Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

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


Alaskins

Recommended Posts

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.

 

That's a good point. I would also argue - as I have on here for a while - that part of the issue is that Native Americans are largely absent from the culture, particularly on the East Coast. So, all this discussion tends to feel distant from the actual people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

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.

 

 

Let me be clear, LKB, I don't put you or anyone else who has taken part in this thread in that category.

I have great respect for your posts and your viewpoints, even if we occasionally disagree.

 

Each of the folks who have stood in this thread to argue the pro name change side, i can respect their motivations,, none of you are who i'd call the unthinking, the Herd,, the Kardashian Kulture.. even RFKfedex.. who i have strongly disagreed with..  I get the impression he believes what he believes because it's in his heart, not some new thing that makes him feel better.

 

we have a good board here,, and even though some folks i disagree with more than others, i value the input we get on this site. It's a good group.

 

sorry if I made anyone feel as if i was specifically questioning their intelligence or heart,, no such thing. True Kardashian kulture members would not survive here.

 

But I figured since you asked, i'd define what i mean with the term. i no way was it meant to be a direct shot at anyone here, least of all you.

I don't discount the fact that actual real smart people can have perfectly valid reasons for deciding the name should be changed, but that doesn't seem to be who Harjo is catering to.

You, predicto, destino,, you guys have valid reasons for why you feel what you do, and i don't engage you on them. Who am i to argue with that?

I'm against the bully job being done outside of rational debate.

 

~Bang

Edited by Bang
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

But I figured since you asked, i'd define what i mean with the term. i no way was it meant to be a direct shot at anyone here, least of all you.

I don't discount the fact that actual real smart people can have perfectly valid reasons for deciding the name should be changed, but that doesn't seem to be who Harjo is catering to.

You, predicto, destino,, you guys have valid reasons for why you feel what you do, and i don't engage you on them. Who am i to argue with that?

I'm against the bully job being done outside of rational debate.

 

I'm not sure Harjo is catering to anyone. I barely know who Harjo is, and I actually am interested in this argument. Setting her (it is a her, right?) up as the prime mover of this issue is, frankly, giving her too much credit.

 

And, for the record, activists are annoying. One of the main issues I have as a left-winger is the people whose ideals I share are often the most annoying, sanctimonious people on the planet. Do you think I actually like anyone involved in Code Pink or OWS or any of the groups who I agree with 95 percent of the time? Of course not. I was strongly opposed to Howard Dean in the 2004 primary for the simple reason that I hated his supporters.

 

But ..... activists serve a purpose. They bring attention to an issue. They keep the conversation alive. And eventually, that conversation becomes part of the zeitgeist. How that happens and on what timeframe is often unpredictable.

 

Why is this particular issue so prominent now, considering there have discussions on it for 40-some years? I dunno. I'm sure Malcolm Gladwell will have an essay on it soon.

 

But I absolutely fundamentally disagree with the idea that people who wake up to an issue that they have either previosuly ignored or had the opposite opinion on is an act of hypocrisy. I can think of no current example greater than gay marriage.

 

I was in law school in the mid to late 90s. And this was a powerful moment in the "gay rights" movement. We spent a lot of time on Bowers v. Hardwick, and this being a fairly conservative Catholic college, a lot of the arguments fell to the defense of the decision. I doubt more than 10 percent of the people in that class would defend that case now.

 

Along the same lines, despite the discussions we were having on these issues, the idea of same sex marriage probably never came up. I don't even remember being aware of it as a concept until maybe my early 30s. And today, it seems ridiculoust that there is resitance to it.

 

Does that make me a hypocrite? An ignoramus?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, she (is a she) has been the prime motivator since the beginning of this thing. Amanda Blackhorse may have been with her since the start, but I'm honestly not sure, i know she's the one who filed the paperwork in the Trademark office.. and I'm pretty sure they've put the heavy push on now because once the trademark is approved it's good for 50 years.

They've tried many times through the courts, and been tossed out every time for not being able to demonstrate that it is an offensive term.

 

but, really, this is just the background of where we are now, which in my mind is her and her small group saying that because they couldn't prove it, they'll just get loud, because loud wins a whole lot more often than it should (mostly because it enlists the Herd, which is nothing if not persistently loud.)

 

Courts aren't always on the right side of history if the letter of the law does not let them be there, and also because the courts evolve just like attitudes do over time. and as i said in a post a couple weeks ago in answer to someone pointing out how many NA organizations are on board with this..   like you said,,  Code Pink isn't speaking for you, even if you are lumped together by a loose definition of your ideology.

One of the primary NA organizations supporting the change listed was some big organization of Navajo, but we all know of the high schools that are in Navajo territory and attended almost exclusively by Navajo who refer to themselves as the Redskins. So there's a lot of question there.

 

What bugs me is that there is a large grey area in being certain she is actually speaking for those she says she is speaking for. In the past she could not muster enough support to convince any courts that it offended anyone besides herself. in the not-as-distant past there are polls that show a very large question as to how many of her people actually want her to do this.

 

And this is where I am. The Natives are the ones who must answer the question. not us (even though i enjoy this debate.. weird, huh?), not UnWise Mike, or Peter King, or the Kardashian Kulture with their facebook thumbs and hashtags. i think the question has been shown to at least not be anywhere close to the slam dunk many seem to think it is.

Non-natives say things like "it's obvious it's offensive"..  OK, but to whom? to this person who is offended because he believes that person SHOULD be offended? Or to that person who it relates to who's opinion is being ignored?

i mean, when we complain "PC has run amok" to me this is what that means,,  not that people want to be treated with respect, but others deciding what defines that respect on their behalf., seemingly whether they like it or not.

 

~Bang

Edited by Bang
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Disagree, it is when someone just dismisses someone else with a baseless logic where the tone goes south. There have been disagreements and opposing viewpoints raised in this thread. In fact I would say I have learned a lot about the "name changers"= not all good, but I have been exposed to some real reasons why some individuals have issue with the name. Now the real reasons are by a minority who have been exposed to the name in a negative way, it's rare, which reinforces the majorities inclination to keep the name. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

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.

 

Well you never hear anyone say I got "jew'd" out of something anymore. Heard it when I was a kid though, and probably was not directed toward Jews in general, who knows where that started, but it seems pretty hurtful so it disappeared. Redskins however has a history of where it started and how it was used, that right now is being twisted for an agenda, nobody I know went around saying those damn thieving Redskins getting all that free casino money, or those damn Redskins should have wiped them out when we had our chance, that is ignorant speaking, yet we never heard the word used that way.

 

You still hear some people say those types of sterotypes about Whites, Blacks, about gays, Jews, Muslims, Christians, etc, etc. about orientals, that is racism. There may have been ignorant people who used the Redskins term in that manner, that I will not argue to but stand and say the name only brings up those feelings from the vast majority is wrong and a lie. 

 

Context, is and infallible argument. After all isn't the usage the issue? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i mean, when we complain "PC has run amok" to me this is what that means,,  not that people want to be treated with respect, but others deciding what defines that respect on their behalf., seemingly whether they like it or not.

 

"PC has run amok" can be used to defend anything. And I'm not even sure I agree with the notion that if "Native Americans are okay with it, I'm okay with it." For example, if Twitter or Facebook are any indication, it is now okay with white teens and twenty-something to call their friends (black or white or anything else) ""n-word"."

 

There is simply no way I can ever accept this, even if you show me a poll that says 95 percent of black youth are okay with this. Am I being PC? Reactionary? Conservative? I dunno.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heard it when I was a kid though, and probably was not directed toward Jews in general, who knows where that started, but it seems pretty hurtful so it disappeared.

 

No, it was absolutely directed toward Jews.

 

Redskins however has a history of where it started and how it was used, that right now is being twisted for an agenda, nobody I know went around saying those damn thieving Redskins getting all that free casino money, or those damn Redskins should have wiped them out when we had our chance, that is ignorant speaking, yet we never heard the word used that way.

 

In all honesty, how many conversations about Native Americans have you had in your life?

 

Here is something I just thought of: what are the racial slurs for Native Americans (assuming redskins, isn't one)? Seriously, are there any?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it was absolutely directed toward Jews.

In my youth I used the term jewed, jewing, etc quite frequently. It was never used towards a Jew to disparage them of their faith. I used it to call someone stingy, a thief and all the other negative stereotypes that were/are associated with Jews.

So no, it was not directed towards Jews. It disparaged them, which is why I stopped using it long ago. But that's an aside to the point of the thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"PC has run amok" can be used to defend anything. And I'm not even sure I agree with the notion that if "Native Americans are okay with it, I'm okay with it." For example, if Twitter or Facebook are any indication, it is now okay with white teens and twenty-something to call their friends (black or white or anything else) ""n-word"."

 

There is simply no way I can ever accept this, even if you show me a poll that says 95 percent of black youth are okay with this. Am I being PC? Reactionary? Conservative? I dunno.

 

I wonder what percentage of dumb white teens and twenty somethings think the Redskins should change their name but have no problem calling their friends the n-word. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it was absolutely directed toward Jews.

 

 

 

 

In all honesty, how many conversations about Native Americans have you had in your life?

 

Here is something I just thought of: what are the racial slurs for Native Americans (assuming redskins, isn't one)? Seriously, are there any?

Don't really disagree with your first point, other than when I particularly heard it. IN CONTEXT. I am sure when it was started it was directed at Jews in particular. 

 

For the second point, as many as I could have had. I posted on this many times previously, I have questioned tribes both in writing and when personally able fact to face. I have read extensively about he NA way. I have even posted a pic of a NA that I ran into after having a convo with a poster in this thread that showed no ill will to the name. His name, Oklahoma. This to me, was no coincidence. This happened right after a heated convo right here in this thread, check for yourself. I am blessed to be connected. This happened at the same Costco where I burned a Cowboy fan on the Monday Night Miracle game. That may sound silly to some, but to me, it means something, those who don't envision, struggle with vision. 

 

52414jip066_zps16b77b6a.jpg

 

IN all honesty. Two things I will take to my grave, I don't steal and I don't lie, I have before done both, they brought me bad will. Those who know me will attest to this. I have raised money for charities in the name of the Redskins, I have personally invested my time in the name, and with pride. I have also tried, as I always do, to keep an open mind to other viewpoints on this and any subject I have formed a firm opinion on. I am steadfast in my belief that this name is being slandered and the ultimate cost will bring about the opposite of the anti-name group. The NA legacy and memory along with the mascots being removed one by one will in ten, twenty, fifty years erase the memory of the NA way.  

 

I value the NA way and think the white settlers could have learned more than they took from the NA. The sense of community and the system of governing has not and will never be matched. No fences were put on God's land, it was a gift, as were the bounties of those lands. Food was not horded but shared, a winter was the enemy, not the economy. Ebb and Flow was the guidance of God. Elders were the decision makers, not CEO's. The Matriarch had the Chief's ear on big decisions, after counsel with the other elders the Chief and the Matriarch went to confer and would make a final decision that all would abide with respect. Children were not treated harshly but told stories of great elders, who lead without living for oneself. 

 

I hope that brings you some insight into "In all Honesty" of how I feel about this, the Great spirit has moved me. It is he that moves my fingers, I am gifted that he speaks through me and that I am able to feel his presence. 

 

-Don't call a NA an Indian. 

Edited by SWFLSkins
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think people are hypocritical simply because they suddenly have started to have an issue with the name.

However, anyone trying to equate it to the n-word or suggesting it absolutely is a racial slur in all cases and is being used in an offensive way ... who remains a fan of the team, continues to financially support the team by visiting things like their ad enabled official websites, contribute to their advertising power by watching games and getting friends to watch the game, give money to the franchise via merchandise, etc are quite possibly being hypocrites.

Why do I say this.

Simple question. So often people (ignorantly and erroneously imho) try to compare it as being exactly equivalent to the n-word. They'll say things like "Would a team called the n-words work today?!" as if that proves anything.

Well, would that person still be a fan of a team calling themselves the N-Words? Would they be visiting their official websites? Would they be buying their merchandise? Would they be watching their games? Would they be informing people they're "N-word fans" or posting about it on twitter? Heck, would they even support in any fashion a LEAGUE that allowed that? If the answer is "No", and yet they continue to be a fan of the Redskins, while at the same time trying to suggest that it's a racial slur on a similar level to the N-Word, then yes...they're absolutely hypocrites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Snyder should seriously call up the Patawomeck tribe and get the tribe's offcial blessing. Then Harjo has no more standing and this all goes away.

I pray this happens.

"PC has run amok" can be used to defend anything. And I'm not even sure I agree with the notion that if "Native Americans are okay with it, I'm okay with it." For example, if Twitter or Facebook are any indication, it is now okay with white teens and twenty-something to call their friends (black or white or anything else) ""n-word"."

There is simply no way I can ever accept this, even if you show me a poll that says 95 percent of black youth are okay with this. Am I being PC? Reactionary? Conservative? I dunno.

If native Americans are 95% ok with it, you're still not?

I'm not sure what to say about that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I pray this happens.

If native Americans are 95% ok with it, you're still not?

I'm not sure what to say about that.

 

I wasn't sure either, but that didn't stop me. 

Native American fan tells why he is Blackfeet Strong, Redskins Proud | Redskins Hog Heaven http://redskinshogheaven.com/2013-articles/native-american-fan-tells-why-he-is-blackfeet-strong-redskins-proud.html  @UMNews #UMNproud

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"PC has run amok" can be used to defend anything. And I'm not even sure I agree with the notion that if "Native Americans are okay with it, I'm okay with it." For example, if Twitter or Facebook are any indication, it is now okay with white teens and twenty-something to call their friends (black or white or anything else) ""n-word"."

 

There is simply no way I can ever accept this, even if you show me a poll that says 95 percent of black youth are okay with this. Am I being PC? Reactionary? Conservative? I dunno.

 

 

That's fine. people are free to make personal choices about what bothers them and what doesn't. 

 

I don't disrespect your choice, or even Harjo's choice. 

 

~Bang

Edited by Bang
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://network.yardbarker.com/all_sports/article_external/the_redskins_name_controversy_are_we_asking_the_right_questions/17003507

 

 

 

The Redskins Name Controversy: Are We Asking the Right Questions?

 

While the original term cannot be confirmed to have had negative connotations, present day interpretations swing between being negative and being a tribute to Native Americans. Some consider it a slur, while some consider it a symbol of fierce, proud warriors. 

 

Before we rush to knee-jerk reactions fueled by social media coverage, let’s ask some critical questions.

 

What percentage of Native Americans are offended by the term Redskins?

Numbers will always vary, but according to a 2004 poll conducted by the Annenberg Public Policy Center, 90 percent of Indians took the position that the name is acceptable, while nine percent found the name “offensive.”  For more on the survey click here, and for the original news release, click here.

 

Below is an excerpt from a Seattle Times article on Wellpinit High School in Washington (state), home to the Spokane Tribe of Indians where the mascot for 107 years has been the Redskins. Most do not share the negative view of the Redskins name, they embrace it.

 

Says Kyra Antone, 17, who’s going into 12th grade and is wearing one of the T-shirts, “It’s not a negative name for us. Whenever I think of Redskins, I think of pride in our sports teams. There’s nothing wrong with being a 17-year-old Native American.”

 

“We don’t see it as a derogatory name. But if you ask a grandpa or grandma, they think of it differently,” says Brodie Ford, 17, who just graduated and is heading to nearby Whitworth University.

 

Ford says that in sports, when playing other schools, he didn’t hear “Redskins” used in a derogatory way.

 

Clearly some are offended and some consider it a slur. So, at what point to we push for change?

How many people should be offended by something before we instigate change?   One?  1,000?  One percent?  25 percent? How about 50%?  Shouldn’t a reasonable tipping point for change be identified? Isn't our country founded on a majority rules concept? If we are forcing change, we should find a reasonable balance and enforce if unilaterally and accept the ramifications both good and bad.  

 

If we set the bar too high, we could stifle change, but if we set too low, we allow and even encourage abuse of the system. Suddenly, everything, no matter how ridiculous or trivial is a potential target. It’s a slippery slope. We must be prepared to accept that the standard we set will be the standard used going forward, when judging something that could be important to you.

 

Who stands to gain from this?

Anyone? Recently, President Obama and possible 2016 candidate Hillary Clinton came out in support of changing the name.   Politicians have their own agendas and they rarely go against the grain, especially on race issues. They will not risk a backlash by speaking against it. Their position was predetermined by their job, not by their personal opinion. They also have the largest platform for that opinion, which gives their side an unfair advantage and distorts the perception of the level of support the cause really has.

 

We also need to be wary of the media whose ultimate motive is no longer to explore truth and let the public decide, but to sell papers and website hits and fill the endless void of air time.  We should look at this objectively and draw our conclusions with logic, practicality and fairness.

 

It’s likely that there is a contingent claiming to be offended to take advantage of the situation to satisfy personal agendas, which usually involve money, political leverage or increased visibility.

 

Let’s flash forward to a future where the name has changed. How are we different? Is the Oneida tribe stronger, better, richer, more educated, less threatened? How are their lives improved upon by the change? Are we a better society? Are we crushing racism or are we merely placating a vocal minority demands?

 

What's next?

What does that open the floodgates for? What’s next? Fighting Irish? Indians? Blackhawks?  Middle aged women being offended at teams named cougars? It’s absurd, right?  No, it’s true.  An article in a Utah paper detailed how a High School board rejected the use of the name cougar as the school’s mascot as they thought it may offend middle aged women.  The story is below.

 

 http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/highschool-prep-rally/school-t-cougars-because-middle-agedwomen-might-161402778.html

 

In America, it seems we can find someone who is easily offended, or at least pretending to be, when it creates an opportunity.  We need to be wary of the precedent we set and be careful what we wish for.

 

What about Snyder?

Should he be forced to change the name to sate the few? Some suggest Snyder should “...just give in…” and change the name.  Is that a precedent we want to establish?  Is that what you would tell your children to do? No, you wouldn’t.  Before we demand change, let’s make sure we are asking the right questions and not jumping on the latest cause du jour.

 

Ask yourself what you would do if you were in Snyder’s shoes/cleats.  Would you rush to change something labeled as a slur aimed at Native Americans, when the overwhelming majority of Native Americans polled don’t even consider it offensive? If it was your brand, what would you do?

 

I am in no way a Redskins fan (go Seahawks!), but I respect it as a franchise and brand. Nor am I a fan of Dan Snyder. He’s an egotistical owner whose team has bumbled under his regime and he’s mishandled this situation.  Had he kept his mouth shut, he’d not inflame the situation, but he leads with his ego, as always.  His defiance in the face of this likely doesn’t help his cause, but that’s his right.

However, Snyder has ownership of a valuable brand that is not infringing, repressing, isolating or causing hardship.  Rebranding could cost him millions. It’s easy to say ‘just change it’ when it’s someone else’s (money).

 

Before we rush to judgment, we need to block out the white noise (hopefully that isn’t offensive to Caucasians) and think this through with clarity and logic, not with our emotions and not with a bunch of talking heads screaming over each other for ratings. 

 

Most importantly, need to keep an eye on how we set our precedents and how we allow ourselves to be forced into change.

 

 

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's fine. people are free to make personal choices about what bothers them and what doesn't. 

 

I don't disrespect your choice, or even Harjo's choice. 

 

~Bang

 

Just as a follow up to my post last night, I think when you close you're mind to others differing viewpoint you devalue the viewpoint you hold. I have said before in this thread, if there is ever mass protests, mass outcry by NA's-who I value highly, I would be the first in line asking for a name change. But when this is a mostly media driven agenda, I can't concur. And unlike others who believe in the name, yet are tired of the fight, I see value in standing up to the fight against the name. Until there is solid evidence and a NA voice of majority for the name to change, I stand behind the values the name represents to me. 

 

If anything has left me with a better opinion of Dan Snyder it is his stance on this issue. He of all people could have taken the easy path and buckled. I am happy to see all over twitter and fb Native American Redskins fans standing up for the name. The truth is never easy to uncover, but the historical evidence of the names use by Chief is documented, so in a way the present day NA who want the name to change are actually not following the elders, a big part of the NA way. 

 

Harjo and Halbritter have been exposed, the truth is there.

 

Harjo had no problem with the name until something happened, she has never said what that was. Withholding the truth is not the NA way.

 

Halbritter sells cigs and dreams of riches. Enriching oneself is not the NA way. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is an excellent, levelheaded, honest assessment.

I mentioned the part about "Cougar" to my wife. Her take: she'd be more offended that a. They think middle aged women would be so thinned-skinned as to be offended by a simple mascot and b. By barring Cougars they are actually perpetuating the negative stereotype.

Edited by Riggo#44
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s likely that there is a contingent claiming to be offended to take advantage of the situation to satisfy personal agendas, which usually involve money, political leverage or increased visibility.

As obvious as this is, many still don't get it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Snyder should seriously call up the Patawomeck tribe and get the tribe's offcial blessing. Then Harjo has no more standing and this all goes away.

It's a good idea, especially since the tribe's leader has said on multiple occasions that he considers the logo and name on honor.

The only problem however is that the Patawomack tribe isn't federally recognized. An endorsement of the team would negatively impact the tribe. The Dems, UnWise Mike, Olbermann, Florio etc would label the tribe as sell outs or "Uncle Tomahawks" if they came out in support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really tired of the politically correct beating this to death. Should the majority of NA that embrace the name have no consideration for their feelings in the matter? There are many that cherish and support the name and consider it an badge of honor,as evidenced by the different NA territories that have adopted the Redskin name. Are these NA too lacking in cognitive function to decide whether the name is offensive or not? Do they need the media and people with agendas directing them? Anyone with the ability to reason should be able to determine that this name as used in regard to the football team playing in Washington has never been meant as a racial slur. Keep the Name!   


Keep The Name #HTTR

@HttrKeep FOLLOWS YOU

Just a few Redskins' fans that want to carry on our team's rich history.#KeepTheName. Get your shirt on EBay http://www.ebay.com/itm/171382417851 

 

Got mine today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Jumbo changed the title to The Official ES All Things Redskins Name Change Thread (Reboot Edition---Read New OP)
  • Jumbo locked this topic
  • Jumbo unlocked this topic
  • Jumbo pinned this topic
  • Jumbo featured and unfeatured this topic
  • Jumbo locked and unlocked this topic
  • Jumbo locked and unpinned this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...