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

[Fan since a Fetus]

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.

I just didn't think they would get the support from the talking heads which in turn would have a lot less people in general deciding on a whim that it is racist. Not saying everyone has decided quickly, but there are a lot of people that have not given a thought as to why they should or shouldn't be offended.  They just feel how they are told to feel.

 

I know those suing us have threatened the others, just didn't know that their had already been movements in those places.

[nemocystem]

You're off the rails bruh. You've managed to spin your arguments back upon themselves & talk from both sides of your mouth 3 times now.

You do realize that it was you who proposed several times that words changing over time is equivalent to the destruction, eradication, or obliteration of the formerly defined. In your world, "cool" now can ONLY be defined by its modern euphemistic sense. The original definition or intent now, no longer has meaning or context according to what you have TYPED SEVERAL TIMES OVER.

I get what you're doing though...it's archaic, political pseudo-philosophical debate tactics. Perhaps you may have even been on a debate team or 2 & argued simply for its sake. The problem is...despite your claims, you have made no attempt to learn or provide knowledge. Your entire literary premise throughout the existence of this thread has been to find a strawman within an argument & pick away at it & avoid the finer points provided. All the while, pushing the discussion in the direction of your agenda...whatever that may be.

Maybe you are as noble as you claim to be. I smell bull malarkey (/outdated).

You clearly have set a line in the sand that states that a word, once given new purpose or meaning, cannot then, ever maintain ANY prior definition. So when I presumed to simply supply examples...laid clearly within your biblical scripture defined as "El dictionary" in your surmise...that express the multiple possible definitions even the simplest word can have, your basic reply was: "where's the sole definition? "

Ummmm...what???

Never did I state definitively that words can only possess one singular fixated meaning. In fact, this has been your supposition to claim that as words evolve, we must absolve all former knowledge of its history. ..it is in fact irrelevant as per your dictum.

My claim has only ever been that a meaning given to a word 3600 years ago can still remain applicable if you are knowledgeable enough to display the proper literal dexterity...regardless of what evolution has occurred during that span.

If this isn't clear enough......I'm afraid I lack the requisite teaching skills.

[Larry]

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?

Actually, I would not in any way assert that it's the only one that matters.

It's the only one that matters, on this subject. And I can see how that's close enough.

 

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.

Actually, I will point out that I have never made that claim. (That the team name has nothing to do with the people.)

(In fact, I would consider any person who so much as suggested that argument to be a flat-out liar, if I thought they were actually serious.)

[autoidiodyssey]

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/

 

LOL, how does it feel Chiefs fans? That has been the goal all along, no more Native American imagery for sports teams. The went after us first because we are the easiest. You can see in the comments of that post that some people are just now realizing that. Several people made reference that going after other teams has hurt their credibility. Our best hope might be that they over play their hand and get overwhelmed by the backlash. 

 

Fans of all Native American themed teams need to realize if we go down they are next. 

[War Paint]

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?

Because like someone else already stated, if money is involved, you damn well better bet some other cause will emerge to cash in as well.  It doesn't matter if the groups still exist or not.  It doesn't matter if the majority see no problem with a name. Heck, there are people who still practice Celtic religions.  Who's to say they are wrong if some ambulance chaser sues the Celtics for mocking their religion?  If the Redskins and other NA theme teams change, the floodgates will be opened.  If those wanting our name change are successful, the blueprint for success will be provided and will be pursued by other groups.  The age of the Ambulance Chasing will begin.

LOL, how does it feel Chiefs fans? That has been the goal all along, no more Native American imagery for sports teams. The went after us first because we are the easiest. You can see in the comments of that post that some people are just now realizing that. Several people made reference to going after other teams has hurting their credibility. Our best hope might be that they over play their hand and get overwhelmed by the backlash. 

 

Fans of all Native American themed teams need to realize if we go down they are next. 

Yep, like you said, they went after us first because we were the easiest, but they might soon realize that the Redskins are too big of an entity to take down and Snyder has the backing and power to resist change for a long time, so they might bounce to other teams like the Chiefs, who are a smaller market team and might have an owner who isn't willing to fight as hard.

[s0crates]

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

 

Have I misunderstood?  

 

You said that mascots are proper nouns, which are not defined in dictionaries.

 

I asked, "What is the relationship between these nouns (bear, packer, wizard, etc.) and their corresponding usage as mascots?"

 

You answered, "Absolutely none whatsoever."

 

So i asked why, for example, the team Bears uses imagery of bears. You didn't answer, instead you said I am attributing to you things you have not said.

 

Where have I gone wrong?

[SWFLSkins]

@detroitnews     have at it. 

[Larry]

Have I misunderstood?  

 

I asked, "What is the relationship between these nouns (bear, packer, wizard, etc.) and their corresponding usage as mascots?"

 

You answered, "Absolutely none whatsoever."

 

So i asked why, for example, the team Bears uses imagery of bears.

You asked what was the relationship between their dictionary definitions, and the teams.

 

Perhaps I misunderstood your point. 

 

(Perhaps, if you dropped the schtick, and stated it, it would help?) 

[Fan since a Fetus]

So the Chiefs, Indians and Braves are getting flack.  Are the Seahawks going to have issues because their art work is based off of Indian artwork and their mascot has what I believe to be an Indian name Taima the Hawk which means Thunder.

 

I know this is a reach here, but if they want to eliminate everything, would the Seahawks be in the discussion?  Or are they only going after obvious stuff like Oklahoma, I mean Redskins?

[Boss_Hogg]

I'm seeing this argument on social media, apparently it's gaining some steam for the name changers:

 

In the mid 20th century the term “chief” was frequently used as a way to talk down to American Indians much like the term “boy” was used for African Americans.

[s0crates]

You're off the rails bruh. You've managed to spin your arguments back upon themselves & talk from both sides of your mouth 3 times now.

What arguments have I advanced? Could you perhaps quote some declarative statement I've made so as to remind me?

You do realize that it was you who proposed several times that words changing over time is equivalent to the destruction, eradication, or obliteration of the formerly defined.

Please point to one of the "several" times I said this, as I simply do not recall making such a claim.

In your world, "cool" now can ONLY be defined by its modern euphemistic sense. The original definition or intent now, no longer has meaning or context according to what you have TYPED SEVERAL TIMES OVER.

I don't think I said any such thing. I asked you to explain the evolving use of the word "cool" within the limits of your claim that words have fixed meanings.

I get what you're doing though...

I'm not sure you do. I've only asked you to explain your position to me.

The problem is...despite your claims, you have made no attempt to learn or provide knowledge.

What is the point of asking questions, if not to learn?

I would be happy to provide knowledge if I had any, but since I don't I ask questions of those who think they do.

You clearly have set a line in the sand that states that a word, once given new purpose or meaning, cannot then, ever maintain ANY prior definition.

When did I say that? If I "clearly" drew this line, then do show me where I drew it.

So when I presumed to simply supply examples...laid clearly within your biblical scripture defined as "El dictionary" in your surmise...that express the multiple possible definitions even the simplest word can have, your basic reply was: "where's the sole definition? "

I believe I asked whether the dictionary was authoritative, I did not say it was. If the truth is otherwise, please correct me.

My claim has only ever been that a meaning given to a word 3600 years ago can still remain applicable if you are knowledgeable enough to display the proper literal dexterity...

I've quoted you making other claims, but I'll happily accept this revision. Is it now your contention that etymology is relevant in defining words, but words may also have various meanings and connotations?

[nemocystem]

Oh look, a sparrow.

[s0crates]

You asked what was the relationship between their dictionary definitions, and the teams.

 

Perhaps I misunderstood your point. 

 

(Perhaps, if you dropped the schtick, and stated it, it would help?) 

 

I don't have a point that I'm aware of, I'm trying to understand your point.

 

The dictionary defines the word "bear" as "any one of a group of large and heavy animals that have thick hair and sharp claws."  The Chicago Bears use imagery of large and heavy animals with thick hair and sharp claws.

 

Is it still your contention that the dictionary definition and the mascot have absolutely no relationship whatsoever? If so, how do you account for this apparent correspondence?

[skins island connection]

 Maybe its just me, but the latest outcries could possibly be a good thing [ that is if you are in favor of keeping the name Redskins ].

 

 Is this a desperation move? Grasping straws, throwing **** on the wall to see what sticks?

 This could be, IMO, a good thing, a silver lining underneath this turmoil. Maybe they are seeing the amount of resistance to a name change and are trying to get traction/results from other areas to enhance their chances of winning.

 

 Now, as many know, the Kansas City Chiefs and Cleveland Indians are the latest to come under attack from this new-age personal offense group. Who is next? Actually, the vast majority of pro and college sports teams could technically be thrown under the bus and into a courtroom seat. Anyone could lay claim to being offended by something, even reading this reply, but there's no monitary gain from challenging me, so good luck with that one.

 

But one thing does make me wonder; today its the Redskins, Chiefs and Indians, but who will tomorrow's list be? Because a group of people decide they are offended doesn't actually give them the right to file suit.

Why or how, a tribe, who has private land with their own laws protected by and unaffected by the laws of the United States of America, can actually jump out of their personal jurisdiction to change something in another land, is beyond me. Law enforcement cannot step foot on protected native land without permission, cannot arrest a native American, even for murder, without permission, yet the very same protected group can reach outside of their private land and demand change.

 

If this name change ends up winning somehow, someone's pockets are being lined. The old fashioned method of majority rules works in civil court, and should work in these cases too.

[Kosher Ham]

The word "Bear" of all things.

 

haha.

 

What a terrible example to use.

So many meanings according to the dictionary.

 

That is what I think many people here are missing.

 

Bear arms

Bear children

I can hardly bear it

Grizzly Bear

 

Context of Redskins, is about the team.

 

Bear with me here...

[TD_washingtonredskins]

This picture offends relatives of people lost at sea, bears, geometry, Bermudans, people who approve of proper-length shorts, and Packer fans. 

 

[Larry]

Why or how, a tribe, who has private land with their own laws protected by and unaffected by the laws of the United States of America, can actually jump out of their personal jurisdiction to change something in another land, is beyond me. Law enforcement cannot step foot on protected native land without permission, cannot arrest a native American, even for murder, without permission, yet the very same protected group can reach outside of their private land and demand change.

Uh, this may come as a shock to you, but:

Natives are US Citizens.

And they are allowed outside the reservation.

(They're even allowed to use the white folks rest rooms.)

And they can be arrested.

[BleedBNG]

 Maybe its just me, but the latest outcries could possibly be a good thing [ that is if you are in favor of keeping the name Redskins ].

 

 Is this a desperation move? Grasping straws, throwing **** on the wall to see what sticks?

 This could be, IMO, a good thing, a silver lining underneath this turmoil. Maybe they are seeing the amount of resistance to a name change and are trying to get traction/results from other areas to enhance their chances of winning.

 

I like it. More cities and people to piss off, and to show how silly all this is. And I'll like seeing how the media picks and chooses what they feel is offensive or not. Let the spin... spin around and around.

[Destino]

Now, as many know, the Kansas City Chiefs and Cleveland Indians are the latest to come under attack from this new-age personal offense group. Who is next? Actually, the vast majority of pro and college sports teams could technically be thrown under the bus and into a courtroom seat. Anyone could lay claim to being offended by something, even reading this reply, but there's no monitary gain from challenging me, so good luck with that one.

Setting aside the redskins and chiefs for a moment, you really see nothing wrong with the Indians? No old timey racism stuff at all?

Why or how, a tribe, who has private land with their own laws protected by and unaffected by the laws of the United States of America, can actually jump out of their personal jurisdiction to change something in another land, is beyond me. Law enforcement cannot step foot on protected native land without permission, cannot arrest a native American, even for murder, without permission, yet the very same protected group can reach outside of their private land and demand change.

This is really something special. I applaud you for bringing something unique to this discussion.

[s0crates]

The word "Bear" of all things.

haha.

What a terrible example to use.

So many meanings according to the dictionary.

That is what I think many people here are missing.

Bear arms

Bear children

I can hardly bear it

Grizzly Bear

Context of Redskins, is about the team.

Bear with me here...

Larry and I were speaking about nouns in particular, do you think the verbs bear on this discussion?

[Destino]

This picture offends relatives of people lost at sea, bears, geometry, Bermudans, people who approve of proper-length shorts, and Packer fans.

Those outfits offend everyone.

[grhqofb5]

I asked, "What is the relationship between these nouns (bear, packer, wizard, etc.) and their corresponding usage as mascots?"

 

 

"Wizard" is a derogatory term used to describe a man who practices the Wiccan religion.  Many men accused of being "Wizards" were burned at the stake, hung, drowned, etc., mostly in Europe, but also in the U.S.  Wiccan practitioners have been discriminated against for hundreds, if not thousands of years throughout the world, yet you bandy this term about as if its just the name of our local professional basketball team, when in fact its much, much more than that. 

[RedskinsFan44]

 Maybe its just me, but the latest outcries could possibly be a good thing [ that is if you are in favor of keeping the name Redskins ].

 

 Is this a desperation move? Grasping straws, throwing **** on the wall to see what sticks?

 This could be, IMO, a good thing, a silver lining underneath this turmoil. Maybe they are seeing the amount of resistance to a name change and are trying to get traction/results from other areas to enhance their chances of winning.

I am a bit surprised they have taken on the Indians and Chiefs in such rapid fashion. I presume this is brought on by winning the trademark case.  It has been explicitly stated by Harjo that the elimination of NA mascots was her goal all along.  However, I doubt many of the people jumping on the "Redskins is racist" bandwagon have given much thought to the issue or read up on Harjo.  Redskins just feels racist, no thought necessary. 

 

I believe it is an over-reach at this point, while they are winning the Redskins battle (IMO) they have not won it yet.  Dan is dug in, has lots of money, and his brand generates lots of profit for the league. In particular going after the Indians name rather than just Chief Wahoo and the Chiefs is going to give many pause at this point.

[Destino]

"Wizard" is a derogatory term used to describe a man who practices the Wiccan religion.  Many men accused of being "Wizards" were burned at the stake, hung, drowned, etc., mostly in Europe, but also in the U.S.  Wiccan practitioners have been discriminated against for hundreds, if not thousands of years throughout the world, yet you bandy this term about as if its just the name of our local professional basketball team, when in fact its much, much more than that. 

 

But Harry Potter changed all that.  Wizards are cool now.  

[skins island connection]

Larry,

 Yea, I know they can leave their land at will, I was referring to U.S. law enforcement extending into native land, which it does not, unless given permission. A police officer cannot simply drive onto native land chasing a burglary suspect or car thief without permission. Doesn't make sense but it is what it is. There may be some native/American mutual agreement in some places, but not all.