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

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

 

I also don't think Native American's understand what mascots truly are.  Lets look at the definition from Webster's, you know, since they want to through out definitions so much.

 

mas·cot noun \ˈmas-ˌkät also -kət\

: a person, animal, or object used as a symbol to represent a group (such as a sports team) and to bring good luck

 

 

You will notice that the above does not say:

mas·cot noun \ˈmas-ˌkät also -kət\

: a person, animal, or object used as way to mock or make fun of a certain persons, animal, or object.

 

 

 

 

"Listen, you silly little red people, we make you cartoon characters to HONOR you. Jeez."

"Why don't we honor any other people this way? Because we don't like them."

 

(That last part is actually kind of true).

[steve09ru]

The difference between the Washington Bullets to Washington Wizards is different, in my opinion, because:

 

1. they were a Chicago team that moved to Baltimore and later to Washington.  They were referenced as a DC team starting in 71 (Bullets in 63). 

2. the era until the change (only 22 years) was dominated by a handful of teams. 

3. the Redskins have been around for 80 years, almost 4 times longer than the Bullets before a change.

 

The switch wasn't as tough because the Bullets, in terms of sports years, wasn't a name that was around for a really long time with a rich history.

"Listen, you silly little red people, we make you cartoon characters to HONOR you. Jeez."

"Why don't we honor any other people this way? Because we don't like them."

 

(That last part is actually kind of true).

 

Caricatures are made up for everything history has had to offer, not just Native Americans.  I'm sure anyone could be offended by a caricature if they wanted to but some people just have a little thicker skin.  You can literally Google caricature of _____ and find a caricature of whatever fills in that blank.  So no, it's not just Native Americans.

 

And to that point, 'who' is doing it is the key.  Is the Redskins organization making fun of their own mascot?  No, it's people out in the community.  Are caricatures of Native Americans still doing to occur even after the removal of Indian references in sports?  Absolutely.  So why don't you (not you directly) push the law makers to make it a hate crime to reference Native Americans?  Why don't you make it federal law if it bothers you so much?  Are you going to sue me when I continue to use the term and wear 'Redskins' attire?

[RedskinsFan44]

Maybe Snyder is playing this all wrong. Maybe he should go the other way with this.

 

Bring back the headdresses for the band. Bring back the Pocahontas costumes for the cheerleaders. Bring back the "we want heap more" lyrics to Hail to the Redskins. Make Chief Zee an honorary assistant head coach and put him on the sidlelines. And couch in terms of attempting to re-engage with our Native American heritage or something.

There are indications that if we changed the name to Potomac with the blessing of the tribe all of that would be OK with a large percentage of people who think Redskins is offensive.

"Listen, you silly little red people, we make you cartoon characters to HONOR you. Jeez."

"Why don't we honor any other people this way? Because we don't like them."

 

(That last part is actually kind of true).

I think that NA iconography is a nod to the past, much as the Pirates does not bring to mind Somalis.

[Bang]

"Listen, you silly little red people, we make you cartoon characters to HONOR you. Jeez."

"Why don't we honor any other people this way? Because we don't like them."

 

(That last part is actually kind of true).

 

Since dictionary definitions are so important in your argument, let's be clear.

According to any dictionary you choose to use, this is not a cartoon.

 

Cartoon: a simple drawing showing the features of its subjects in a humorously exaggerated way, especially a satirical one in a newspaper or magazine.[/size]

synonyms: caricature, parody, lampoon, satire; More

  

this is not an exaggerated drawing in any way. this is an accurate representation of the human form. no exaggerated lips, no enlarged nose, no crazy eyes, no giant teeth, nothing about it makes it a cartoon. It is simplified in that it is shaded for two dimensions, but in no way is it a cartoon.

 

 

it would appear that the harjos are right. if they cal it a caricature, regardless of the absolute undeniable undebatable fact that it is NOT, then people will pick up on it, because the herd does what it is told, and repeats what it is told.

be better than that, at least.

 

~Bang

[Patrick Evidente]

that would be awesome - if they're already offended then may as well go all out with it.

Agree

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

it would appear that the harjos are right. if they cal it a caricature, regardless of the absolute undeniable undebatable fact that it is NOT, then people will pick up on it, because the herd does what it is told, and repeats what it is told.

be better than that, at least.

 

~Bang

 

The Redskins are not terribly cartoonish to their credit. They aren't The Indians.

 

More than anything else, my issue is cultural appropriation across the board. That's why I find the Notre Dame argument silly. A university filled with Irish-Catholic students and historically run by Irish Catholic priests can call themselves the Drunken Micks for all I care. (I would totally own a Drunken Mick t-shirt).

[War Paint]

The Redskins are not terribly cartoonish to their credit. They aren't The Indians.

 

More than anything else, my issue is cultural appropriation across the board. That's why I find the Notre Dame argument silly. A university filled with Irish-Catholic students and historically run by Irish Catholic priests can call themselves the Drunken Micks for all I care. (I would totally own a Drunken Mick t-shirt).

As pointed out earlier, there are Irish out there who find "Fighting Irish" and the logo offensive.  I think it's silly, just like I think the anti-Redskins crusade is stupid.   You said "I would totally own a drunken Mick t-shirt".  I'm sure there are some Native Americans who would "totally own a Redskin t-shirt".

 

http://www.irishcentral.com/opinion/others/outdated-and-offensive-the-redskins-and-notre-dames-leprechaun-229519311-238259701.html

 

 

[skinsmarydu]

Love it, lkb...I would too!

[MLiverpool]

Though this movement seems to have picked up steam, the American public is fickle.  Snyder tried to age old tactic of philanthropy, but it is too obvious.  It was a typical move that is used by extremely rich people to show they're attempting to help others.  I think he'd be better served to figure a tactic to connect with his fans.  I live on the west coast, and I don't hear good things about FedEx field.  I read articles about fans being served expired beer.  Whether it is true or not, the impression is that he's just a tight wad, a mean man, a jerk.

 

I do not know the easiest way for him to connect with the public, but I'd suggest he start mixing in with the fans.  Shake hands with the fans.  Come down into the stadium and sit with the fans.  To show the fans that he is a fan!  We all know he bought the team because he is a huge fan.  He had his wish fulfilled.  He attempted to play fantasy football, but with real players.  He wants pride in the team, but I feel like his public persona is the worst or one of the worst (Mark Davis might be the worst in the NFL....I still see him as Tommy Boy).

 

This isn't a objective debate.  This is repetition until the organization gives in, and I do think this is a good opportunity to turn the tables on the media but how is up in question.  I've boxed, kickboxed and done MMA for almost fifteen years.  I knew in all the sparing and matches that the fight was often a matter of wills, not skills.  The ability to absorb damage and not show weakness.  I think the notion where the organization attempted to publicly show they cared by creating an organization to help Native Americans immediately showed weakness.  It was going to be spun into a negative light, and no matter how many Indians are helped, the media would focus only on the cases where they organization failed.  Had egg on their face.  A bloody nose.

 

There have been attempts to show the ignorance of those attacking the Redskins, and hypocrisy of these particular people.  Sadly, this also has worked against the organization.

 

I would suggest the team focus on the product (a good team), showing a well run organization, don't change the name, don't sue everyone who crosses Mr. Snyder.  Dan Snyder needs to show his heart, to not be worried about appearing strong, but instead be more human.  This is very much the Christmas Story, and Snyder is Mr. Scrooge.  His three ghosts are appearing, and the question is whether he will be transformed into someone who truly cares and sees the light.  Who can walk the halls and be friendly with everyone.  Can he walk into the tailgates and share a beer.  Can he improve the stadium at the cost of profits and put money into making this all about the fans.  

 

I don't think all is lost.

 

Focus on the fans.  Make connections.  Open your heart and home.  Learn the history of the word, so you can have thoughtful debates.  Learn the history of native american people and may be not call them native american but learn the tribes and about the various cultures.  I sometimes think this onslaught in the media has less to do with the term Redskins and more to do with attacks on Dan Snyder.  He has been vilified.  He needs to show he's not the villain.  And REALLY show it, not write it in public announcements, but instead just showing up.  Walking the halls.  Shaking the hands.  Being a human.  

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

If there are Irish folks who hate the Fighting Irish nickname (and I've never met these people), I view that as an inner-family dispute. Same with the high schools using Redskins.

 

Again, I'm not equating the words (note to Larry: I am NOT equating the words), but the debate in the black community on the N-word is not one I'm going to get involved in. (And I'm not going to tell gay people what they can and can't call each other either).

[steve09ru]

If there are Irish folks who hate the Fighting Irish nickname (and I've never met these people), I view that as an inner-family dispute. Same with the high schools using Redskins.

 

Again, I'm not equating the words (note to Larry: I am NOT equating the words), but the debate in the black community on the N-word is not one I'm going to get involved in. (And I'm not going to tell gay people what they can and can't call each other either).

Where do you stop with this though?  Just names?  How about holidays?  There are many offended (more in number I would guess) by Halloween.

[Bonez3]

The Redskins are not terribly cartoonish to their credit. They aren't The Indians.

More than anything else, my issue is cultural appropriation across the board. That's why I find the Notre Dame argument silly. A university filled with Irish-Catholic students and historically run by Irish Catholic priests can call themselves the Drunken Micks for all I care. (I would totally own a Drunken Mick t-shirt).

What if 10% were offended?

[Larry]

If there are Irish folks who hate the Fighting Irish nickname (and I've never met these people), I view that as an inner-family dispute. Same with the high schools using Redskins.

Again, I'm not equating the words (note to Larry: I am NOT equating the words), but the debate in the black community on the N-word is not one I'm going to get involved in. (And I'm not going to tell gay people what they can and can't call each other either).

Got it.

"Redskin" is either offensive (and should be prohibited) or not, based strictly on the race of the speaker, and no other factor. (Up to and including whether the affected people SAY it's iffensive).

How . . . . racist.

[Bonez3]

If there are Irish folks who hate the Fighting Irish nickname (and I've never met these people), I view that as an inner-family dispute. Same with the high schools using Redskins.

Again, I'm not equating the words (note to Larry: I am NOT equating the words), but the debate in the black community on the N-word is not one I'm going to get involved in. (And I'm not going to tell gay people what they can and can't call each other either).

Again, don't forget about the power of minority rules...

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

"Redskin" is either offensive (and should be prohibited) or not, based strictly on the race of the speaker, and no other factor. (Up to and including whether the affected people SAY it's iffensive).

How . . . . racist.

 

I don't know if it's racist. It's certainly contradictory and may be hypocritical but that's life.

 

I don't say the N-word. I don't think anyone should say the N-word. I certanly don't think white people should ever say the N-word. I have an opinion on whether black people should say the N-word or not, but I don't feel like it's my place to state it or push that opinion.

 

My neighbor used to make wine called "Dago Red." My uncle used to refer to himself as a Dago. If anyone whose name didn't end in a vowel used to that word, he would hit them with a bat. (My grandfather actually kept a bat by his front doors for emergencies).

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

What if 10% were offended?

 

If 10 percent of Irish Catholics were truly offended by the name (which they aren't), the name would probably change within 5 years. That's Notre Dame's constituency, and they would have real power to hurt Notre Dame directly since you are talking around 3 million people with money and influence. There is a huge amount of agency there.

 

Native Americans - by and large - don't have the numbers or power to effect any kind of change. 10 percent of Irish Catholics is probably more than the entire Native American population in this country.

 

It's just two wildly different issues that are being conflated to be cute.

 

Control of the institution elimintates the issues of cultural appropriation and exploitation. The numbers and political power of Irish Catholics eliminates the issue of the lack of agency involved here.

Something to think about:

 

Strictly by math, if 10 percent of Irish Catholics were offended by the nickname, you would have about six prominent Kennedys and a few Daleys on the name change side.

[Springfield]

I wasn't aware that Notre Dame only admitted Irish students.

And, last I checked it was the Fightin' Irish not the Fightin' Irish Catholics.

Or are you going to say that 1/16th Irish people count...

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I wasn't aware that Notre Dame only admitted Irish students.

And, last I checked it was the Fightin' Irish not the Fightin' Irish Catholics.

Or are you going to say that 1/16th Irish people count...

 

You are aware that Notre Dame is a Catholic school, right?

[Springfield]

You are aware that Notre Dame is a Catholic school, right?

Yep.

I'd be willing to bet that Manti Teo wasn't irish.

(What does catholic have to do with anything?)

[Fan since a Fetus]

Awesome!  I want a fighting pimps shirt!

[Soup's Uncle]

I'm Irish Catholic (grandparent came from Ireland) and I'm not offended by Fighting Irish.  But if the Redskins name changes, I may just have to be offended.

 

Why am I not offended?  Clearly they mean the Irish are drunken buffoons that fight constantly right?

 

Because it's the name of a sports team.  Who frickin cares.  Ebola just landed in DC for God's sake.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Yep.

I'd be willing to bet that Manti Teo wasn't irish.

(What does catholic have to do with anything?)

 

Te'o was actually Mormon.

 

With Notre Dame, Catholicism has to do with an awful lot.

 

I guess if Protestant Irish want a football team, they could be called the Lace Curtain Mother ****ers.

[Springfield]

Te'o was actually Mormon.

With Notre Dame, Catholicism has to do with an awful lot.

Ok, but we are talking football. Particularly people who are not native playing for a team that has a native name and imagery... and people who are not Irish playing for a team that has an Irish name and imagery.

Catholicism has nothing to do with that. It's not apart of the team name at all.

(I don't think that they should be forced to change Fightin' Irish any more than the Redskins should be forced to change their name)

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Ok, but we are talking football. Particularly people who are not native playing for a team that has a native name and imagery... and people who are not Irish playing for a team that has an Irish name and imagery.

Catholicism has nothing to do with that. It's not apart of the team name at all.

 

 

I'm getting into Lone Star Deitz territory here, but the reason Notre Dame is called the Fighting Irish is because their football team was all Irish when teams started getting nicknames. I just always assumed that the Catholic part was an implied parenthetical. Notre Dame is a school run by Irish-Catholics in a school filled with Irish Catholics that is cheered for by Irish Catholics who couldn't find Indiana on a map.

 

PS

 

That line from the Sopranos that Hell is an Irish bar where it is always St. Patricks Day rang so true to me. I would personally like to see Notre Dame turned into a daycare center or prison or something that actually benefits society.

[Larry]

I don't know if it's racist. It's certainly contradictory and may be hypocritical but that's life.

You don't know if announcing that there should be different rules, for different races, is racist?

(And I will point out (again): The vast majority of Natives say it's just fine with them if the team is called Redskins, no matter which race owns the team.)