Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

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


Recommended Posts

Once the name changes, teams like the Braves, Indians, Chiefs and Blackhawks will have a few years before the same happens to them. Doesn't matter if they are "less" offensive. The argument will be using a people who were raped and pillaged here as a mascot being unacceptable. Then it will go back to the college ranks where the teams who have deals with tribes will come under attack from other NA's who say it doesn't matter, that they are offended as well.

 

We'll see a time where there are no teams called the Redskins or Seminoles or Utes. What I'm curious about now is what happens with the High Schools on reservations. Will they keep the names?

 

I  don't disagree with that but the Seminoles name change will be a dog fight, that group of people endorses the name and use but if you say that is what you believe (No Native American Indian mascots or team names) then it opens to all teams and all sports and most people who support the Redskins name change don't want to admit that is the logical outcome.

 

I have a serious problem why people in this country have to make the Redskins the head of the snake in this debate. Ultimately anyone who is saying that a team like the Blackhawks 

 

Chicago_Blackhawks.jpg

 

 

Need not worry I think is fooling themselves here

Link to post
Share on other sites

Grego, I believe you. No issues.

I will repeat, my view is based on my experiences. Not the media. Not the people making the commercials or anything else. I think times are different today and the name is inappropriate because I don't think any team would be named after the color of people's skin.

I'm losing any sleep over the issue. I'm not NA. I'm not offended. But I can understand why they would be. I'm not going to research why they shouldn't be offended.

It's that simple for me. The other stuff is just sleight of hand.

 

 

 

Well put.   

 

So when does the world decide that its time to change something and when it's not? I know it's been said before but personally being a man who grew up in PG County who now lives in Dallas-Fort Worth I have learned to hate the word Yankee. I am a white 40 something year old man who served his country in the US Navy who now works at a high profile company. I am well respected but when someone down here wants to offend me they call me a Yankee. It's a slang term to me and it's rude and offensive, they don't say it jokingly they say it the same way someone wants to offend a Native American by calling him a Redskin. Why is Redskin such a buzz word and a term like Yankee not even talked about. Furthermore why would the effort to get rid of Chief Wahoo which has been going on for over 30 years go ignored when that is extremely offensive to people? I do not understand why the Redskins name is such a magnet and other things aren't getting any attention

 

 

I think that the difference with Yankees is that the team is a northern team that chose to take the name.  If a team owned by Native Americans wants to call itself the Redskins, fine.  

 

And don't try to change the subject to Chief Wahoo.  He is offensive as hell.   And that is why Cleveland is quietly abandoning him.  You don't see him anywhere anymore.  They are using a big "C" for their logo now.   And what's more, most Indian fans don't seem bitter about it.   They understand getting ahead of a problem before it focuses on them.  

 

Of course as LKB found, there are always a few people on message boards who will dig in, but that's a given. 

Edited by Predicto
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

By the way, do we all agree that Chief Wahoo is offensive?

 

I think we all agree on that.

 

Because Indian fans DO NOT agree with that. At all.

 

This thread is about a false report that the Indians killed the Chief Wahoo logo.

 

http://www.forums.mlb.com/discussions/Cleveland_Indians/General/Chief_Wahoo_Officially_OUT__BOYCOTT_THE_BLOCK_C/ml-indians/53420.1?redirCnt=1&nav=messages

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interesting, every thing I've seen on that debate and heard people say is quite the opposite

 

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2012/04/native_americans_to_mark_cleve.html

 

they have been protesting that for 20 years, unless I am misunderstanding you in which case I apologize.

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- For the 20th year in a row, Native Americans and supporters will protest the use of the Cleveland Indians team name and the club's Chief Wahoo logo at early season home baseball games.
Edited by hankersonfan
Link to post
Share on other sites

I  don't disagree with that but the Seminoles name change will be a dog fight, that group of people endorses the name and use but if you say that is what you believe (No Native American Indian mascots or team names) then it opens to all teams and all sports and most people who support the Redskins name change don't want to admit that is the logical outcome.

 

I have a serious problem why people in this country have to make the Redskins the head of the snake in this debate. Ultimately anyone who is saying that a team like the Blackhawks 

 

Chicago_Blackhawks.jpg

 

 

Need not worry I think is fooling themselves here

 

Aren't there various Seminole tribes? Are they all on-board with whatever deal is happening with FSU? My point is that this will be used as the dam breaking. Once it stops, what are these people doing to do with their lives? Just end it there? Or move on to the next team?

Edited by @SkinsGoldPants
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And don't try to change the subject to Chief Wahoo.  He is offensive as hell.   And that is why Cleveland is quietly abandoning him.  You don't see him anywhere anymore.  They are using a big "C" for their logo now.   And what's more, most Indian fans don't seem bitter about it.   They understand getting ahead of a problem before it focuses on them.  

 

Of course as LKB found, there are always a few people on message boards who will dig in, but that's a given. 

 

Are you sure that it's just a few people on message boards?

 

If a Cleveland fan came to this messge board, wouldn't they see the same ten names posting over and over again in this thread and say, "Pffff. Redskins fans are ready for the change. It's a small minority."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well put.   

 

 

 

I think that the difference with Yankees is that the team is a northern team that chose to take the name.  If a team owned by Native Americans wants to call itself the Redskins, fine.  

 

And don't try to change the subject to Chief Wahoo.  He is offensive as hell.   And that is why Cleveland is quietly abandoning him.  You don't see him anywhere anymore.  They are using a big "C" for their logo now.   And what's more, most Indian fans don't seem bitter about it.   They understand getting ahead of a problem before it focuses on them.  

 

Of course as LKB found, there are always a few people on message boards who will dig in, but that's a given. 

 

 

God, DC is lagging behind Cleveland.

 

Day of shame.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

By the way, do we all agree that Chief Wahoo is offensive?

 

I think we all agree on that.

 

Because Indian fans DO NOT agree with that. At all.

 

This thread is about a false report that the Indians killed the Chief Wahoo logo.

 

http://www.forums.mlb.com/discussions/Cleveland_Indians/General/Chief_Wahoo_Officially_OUT__BOYCOTT_THE_BLOCK_C/ml-indians/53420.1?redirCnt=1&nav=messages

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For some reason when you mentioned Chief Wahoo, I flashed back to my youth and thought of Chief Wahoo McDaniel, the wrestler:

 

Wahoo_McDaniel.jpg

 

Here is is against Ric Flair:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I think I'm pretty dead on.  

 

Show me the case.

 

You're pretty "dead on" about the intent of his article? The guy said this directly in his piece: "Although the main topic I want to discuss is a linguistic one..."

 

Even more direct: "I think that it is well established that redskin is taken by most people today to be disparaging. What is more interesting is whether it has always been so, as Harjo et al., as well as various others, claim."

 

The trademark cases and issues were most definitely secondary, not primary purpose of his piece.

 

He brought it up, though, because much like you seem to have done, you assumed that the cases were won and lost on merely proving "Redskin" is disparaging:

 

To a large extent the decisions of the courts have focussed on the "technicality" of laches, not on the question of whether redskin is disparaging.

 

And the article actually links to many other articles talking about the overturning of the original trademark victory for Harjo, even by some who acted as expert witnesses FOR Harjo's side. Go back and click on them...because it almost seems as if you doubt that was the case.

Edited by Califan007
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, every thing I've seen on that debate and heard people say is quite the opposite

 

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2012/04/native_americans_to_mark_cleve.html

 

they have been protesting that for 20 years, unless I am misunderstanding you in which case I apologize.

 

Well, if you only looked at UnWise Mike, Deadspin, and The Sports Bogs comments, you would think that the vast majority of people support a name change for the Redskins too. Come here, and it's the exact opposite.

 

People like their teams and don't want to see stuff changed.

What I find fascinating in that Chief Wahoo thread is the fact that arguments are EXACTLY THE SAME.

 

1. Point of pride. We would never name our team after something we hate.

2. PC run amok.

3. The team was named after a Native American.

4. The intent is not to offend.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well put.   

 

 

 

I think that the difference with Yankees is that the team is a northern team that chose to take the name.  If a team owned by Native Americans wants to call itself the Redskins, fine.  

 

And don't try to change the subject to Chief Wahoo.  He is offensive as hell.   And that is why Cleveland is quietly abandoning him.  You don't see him anywhere anymore.  They are using a big "C" for their logo now.   And what's more, most Indian fans don't seem bitter about it.   They understand getting ahead of a problem before it focuses on them.  

 

Of course as LKB found, there are always a few people on message boards who will dig in, but that's a given. 

 

Bolded - So if I wont the lottery and wanted to start a professional team called the "Crackers" or the "Honky's" or something racist  then that's ok because I am a white man? Or if Jeremy Lyn wanted to own a team and call them the Gooks, the yellow skins, or slant eyes that is ok too because he is Asian? I hope you get my point.

 

As for changing the argument I'm sorry but that is the defense the team and PR people should have made from the beginning here and will eventually get to. The side that wants to change the name wants to ignore these types of questions and ones like it because it will open the discussion to what it should have been all along, if you want to force a change then where does it start and when does it end? The Redskins name change while I think it does happen shouldn't actually happen because the Redskins are the head of the snake here and the PC correctives will not stop when that changes. If every sports fan out there understood that this issue would not have the traction it does now. It's all related. You shouldn't try and silence conversations like this. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So when does the world decide that its time to change something and when it's not? I know it's been said before but personally being a man who grew up in PG County who now lives in Dallas-Fort Worth I have learned to hate the word Yankee. I am a white 40 something year old man who served his country in the US Navy who now works at a high profile company. I am well respected but when someone down here wants to offend me they call me a Yankee. It's a slang term to me and it's rude and offensive, they don't say it jokingly they say it the same way someone wants to offend a Native American by calling him a Redskin. Why is Redskin such a buzz word and a term like Yankee not even talked about. Furthermore why would the effort to get rid of Chief Wahoo which has been going on for over 30 years go ignored when that is extremely offensive to people? I do not understand why the Redskins name is such a magnet and other things aren't getting any attention

I agree with your point 100%

I guess it's because of the minority/history issue.

NA's had their land taken, we slaughtered, treated terribly etc...

Bolded - So if I wont the lottery and wanted to start a professional team called the "Crackers" or the "Honky's" or something racist then that's ok because I am a white man? Or if Jeremy Lyn wanted to own a team and call them the Gooks, the yellow skins, or slant eyes that is ok too because he is Asian? I hope you get my point.

As for changing the argument I'm sorry but that is the defense the team and PR people should have made from the beginning here and will eventually get to. The side that wants to change the name wants to ignore these types of questions and ones like it because it will open the discussion to what it should have been all along, if you want to force a change then where does it start and when does it end? The Redskins name change while I think it does happen shouldn't actually happen because the Redskins are the head of the snake here and the PC correctives will not stop when that changes. If every sports fan out there understood that this issue would not have the traction it does now. It's all related. You shouldn't try and silence conversations like this.

Watch out, Larry's going to point out that you can't argue about imaginary teams vs real ones...

For the record, I agree, if a NA bought the redskins I don't think we'd have this issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if you only looked at UnWise Mike, Deadspin, and The Sports Bogs comments, you would think that the vast majority of people support a name change for the Redskins too. Come here, and it's the exact opposite.

 

People like their teams and don't want to see stuff changed.

What I find fascinating in that Chief Wahoo thread is the fact that arguments are EXACTLY THE SAME.

 

1. Point of pride. We would never name our team after something we hate.

2. PC run amok.

3. The team was named after a Native American.

4. The intent is not to offend.

 

 

Which is why I have been thinking

 

1. I personally see the name changing and don't really think there is any defense left for the team to make except one, ask the question and demand an answer...why us first? Make the case that other team names are offensive too and demand they change as well.

 

2. I don't think the people with opinions see the movement happening and it's a real movement and it will affect change and it will come fast once the Redskins fall. That's the problem with "If your offended then its offensive" arguments, there isn't an end to that argument, well unless we are all dead and can't be offended

I agree with your point 100%

I guess it's because of the minority/history issue.

NA's had their land taken, we slaughtered, treated terribly etc...

Watch out, Larry's going to point out that you can't argue about imaginary teams vs real ones...

For the record, I agree, if a NA bought the redskins I don't think we'd have this issue.

 

Then sell the team to a Native American which would kill two birds with one stone - Snyder gone, and the team wouldn't be racist...but then if that happened and public perception relaxed and said it wasn't racist any longer then are they really saying that a white man owning a team and calling it the Redskins is the true issue here?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're pretty "dead on" about the intent of his article? The guy said this directly in his piece: "Although the main topic I want to discuss is a linguistic one..."

 

Even more direct: "I think that it is well established that redskin is taken by most people today to be disparaging. What is more interesting is whether it has always been so, as Harjo et al., as well as various others, claim."

 

The trademark cases and issues were most definitely secondary, not primary purpose of his piece.

 

He brought it up, though, because much like you seem to have done, you assumed that the cases were won and lost on merely proving "Redskin" is disparaging:

 

To a large extent the decisions of the courts have focussed on the "technicality" of laches, not on the question of whether redskin is disparaging.

 

And the article actually links to many other articles talking about the overturning of the original trademark victory for Harjo, even by some who acted as expert witnesses FOR Harjo's side. Go back and click on them...because it almost seems as if you doubt that was the case.

 

 

Seems like you don't understand what is going on with the court cases and why he brought them up.  It's ok, the law can be confusing if you can't, or won't, read it.  

 

I agree that one of the author's points is a linguistic one.  But he also goes WAY out of his way to bring up, and quote, the court cases . . . He spends the first four long paragraphs on them, until (finally) getting to "although the main topic."  Which is what i take issue with:  the author appears to give a totally biased reading of the cases, AND THEN sets up his "real" premise.  

 

The author's assertion that "[t]o a large extent the decisions of the court have focused on the "technicality of laches, not the question of whether redskin is disparaging" is totally untrue.  ONE case focuses on laches.  One case entirely focuses on the word redskin, one case I am still waiting for you to provide to me rather than telling me what it says, in your lay opinion.

 

So . . . about that case?  Can you send it to me, since you obviously have it, what with your explaining it to me and all.   

Edited by PleaseBlitz
Link to post
Share on other sites

1. I personally see the name changing and don't really think there is any defense left for the team to make except one, ask the question and demand an answer...why us first? Make the case that other team names are offensive too and demand they change as well.

I would lose so much respect for them if they did this. It's one thing for us to throw it around. But for the team to do it, it makes them look weak. Unless they somehow, someway, find a way to do it in a way that it is not coming from them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is why I have been thinking

1. I personally see the name changing and don't really think there is any defense left for the team to make except one, ask the question and demand an answer...why us first? Make the case that other team names are offensive too and demand they change as well.

2. I don't think the people with opinions see the movement happening and it's a real movement and it will affect change and it will come fast once the Redskins fall. That's the problem with "If your offended then its offensive" arguments, there isn't an end to that argument, well unless we are all dead and can't be offended

Then sell the team to a Native American which would kill two birds with one stone - Snyder gone, and the team wouldn't be racist...but then if that happened and public perception relaxed and said it wasn't racist any longer then are they really saying that a white man owning a team and calling it the Redskins is the true issue here?

I asked that question earlier.

I'd be down for that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would lose so much respect for them if they did this. It's one thing for us to throw it around. But for the team to do it, it makes them look weak. Unless they somehow, someway, find a way to do it in a way that it is not coming from them. 

 

I would expect my twin 12 year old boys to try something like that but it makes some sense to do in this case, the Redskins are losing the fight now. They tried something I expected and threw money at the problem. I think they secretly want people to wake up to the realization that Snyder didn't give "aide" to Native Americans before this started so if he loses the fight and the name is changed then the aide will stop. It's a catch 22 for anyone who cares about helping Native Americans. I think the reason that effort has failed is because his PR people are idiots.

 

When Exxon spilled that oil in Alaska weren't they all over the TV in spots talking about how they are making up for it? And it worked right?

 

If you look in the past there are plenty of examples of companies who make a mistake and go out and fix it. The PR team should throw spot after spot, and Press Release after Press Release and bomb the media with good deeds they are doing to help Native Americans. They aren't doing this and that's a fatal error. If this was me I would have planned out a two year plan to get Joe public thinking what a great job The Redskins are doing to help people.

 

Now that they've clearly pissed that away they are out of moves. The next move is to point out all of the racism surrounding sports in general and grow the belief that the Redskins aren't the only racist ones and scare the hell out of the masses that they too will lose their teams if this happens. The Redskins need to do this secretly, they can't be known to be the ones to do that. If that movement happens and people understand what is offensive for one team is offensive for all teams then this issue will die down.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dan Snyder sued a newspaper over that.

 

So what better way to give a middle finger to that newspaper? If it were me, I'd go out of my way to make the new Redskins demon logo look like nyself, but that's just me. I've been flogging this for a year now because I swear if Dan did it, the outraged would be outraged because they'd have no reason to be outraged. And frankly...it'd a little cooler than what we have now... just a little.

 

Anyway, in the year I've been pushing this I've gotten a couple of "Yeah, that'd be cool" responses but no outright "Hell no"'s.

So if any of you are against going to a demon based logo, sound off on why. And if TK's reading...has anyone brought it up to Dan?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So what better way to give a middle finger to that newspaper? If it were me, I'd go out of my way to make the new Redskins demon logo look like nyself, but that's just me. I've been flogging this for a year now because I swear if Dan did it, the outraged would be outraged because they'd have no reason to be outraged. 

 

That sounds like a good idea....

Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, does every team go with the "We named the team after a specific Indian" defense? Because that's kind of neat actually.

The Redskins case is unique in that the Native American the team is arguably named in honor of, may not have actually been Native American.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So what better way to give a middle finger to that newspaper? If it were me, I'd go out of my way to make the new Redskins demon logo look like nyself, but that's just me. I've been flogging this for a year now because I swear if Dan did it, the outraged would be outraged because they'd have no reason to be outraged. And frankly...it'd a little cooler than what we have now... just a little.

 

Anyway, in the year I've been pushing this I've gotten a couple of "Yeah, that'd be cool" responses but no outright "Hell no"'s.

So if any of you are against going to a demon based logo, sound off on why. And if TK's reading...has anyone brought it up to Dan?

 

I hate the idea personally, I am religious and do not want to root for a demon team. That's just my opinion

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...