Brits Don't Want the Redskins?
 

Sorry if a Q, saw this story today, and found it interesting. I guess they were OK with the Chiefs, but not the Redskins:

http://thinkprogress.org/sports/2016...ment-redskins/

The Washington NFL team is scheduled to play in London this fall, and two members of the British Parliament aren’t happy about it.

“We were shocked to learn the derivation of the term ‘R*dskin,’ pertaining as it does to the historic abuse of Native Americans,” Ruth Smeeth and Ian Austin wrote in a letter to NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, a copy of which was obtained by ESPN. “The exportation of this racial slur to the UK this autumn, when the Washington team is due to play, directly contravenes the values that many in Britain have worked so hard to instill.”

The two members of the British Labor Party want the league to change the team’s name or, “at the minimum, send a different team to our country to represent the sport, one that does not promote a racial slur.”
This is not the way we would want Native Americans introduced to our country.

Native American tribes have been trying to get Washington to change its name for years, but recently the movement has been gaining steam: In 2014, the U.S. Patent Office canceled Washington’s trademark of the name because it is “disparaging” to Native Americans; last year, California recently became the first state to ban all schools from using “Redskins” as a team mascot or name; and just last week, a congressman from New York sent Goodell a letter calling for a change. Even President Barack Obama has urged Washington to “think about changing the name.”

But Dan Snyder, the owner of the team, has been adamant about keeping the name. “We’ll never change the name,” he said in 2013. “It’s that simple. NEVER — you can use caps.”

The league has stuck by Snyder, even financing the team’s legal battle to keep the trademark. “A team’s name is a club decision,” Brian McCarthy, the NFL’s vice president of communications, told ESPN.

While it seems unlikely that the British Parliament can make Goodell and Snyder do something that President Obama (let alone mere empathy) couldn’t, Smeeth and Austin might actually have the law on their side in England.

“No nation has stricter anti-racism laws in sports, due in part to disturbing incidents encountered by black soccer players over the years, including having banana peels and monkey chants hurled at them during matches,” Mike Weiss of ESPN reported. “Clubs at every level can be heavily fined or banished from their respective leagues for any violation.”

It’s also significant that Wembley Stadium, the site of the game in October, has its own anti-racism charter that bans “racial, homophobic or discriminatory abuse, chanting or harassment.” ESPN reports that people at Wembley are currently discussing the issue internally.

Also potentially problematic? The BBC — the NFL’s broadcasting partner in the United Kingdom — is publicly owned.

“Given it’s taxpayer-funded, if we believe it’s a racial slur, then that means problems for the BBC in terms of coverage of the event,” Smeeth said.

The NFL has played games in London annually since 2007, and has had three per season there since 2014. The league has been very open about its desire to open a NFL franchise in London — possibly as soon as 2022. Why? London is a huge market, and the NFL is not keen on leaving money on the table.

So for Goodell and Co., the most important part of Smeeth and Austin’s argument might just be: “This is not the image the NFL wants portrayed in the UK.”

“We’re quite clear that sport is a vehicle for cultural change and celebration of what’s best about society rather than hate and division,” Smeeth told ESPN. “That’s why bringing in new racial slurs to Britain is unacceptable. This is not the way we would want Native Americans introduced to our country.”

“It is heartening to see leading officials in Britain demonstrating their commitment to fighting for equality and opposing racism in U.S. sports, just as they have historically in the UK,” representatives of Change the Mascot, a campaign launched by the Oneida Indian Nation, said in a statement. “Perpetuating the slurring of people of color runs counter to American and British ideals of respect and tolerance.”

I saw this on my phone this morning. Like the Brits have any dog in this fight. The PC thing has grown so large that foreign countries are worried about the names of our sports teams. :rolleyes:

Ruth Smeeth.

She just sounds like an ultra liberal Fem-Nazi.

"But we won't take the Irish"

Mmmmmhmmmmm

http://i.imgur.com/Eh3hKK2.jpg

This chick needs to get scissored. Hard.

So you were not familiar with Native Americans at any time in the last 400 years since English people started settling here and taking up Native American lands?

Sorry, this whole thing just really bugs me. You want the name changed (not talking to the English here), boycott the team. Hit them in the wallet and they will decide it is in their best interest to make a change. This does not mean lawsuits and lobbying for a new law but for the majority to step up and get a change.

made up story is made up story.

Story on ESPN:
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/14...ashington-name

Two things come to mind here, both already mentioned briefly.

1. The Irish. Dear UK, shut your ****ing pie hole about treatment of other people.

2. America, pre-USA and at the founding, was made up largely of...British citizens. So guess who got the ball rolling on all of that Native American slaughter?

To be fair, no one seems to be calling the US out on its treatment of Native Americans. They just oppose the use of a racial slur as a team name. It's a pretty simple argument. I mean... I don't really care if the NFL plays in Britain at all, much less what they think of a team's name, but the point remains valid.

dude, what's your point?
If its made up,its made up. The source doesnt make it true or legit.
Just gives the impression.

the nfl has dragged this stupid story along for 50 and more years. Now they are just making it a global non-issue

Same folks who actually debated banning a political figure here from visiting. Lotsa boredom across the pond apparently

They're just pissy we kicked their ass

Yes, because England didn't have a hand in instigating the genocide of the people of the First Nations or anything.