Dan T. Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 The issue I see is that I have never seen a billion dollar corporation re-branded after its been in existence for 80 years. I just thought of another one - Allegheny Air Lines rebranded to USAir. Were the Oilers, Bullets, and Hornets billion dollars corps? The Exxon merger was the year I was born and yes I remember the Verizon merger, I would consider a merger a bit different than a re-branding. Yeah but rebranding was not a result of a forced issue for the Bullets, Oilers and Hornets. Y'alls owner made the decision to change the Bullets due to high crime rates in DC and the death of his friend that was the Israeli Prime Minister that was shot. Oilers, they just changed it to the Titans because the owner wanted to and the name Oilers didn't make much sense in Tennessee. Bobcats to Hornets, getting the original team name back to the city, rebranding to create interest in the team again. Huge difference than all the legal issues and offensive name allegations, etc. going on in DC. So his original point was that he can't name a corporation that rebranded. That has morphed into "I can't think of a sports franchise, worth over a billion dollars, that was forced to rebrand because its name was offensive." You're right, neither can I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearfeather Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 So does anyone have a good explanation on what if anything changes because of this ruling? I mean legally and in a practical sense, the public perception of this ruling will be hard to judge immediately. I'm not a lawyer and I don't even play one on T.V., but for the short term, I don't think it changes anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregpeck99 Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Suppose the Skins turn it around and become a winner this year. The PC pressure to change the name will become even more intense. It should only happen! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 sorry but randomly deciding now that the name is racist (now being the last 20 years, when the franchise has been around for 80) is complete and utter bull****. it's political correctness and revisionist history. it's playing to the social justice warriors agenda. The issue goes way back before that. Stanford University changed their name from Indian to Cardinal in 1972. 43 years ago. And at least 25 years for the Redskins. Protesters picketed the Redskins name at the 1992 Super Bowl in Minneapolis. And unfortunately, for a sad chunk of the 80 years you cite, the Redskins franchise wasn't exactly a paragon of virtue. Its original owner was the last segregationist holdout, until forced to integrate at the risk of losing use of a new DC Stadium. I fear history is repeating itself. It's telling that virtually every dictionary in use describes the term redskin as offensive or derogatory. So it's a bit tough to argue that while "redskin" may be offensive, "Redskins" is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonez3 Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 A dictionary definiton vs a definitive piece by a Smithsonian scholar...Give me a break Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Dan, do you know why dictionaries define redskin as a slur? I know you've been around awhile but I feel like we're going over covered ground? It's all good- not criticizing - I like talking about it. It's just odd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dont Taze Me Bro Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 So his original point was that he can't name a corporation that rebranded. That has morphed into "I can't think of a sports franchise, worth over a billion dollars, that was forced to rebrand because its name was offensive." You're right, neither can I. Ah, got ya. I admit I jumped in and didn't read back far enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonez3 Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 It's pretty much an exhausted topic. Nothing new has been brought to the table and at this point, you feel one way or another. Dictionary definitons, N word comparisons, Scalping, Goodard piece, personal experiences. Etc Etc Etc I'm pretty much done. At least I know I feel like I'm basing my decision on informed info. Hail to the Redskins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 A dictionary definiton vs a definitive piece by a Smithsonian scholar...Give me a break Not "a" dictionary definition. Virtually every English-language dictionary in existence. Dan, do you know why dictionaries define redskin as a slur? I assume it's because the editors are politically correct liberal wussies who who are ignorant of the real origin of the word and are kowtowing to the elite Main Stream Media and a tiny contingent of radical Native American activists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 It's telling that virtually every dictionary in use describes the term redskin as offensive or derogatory. So it's a bit tough to argue that while "redskin" may be offensive, "Redskins" is not. Only if you insist on ignoring the fact that dictionaries are required to ignore proper nouns (which includes the names of football teams). Even after having that fact pointed out to you, probably a dozen times. And keep reciting this fact as though it's relevant, anyway. If you actually know these facts, then it becomes really easy. ---------- A dictionary definiton vs a definitive piece by a Smithsonian scholar...Give me a break Uh, they don't disagree in the least. Apples and anvils. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Only if you insist on ignoring the fact that dictionaries are required to ignore proper nouns (which includes the names of football teams). Even after having that fact pointed out to you, probably a dozen times. And keep reciting this fact as though it's relevant, anyway. If you actually know these facts, then it becomes really easy. I'll quote myself, and underline the part I would point out in response to you: It's telling that virtually every dictionary in use describes the term redskin as offensive or derogatory. So it's a bit tough to argue that while "redskin" may be offensive, "Redskins" is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 I'll quote myself, and underline the part I would point out in response to you: It's telling that virtually every dictionary in use describes the term redskin as offensive or derogatory. So it's a bit tough to argue that while "redskin" may be offensive, "Redskins" is not. And I pointed out that it's not tough at all. And why. And that I suspect that you were already aware of these facts. I'd be willing to bet that any dictionary that has a definition for "Oreo" will say it's offensive. They aren't talking about the name of the cookie. Thats because, as far as the dictionary's DEFINITION of the word is concerned, there is no such thing as a cookie by that name, and the word is never used that way. (I would assume that they will cite the cookie as the word's ORIGIN). Actually, what's tough is using a source which is required to pretend that the football team doesn't exist, to say something about the football team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Crappy analogy, Larry. But keep fighting the good fight. I hope it's comforting to be blissfully unaware that we're on the wrong side of history. Just don't be bitter when the change inevitably comes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 I'll quote myself, and underline the part I would point out in response to you: It's telling that virtually every dictionary in use describes the term redskin as offensive or derogatory. So it's a bit tough to argue that while "redskin" may be offensive, "Redskins" is not. Someone better mail some dictionaries to those NA high schools that use Redskins name so they can "wise up" and change it. It's telling in that dictionaries don't use proper nouns, so the word's vastly dominant meaning, as a football team name, is missing from the definition. Seriously, all this nonsense aside, does the definition sound complete to you when it's predominant usage is absent and the only definition is the term's heavily antiquated usage? Words can become offensive over time, so the reverse must be true. The word is predominantly used as a positive, for a football team, and used by NA high schools to that extent as well. The usage of it as a slur is long outdated and not common place at all. Those dictionaries, btw, any time they site origin it's always incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorrisFan46 Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 If we are to change the name (which will most likely come sooner or later), the only acceptable name I could find is the Braves. The only reason I wouldn't go to this is because I don't wanna have to deal with it again after it changes. If we're looking for a complete reboot like some of you have said, I would prefer the Washington Minutemen/Washington Redtails. I would lean towards the Redtails because we could stick with HTTR/The fight song/the color scheme. It would be funny as hell to steal "America's Team" from Dallass with The Minutemen though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Crappy analogy, Larry. But keep fighting the good fight. I hope it's comforting to be blissfully unaware that you're on the wrong side of history. Just don't be bitter when the change inevitably comes. why is it crappy? and why is he on the wrong side of history? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Crappy analogy, Larry. But keep fighting the good fight. I hope it's comforting to be blissfully unaware that you're on the wrong side of history. Just don't be bitter when the change inevitably comes. Wow, so everybody here who supports the name is on the "wrong side of history?" Are you aware that includes our Native American fans? Are you saying they too are on the wrong side of history, as are the 90% polled in the only reliable measurement to date? How can you consider yourself on the "right side of history" when you still support the team financially? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowhunter Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 While I realize that the weasel may not be involved in this blow to our team, The "Washington **** You John Maras" has a nice little ring to it, don'tcha think? Keep the name as it should be. Period. But if it has to be changed, I wouldn't want it to be DC specific. If the REDSKINS ever moved to Virginia, (and out of DC) then a name like the Monuments would seem out of sync. Keeping the region in the name via "Potomac" is kinda cool. Potomac BUCKSKINS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins2victory Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Crappy analogy, Larry. But keep fighting the good fight. I hope it's comforting to be blissfully unaware that you're on the wrong side of history. Just don't be bitter when the change inevitably comes. In typical liberal fashion.... When the debate is not favoring there side, emotion comes into play. All the opposing facts, "don't count or don't matter". -Hail to the REDSKINS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 If they change the name to "Warriors" and make the logo the 60's version of the spear, I believe they can break ground at the RFK site within a year after DC United gets their new digs. Keep the color scheme too. By the time that happens, Harjo et al will have filed suit for all NFL teams to get rid of the Native theme and they'll be successful because they would have already forced a name change. Harjo and others have specifically said that they want all NA names and imagery removed from sports. Pretty easy to see why they've targeted us so heavily, because in today's PC culture with skin color it is easy to prey on. But as has been said, if Harjo truly speaks for NAs then why has the movement not commissioned a poll? It would prove them right Heck, we fans have even said a valid poll showing a decent percentage, like a third or more, not even a full majority, would be enough for us to support a change. It would all be over then. But no such poll, instead comments from Harjo where she disqualifies the opinions of the majority of NAs because they aren't "native enough." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Crappy analogy, Larry. But keep fighting the good fight. I hope it's comforting to be blissfully unaware that you're on the wrong side of history. Just don't be bitter when the change inevitably comes. Funny. Both "redskin" and "Oreo" are words which can be used as proper nouns, and which can be used to refer to a person. Both of them are registered trade marks. Both of them are used, in the context of their trade marks, much more frequently than they are used to label people (not affiliated with the trade mark). Both of them can be offensive, when used outside of their trade marked usage. Both of them are non-offensive, when used in their trademarked usage. Both of them, when viewed in a dictionary, are required to pretend that the trademarked usage does not exist, (just as all words are, in dictionaries). And therefore, the dictionary is required to define the word strictly on its rarely-used usage. Looks like that shoe fits pretty well, to me. ---------- And I will point out, again (since you seem to have accidentally missed it, the first two times I pointed it out). You are waving around a piece of paper which is required, by its own rules, to pretend that the Washington Redskins do not exist. And citing it as some kind of authority on the Washington Redskins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dissident2 Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 I personally can at least understand the pro name-change side of things. My main litmus test for that is that I would not feel comfortable calling someone a "Redskin" in 2015. It just doesn't feel right. Doesn't mean I think the name is "steeped in racism" by any stretch, nor does it mean I don't think there's a huge degree of PCness run amok in the whole debate. I just think it's an outdated term, and I could live with a name change. What bothers me the most are the other issues that have been brought up here, namely the notion to remove all NA imagery from the team. The idea that basing a team's image on a group of people in a respectful, dignified way ultimately intended to honor them is somehow "racist" truly boggles my mind. And I would be done if that day comes. What's funny for me is that I became a fan of this team because I was obsessed with and LOVED Native American culture as a boy. I read every book I could find on the subject. So when I saw this football team that was reflecting that part of our heritage in what struck me as a very dignified, noble way ... that was my team. The colors are perfect for me as well. Best color scheme in football. In short, my emotional attachment to the team imagery, colors, branding is deep and strong. It's a part of me. And for me, it reflects my love and respect for NA culture. Again, I can at least understand the issue with the name. But I saw some imbecile on FB likening the logo to "Aunt Jemima," and that kind of thing infuriates me in its ignorance. There is nothing about our logo or branding that even remotely says "caricature." And of course we all know the history of that logo's creation in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 While I realize that the weasel may not be involved in this blow to our team, The "Washington **** You John Maras" has a nice little ring to it, don'tcha think? Keep the name as it should be. Period. But if it has to be changed, I wouldn't want it to be DC specific. If the REDSKINS ever moved to Virginia, (and out of the hell-hole of PC DC) then a name like the Monuments would seem out of sync. Keeping the region in the name via "Potomac" is kinda cool. Potomac BUCKSKINS. We could just change it to Redmen, which still sounds very close to Redskins, and refers to secret patriotic societies founded before the American Revolution and go back to the "R" helmets. But that's only if a name change were forced, though honestly as long as we fans keep supporting the team financially then I don't see how it would come about. But if I'm Snyder I'm going with something as close to the original as possible that I know Harjo and her wacko cohorts can't come after in a few years like they will the Chiefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowhunter Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 I personally can at least understand the pro name-change side of things. My main litmus test for that is that I would not feel comfortable calling someone a "Redskin" in 2015. It just doesn't feel right. Doesn't mean I think the name is "steeped in racism" by any stretch, nor does it mean I don't think there's a huge degree of PCness run amok in the whole debate. Would you feel comfortable walking up to someone and saying "What's up COWBOY?" or "How ya doing "GIANT?" "You must be proud, you look like a "VIKING" There's a lot of Mascot names that are meant to have a positive connotation that I wouldn't necessarily feel comfortable calling someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Oh my lord. So many tired, bad arguments. I can't believe some redskin fans woke up and formed an opinion out of the blue about the name today. ****ing Google, people. Use it. ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.