Shiv Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Chief Zee and Slapaho tribe leader Injun Joe honor a native friend. Soooo, we're just gonna go ahead and ignore this for the most part? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFKFedEx Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Soooo, we're just gonna go ahead and ignore this for the most part? I'm not sure what you mean when you say "ignore". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 I think John Feinstein needs professional help--he is utterly obssessed with Snyder... http://feinstein.radio.cbssports.com/2014/02/05/john-feinstein-blog-redskins-name-will-change-despite-daniel-snyders-arrogance/ .... keep referring to an ELEVEN-year-old poll that showed that most Americans and many Native Americans weren’t offended by the nickname.Since then other polls have not only showed that the numbers have changed but, more important perhaps, that many Native Americans who responded weren’t saying the nickname wasn’t offensive but that they had much more important issues to worry about. --------------------- First of all, Feinstein is a vengeful, agenda driven, angry man. He will not stop taking every opportunity to rip Snyder that he can get because he doesn't like him. It may be snyders fault- I don't know. But somewhere along the line, jf decided he didn't like him and he lets everyone know at every opportunity. It a little childish, small, and ridiculous. And it's old. Secondly, why do critics of the name act like the poll being "ELEVEN" years old is relevant? I'm sorry- do we think native Americans didn't know there was a professional team named "Redskins" 11 whole years ago? Maybe jf thinks those poor folks don't have access to things like television? This is new information to them ? Really??!! The poll is from 2002- not 1932, for gods sake. It's an unbelievable, ludicrous argument that, in my opinion, only speaks to peoples cultural ignorance- or desperation- yet I've seen it many times. Finally- show me how not only the numbers have changed -(keeping in mind the obvious problems like the wording if the question, the actual identity of people polled, the agenda of this mysterious polling agency..........oh, and I could have sworn the original annenberg poll was wrong- according to critics-so why are we giving it credence now in this article?....... I digress)- but that "many" native Americans were only really saying that they have more important things to worry about? Really?! You know this how? Unbelievable. What a shallow, spiteful human being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Dumbass also mentioned himself that Native Americans have "more important things to worry about," yet he keeps beating his drum. I swear, I'm getting so tired of every reporter/media member having an opinion. If I wanted an opinion, I'd consult a psychic. Give me the facts you bunch of A-hole hacks! it is evident Feinstein and others plan to browbeat the populace with this until they get their way. No poll or number of Native Americans standing on the field wearing the team's gear will change their minds. The vitriol has become laughable. At the end of the day, they like are entitled to their opinion just like everyone else is...and you know what they say about opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearfeather Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Feinstein does his own " spinning " in the article, and makes his own leaps. Comes off as " I don't like Snyder and we're gonna show him "; as if changing the name would keep him from using " Redskins " against Snyder in the future. " Snyder, the owner who adamantly insisted .... " " Snyder, the owner who so stubbornly and callously refused to .... " " The same owner who, apparently had trouble distinguishing between right and wrong, on past issues, now is .... " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 In addition, I doubt very seriously that any critic of this particular Annenberg Poll has ANY problems with anything else they would poll. It's just they don't like the results of this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Comes off as " I don't like Snyder and we're gonna show him "; as if changing the name would keep him from using " Redskins " against Snyder in the future. JF was on the junkies last year and EB had the 'nerve' to question JF's position on the name. JF's response? "why would you defend dan snyder?" okeedokee, then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 So 2 congressmen are lobbying goodell to change the name and one is from oklahoma lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 So 2 congressmen are lobbying goodell to change the name and one is from oklahoma lol Yep, it goes like this: Look how much power we have! We can shut down the government AND make a privately owned NFL team change their name! But discuss immigration reform? We're not sure that's what the people want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Just love the irony...we need to change his states name while we are at it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chachie Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 I think it's becoming pretty apparent that this issue will have to be resolved. My idea for a change that might satisfy both sides of the debate didn't get much play the first time I posted it in this thread, but I really think changing the name to a tribal name (most likely one that is/was indigenous to the Chesapeake area) is a viable compromise that would improve public relations for the team without eliminating the native american theme/uniform/logo. I work at a video production house in DC and we rent space to a radio station that features a native american show. The host of the show is a member of several tribal organizations. He obviously hates the Redskin name, as do the members of his groups. I described this option to him and he said it was a really good idea for at least a starting point. He's going to bring it up at his next meeting with the leaders of these groups. We'll see what they think and I'll try to post updates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 I think it's becoming pretty apparent that this issue will have to be resolved. My idea for a change that might satisfy both sides of the debate didn't get much play the first time I posted it in this thread, but I really think changing the name to a tribal name (most likely one that is/was indigenous to the Chesapeake area) is a viable compromise that would improve public relations for the team without eliminating the native american theme/uniform/logo. I work at a video production house in DC and we rent space to a radio station that features a native american show. The host of the show is a member of several tribal organizations. He obviously hates the Redskin name, as do the members of his groups. I described this option to him and he said it was a really good idea for at least a starting point. He's going to bring it up at his next meeting with the leaders of these groups. We'll see what they think and I'll try to post updates. For me, and I have said this before, I think if you change the name you go in a completely different direction. Capitulating is not in my nature, and in this case I'd strongly advocate a "scorched earth" policy. If you are forced to change a name that in your mind, and in the minds of many other people of the supposedly offended race is meant to honor them...then you get away from a theme that has anything to do with that race (or any race for that matter)..PERIOD. One reason is frankly, to give a huge giant **** you and middle finger to people that forced this upon us, that's right...and the other is you don't want to go with anything that will ultimately continue the debate/controversy, because then the debate becomes about "Well, should you be using a Native American theme at all? Should any race or group of people be used in this way, AT ALL....like Fighting Irish, Vikings, Chiefs, Seminoles, etc. Maybe the Seminoles are just to stupid to know they are being disrespected? (I guess anybody can be bought huh?) Maybe the Irish people in this country need to put down the whisky bottle and demand Notre Dame trade in their racist name? I'd rather have Washington Warriors, (or really Washington "anything else but") with a military theme...completely devoid of any tie-in to any particular race of people than any local Native American tribe's name if "Redskins" is eventually retired. Yes, that would change the organization and team as we know it forever, but I'd rather lose some fans because the Native theme is gone (it's just not the same, but don't kid yourself no matter what happens if the name is not Redskins it would NEVER be the same anyhow)..than ever compromise in this area. Why am I so dead set against compromise? Frankly, because comprising will be seen as a a measure of admitting guilt. (A plea agreement is compromising) The Redskins are guilty of nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chachie Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Why am I so dead set against compromise? Frankly, because comprising will be seen as a a measure of admitting guilt. (A plea agreement is compromising) The Redskins are guilty of nothing. Tell that to the gentleman I was speaking to about it. If the name were "blackskins" all along, I suspect your stance would not be so bold. I also sorely wish we could continue with things as they have always been but I have to admit to myself that I'm being selfish. I just don't think Snyder can win this in the long run and maybe the best way to preserve the theme is to set it on a better path while still remaining in a position where we are truly honoring the nations history, not our own revisionist version. Anyway, I didn't make the post to be controversial or to set myself up for a long debate. I just think it's a neat idea and we'll see if the native american tribes in this area agree. Who knows? Maybe the guy has already forgotten about my conversation with him and it will all be for naught. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFKFedEx Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 The team is releasing a project called "Community Voices" in an effort to get more natives to speak publicly in support of the name. There's a little more detail in this cbssports article below. Disregard the headline, read into the text. http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/24438548/two-members-of-congress-will-push-roger-goodell-on-redskins-name Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Knowing how the team has handled this so far, they will have a lot of interviews next to Cigar Store Indians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor703 Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Why do people find it so hard to understand that Harjo and her goons are not only against Redskins but absolutely any mascot using Native American imagery? They would still rail against the team with a different NA mascot. I'm getting to a point where I simply don't care anymore, not because I want to lose the name but because people are systematically ruining everything. We're setting a precedent where if you don't like something, just whine about it and you'll get your way. This does nothing but continue that trend, I'm just done with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Tell that to the gentleman I was speaking to about it. If the name were "blackskins" all along, I suspect your stance would not be so bold. My friend, my stance would not be so bold if the large majority of the Native Americans had a problem with the name "Redskins." I say with complete honesty, If the large majority of Native Americans were offended, I would support the name change. There is zero evidence that is the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFKFedEx Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Knowing how the team has handled this so far, they will have a lot of interviews next to Cigar Store Indians. Lols! They have a nice one in the Monte Cristo lounge on the club level. I'm sure he's not doing much this off season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chachie Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 My friend, my stance would not be so bold if the large majority of the Native Americans had a problem with the name "Redskins." I say with complete honesty, If the large majority of Native Americans were offended, I would support the name change. There is zero evidence that is the case. I rode that for a bit too, PK, and I'm not altogether dismissing it. I'm just not convinced that it's the truth. We've seen ONE publication of that sentiment from ONE section of ONE tribe but it's not clear who that's coming from and it has not yet echoed with the rest of the NA nation. There's also zero evidence that it's NOT the case. I am basing my opinion on actually speaking to a couple of native americans. You are basing yours on hearsay that was propagandized by Dan Snyder himself. I cannot blindly accept the word of Daddy Footballbucks just yet, even though I desperately want to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 I think everyone is missing the real solution to this problem: Bribe the dictionary people. If one dictionary definition called it a term of respect, this all goes away. Until the proof the bribery was made public. Which, knowing the Redskins, would be a check with the word "bribe" in the memo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Seriously though, one of the common "solutions" that has been discussed is to change the name to Warriors. They could do that, update the logo to one that they used previously (spear, for example) and be completely out of the crosshairs. The team could easily make the claim that they are talking about a very general "warrior" that has nothing to do with Native Americans. It's not like spears were only used on this continent by one group of people. Then, you've addressed the people that are truly offended (which is a great thing), you will paint into a corner the loud-mouths who are just making a big deal of this but who aren't personally offended (which is a good thing), and you will preserve a large amount of our tradition (colors, etc.). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chachie Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Seriously though, one of the common "solutions" that has been discussed is to change the name to Warriors. They could do that, update the logo to one that they used previously (spear, for example) and be completely out of the crosshairs. The team could easily make the claim that they are talking about a very general "warrior" that has nothing to do with Native Americans. It's not like spears were only used on this continent by one group of people. Then, you've addressed the people that are truly offended (which is a great thing), you will paint into a corner the loud-mouths who are just making a big deal of this but who aren't personally offended (which is a good thing), and you will preserve a large amount of our tradition (colors, etc.). Another good idea. Maybe I'm just not all in for the Warriors name but I think you and I are in the same ballpark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 I am still betting the name is changed by the end of the decade. i also think there will be a major fan backlash and the sell out streak will end immediately (or at least the team will admit the sell out streak has ended and have at least 1 blacked out game) I have thought a bunch of names in my spare time, that works with hail to the Redskins. If Dan Snyder is truly the marketing man he is, he will simply sell the team name to Red Bull. The Washington Redbulls. A partnership will bring in money for Snyder, Redbull can have special burgandy and gold cans, and you remove an Native American imagery from the team, which I think is very important to do. From the point the team name changes, it should never associate itself with NA imagery again. "Hail to the Redbulls! Hail victory! Bruisers on the warpath, fight for old DC" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 I say the name change happens by 2020; sooner if the Dems have full control of the government again. What will be the thing that sparks the name change? Money. When the money flow is affected; then the name change will happen. Eventually, the people who want the name change will go after the money that not only goes to the NFL but to invididual players. I can see people say, boycott Subway because they had an ad with Robert Griffin a player with that name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 I say the name change happens by 2020; sooner if the Dems have full control of the government again. What will be the thing that sparks the name change? Money. When the money flow is affected; then the name change will happen. Eventually, the people who want the name change will go after the money that not only goes to the NFL but to invididual players. I can see people say, boycott Subway because they had an ad with Robert Griffin a player with that name. When Dan Snyder wants a new stadium, and that process gets going, the name will change. I expect 1) a large fan backlash that will impact the bottom line 2) a payoff from the NFL when pressure gets too hot. 3) Hence why I think he should just sell the name to Redbull Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.