Larry Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 Am I the only one who thinks Olbermann gave the team a better argument for keeping the name? I don't recall hearing a new argument on this subject, in, like, three years. Please, share it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarkin09 Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 If the argument that the Redskins name is a slur, and the team has been taking to court before on this basis. Maybe drop the whole “we named it to honor…” argument and go back to the roots of the team. It was named (such as Olbermann suggest) to cut down on confusion between the football team and the baseball Braves. This could (not a lawyer so could be wrong, too) give the team the ability to drop the logo, but keep everything else. Now, they are no longer affiliated with Native Americans, but, instead, the Boston Red Sox, as the name was (again going off Olbermann here) always intended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 You know something that I am starting to find really funny is the "what's the big deal change the name" crowd. "It's just the name of a Football team its not that important" Well if it is not a big deal or not that important why do you care so much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forehead Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 I vote for the Washington Red Vipers. Well that would be appropriate, considering how many times I've thought this team was on the right track over the last 20 years only to get face smashed by reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 How about the Red Fellas? That sounds friendly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsluggo Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 Well that would be appropriate, considering how many times I've thought this team was on the right track over the last 20 years only to get face smashed by reality. the Washington Blue Balls? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grhqofb5 Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 Has there been another poll released recently (i.e. within the past year) polling native American opinions on this issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsFan44 Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 Let me ask this, do we have AA reservations? No, clearly we don't. Why would we have schools named for the color if their skin. AA's are in integrated schools. I'd guess many NA's are but, many are in school on reservations. Took me less than a minute to find this, I would guess there are many more: "Fredrick Douglass high school, as of 2007, had 1,151 students, of which 52% were female. African American students made up 99% of the total student population with 53% qualifying for free lunch." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Douglass_High_School_%28Baltimore,_Maryland%29 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZRagone Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 I keep reading over and over that redskin and the N word are not the same, I beg to differ. 1. BOTH words are literally about the color of a person's skin. Redskin is obvious. The N word came from translations literally meaning "black". 2. BOTH words are used negatively and positively. In the case of the N word, we clearly know the negative use, but the positive use is more of a recent thing (used in rap, used among friends). Redskins is used positively as some NA's self associate with each other (as has been posted here) but also, it is used as a slur to demean NA's. Again, obviously, the N word's negative use is MUCH MORE documented and known compared to the word redskin. I'd follow that by saying, most of us, living where we do have a lot LESS contact with NA's on a regular basis compared with AA's. A couple of issues here... First, saying that something is "the same" and something is "similar" are two entirely different things that you seem to be conflating. Second, leaving out CONTEXT of how people are saying that they "are not the same" is dishonest and leaves important aspects of the argument out of the analysis. As it relates to the first... It would be accurate to say they are "the same" in that the word refers to the color of someone's skin. It would be INACCURATE to say "They are the same" in a general sense however. Why? Because if there are any difference between them they can't be "the same" in a broad sense. For instance, the N word did not come into creation by black people as a means of referencing themselves. Going off your logic, "Redneck" and the N-word is "the same" because they both are literally speaking to the the color of a persons skin. Which, naturally, everyone would laugh at...and rightly so...because there are a long list of things that are very different regarding those two slurs that makes declaring them "the same" laughable. As it relates to the second, leaving out context is bad here as well. They're not "the same" as it relates to their history and how it relates to the naming of a team and how the public would react. For instance, since you declare them "the same"...then show me a school at any grade level that is predominantly black that holds the N word as it's name? As it relates to both, I would anxiously wait to see a poll that would suggest that IF such a sports team existed with the N-word as it's name that 90% of blacks would not feel it needs to be changed. Somehow I am doubtful such a result would happen. If they're "the same" then clearly society would have, at least in SOME location in this country over the past 50 years, done "the same" thing between the two. What's funny is you try to claim "they're the same" (and give no qualifications, thus indicating the notion in a broad sense) and yet by the end of your post you're contradicting yourself by highlighting they're very different in terms of their prevelance within society. No, a team using the N-Word as a name would not be "the same" as The Redskins, unless one dishonestly ignores mountains of difference historically and socially regarding both words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 Because noticing people's color historically has never led to really unpleasant situations. Well maybe we ought to grow up, then? It's friggin' stupid. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZRagone Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 "It needs to be changed because it can be used as a slur, and no slur should ever be the name of a team" ---- Oh really? So are you complaining about the Yankee's as well, or is your argument actually hollow? "It needs to be changed because it's offensive to native americans" ----- Oh really? Because I have an actual poll indicating that 90% of native americans don't feel it's offensive to the point where it needs a name change. Oh, you want to whine about the date of the poll? No problem, provide me with something more recent...otherwise date or not, mine's the actual fact while your's is basically based off your well wishes. What, 10% is enough? So you're saying 10% of any population deciding something offends them means it's offensive universally? Great to know! "It needs to be changed because it's offensive in general" ---- Oh really? So basically we need a bunch of guilty bleeding heart white people deciding they want to be offended for native americans, who by and large aren't offended, and declare they know better. Yeah, it always works so well when white people do things "for the native americans" because they know so much better :roll: "It needs to be changed because people will keep ****ing about it" ---- Oh really? So being obnoxious, regardless of the legitimacy, is the reason to give in to peoples demands? The answer to people ****ing incessently isn't to change the name, it's to stop responding to them and ignore them. The team absolutely does need to change. However that change that's needed isn't the name, it's the bungling PR methods when it comes to the name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 i don't see why it's so wrong to notice someone's color anyway. it's only color. it means nothing about the person except what color their skin is. On the scale of things that matter, we put it at the top.. but in truth... it's only ****ing COLOR. It is absolutely no different than saying someone is blonde or redhead. And everyone' deathly afraid of it. We put importance on the most trivial things. ~Bang I actually don't call white people white. I quote from Cry Freedom, The movie where Denzel plays Steve Biko...anyway. It's a courtroom scene when he is asked why do you call yourself black, you're more brown than black ? His response, "Why do you call yourself white, you're more pink than white" ? Either that or I call whites ...light skinned, and depending on the color of person I can figure out what to call them. People are offended by the most absurd things these days and it's sad. I call one of my buddies Jeffrey ( as in Dahmer ) for christ sakes, he gets it. When he wears his glasses he kinda looks like a young Dahmer. We laugh and keep it real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 May not be today, but give it time. I teach HS kids and we are losing the battle to get them to stop using the word. It's everywhere in hip hop. Let me ask this, do we have AA reservations? No, clearly we don't. Why would we have schools named for the color if their skin. AA's are in integrated schools. I'd guess many NA's are but, many are in school on reservations. Again: we don't have AA only schools Give it time...there ya go...over time the negative conotations of a word lose their impact because the useage of the word by the community changes. This is the same thing with Redskins and why it is absurd to argue that because one group finds it objectionable then all must forfeit the word. We do have schools where the VAST majority of the students are African American, the same way that Red Mesa is vastly (but not completely) Native American, and yet in those AA schools we still have nothing that is even remotely close to a mascot being renamed to the N-word. 100 years from now? Who knows, which simply proves the point. This is also the reason that going back to the entemology of words is often so uttely useless, because the entemology of a word does NOT dictate in any way its contemporary usage. We run into this all the time when translating Greek and Hebrew, junior scholars all the time want to focus on entemology but in doing so they ignore that the word's meaning changes over time and may have zero relationship to the historical birth of the word. Much like Redskins today. Has there been another poll released recently (i.e. within the past year) polling native American opinions on this issue? No, and as many have remarked throughout this thread one would think that the party that wants the name changed would have produced one if the numbers favored their side. Yet....silence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 So this is actually really interesting... The great name change debate of 1972. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/wp/2014/06/03/the-great-redskins-name-debate-of-1972/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soup's Uncle Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 Florio posted his usual condescending anti name article of the day. Now he's not even saying "Redskins". http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/06/03/bruce-allen-declares-victory-in-twitter-debacle/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan since a Fetus Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 Florio posted his usual condescending anti name article of the day. Now he's not even saying "Redskins". http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/06/03/bruce-allen-declares-victory-in-twitter-debacle/ Well don't use his name either. Instead use: The PFT Resident Douchebag released a new article today stating: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebluefood Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 ....dude. I was using one example. I'm black. I listen to hip hop daily. I say the word daily. The N word is not some huge gigantic deal to my generation ( whether that is wrong or not is for another discussion). It's word we use and yes, we know the history of it. Yes, we know that there is a time and a place for it and no, that isn't to name a damn sports team. What you said was asinine. That's my point. This. So much this. There are very few circumstances where I use that word, and I sure as hell wouldn't want to see it used as a nickname for a sports team on any level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo#44 Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 Florio posted his usual condescending anti name article of the day. Now he's not even saying "Redskins". http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/06/03/bruce-allen-declares-victory-in-twitter-debacle/ As soon as Florio or his ilk set foot on a reservation, like Allen, Snyder and even Bethard did, let me know. Otherwise its just rhetoric. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 So this is actually really interesting... The great name change debate of 1972. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/wp/2014/06/03/the-great-redskins-name-debate-of-1972/ This really jumped out at me, because I did not know this. I always assumed the "swamp 'em, scalp 'em" stuff left when it became "DC" instead of "Dixie." I did not know they changed the lyrics twice. “Redskins Keep Names, Will Change Lyrics,” by George Solomon, Washington Post, July 1972 The American Indian groups attempting to persuade Washington’s pro football team to change its nickname because they believe it “racially demeaning” have achieved a small victory. The lyrics to the fight song “Hail to the Redskins” will be changed. Indian representatives, however, were in no mood to celebrate yesterday after Redskins’ President Edward Bennett Williams, admitting misjudgments in the fight song, said the Washington Redskins will continue to be known as the Washington Redskins. At least they’ll be the Redskins in 1972, or until somebody can convince Williams it should be otherwise. “All the reaction I’ve received on the nickname question has been unsympathetic to the protesting Indian groups,” Williams said yesterday. “We would not carry a symbol offensive to any group. No one has persuaded me that the Redskins, as a symbol of our football team, is offensive.” “Had I been persuaded,” Williams added, “we would have taken action accordingly.” Williams stressed that he doesn’t have a “closed mind” on the subject. Last March, Williams met with Indian representatives in his office to hear their charges that the nickname Redskins was insulting, as were the baton-twirling Redskinettes and other accompanying Indian depictions. “They had some good points to make against the lyrics of our fight song,” Williams said. “The swamp ‘ems, scalp ‘ems and heap ‘ems is a mocking of dialect. We won’t use those lyrics anymore.”… “The change of song lyrics is tokenism on Williams’ part,” said Laura Wittstock of the Indian Legal Information Development Services. “I don’t think he’d react favorably to our desires if 10,000 Indians wrote him. He’s unwilling simply because too much of a commercial loss would be involved.”… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 It sounded like Edward Williams heard many of the same concerns and opinions that we're hearing today, and like today it became apparent that there is no consensus among the Native American community, despite how it's usually portrayed by lazy or agenda-driven journalists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 It sounded like Edward Williams heard many of the same concerns and opinions that we're hearing today, and like today it became apparent that there is no consensus among the Native American community, despite how it's usually portrayed by lazy or agenda-driven journalists. He also had a little bit more to trade. He gave up the Injun costumes for the Redskinettes and changed the fight song lyrics. Danny doesn't have a lot left. By the way, am I the only one who finds it ironic that Chief Zee's picture is at the top of every page of this endless thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFKFedEx Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 He also had a little bit more to trade. He gave up the Injun costumes for the Redskinettes and changed the fight song lyrics. Danny doesn't have a lot left. Now that the band's headdresses were quietly retired in recent years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan since a Fetus Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 So this is actually really interesting... The great name change debate of 1972. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/wp/2014/06/03/the-great-redskins-name-debate-of-1972/ Maybe I am over blowing this part: Interesting article, but when he writes this: 'that nags at me a little,' that bothers me. He is referencing to people who ask 'After 80 years, why is the name just now becoming a problem?' He says he got the articles from the NA filing, but doesn't state when. He also says he has been covering this extensively for the past 18 months. O.K. His statement 'that nags at me a little' implies, to me, that he has known about the history for quite a while. I guess I am just curious when he found out this information. Did he finally become so bothered by this question this past weekend, that he decided to give everyone the history lesson that they should obviously know? There are a ton of fans who weren't around in 1972, or were too young to know what was going on. Not all Redskins fans are 50+ years old and I guarantee most don't know anything about the history of the team. Also, prior to the 2000's this kind of information wasn't as accessible as it is today. So, it is entirely possible that people think this is a new debate. I was born in 1978, but my aunt worked under JKC for years and even worked with his estate after he died. So, I have known about the debate for quite a while, plus some other various stories. That is the only reason I know about it. But, not everyone has that kind of access. I guess the tone of this part of the article bothers me. Now on to something different: Why do so many people think the NA on the side of our helmet is disrespectful? I see this written quite a bit. A politician last week called it something along the lines of 'an embarrassing caricature.' Forget the exact words. The first article that Steinberg posts equates our emblem to a fictional team called the Kikes with a cash register on their helmets and the Darkies having Aunt Jemima shuffling to mowtown. How does our emblem equate to a stereotype? I can honestly see how people are offended by the nickname Redskins. It just doesn't matter to me as long as they still use this term on their reservations for schools, hotels and when people like Harjo used to run Red Radio. But, I cannot fathom how anybody could hate on our emblem. If it was a proud white guy on the side of the helmet, I would be fine with it. Also, found this a bit amusing: “the derogatory racial epithet “Redskins” be banished from the Washington sports scene were LaDonna Harris, wife of Sen. Fred Harris (D-Okla.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearfeather Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 Now that the band's headdresses were quietly retired in recent years. Right, and the new uniforms have Redskins stitched on the sleeves, where the old ones didn't. ( 2003 ) The District Court, in making its determinations, reviewed the record before the lower court — which had included hundreds of pages of expert reports, public opinion polls, testimony from professional linguists, and a myriad of other reputable and scientific sources – before making its decision. In addition to dismissing the case, it pointed out that the NFL franchise had “used Native American imagery in a respectful manner.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsluggo Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 anybody else here remember going to RFK in the late 70s/early 80s? i have a vague memory of an old indian dude that would quietly sit next to some placards that very quietly and respectably asked for the name to be changed (in my mind's eye, i see the indian standing next to the highway in the anti-pollution ads from that same time period...but that might just be wires crossing in my head ) he was always stationed on East Capitol Street, near the armory. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7OHG7tHrNM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.