@DCGoldPants Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 Call me insensitive but I'm convinced the only NAs that would be "offended" by the Warrior name/logo combo are ones who have financial motives (whether that's via royalties, lawsuits, etc). We'll ignore the fact that Redskins wasn't a slur in historical context since they seem to have already re-written history on that. Well, whenever the NFL forces a change. I hope Snyder doesn't take that as an OK to stop those charities he's started for NAs. He probably will, which will make him look even worse. If anything, he should go harder on it to show that for every non-NA that is ****ing about it. Actions are still stronger and words and they continue to do nothing of substance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve09ru Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 The point of the fight is that they want NA imagery removed from sports (mascots/names/etc.). If it changes, it's not going to be NA related. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 Warriors is almost as lame as Wizards. Not quite, but almost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFKFedEx Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 Well, whenever the NFL forces a change. I hope Snyder doesn't take that as an OK to stop those charities he's started for NAs. He probably will, which will make him look even worse. If anything, he should go harder on it to show that for every non-NA that is ****ing about it. Actions are still stronger and words and they continue to do nothing of substance. By "charities" I believe you're referring to the Original Americans Foundation or OAF. Some recipients of the OAF funds in 2014 are now saying 'no thanks, you can have the money back' in 2015. . http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/native-american-rodeo-cuts-ties-with-redskins-backed-charity-over-racial-slur-name_55ea039de4b093be51bb92d8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 Warriors is almost as lame as Wizards. Not quite, but almost. Agree. If...if the change is eventually made and we end up "Warriors", why does the name need to be military themed or themed at all? Why not just say Warriors, put a script "W" on the helmet like our script "R" and call it a day. Military theme would just annoy the **** out of me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 Agree. If...if the change is eventually made and we end up "Warriors", why does the name need to be military themed or themed at all? Why not just say Warriors, put a script "W" on the helmet like our script "R" and call it a day. Military theme would just annoy the **** out of me. You could do that and hope it works. Point is that without some logo to suggest that its not Native American themes, The UnWise Mike Jihad will say that is it. Said it before...and its unpopular. But I'd still prefer it. No nickname. **** that. Just The Washington Football Club with the W logo. Then the fans will still call them the Redskins on their own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 I don't like that alternative. Sounds like a soccer team. Teams need a nickname. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 Washington Jedi. Because we constantly get mind-tricked into coming back year after year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dub70s Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 Dub, Just curious, what is the significance behind your choices of the "warrior" subjects featured in the portraits above? i.e. who are/were those men? Do you know their names or tribal-national affiliations? no significance beyond history imagery and geographical location....I could have used a Zulu or a samurai The that what it means to me......so what why is the spear/arrow more PC than the existing logo? I looks slick, no letters, no number, just remembering the teams origins: Braves then Redskins... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonArtest15 Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 Was this thread bumped b/c there was a new development on the name-change front, or am I missing something here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 Was this thread bumped b/c there was a new development on the name-change front, or am I missing something here? Yes, new development is the season starts on Sunday so we'll have to start hearing about this again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 I looks slick, no letters, no number, just remembering the teams origins: Braves then Redskins... the problem is, theres a small, extremist fringe group that wants to do away with all native american mascots and imagery. they will still be protesting if we change it to warriors with the spear on the helmet. personally, i think, at that point, those who have joined the fight against the name- driven, imo, by ignorance, misinformation and reporting left unchecked- will probably be quiet and not care, as other native themed names are seen as slurs. but, you never know. of course, if you can officially get the endorsement of a tribe- which they can- you wouldnt have to drop 'redskins' at all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 Washington Jedi. Because we constantly get mind-tricked into coming back year after year. LOL, they should name all 4 pro teams that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 Call me insensitive but I'm convinced the only NAs that would be "offended" by the Warrior name/logo combo are ones who have financial motives (whether that's via royalties, lawsuits, etc). I certainly would not jump to that conclusion. Me, personally, I assume that (like pretty much every issue) there are lots of possible motives held by the numerous NAs who want the name changed. (Just as, no doubt, there are lots of possible motives among those that don;t want it changed.) And I have no doubt whatsoever that a good number of those who want the name changed, want it for completely noble, honest, valid reasons. Yeah, I think that some of the people who are on the TV all the time, and running around the country, pushing this issue, have motives that are less than desirable. (Although even then, it's not necessarily a desire for money.) But even if we take Annenberg's 9% who think it's offensive (and assume that number hasn't changed, in 10 years), that's still around 470,000 natives who find the name offensive. They can't all be expecting a payoff. We'll ignore the fact that Redskins wasn't a slur in historical context since they seem to have already re-written history on that. And we've had actual ES posters, in this thread, tell us that they, personally, have heard the term used as a racial slur. Granted, I think we've had a total of three specific incidents. not exactly staggering numbers. But it's also certainly not zero, either. (And I have no doubt whatsoever that the typical Native on a reservation out in BFE has had a "life experience" that is vastly different from mine.) Was this thread bumped b/c there was a new development on the name-change front, or am I missing something here? I don't think there's been any new news on this issue in five years. At least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 Yes, there is recent news. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/09/10/d-c-congresswoman-files-bill-to-strip-nfl-of-antitrust-protection/ Gold star for who notes something interesting without reading the comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xameil Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 Yes, there is recent news. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/09/10/d-c-congresswoman-files-bill-to-strip-nfl-of-antitrust-protection/ Gold star for who notes something interesting without reading the comments. Perhaps the Congresswoman should read up on how many actual teams are in the NFL... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 29 other owners? There are 31. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsGuy Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 Yes, there is recent news. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/09/10/d-c-congresswoman-files-bill-to-strip-nfl-of-antitrust-protection/ Gold star for who notes something interesting without reading the comments. Yeah, this legislation isn't going anywhere. Just good for a one-day headline. It won't even come up for a vote. The lady who introduced it isn't even a congresswoman. She is a delegate who can't even vote on her own bills. Whether or not the NFL should have antitrust protection is a debatable subject. However, it won't be tied to the mascot name of a franchise. The antitrust issue is much bigger than that. If you go read the article, make sure to read the comment section. Pretty much no support for this. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebluefood Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 Warriors is almost as lame as Wizards. Not quite, but almost. Agreed. Never liked that name. Best way to go, to me, would be either it name the team after a local tribe (with the tribe's blessing, of course), go with no nickname at all or name it after the old Senators baseball team. Hell, there was a Washington Senators team in the NFL back in the 1920s. I like the logo with the D.C. Flag on it, too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo#44 Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 Agreed. Never liked that name. Best way to go, to me, would be either it name the team after a local tribe (with the tribe's blessing, of course), go with no nickname at all or name it after the old Senators baseball team. Hell, there was a Washington Senators team in the NFL back in the 1920s. I like the logo with the D.C. Flag on it, too The DC flag would fit this organization perfectly, considering the team doesnt have any actual presence in the city, with training camp in Richmond, HQ in Ashburn, and stadium in Raljon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFKFedEx Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 Another tribe has ceased relations with the team. http://nativenewsonline.net/currents/eastern-band-of-cherokee-severs-ties-with-washington-nfl-team/ http://www.redskinsfacts.com/what%E2%80%99s-name Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 The DC flag would fit this organization perfectly, considering the team doesnt have any actual presence in the city, with training camp in Richmond, HQ in Ashburn, and stadium in Raljon. I like the logo with the D.C. Flag on it, too Part of me wants the team to not have anything DC related with it, just to spite Eleanor Holmes-Norton. But that's the part of me I don't like or talk about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Evidente Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 Dan Snyder has 2.85 billion reasons to not change the name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 The confederate flag is coming down in South Carolina- a flag that has flown for more than 150 years. No it hasn't. I bet you wouldn't even recognize the actual Confederate flag if you saw one. Lee's confederate battle flag was raised over the state capitol by Strom Thurmond explicitly to protest desegregation, (a move which was later copied by George Wallace) which is why the heritage not hate argument in regards to the flag is such b.s. and not an analogous argument vis a vis the Redskins name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 Another tribe has ceased relations with the team. http://nativenewsonline.net/currents/eastern-band-of-cherokee-severs-ties-with-washington-nfl-team/ http://www.redskinsfacts.com/what%E2%80%99s-name According to that article, they cite the "native American mascots are harmful to native youth" argument, which, iirc, didn't deal with the obviously noble, native American designed logo. It did deal with the Cleveland Indians caricature, and I agree with that part. Also, they refer to the name as a slur, and we've been over that a million times. Nice try though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.