Hazel-Ra Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 I'm sorry hawgboy, I appreciate your sentiment but changing the logo a and keeping the name is a cop out. It would be the same as changing the logo to a redskin potato. To me, it's basically admitting that redskin is a racist term and you are attempting to redefine it. Keeping the name with a different meaning is about as bad as changing it altogether. It's like we admit that we are wrong and redskin is racist but we want to keep the name so we try to apply a different meaning to it. It's sleazy. This is the Washington Redskins. Braves on the warpath, fighting for the District of Colombia. I understand that. I guess it's different for me because I'm an out of area fan and if the name goes, it will be hard for me to identify with the team I've backed for 32 years. Maybe not impossible, but very hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 I understand that. I guess it's different for me because I'm an out of area fan and if the name goes, it will be hard for me to identify with the team I've backed for 32 years. Maybe not impossible, but very hard. Don't worry, the name isn't going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsFan44 Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 For those questioning the source of the idea that "Redskins" is derived from the use of warpaint that explanation is listed in the Wikipedia ""Redskins / slang" page referring to the Lenape or Delaware tribe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_%28slang%29 (the citation is the Oxford dictionary so it must be true) Again I tend to favor the documentation of Goddard but in a way this could be played as solution for the team, get the Lenape to endorse the name as a reference to their specific tribe and remove the broad racial generalization aspect of the word. Probably a stretch at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWFLSkins Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 I'm starting to remember why I stayed out of this discussion for so long. I know that one of the most effective things to do in debating is to make sure that "we are discussing the things that I find compelling and want to talk about rather than the things that my opponents find compelling and want to talk about." I'm just trying to tell you that it is a lot easier to do this effective on the Washington Redskins message board than it is in the real world. The people out there who are not Redskins fans are not going to ignore what the dictionaries tell them in favor of a historical discussion of red war paint vs. scalping vs. skin color. Nor are they going to find it compelling to be told that the word redskin has no meaning other than the name of a football team. My honest concern is that by digging in our heels on defending the awkward name to the bitter end, we are going to lose everything. The awesome logo, the Native American imagery, the song, all of it. That is the inevitable result I see roaring down the road at us. Did you ever get what you want only to realize when you had it, it wasn't what you wanted at all? The term Redskins goes away, what's next? Braves, Indians, Chiefs and all Indian mascots. Thirty to forty years from now Native Americans may begin to vanish from our children's memories and the history books will be vague mentions of such an important part of this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 Don't worry, the name isn't going. Exactly. So long as fan support stays strong the team pockets won't be affected and the name will stay. That's why the few saying to change the name to "end the noise" need to realize even changing the name won't end the noise, not in a town where the local media has an agenda against the owner. There will always be noise. But the name won't change so long as fan support is there keeping the finances good. If fans give up we are screwed and no self-respecting fanbase would allow the team's name to be changed over something so stupid as a loudmouth media supported only by a fraction of people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 There are many places on the internet that suggest this if you do a little research. but i'm asking you. of course, i can find places on the internet that claim walt disney was adolf hitler (thers a site for that), but that doesnt make it credible. the paper by ives goddard on the origins of the name appears to be, by far, the most in depth research on the issue. i havent read anything which comes close. which is why i was asking you. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- i have to say i'm a little puzzled at some of the things i read on here. there seems to be a hesitance to question anyone who is for the name change. susan harjo was brought up yesterday (by me and others) and you'd think we'd kicked mother theresa. (maybe i'm reading things wrong?) i'm not sure people get it. hell, sometimes i'm not sure i 'get it'. i'm certain i dont 'get it' when it comes to most of these criticisms of the team. i'm not sure people understand susan harjo and how her baseless, clearly racist opinions- left unchallenged- have probably gotten us to the point we are now. she puts out a false story- one that suits her agenda- it gets picked up by somebody, and next thing you know, the false story has become fact, for all intents and purposes. all because nobody said 'are you sure about that?'. it happened with the 'squaw' story. its been happening for years with the 'redskins means scalps' story. so many people believe this is the origin of the name- and if it was, can you blame them for wanting it changed? of course not. but its not. and the story keeps getting perpetuated by radical activists who never get questioned. meanwhile, the snowball keeps rolling downhill. and here we are. thats not to say that there arent other arguments against the name- but the two figureheads pushing for the name change are also pushing this 'scalping' story. how that doesnt warrant discussion on a redskins team message board is something i truly dont 'get'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 As I've stated, my opinions are not based on her or Halbritter or the media, but personal experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWFLSkins Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 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. That's kind of powerful. I never for once thought of that and I'm not quoting this to add to the argument, just to say with that in mind, why were any sports teams named using NA themes? Even though we did what we did to you, we really respected you... \ Why hasn't Lingerie football been stopped, I know you could find that more than 80% of women are offended by it's sexist intent and demeaning nature toward an entire gender, yet nah, not a peep. Two female athletes vie for a spot on the team, who gets the job? the better player or the better looking player? I am sure average looking people athletes everywhere are highly offended. In fact bigger slants do exist, take dog racing, horse racing and the treatment of animals, I am sure more than 80% of animal lovers are offended by how those animals are treated, not every horse takes the California Gold path. Where does it stop now that it has begun? Boxing? Pacifists everywhere are highly offended. =More lawyers then engineers, freedoms demise is near. As I've stated, my opinions are not based on her or Halbritter or the media, but personal experience. How many personal experiences? And why judge a word based on ignorant peoples usage? It was the idiot using it, take the word away and he is still an idiot that is so weak in his own that he must condemn someone else to feel better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFKFedEx Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 We haven't heard much from Harjo lately. There's not much else she needs to do now that the issue has steadily gained momentum which doesn't appear to be slowing any time soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 As I've stated, my opinions are not based on her or Halbritter or the media, but personal experience. no, i get that. thats an issue of 'do we change it cuz a few idiots use the name in a totally in appropriate way'. the core of the issue, imo, is the claims of the activists going unchallenged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWFLSkins Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 FWIW, I love the name the Redskins, never thought of it as a negative. Always chose the Indians in movies as child, even knowing they would lose. I root for the underdog, I root for the slighted, that's just me. Having personally asked three tribes, in writing, having asked every NA I interacted with in different parts of the country, having ran into a guy named Oaklahoma the same morning after discussing the name here, I have never had a negative reaction to the name, that is my personal experiences that shape my walk. And as always if there was overwhelming evidence that a ground swell of distaste began to surface I would bend on the issue. However that is not the case, this is pure conjecture by a small segment seeking not only celeb status but a larger agenda to remove all NA mascots, to their own detriment I might add. I oppose that. I oppose that few speak for many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 I think if we change Redskins we really ought to change Cowboys. After all, the origin of the term cowboys was an accusation of bestiality. Farmers who hated ranchers basically were accusing the guys on the range of sleeping with their cattle cause they were so lonely on long drives. Do we really want to expose our children to that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 Grego... No issues with that. I do have a question though. While I haven't really looked into what the activists have to say, I honestly have to a degree, ignored that part of this issue because I didn't need any convincing. But, what is the endgame? If I'm an activist, what is it that I win? Grego, this is not directed to you and its an honest question. IMO, when I read posts by some, I feel like this is a war between the Redskins and people who want to take the name away for spite. I don't view it that way. If I'm an "activist" and want the name changed, the only reason would be because I truly feel it's offensive. Now, don't let my statement speak for the people most here are rallying agains, I'm not speaking for them. I don't know their motives, I'm only speaking based on what seems to me, common sense. What does this Harjo or Halbritter gain if the name is changed? Do they get money? What do they win? These are honest questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWFLSkins Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 Current. Wow. Not even close. LOL MSN.com poll, then they wipe the results, guess it didn't suit the agenda.... Should the Redskins change their name? 5% Yes; it is offensive. 2 votes 86% No; it is tradition. 32 votes 3% It depends on the options. 1 votes 6% I'm not sure. 2 votes Today, media bias much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 code- good questions. ill post in a bit when i get a few minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 But no, I can "keep up with the times".. But again, I'm using your own words against you. You keep basically saying that you would like the word to not be used for what it is known for in 2014. But what it's known for today, would be the football team from Washington. So getting with the times would be to just use the word exclusively for the football team. Something I mentioned earlier in the thread, and that you brought up again here, which I think is important. One main argument being used now is that, regardless of whether or not the origins and use of "red skin" in our country's history was benign and respectful, in 2014 it's seen as a racial slur. That's all that matters. That take is almost 180 degrees opposite of the original argument against the name, though. The original argument was that regardless of the fact that "Redskin" is viewed almost exclusively as nothing more than the name of a football team in 2014, the term has its roots in racism and violence against Indians, and that's all that matters. The initial idea was to edumacate the masses on the word's supposed "history" so that the unenlightened among us WOULD start to see "redskin" as a racial slur now. But why would that be necessary if it was already seen as a racial slur in 2014, as the current argument holds? The pro-Redskin side takes the stance that 1) the word has benign and respectful origins, and 2) the word now is overwhelmingly connected to the football team, and little more, among the population. Depending upon which of those stances they want to argue, the anti-Redskin side will use one of the two arguments above, even if they start to contradict each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonez3 Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 <p> Current. Wow. Not even close. LOL MSN.com poll, then they wipe the results, guess it didn't suit the agenda.... Should the Redskins change their name? 5%Yes; it is offensive. 2 votes 86% No; it is tradition. 32 votes 3%It depends on the options. 1 votes 6%I'm not sure. 2 votes Today, media bias much?This doesn't surprise me. Because the majority of football and non football people I casually bring it up to feel its not right. None of them are NA.However, I think the general public do not feel its offensive, but it is part of the battle. Obviously other racial slurs have been compared her, and I think if it were one of those OBVIOUS slurs poll would be different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 SWFL, Just for fun, (today is the last day of school, its a formality, we are just having class parties), I just conducted a poll... (I have 23 students in class) 1. Do you think the Redsksins name is offensive? All 23 raised their hand for NO 2. Have you had any significant time around Native Americans? All 23 raised their hand NO 3. I shared my personal experience to them and asked question number 1 again. All 23 raised their hand YES. Now, am I claiming that this is a reason the name should be changed? No, I'm not. I"m just pointing out that I'd bet the majority of people in these "polls" have little to no interaction with NA's. If you've never been around NA's, you really don't know. I accept that some NA's are probably not offended by the word. I get that. However, some are. Just google search "Montana Indian Racism". Out there, NA's are everywhere. There are different experiences. People have different perspectives. I'm not saying that everyone in Montana is a racist, but, while I loved it there, because of the lack of diversity, it was really odd for me coming from SE Va, where there is a lot of diversity (except for NA's). Again, just saying that these polls are bs IMO. Lots of uninformed people. Both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonez3 Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 Code- I'm curious... Do you think every NA referenced teams should change their name? Indians, Chiefs, Braves, etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWFLSkins Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 SWFL, Just for fun, (today is the last day of school, its a formality, we are just having class parties), I just conducted a poll... (I have 23 students in class) 1. Do you think the Redsksins name is offensive? All 23 raised their hand for NO 2. Have you had any significant time around Native Americans? All 23 raised their hand NO 3. I shared my personal experience to them and asked question number 1 again. All 23 raised their hand YES. Now, am I claiming that this is a reason the name should be changed? No, I'm not. I"m just pointing out that I'd bet the majority of people in these "polls" have little to no interaction with NA's. If you've never been around NA's, you really don't know. I accept that some NA's are probably not offended by the word. I get that. However, some are. Just google search "Montana Indian Racism". Out there, NA's are everywhere. There are different experiences. People have different perspectives. I'm not saying that everyone in Montana is a racist, but, while I loved it there, because of the lack of diversity, it was really odd for me coming from SE Va, where there is a lot of diversity (except for NA's). Again, just saying that these polls are bs IMO. Lots of uninformed people. Both ways. Code I don't doubt that or you're experiences. Who has been bitten by a dog? Lets talk about dog attacks? Who thinks dogs are bad....but by this if I got bit by a dog all dogs should be killed. Oh and can't believe you are still in school. wow, when do you go back mid Sept? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 SWFL, I get it, you don't like the PC aspect of all this. Neither do I. It gets old. ALL pit bulls are bad etc... I"m just arguing against the arguments... Bonez3, Yes and no. I've posted several times that I can clearly see the difference between Redskins and Seminoles. Because the Seminole tribe has given permission, then I think they are fine. Previously, I was ok with Indians and Chiefs, but, another poster, I'm sorry, I forget who, made a comment in this thread that made me rethink that. I do think that IF I went up to a NA and called them Indian or Chief, it would be in very poor taste. So, in a way, yes, I can see the issue. Am I going to protest any of these names? Nope. Not losing any sleep over it. But, I can see the issues. You know, I guess this thread has made me more aware of some of the issues against the names I never considered. Trying to figure the best way to say this: Because of the history of Europeans vs. NA's, I do think its kind of hypocritical that we have taken their culture and used it in the way we have. IF I was a NA, I might be kind of pissed at the use of my culture that way, but I really don't know since I'm not NA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RawBBQSauce Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 Current. Wow. Not even close. LOL MSN.com poll, then they wipe the results, guess it didn't suit the agenda.... Should the Redskins change their name? 5% Yes; it is offensive. 2 votes 86% No; it is tradition. 32 votes 3% It depends on the options. 1 votes 6% I'm not sure. 2 votes The way those poll options read is quite frustrating. I don't want to vote in that poll because if you vote in favor of keeping the name, you're also voting to say, "Hell no! It's tradition, dammit! Keep the damn name! All you stinkin' liberals get off our lawn!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 SWFL, Just for fun, (today is the last day of school, its a formality, we are just having class parties), I just conducted a poll... (I have 23 students in class) 1. Do you think the Redsksins name is offensive? All 23 raised their hand for NO 2. Have you had any significant time around Native Americans? All 23 raised their hand NO 3. I shared my personal experience to them and asked question number 1 again. All 23 raised their hand YES. 4. Do you know the origins of the word 'redskin'? All 23 raised their hand for NO 5. I told them how NA's referred to themselves as "red skin" and "red man" and did so with respect, and asked number 1 again. All 23 raised their hand NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonez3 Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 I agree code, to use any cultures imagery without blanket permission is infringement of sorts. Especially in the case of European/NA instance. However, it's done. Vikings, Aztecs, Knights, and the most racist name in sports ... Fighting Irish. As a fully identified Irish American and family identified as same, it could easily be viewed as extremely offensive. Some have argued in this thread that it was the inclusive, inside group that adopted the moniker. Well, I'm sure a minority of Irish don't appreciate it. Most gravitate and are 'honored' by it. Point being, and I think you said it, there really is no line here. If Redskins goes so does all names. And they are not meant to be derogatory, rather hold culture in reverence. Believe it or not, the likely reason to choose those names were to honor NAs. Even if it were by those of European descent. Fighting Irish, redskins can have derogatory attachments, but historically honor groups. I know Notre Dame did not poll the Irish If we use the cultural pillage argument than bye bye all NA themes. Even if they are meant in respect. I don't agree with that. I know you aren't talking bout other teams. But, the topic is gonna be inseparable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 Califan, just showed the class your response on the promethean board... I explained: " A professor at the Smithsonian did a study and concluded that the word "Redskin" originated from the NA's themselves. They referred to themselves as red skins and europeans as white skins. No one changed their vote. In fact, one student brought up the fact that its ok for black kids to use the N word, because its about them, but when others do it, its an issue. (I think he's trying to say that the N word is fine among themselves, but no one else has the right... ) I'm not arguing that fact from my perspective, I'm just pointing out what was said. A couple other students agree. We are still having the discussion now. This has actually turned into an interesting last day of school For me personally, the origin doesn't really matter. Its now. If NA's refer to themselves as redskins (which, in my experience, which again isn't a lot, but its more than some), the do not refer to themselves as redskins, they call themselves indians. BTW, I never brought up the N word, they made that connection on their own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.