SWFLSkins Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 That is true. "Is it wrong for me to love my own? Is it wicked for me because my skin is red? Because I am Sioux? Because I was born where my father lived? Because I would die for my people and my country?" Sitting Bull Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 It is about were the name is derived from, the history of the name, and its original meaning. The war paint influenced the name redskins. That is a fact. not that it matters in terms of the debate as a whole, but just curious- where did you get this from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 I think the important point here is about branding. Now, it's probably less important in sports because of the branding of the league itself, but what would happen to Pepsi if they decided to call it something else. Same recipe, same can or bottle, same serving size? It would lose huge marketshare. Name recognition and branding equals big money. To your point, the question is will people boycott drinking Pepsi over the name. So far, that whisper hasn't happened. With the Sterling mess the sponsors began pulling out because there was real fear about money. To date, no sponsors are fleeing. That makes me think that this smoke is dry ice versus fire. Yep, I said something similar last year (I think it was last year lol)...With so many saying Snyder should change the name and "it's just a sports team", I said what if Coke was forced to change it's name due to an apparent drug reference (along with the fact that the name is indeed rooted in cocaine)...and instead, we called it something like Sloopy Goop. I mean, it's just a soft drink, who cares, right? And you bring up a great point - corporations like Pepsi absolutely understand the significance of branding and brand names. They would never see "Redskins" as nothing more than a racial slur that needed to be corrected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Or if they did and thought it would damage their profits they would bail immediately. There's no loyalty or friendship in business. We may be talking Redskins, but they're thinking greenbacks. The name changes until Kermit gets involved. If it isn't easy being green then Snyder himself will lead the name change charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonArtest15 Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 No matter what side of the fence you fall on with this issue, you're more than likely FIRM in your stance. Not a chance in hell that either side can be swayed one way or another. And that's fine. As I've stated before, I'm all for keeping the name. Unless sponsors start pulling their $ from the Redskins, there is NOTHING that will happen and the name will stay. Case in point, look at how quickly the sponsors pulled out from the Clippers in the DAYS following the Donald Sterling mess. Virgin Airlines, Kia, Carmax, etc. poof...all gone. That alone should show you how far off any name change is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Or if they did and thought it would damage their profits they would bail immediately. There's no loyalty or friendship in business. We may be talking Redskins, but they're thinking greenbacks. The name changes until Kermit gets involved. If it isn't easy being green then Snyder himself will lead the name change charge. Totally agree. The way to get people's attention in sports now a days is money. Until Snyder/NFL start losing money over the Redskins name, I don't think it will change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gatito Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 I think the Skins are going to start to loose money. If I remember correctly the law suit to remove the trademark is still out there. On top of that more and more pressure will be coming from current and prospective sponsors. This issue is no longer local. Synder and his piss pour PR department has allowed it to go national and once it does he cannot win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 I think the Skins are going to start to loose money. If I remember correctly the law suit to remove the trademark is still out there. On top of that more and more pressure will be coming from current and prospective sponsors. This issue is no longer local. Synder and his piss pour PR department has allowed it to go national and once it does he cannot win. That won't make a dent in their revenue. Even if the trademark rights are rescended the Skins still have legal rights to the name "Redskins" that can be enforced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 I'd like to see a name change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 This issue is no longer local. Synder and his piss pour PR department has allowed it to go national and once it does he cannot win. Snyder and his "piss pour" (lol) PR department had no say-so whatsoever on whether or not this story went national...it's been national for 2 decades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Snyder and his "piss pour" (lol) PR department had no say-so whatsoever on whether or not this story went national...it's been national for 2 decades. This is a true statement. Our PR team is pretty terrible though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobby tripod Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 No matter what side of the fence you fall on with this issue, you're more than likely FIRM in your stance. Not a chance in hell that either side can be swayed one way or another. And that's fine. As I've stated before, I'm all for keeping the name. Unless sponsors start pulling their $ from the Redskins, there is NOTHING that will happen and the name will stay. Case in point, look at how quickly the sponsors pulled out from the Clippers in the DAYS following the Donald Sterling mess. Virgin Airlines, Kia, Carmax, etc. poof...all gone. That alone should show you how far off any name change is. Checkmate! Give this man a medal, I'm surprised no one has said this yet. I'm usually on top of the news, but sometimes sponsors jump ship over something before I even hear about it. I've obviously heard about this, but I haven't heard of any sponsors jumping ship. I honestly think this will blow over for a while when football season starts. If it does come up, it will be lost in the many other football stories that will be circulating around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 DC's getting a new lingerie football team and they are calling themselves the Warriorettes. The Legends Football League — the current name for what was once the Lingerie Football League — announced this week there would be an expansion franchise in the D.C. area, beginning with the 2015 season. The team will be called the Washington Warriorettes. The location for its home games, and its head coach, will be announced later. Also, the news release took a shot at the Redskins name. “LFL BEATS WASHINGTON REDSKINS TO NEW NAME,” was the headline. An alternate headline could have been, “Organization whose product involves scantily-clad women playing football finds surefire way to attract mainstream media coverage.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/wp/2014/06/11/d-c-expansion-franchise-in-former-lingerie-football-league-will-not-be-named-the-redskinettes/%C2'> Edit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins island connection Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 I heard about the commercial but didn't bother wasting my time watching non-native americans using native americans for their own personal agenda. But it did cross my mind that the commercial did have the Redskins helmet on there; maybe Snyder and the NFL should sue them for using an NFL product without the expressed written consent of the Washington Redskins and the NFL. Society today flat out sucks; people are so concerned about ANYTHING that they can get attention from, that they will do/say/use whatever they can to achieve their PERSONAL agendas. Kinda like the loonies who protest deforestation, holding up wooden sticks with paper signs attached. Go figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins island connection Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 I honestly think this will blow over for a while when football season starts. If it does come up, it will be lost in the many other football stories that will be circulating around. It will cool down pretty soon, but if the Redskins play lights out football and are a top 5 team, they'll be back, because there's nothing better to them than giving the team a black eye. They just don't give up. Its been openly broadcasted that the vast majority do not find the name Redskins offensive, yet they continue. They just don't know how to mind their own business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 There is part of me that wishes the team would go full out assault and fight this kind of crap. Address lies like "there is one name we dont call ourselves"? REALLY? Then why are there MORE high schools with the name Redskins today then there were a decade ago? Or fight it simply- What the name meant 2 centuries ago is irrelevant. NOBODY uses the term Redskin today as a pejorative. The word means tow things- A type of potato, and a football team. There is NO negative connotation to the word in practical use. None. There arent roving masses of klansmen calling people Redskins. And then I realize, the best thing for Snyder and the Redskins to do is exactly what they are doing. Create positive change in the NA community, and ignore the media frenzy over a word. Take the high ground and later be able to beat Bob Costas and Peter King over the head with the results of the foundations efforts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Checkmate! Give this man a medal, I'm surprised no one has said this yet. I'm usually on top of the news, but sometimes sponsors jump ship over something before I even hear about it. I've obviously heard about this, but I haven't heard of any sponsors jumping ship. I honestly think this will blow over for a while when football season starts. If it does come up, it will be lost in the many other football stories that will be circulating around. I thought the same thing last year, but it did pop up during the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan since a Fetus Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 No matter what side of the fence you fall on with this issue, you're more than likely FIRM in your stance. Not a chance in hell that either side can be swayed one way or another. I kind of disagree with this. I think if the word is as hurtful as claimed and the Indian community as a whole remove all Redskin names from their reservations and cease referring to themselves as red, then people will want Snyder to change the name. That would be a huge sign that the word is as disgraceful as claimed. However, I never see it happening. There is just too much division amongst themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 The Legends Football League — the current name for what was once the Lingerie Football League — announced this week there would be an expansion franchise in the D.C. area, beginning with the 2015 season. The team will be called the Washington Warriorettes. The location for its home games, and its head coach, will be announced later. They should just import the DC Divas from the Women's league. That would be something to see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Champ Bailey chimes in: http://q.usatoday.com/2014/06/11/champ-bailey-controversial-redskins-name-like-n-word/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan since a Fetus Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 not that it matters in terms of the debate as a whole, but just curious- where did you get this from? I've talked to a few people that have pumped this idea up, but no one can back it up with any facts. I think it is something that has spread across the net and some people just regurgitate it. Maybe I am wrong and would like to know for certain that is where our name comes from. I am sure Snyder and Allen would have promoted this if there was truth to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 How long before Eric Cantor becomes one of Snyder's paid minions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blue Joe Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 I belong to Cowboyszone, Philadelphiaeagles.com, BigBlue, and lurch other forums for YEARS. Never once did I ever see a topic about the Redskins name being racist, NOT 1. Now, not only is there a thread but 35-40% of the responses talk about how racist the Redskins name is. Where were all these people 5 years ago? I can tell you where they weren't....on any messageboard nor ANY personal conversation with fans/friends/nonfans. All of a sudden its the most racist name ever in sports....sigh I can't speak for the other forums. But here is link to a thread at BBI talking about the issue five years ago. This discussion isn't anything new. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonez3 Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 No matter what side of the fence you fall on with this issue, you're more than likely FIRM in your stance. Not a chance in hell that either side can be swayed one way or another. And that's fine. As I've stated before, I'm all for keeping the name. Unless sponsors start pulling their $ from the Redskins, there is NOTHING that will happen and the name will stay. Case in point, look at how quickly the sponsors pulled out from the Clippers in the DAYS following the Donald Sterling mess. Virgin Airlines, Kia, Carmax, etc. poof...all gone. That alone should show you how far off any name change is. I don't know about the first part of this. Quite a few on this board are like, meh, change the name and get it over with. I can't fathom that. Especially given the true driving force, and it's not about a racial name. It's about NAs upset over any depiction of their likeness. 'Redskins' is mere lightning rod. Even last nights commercial was from 'remove the mascot' or something. I would NEVER give into changing name over the battle of a larger agenda. I'll say this right now, if our logo was that of Cle Indians on our helmet, I would change logo tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonez3 Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Champ Bailey chimes in: http://q.usatoday.com/2014/06/11/champ-bailey-controversial-redskins-name-like-n-word/ "I don’t know where the name came from or how it came about, but the bottom line is that it’s still here in this day and age, and it makes no sense to have it,” Sounds like his opinion should be weighed in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.