Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Califan007

Members
  • Content Count

    39,307
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    122

Posts posted by Califan007

  1. This is huge news.

    The AP is a multinational news service. This isn't some liberal newspaper or msnbc.

     

    The reality, though, is that no one will care.

     

    Use it. Don't use it. Sponsors won't start questioning their partnership with the Skins because of it...they will only do that when the profits are affected. And there is always the possibility of a backlash. It's already happened with other media  and news outlets.

    • Like 1
  2. It's just getting to the point where he might as well change it. I love the name and I'll always love the history of the squad but this is going to end up ruining any major achievement made by this team. I honestly think it's my generation that has waged the PC war more than any other. I'm embarrassed to be an 80s baby.

     

    Other than coming to this thread I don't even hear anything about the name change. I doubt winning the SB will be tarnished one iota because of it.

    • Like 2
  3. And just to add on to what I said before:

     

    "But, given Baum’s racism, not everyone here supports an Oz-themed Indian casino.

     

    Doug George-Kanentiio, a Native American and frequent Halbritter critic, scolded the tribe in a letter to the Oneida Daily Dispatch.

     

    “Given that the Oneida Nation has been an advocate for the removal of offensive mascots such as the Washington Redskins,” he wrote, “the decision to call its proposed casino after Baum is as shocking as it is contradictory.”

     

    Not so, said Halbritter. Baum’s descendants apologized. What led to the 67,000-square-foot gambling house, he insisted, is that contrition."

     

     

    Yes, it's that apology that lead to it...that, and this lol:

     

    "But the tribe’s highly profitable stranglehold on gaming in central New York could be nearing its end.

     

    In mid-December, a state board recommended that three non-Indian casinos receive casino licenses, including an extravagant $425 million project planned to open 45 miles west of Syracuse.

     

    Less than a week later, Halbritter announced the Yellow Brick Road Casino..."

    • Like 2
  4. My god...that is some funny **** right there. 

     

    I think this is the best evidence yet that their problem with the name is all about who is profiting.  I wonder if this man even realizes what he said. 

     

    Even funnier lol:

     

    "Ray Halbritter (called) the tribe’s future casino the product of reconciliation."

     

    Sweet Jeebus on a cracker..I'd like to think they could find a better product of racial reconcilition than that.

     

     

    And this part:

     

    "In his two editorials, Baum most often referred to Native Americans as “Indians.” Three times, though, he called them something else: “Redskins.”

     

    So Baum even used the term "redskin", and Halbritter is cool with overlooking that because, what...Baum's great-grandson Skippy Baum "apologized" for his great-grandfather's rantings? Can we get one of Marshall's distant relatives to apologize for him naming the team the Redskins? lol...that would save a lot of trouble, and then maybe Halbritter could encourage everyone to embrace the "nobel themes" of this "wildly commercial" franchise and "focus on the good" the team does. Yeah, that'll work.

    • Like 1
  5. Tribe fighting Redskins name builds casino honoring racist Wizard of Oz author

     

    The Native American tribe leading the movement to change the name of the Washington Redskins plans to open a $20 million casino that pays homage to the work of L. Frank Baum, who was born in this village outside Syracuse and later wrote “The Wonderful Wizard of Oz.”
     

    Just one problem with the Oneida Indian Nation’s Yellow Brick Road Casino: A decade before Baum wrote one of this country’s most celebrated children’s tales, he campaigned for a Native American genocide.

     

    “The Whites, by law of conquest, by justice of civilization, are masters of the American continent, and the best safety of the frontier settlements will be secured by the total annihilation of the few remaining Indians,” he wrote in late 1890 for the Aberdeen Saturday Pioneer in South Dakota. “Why not annihilation? Their glory has fled, their spirit broken, their manhood effaced; it’s better that they should die than live the miserable wretches that they are.”

     

    Two weeks later, Baum, the newspaper’s publisher, reiterated his point in an editorial written after the slaughter of as many as 300 Sioux at Wounded Knee. He demanded that the U.S. government “wipe these untamed and untamable creatures from the face of the earth.”

     

    So why would the Oneida — a small tribe that has condemned the Redskins for a name they consider patently racist — embrace the legacy of a writer whose own descendants have apologized for his patent racism?

     

    That apology is the reason, said Oneida leader Ray Halbritter, calling the tribe’s future casino the product of reconciliation.

     

    “I think that’s a wonderful message — that we’re able to overcome by repentance and by forgiveness,” Halbritter said. “It’s looking forward rather than backward.”

     

    But some Native Americans have voiced astonishment over the tribute to Baum.

     

    Ernestine Chasing Hawk, a descendant of the Wounded Knee victims, called the Oneida’s decision a betrayal.

     

    “How can they be so ignorant of history and traitors to their own race?” she asked in an essay published in the Native American Times. “Would the Jews build a casino to honor Adolph Hitler?”

     

    (NOW GET THIS PART LOL!!!)

     

    Halbritter insisted that the homage does not represent a “whitewashing of Baum’s writings,” but noted that his popular stories have noble themes and, obviously, immense commercial appeal.

     

    “We are aware that some people have difficulty separating the good from the bad,” he said. “I think we can separate and try to extract the good and focus on the good.”

     

     

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/tribe-fighting-redskins-name-builds-casino-honoring-racist-wizard-of-oz-author/2015/02/06/9d779c62-ac9f-11e4-ad71-7b9eba0f87d6_story.html

     

    ***********************

     

    Noble themes and immense commercial appeal...that could easily describe the Redskins lol...And separate and extract the good from the bad and focus on the good?...Again, sounds like something you could do with the Redskins lol. Alas, the Skins aren't bringing Halbritter or his casinos any money, so...

    • Like 9
  6. I'm telling you

    Oreo is like calling someone dookieface. It's just a stupid name no one cares about.

    I'm saying I've been around mixed people all my life with people envying them due to nice hair and skin. With Native Americans most Americans rarely ever see one so how we know they are not being called redskins.

    You are right in that "Oreo" is aimed at blacks who are perceived to be "acting white".

    On pretty much everything else, though, you are wrong.

    For starters, it's not the same as "doookie face" or some other equivalent...dookie face has nothing whatsoever rooted in anything racial. Obviously Oreo does.

    Second, you're incredibly naive or incredibly young if you think "Oreo" is an insult only used by kids that "nobody cares about".

    Lastly, the whole notion that those who are mixed race are "envied" is insulting on multiple levels. For one, it completely ignores the variety of ways someone of mixed heritage has been shunned, bullied, ostracized and had rights taken away over our country's history. And second, it puts the emphasis of that supposed envy solely on their looks...it would be like saying whites try and get tans and get perms because they actually "envy" blacks, so that should prove that blacks are rarely the receivers of racial insults. You may have "been around mixed people" but I have them in my family, including my daughter.

  7. If you've read my posts you know I'm sympathetic to those wanting to change the name and personally on the fence. Truth is I don't really value a team name all that much, for me it's about it being my home town team. I have a major problem with the dishonest way Native Americans pushing for the change try get around the fact that they are a slim minority of their own race/culture. They refuse to directly respond, sometimes claim they aren't vastly out numbered, and it looks like the daily show set them up to out number their more numerous counter parts which further pushes the theme. They are just going to pretend it isn't what it is. Simply saying **** and acting like others simply have to accept obvious bull**** as truth annoys the hell out of me.

    In addition to the numbers issue they refuse to acknowledge the actual origin of the word or provide any researched and factual defense of their version. At some point that too becomes essentially another lie. There is too much dishonesty from that side of the debate for my liking and it's making it harder to sympathize.

    Exactomundo! (Said in Fonzie voice)

    As Painkilker said as well, I'd have little problem with a name change if a majority of NAs found it offensive, and if there was evidence and examples rooted in facts that showed that "redskin" has been a primarily racial slur for a large part of its existence in our country's history.

    Neither have happened.

    And it gets DAMN tiring seeing the media ignore that fact (and ignore facts in general). It gets DAMN tiring seeing the name change side promoting half-truths, urban myths and unverifiable anecdotes passed off as carved-in-stone truth and parroted by lazy journalists and naive supporters reacting off of emotion instead of intelligence. It gets DAMN tiring seeing the pro-name side overlooked in the media almost completely unless they're being ridiculed, and worse having their arguments defined in the media by the name changers instead of the pro-namers themselves. And it gets DAMN tiring seeing logic brushed aside in the name of supposedly "doing what's right".

    I said pages ago that the name changers would have been far smarter if they had made the argument about the appropriateness of the continued use of NA culture in pro sports and that "redskin" is an antiquated term that NAs rarely refer to themselves as anymore. It would require patience and a civil and open minded dialogue on their part, though. But that's not part of the activist handbook.

    It's been almost 25 years since this issue was first brought up in its current public and legal form. They are no closer to seeing the name being changed than they were when they first started, and public opinion about the name "Redskins" hasn't changed in any significant fashion. Instead of publicity stunts and demagoguery, those 25 years could/would have been better served having that more civil and openminded dialogue with NFL owners and the commissioner. Use the issue and opportunity to draw more attention to the plight too many NAs face in America today. Show sports teams that use NA culture how beneficial it would be to partner with various charities and improve the lives of those same people whose culture their team appropriated and makes millions from...all the while working to raise the awareness of NFL decision makers on whether or not using a race as a theme for your team's identity is something we should still be doing.

    Everybody involved would be better off today with 25 years of that approach. Instead the approach of portraying the Redskins as the racist money-grubbing enemy who needs to be defeated was taken, attempting to demonize the team, the owner and even the fans in the eyes of the public. My irritation level is off the charts lol..,

  8. Of course the controversy will never die. Going forward, the volume of dislike for us will dial down drastically once the Native theme is retired.

     

    Nobody is going to take our Redskins memories from our past.

     

    Museum displays have always reflected present day ideals of history. Sports HoF's aren't any different.  It'll always be a delicate balance of what history to display and/or honor. Somehow I think we'll survive.

     

    Take our memories? No. That's something from the movie Total Recall lol...

     

    But protest and make it the next phase of the cause to eliminate the name "Redskins" from institutions? You bet your ass. Only the most naive among us would think otherwise. I already gave an example of how will schoold treat having students wear a T-shirt with "Redskins" on it?...If it's really deemed "the equivalent of the n-word" then it will be treated like the "N-word". The removal of the "most offensive name you can call an native American" would almost be mandatory.

     

    I wish someone would ask the leaders of the Name-Changers side that question, though. "If Daniel Snyder did change the name, would you be OK with the name 'Redskins' still being used in connection with the franchise...for example, in the Hall Of Fame or worn on fan jerseys and clothing?"...I'd bet a year's paycheck that the answer would not be "Yes, that won't be a problem".

    • Like 5
  9. Yet they still show this:

     

     

     

    From the Daily News article about the censor:

     

    "In a recent ESPN poll, 71% of those surveyed supported keeping the nickname while 23% said the team should adopt a new one — up 9 points from just a year ago. Movement is headed in the right direction and we’re proud to be part of the trend."

     

    So what I want to know is, if the polling numbers a year or two from now show the number who are against the name dropping back down to 14%, will the Daily News once again start using the name and emblem?...And then when it goes back up, once again announce a ban?

     

    The stupidity in tying in their decision to the upward movement in a poll can't be overstated...It's one thing to mention it in the overall context of the debate, it's another thing to say they are "part of the trend" upward because it ignores the very real possibility of a trend back downwards...and what they will do if that were to occur.

  10. So, we can start calling black people "coloreds" again if we have goodness in our hearts?

     

    Cool.

     

    My ex-father in law did just that...didn't call me "colored" but while driving him around the school where my ex-wife worked (primarily black neighborhood), he said something in an observational tone like "There's a lot of coloreds in this neighborhood, huh?"

     

    I took no offense and actually laughed afterwards...my wife was embarrased at the time and started correcting him not to use that word. I just kept laughing lol. You could tell his use of the word was not due to a view rooted in bigotry (hell, I was marrying his daughter with his full blessing).

  11. btw- if thats news clipping is the best evidence harjos side has that it was widely used as a term for scalps, then that argument is dead. 

     

    I sincerely wish this were the case. It's incredible how many people run with what "feels right" instead of what IS right. So little thought or logic is applied to things that people hear/read online...they just accept it if it rings true in some emotional way. And good luck trying to convince them that it's not true. Once it rings true emotionally people don't care whether or not it IS true.

     

     

     

    Kids are testing, I'm in class and in a hurry,,, that's all

     

    I know you said you don't care about Goddard's research...but you should read it before dismissing it as unimportant. He addresses a LOT of the same points you keep bringing up.

     

     

     

     

     

    **********************

     

     

    Also...

     

     

    NY Daily News axes the Redskins name and logo

    One of New York City’s largest newspapers, the New York Daily News, has announced that they’ve decided to no longer use the Redskins nickname.

    The Daily News publishes its annual, best-in-the-city National Football League preview on Thursday with one deliberate omission — the Washington franchise appears without the name Redskins.

    Similarly, its logo depicting a feathered Native American has been replaced with an image that uses the team’s burgundy and gold colors to key readers to stories, columns and statistics relating to Washington.

    Henceforth, in The News’ sports coverage, the team that has been known as the Redskins since 1933 will simply be called Washington.

    The NY Daily News will use the logo below when referring to the Redskins.

     

    washington4e-2-web-280x280.jpg

  12. I'm not comparing Harjo's argument to Goddard's. 

    I'm just saying Goddards is not the gospel.  History is what it is. It changes. It depends on who you talk to. Who you didn't talk to. Again, you can find people that work with Goddard that do not agree with his research.

     

    Also, that makes sense what you said about being accepted.  I am generally well liked as a teacher. The kids know I am a gamer, they know I love music, I coach, most importantly, I play NBA2k14... lol... I feel good with who I am as a teacher because of how the kids treat me.

     

    Until any notable linguistic experts come out with research that contradicts Goddard's (and many others') findings, I have no reason whatsoever to simply dismiss it as irrelevant to the discussion, especially when the "name changers" side kept insisting that the origins of the term "redskin" was rooted in genocide. They brought it up...it seems disingenuous to make the claim that it doesn't matter, especially when the origin of the name has been affecting public opinion for the last 20 years.

    • Like 1
  13. Sorry, didn't see Grego's link.

    I'll look for it. 

    Just really quick, this is not the article I was referring to because it doesn't address the "origin", but, here you go:

     

    http://www.esquire.com/blogs/news/redskin-name-update

     

    A few cited a study written by Smithsonian Institution senior linguist Ives Goddard that makes the case that the word did not begin as an insult.  

    But here is a quote from another member of the Smithsonian – Kevin Gover, a member of the Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma and director of the Institution’s National Museum of the American Indian:

    “I’m really not that interested in where the word comes from,” Gover said. “I know how it was used. And it’s been used in a disparaging way for at least a couple of centuries. Up to and including the time I was growing up in Oklahoma.” 

    What is germane to the conversation? What is semantics? That is debatable. The fact remains that to many Native Americans, the term “redskin” has long meant the act of our ancestor’s scalps being collected for bounty. 

    The kind of bounty that was referenced above. The kind of bounty that was referenced in the 1755 Phips Proclamation.

    In terms of etymology, words change and meanings evolve. Fag, for instance, was once the accepted spelling for a cigarette throughout most of Europe. Now it’s a common gay slur. Wetback, a Latino editor told me yesterday, was once a common term in headlines, but no longer.

     

    Click the link to read the whole article...

    Now, just to be fair, Goddard's work is based on research and the fact that he's from the Smithsonian. 

    This guy just gave Harjo's credibility.

     

    Before anyone blasts me, I'm not giving Harjo any credit, agreeing etc... I'm just pointing out, One side blasting the other, lies etc... It goes both ways.

     

    If you actually read the graphic, the word red-skin doesn't seem to be referring to scalps, it seems to be referring to NA's.

     

    There is all sorts of wrong with your conclusions lol...

     

    This is damn important: the guy did not DISPUTE Goddard's research. I'm gonna say that again because of how important it is:

     

    The guy did not dispute in any way, shape or form Goddard's research.

     

    What did he do? He simply said he didn't care about Goddard's research.

     

    Massively HUGE difference. I mean, gargantuan difference.

     

    Anyone NOT understand this?

     

     

    2) He didn't give Harjo's claims any credibility whatsoever. The ONLY thing that would give Harjo's claims about the scalp story any credibility would be facts that prove she's right....of which none exist.

     

    3) The guy is NOT a linguistic expert...he's basically a museum curator. He doesn't have the credentials to dispute anything Goddard's research says, nor to give credibility to Harjo's claims or side.

    • Like 1
  14. Monk and Green pretty much sum up my opinion on the matter.  BTW, the article isn't bad, It covers Goddard's "research".  (In quotes because its just that, its research, its what he found).

    Wait...why would "research" be put in quotes if you agree that's what it is?...Putting "research" in quotes would mean you do NOT believe it was actually research, but something masquerading as research. So either you don't understand the meaning of putting "research" in quotes, or you don't actually believe it IS legitimate research. Which, if so, I'd love to see what makes you reach that conclusion.

     

    As a history teacher, I tell my students all the time, I'm teaching you what we know now, if tomorrow, they find human bones older than the ones in East Africa, I have to start teaching you something different.

    "What if" is a piss-poor reason for dismissing Goddard's research as irrelevant, along with many other linguistic experts' research.

     

     

    Recent months have seen several athletes and other sports figures speak out about the name, as well. In July, Redskins Hall of Famers Darrell Green and Art Monk spoke with the D.C. radio station WTOP.

    "[if] Native Americans feel like Redskins or the Chiefs or [another] name is offensive to them, then who are we to say to them, 'No, it's not?' " Monk said. Green agreed, saying, "It deserves and warrants conversation because somebody is saying, 'Hey, this offends me,' and then you have a conversation."

    Nobody is telling NAs "You're not offended". What they ARE "telling NAs" (so to speak) is that:

    1) The team was named "Redskins" not to offend, but to instill a sense of fierce pride

    2) The name has over the 80 years of the team's existence, also taken on a meaning of "tradition, pride and honor"

    3) The name is NOT rooted in origins of racism and horrific acts of violence against NAs, so it shouldn't be used as a reason for chaning the name

    4) A majority of NAs don't find the name/term offensive

    I thought Green's comments were embarrasingly simplistic, other than him saying a "conversation" needed to take place, which I agree with. But there's no real conversation taking place when one side keeps saying "Native Americans are offended, that's all we need to know."

×
×
  • Create New...