mo9763 Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 My dad has connections to one of the senior editors at the Washington Post, and he asked her some questions for me about next year. She said that due to the outrage from various native american groups, the redskins are no longer be allowed to wear the feather or the spear on the helmet, so they will no longer wear the retro uniforms. She also said that the redskins will wear the white on white unis for the entire year, unless they are forced not to at ann away game obviously. I dont know if others knew about this but it was new information to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 My dad has connections to one of the senior editors at the Washington Post, and he asked her some questions for me about next year. She said that due to the outrage from various native american groups, the redskins are no longer be allowed to wear the feather or the spear on the helmet, so they will no longer wear the retro uniforms. She also said that the redskins will wear the white on white unis for the entire year, unless they are forced not to at ann away game obviously. I dont know if others knew about this but it was new information to me. Gee, they can't use a spear and a feather, but they can use a picture of an Indian head? Doesn't make much sense, unfortunately. All three should be acceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qb18_200400 Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 wether or not the native americans are involved, Gibbs would never wear the retro uniforms. Its white on white or white on burgandy, nuthin else for Gibbs! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fdarugar Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 Gee, they can't use a spear and a feather, but they can use a picture of an Indian head? Doesn't make much sense, unfortunately.All three should be acceptable. Yea, I was wondering about the indian head, which to me would be most dissrespectful...If we do switch jerseys I really hope we stay old school, I hate the new look **** like the Ravens, Jags, Falcons, Broncos...it looks like the XFL out there sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SackMachine Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 The white on white looks the best in my opinion. Don't the chicago blackhawks (NHL) have two native hammers on their jersey? Funny those haven't been removed though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 Your chain is being pulled. I mean don't you think the WP would've ran a story on this if it were true. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No_Pressure Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 Racial crap over the Redskins is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. The face logo is a proud Indian face, you want a stupid logo look at the Indians in the MLB. The Spear and feather? The Atlanta Braves have a damn Tomahawk for christ's sake. What next? Calling us the Washington Contemporary Native Americans and have a guy standing in a suit holding a brief case with our colors being 3 shades of Gray? The NFL needs to get a grip. This concludes my rant for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vman2k6 Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 white on burgundy is by the far the best, if we do white/white, im gonna vomit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bricucci Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 Actually I heard that inactive players will not be allowed to wear pants next year. What do you guys think? This guy outside of 7/11 told me so. :laugh: :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terpfan Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 Yeah Im calling BS here. I wouldnt miss the retro unis all that terribly anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlinginSammy HOF '63 Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 I don't see there indian head being disrespectful. It looks exactly like the indian on the Buffalo Nickel and that was a portrait of a real living Native American chief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jofizz Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 Strange that this has not been featured in the post.. I would have thought this would be news worth writing about. Sure would beat some of the other Redskins news they write about in there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 "no longer allowed?" They're still called the friggin REDSKINS for crying out loud, if there was that much outrage, you'd think 1) We'd hear about how the spear and feather have so outraged the Native American radical demonstrators 2) That FSU is planning on changing their helmets 3) That the Indian head is "A-OK" with white on white uniforms with the radical idiots. 4) the Skins would be about to change their name, the ACTUAL focus of the whole controversy with Washington, right? Or you can call BS on a poster with no credibility built here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPstretch Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 i hope they go back to the white on burgundy. i think that is the real redskin combination. i didnt mind the white on white but i think we should go back to the white on burgundy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onedrop Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 the only thing about the Redskins that does not honor native americans is the actual name. the spear and feather and the image of the chief on the helmet should be seen as postive icons of the original Americans. as should other team names like warriors, braves, blackhawks etc...it is a shame that we have come to a point in our culture where political correctness has taken over to the point that people are blind to what honors and what disparages a race. without these icons in our society the proud history of native people will soon be forgotten by the changing face of America. now the name Redskin is disparaging. there is no two ways about it. however, i have said it before and i will say it again, i still dont want it changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsD Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 Total and complete BS. Show me the Native American outrage, this hasn't been a topic in years - at least in the press. And wouldn't the name be more of an outrage then the logo! And don't the Chiefs have a spear on their helmet? Take a long walk down a short pier Troll! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 :bsflag: Nice try, buddy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsTerps26 Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 I don't see there indian head being disrespectful. It looks exactly like the indian on the Buffalo Nickel and that was a portrait of a real living Native American chief. the portrait used on the skins logo is in fact an actual native american chief. they made the logo after the team name was changed from the boston braves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 My dad has connections to one of the senior editors at the Washington Post, and he asked her some questions for me about next year. She said that due to the outrage from various native american groups, the redskins are no longer be allowed to wear the feather or the spear on the helmet, so they will no longer wear the retro uniforms. She also said that the redskins will wear the white on white unis for the entire year, unless they are forced not to at ann away game obviously. I dont know if others knew about this but it was new information to me. Are you serious? Bunch of pansies. How are you going to be pissed off about an arrow and a feather, then be cool with a picture actually depicting a Native American? What exactly do these people want? Edit - What exactly do these lawyers want?! :doh: :doh: :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 Racial crap over the Redskins is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. The face logo is a proud Indian face, you want a stupid logo look at the Indians in the MLB. The Spear and feather? The Atlanta Braves have a damn Tomahawk for christ's sake.What next? Calling us the Washington Contemporary Native Americans and have a guy standing in a suit holding a brief case with our colors being 3 shades of Gray? The NFL needs to get a grip. This concludes my rant for now. I have mixed emotions about this. I love The Washingotn Redskins with all my heart. My girlfriend calls them my "first love." However, I sometimes feel guilty because I know that my beloved Redskins offend people. I do not think it is the logo that really bothers people so much as it is the name. I can understand why the name is seen as a racial slur (although it is clearly not intended that way). For this reason, I would not be entirely opposed to changing our name back to "The Braves," as this is what it was originally. I think that our logo is OK because, as you say, it is a proud figure. And, of course, the colors Burgundy and Gold are the most important thing, never to be comprimised. I am not sure if this solution (changing the name back to the Braves but keeping the colors and logo) would satisfy the people who are so offended and be OK with the fans, but it would be OK with me. Although, I would sure miss our fight song. I think it is also important to remember that a mascot is a good thing. Think about it: Bears, Jets, Giants, Raiders, Bucaneers, Broncos, etc are all things that inspire awe. In just the same way, our mascot is someting we are proud of, not something we look down upon. Perhaps if people understood the love we have for our mascot they would not be as offended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlinginSammy HOF '63 Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoGood28 Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 My dad has connections to one of the senior editors at the Washington Post, and he asked her some questions for me about next year. She said that due to the outrage from various native american groups, the redskins are no longer be allowed to wear the feather or the spear on the helmet, so they will no longer wear the retro uniforms. She also said that the redskins will wear the white on white unis for the entire year, unless they are forced not to at ann away game obviously. I dont know if others knew about this but it was new information to me. The Redskins will no longer be allowed to wear their uniforms the way they are? Says who?:laugh: Don't believe it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlinginSammy HOF '63 Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 Think about this. Vikings could be offensive to people of Scandinavian decent. The image of a Scandinavian traveling the seas seraching for small villages to rob, burn and kill its inhabitants. "Orangemen" was a derogetory term used for the Irish in the 1800s. A group of people who were treated like complete garbage back then. It's only as offensive as one lets it be to them. Names like Orangemen, Redskins, Vikings or Celtics are not things holding back any of these groups from being what they want to be in this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoGood28 Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 :bsflag: Nice try, buddy. Ding Ding. Thanks DCSF56. People are just trying to stir the pot again but we don't buy it. I think it is also important to remember that a mascot is a good thing. Think about it: Bears, Jets, Giants, Raiders, Bucaneers, Broncos, etc are all things that inspire awe. In just the same way, our mascot is someting we are proud of, not something we look down upon. Perhaps if people understood the love we have for our mascot they would not be as offended. I am so proud to be associated with this franchise that I can't even put it into words. There are few things in this world that I respect more than the Washington Redskins' name and logo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussieskin Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 Maybe they should change the name to Washington Warriors or something..... Nahh I like the Washington Redskins it is who the team is Hail all things redskins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.