Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

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


Recommended Posts

Just another factoid for the guilt driven name changers and Susan Harjo et al.

 

 

Oklahoma is based on Choctaw Indian words which translate as red people (okla meaning "people" and humma
meaning "red"). Recorded history for the name "Oklahoma" began with
Spanish explorer Coronado in 1541 on his quest for the "Lost City of
Gold." Oklahoma became the 46th state on November 16, 1907

 

 

http://www.statesymbolsusa.org/Oklahoma/Oklahomanameorigin.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just another factoid for the guilt driven name changers and Susan Harjo et al.

 

 

Oklahoma is based on Choctaw Indian words which translate as red people (okla meaning "people" and humma

meaning "red"). Recorded history for the name "Oklahoma" began with

Spanish explorer Coronado in 1541 on his quest for the "Lost City of

Gold." Oklahoma became the 46th state on November 16, 1907

 

 

http://www.statesymbolsusa.org/Oklahoma/Oklahomanameorigin.html

Should we petition the state to change its name?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Additionally, the court has found that...............(Harjo 1 & 2 refer to Susan Harjo the complainant & instigator in all of this.)

 

 

Both
Harjo I
and
Harjo II
require evidence that a
substantial composite of the referenced group
considers the use of the mark in connection with
the relevant goods or services to be disparaging.
Harjo I
at 1747; and
Harjo II
at 1252 (“However,
the ultimate legal inquiry is whether the six
trademarks at issue may disparage Native
Americans when used in connection with Pro-
Football's services .... The ultimate legal
inquiry is not whether the term ‘redskin(s)’ is a
pejorative term for Native Americans.”)
 
The evidence submitted by the examining attorney
does not establish whether a substantial
composite of Native Americans finds applicant's
use of SQUAW in its
marks
on applicant's
identified
goods and services
to be disparaging.
The ultimate legal inquiry here is not whether
Native Americans find “squaw” a pejorative term
for Native American women. Decision at pp. 29-
30. (Emphasis in the original decision.)
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just another factoid for the guilt driven name changers and Susan Harjo et al.

Oklahoma is based on Choctaw Indian words which translate as red people (okla meaning "people" and humma

meaning "red"). Recorded history for the name "Oklahoma" began with

Spanish explorer Coronado in 1541 on his quest for the "Lost City of

Gold." Oklahoma became the 46th state on November 16, 1907

http://www.statesymbolsusa.org/Oklahoma/Oklahomanameorigin.html

That's funny. I went to elementary school in Oklahoma, and I was taught that it was an Indian word (we used the term "Indian", back then), meaning "Land of the Red Man".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Should we petition the state to change its name?

hell yes.

and

  • Alabama - Thicket Clearers
  • Alaska - Great Land
  • Arizona - Silver Slabs
  • Arkansas - Down Stream People
  • Connecticut - Upon The Long River
  • Dakota - Related People
  • Idaho - Sunrise, It Is Morning
  • Illinois - Men Or Great Men
  • Indiana - Land Of The Indians
  • Iowa - Drowsy People
  • Kansas - People Of The South Wind
  • Kentucky - Hunting Ground
  • Massachusetts - Great Hill
  • Michigan - Great Water
  • Minnesota - Sky Tinted Water
  • Mississippi - Father Of Water
  • Missouri - Long Canoe People
  • Nebraska - Flat Water
  • New Mexico - Aztec God Mexitili
  • Ohio - Beautiful Valley
  • Oklahoma - Land Of The Red Man
  • Oregon - Beautiful Water
  • Tennessee - From Chief Tannassie
  • Texas - Tejas Or Allies
  • Utah Those - Who Dwell High Up
  • Wisconsin - Where Waters Gather
  • Wyoming - Great Plain

 

What's more offensive?

A team named with a word no one uses as a slur, or lands stolen and then named for those who have been dispossessed?

It's one thing to call "Wyoming" a great plain, but when you call a place something "People of the South Wind" after you grind said people into the dirt, isn't that just a tad offensive?

 

I mean, come on White Guilt Trippers. This is just lazy. 

 

~Bang

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Additionally, the court has found that...............(Harjo 1 & 2 refer to Susan Harjo the complainant & instigator in all of this.)

Both

Harjo I

and

Harjo II

require evidence that a

substantial composite of the referenced group

considers the use of the mark in connection with

the relevant goods or services to be disparaging.

Harjo I

at 1747; and

Harjo II

at 1252 (“However,

the ultimate legal inquiry is whether the six

trademarks at issue may disparage Native

Americans when used in connection with Pro-

Football's services .... The ultimate legal

inquiry is not whether the term ‘redskin(s)’ is a

pejorative term for Native Americans.”)

The evidence submitted by the examining attorney

does not establish whether a substantial

composite of Native Americans finds applicant's

use of SQUAW in its

marks

on applicant's

identified

goods and services

to be disparaging.

The ultimate legal inquiry here is not whether

Native Americans find “squaw” a pejorative term

for Native American women. Decision at pp. 29-

30. (Emphasis in the original decision.)

Aredskin, where is this from? and can anyone smarter than me tell me what it's actually saying?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aredskin, where is this from? and can anyone smarter than me tell me what it's actually saying?

 

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/foia/ttab/2aissues/2006/76511144re.pdf

 

 

IMO it means that the complaining party must prove that a cross section of NA's abject to the term "REDSKIN(s)" and that the context in which it is currently being used can be construed as offensive- ie a  slur, derogatory, perjorative manner. etc.  IMO neither can be proven today.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate political correctness!  But for those who are making an issue of the team name where is their outrage for the name of the nation’s capital???   It is named after a slave owner, as is his monument and the Jefferson Memorial so why is the DC council not (yet) up in arms over that????



 

Edited by isle-hawg
Link to post
Share on other sites

ARGHHHHH!!!!! Why don't these jerks get over it?! The Redskins have been the teams name for close to a century. Just get over it and use some of their time and money to solve some real problems.

A lot of people had the same attitude toward civil rights activists in the 1950-60s.

This naming topic is in no way comparable to civil rights movements.  There is no hatred involved.  I've never heard the term used in a negative manner and neither have you.  There are no violation of rights unless you are taking away a private companies rights in which it seems to be the case.  How more people are offended today (still a low %) than 50 years ago is amazing.  THe older Native Americans are less offended than the younger probably because they are closer to the culture and understand the history and meaning...

Link to post
Share on other sites

    This is from the Ives Goddard article...

The word redskin reflects a genuine Native American idiom that was used in several languages, where it grew out of an earlier established and more widespread use of “red” and “white” as racial labels. This terminology was developed by Native Americans to label categories of the new ethnic and political reality they confronted with the coming of the Europeans.

When Black Thunder wanted to refer inclusively to all the assembled tribes and to both the Americans and the French, he said “red skins and white skins.”

So as we can see way back in the day the word redskin was never meant to be a derogatory word. It had a self-explanatory meaning once the Europeans arrived and it seem like the Native Americans called themselves red skins to differentiate themselves from the new pale-skinned Europeans. Now its the 21st century and I highly doubt Native Americans would like to be referred to as "red skins" and Caucasians would not like to be called "white skins" I don't think the term redskin is up there with the n-word, but I'll put it in the same category of calling African Americans "colored people" hence the word red skin being a offensive word in 2013.

As noted in an above article, a retired Chief of a Virginia Tribe noted that John Smith wrote in his diary the infants born in tribes were as white as the settlers and the CHief also noted that the use of a big repellant using animal fat and a plant dye would darken skin red over time... He also pointed out that the term was coined by Native Americans themselves to distinguish themselves....

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Spearfeather

http://www.livingstondaily.com/usatoday/article/2412809&usatref=sportsmod

 

Goodell defends Redskins name in letter to Congress

 

Goodell said in his letter that the team's name "from its origin represented a positive meaning distinct from any disparagement that could be viewed in some other context" and was never "meant to denigrate Native Americans or offend any group."

 

 

Goodell's letter said, "As you correctly recognize, the issues raised with respect to the Washington Redskins name are complex, and we respect that reasonable people may view it differently, particularly over time. The National Football League takes seriously its responsibility to exemplify the values of diversity and inclusion that make our country great."

Edited by Spearfeather
Link to post
Share on other sites

like i wrote in the RTT, the term american indian is more racist than redskin.   We imposed the word american on them. They are natives of this land that we so called indians.    We also imposed the term indian on them.  They are not even close to being indians.  But yet we call them american indians all the time.  We should call them by their tribe names.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not 1st concentrate on changing the name of the Nation’s Capital?  It is named after a slave owner - does the DC council and congressman that have nothing better to do than bash the team name and logo endorse slavery?  Obviously they must right - or this would be an issue for them????

 

Yes, I know that is a ridiculous statement to make but no more so to me, then for these jerks to state the Redskins name or logo is offensive to Native Americans as the polls show that 90% or more of them do not find the team name or logo objectionable - many are huge fans of the team and name/logo.

 

And as for the argument that Redskins is the same as the N word, this is BS.  Nobody uses the word like that.  If someone were to call a Native American by that name everyone would think they are nuts!  For those that say – that proves it, nobody would walk up to a Native American and refer to them as a Brave either. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

they had a segment on around the horn on this and just like last time they all pile on the bandwagon to say its racist.

 

I really wish they would discuss the facts instead of just pushing there agenda everytime.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

they had a segment on around the horn on this and just like last time they all pile on the bandwagon to say its racist.

I really wish they would discuss the facts instead of just pushing there agenda everytime.

Yeah just watched this on ESPNews. Then PTI came on next and went over it as well. Holy **** that was maddening. I'm officially boycotting. all things ESPN that aren't live sports events (where I have no choice) and the great docs (30 for 30) that are created by outside parties. I mean I couldn't tell you the last time I watched something outside those two categories before right now, but I'm going to be more conscious and attentive with my disdain.

Sidenote: Kornheiser is nothing more than Wilbon's **** on this topic.

Edited by G.A.C.O.L.B.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never heard anyone call me a Redskin. A Redskins fan...all the time... I wear it proudly.  

 

It's such a dramatic, bs argument, that I try my best not to respond to these anymore.

 

GAC, ESPN has sucked for years. I only watch the live events.

 

Korny...is well... a corny old guy at this point. A joke of the reporter he used to be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave Zirin just wrote this article on Grantland:

 

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/9376010/rename-washington-redskins

 

It is pretty sensationalized, but aside from that, in seemingly direct opposition to everyone here, I am actually ready for a name change. I have been a Skins fan my whole life, but I would rather not have ANY reason to feel conflicted about supporting this team. The one good point that the article makes is that when we make the Super Bowl, there will be a LOT of talk about the name change (because they touch on every single subject during that time).

 

Do I really want to spend a ton of energy supporting an offensive name (and no arguing that it isn't offensive - there are people who take offense to it, therefore it is offensive at least to certain people)? No - I would rather focus on what matters - the game, the team, and the players.

 

To me, this is an easy one. I get the other side of the argument, that it is WORTH fighting for due to the tradition. And that no other name would be good enough. But honestly, I will grow to love a new name and subscribe to the new tradition. The name change topic is something I am on the fence about and that is why I say change it, because I don't want to be on the fence with this team. I want to be all in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave Zirin just wrote this article on Grantland:

 

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/9376010/rename-washington-redskins

 

It is pretty sensationalized, but aside from that, in seemingly direct opposition to everyone here, I am actually ready for a name change. I have been a Skins fan my whole life, but I would rather not have ANY reason to feel conflicted about supporting this team. The one good point that the article makes is that when we make the Super Bowl, there will be a LOT of talk about the name change (because they touch on every single subject during that time).

 

Do I really want to spend a ton of energy supporting an offensive name (and no arguing that it isn't offensive - there are people who take offense to it, therefore it is offensive at least to certain people)? No - I would rather focus on what matters - the game, the team, and the players.

 

To me, this is an easy one. I get the other side of the argument, that it is WORTH fighting for due to the tradition. And that no other name would be good enough. But honestly, I will grow to love a new name and subscribe to the new tradition. The name change topic is something I am on the fence about and that is why I say change it, because I don't want to be on the fence with this team. I want to be all in.

This bothers me to a point that I can't even describe.  If you plan on opening up this can of worms then rest assured more and more will come along with it.  You do realize if we start banning things that offend people there's not going to be much left when we're done...

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave Zirin just wrote this article on Grantland:

 

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/9376010/rename-washington-redskins

 

that was the absolute worst, least factual, as you said, 'sensationalized' article on the redskins name i've read yet. worse, actually, than feinsteins agenda driven rants. 

 

the name changers arguments are bulit on lies and misinformation, so its not surprising. 

 

but, hey, if it makes you personally feel better to change the name to appease those people, have at it. just know the facts arent on your side. 

Edited by grego
Link to post
Share on other sites

The willfully ignorant rule the world.

 

It's a damn shame.

 

I've only got my own lifetime's experience to go on, but I ask...  has truth EVER mattered?

 

~Bang

Edited by Bang
Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don't see how any true blue Redskins fan could give up the fight to keep the name.  I mean, I'm not calling anyone's fanhood into question, but I just don't see how some can just cave in to this.  We have the facts on our side.  We have the polls on our side.  I've known this team as the Redskins for almost 40 years.  The Bullets change to Wizards pissed me off, but this would devastate me. 

 

Yeah, yeah, someone will come in and say to me, the nickname doesn't matter, it's the team/city/blah-blah, but I say bull****.  The nickname is part of the identity of the team.  Just say to someone, how do you think Washington will do this year and you are likely to get a questioned look on their face like, which Washington- DC, which sport or Washington Huskies?

 

Warriors is even more lame than the damn Wizards.  I recently donated everything Wizards that I had and kept everything Bullets that I have (2 jerseys, a pennant and various nicknacks).

 

But hey, what do I know, I'm just a fan and it would break my heart if they had to change the name, but that's just me. I don't know that I'll be physically able to do anything about "fighting" for the name, but I won't cave in to misinformed, misguided, white guilt, PC do-gooders.  If it means I'm racist because I still support the name, so be it.  That's something I'm willing to live with.

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

I agree pjfootballer with everything you said, but especially the first sentence.  People have said on here that it is like family, they do something wrong, you still support them.  It is not family.  You can opt to change your football team if it offends you, you cannot change your brother.

 

I do not support anything I find offensive.  If it offended me that much, I would go to college and be a Fighting Irish fan, because that is much better.   

 

I will never buy anything that says Warriors on it.  That is a horrible name.

 

When you hear Redskins, the only thing you think about is the team.  I may be up for going back to the scripted R on the helmet, but that is it.

 

You can't allow the minority to rule.  My wife is a vegetarian, maybe she would like bacon and steak to be banned.  I should approach her on the subject and see if I get a story from it.  She will change my mind, because I am weak and I will support her.  Next I will find the 15% of vegetarians/vegans out there and we will sue the meat industry because it offends us.

 

Together we will make meat eating illegal.  But, first, I have to go eat a hamburger.   

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...