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

[Spearfeather]

“I am Cherokee from Oklahoma. I became a Redskins fan when I was 8 years

old in 1982 when I first saw the logo and team colors. The name fills me with

pride and I'm very proud to be a fan. Let's win the NFC EAST! HTTR!!!”, Billy

Williams Admin at Native American Redskins Fans

 

“Proud Chiricahua Apache and loyal Redskins fan for over 30 years. Spirit of the

Warrior Fight for Old DC! Ahiyi’e (thank you) ” , Mark OneWolf Yancey Admin at

Native American Redskins Fans

 

http://www.redskinsfacts.com/sites/g/files/lve96/f/201408/LetterToRedskins-web.pdf

 

 

“ 100% PROUD NAVAJO (DINĚ). My father was the man that introduced

me to my team, WASHINGTON REDSKINS! !

I do not find our name offensive, it's exactly the OPPOSITE. !

Sending from Phoenix, AZ. !

HAIL TO THE REDSKINS!!!”, Verna Yazzie!

 

 

“I'm Yaqui and been a die hard loyal Redskins fan since 2004. always

found pride in the name and logo. HTTR!” ,Joe Torres

 

 

“ Monacan in Virginia very proud of the redskin name

.” Karla Plogger

 

 

 

 

 

[Boss_Hogg]

Saw a few NDN redskins fans at FedEx tonight.

 

They didn't seam oppressed or insulted.

[throwback37]

3 things i have been mulling around..

 

1. I can't stand the tone that the name-changers use when talking about the name of our team.. "the time for debate IS over".. "the name IS a racist slur".. "fans of the teams ARE racist".. What gives them the authority to arbitrarily make these decisions for everyone?  They aren't affiliated wih the NFL.. they didn't make the investment in purchasing the team.. and the vast majority of them aren't even Native Americans?  I mean just what gives them right to force their beliefs and wants on everyone else?

 

2. Currently those opposed to the name have the option to not watch, support and flat out ignore the team.  They don't have to be exposed to the team or entrenched in the team's culture.  They don't seem to have the mental discipline to keep themselves away from the team, but they DO have the option to avoid the team and spare themselves such unhappiness.  If the team's name is changed, we fans will NOT have the option to watch our team.. and obviously we will be unhappy.. but THAT'S ok.. it's ok for us to be unhappy, so long as they aren't.  What makes their happiness more important than ours?

 

3. Lastly, If I'm Dan Snyder, the only change I'm ever considering is developing a new logo with Sammy Baugh's likeness.  NOBODY can say he wasn't a Redskin and the team's imagery no longer references native americans. 

 

Thanks for listening.. HTTR

[Hunter_R]

U of M wants the Skins to wear their '07 throwbacks (barf) to avoid displaying the current emblem.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/08/07/university-of-minnesota-wants-washington-to-wear-throwbacks-on-november-2/

They can get bent because of the current rules about helmets.

[Fan since a Fetus]

I think everyone has seen this part of her redskins story:

“The State reward for dead Indians has been increased to $200 for every red-skin sent to Purgatory. This sum is more than the dead bodies of all the Indians east of the Red River are worth.”

The next quote follows where the previous sentence left off. This is from her article, discussing the redskins, as she likes to call them, otherwise known as scalps to everyone else. She does not offer proof of the following, I think my favorite part is the first sentence. I love the word 'could' when trying to present facts:

"And it could be even more horrifying: When such bounties were offered on a sliding scale of payments, depending on whether the dead were men, women or children, the notices often used the term “scalps” when they in fact meant the victims’ genitalia. That was the only way to truly distinguish the gender and maturity of the skinned corpse. Many times the killers reserved the term “top-knot” for an actual scalp of a head with hair."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/washington-football-team-108213.html#ixzz39m2RV1Ld

Ah, so something happened to her once 40 years ago, and she's been pissed off ever since, not to mention having decided that the alleged actions of a few people 40 years ago are indicative of what the team stands for, what the name stands for, and what the fans stand for. 

~Bang

The name wasn't too offensive for her to go to a Redskins game in the first place. I wonder why?

I guess when the 80's came around Marty McFly went back in time and scalped Native Americans and called the scalps Redskins. She found out about it when Doc Brown informed her. She goes on a rampage about something she cannot prove, and only Doc Emmett Brown can.

Great Scott!!!

[SWFLSkins]

I agree w/ mcsluggo. The vitriol and narrow-mindedness in this thread is a bit irksome.

 

Since you are so irked feel free to elaborate and please be descriptive as to what it is exactly here that defines narrow-mindedness.

 

Son of Washington ‏@SonofWashington  4h

"@LadyofRedskins: full blooded native American from the Tsimshian nation who supports the Redskins pic.twitter.com/eXUSBpL8A4" @ProFootballTalk

 

 

 

[grego]

 

Since you are so irked feel free to elaborate and please be descriptive as to what it is exactly here that defines narrow-mindedness.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i dont get it either. 

 

i'm not sure whats narrow minded about the name-defense side. however, i think you could argue its narrow minded to ignore historical evidence (and say 'its just another white man supporting a white man', while sticking to your own made up definition of a word). 

 

or ignoring the fact that context determines the meaning of words.

 

i would add- completely ignoring or discounting fellow native americans opinions that differ from your own- particularly when youre in the vast minority.

 

thats what i would call narrow minded. 

 

maybe my definition of narrow is too narrow?

[Califan007 The Constipated]

I glanced it over. One of the highlights being that she states the Redskins are the tip of the iceberg. She hopes that by taking out the Redskins it will make other teams fall like dominoes.

 

Which is something I and others have said when we were apparently "smearing" her good name.

[MattFancy]

U of M wants the Skins to wear their '07 throwbacks (barf) to avoid displaying the current emblem.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/08/07/university-of-minnesota-wants-washington-to-wear-throwbacks-on-november-2/

They can get bent because of the current rules about helmets.

 

That makes no sense to me. Especially because our logo was created by Native Americans. Again, wonder if they'll make a big stink when they play the University of Illinois.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Does Harjo count?

"I have been fighting against the racist slurs in D.C. ever since my husband and I went to our first and last Washington football game in 1974, and the fans around us began touching and tugging our hair and using the R-word to tell their friends about us."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/washington-football-team-108213.html#ixzz39krvTln9

 

What, she didn't realize it was a slur until then?...Or does she mean she realized it was a racist slur and was the name given to the bloody scalps of Native Americans...but still decided to attend a game and give the team her money anyway? But those handful of Skins fans who touched her hair and referred to her as a 'Redskin', THAT was just too much?

 

Think anyone, anywhere in the media, would ask her any of those questions (or ask any of them rhetorically to their audience/readers)? Will they even ask those questions to themselves before writing up their latest Op-Ed piece? Or is asking those questions considered "smearing" her?

 

From the factual history surrounding Harjo and her past claims, I wouldn't trust a single damn word she said about anything on this matter. Which is sad, because she doesn't realize how much she may be damaging her reputation through her zeal to find different ways to show "Redskin is definitely an offensive racial slur".

[SWFLSkins]

narrow-mindedness = anyone's way of thinking that differs from my own?

[nuposse87]

its simple... don't support the team. You ARE a hypocrite if you support a team that has a name you find offensive.

 

I couldn't imagine supporting a team that has a name that I despise.

 

Its just  simple logic.

 

there are plenty of other teams. Dallas will welcome you with open arms.. Now go find another team and shut up...

 

its so simple. stop bugging the rest of us.

 

Can't say I agree with this line of thinking. I certainly don't root for the Wizards because I am a big fan of magical old dudes. I root for the teams I root for, generally, because of geographical association (which might be petty in itself). Like many fellow skins fans, I grew up in the DMV and consider it home. It may be too simple and cliche, but for me, I root for them cause they are MY hometown team, the first one I associated with. What they are called, whether it be Redskins or Butt-Scratchers, is arbitrary. 

 

I've actually never really liked our team colors, or the scheme, but they rep DC, so I'll root for em till the end (Again, the colors are arbitrary as well, nobody should choose to root for a team based on aesthetics like logos and jerseys, IMO anyways). I just want the issue resolved more then anything, it takes away from the most important aspect out of all of this, football. 

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

 

narrow-mindedness = anyone's way of thinking that differs from my own?

 

 

This thread is generally well-behaved, because it's the one thread in the Taigate where 95 percent of it is everyone vigorously agreeing with one another.

 

The issue with it is the tone - which is basically, anyone in the outside world that speaks on this issue is either a hypocrite or stupid or part of Kardashian Kulture (whatever the hell that is) or just a white liberal trying to feel good about himself.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

3 things i have been mulling around..

 

1. I can't stand the tone that the name-changers use when talking about the name of our team.. "the time for debate IS over".. "the name IS a racist slur".. "fans of the teams ARE racist".. What gives them the authority to arbitrarily make these decisions for everyone?  They aren't affiliated wih the NFL.. they didn't make the investment in purchasing the team.. and the vast majority of them aren't even Native Americans?  I mean just what gives them right to force their beliefs and wants on everyone else?

 

I'm not sure anyone has ever argued that the fans of the team are racist. Also, the "What gives them the right to force their beliefs on anyone else" argument is truly the last refuge of a scoundrel. You can make that argument about anything. From gay marriage to flouride in drinking water to HOA rules about the color of your front door. Part of the social compact is that occasionally, you are going to have to tailor your behavior for the sake of others. And sometimes you are going to find that annoying or unncessary.

 

2. Currently those opposed to the name have the option to not watch, support and flat out ignore the team.  They don't have to be exposed to the team or entrenched in the team's culture.  They don't seem to have the mental discipline to keep themselves away from the team, but they DO have the option to avoid the team and spare themselves such unhappiness.  If the team's name is changed, we fans will NOT have the option to watch our team.. and obviously we will be unhappy.. but THAT'S ok.. it's ok for us to be unhappy, so long as they aren't.  What makes their happiness more important than ours?

 

This is the same argument as before. Unfortunately, this is not the kind of issue where compromise is really possible. My college was all male for over 200 year. It went co-ed in the 60s. When I was in school, there was still a sizable minority of old alums who were still pissed about that. And there were a lot of scars lingering from some federal lawsuits in the 80s about opening up social life on campus to women. But that was the kind of argument that someone was going to end up hurt in. There is no way to be a little bit co-ed. There is no way to be a little bit "Redskinsy." Either the name stays or it goes.

 

3. Lastly, If I'm Dan Snyder, the only change I'm ever considering is developing a new logo with Sammy Baugh's likeness.  NOBODY can say he wasn't a Redskin and the team's imagery no longer references native americans.

 

That's just weird.

[RFKFedEx]

Ya, I thought the same. I rock the Baugh 33 jersey these days, but naming the franchise in his honor would be an overdose of man love.

[Destino]

I think everyone has seen this part of her redskins story:

“The State reward for dead Indians has been increased to $200 for every red-skin sent to Purgatory. This sum is more than the dead bodies of all the Indians east of the Red River are worth.”

The next quote follows where the previous sentence left off. This is from her article, discussing the redskins, as she likes to call them, otherwise known as scalps to everyone else. She does not offer proof of the following, I think my favorite part is the first sentence. I love the word 'could' when trying to present facts:

"And it could be even more horrifying: When such bounties were offered on a sliding scale of payments, depending on whether the dead were men, women or children, the notices often used the term “scalps” when they in fact meant the victims’ genitalia. That was the only way to truly distinguish the gender and maturity of the skinned corpse. Many times the killers reserved the term “top-knot” for an actual scalp of a head with hair."

I appreciate what your trying to say here, that she lacks evidence to support her claims, but your tone is disturbingly cheerful considering the subject of the quote you chose to highlight.

[Boss_Hogg]

So now the University of Minnesota is following Betty McCollum's "The Debate is Over all Redskins fans are racists! RAWR" rant:

 

According to the college, the Redskins logo (which was designed by a Blackfeet Indian) is offensive to Native Americans.
 
oooookayyy.

[Bang]

I used to know a guy who called his penis the "Gopher".

Given that all we need is a very small group to be offended, I would think U of M needs to change their name.

Honestly, if children knew they were named after that guy's dork, i don't think society would be too forgiving. The fact they have blatantly and unapologetically used this disgusting term shows how inconsiderate they are. People in Minnesota ought to be ashamed of themselves, unless they're all just perverts.

 

And if they claim it's not named after his penis, they're lying. After all, i have anecdotal evidence to the contrary, and seeing as how i just wrote it down and effectively published it, it is now documented.

 

~Boink

[rick7423]

This PC society is just getting out of control. As evidence, reference an article from the National Review). Also reference the Daily Mail UK as similar reference.

 

If gardening can be considered racist, anything and everything can be constituted as racist these days:

 

A sociology lecturer at the University of Westminster is claiming that panelists on a BBC radio show are covertly spreading racist and fascist messages when they talk about gardening.

Dr. Ben Pitcher claimed that people on Gardeners’ Question Time are really just using gardening as a covert way to talk about white identity without seeming racist.

 

“Gardeners’ Question Time is not the most controversial show on Radio 4, and yet it is layered with, saturated with, racial meanings,” he said on another Radio 4 show, according to an article in the Daily Mail.

“The context here is the rise of nationalism,” he continued.

The topics discussed on the show include different plant species and soil purity, which Pitcher identified as code language for racial purity. The Caucasian sociologist said radio personalities use discussions of “invasive” and non-native plant species to express opposition to foreigners. Another guest on Radio 4 — a baroness and former professor of cultural studies — agreed with Pitcher, comparing British concerns about rhododendrons to anti-Pakistani sentiments in the 1980s.

A frequent panelist on Gardeners’ Question Time, the aptly named Bob Flowerdew, called Pitcher’s claims “ridiculous.”

“Does he want us to stop using words altogether? Perhaps we shouldn’t use Latin names to avoid offending the Romans,” Flowerdew said

[grego]

 

The issue with it is the tone - which is basically, anyone in the outside world that speaks on this issue is either a hypocrite or stupid or part of Kardashian Kulture (whatever the hell that is) or just a white liberal trying to feel good about himself.

 

 

how would you describe the tone of the name changers?

[Fan since a Fetus]

I appreciate what your trying to say here, that she lacks evidence to support her claims, but your tone is disturbingly cheerful considering the subject of the quote you chose to highlight.

I understand what you are saying after I re-read my post.

My problem, and it is has been growing in the last couple months, is that everything is offensive, not just the name. I am talking everything in this world. It is constant ****ing. Even my friends lately have been ****ing about everything. It has gotten annoying. I am starting to avoid hanging out with them.

One guy that I love hanging out with is 32 and has 2 types of cancer. He doesn't complain and just moves on with his life. We joke about his cancer all the time. It makes him feel better, even though he is going through the roughest time.

One person I know is offended watching Disney movies when the lowly women that wear glasses and have curls end up turning into beautiful women that have straight hair and are void of glasses. They are legitimately angry about this.

I am joking about more things than ever. It is the only way I can deal with all the stupid crap going on. This 'I am offended' crap and I am going to sue has gone too far. Again, I am not just talking about this issue. Everyone is doing it these days.

Maybe I am making light of the situation. I have been so stressed out lately at everything, it really is the only way I can cope. Up until this point, I have been very respectful in this thread. I will do my best to continue to be. I don't want to be a name caller, but Harjo is a joke.

I have a huge problem with the newly offended. Take for example Mike Greenberg from ESPN's Mike and Mike. He admitted that he knows nothing about the history of the term redskin. He has covered sports for years and has never had a problem, yet he refuses to use the Redskins name anymore, because it 'just seems offensive'.

I am not saying that people cannot be legitimately offended. I am also not trying to compare one person's offense to another. It is just a culmination of ****ing and I have hit my boiling point. If I don't joke and take these things more light heartedly, I am going to explode because I am a very tense guy.

[Bang]

This thread is generally well-behaved, because it's the one thread in the Taigate where 95 percent of it is everyone vigorously agreeing with one another.

 

The issue with it is the tone - which is basically, anyone in the outside world that speaks on this issue is either a hypocrite or stupid or part of Kardashian Kulture (whatever the hell that is) or just a white liberal trying to feel good about himself.

Kardashian Kulture is the ever expanding group of individuals who are enthralled by the latest bit of pap shoved in front of them ad-nauseum. the group that insures that "reality TV" is actually a thing, the group that actually cares about very little beyond the last thing they heard, or saw on a headline at a checkout stand. The group that has brought tabloid bull**** out of the shadows and into the mainstream.

The easily manipulated, the duped,  the taken-advantage of, the suckers who make sure that our society is opened up to deluge after deluge of the insipid, the shallow, the plastic artificial propped up crap that is not only our "entertainment", but also our "news".

this sort of thinking now dominates our society..  it's everywhere, and no matter what you do as a society to try and advance, you must now account for The Idiot, for he is a large group, and easily riled. They insure our society crawls at a pace that can accommodate them.

 

the Herd, ..that big noisy stupid beast that gorges itself at the trough of misinformation and disinformation, tearing at everything, constantly offended about this or that. Dumb, angry and easily manipulated into being more and more angry every single day.

This is the Kardashian Kulture. I use the term becvause if not for this group of mouth breathing morons, nobody would care who this fat rich whore is, but they do, and they do because they are bombarded with her, and they are bombarded because the publicists know that it doesn't matter if she's nothing but a rich fat whore, so long as she's on magazine covers and her life is a reality TV show, people WILL "care" about what pair of panties her sister wore to go shopping for a new $10,000 handbag...

and before that, they cared about Paris Hilton... another spoiled worthless bag of skin who should not be celebrated, but somehow is.

and if you don't think my using the term fits, then maybe you should ask why the change pushers continually try to trick you using big words they're sure you don't know...   like "Caricature". 

Why they ignore everything but their own flawed narrative, and why they are sure this demographic won't care. They bank on it, and so far, they've been right.

If they respected the intelligence of those they are recruiting, they would not need to use such tactics, but since they embrace them in their desperation to get this done before it is gone for another 50 years, it's clear that they have decided that trying to prove their case with facts is not going to work, so they go for the people they can manipulate the easiest..  namely people who wouldn't know what "caricature" means and don't question it being used as one their main points of offense in the manifesto. 

 

and make no mistake.. this rather large demographic of ignorance is not only being manipulated in this case,,  but all across the board, and we're all the worse for it.

 

I say ask the Natives. the Kardashian Kulture never answers because the Kardashian Kulture doesn't care about the answer. All they want to know is what they think, and all they think is what they're fed.

 

 

~Bang

[Riggo-toni]

Bang,

That goes down as one of the greatest posts in Tailgate history. I might print that out and have it framed!

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

and if you don't think my using the term fits, then maybe you should ask why the change pushers continually try to trick you using big words they're sure you don't know...   like "Caricature". 

Why they ignore everything but their own flawed narrative, and why they are sure this demographic won't care. They bank on it, and so far, they've been right.

If they respected the intelligence of those they are recruiting, they would not need to use such tactics, but since they embrace them in their desperation to get this done before it is gone for another 50 years, it's clear that they have decided that trying to prove their case with facts is not going to work, so they go for the people they can manipulate the easiest..  namely people who wouldn't know what "caricature" means and don't question it being used as one their main points of offense in the manifesto. 

 

This is either an insult or an accusation. My discomfort level with the name either stems from a lack of congnitive ability, or it is some kind of performance art on my part to manipulate others for some nefafrious reason.

 

And I hope the big words I used didn't confuse anyone.

I have a huge problem with the newly offended. Take for example Mike Greenberg from ESPN's Mike and Mike. He admitted that he knows nothing about the history of the term redskin. He has covered sports for years and has never had a problem, yet he refuses to use the Redskins name anymore, because it 'just seems offensive'.

 

 

This is perhaps the most consistent argument here. And I, frankly, don't buy it.

 

We retire words constantly for reasons both obvious and not so obvious.

 

Is there any chance in 2014 that any of us would say, "That Oriental guy gypped me in his store?"

 

"Gyp" is a word that is slowly fading way for obvious reasons. But - I'll be honest with you - I haven't said the word "Oriental" since the mid 90s, and I'm not exactly sure why that is the case. It just "feels" antiquated to me. I'm sure I could find an Asian Studies major to give me an explanation. And I'm sure I could find a contrarian Asian Studies major to tell me that I'm simply acting on my bourgeois Northeastern liberalism in abstaining from using the word, and that it is actually the preferred term.

[Destino]

Maybe I am making light of the situation. I have been so stressed out lately at everything, it really is the only way I can cope. Up until this point, I have been very respectful in this thread. I will do my best to continue to be. I don't want to be a name caller, but Harjo is a joke.

Harjo holds to extreme racial beliefs and makes statements without supporting them. Constantly. That article claims several times that a majority of native Americans side with her but that's never even been close to proven. Still it's best to remember that while the redskin name issue is very much in debate at the moment, the genocide that pushed Native Americans to the brink of extinction are not. Its easy to take on too casual a tone with overly familiar discussions but when you're talking about exchanging pieces of people, children among them, for coin it's best to keep to a respectful tone.

I have a huge problem with the newly offended. Take for example Mike Greenberg from ESPN's Mike and Mike. He admitted that he knows nothing about the history of the term redskin. He has covered sports for years and has never had a problem, yet he refuses to use the Redskins name anymore, because it 'just seems offensive'

its annoying, especially when every new arrival resets the discussion back to the origin of the Eire because they haven't even bothered to research anything. Greenberg does highlight a major problem for those dead set on keeping the name, the claims that it is inherently racist have the ring of truth to them because of our color sensitive society. I mean red skin has to be racist right because black skin and yellow skin would never be ok right? It's actually delightfully bias and racist. No one, and I mean NO ONE, initially thinks "well maybe native Americans referred to themselves that way and think it appropriate." In this country what is and is not racist is largely defined by white and black race relations. Everyone else gets dragged into their conclusions on what is appropriate.