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

Want to have some fun? The Vintage t-shirt company online Defunkd is praising Etsy for joining their Redskins ban. 

 

Meanwhile they sell some nice Chief Wahoo gear. 

 

If you're on twitter. Go ahead and let them know how full of **** they are. @Etsy @defunkd Oh, like others have said. Etsy has no problem selling Nazi memorabilia.

 

9-10-2014%2B7-00-35%2BPM.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Need more respectful Native American name, so we can keep logo and fightsong.

 

 

 

where to begin?

 

1) the only ones saying its not respectful have yet to provide a shred of proof its actually disrespectful. and it appears that a number well beyond a mere majority disagree with the offended crowd, who are their 'own people' who insist on being offended and who continue to speak as if they represent an entire people.

 

2) the same extremists insisting the name is derogatory are demanding elimination of all native american mascots, so keeping a native theme (outside of a relationship with an actual tribe, such as the potomacs) would not eliminate the controversy. 

 

3) the fight song is 'hail to the redskins', so you wouldnt exactly get to 'keep' it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to take a moment to thank TMZ for blowing this story off of the NFL news landscape for awhile.

 

True, but at this point I'm scared what this means for the Redskins. Goodell will probably not stick up for us much longer after this debacle to save face to the ignorant outrage, and if for some reason he ends up being fired, it's a scary thought to think who could replace him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, but at this point I'm scared what this means for the Redskins. Goodell will probably not stick up for us much longer after this debacle to save face to the ignorant outrage, and if for some reason he ends up being fired, it's a scary thought to think who could replace him. 

 

The thing that counters that idea though--the other owners. They don't want a name change. The Redskins brand is too valuable and would hurt revenue sharing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You really ought to listen to the people who's cause you've taken up.

 

Because if you think for an instant any of it in any way gets to stay,, including a "more respectful Native american" name, you should wake up and guess again.

 

Thereis no such thing as a 'more respectful Native American name" to those who you have aligned with.

They don't care about the logo, and they think you're too stupid to realize the difference between it and a caricature, since that is what they refer to it as.

To them, it's no different than Chief Wahoo or Al Jolson.

they sure don't care about the fight song.

 

And really,, they don't care about you either. read up on Harjo,, see if she cares if you want to do the right thing.

In her mind, that would be for you to pack up and go back to wherever your ancestors come from.

 

lol,,, this notion that has floated on this thread among some of you that there is any desire to compromise at all is comical.

 

the original group behind all of this,, they don't want to co-exist happily ever after.

Isn't it Harjo who referred to us as "the disease"?

(and by "us", she doesn't mean Redskins fans. She means ALL of us that are not Native.)

 

~Bang

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently racism and the plight of Native Americans are insignificant compared to domestic abuse and people's personal lives.

Bring on pink month!

 

Actually, NA women have the highest incident rate of and risk for domestic violence. This issue is the one that we should be concerned with. Harjo should be concerned with it instead of her silly crusade. This issue highlights exactly how silly her crusade is. We should never stop talking about domestic violence education and eradication.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question for the name changers. And I'm serious... If 10 percent of people suffering for gigantism claimed the NY Giants mascot was insensitive would you be on board with a change?

This is just the beginning. I promise. It always is

 

Hey....why don't we change the mascot to a potato?

 

That's such a silly question, but

 

1) 10 percent of people with that condition in the US might be about 1500 people.

 

2) "Giants" are a thing outside of a specific medical condition. I think of Jack and the Beanstalk and David and Goliath and other myths. "Redskins" are not mythological creatures.

 

Now, if the Giants were called "The Midgets," I think the name would have already been changed. Because a pretty sizable (ironic wordplay!) minority has essentially decided that term is a slur.

 

I know super clever cats like you are desperatately trying to find analagous situations, but the Redskins are an outlier within a specific outlier. Native Americans are really the only specific race of people that are used as mascots. And Redskins is distinct within that group as being potentially a slur.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey....why don't we change the mascot to a potato?

 

That's such a silly question, but

 

1) 10 percent of people with that condition in the US might be about 1500 people.

 

2) "Giants" are a thing outside of a specific medical condition. I think of Jack and the Beanstalk and David and Goliath and other myths. "Redskins" are not mythological creatures.

 

Now, if the Giants were called "The Midgets," I think the name would have already been changed. Because a pretty sizable (ironic wordplay!) minority has essentially decided that term is a slur.

 

.

Giants isn't offensive YET. Very importent distinction because it soon will be. And if you think not you're naive. There is no criteria for deeming what is and isn't offensive

As to your numbers argument, I find it interesting to see that you're arguing not about the content of the outrage, but the number of people outraged by it. What's the number? There must be a number where it ceases to become irrelevant. So, what is that number? And don't dodge the question

Btw, Vikings and Irish dummy

,

But I will say this: If there was some organization dedicated to people with this condition and if they raised objections, I'd listen to them.

So now those of us on the keep the name side aren't listening. We are listening all right, to the large majority of native Americans who want to keep the name

There is a punk band called The Dwarves. Little people should be offended. I also think that Tolkien's portrayal of short people as not human and child like in their mischief is extremely offensive to short people. That makes Tolkien and everyone associated with the production of the books and movies a bigot, and anyone who enjoyed the movies an insensitive ass

Because I say so. You listening?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Giants isn't offensive YET. Very importent distinction because it soon will be. And if you think not you're naive. There is no criteria for deeming what is and isn't offensive

As to your numbers argument, I find it interesting to see that you're arguing not about the content of the outrage, but the number of people outraged by it. What's the number? There must be a number where it ceases to become irrelevant. So, what is that number? And don't dodge the question

Btw, Vikings and Irish dummy

,

 

Language changes. If in 40 years, Giants becomes an ugly word, they should change it.

 

I don't know what the number is exactly. I don't completely understand how these things work. I don't know how we collectively decided that "colored" or "Oriental" should no longer be used. I'm not exactly sure when or how "retard" become "The R word."

 

And I just learned that "tranny" is apparently a no no now.

 

Also, "Cis-gender" is a thing, and real people are using it.

 

Language is never going to stand pat. And - unfortunately - the Redskins are caught up in that constant evolution.

 

Here is a question: why has no one ever compared team names to people names? My youngest is in kindergarten. There are two Noahs in his class of 17. And I think every girl is named Abigail.

 

From kindergarten through law school, I knew one Noah and maybe two Abigails. Now, every other kid has those names, it seems. Clearly, this sort of thing goes through cycles. When was the last time you met a Marcella?

 

It's not exactly analogous, but if you were starting a team in 2014 from scratch, there is simply no way on God's green Earth you would nickname them the Redskins. It's utterly impossible to make an argument that you would. The name is out of favor; that's not debatable. What is debatable is what you do with the existing versions of the name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...