Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

The Official ES All Things Redskins Name Change Thread (Reboot Edition---Read New OP)


Recommended Posts

I am still betting the name is changed by the end of the decade.

 

 

 

 

I say the name change happens by 2020; sooner if the Dems have full control of the government again.

 

 

 

 

 

 

All the more reason to do it ourselves and on our terms. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Capitulation

the action of surrendering or ceasing to resist an opponent or demand.

All the more reason to do it ourselves and on our terms.

You really think that after all this that a name change would be "on our terms?"

Any name change at this point is a complete and utter capitulation to the pressure of a very loud minority that is simply wrong about the facts. Those are not the people to whom you surrender.

Edited by AsburySkinsFan
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what. If this name change happens, especially because of government intervention, I think I'm out. I'll stop paying attention to the NFL all together. It doesn't really mean much but it will be a personal victory for me. I doubt I'd have much care for a team that was bullied into changing it's name.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is only an issue when local sports writers are out of topics. It disappeared quickly when the season started and will do so again. Fact is, as even Goodell pointed out, the current evidence suggest majority of Native Americans and of country don't support a name change. The team won't lose fan support by keeping the name and even a patent loss won't end trademark due to various other laws protecting the brand so money is safe. Basically team just has to ride out the storm and continue showing evidence supporting their side. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly, I sure wouldn't mind seeing another poll done. See if the numbers have changed.

(And, I will point out, if the Redskins do another poll, then they get to pick the wording of the question. I strongly suggest asking Natives "Are YOU offended", rather than asking a bunch of people whether they think somebody else is offended.)

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly, I sure wouldn't mind seeing another poll done. See if the numbers have changed.

(And, I will point out, if the Redskins do another poll, then they get to pick the wording of the question. I strongly suggest asking Natives "Are YOU offended", rather than asking a bunch of people whether they think somebody else is offended.)

 

 

 

As I posted earlier. I asked 2 from the DC area and they answered quickly. I can't vouch for the true foundation of their feelings but I felt their conviction. 

 

I don't want the name to change but I am being forced to look beyond my own nose after asking. 

Edited by Chachie
Link to post
Share on other sites

The two Senators claim they will look at the NFLs tax exempt status if the name isnt changed.

This is where the goverment drives me crazy. One Republican and one Democrat. Either the NFL's tax excempt status is legal under the laws of the land or they are not. The Redskin name alone does not change the laws. Quit using your "power" to scare your will into the country.

Although I don't believe they are putting any fear into the NFL.

Edited by MontanaSkins
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It still shocks me how much people are dismissing the Annenburg poll. When you consider the long history of American Indian/U.S. Government relations (if you can call it that), 10 years ago isn't that much. How much has really changed since 2004 as far as American Indian affairs are concerned?

 

Furthermore, it's not like the survey was conducted by Joe Smith's Redskins Bandwagon club or something. The Annenberg Public Policy Center is run by the University of Pennsylvania. They created FactCheck.org for goodness sake. That was everyone's go to website during the campaign season to see how much bull**** the candidates were spewing.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

http://go.bloomberg.com/political-capital/2014-02-10/redskins-running-with-native-american-support/

 

The Washington Redskins released a statement today showing support from the Native American community regarding the controversial team name.

 

According to the release, the Redskins organization received over 7,000 letters and emails from fans showing support for the team name, including almost 200 from Native Americans or families of Native Americans.

 

As a family who is part Cherokee and Blackfoot, we wholly support the Washington Redskins. IT is the name and portrayal of the Native Americans who have been through so much over the decades, we not only feel it would be wrong to change the name of the team, but would also be doing a disservice as well,” wrote Elizabeth and Adam Bradshaw from Hampton, Virginia.

 

http://www.bitlaw.com/trademark/common.html

 

Trademark rights arise in the United States from the actual use of the mark. Thus, if a product is sold under a brand name, common law trademark rights have been created. This is especially true once consumers view the brand name as an indicator the product's source.

 

Edited by Spearfeather
Link to post
Share on other sites
 

As I posted earlier. I asked 2 from the DC area and they answered quickly. I can't vouch for the true foundation of their feelings but I felt their conviction. 

 

I don't want the name to change but I am being forced to look beyond my own nose after asking. 

 

And? Anecdotal evidence does not trump empirical (polling). You're posting as if your friend is the barometer for local Native American tribes when there is plenty of evidence of local tribes in favor of the name as well. 

 

What is their foundation for offense? Is it that the name was once negatively used a long time ago? If so, then isn't that their hang up since the majority are not offended and since the name is used only for the football team? Should they have sway over 90% when they are ignoring current, long-standing context in favor of an archaic usage? 

 

If you're truly interested in the topic then you should try and talk about the nature of their offense. But the problem there is people usually don;t like their offenses to be challenged and it's a very small minority group so the rest of us tend to walk on egg shells because of it and things can go unchecked as a result and that is a big reason why a vocal minority still has some say in this matter.

 

But this isn't the 1950s. If the word was being used in an offensive manner still and the majority of Native Americans were truly offended, then the vast majority of team fans would be right there with them supporting a name change. But this isn't the case. The grounds for offense, when looked at, are shaky at best and often times ignore current context, ignore that offensive context is archaic, and some times use incorrect historical data in support.

 

I saw you used the blackskins argument earlier, and that example, as thin as it is, it is actually a solid argument for why the team name is NOT offensive because you don;t see anywhere near the opposition to Redskins that you would see with blackskins. But even without that, polling data shows majority are not offended so no, name does not need to be changed. Should it ever swing the other way, most would then support a name change, simple as that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

And? Anecdotal evidence does not trump empirical (polling). You're posting as if your friend is the barometer for local Native American tribes when there is plenty of evidence of local tribes in favor of the name as well. 

 

No. You're posting as if I were posting as if my friend is the barometer for local Native American tribes. My friend is a member of local Native American tribes and he was speaking directly of that barometer according to HIS CONSTANT CONTACT with these exact tribes. Relax. I really am on your side.

 

What is their foundation for offense? Is it that the name was once negatively used a long time ago? If so, then isn't that their hang up since the majority are not offended and since the name is used only for the football team? Should they have sway over 90% when they are ignoring current, long-standing context in favor of an archaic usage?

 

If you're truly interested in the topic then you should try and talk about the nature of their offense. But the problem there is people usually don;t like their offenses to be challenged and it's a very small minority group so the rest of us tend to walk on egg shells because of it and things can go unchecked as a result and that is a big reason why a vocal minority still has some say in this matter.

 

So you DIDN'T read the part where I said, "I can't vouch for the foundation of their feelings?" Great. We're off to a shaky start.

 

 

But this isn't the 1950s. If the word was being used in an offensive manner still and the majority of Native Americans were truly offended, then the vast majority of team fans would be right there with them supporting a name change. But this isn't the case. The grounds for offense, when looked at, are shaky at best and often times ignore current context, ignore that offensive context is archaic, and some times use incorrect historical data in support.

 

Exactly, Elka. This isn't the 1950s. You're on the right track now.

 

 

I saw you used the blackskins argument earlier, and that example, as thin as it is, it is actually a solid argument for why the team name is NOT offensive because you don;t see anywhere near the opposition to Redskins that you would see with blackskins. But even without that, polling data shows majority are not offended so no, name does not need to be changed. Should it ever swing the other way, most would then support a name change, simple as that.

 

You don't see anywhere near the opposition because you don't see anywhere near the Native American population that once existed here. You won't get the same reaction from 10 people that you'd get from 10 million. Not to mention the fact that "my friend" told me many NAs have given up the crazy idea of cultural respect. They simply choose to ignore this whole mess because they calmly predict the very reaction of denial and bull **** justification you've got yourself all hopped up on. You think the blackskin "argument" is thin? If you don't think "redskin" is as racist as "blackskin" then you MIGHT be a Jeff Foxworthy reference.

 

 

 

 

But hey- having said all that? I really don't want the name changed. I'm just open-minded enough to hope for some compromise.

Edited by Chachie
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm on board. Let's roll with hawgboy's gay German devil thing.

"Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar..." - Sigmund Freud

Anyway, those images are owned by Coop, the artist but a red fleshed demon is the way to go. We still get to keep the name, and then the sanctimonious  have nothing to complain about.... Other than having nothing to remind the world they ever existed at all.

Edited by hawgboy
Link to post
Share on other sites

But hey- having said all that? I really don't want the name changed. I'm just open-minded enough to hope for some compromise.

 

I can't really read your response, the bright green blurs in too much with the white background for me. 

 

From what I could make out, I DID read where you said you didn't know the foundation for their offense, hence I said "you should try."

 

If you really think Redskins is as racist as blackskins then it's only because you refuse to acknowledge the current context of Redskins and its original intent and instead are relying on the archaic negative context of the word to draw a parallel. Yankee was once offensive, guess that means it should be changed too. Context matters, and the context of Redskins is not negative today. To me, it's just as silly as when some people protested the Washington Wizards name because it reminded them of the KKK. Context matters and it clearly was not being used in that context just like Redskins isn't being used in the archaic negative context. 

 

Last I checked, there aren't African American high schools using Blackskins as a team name, but there are various Native American high schools that do use Redskins. So much for Redskins being the same as blackskins and racist. This evidence has been put forth repeatedly in here as well. 

 

When 90% DON'T want a name change, then there should NOT be a compromise. Until empirical, not anecdotal, evidence states otherwise then no compromise should be made to appease a vocal fraction. 1 person in a group of 10 shouldn't be able to force a change, especially not when their basis is on a usage that's been outdated for several decades.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar..." - Sigmund Freud

Anyway, those images are owned by Coop, the artist but a red fleshed demon is the way to go. We still get to keep the name, and then the sanctimonious then have nothing to complain about.... Other than having nothing to remind the world they ever existed at all.

 

I'd support this change if for no other reason than we keep the name and also show the hypocrisy where honoring Native Americans and most not being offended is unacceptable, but demons/devil are accepted.

 

We could even borrow the New Jersey Devils idea and have an R logo again but with devil horns sticking out the top. I'd be all for that change since we keep the name and simply change the symbol and the symbol wouldn't be a lame one.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Jumbo changed the title to The Official ES All Things Redskins Name Change Thread (Reboot Edition---Read New OP)
  • Jumbo locked this topic
  • Jumbo unlocked this topic
  • Jumbo pinned this topic
  • Jumbo featured and unfeatured this topic
  • Jumbo locked and unlocked this topic
  • Jumbo locked and unpinned this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...