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

[SoulSkin]

Perhaps a minority of NAs do oppose all NA names and logos. While the Redskins are in a grey area and "twisting in the wind" other teams, Braves, Chiefs, Vikings ,Celtics are probably secure

Lets say Skins are honored by a regional Tribe and adopt a new name. Or regional NAs select a more respectful name. But we won't be allowed to use a NA logo/fight song?

No @#$$@ way.

 

Just pointing out that is definitely in the minds of at least part of the movement, in case there was anybody who didn't already know it.

 

I tend to agree with you that the Braves, Chiefs, Blackhawks, etc are safe, for now. I think the only teams whose names could not have an acceptable logo change/rebrand to this movement, and keep their names, are the Indians and, sadly, us. All those other teams can easily change the logos and be something else if needed down the road. I know the Blackhawks and Chiefs could. Pretty sure the Braves could figure something out.

 

If the Redskins are "adopted" by a tribe, or end up with a name that would be accepted some other way, I don't see how a song could be dictated to us. Maybe a few words changed around again, but that's about it.

[grego]

If these activists have success and are empowered, it won't be long until another group of a different creed follow the exact same blueprint.

 

 

that these groups dont exist now isnt the question. being of nordic descent, i can start one whenever i want. 

 

lol. sacks and stuff.....well, guess i'm too late

[Larry]

I notice you cite the dictionary. Am I to take it that is the reference I should trust in matters of what words mean? Can I therefore consult my dictionary definition of "redskin" as the authority in the present debate? 

 

I only ask these question because I have been misled into thinking that words like "cool, "hip," and "indian" have meanings that change over time.  Where have I gone wrong?

No, you don;t only ask these questions because . . .

you ask them because you're pushing an argument. (One that isn't true.)

But I'm going to go along with the game, and pretend that

1) You are unaware of what dictionaries do and don't do, and

2) Have managed to avoid the probably 50 times that it has been pointed out, in this thread, already. (Every time somebody else has attempted the same invalid and dishonest argument.)

Yes, dictionaries exist for the purpose of providing people with a reference to the meanings of words.

However, dictionaries (like, I suppose, everything else) have rules.

And, one of the rules dictionaries have is that they do not define proper nouns.

There is no dictionary definition for Obama. This does not mean that the President of the United States does not exist. It simply means that dictionaries do not "define" words which are the name of things.

It also does not define Indianapolis. Or Texas.

There is no entry in the dictionary, for "Larry".

And there is no entry for the name of the football team, the Redskins.

As far as the dictionary is concerned, the Washington Redskins do not exist.

----------

(This is why there is no dictionary whatsoever that says that the name of the football team is offensive. There is no dictionary which says that the team even exists.)

----------

ESCORT use to be a nice, polite word

Yeah, but then Ford turned it into a crummy car.

[21 always]

You guys have seen this right? Amanda Blackhorse wants the chiefs to change their name now... This chick is nuts

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/06/26/plaintiff-in-redskins-patent-case-urges-chiefs-to-change-their-name/

[s0crates]

No, you don;t only ask these questions because . . .

you ask them because you're pushing an argument. (One that isn't true.)

But I'm going to go along with the game, and pretend that

1) You are unaware of what dictionaries do and don't do, and

2) Have managed to avoid the probably 50 times that it has been pointed out, in this thread, already. (Every time somebody else has attempted the same invalid and dishonest argument.)

Yes, dictionaries exist for the purpose of providing people with a reference to the meanings of words.

However, dictionaries (like, I suppose, everything else) have rules.

And, one of the rules dictionaries have is that they do not define proper nouns.

There is no dictionary definition for Obama. This does not mean that the President of the United States does not exist. It simply means that dictionaries do not "define" words which are the name of things.

It also does not define Indianapolis. Or Texas.

There is no entry in the dictionary, for "Larry".

And there is no entry for the name of the football team, the Redskins.

As far as the dictionary is concerned, the Washington Redskins do not exist.

----------

(This is why there is no dictionary whatsoever that says that the name of the football team is offensive. There is no dictionary which says that the team even exists.)

 

 

What argument am I pushing?  I am only seeking  to learn from the wise nemosystem, who assures me the meaning of a word remains fixed for all time.

 

I am happy to learn from you as well though.  My ignorance knows no bounds, so please do enlighten me.

 

You say that a dictionary does not define proper nouns, a seemingly valid point.  I thank you for bringing it to my attention.  I looked to find that "Socrates" is not in the dictionary either, further evidence of your hypothesis.  

 

I fear I am still somewhat confused however, and I do hope you can clear up my muddled thinking.  I notice that the same dictionary that does not define "Socrates" does define "bear," "jet," "chief," "giant," "national," "capitol," "wizard," "bullet," "packer," and so on.  What is the relationship between these nouns and their corresponding usage as mascots?

 

I am eager for you to teach me.

[jnhay]

ESCORT use to be a nice, polite word

It still is in the right context.

[@DCGoldPants]

Wild thing is that I think the Newspapers in KC won't print Redskins. They are so stupid that they didn't realize what they were doing to their own team and fans.

 

 

Redskins Gold Pants @SkinsGoldPants · 1m

 

@KCChiefs @Braves @Indians @NHLBlackhawks Welcome to our world. Doesn't matter that if a majority isn't offended. They're coming for you.

 

 

[Bang]

Webster defines "gay" as "Happily excited, merry", and " keenly alive and exuberant :  having or inducing high spirits"
So what happens if I'm in a bar and we score the game winning touchdown with no time left on the clock, I stand up and exclaim that everyone is being extremely gay ...  am I right, or am I heading for the hospital?

 

~Bang

[Larry]

What argument am I pushing?  I am only seeking  to learn from the wise nemosystem, who assures me the meaning of a word remains fixed for all time.

I'd ask you to support your claim that someone has said that. But I'll leave that to him.

 

I fear I am still somewhat confused however, and I do hope you can clear up my muddled thinking.  I notice that the same dictionary that does not define "Socrates" does define "bear," "jet," "chief," "giant," "national," "capitol," "wizard," "bullet," "packer," and so on.  What is the relationship between these nouns and their corresponding usage as mascots?

 

 

Absolutely none whatsoever.  As I already both informed you, and explained why this is true. 

[s0crates]

Webster defines "gay" as "Happily excited, merry", and " keenly alive and exuberant : having or inducing high spirits"

So what happens if I'm in a bar and we score the game winning touchdown with no time left on the clock, I stand up and exclaim that everyone is being extremely gay ... am I right, or am I heading for the hospital?

~Bang

An interesting example. There was a time I could answer this, but my answer was based on the ignorant belief that the meaning of words is not constant. I am hoping that the knowledgable nemosystem will be along soon to clear this up.

[Fan since a Fetus]

I stand up and exclaim that everyone is being extremely gay ...  am I right, or am I heading for the hospital? 

~Bang

Both, but I don't think you will be very gay on the way to the hosptial

[SonnyandSam]

I mentioned the 2004 90% poll to a co-worker (Cowboys fan) who was talking about our "racist name" when he came across an article online. He was basically trying to say that the majority of Native American's found the name offensive and that it should be changed today, if that was the case.

He came back at me with this gem:

"So if just a small group of blacks disagreed with slavery back in the day. Or if it was just a small group of women who wanted to vote. Or even just a small group of gay's that wanted to get married. Those things shouldn't have changed right?"

 

So if a small number of people want to kill you, we should all step aside and let them. Or if a small number of Shia Muslim want all christian churches destroyed, we should go along. Or if a small number of KKK want to hang all blacks, we should let them.

 

We live by majority rule in this country. The constitution provides certain rights guaranteed to everyone. The majority of Native Americans have repeatedly polled they have no problem with the Redskins name. In fact, several high schools on reservations or that have high NA populations like the name Redskins. The one poll cited being opposed was not scientifically valid and I believe had about 60 people in the sample.

 

Bottom line, Native Americans disagree strongly on whether the word "Redskin" is good or bad.

 

I say this repeatedly. SHOW ME the documentation that "Redskins" has ever been used in a disparaging way. SHOW ME the newsreel, the videotape, the news stories, the magazine articles....etc. Anything that documents it. Yet NO ONE can come up with proof. Everyone just assumes it is a "slur".  Yet Native American linguists have researched the word and proved that is not the case. No shortage of proof regarding the N word. One of the reasons the Federal Court over-ruled the PTO the first time in 2004 was the lack of proof provided by the plaintiffs that the word "Redskins" was derogatory when the word was registered in the 1970s.

 

Why do we change the name based on people who have no clue what the word really means?

[Bang]

Both, but I don't think you will be very gay on the way to the hosptial

hey, so long as we win, baby!

 

~Whee!

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

If these activists have success and are empowered, it won't be long until another group of a different creed follow the exact same blueprint.

 

Do you really believe this? No one actually believes that this is some kind of slippery slope, right? Because that's really silly.

[s0crates]

I'd ask you to support your claim that someone has said that. But I'll leave that to him.

 

 

Absolutely none whatsoever.  As I already both informed you, and explained why this is true. 

 

(1) The wise nemosystem assured me in post #6327 that the meaning of words is objective.  In post #6370 he taught me that words have an "essence" which cannot be "revoked," and we are beholden to "the linguistical standards beset upon us."  He said, "because a definition has been given...therefore it shall always remain." My questions for him are an attempt to learn exactly how this works, as I'm afraid I simply lack his deep and learned understanding.

 

(2) I thank you for teaching me that the word "bears" has absolutely no relationship to the mascot "Bears." I'm afraid I don't yet understand, and I kindly ask that you please explain so that I may learn.  

 

 

Can you teach me why there is a picture of a bear here if the name of the team has no relationship to actual bears?  I'm not clear on how this works, and you seem to understand much better than me. I ask that you explain carefully, as I am still new to this knowledge.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Yes.

http://www.vikingdefenceleague.dk/

 

So....I just clicked on a neo-nazi link at work, didn't I?

[steve09ru]

Do you really believe this? No one actually believes that this is some kind of slippery slope, right? Because that's really silly.

 

How's that silly?  If they can win a $7billion lawsuit, I'm going to find something that offends me and jump right into this mess.

So....I just clicked on a neo-nazi league at work, didn't I?

 

ditto haha

[Boss_Hogg]

I don't think the Chiefs have anything to worry about for a few reasons.

1) they don't have a local newspaper that despises them.

2) They don't have a name that can easily be qualified as racial just by looking at it

3) People won't take up the cause because of the dictionary definition. The writer is already justifying Chief in that article citing the dictionary.

Edit: One funny post at the bottom said 'Well I've always known them as the Chefs'

 

I don't think so. Ms Blackhorse has already organized a protest when the Chiefs play the Cardinals in Arizona this year. Plus the Chiefs do that tomahawk chop battle chant. We don't do that in DC.

 

Braves are next.

 

[@DCGoldPants]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/06/26/plaintiff-in-redskins-patent-case-urges-chiefs-to-change-their-name/#comment-3441339

 

Love the Chiefs fans desperately trying to say there is a difference here. Well, it was named for the Mayor who was called Chief. BUT.....he used to do the headdress thing with his Scout work. Well, the Navy uses Chief and so do corporations. But.....they didn't do that first. Well, Redskins is worse. But....says you....and I actually can think of Westerns were the Cowboys talked down to the drunk natives saying something like "Easy there, Chief, you've have enough to drink." 

 

Would have been smarter to just say that these teams that name themselves like this are doing it because it represents strength and warriors. Keep and eye on the KC Newspapers. Will be interesting since they won't print Redskins.

[Boss_Hogg]

Yeah DC is so much better.

 

I don't want to hijack this turd fest of a thread, but you haven't heard about the "humanitarian crisis" in Detroit?

 

http://jurist.org/paperchase/2014/06/un-rights-experts-condemn-detroit-water-cut-offs.php

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/06/26/plaintiff-in-redskins-patent-case-urges-chiefs-to-change-their-name/#comment-3441339

 

Love the Chiefs fans desperately trying to say there is a difference here. Well, it was named for the Mayor who was called Chief. BUT.....he used to do the headdress thing with his Scout work. Well, the Navy uses Chief and so do corporations. But.....they didn't do that first. Well, Redskins is worse. But....says you....and I actually can think of Westerns were the Cowboys talked down to the drunk natives saying something like "Easy there, Chief, you've have enough to drink." 

 

Would have been smarter to just say that these teams that name themselves like this are doing it because it represents strength and warriors. Keep and eye on the KC Newspapers. Will be interesting since they won't print Redskins.

 

 

The word Chief has been used to talk down Native Americans. Very similar to calling a black man a "boy". 

 

Their board is starting to look like ours, just call them ES Central.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

(This is why there is no dictionary whatsoever that says that the name of the football team is offensive. There is no dictionary which says that the team even exists.)

----------

 

 

Since the only meaning of the word that matters to anyone is the one with the definition "a football team," shouldn't the team change the logo to a football player so as to avoid any confusion?

 

I get your argument that "Redskins" has nothing to do with Native Americans and everything to do with a football team. But the team is confusing the issue with all the Native American imagery.

[War Paint]

Do you really believe this? No one actually believes that this is some kind of slippery slope, right? Because that's really silly.

You mean you don't?  IMO it's just common sense.

[@DCGoldPants]

#TBT

 

 

I don't know if the Skins have put out anything team related with their players dressed as NA's since this was out. Trying to think and can't come up with anything.

[Larry]

I thank you for teaching me that the word "bears" has absolutely no relationship to the mascot "Bears." I'm afraid I don't yet understand, and I kindly ask that you please explain so that I may learn.  

 

Can you teach me why there is a picture of a bear here if the name of the team has no relationship to actual bears?  I'm not clear on how this works, and you seem to understand much better than me. I ask that you explain carefully, as I am still new to this knowledge.

Let me know when you're willing to stop pretending that I said things I didn't say.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

You mean you don't?  IMO it's just common sense.

 

How does a 40 year battle to eliminate some names related to a people that still exist relate to eliminating names for cultures that have been dead fo centuries?