Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

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

Alaskins

By Alaskins
in The Tailgate

Recommended Posts

Guest Spearfeather

Guest Spearfeather

Posted
Posted

RFKFedEx, on 18 Jun 2013

 

 However, father time will reward their efforts as society continues the gradual drift away from usage of Native themes.

 

“We’re more worried about our kids being educated, our people housed, elder care and the survival of our culture. We’ve been in that survival mode for 400 years. We’re not worried about how some ball team is named.”

 

-----------------------------------------------===============G. Anne Richardson,  chief of Virginia’s Rappahannock Tribe

 

I don't think the Redskins changing their name, helps any of these problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RFKFedEx

RFKFedEx

Posted
Posted

Modell wanted to take the Browns name with him, but lost that battle with the city and finally agreed to leave it behind with all the colors, etc. Ugh, what an awful owner over the years.

 

Modell kept the name until he could legally wash his hands of everything Cleveland in early 96, and why wouldn't he? The Baltimore Browns were never a long term plan beyond a few months of transition. The courts likely wouldn't have stopped Modell from keeping the name had he refused to settle.

 

On a school trip to Bmore in early 1996, I remember clowning the extra Cleveland Browns merch stocked in a store at Waterside mall in the Inner Harbor. Nothing for the soon to be/newborn Ravens had arrived yet, but merchants saw $ signs with leftover Browns garb. It was weird.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
aREDSKIN

aREDSKIN

Posted
Posted

Especially when your entire legal case consists of asserting "this is offensive", why would the plaintiffs not make any attempt whatsoever to actually prove what they're claiming? 

 

I can only think of one.  It's because they know that another poll would say pretty much what the first one said. 

 

 

"

The entire legal case rests on this interpretive fact (sic). Can Harjo et al prove that the term "Redskin(s)" is inherently offensive. IMO they cannot. Too many factoids PROVE otherwise. Too many other instances of the term being used in an non offensive manner coupled with the way the team uses it and I can't fathom how any REASONABLE judge can find that the Washington Redskins organization mean anything but pride, adulation and respect in using that term. Yes, some archaic meanings and uses can be construed as an affront but those have long been sent to the dustbin of human stupidity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chants

Chants

Posted
Posted

I have not been on here in a week, but I will say that pjfooballer and Bang can carry the flag for me anytime.  Their points are better than mine, and so far, I can stand behind everything they have said

 

 

Go REDSKINS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

 

Agreed.  I like Spearfeather's points a lot too.

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
grego

grego

Posted
Posted

washington post poll finds most DC area fans support name

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/washington-redskins-name-washington-post-poll-finds-most-dc-area-fans-support-it/2013/06/24/84bc2d0e-dd03-11e2-a484-7b7f79cd66a1_story.html

 

A large majority of area sports fans say the Washington Redskins should not change the team name, even though most supporters of the nickname feel the word “redskin” is an inappropriate term for Native Americans, according to a new Washington Post poll.

The debate over the team’s name has intensified in recent months as members of Congress, activists and media commentators criticized it as offensive to Native Americans and lobbied for change. But most Washingtonians — 61 percent — say they like the team’s name, and two-thirds say the team should not change it, according to the poll.

 

 

 

i thought this part was humorous.--

 

While feelings about the team’s nickname were similar across most demographics, the percentage advocating a shift in the D.C. area peaks at 39 percent among African Americans with college degrees. (There weren’t enough Native Americans among the poll’s 1,106 respondents for meaningful comparison; Native Americans make up less than 1 percent of the population in the region, according to Census data.)

 

how about asking native americans nationally how they feel about it? what a novel concept that would be. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
grego

grego

Posted
Posted

they were just talking about this on the kornheiser show.

 

love how TK talked about how a name change shows "social progress". really? actually it shows ignorance of how native americans feel about the name, while simultaneously making you feel like youre helping an historically downtrodden people. 

 

but if you call that 'social progress', have it your way. 

 

at least gary said he was against a name change but didnt add anything substantial to the conversation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
grego

grego

Posted
Posted
good for this guy - kuato- who posted just below the article on the post website. he gets it. ---------------
 

Shame on the Wapo. This is a manufactured issue at every point. First, this is not a debate. The Washington Redskins is a private business with an 80 year history. It is owned privately and protected constitutionally from public or government interference. The goal of the Wapo's onslaught of "coverage" is a failed attempt at public manipulation - the paper wants to force a shift in public opinion regarding the team's name by trying to create the impression that the word redskin is derogatory.

Fortunately, no one is buying it. The word redskin was created by American Indians to describe themselves. although I have found no ethnological evidence to prove it, it may have been used by someone at some time as a pejorative, but if so, that usage is archaic. This fact is laughably easy to demonstrate. Here is an easy trick. Google search redskins and see how many pages you go through before finding a racist usage.

The truth is that the Wapo's argument rests on very poor scholarship and depends on the ignorance of sympathetic hearts. No one wants to abuse American Indians, but polling has consistently demonstrated that American Indians do not find the name offensive. Here is another experiment. In a public space, yell out "has anyone seen the Redskins?". Count how many people think you are talking about American Indians.

The word "redskins" describes a football team. It is a rallying point for families and communities who will not see it tarnished by revisionists who want us to believe it is derogatory. Shame on the Wapo for continuously encouraging mass idiocy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Boss_Hogg

Boss_Hogg

Posted
Posted

Joe Theismann was in South Dakota for a charity event and recently had this to share:

 

“I can tell you that when I was at the children’s hospital this morning, there was a young Native American boy there with his parents,”
Theismann said. “His grandmother wanted a picture with me, and his father took the picture. And as I shook his hand the father said to me ‘You’re a Redskin,’ and he said it in a very complimentary way, which was very humbling to me.”

 

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/joe-theismann-i-represented-native-american-nations-with-washington-redskins-062113

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted

Snyder & co. didn't bother to vet the guy first?

Happens.

Looks like "Chief" is simply a nickname, not a title of any kind.

And it looks like the guy is full blooded Native, but 1/4 of it is from a different tribe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gamebreaker

Gamebreaker

Posted
Posted

Deadspin has dug up something on a guy who was defending the name on Redskins Nation:

 

http://deadspin.com/redskins-indian-chief-defender-not-a-chief-probably-590973565

 

Not a Chief, but still a Native American....and still has more credibility on what is offensive to NA's than Holmes Norton, the DC Mayor, or the white and black sports reporters who don't have a clue what they're talking about. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
elkabong82

elkabong82

Posted
Posted

Sucks that the guy exaggerated himself so much. 

 

However, maybe if McKenna, the Post, and rest of local media who keep at a story that most of America, going by polls, doesn't agree with, then the Redskins may not have so eagerly invited someone helping their cause and maybe would have spent more time vetting. 

 

Besides, the only poll we have that addressed Native Americans across the country on the team name came up 90% in favor of the name. We don't see that mentioned, nor any new polls conducted, nor attempts by the media themselves to get in touch with various tribes in order to dispute the poll's findings. Instead they quote the same few upset people and run with "redskins" is racist.

 

Here's an idea D.C. sports media, how about some stories about the REAL plights Native Americans face today? How about some REAL efforts to improve their lives? Or at the very least, how about finding out what the REAL consensus is among Native Americans with the name? Oh, but that won't happen because the findings don't support your agenda, which is to bash Snyder and the team any way possible because he hurt your poor wittle feelings a decade ago. It's no coincidence that this didn't gain the momentum it has until now because it's all you can bash the team for now that they are good and their future is bright. 

 

Just realized McKenna is the same former City Paper hack, surprise surprise. No wonder the Deadspin page is almost all negative articles. The man almost put his paper out of business and had to leave because he took his hate schtick too far and incurred a lawsuit, looks like he still hasn't grown up. He'd probably catch on with a real paper if he moved to Dallas where Redskins hate and lack of talent are welcomed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bang

Bang

Posted
Posted

Deadspin has dug up something on a guy who was defending the name on Redskins Nation:

 

http://deadspin.com/redskins-indian-chief-defender-not-a-chief-probably-590973565

 

Well, there you. go. That guy is why the country should ignore everyone else who shares his opinion.

 

That guy eclipses everyone else.

 

Why not? As they said, one person is enough to make everyone else change, and there he is, disproving every other real native American who is not on the side the media has chosen because he's not a chief.

 

Baba-booey Baba-booey.

 

~Bang

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bang

Bang

Posted
Posted

Anybody who dared to question Dodson's Native cred would have been shredded here in May.

Your point gets shredded every time you try to say anything of substance on the topic, which is never as of late.

Tell me.

In your mind does this one clown discount the opinion of the rest of the NA population?

 

~Bang

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RFKFedEx

RFKFedEx

Posted
Posted

Anybody who dared to question Dodson's Native cred would have been shredded here in May.

I could be wrong but the guy is Native American, correct?

 

And an Eagles phan too.  Fly Iggles fly! 

 

I'll bet he's being honest about that. A smart BSer would've claimed a winner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bang

Bang

Posted
Posted

OK, so throw his opinion out for being a liar and a compromised charlatan.

 

we could trade prisoners, if you will. UnWise Mike is also a known liar who made up headlines to generate discussion for his failing radio show, and he's every bit a douchebag as this chief appears to be.

 

Now, how many natives still think its' not offensive?

 

~Bang

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...