Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Poll:( Hypothetical Question) Would you still support this team, if for whatever reason the name was changed?

Commander PK

By Commander PK
in The Stadium

What do you think of the new site?  

63 members have voted

  1. 1. What do you think of the new site?

    • Amazing
      30
    • Cool
      24
    • Could be better
      5
    • A letdown
      5

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

Commander PK

Commander PK

Posted
Posted

In order to stem the tide of the "sky is falling" and "gloom and doom" threads today, I'm posting my latest thoughts on this issue.

Most of us know, that the Redskins will never be forced to change their name by court order. The Supreme Court has settled the matter, by stating the statute of limitations for challenging the trademark has run out. The Redskins will be the Redskins as long as the owner chooses to keep the name.

However, what if Dan Snyder (or some future owner) decides that changing the name of the team to something like "Washington Warriors," and losing the Indian warrior on the side of the helmet in favor of something like the 70th anniversary spear would be in the best interest of the public relations of the club.

Everything else remains the same. Burgundy and Gold colors, etc. except the name and logo changes.

Would you still support the team as you have the "Redskins"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NattyBo

NattyBo

Posted
Posted

Yes, I would still support the team in that scenario. I think it will eventually happen, too.

Hell, a small part of me thinks a total makeover is exactly what this team needs sometimes

edit: Can't wait for the first "bleeding heart liberals" rant to hit this thread :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Commander PK

Commander PK

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I would say yes, and I do think that this may happen at some point in the future, through changing attitudes. For some, this very idea is blasphemy, but I really don't think it would be that big of a deal. For me, nothing would change if the Redskins became the "Warriors" with a spear logo. The history of the team would be untarnished, the name would just become part of that history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
earl

earl

Posted
Posted

i think he should just change the name to the "Skins". its like the new york knickerbockers. everyone calls them the Knicks. So why not keep everything as is and everyone would just call them the skins. There is nothing offensive about that right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Commander PK

Commander PK

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Uh, your thread title and poll are totally different.

The thread title asks if we support changing the team's name. (Which I'm completely against)

The poll asks if we'd still support the team if the name was changed. (Which I obviously would)

Fair enough, I will adjust the thread title.

I made the assumption that most people who vote, would be willing to take the time to type their explanation of why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
s0crates

s0crates

Posted
Posted

Some people think we are suffering from an indian curse, a hex that was placed on the franchise when they won the court case over the name. I do not believe in curses, but it is worth pointing out.

The name "Redskins" may be offensive to some people. What if we were called the "Blackskins" or the "Whiteskins"? There is an argument to be made here. As such, I would support a name change. This team was originally known as the "Braves." Perhaps that would be better. The worst thing about this would be changing the fight song.

We should be aware of America's dark past with respect to the natives. This country was founded on indigenous genocide. If you have never read "Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee," you should. Small-pox blankets, the trail of tears, and the rest represent something for which this country should rightly be ashamed. Changing our name will not change the past of course, but it is something to consider.

Personally, knowing what I know, I can see the force of the argument against our mascot. However, nobody rooting for this team means any offense toward the native people. We love our mascot, just as we love our team. There is no harm meant by it. I became a fan as a kid, too young to contemplate something like this, and I remain a fan despite the fact that this concerns me.

Lastly, I see no reason to change the colors or the logo. The logo is NOT offensive, if anything it is proud. Contrast our logo with the Clevland Indians logo, which IS offensive.

Sorry for rambling, but this is something I have given a lot of thought. I once had an experience where a Native American was offended by my Redskins gear, and it bothered me deeply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
McSkin30

McSkin30

Posted
Posted

I think they should rename the team the Washington Pigskins. We can keep the same colors, continue calling them the Skins, and have very little else. It fits with the glory years of the team and the "Hogs", pigskin is synonymous with football, and whether the Tea Party likes it or not, there will continue to be "pork" in Washington.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NattyBo

NattyBo

Posted
Posted
Some people think we are suffering from an indian curse, a hex that was placed on the franchise when they won the court case over the name. I do not believe in curses, but it is worth pointing out.

The name "Redskins" may be offensive to some people. What if we were called the "Blackskins" or the "Whiteskins"? There is an argument to be made here. As such, I would support a name change. This team was originally known as the "Braves." Perhaps that would be better. The worst thing about this would be changing the fight song.

We should be aware of America's dark past with respect to the natives. This country was founded on indigenous genocide. If you have never read "Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee," you should. Small-pox blankets, the trail of tears, and the rest represent something for which this country should rightly be ashamed. Changing our name will not change the past of course, but it is something to consider.

Personally, knowing what I know, I can see the force of the argument against our mascot. However, nobody rooting for this team means any offense toward the native people. We love our mascot, just as we love our team. There is no harm meant by it. I became a fan as a kid, too young to contemplate something like this, and I remain a fan despite the fact that this concerns me.

Lastly, I see no reason to change the colors or the logo. The logo is NOT offensive, if anything it is proud. Contrast our logo with the Clevland Indians logo, which IS offensive.

Sorry for rambling, but this is something I have given a lot of thought. I once had an experience where a Native American was offended by my Redskins gear, and it bothered me deeply.

This might be the most thoughtful post I've seen in one of these threads. I would argue however, that despite the contrasting styles of Cleveland's "Chief Wahoo" or whatever his name is and the Redskins current logo, they're equally bad in the eyes of many. I think that if the name of the team was changed to "Warriors" or "Skins" then we should revert to the spear logo. But I think we should revert to that logo permanently anyway, so.. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Riggo#44

Riggo#44

Posted
Posted
I would say yes, and I do think that this may happen at some point in the future, through changing attitudes. For some, this very idea is blasphemy, but I really don't think it would be that big of a deal. For me, nothing would change if the Redskins became the "Warriors" with a spear logo. The history of the team would be untarnished, the name would just become part of that history.

No, it's not going to change. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it say you have the right not to be offended. What you're seeing is a very, very small, vocal minority:

Despite vocal and legal action from Native American groups and scholars, the majority of people surveyed on the subject do not find the name offensive. Following the 1992 Super Bowl protests, the Washington Post posted a survey in which “89 percent of those surveyed said that the name should stay.” 5 In a study performed by the National Annenberg Survey, Native Americans from the 48 continental U.S. states where asked “The professional football team in Washington calls itself the Washington Redskins. As a Native American, do you find that name offensive or does it not bother you?”6 In response, ninety percent replied that the name is acceptable, while nine percent said that it was offensive, and one percent would not answer.

Now, in fairness, I did pull a DOTS, and used wikipedia. I have read the Annenberg Study before, and this information is accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
s0crates

s0crates

Posted
Posted
I have never watched a Wizards game -never will until they go back to Bullets. Of course, I am in Cincinnati and they arent on TV much anyway.
The ratinale for changing the "Bullets" name is that DC had a big problem with gun violence in those days. There is something to be said about this I think, but I am no NBA fan so I will stay out of it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Commander PK

Commander PK

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Personally, knowing what I know, I can see the force of the argument against our mascot. However, nobody rooting for this team means any offense toward the native people. We love our mascot, just as we love our team. There is no harm meant by it. I became a fan as a kid, too young to contemplate something like this, and I remain a fan despite the fact that this concerns me.

When a person starts a thread like this, your entire post is the kind of response they hope for. Especially the quoted section. Captured my thoughts exactly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Commander PK

Commander PK

Posted
  • Author
Posted
No, it's not going to change. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it say you have the right not to be offended. What you're seeing is a very, very small, vocal minority:

Now, in fairness, I did pull a DOTS, and used wikipedia. I have read the Annenberg Study before, and this information is accurate.

I know about that poll, again, this is all hypothetical, and nothing new really provided the impetus for this thread. Just something I think about from time to time. In the spirit of the hypothetical, what if in some way there was tangible evidence that the Redskins were being actively persecuted behind the scenes because of their name? Nobody should read into that question. Take it at face value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...