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

[Larry]

I hear some fans get dressed up in women's clothing. 

[Kosher Ham]

I hear some fans get dressed up in women's clothing. 

 

I recall Superskin...never wore women's or Native garb.

 

Kind of looked like The Flash.

[RFKFedEx]

I hear some fans get dressed up in women's clothing. 

 

Remember in the old days on FGs and PAT plays you'd see the crew sitting there together in the first row of the upper deck, behind the North endzone. I feel like they were never shown on regular tv as often after the move to Landover, despite the prominent location above our tunnel.

[Kosher Ham]

They retired, and it had nothing to do with the name.

 

Old days...that isn't where it seemed to me that their seats were...in RFK or JKC/FedEx.

 

I have been to plenty of games at both.

[RFKFedEx]

They retired, and it had nothing to do with the name.

 

Old days...that isn't where is seemed to me that their seats were...in RFK or JKC/FedEx.

 

I have been to plenty of games at both.

 

I didn't imply it had anything to do with the name. I'll have to look through my classic game DVDs to see where they sat in DC. Pretty sure it was always above the tunnel in Landover.

 

To stay relevant in this thread, Chief Zee was granted full sideline access at the '82 nfccg. CBS did close ups of CZ and Crazy Ray play fighting on the sideline, right in front of the dugout. They had no sideline credentials, or any sort of ID badges displayed. It looked as if they were free to come and go as they pleased. The limited security can be seen chillin in the background. I was surprised when I first saw that on DVD nearly 10 years ago. I remember the younger, spryer Zee would wander the walkways through upper and lower decks all game long back then.

[Kosher Ham]

TV can be deceptive, as well as people.

 

Your mistake here was saying "to stay relevant".

 

Wow. Then you go on to say that randomness. :doh:

[Taco Bell]

Here's something that doesn't make much sense to me, well it does in it's hypocritical irony, but given the extreme end of the morality compass that the media likes to hold everyone else to but themselves, I think needs to be mentioned.  ESPN, in my opinion, made an inexcusable mistake in their advertising for this Chiefs Patriots game if they truly want to act like the gold standard of morality regarding our team name.  

 

I don't see how they can have a commercial that relies on not only the audio of the Chiefs "NA anthemic chant" (the Braves and Florida state also use this) but also the visual of a "tomahawk chop" to go along with it.  And mind you, this isn't just a montage of a bunch of shots and they happened to use this concept, they deliberately used these elements as the driving force of the commercial.

 

I really think this is at odds with all the coverage they have given the topic of our team name, especially when you consider specific shows like "outside the lines."  You would think that after all of the "information they have provided" and "educated" us viewers with, that they wouldn't all of the sudden use a questionably offensive or demeaning reference from another team, that while on a national level has a smaller scale of dissentors, still clearly has detractors on record.  I look up this chant with the term "Racist" added on and there are thousands of hits.

 

Of course, this will probably go on unnoticed, but at least it's here on the interwebs that someone noticed this obvious lack of empathy towards something that is completely at odds with their "coverage" of our team name.  

 

This is the type of uphill battle that exists trying to call out the media, because what they can hide behind is this amoeba-like illusion that "outside the lines" is somehow a separate entity than "monday night football," even though everyone knows it comes from the same mouth.  When you add every media outlet beyond ESPN, who all collectively can use this to their advantage as well? Forget it.

 

I just realized however, we don't have to wait very long to see how they cover our team, since they have their plan in place to ruin us on national TV against the SB champs after a bye, just a week from now anyway. 

[smoreese]

Anyone watch the MNF game with the entire KC Chiefs stadium doing that lame tomahawk chop chat just like the Braves do all the time? Where is the outrage from the media and PC police for what seems like an offensive mocking of native Americans? There were also plenty of people in the crowd dressed in native Americans costumes and head dresses. The media and the offended minority of native Americans don't seem to have much to say about these other teams and only focus on the Redskins name!!!!! Where is the outrage of Wise, Bob Costas and the rest of the media? I personally think the Cleveland Indians mascot should be the number 1 target of media and native Americans. That symbol does seem to be offensive and mocking the native Americans, but I don't here much from the National media about it. Odd that the media outrage seems to be focused on just this team and they block out everything else.

[Bang]

i saw it, ESPN made sure to show it so we can get a feel of how great it is to be in the crowd at Arrowhead. Nice long sweeping crowd shots of 90% white arms doing the chop, wearing headdresses and all. 

 

Funny though,, all of the bad things they attribute to our fans I saw on display there, everything the Daily Show made sure to show of us at our worst,, right there... yet it was glorified.

 

Seemed to me to be a bit of a mixed message being sent when it comes to this topic.

 

~Bang

[RFKFedEx]

I personally think the Cleveland Indians mascot should be the number 1 target of media and native Americans. That symbol does seem to be offensive and mocking the native Americans, but I don't here much from the National media about it. Odd that the media outrage seems to be focused on just this team and they block out everything else.

 

Chief Wahoo is the most reviled of all Native mascots, and his owners know it. See pics of the 1491ers Comic Troop.

 

The media will continue to focus on us bc we are the biggest, loudest, and and most visible of the big 6 Native themed teams remaining. Baseball is a shrinking sport, hockey barely matters, and the NBA left behind their pretend Indians several decades ago. 

 

Btw, has anyone seen Chief Zee around lately?

 

I haven't noticed him at all through the first three games I've attended, he usually stops by the ES tg.

[RedskinsFan44]

No one really wants to tackle the issue of cultural appropriation, because it gets very complicated. Romans taking Greek Gods, Christians taking Pagan holidays, Europeans wearing cowboy hats, Halloween, Elvis...

[JoeWolf990]

Anyone watch the MNF game with the entire KC Chiefs stadium doing that lame tomahawk chop chat just like the Braves do all the time? Where is the outrage from the media and PC police for what seems like an offensive mocking of native Americans? There were also plenty of people in the crowd dressed in native Americans costumes and head dresses. The media and the offended minority of native Americans don't seem to have much to say about these other teams and only focus on the Redskins name!!!!! Where is the outrage of Wise, Bob Costas and the rest of the media? I personally think the Cleveland Indians mascot should be the number 1 target of media and native Americans. That symbol does seem to be offensive and mocking the native Americans, but I don't here much from the National media about it. Odd that the media outrage seems to be focused on just this team and they block out everything else.

to me, this is very offensive too. Its absurd really.

Same time, just because one thing is offensive doesnt lessen how offense the team's name is to a community of people. Trying to pit the two is a waste.

If by "nailed it", you mean missed the mark completely, then I agree with you.

it nailed it. Its one of the best takes on the issue.

"I want to pass the name to my children" said so much. Also the fact that people got silent when the 1491ers walked into the room said a lot too.

WE all want to be free to be ignorant until the person or persons who are the target of that confront us.

But really, the craziest thing was walking through the parking lot and seeing fans in the headgear and not wanting to be on camera. Or those who shouted at teh 1491ers yelling inflammatory and racist things. I dont know how that did not open some of your yes, but if it didnt then whatever. It reminded me of this moment from a Cleveland baseball game in the spring:

The name has to be changed.

Also, that 1/12th Cherokee stuff was hilarious.

Read up on the Dawes Act and "$5 Indians"

I often wonder if Dietz was one of these people.

[Larry]

WE all want to be free to be ignorant until the person or persons who are the target of that confront us.

Well, I certainly appreciate your honesty in expressing your intention to continue ignoring the opinions of 90% of Native Americans.

Most people in this debate simply attempt to make that claim about other people.

 

Although, it is kinda curious. 

 

normally, the people trying to claim that "the other side wants to pretend that people who disagree with them don't exist", are the people on your side, accusing people who don;t want the name to change. 

 

And the reason that's funny is, I don;t think I've seen a single name supporter who has tried to claim or pretend that not one single Native objects to the name. 

 

Whereas I can't remember ever seeing one of the name change crowd admit that the vast, overwhelming majority of Natives don't have a problem with the name. 

 

Closest I've see is an occasional post in which a name changer uses carefully chosen words to try to make it look like the two groups are equally numerous, with language along the lines of "well, some aren't offended, and some are". 

 

Now, which side of this debate wants to pretend that people who disagree with them, don't exist? 

[JoeWolf990]

Well, I certainly appreciate your honesty in expressing your intention to continue ignoring the opinions of 90% of Native Americans.

those "1/12th Cherokee" types like Miss O'Dell?

Im just over this discussion and dont get how people want to continue on with a name that offends people just so they can watch a football team each Sunday in the autumn. We on the wrong side of history.

[burgundyrush]

So we can confidently say never in US history we never refer to the scalps of Indians as redskins?

[Larry]

those "1/12th Cherokee" types like Miss O'Dell?

Those "90% of all Native Americans".

You know, the ones who responded the one and only time that anybody has ever bothered to actually ask them.

 

Or is this another example of your intention to avoid confronting the unpleasant fact that people disagree with you? 

[steve09ru]

those "1/12th Cherokee" types like Miss O'Dell?

Im just over this discussion and dont get how people want to continue on with a name that offends people just so they can watch a football team each Sunday in the autumn. We on the wrong side of history.

have any majority facts?  would love to see them

[JoeWolf990]

Or is this another example of your intention to avoid confronting the unpleasant fact that people disagree with you?

 irony

 

have any majority facts?  would love to see them

does it matter? We on a site called "Extreme Skins." Any fact will immediately be "debunked" on here.

[Larry]

So we can confidently say never in US history we never refer to the scalps of Indians as redskins?

 

Of course not. 

 

No one can ever conclusively declare that never once in the General Store in Tombstone was a particular word ever spoken.  Or that the term may have been used that way, in writing, but that the writing has not survived. 

 

I do think it's been stated with pretty good confidence that it has never happened in any writing which still exists. 

 

Yeah, that's a kinda big asterisk.  But it's impossible to be any more specific. 

 

----------

 

On that topic, though, I will point out: 

 

Yeah, that famous ad that people point to, uses the word "redskins" to refer to Native people, not to their scalps. 

 

But so what? 

 

I will observe that just because the word, in that example, does not refer to scalps, does not mean that people are not allowed to find the word offensive, simply because it was the term used, in that context. 

 

No, that ad does not prove that "redskins = scalps". 

 

But it also does not prove "therefore, people can't find the term offensive, anyway". 

 

So far as I'm aware, "the n-word" was never used to refer to "a person who is being lynched".  But it was used, in a lot of really offensive contexts, until it reached the point at which the term simply became offensive, simply by association. 

 

Mo own opinion is that no, the term never referred to scalps (at least not in writing.  I will note that it's certainly possible that people's spoken language differed from the written one.  not the least of which is because literacy was not nearly so universal as it is today.)  But that people certainly have the right to decide that it's offensive, anyway.  And that they don't need to justify their decision to me (or even to themselves).

[RedskinsFan44]

So we can confidently say never in US history we never refer to the scalps of Indians as redskins?

Yes, there has been no evidence presented that it ever was:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2013/12/18/redskins_the_debate_over_the_washington_football_team_s_name_incorrectly.html

There are tons of examples of it being used to refer to NAs in positive to negative light.  So lets drop the lie.  It is a sensationalist effort to win a political battle.

 

those "1/12th Cherokee" types like Miss O'Dell?

Im just over this discussion and dont get how people want to continue on with a name that offends people just so they can watch a football team each Sunday in the autumn. We on the wrong side of history.

As I posted above, Annenberg surveyed 64,000 plus people as to their ethnicity, just over 1% reported as NA.  This matches census data.  So Annenberg is also misrepresented in this effort.  How about the claim that only NAs and animals are used as mascots?  Or the notion that wearing of headdresses is common at Redskins games?  Did the DS nail those points too?

 

Add:  I will agree that it is possible that it has been used in that light, but it should be contingent on those making the claim to prove it as it is not documented, and there is substantial documentation of NA oral histories .

 

Edit: 1500s may be a stretch

[Larry]

 irony

 

does it matter? We on a site called "Extreme Skins." Any fact will immediately be "debunked" on here.

 

Irony. 

 

Facts don't matter, I'll just keep declaring whatever I want.  (And feeling superior to all those people who are, actually, attempting to use those pesky facts against me.) 

[JoeWolf990]

Irony. 

 

Facts don't matter, I'll just keep declaring whatever I want.  (And feeling superior to all those people who are, actually, attempting to use those pesky facts against me.)

which is exactly what you are doing.

[Larry]

which is exactly what you are doing.

 

I'm mirror, you're glue. 

Bounce off me, stick to you. 

[grego]

  

does it matter? We on a site called "Extreme Skins." Any fact will immediately be "debunked" on here.

 

 

the daily show botched every 'fact' presented. and people with an agenda like you ate it up. 

 

unlike the daily show, i dont have to lie, present straw men, or bend the truth to support my position. 

So we can confidently say never in US history we never refer to the scalps of Indians as redskins?

 

 

if one person at one time 150 years ago used it to refer to scalps, you think we should then change it?

 

so someone uses an otherwise benign word in a negative way, then the word should be banned? got it. 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

Dan Snyder should just become 50% Cherokee. Problem solved.