mikemac9 Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 I wouldnt want to have to change my dogs name, or one of my childrens name either. It isnt going to mean I dont love them, but a name change is alittle more than cosmetic. Dont you think Mike, or should I call you Mitch, or Malcolm? Doesnt really matter rite???? How dare you sir! lol, er, I don't know man, maybe I'm more empathetic to the idea that its a obviously a racist name. The only reason we get away with it is because the Native Americans are such a small majority. If they truly don't care, then sweet, keep the good times rolling. But if a significant portion really think its racist as hell, then we should change it. ...but we've been through all this before... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 One thing I noticed: I was bored so I went through the high school helmets on mghelmets.com, and there are a bunch of schools throughout the country that use the Redskins logo. So if its such a problem, why is the logo used throughout the country? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bifflog Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 The Redskins are a private business not beholden to public funding, so only the NFL itself could force this issue, and they won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reic Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Damnit, dp.---------- Post added June-12th-2012 at 10:34 PM ---------- Really? So you didn't, oh I don't know, click on the very first search result for "Sioux", which is the Wikipedia entry, and go to the very first section in the entry, which is about the origin of the name? :pfft: They were actual Indians, I dont use wikipedia as a reference. yeah I see baby rattlesnake but I still dont see how thats a negative connotation seeing as how Indians were all about animals and nature, and the fact that Sioux were actual Indians. They gonna target Sioux Falls next? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeluCopter29 Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Looks like the defenders continue to lose this long term battle. http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/238595/group/homepage/ Last time this franchise fought a PC battle over race, we lost big time. Why can't we be ahead of the curve this time? . No curve to be ahead of. The optical term here is "vote." We're not going to get sued into changing the name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComManDersFan57 Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 I went to Northwood High in Silver Spring in the early seventies. We were the Northwood Indians at the time. I know the school closed and changed the name after it reopened, but hey, who cares. We've been through this in a bunch of threads. The Redskins will remain the Redskins. It's only derogatory or racist to the uniformed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Looks like the defenders continue to lose this long term battle. http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/238595/group/homepage/ Last time this franchise fought a PC battle over race, we lost big time. Why can't we be ahead of the curve this time? . Wow, comparing a team name to the evils of segregation. Yes, I can see the many glaring similarities. Why can't we be "ahead of the curve" this time? Oh, I don't know, maybe because Native Americans actually support the team name. ---------- Post added June-13th-2012 at 12:26 AM ---------- They were actual Indians, I dont use wikipedia as a reference. yeah I see baby rattlesnake but I still dont see how thats a negative connotation seeing as how Indians were all about animals and nature, and the fact that Sioux were actual Indians. "I don't use Wikipedia" is 2012's version of "I don't use Google." Again... I feel like about 140 seconds with Google and a few keywords would end this conversation.... Or, to repeat a very specific suggestion, clicking on the Wikipedia entry.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roanoker Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 I'm going to sleep fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 I'm cool if they change the name or not. I don't really connect with the name as much as the fact that I'm from the DMV and the Redskins are my home team. I don't see how the fate of this particular team from ND relates to us though. This seems like a stretch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinFaninOKC Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 http://www.rmusd.net/education/components/sectionlist/default.php?sectiondetailid=86&any goofball that has anything to say about the name 'redskins' being a derogatory term needs to talk to these people and tell them the same thing. And from the great state of Oklahoma..... http://www.rushsprings.k12.ok.us/ The helmet is from Stilwell High School, their mascot is the Indians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Last time this franchise fought a PC battle over race, we lost big time. Why can't we be ahead of the curve this time? . RFK, not to get into the typical debate on this matter, i'm just curious- why should the redskins be forced to change their name from a name that native americans themselves are choosing as their mascot? all i hear on the radio and read in newspapers is how the term is 'clearly' a slur, and that you're just being a stubborn, insensitive traditionalist if you disagree. how is this possible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.T.real,lights,out Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Our team's name will never change. I have zero concern over this. Yup, moving on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFKFedEx Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 RFK, not to get into the typical debate on this matter, i'm just curious- why should the redskins be forced to change their name? I don't think the Skins should be forced to change their name.The NFL is a private entity. The name and mascot change should be a voluntary measure of good will to right a wrong. The name wasn't wrong in the 1930s and it was intended to be honorary, I get that. Times have changed and the general public knows more today than we did then. Most people weren't aware of the plight of the Native Americans in the early part of last century. We've evolved as a society today. We're smarter now than we were then. Personally, as a fan I'm tired of trying to justify the use of our name and mascot when non Redskins fans give me crap about it. It's a battle that I know we can't win in the long run;, consequently I'm ready for change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 I'm going to sleep fine. ZZZZZZZZZZ But wouldn't we all fall through the floor if it really happened? Yeah, we'd get over it, but wow. We'd all have to buy new stuff. (Marketing ploy, perhaps?)lol:yikes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 RFK, not to get into the typical debate on this matter, i'm just curious- why should the redskins be forced to change their name from a name that native americans themselves are choosing as their mascot?all i hear on the radio and read in newspapers is how the term is 'clearly' a slur, and that you're just being a stubborn, insensitive traditionalist if you disagree. how is this possible? They won't be '"forced". What will happen is that they would lose protection services of certain artificial property rights such as trademark. As a modern business, this form of socialism is very important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Son of Gadsden Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 "Red" in "Redskins" references to war paint, not skin tone...regardless to what all the ignorant folks looking to sue might think. You'll find most people screaming "RACISM" are themselves the racist ones...see it as the race version of "mind in the gutter". Whether they were white, indian, black, mexican, or asian, they would still be Redskins because they still had red war paint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rick7423 Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 1933: The team. now led by Lone Star Dietz, a Native American Coach, the team moves to Fenway Park. With the move the team also undergoes a name change becoming the Boston Redskins. The Redskins would alternate wins and losses all season and would finish with a 5-5-2 record. So, a Native American Indian coach of the team in 1933 was the head coach when the team made the name change from Braves to Redskins... interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss_Hogg Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 "Red" in "Redskins" references to war paint, not skin tone...regardless to what all the ignorant folks looking to sue might think. You'll find most people screaming "RACISM" are themselves the racist ones...see it as the race version of "mind in the gutter". Whether they were white, indian, black, mexican, or asian, they would still be Redskins because they still had red war paint. I'm glad you posted this. Anyone with knowledge of this team's history knows that the "RED" has always stood for red war paint, not skin color. And in case everyone was wondering, Dietz was a Sioux Native American. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sQuijeW Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 lol american indians... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Personally, as a fan I'm tired of trying to justify the use of our name and mascot when non Redskins fans give me crap about it. It's a battle that I know we can't win in the long run;, consequently I'm ready for change. but the part i'm not getting is that, if native americans themselves are using the name as a mascot, why is there any need to justify or change it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2cents Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 I don't think the Skins should be forced to change their name.The NFL is a private entity. The name and mascot change should be a voluntary measure of good will to right a wrong. The name wasn't wrong in the 1930s and it was intended to be honorary, I get that. Times have changed and the general public knows more today than we did then. Most people weren't aware of the plight of the Native Americans in the early part of last century. We've evolved as a society today. We're smarter now than we were then.Personally, as a fan I'm tired of trying to justify the use of our name and mascot when non Redskins fans give me crap about it. It's a battle that I know we can't win in the long run;, consequently I'm ready for change. Because you can't keep letting people who are wrong win a fight just because you are tired of it. ---------- Post added June-13th-2012 at 09:48 AM ---------- How dare you sir! lol, er, I don't know man, maybe I'm more empathetic to the idea that its a obviously a racist name. The only reason we get away with it is because the Native Americans are such a small majority. If they truly don't care, then sweet, keep the good times rolling. But if a significant portion really think its racist as hell, then we should change it. ...but we've been through all this before... Follow my link in post 18 where a poll of Native Americans found that 91% of them were not in any way offended by the name. 91% percent. There is your answer. I know, and am related to, many people with significant NA heritage and not one of them is offended. This is a manufactured PC "everyone is a victim" argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarrellsMyHero28 Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Here's my question. Even if you consider "Redskins" to be derogatory...what law is it breaking? How could a court force a private organization to change its name due to it's offensive nature? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Here's my question.Even if you consider "Redskins" to be derogatory...what law is it breaking? How could a court force a private organization to change its name due to it's offensive nature? Because the organization enjoys quit a bit of help from tax payers and local/state/federal government. Also because the league in general enjoys an anti-trust exemption from the federal government. If you don't want to play by the governments rules then you need to run your organization without any of their help. (I'm not saying we should or shouldn't change the name. I'm just pointing out one reason why someone would think we can be required to by the government) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFKFedEx Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Bob Hope used to do black face comedy on national television in the 1950s. He stopped doing it bc he evolved in wake of growing public sentiment against the act. Do you think Bob would have gone on to host the Academy Awards a dozen times had he insisted on doing black face through the 1970s? Does anybody remember Hope as a racist today? I sure don't. Watching the Herschel Walker special on ESPN, a few people at SEC football games were still waving confederate flags in the early 1980s. Do you think the SEC would rule college football today if those schools and their fans insisted on excising their right to fly the Star and Bars everywhere? People evolve, times change. Our nickname and mascot are outdated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 No curve to be ahead of. The optical term here is "vote." We're not going to get sued into changing the name. A very small group of lawyers have sued several times over the last 20 years, and have lost each and every time. No curve to get ahead of, unless we're worried about offending moneygrubbing lawyers. ~Bang ---------- Post added June-13th-2012 at 03:05 PM ---------- Bob Hope used to do black face comedy on national television in the 1950s. He stopped doing it bc he evolved in wake of growing public sentiment against the act. Do you think Bob would have gone on to host the Academy Awards a dozen times had he insisted on doing black face through the 1970s? Does anybody remember Hope as a racist today? I sure don't.Watching the Herschel Walker special on ESPN, a few people at SEC football games were still waving confederate flags in the early 1980s. Do you think the SEC would rule college football today if those schools and their fans insisted on excising their right to fly the Star and Bars everywhere? People evolve, times change. Our nickname and mascot are outdated. the problem with this is that the people it supposedly offends are not offended. This offense is from others who feel that they should be offended. And what sense is there in that? If the group supposedly dispariaged overwhelmingly is not offended, why is it anyone else's business to become their surrogate? This is the very worst definition of "politically correct'.. when people decide for others why and when they should be offended. Ridiculous. Ass backwards. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.