyway.... The Redskins have been The Redskins since 1932. This year they have been forced to change.
Are you really OK with everyone who accidentally says the name of the team this year to be prosecuted ?

I certainly hope the left isn't wanting to alter history again.
No matter what the team is called in the future, they were The Redskins for 82 years.
Only looney PC craziness would make laws saying they can't ever be referred to.

 

I would bet this is all for show.

"Considering a petition" is what people say to make others feel good.

The FCC is too smart to take the petition seriously.

 

Are you saying they're asking for money? Last I checked all they were looking for was to have the team name changed, which is quite reasonable if you think about it.

 

I'm a white native American. In fact, my whole white family back to my great great great grandfather were all born in America. If I'm a native of anywhere, it's America.

- - - Updated - - -

American Indians are from America.

 

We get it you dont like Dan Synder and just want to say Dick as many times as you can in this thread. Your dislike of the sport has nothing to do with the topic either ~.

Protecting a few loud mouth activists is not any part of the "American ethos" and your idea of "Compromise" is do what they want. Not a big surprise we have all seen what a Progressive "compromise" is.

 

They're asking now...as soon as the owners don't cave to the pressure, you can bet there'll be law suits.
And no, it's not reasonable. This whole "I'm offended" BS is just that.

 

So now he has enough money to be absorbed by "the program"?

Not issuing a trademark because it's disruptive to society is a reasonable compromise between personal liberty and social responsibility. Retroactively deciding it's unacceptable after a guy has put in 82 years building a company on top of it... no, that's not reasonable.

And people are allowed to be dicks. Government agencies aren't.





​

 

I&#8217;m not so sure religion was the sole driving force behind it so much as people in general just weren&#8217;t comfortable with public nudity, language, and violence. In earlier TV and movies I don&#8217;t recall seeing a lot of prayer, going to church, preaching, etc&#8230; on the screen. But I will agree an underlying influence in content was religion.

It seems an automatic trend in societies to push the limit to the next extreme that they can get away with. I find it odd how the FCC has loosened its standards allowing the violence, sex, drugs, and nudity while going after benign terms like &#8216;Redskins&#8217;. It all falls in line with what&#8217;s politically correct. Progressives love to show how &#8216;progressive&#8217; they are by exhibiting salacious content while at the same time showing how they are &#8216;protecting&#8217; minority groups from discrimination; well, except when those minority groups disparage themselves.

And I think it was mentioned before&#8230; what does this do for all the old movies that have the word &#8216;redskin&#8217; in it? What about the tomahawk chop from the Kansas City Chiefs fans? What about all the other possible negative references to any &#8216;minority&#8217; group on TV? It doesn&#8217;t end with the Redskins.

 

Eh. I rather just call them First Nations or Aboriginal.

 

Wow there will be a lot of westerns that will be hate crimes now if aired.

 

We get it, you don't like American Indians or minority groups in general that disagree with your opinion. Protecting one stubborn billionaire is more important to you than being a decent neighbor.

 

Now that is unreasonable, and inconsiderate.