tshile Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 actually, boss hogg, from this article, it appears that for this particular study, chief wahoo was the only mascot used. That seems like a very important distinction. I could see the Indian's logo being offensive because it's a caricature. It seems like an appropriate fix would be to make it something like the Redskins logo. Even then I don't support forcing it; boycott, protest, or whatever is fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss_Hogg Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 just perused a few paragraphs about that study. one thing that stood out was that the study appears to lump together all mascots without distinction. this includes the ridiculous cleveland indians mascot. i'm guessing the atlanta braves tomahawk chop is also included at some point. its unfair to lump all native mascots together as if they are all the same. the redskins dignified, native american designed logo is nothing like the above examples (though the florida state seminole tomahawk chop is a different issue due to support from the tribe- if they support it, then nobody can say otherwise) That's a good argument. But each Indian mascot is unique in how it can be perceived as offensive to Native Americans. Redskins - Team name Cleveland Indians - Logo Braves/Chiefs - Tomahawk chop/war chant And all of these teams have fans who dress in sacred headdresses, feathers, and war regalia. As for the FSU Seminoles: Florida State's Seminole is officially sanctioned by the tribe. In 2005, the university was granted a waiver from the NCAA, which has sought to eliminate Native mascots, on the basis of this "unique relationship." NCAA senior vice president Bernard Franklin said in a statement that "The decision of a namesake sovereign tribe, regarding when and how its name and imagery can be used, must be respected even when others may not agree." And indeed others do not agree. Reacting to that 2005 decision, David Narcomey, a member of the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma's general council, told USA Today that he was "deeply appalled, incredulously disappointed ... I am nauseated that the NCAA is allowing this 'minstrel show' to carry on this form of racism in the 21st century." Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2012/09/28/war-chant-and-tomahawk-chop-seminoles-republicans-braves-diddy-and-40-foot-cow-136321 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonez3 Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 That's a good argument. But each Indian mascot is unique in how it can be perceived as offensive to Native Americans. Redskins - Team name ...NOPE Cleveland Indians - Logo Braves/Chiefs - Tomahawk chop/war chant And all of these teams have fans who dress in sacred headdresses, feathers, and war regalia. As for the FSU Seminoles: Florida State's Seminole is officially sanctioned by the tribe. In 2005, the university was granted a waiver from the NCAA, which has sought to eliminate Native mascots, on the basis of this "unique relationship." NCAA senior vice president Bernard Franklin said in a statement that "The decision of a namesake sovereign tribe, regarding when and how its name and imagery can be used, must be respected even when others may not agree." And indeed others do not agree. Reacting to that 2005 decision, David Narcomey, a member of the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma's general council, told USA Today that he was "deeply appalled, incredulously disappointed ... I am nauseated that the NCAA is allowing this 'minstrel show' to carry on this form of racism in the 21st century." Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2012/09/28/war-chant-and-tomahawk-chop-seminoles-republicans-braves-diddy-and-40-foot-cow-136321 See this I agree with- OUTSIDE OF THE EDIT I MADE TO YOUR POST. I've been supportive of removing Wahoo from onset of movement. I don't necessarily agree with chops (but not trademarked ) Redskins name...NOPE. Just my opinion, not racist or demeaning name. Not in historical context or contemporary. I am aware some NA's don't like it. But from that group I would like to know how much of it is driven by the remove all imagery campaign. How many are purely offended by the name alone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Change the name to "The Washington Warriors" and keep the colors, the logo, the history. Change HTTR to HTTW. Have Snyder say that in light of the trademark decision that he has now seen the light and doesn't want to offend. Have him highlight the work of the foundation. And then dare those PC ****ers to **** about the picture of the proud warrior on the helmet. He will win that PR battle. I like this plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 But each Indian mascot is unique in how it can be perceived as offensive to Native Americans. Redskins - Team name Cleveland Indians - Logo Braves/Chiefs - Tomahawk chop/war chant Last I checked they're going after our logo too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Adama Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 At what point does the Washington Redskins change the name? Honestly, I do not want the name change, but in today's environment I do not see the name standing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 if it must change, i'm for the 'potomacs' from the local patawomack tribe- who actually endorses the name 'redskins', or some other actual tribe. of course, potomac redskins is my first actual choice, especially considering DC is trying to politically grandstand, which is funny, and wants nothing to do with the team. if the name is not offensive to -and is embraced by- the patawomacks, then there is nothing anyone can say. I also like this idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss_Hogg Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Last I checked they're going after our logo too... Yes some want the logo gone But most of the activists agree the team name is the worst part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 I would bet a year's salary that far more Native Americans have been called "Chief" in a derogatory manner than have called "redskin". A whole lot more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 I like this plan. Why do you believe changing the name to the warriors, and keeping everything else, is a good plan? They've already gone after the use of Warriors, and they've already said our logo is also offensive. In fact, I recall some leader saying the logo was more offensive than the name. I don't get it. Some of the people saying the name should be changed the most seem to be the least in touch with the complaints. Personally, if they're going to change it then I want it changed to something benign. I don't ever want to have to go through this again. Going against the SJWs is a losing battle because they have time and they use it to beat you down and it works, why the hell would any of you want to fight it again?! Make them the washington pebbles or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Yes some want the logo gone But most of the activists agree the team name is the worst part. Actually I think the leaders of this movement have gone on record as saying their goal is to remove all NA names and imagery from sports, more or less admitting that getting the Skins to change the name is a first step, not the goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Actually I think the leaders of this movement have gone on record as saying their goal is to remove all NA names and imagery from sports, more or less admitting that getting the Skins to change the name is a first step, not the goal. Yup. But for some reason we seem to be more informed than the people championing their cause. It's weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Yes some want the logo gone But most of the activists agree the team name is the worst part. Keep in mind the reason they say it's offensive is demonstrably false. That's the part I have a problem with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Keep in mind the reason they say it's offensive is demonstrably false. That's the part I have a problem with. What is the reason they say it is offensive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSSkinz Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 At what point does the Washington Redskins change the name? Honestly, I do not want the name change, but in today's environment I do not see the name standing. Yep, its inevitable. The issue I see is that I have never seen a billion dollar corporation re-branded after its been in existence for 80 years. Also I think Dan Snyder has recourse against the NFL as he purchased the franchise in good faith that he wouldn't need to re-brand it 20 years down the road. In my opinion Snyder isn't responsible for the millions its going to cost to rebuild the new name, the NFL is at fault here. If I were him I would flip this as he was sold a tainted asset, if you buy a McDonald's franchise and 20 years later someone says the name McDonald's is offensive the franchisee shouldn't be at fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizmo 3squire Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Truthfully if the Redskins can hold out until the next presidential election they may be okay, depending on who's in office/congress. However, at this point, considering the American society today sad to say it's only a matter of time. I'm still hopeful the name remains. Also at this point, what does it matter if the team continues to lose as well. :/ If they ultimately change it, ANYTHING but the Warriors. That's all I ask.smh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss_Hogg Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 As someone mentioned earlier: Perhaps re-branding the team will force Snyder to sell? He's placed all his eggs in one basket (Redskins) so he may not be able to afford a name change. Some positive could come out of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 As someone mentioned earlier: Perhaps re-branding the team will force Snyder to sell? He's placed all his eggs in one basket (Redskins) so he may not be able to afford a name change. Some positive could come out of this. No chance. If there was a name chance forced. The league would share those costs like they do with profits. Plus, I believe the estimate was 15mil to rebrand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Yep, its inevitable. The issue I see is that I have never seen a billion dollar corporation re-branded after its been in existence for 80 years. Really? Here's a couple off the top of my head... Bell Atlantic > Verizon Esso > Exxon A couple from the world of sports Houston Oilers > Tennessee Oilers > Tennessee Titans Washington Bullets > Washington Wizards New Orleans Hornets > New Orleans Pelicans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizmo 3squire Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 No chance. If there was a name chance forced. The league would share those costs like they do with profits. Plus, I believe the estimate was 15mil to rebrand. That's really not that much to $nyder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 No chance. If there was a name chance forced. The league would share those costs like they do with profits. Plus, I believe the estimate was 15mil to rebrand. That's just the cost to rebrand, right? It doesn't factor in any loss in valuation because of the rebrand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 What is the reason they say it is offensive? The main reason given is that redskins has its origins as referring to scalps that were collected as part of a bounty system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 If the Redskins name is gone, I would just rather have a total franchise re-boot Non native American based name (something like the Monuments, whatever) and new colors matching the rest of the city. Make it a clean break. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 If they don't like Redskins, I suppose we could just change to a less 'offensive' name/logo like the uh...I don't know, Washington Andrew Jacksons.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 The main reason given is that redskins has its origins as referring to scalps that were collected as part of a bounty system. Some posit that. Many others do not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.