pjfootballer Posted June 15, 2018 Share Posted June 15, 2018 11 hours ago, Renegade7 said: It will eventually happen anyway. A compromise would've been putting the arrow back on the helmet again instead, but no, Danny drew the line in the sand right at the tip of his feet. I've seen enough in regards to how Native Americans as a whole either don't care or take pride in someone taking pride in them (the work Snyder does for NA is rarely if ever brought up in his defense, especially compared to some of these ****heads that claim they care so much about them). But if the Cleveland Indians can get rid of chief wahoo without people trying to put a knife to their neck like the do us, we should just do it. We aren't the packers, our uniforms have changed several times over the course of our history, Cleveland Indians are showing us how to handle this in a way that doesn't come across as turning on our history. How I feel about the name is irrelevant, no one's going to be able to touch it until Snyder dies. This thread has always been like the Civil War of Extremeskins. The only people that die are Redskins fans, I'm always letting out collective sigh knowing that's probably what's happening everytime I see it get bumped. I guess for me, what I have observed over the years is that most of the NA's that want to get rid of the imagery has been mostly the caricatures, like the Indians Chief Wahoo. I'm not sure that I've ever heard one of the NA's that are against us, even bring up our helmet logo. It's not a caricature like Chief Wahoo or Chief Knock-A-Homa. The problem that they have is with the name "Redskins." I guess I'd be OK with going back to the arrow/spear, but I'm not sure that is what the opposition wants. I agree with your last paragraph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo#44 Posted June 15, 2018 Share Posted June 15, 2018 1 minute ago, Mr. Sinister said: Me too. And yeah, it is surprising that Cleveland escaped so much criticism with that awful logo they had, when compared to us. The Chief Wahoo logo was awful. I saw an article 20 years ago or so that juxtaposed it to Nazi propaganda. It was almost identical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted June 15, 2018 Share Posted June 15, 2018 10 minutes ago, pjfootballer said: I guess for me, what I have observed over the years is that most of the NA's that want to get rid of the imagery has been mostly the caricatures, like the Indians Chief Wahoo. I'm not sure that I've ever heard one of the NA's that are against us, even bring up our helmet logo. It's not a caricature like Chief Wahoo or Chief Knock-A-Homa. The problem that they have is with the name "Redskins." I guess I'd be OK with going back to the arrow/spear, but I'm not sure that is what the opposition wants. I agree with your last paragraph. I agree that its the name more then the logo, but what I think the Cleveland Indians figured out is that if you get rid of the picture of the NA, the connotations and correlations will start to go down. The name Redskins is exacerbated by the fact there is literally a picture of someone with red skin as our primary logo. Give it some time, maybe people will start equating the name with red war paint on someone's face, like it was intended, the logo doesn't look like someone wearing warpaint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dont Taze Me Bro Posted June 15, 2018 Share Posted June 15, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted June 15, 2018 Share Posted June 15, 2018 2 hours ago, Renegade7 said: I agree that its the name more then the logo, but what I think the Cleveland Indians figured out is that if you get rid of the picture of the NA, the connotations and correlations will start to go down. The name Redskins is exacerbated by the fact there is literally a picture of someone with red skin as our primary logo. Give it some time, maybe people will start equating the name with red war paint on someone's face, like it was intended, the logo doesn't look like someone wearing warpaint. I don't believe that war paint was the origin of the name. The Cleveland Indians logo was a caricature, which is far different from the redskins logo and they were right to ditch it. The logo was designed by Walter Wetzel, former president of the National Congress of American Indians who approached the team about it. "Wetzel said he walked into the office of the Washington Redskins and said, "I came here to see you guys about seeing a real Indian on the helmets." He said a person told him that they would look over his proposal and consider it. After the team finally picked his idea, he said, he felt really proud -- and has ever since -- seeing the Indian chief on the helmet." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted June 15, 2018 Share Posted June 15, 2018 19 minutes ago, grego said: I don't believe that war paint was the origin of the name. The Cleveland Indians logo was a caricature, which is far different from the redskins logo and they were right to ditch it. The logo was designed by Walter Wetzel, former president of the National Congress of American Indians who approached the team about it. "Wetzel said he walked into the office of the Washington Redskins and said, "I came here to see you guys about seeing a real Indian on the helmets." He said a person told him that they would look over his proposal and consider it. After the team finally picked his idea, he said, he felt really proud -- and has ever since -- seeing the Indian chief on the helmet." Logo and Name are not the same thing. The coach was Sioux, and them like other tribes wore paint on their face when they went to war, and Marshall at first from what I read in the early days would encourage his players to wear face paint, but eventually let it go. Quote In marketing the team before the 1933 season, Marshall had Dietz and some of the Indian players photographed in full Native American regalia, and during the first home game of the 1933 season the players, Indian and non-Indian alike, were required to wear war paint on their faces. Dietz stalking the sidelines wearing his Sioux headdress was also a regular sight at the team’s games, and the team’s new playbook had a clear Indian football slant. (Whether Dietz’s plays would work in the NFL was a different question.) A picture of a chief chilling doesn't represent that, it represents something else. I believe he knew he had to change the name while still in Boston, but a lot of factors on why he settled on that one. Braves on the Warpath makes sense in context, the background to what lead to the name is too inconsistent for me to say that's why they did it, or a couple reasons why they did it. I just look at how many tribes wore face point when going to battle and the spirit of the franchise centered around them going to battle. It adds up, even if the equation is lost to the sands of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted June 15, 2018 Share Posted June 15, 2018 I like when cities have a theme...even though I hate Pittsburgh, I think it's very cool that all 3 of their professional teams wears black and gold. Of all the cities in the country, DC should be the easiest one to pick: Red White and Blue. Now, where that breaks down is the fact that the Redskins are the longest-tenured team with the most tradition. Unlike the Bullets and Caps, who have changed color schemes twice in the past 25 years, and the Nats who have the luxury of being about 10 years old....a change would be seismic. Still, if they ever do have to re-brand or change their name....I think for the civic side of things it would be cool to see actual red and white (maybe not the blue as much) used. And, let me be clear, this is coming from someone who LOVES the burgundy and gold. If it was possible to get the other 3 to change to burgundy and gold, I'd choose that. But it's not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted June 15, 2018 Share Posted June 15, 2018 1 hour ago, Renegade7 said: Logo and Name are not the same thing. The coach was Sioux, and them like other tribes wore paint on their face when they went to war, and Marshall at first from what I read in the early days would encourage his players to wear face paint, but eventually let it go. A picture of a chief chilling doesn't represent that, it represents something else. I believe he knew he had to change the name while still in Boston, but a lot of factors on why he settled on that one. Braves on the Warpath makes sense in context, the background to what lead to the name is too inconsistent for me to say that's why they did it, or a couple reasons why they did it. I just look at how many tribes wore face point when going to battle and the spirit of the franchise centered around them going to battle. It adds up, even if the equation is lost to the sands of time. i hear you, but i thought you were objecting to the logo. what do you mean by the bolded part? as for the origin of the name, thats been pretty well researched. https://anthropology.si.edu/goddard/redskin.pdf i would assume the name reflects the original term and not a reference to red paint, even if players did put face paint on in the beginning. i'm not aware of the term referring to the paint specifically, but i suppose its possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted June 15, 2018 Share Posted June 15, 2018 1 minute ago, grego said: i hear you, but i thought you were objecting to the logo. as for the origin of the name, thats been pretty well researched. https://anthropology.si.edu/goddard/redskin.pdf i would assume the name reflects the original term and not a reference to red paint, even if players did put face paint on in the beginning. i'm not aware of the term referring to the paint specifically, but i suppose its possible. Honestly, I love the logo. Once upon a time I might of been tired of being forced to defend it, supporting a "racist franchise", but times have changed, consensus is clear most NAs are fine with it. I do think its time to drop it anyway. I'm ready for something new and no one to bring that up against us again. Ya, I've found stuff that shows Marshall wanted a different name, and I'll have to get through that article you posted later because of length, found this though: Quote Cooper’s use of redskin as a Native American in-group term was entirely authentic, reflecting both the accurate perception of the Indian self-image and the evolving respect among whites for the Indians’ distinct cultural perspective, whatever its prospects. The descent of this word into obloquy is a phenomenon of more recent times. That doesn't shock me, I'm sure in that article touches on when the negative connotation with the word showed up, but its clear that's not what Marshall meant by picking that name. He was enamored with the positive connotation with NAs in regards to sports and being athletes, but I believe that was around the same time people in different areas were using it in a negative way. Here's the article I pulled from showing how unclear it was for picking that name (I say the war paint thing because it makes sense, but I agree there are reasons that make as much or more sense, just not a malicious as some have made about this issue): https://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2014/06/03/why-did-the-washington-redskins-choose-the-name-redskins-in-the-first-place-rather-than-some-other-native-american-name/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted June 15, 2018 Share Posted June 15, 2018 19 hours ago, Renegade7 said: We aren't the packers, our uniforms have changed several times over the course of our history, Weren't the Packers uniforms originally blue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted June 15, 2018 Share Posted June 15, 2018 2 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said: Weren't the Packers uniforms originally blue? Long time ago, in the 30's. They've had that same G on the side of they helmet since the 60s, we change more frequently then they do, especially our helmet compared to theirs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted June 15, 2018 Share Posted June 15, 2018 1 minute ago, Renegade7 said: Long time ago, in the 30's. They've had that same G on the side of they helmet since the 60s, we change more frequently then they do, especially our helmet compared to theirs. Ok. At first I thought you were saying their uniforms had never changed. Going back and re-reading I see that wasn't it. Reading is fundamental. My bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted June 15, 2018 Share Posted June 15, 2018 7 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said: Ok. At first I thought you were saying their uniforms had never changed. Going back and re-reading I see that wasn't it. Reading is fundamental. My bad. Don't sweat it, it's all good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted June 15, 2018 Share Posted June 15, 2018 We're the Washington Redskins, wearing burgundy and gold until I'm a dirt sandwich. Then they can switch warpaths. ✌ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgundy Yoda Posted September 19, 2018 Share Posted September 19, 2018 If we had to change, we could keep the same color scheme and go with..... The Washington Admirals. Yes, this logo is the Norfolk Admirals hockey logo, but I like this concept better than the skull admiral that's used more frequently. Flame away! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spjunkies Posted September 19, 2018 Share Posted September 19, 2018 I think this would be more appropriate for the new logo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgundy Yoda Posted September 19, 2018 Share Posted September 19, 2018 I'd only want a drastic change like that if Snyder sold the team. I'd hate for our first memories of a new name and logo being continual misery with Danny running the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abdcskins Posted September 19, 2018 Share Posted September 19, 2018 Can't believe the name hasn't been changed yet. I stay away from this whole fiasco, but in general it seems like >90% thinks the name is racist and/or offensive and needs to be changed. In such a highly politically correct society you think Snyder would just relent and change it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted September 19, 2018 Share Posted September 19, 2018 I would say it's not good to make decisions based on what seems to be reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskinss Posted September 19, 2018 Share Posted September 19, 2018 2 hours ago, abdcskins said: Can't believe the name hasn't been changed yet. I stay away from this whole fiasco, but in general it seems like >90% thinks the name is racist and/or offensive and needs to be changed. In such a highly politically correct society you think Snyder would just relent and change it. It's not that 90 percent of people think its racist and feel it should be changed it's that 90 percent of people don't give a **** and the changers know this and use it to their advantage. They know that if they just scream long and loud the people who don't care will eventually subdue and say it should be changed just because their sick of hearing about it. Think about it, if a group of bird lovers was constantly chirping in your ear about how the name of the Falcons was offensive your first reaction would be to roll your eyes and ignore them but eventually since you don't care what the hell the football team in Atlanta is called you'd say just change it and get it over with. That is what's going on here. A very small percentage of the population cares about the team name one way or the other and the changers are using that to their advantage. It's up to us not to allow that to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo#44 Posted September 19, 2018 Share Posted September 19, 2018 3 hours ago, abdcskins said: Can't believe the name hasn't been changed yet. I stay away from this whole fiasco, but in general it seems like >90% thinks the name is racist and/or offensive and needs to be changed. In such a highly politically correct society you think Snyder would just relent and change it. Once again--who really finds it racist? https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/new-poll-finds-9-in-10-native-americans-arent-offended-by-redskins-name/2016/05/18/3ea11cfa-161a-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html?utm_term=.46d8bb8e78f5 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-f-will-the-government-decided-that-redskins-bothers-you/2014/06/27/669558a6-fd54-11e3-932c-0a55b81f48ce_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.92c29c66f72c https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/in-arizona-a-navajo-high-school-emerges-as-a-defender-of-the-washington-redskins/2014/10/26/dcfc773a-592b-11e4-8264-deed989ae9a2_story.html?utm_term=.9ef617c4d248 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoggingGod Posted September 22, 2018 Share Posted September 22, 2018 The name should be changed. Am I offended by it? No, but I’m not a Native American. As a Muslim, I would be furious if a team was called the “Washington Terrorists” and it had an Arab as the logo. At the end of the day this is different than just having Indian mascots. The name is a dictionary defined racial slur that many native Americans view as derogatory towards them. It’s only common sense that you’d change the name out of respect for people who’s ancestors have been genocided for decades. I’m in favor of keeping the native theme but changing the name to “Bravehearts” or “Redhawks” or “Redtails” or something that isn’t a racial slur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abdcskins Posted September 22, 2018 Share Posted September 22, 2018 ^ I agree with that. For the record the name doesn't offend me personally and I'm ambivalent about the name change. I just wish they would change it so everyone can stop talking about it. It's annoying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted September 22, 2018 Share Posted September 22, 2018 >burp< ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xameil Posted September 22, 2018 Share Posted September 22, 2018 17 hours ago, JoggingGod said: The name should be changed. Am I offended by it? No, but I’m not a Native American. As a Muslim, I would be furious if a team was called the “Washington Terrorists” and it had an Arab as the logo. At the end of the day this is different than just having Indian mascots. The name is a dictionary defined racial slur that many native Americans view as derogatory towards them. It’s only common sense that you’d change the name out of respect for people who’s ancestors have been genocided for decades. I’m in favor of keeping the native theme but changing the name to “Bravehearts” or “Redhawks” or “Redtails” or something that isn’t a racial slur. YAY...another race of people telling Native Americans how they should be outraged...I wonder why most of them aren't. Could it be Redskin to them isnt a racial slur? BTW..learn history...the term Redskin is not even close to the term terrorist... Oh and btw again..terrorist is not synonymous to Muslim...that's actually kinda racist to think that. Tell you what you be outraged for slurs that are against muslims...I know lots of them and oddly enough terrorist isnt on that list. Let the Native Americans, and more specifically the tribe that used to call THEMSELVES that handle their own outrage...mmmkay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.