BuddyLeeGhostHunter Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 I believe I read somewhere that the number of American Indians who find the name offensive is very small and that they represent a vast minority of the population. My personal opinion is that, at worst, we may eventually have to replace the Indian-head logo with something else (spear, feathers, etc.) but I'm not even sure that will happen. Well, the logo would be one thing but the article says they want a name change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Byner21 Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 Seven people that have nothing better to do then continue to make theirselves look silly for 17 years and counting. You just made yourself look silly by using a word that doesn't exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsTerps26 Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 teams that do a good job redskins chiefs teams that do an decent job braves (better than their original logo) teams that don't do such a good job cleveland indians (and i know chief wahoos image is that from a real native american chief, but the cartoon-like face is pretty bad) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Byner21 Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 grrrr.... :doh:We should've whiped them out while we had the chance I'm joking, of course... On a more serious note, I hear the Amish people are angry about the "Chargers". Are you kidding me? Only make that joke if you're also willing to make it about blacks, Jews, or any other ethnic group. See how well those go over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Byner21 Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 "Gooooo Blackskins!" How does that make you feel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 "Gooooo Blackskins!"How does that make you feel? What's it matter how it makes me feel? The fact is that poll after poll after poll after poll indicates that the people who are supposed to be insulted by the name are overwhelmingly NOT insulted. Am I supposed to feel insulted for them? Why should I get uptight about it if they don't? The only ones who "feel" anything about it are these same seven lawyers who have been trying for well over ten years to use a rampantly over-PC atmosphere to line their pockets. They are who is "offended", and they do not represent anyone but themselves. (And their suit has been thrown out time and time and time and again.) Lawyers are pulling your strings, and you're dancing. How does that make you feel? ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cphil006 Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 I'm surprised more people haven't discovered the origin of the name... According to the Smithsonian Institute, the name originated from one putting red clay or paint on one's face in war and ceremonial procedures... kind of like a badge of honor. Too many erronously assume it has to do with race. Yes, Native Americans started the red clay and paint practices, but that is why the term Redskin was made. Doesn't sound derogatory now does it??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cphil006 Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 "Gooooo Blackskins!"How does that make you feel? Please read my post below. It's #82. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cphil006 Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 Out of all the teams with Native American-related names the Redskins have one of the least offensive logos but perhaps the most (possibly) offensive name. The teams with possibly the most offensive logo is the Cleveland Indians.Anyway I would think it would be an honor. I mean when I think of Native Americans I think of noble warriors. Next thing you know the Irish are going to get pissed off at the Boston Celtics. HTTR Most people probably woudn't think it was offensive if they knew the real origin of the name. See post #82. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arsenic Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 Are you kidding me?Only make that joke if you're also willing to make it about blacks, Jews, or any other ethnic group. See how well those go over. Chill out man.. Its a joke. I have Native American in me. Its an American rule: we can hate on ourselves and use derogative names towards our own kind.. Lastly, it was a joke. Someone's touchy... Have I mentioned I was joking? <-- thats right.. THE Chair! No racism intended. My chair does not discriminate. No yellow smiley people were hurt in the making of this reply. :doh: Dont feel bad. Someone had to over-react. Might as well be you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MD.C RedskinsFan Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 I broke my policy of not coming to Extremeskins after a loss until Wednesday because I saw this naming controversy thing on the news again. I wanted to see what people were saying. I feel that they should have had to have brought this up way before they did. I would be pretty angry if I bought and lived at my house for years and then tomorrow someone comes by and is like, oh yeah, that's my house. I want it, gimme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wysknz1 Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 My ancestors are from Bohemia. Google that and see the insult of "bohunk" doesn't bother me in the least. It is what it is. I can over come a name. Some people just gotta (female dog) about something <----is that bypassing the profanity filters??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocnrik Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 Didnt the COWBOYS in the old west kill many Indians(REDSKINS)..so if the few THAT FIND THE REDSKIN NAME offensive ..they should make the cowboys change there name..people need to get over themselves..:doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Byner21 Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 What's it matter how it makes me feel?The fact is that poll after poll after poll after poll indicates that the people who are supposed to be insulted by the name are overwhelmingly NOT insulted. Am I supposed to feel insulted for them? Why should I get uptight about it if they don't? The only ones who "feel" anything about it are these same seven lawyers who have been trying for well over ten years to use a rampantly over-PC atmosphere to line their pockets. They are who is "offended", and they do not represent anyone but themselves. (And their suit has been thrown out time and time and time and again.) Lawyers are pulling your strings, and you're dancing. How does that make you feel? ~Bang Bang! Love your cartoons but disagree with you here. You're not being consistent. First you ask what does it matter how it makes you feel. And then you argue that the only ones that feel anything are the lawyers trying to make money off this. So which one is it? What is your main argument? First, I think it does matter what everybody feels about this. Yes - the Native Americans' feelings are most important here, and it seems like they are mixed about this one. And on some days I sort of back down from my "stance" on this. The name was obviously meant as a tribute to some cultural attributes of Native Americans...a fighting spirit I guess. And that quality is nothing to be ashamed of, of course. But I think it's fine for anyone of any ethnic background to weigh in here. Isn't it time to move beyond pigeonholing specific ethnic groups with human characteristics? When we do that, we give some groups the bad characteristics too. Second, you KNOW that the lawyers are not the only ones that feel anything here. What I can't figure out, if the team does ever change the name and logo, is a solution that preserves tradition but moves away from the offensive (to some) nature of the name. There's gotta be something though. Didn't know that about the Bills. That's pretty bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outlaw Torn Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 I'm surprised more people haven't discovered the origin of the name...According to the Smithsonian Institute, the name originated from one putting red clay or paint on one's face in war and ceremonial procedures... kind of like a badge of honor. Too many erronously assume it has to do with race. Yes, Native Americans started the red clay and paint practices, but that is why the term Redskin was made. Doesn't sound derogatory now does it??? Glad someone posted this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Byner21 Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 I'm surprised more people haven't discovered the origin of the name...According to the Smithsonian Institute, the name originated from one putting red clay or paint on one's face in war and ceremonial procedures... kind of like a badge of honor. Too many erronously assume it has to do with race. Yes, Native Americans started the red clay and paint practices, but that is why the term Redskin was made. Doesn't sound derogatory now does it??? Appreciate your input, but I'd like for you to provide a link or more specific citation than "Smithsonian Institute" here. I did a quick search and couldn't find anything that supports what you say here. The team logo supports the idea that the name is in reference to skin color, otherwise wouldn't we see some evidence of paint on the face? And doesn't common sense tell us that the public will understand the name to be a reference to skin color? And I'm not going to say your point is irrelevant to the argument, especially in rebuttal to my "Gooooo Blackskins" comment, but the team name obviously refers to a specific ethnic group of people, Native Americans, with our without paint/clay on their faces. That's the major issue in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinklein Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 If we were winning Super Bowls they'd love it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MD.C RedskinsFan Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 If we were winning Super Bowls they'd love it! Isn't it in 1992 that they first started with this? If it was then, the Redskins would have been coming off of their last super bowl. At a glance if I had to guess I would gather that it was because of a super bowl that caused them to originally speak out. Maybe everything I said is false but I'm just speculating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeSkins Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 The burden is on the plaintiff-appellate, and that same party has failed, many times, to satisfy that burden. It simply won't be overturned unless they find some new evidence, which at this point is moot since they're in the appellate process and cannot admit new evidence. As a matter of law alone they don't have anything going for them, which is why the Supreme Court won't adjudge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskins59 Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 First of, people with very little Native American blood calling themselves Native American makes me laugh. Ward Churchill did that, and he looked 100% White as far as I could tell. As for the name Redskins being changed to something less offensive, don't care either way. I live in the DC metropolitan region. I cheer for any team in this area. The team I love is our football team, first and foremost. Now, think for a second. If you replace the word "red" with "black", will the new word blackskins be offensive or not? You can throw me any historical facts to support the argument that "redskins" isn't racist, but that doesn't matter. Some people find it offensive because "redskins" refers to skin color in their view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dswerdlw Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 I've got no problem with our team name. It's our offensive line that bothers me. Heck, maybe we should just change the team name to the Pigskins. Call ourselves the 'skins (like always), put a big, fat, angry hog in the logo, and hope that inspires us to draft a couple of mean, hefty tackles. Heck, Pigskins wouldn't be kosher. My brethren, including Mr. Snyder, might object. Oy. Where's the beef? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Bang! Love your cartoons but disagree with you here. You're not being consistent. First you ask what does it matter how it makes you feel. And then you argue that the only ones that feel anything are the lawyers trying to make money off this. So which one is it? What is your main argument? First, I think it does matter what everybody feels about this. Yes - the Native Americans' feelings are most important here, and it seems like they are mixed about this one. And on some days I sort of back down from my "stance" on this. The name was obviously meant as a tribute to some cultural attributes of Native Americans...a fighting spirit I guess. And that quality is nothing to be ashamed of, of course. But I think it's fine for anyone of any ethnic background to weigh in here. Isn't it time to move beyond pigeonholing specific ethnic groups with human characteristics? When we do that, we give some groups the bad characteristics too. Second, you KNOW that the lawyers are not the only ones that feel anything here. What I can't figure out, if the team does ever change the name and logo, is a solution that preserves tradition but moves away from the offensive (to some) nature of the name. There's gotta be something though. Didn't know that about the Bills. That's pretty bad. Thanks for the compliment, and disagreeing is fine. My main point is that this is a grandstanding stunt by the lawyers who represent no one but themselves. The people they are supposedly saving from this insult repeatedly say in poill after poll that the majority of them do not find it offensive, in fact, some view it as a tribute. It's pretty obvious who is upset here. The seven lawyers who continually get tossed out of court. No one else signs their petition. As far as the morality of it, again, if the people it supposedly offends are not offended..who am I to get offended on their behalf? ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NVskinsfan Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 I have some colored beads here...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tizzod Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Man, I wish these people would expend as much energy trying to clean up the reservations and work to fix the chronic alcoholism and poor education among the Indian population. That doesn't get you any face time on TV though. Good thing they really care about their people, as they say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cphil006 Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Appreciate your input, but I'd like for you to provide a link or more specific citation than "Smithsonian Institute" here. I did a quick search and couldn't find anything that supports what you say here.The team logo supports the idea that the name is in reference to skin color, otherwise wouldn't we see some evidence of paint on the face? And doesn't common sense tell us that the public will understand the name to be a reference to skin color? And I'm not going to say your point is irrelevant to the argument, especially in rebuttal to my "Gooooo Blackskins" comment, but the team name obviously refers to a specific ethnic group of people, Native Americans, with our without paint/clay on their faces. That's the major issue in my opinion. It's in several Redskins Media Guides. You do own a Redskins Media guide don't you? Dan Snyder argued that in the courts and provided pages of proof. The name is what the name is... and that name came from when a Native American would put red clay or paint on the face during war or for ceremonial purposes.. If the name refers to a specific ethnic group as you say... that's one thing... being deragatory is another... to come in 1992 and try and sue for it... that is a whole 'nother deal. What's anyone else's proof that it means a derogatory term for Native Americans, just because it sounds like it after someone points it out? Well, perhaps people shouldn't be so ignorant and not know the origin and meaning of the name instead of making an assumption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.