planter Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 I still don't think the name is changing. What will probably happen is all references to Native Americans will be dropped - logo, feathers, spears, etc. And we will go back to the big red Lombardi R sans the feathers. They can even stylize the logo with the curly R: Do you think the Braves and Chiefs will have to change names? I think NOT so why should give up on our logo and fight song when the main target is the name? There are some fans INSISTING on no name change and are willing to dump the logo and fight song if they lose.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Paint Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 They should have made him blue. It wouldn't show up on their blue cap. Which is why I have no problem with the logo, or any of the Native American imagery if done respectfully.  Chief Wahoo is a disgrace, which is why Cleveland has been quietly putting him out to pasture (without announcing it).  He's is no longer on the hat, he has all but disappeared from their stadium, he is almost gone from their official website.  Cleveland is playing it smart, and letting us take the heat while they do it.  I still have a problem with the word "redskin."  People take themselves way too seriously these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 They should have made him blue. Maybe if he held his breath til they gave in... Â Â I totally agree on Chief Wahoo and am completely with Predicto on why that logo is a disgrace and the Redskins is not. Â ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Paint Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 I still don't get the word "disgrace" being used in regards to their logo. Sounds very over dramatic IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planter Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 Its the face on the Indian Head nickel, right down to the two feathers. Then it's a tribute! He joins Presidents on our currency. Sweet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Paint Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 Maybe if he held his breath til they gave in... Â Â I totally agree on Chief Wahoo and am completely with Predicto on why that logo is a disgrace and the Redskins is not. Â ~Bang The use of cartoony mascots is nothing new to baseball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 The Cleveland Indians' logo is cartoonish which means it's not serious in nature but comical and to have that as a representation of a people is in its nature condescending. Like the team name Savages, the intent may not be to disparage but the inference is uncivilized and that is condescending and degrading. Same thing with having a cartoon represent an ethnic group. On top of that his name is Chief Wahoo. Case in point, there's a reason the Braves have gotten rid of Chief Knockahoma. If Cleveland used a logo similar to ours and re-named him after a famous NA from the area, problem solved. Â Redskins the logo was designed by a tribal chief with the approval of other chiefs. The name itself has an origin as a descriptor, was coined by NAs, and the word in and of itself is not degrading as it does not imply any inferiority for having reddish skin, it's merely a descriptor as is white and black plus NA history has owned red as a skin color descriptor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 Then it's a tribute!It is indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 The use of cartoony mascots is nothing new to baseball. no, but exaggerating racial characteristics is no longer acceptable. Chief Wahoo is a good examlpe of it. Â ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Paint Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 no, but exaggerating racial characteristics is no longer acceptable. Chief Wahoo is a good examlpe of it.  ~Bang Again, what racial characteristics are being exaggerated? The only thing I see that is exaggerated is his teeth. The color of the mascot, as I already pointed out, matches the other parts of the uniform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsFan44 Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 Which is why I have no problem with the logo, or any of the Native American imagery if done respectfully. Â Chief Wahoo is a disgrace, which is why Cleveland has been quietly putting him out to pasture (without announcing it). Â He's is no longer on the hat, he has all but disappeared from their stadium, he is almost gone from their official website. Â Cleveland is playing it smart, and letting us take the heat while they do it. Â I still have a problem with the word "redskin." Â He is still on the sleeve of the uniform: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/05/23/what-senators-think-about-indians-and-chiefs/ Â Add:Â I propose Natives, derived from same Latin root as Nationals, pretty hard to assail in terms of political correctness, even works in the song. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins island connection Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 Â If a pro-Lesbian organization suddenly developed a dis-like for the name 'William', because people would call him 'Dick' for short, and demanded the name no longer be used, would that be fair? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 Then it's a tribute! Only if you give it to Caesar. (I'm here all week, folks.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsFan44 Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 Â If a pro-Lesbian organization suddenly developed a dis-like for the name 'William', because people would call him 'Dick' for short, and demanded the name no longer be used, would that be fair? I think you mean Richard, lol. Â Add:Â I worked at Outward Bound with a guy named Dick, and he made it clear that his name was Richard in front of the kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 The thread is degenerating rapidly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ram29jackson Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 so that would make Indians stupid then if they are worried about being depicted with big teeth LOL Â seriously..this is ****ing stupid from all angles. There are so many indian football fans that if this were actually a problem they would have complained in the 1960s. This is because some obsessive woman who doesn't even watch sports is having a 10 year hissy fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 If a pro-Lesbian organization suddenly developed a dis-like for the name 'William', because people would call him 'Dick' for short, and demanded the name no longer be used, would that be fair? Incredible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 Incredible.  He didn't ask if it was credible. He asked if it would be fair.  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planter Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 Only if you give it to Caesar. (I'm here all week, folks.) Romero? He didn't ask if it was credible. He asked if it would be fair. It's a badly flawed analogy. Don't know about fairness? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 Â If a pro-Lesbian organization suddenly developed a dis-like for the name 'William', because people would call him 'Dick' for short, and demanded the name no longer be used, would that be fair? Â Thanks for your input. Â Very helpful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 Again, what racial characteristics are being exaggerated? The only thing I see that is exaggerated is his teeth. The color of the mascot, as I already pointed out, matches the other parts of the uniform. the grinning in'jun is a definite stereotype. I'm not sure where it originates, but it is. It's not the only place i've seen it..  hell Warner Bros'  used to make them all grin like that in their old racially insensitive cartoons.  ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulSkin Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 I have concluded that at this point we should just **** with people and change our name to Mascots. Keep the logo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 William = Priceless. Â Wow. haha. Â Maybe he meant... Willy ??? Â haha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 William = Priceless.  Wow. haha.  Maybe he meant... Willy ???  haha.  I think he prefers "slick". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss_Hogg Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 The use of cartoony mascots is nothing new to baseball. Especially in japan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.