Alaskins

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

Recommended Posts

Ahhhh, no lol....

Besides, aren't the Patriots' uniforms red, white and blue?

I'd be ok with the name the Washington MF'ers *thumbsup*...

I was thinking the Washington Johnny Cashs with this on the helmet. :)

johnny_cash_flipping_the_bird_middle_fin

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Long as we're discussing joke names, I confess that I've had this feeling that the Men In Black could be cool.  Although there's already too many teams who've pulled the "let's change our uniforms to black.  It will make us tough." idea. 

 

Maybe be the Agents? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe be the Agents?

So you want Nick Fury on the helmet? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about The Americans? 

 

(Might piss off Dallas fans, too.) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about The Americans?

(Might piss off Dallas fans, too.)

It's s great show on FX. :)
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So am I reading and hearing this right? Not only would we have to change our name, but we would have to change our logo as well.

First of all I don't want to change anything, but if we had to change our name. I could live with something like Warrior's, but if we have to change the logo. Well that would kill me. It just wouldn't feel like the same team to me.

Man I hate how this country is turning into a bunch of ****'s. Your not allowed to say or do anything anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was talking with a friend today about this issue, and I said, it doesn't matter what the name is changed to, when we score a touchdown, we will still sing Hail to the Redskins. I can just see it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you want Nick Fury on the helmet? :P

 

Dibbs on the autographed Scarlett Johanssen poster. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if this has been posted already, I'll add it to the discussion since it's more than just opinion based.

 

Again, it would seem as if this article and the Goddard: "Linguist's Alternative History of Redskin" continue to stand on their own merits, alone, unrefuted.

Robert Hale Ives Goddard, III (1941–) is curator emeritus in the Department of Anthropology of the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution. He is widely considered the leading expert on the Algonquian languages and the larger Algic language family.

 

Ives Goddard received his B.A. from Harvard College in 1963 and his Ph.D. from Harvard University in 1969. From 1966–1969 he was a junior fellow of the Harvard Society of Fellows.

...

 

This is obviously not the article I'd generally expect from the Slate. Usually you go there to find out why you are a racist and what endless ways you've insulted everyone else on the planet. Unfortunately for those looking for more of the same, not this time. 

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2013/12/18/redskins_the_debate_over_the_washington_football_team_s_name_incorrectly.html

The Real History of the Word Redskin. It's Not What You Think.

By David Skinner

David Skinner is the author of The Story of Ain’t: America, Its Language, and the Most Controversial Dictionary Ever Published, which was recently released in paperback.

As Washington mopes to the end of a losing NFL season, the controversy over the team's name appears to have plenty of fight left. To the language hound, however, the most remarkable aspect of this dispute may be its lack of historical context.

 

This fact, it's important to emphasize, is entirely separate from whether people today, Native Americans especially, rightly find the term offensive. That's an assertion that has been tested empirically and debated with some gusto (with comments from President Obama, Bob Costas, Slate editor David Plotz, and numerous other public figures), but does not concern us here.

 

To be sure, some vague notion of the "history" of the term has been invoked countless times to prove that redskin is currently offensive. On Fox News in October, columnist Kirsten Powers discussed what she believed to be an open disagreement about the etymology of the word and argued (somewhat illogically) that if only people better understood the history they would see why the word is offensive:

There's a lot of disagreement even over what Redskins mean. Some people say it's a European term that referred to the fact that Indians there painted their faces red. Other people say, no, it refers to American Indians being scalped, two very different things, I think.

 

But if you look in the dictionary, in pretty much every dictionary it's referred to as an offensive term. That would give me pause if I ever happened to own a football [team] to have that name. And I think it is offensive. The fact that a lot of people don't find it offensive probably has to do with the fact that they probably don't know exactly what it means.

Conservative pundit Charles Krauthammer, too, has weighed in on the connection between redskin's power to offend and its origins when he compared it to the derogatory verb gyp:

When I was growing up, I thought 'gyp' was simply a synonym for 'cheat,' and used it accordingly. It was only when I was an adult that I learned that gyp was short for gypsy. At which point, I stopped using it.

So, if only you knew the story behind redskin you would find it offensive, right? Well, not exactly.

 

In 2005, the Indian language scholar Ives Goddard of the Smithsonian Institution published a remarkable and consequential study of redskin's early history. His findings shifted the dates for the word's first appearance in print by more than a century and shed an awkward light on the contemporary debate. Goddard found, in summary, that "the actual origin of the word is entirely benign."

 

Redskin, he learned, had not emerged first in English or any European language. The English term, in fact, derived from Native American phrases involving the color red in combination with terms for flesh, skin, and man. These phrases were part of a racial vocabulary that Indians often used to designate themselves in opposition to others whom they (like the Europeans) called blackwhite, and so on.

 

But the language into which those terms for Indians were first translated was French. The tribes among whom the proto forms of redskin first appeared lived in the area of the upper Mississippi River called Illinois country. Their extensive contact with French-speaking colonists, before the French pulled out of North America, led to these phrases being translated, in the 1760s, more or less literally as peau-rouge and only then into English as redskin. It bears mentioning that many such translators were mixed-blood Indians.

 

Half a century later, redskin began circulating. It was used at the White House when President Madison requested that various Indian tribes steer clear of an alliance with Britain. No Ears, a chief of the Little Osages, spoke in reply and one of his statements was translated as, "I know the manners of the whites and the red skins." Only in 2004, however, when the Papers of James Madison project at the University of Virginia reached the year 1812 did this and another use of redskin from the same meeting come to light.

 

The word became even more well known when the Meskwaki chief Black Thunder delivered a speech at a treaty conference after the War of 1812. Black Thunder, whose words were translated by an interpreter, said that he would speak calmly and without fear, adding, "I turn to all, red skins and white skins, and challenge an accusation against me."

 

In the coming years, redskin became a key element of the English-language rhetoric used by Indians and Americans alike to speak about each other and to each other. Goddard mentions numerous Indian speeches that were translated and printed in English-language newspapers. From such speeches, Goddard observes, James Fenimore Cooper almost certainly learned the word, which he then began using in his novels in the 1820s.

 

Goddard's paper methodically describes the term's early evolution, made possible by an unlikely abundance of documentation. "It is extremely unusual," he wrote, "to be able to document the emergence of a vernacular expression in such exact and elucidative detail."

Before all this recent scholarship, though, one could be forgiven for thinking redskin had emerged from hostilities with the white man. For many years the first citation in the Oxford English Dictionary was dated 1699 and purported to come from Samuel Smith. It read, "Ye firste Meetinge House was solid mayde to withstande ye wicked onsaults of ye Red Skins." It had been quoted from family papers in a book published in 1900 by Helen Evertson Smith.

 

But Goddard's research undermined this earliest of citations. First, he explains, Smith's words were "relentlessly antiqued"made to appear older than they were. One giveaway was the use of ye, which was anachronistic for 1699. By investigating the underlying documentation Goddard further discovered a probable source for the quotation, bearing a different date and the word Indian, which Helen Evertson Smith had modified to redskin.

 

After Goddard, who serves as the OED's main consultant on Indian language and culture, published his paper, the Oxford editors changed the entry. The OED now says the quotation was "subsequently found to be misattributed; the actual text was written in 1900 by an author claiming, for purposes of historical fiction, to be quoting an earlier letter."

 

Another major source for confusion has been Suzan Harjo, the Cheyenne-Creek activist who was an early plaintiff in the long-running case against the NFL. She has said on numerous occasions that redskin originated in "the practice of presenting bloody red skins and scalps as proof of Indian kill for bounty payments."

 

In 2005, Guy Gugliotta wrote about Goddard's paper in the Washington Post, calling Goddard's research "exhaustive." But the article presented Harjo's claims alongside Goddard's, with the headline writer patronizing Goddard's findings by calling them an "alternative history."

 

Four years later, the Post published a column by Eva Rodriguez, trotting out the bloody-scalp origin story. Goddard responded by writing a letter to the editor. First, he stated clearly that only current feelings about the word were relevant to determining whether redskin is offensive today, and then he objected strenuously to Rodriguez's amateur scholarship:

What is not acceptable is for her to give as the only relevant historical fact the fictional claim that the word originally referred to scalps, for which there is no evidence.

But the Post's letters editor would not allow Goddard to call the bloody-scalp claim "fictional," and so deleted the word from his letter.

 

Nonetheless, it is easy to see from 19th-century newspapers that the term did frequently appear in the context of violence by and against Indians. Stories about life-or-death encounters with hostile tribes can be found by searching redskin in Chronicling America, the National Digital Newspaper Database.

 

On May 13, 1836, the Vermont Phoenix published "From the Legends of a Log Cabin: The Hunter's Perils," in which the narrator is tracking an Indian named Broadfoot, whom he is hoping to, in fact, scalp. The narrator complains to his companion:

Why Balt, I don't want a squaw's scalp, nor a papoose's, if I can get a warrior's . . . . Here we have been on a range four days and have not had a shot at
a
red-skin—man, woman or child.

A short story that ran in the Illinois Free Trader and LaSalle County Commercial Advertiser on June 4, 1841, describes a posse of white men, including a man named Wetzel, poised to fight Indians in order to win back a little white girl named Rose, whom the Indians have kidnapped:

'Old Cross-Fire,' repeated Wetzel, with rather a sneering emphasis, 'he's at the top and bottom of this business; and the very minute he finds himself hunted down by horsemen, he will scalp poor Rose, and then take good care to [get] himself and his cursed red-skin gang [out of] harm's way.

The same character Wetzel goes on to recall all the times he shot at Indians:

'I've laid for days and nights at a stretch, on the pint of that little island yander, watching the movements of the red-skins to get a chance to riddle their hides with my old woman here,'—and the hunter patted the breech of his gun with manifest affection.

Of course, the names of many peoples who have been at war have been used with an intention to demonize or denigrate. That we can find Germans spoken of with malice during World War II, though, does not make German slang or offensive. But the informal usage of redskin seems to have made it especially inviting to the creators of frontier tales.

 

Such contexts and, more importantly, the violent history of U.S. Indian policy, help explain why the 1898 Webster's Collegiate dictionary labeled red-skin "often contemptuous," as Peter Sokolowski of Merriam-Webster has pointed out. But our lexicographical take on the word remained complicated.

 

Later volumes of Webster's, in fact, dropped the derogatory labelWebster's Second Unabridged in 1934 and Webster's Third Unabridged in 1961 applied no label at all to redskin. Not that either was famous for its sensitivity: Webster's Second defined Apache as "nomads of warlike disposition and relatively low culture."

 

mm

Edited by Monk4thaHALL
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the mention SWFLSkins...not much going on here now. Probably the USMNT game?

Anyway. ..The misrepresentation of the history of the term, & the media's insolent, indignant, & hegemonic tone in its omission is what gets me most upset.

Had a guy today give me a high-five after the USMNT scored & pull me close to whisper in my ear "that hat is offensive bro." I simply pulled back, showed him a picture of my family from the reservation, & said..."I'm Chiricahua, & proud of the name, & even prouder of the logo."

He just said: "sorry bro...didn't mean to offend you" & sat back down.

Edited by nemocystem
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I know this next article is kind of dubious considering the source. I don't think of the NY Post as some sort-of bastion for hard news, similarly to the way I don't think Esquire has done a damn thing but rile up half-interested, half-educated morons on Facebook, who needed to take a few minutes to log their quota of moral indignation based upon some half-ass, no better than bleacher report, writer's interpretation, re-writing, of history using some heavily rotation piece of internet document "proof." 

 

But anyway, here's some more fleshing out the character of Ray Halbritter, to add in congress with the already posted blog piece of "who is Ray Halbritter?"

 

This article is actually well written, if factually correct, albeit one-sided though.

This story about Melvin Phillips is really interesting. 

 

http://nypost.com/2013/05/29/a-rotten-deal-with-casino-oneidas/

A rotten deal with 'casino Oneidas'

By Post Staff Report - May 29, 2013 | 4:00am

Gov. Cuomo is apparently determined to ram through his deal with the Oneida Indian Nation, announced two weeks ago. He’s using threats to push county legislatures to OK it, and will doubtless try to ramrod the state Legislature, too.

 

But it’s a rotten bargain — robbing taxpayers of nearly a billion in back taxes and effectively evicting from its land the one Oneida band that’s held out against the gambling interests that claim to represent the Oneidas.

 

Local and state taxpayers are owed an estimated $800 million in back taxes from the “Casino Oneidas” — a debt Cuomo’s deal would erase. All they would pay is 25 percent of gambling profits from some of their machines.

 

It all goes back 20 years, when Gov. Mario Cuomo signed a compact with Ray Halbritter, a man backed by casino interests who claims to have some Oneida blood and to represent the Oneida Indians. (To be clear, many Oneidas do now support the casino and Halbritter’s leadership.)

 

That compact was never ratified by the Legislature, but the Casino Oneidas went ahead and built Turning Stone casino in Oneida County anyway — and have refused to pay taxes on the land, the casino earnings or their other lucrative businesses, including a spa, golf courses and campgrounds as well as tobacco and gasoline sales.

 

Courts have repeatedly agreed that the compact never took effect, since it was never ratified. But Halbritter — backed by Washington-based lobbyist Niels Holch — refused to comply with the law; his outfit continues to rake in hundreds of millions of dollars. It collects an “Oneida Nation” tax on some operations, but hands over nothing to the state or local governments.

 

The cash gusher has allowed the Casino Oneidas to work the bureaucracies and buy popularity among other Oneidas (who are mostly dirt-poor), retroactively giving a veneer of legitimacy to Halbritter’s claims to represent the tribe. The money has also gone to enrich various politicians, through campaign contributions and other means.

 

The best example of those “other means” involves the Destito family. RoAnn Destito is now Gov. Cuomo’s commissioner for General Services, and assisted in cutting his deal with the Casino Oneidas. Before that, she served for 18 years in the state Assembly, long chairing the Government Operations Committee which oversees the Alcohol and Beverage Control Board — which ought to be regulating the (illegal) casino. Meanwhile, her late husband happened to win near-exclusive rights to sell liquor to Turning Stone.

 

Along with the taxpayers, the other big losers are the rule of law and those it is meant to protect — especially traditional Oneida Indians and upstate landowners.

Assemblywoman Claudia Tenney (NY) legally represents Melvin Phillips. 

 

Melvin Phillips — my pro-bono client — is a full-blooded Oneida Indian, recognized by the Six-Nations Iroquois Confederacy as the representive of one Oneida tribe, the Orchard Hill Band of Oneidas. He opposes Halbritter and Holch’s hijacking of traditional Indians.

 

He (Phillips) also controls a key piece of property — the only local parcel to have remained in continuous Oneida control since 1788, when the Oneidas (including his ancestors) signed a treaty deeding all of their land to the state forever in exchange for hunting and fishing rights, so long as they stayed on the land.

 

Phillips’ right to possession of his land is preserved pursuant to past treaties and ratified in state law. But Halbritter and Holch now seek to usurp it in a push to set up a federal trust that would hold up to 25,000 acres for the Casino Oneidas — and they need his land, the only continuously held tract, to make the trust legal.

 

This land grab is being challenged in the courts by the state, several counties, Phillips and other citizens. Indeed, Gov. Cuomo is obliged by state law to pursue the case — he swore an oath to defend New York’s sovereignty and its borders, which has always been understood to entail having the state pay for such litigation.

 

But Cuomo’s deal would end the litigation, OK the trust and evict Phillips, as well as forgoing all those back taxes. And to get counties to ratify it, he’s threatening to notpay for the litigation — again, despite his legal obligation to do so.

 

The deal even deputizes the Casino Oneida’s security force, giving them police powers over all citizens of the county. Imagine how safe those who’ve fought them will feel then.

 

In exchange for a token payment, Halbritter, Holch and the Casino Oneidas are on the verge of getting everything they’ve ever dreamed of — free land, de facto sovereignty and ill-gotten standing over legitimate Oneidas.

 

Cuomo calls it time to clean up Albany. Why, then, is he cooperating in this rotten deal? New York’s leaders owe our citizens a fair deal — one that makes the Casino Oneidas pay their back taxes and comply with state law. Taxpayers, the traditional Oneida culture and the rule of law would be better off.

Assemblywoman Claudia Tenney ® represents parts of Oneida, Herkimer, Otsego, Delaware, Ulster, Sullivan and Orange counties.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really think that the outcome of a possible name change wouldn't matter to those that supports the name. I highly expect most if not all to continue to wear their Redskins gear and sing the fight song as an act of rebellion.lmao I would be one of those individuals that refuses to call them any other name but REDSKINS, and i'm sure that i'm not in the minority here.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking the Washington Johnny Cashs with this on the helmet. :)

(pic of JC)

 

The Washington Cash...might work lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So am I reading and hearing this right? Not only would we have to change our name, but we would have to change our logo as well.

First of all I don't want to change anything, but if we had to change our name. I could live with something like Warrior's, but if we have to change the logo. Well that would kill me. It just wouldn't feel like the same team to me.

Man I hate how this country is turning into a bunch of ****'s. Your not allowed to say or do anything anymore.

Not necessarily. The CEO & President of the Powtomak (I think I'm spelling that right) Tribe in NoVa has offered Dan Snyder the opportunity, if the Redskins are forced to change the name, to be adopted by the Powtomak Indians. They could change it to Washington Powtomaks & still keep all of the logos & traditions that has been a huge part of our culture as Redskins fans. Ultimately, the only thing that would change is the name. And, even with that as the name, the fight song would still work. If we are forced to change our name, this is what I would like to see. Because then, the name, the logo, our entire culture would be untouchable, just like the Florida State Seminoles.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Washington Cash...might work lol.

Oh snap! We got a new logo

 

file_187255_4_milliondollarman_o.jpg

 

 

And fight song

 

Edited by spjunkies
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not necessarily. The CEO & President of the Powtomak (I think I'm spelling that right) Tribe in NoVa has offered Dan Snyder the opportunity, if the Redskins are forced to change the name, to be adopted by the Powtomak Indians. They could change it to Washington Powtomaks & still keep all of the logos & traditions that has been a huge part of our culture as Redskins fans. Ultimately, the only thing that would change is the name. And, even with that as the name, the fight song would still work. If we are forced to change our name, this is what I would like to see. Because then, the name, the logo, our entire culture would be untouchable, just like the Florida State Seminoles.

 

Dude I heard of this a while back and that two other VA tribes (Rappahannock and Algonquians) tribes support the Redskins....

 

All the team needs is now to ensure the support of the Piscatawa and Susquehannock tribes. I say call them the Washington (VA) Warriors representing the Native American tribes of the Mid Atlantic....

 

and the Onieda Nation can go back to North Dakota and have a happy (someone should ask Ray Harbiter how he feels about the Navajo tribe HS football team called the Redskins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Monk4theHall...They do not have to pay taxes on land that is theirs.

 

I think a lot of people forget that "this land is your land" is not a true story.

 

So them not paying taxes does not bother me in the least, nor do I think they should have to.


The Washington Cash...might work lol.

 

Not feelin' spjunkies song suggestion.

 

I prefer "C.R.E.A.M" - by Wu-Tang...

Edited by Kosher Ham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not necessarily. The CEO & President of the Powtomak (I think I'm spelling that right) Tribe in NoVa has offered Dan Snyder the opportunity, if the Redskins are forced to change the name, to be adopted by the Powtomak Indians. They could change it to Washington Powtomaks & still keep all of the logos & traditions that has been a huge part of our culture as Redskins fans. Ultimately, the only thing that would change is the name. And, even with that as the name, the fight song would still work. If we are forced to change our name, this is what I would like to see. Because then, the name, the logo, our entire culture would be untouchable, just like the Florida State Seminoles.

 

 

that, i could work with. 

 

having a relationship with a tribe would be outstanding. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So am I reading and hearing this right? Not only would we have to change our name, but we would have to change our logo as well.

First of all I don't want to change anything, but if we had to change our name. I could live with something like Warrior's, but if we have to change the logo. Well that would kill me. It just wouldn't feel like the same team to me.

Man I hate how this country is turning into a bunch of ****'s. Your not allowed to say or do anything anymore.

If Snyder and regional NAs can agree to a vote on a more respectful NA-related name, we should be able to keep the logo and 98% of our fight song.

that, i could work with.

having a relationship with a tribe would be outstanding.

I'm on board, too.

Holy sh*t - compromise!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not necessarily. The CEO & President of the Powtomak (I think I'm spelling that right) Tribe in NoVa has offered Dan Snyder the opportunity, if the Redskins are forced to change the name, to be adopted by the Powtomak Indians. They could change it to Washington Powtomaks & still keep all of the logos & traditions that has been a huge part of our culture as Redskins fans. Ultimately, the only thing that would change is the name. And, even with that as the name, the fight song would still work. If we are forced to change our name, this is what I would like to see. Because then, the name, the logo, our entire culture would be untouchable, just like the Florida State Seminoles.

Awesome compromise.

I' m on board. Snyder should not miss this opportunity, but his evil twin $nyder may resist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, if the name is changed to warriors, representing a conglomerate of the mid-atlantic native american tribes, would some descendants of the first European settlers be offended?  I mean, warriors is a pretty aggressive name to use.  Imagine if you were a descendant of one of the original Jamestown settlers, or an early Maryland colonist, whose distant great great great great great great great great grandmother had been killed during an indian attack......  Not very sensitive in my opinion, and I think a good 10-15% of colonist-descendants would agree.  Next name please........

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So am I reading and hearing this right? Not only would we have to change our name, but we would have to change our logo as well.

First of all I don't want to change anything, but if we had to change our name. I could live with something like Warrior's, but if we have to change the logo. Well that would kill me. It just wouldn't feel like the same team to me.

Man I hate how this country is turning into a bunch of ****'s. Your not allowed to say or do anything anymore.

 

How could they change their name and not make a complete break from Redskins?  The song would go, the logo would go, likely even the colors would go.     It would almost assuredly be a completely clean break and it would be all but certain that the new name/theme would NOT have ANY thing to do with Native Americans, or Indians or whatever they like to be called.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.