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

[dchogs]

15 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

History is history, making a determination of it being good or bad is a function of an agenda that is usually political, i.e. using history to push a contemporary political sensibility.  Romanticizing westward expansion is kind of the opposite agenda of trying to pay homage to Native American warrior traditions.  Do you really think Native Americans want to be erased from pop culture?  Do you really think it's a bad thing to want to honor some of their history and traditions if it could be done in a way that wouldn't offend majority public opinion?

yes and no.  history is written by the victors.  i don't know how old you are, but i sure as hell grew up thinking that columbus landed to a big old welcome from the native americans.  Now Cortez was a cold-hearted **** that murdered the Azetecs but Columbus was a kindly explorer.   while history is history, the history that is told and taught isn't absolute truth and is very susceptible to the mores and attitudes of the authors.  and if history IS absolute, then US/NA history is absolutely awful.

 

and sure, we can honor native american traditions.  as long as you think they're the cool traditions.  i doubt native americans worry about being erased from pop culture... how could they possibly stand not seeing themselves in spaghetti westerns, caricatures selling cigars outside drug stores, chasing Bugs Bunny around the TV?  Pop culture... popular culture... is largely that of those with societal power, and the more marginalized a group is (and you can't get much more marginalized in the US than native americans), the less their portrayal in pop culture will be accurate or meaningful.  i'm sure that native american tribes would be much happier if they received more general support so that they could thrive and preserve the aspects of their heritage that they hold as most meaningful and sacred. 

 

just sayin.  i'm out.  no one is suddenly see their bias from reading stuff on a football message board (and i don't mean that as a snide comment about you specifically at all).

[Skinsinparadise]

7 hours ago, sempre_victrix said:

 

I agree with everything you've said, aside from not having an issue with changing the name. 

 

The sad part is that there is a segment of our country that wants to make everything about politics and this segment has people on both sides.  They can't stop themselves from tainting everything with it.  God, just to be able to be lost in a football game, away from it all for 3 measly hours.

 

Changing the name will only empower the people forcing the change and they will not stop here.  I view them as bullies and bullies do not stop until you take a stand and pushes back.

 

 

I agree with your point in theory.  My personal take is the Redskins name isn't racist.  But I do see the other argument on this, too.  I don't think this a slam dunk argument with no grey.  

 

The name issue has come up to different degrees of intensity over 4 decades.  It just gotten red hot now.

 

I see a lot of my fandom now through the eyes of my kids maybe because it takes me back to the start of my own fandom.  They get a kick out of going to games among other things.  And for me, I don't enjoy thinking about them being shamed or feeling uncool even on rare occasion just because of the name of the team they root for.   And I am gathering that is just going to intensify.  

 

So since I am not attached to the name personally.  I think there is some upside to root for a team without having a disclaimer or having to defend something that really no other team has to bother with.  I just don't like it for example when some fans of other teams think they have the higher moral ground over me because of the name.   Yep, I can deal with it.  But don't love having to mix the politics of that with rooting for a team.

 

In short, I don't feel that strongly about the name where I feel empowered to defend it and also feel good about doing it.  To me it's more of an annoyance to deal with that in the mix.  Tough enough just to defend Dan Snyder in general.  But throwing the name in the mix can add an occasional angst to my fandom that I don't always enjoy.

 

And like i've said for me the low moment was hanging in Arizona with my kids having a good time, they are being revved up for the game and then getting harrassed by Native Americans entering the stadium and being heckled about how we are bad people.  My kids obviously have never been heckled for any other reason.  So their one dose of being heckled is for being Redskins fans?  That was tough for me to watch.  

 

But that's me.  Like I said I respect anyone who feels differently.

 

 

7 hours ago, sempre_victrix said:

 

 

Again, I am not trying to disrespect anyone who is for a name change.  I wish people would stop disrespecting those who are considering dumping the team over a name change.  They do not consider doing so lightly.

 

 

 

I agree with this.  It's not for any fan to tell another fan how their fandom should roll.  It's everyone's personal business.  No right or wrongs. 

[Commander PK]

For me keeping anything that can be construed as Native American doesn’t resolve the issue for all time.  Many of the detractors of the name want ALL Native imagery removed from sports teams.  Natives are not a mascot. Remember?  The only way to resolve this issue forever is to remove any and all Native imagery from the team.  The Redskins have always been the big boy that once toppled the others will be easier to take out.  The Cleveland Indians also know this, which is why they are changing as well.  They see the writing on the wall.  

[Mooka]

Sorry to be the asshole in the group, but naming your team Redskins is as generic as naming your team Trojans/Spartans/Warriors/Samurais/Aztecs/Vikings/Pick A Warrior from History.  

 

The team history is great, but its just that. History. 

 

If someone from Michigan was spouting off to you about ancient Italian (Greek?) culture because he likes to watch his favorite football team would you really take him seriously? 

[mistertim]

44 minutes ago, DCSaints_fan said:

If Redskins change their name, Chiefs need to be next.   I don't see how one is offensive but not the other, when associated with Native Americans.

 

I can kinda see it and you may be right that it will end up changing, but while "Chief" can definitely be a pejorative/slur when used in a derogatory way towards a Native American (who isn't an actual tribal Chief and you aren't addressing them as such), on its face I don't think it's as overt as "Redskins" because in a literal sense it just refers to a title, like "General". 

[Jumbo]

23 minutes ago, Mooka said:

Sorry to be the asshole in the group

 

 

hey dude

 

i'm not completely retired yet

 

let's not be too quick to put the old folks out to pasture

 

[mistertim]

22 minutes ago, Mooka said:

Sorry to be the asshole in the group, but naming your team Redskins is as generic as naming your team Trojans/Spartans/Warriors/Samurais/Aztecs/Vikings/Pick A Warrior from History.  

 

The team history is great, but its just that. History. 

 

If someone from Michigan was spouting off to you about ancient Italian (Greek?) culture because he likes to watch his favorite football team would you really take him seriously? 

 

Is it really the same though? To me it's the difference between being the "Fighting Irish" and the "Fighting Micks". One is a word that is the actual name of an ethnicity or group of people, and the other is a derogatory term for that group of people. 

[Simmsy]

20 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

I can kinda see it and you may be right that it will end up changing, but while "Chief" can definitely be a pejorative/slur when used in a derogatory way towards a Native American (who isn't an actual tribal Chief and you aren't addressing them as such), on its face I don't think it's as overt as "Redskins" because in a literal sense it just refers to a title, like "General". 

I thought it wasn't just about the name, but culture appropriation and being used as a mascot? If thats the case, than there shouldn't be any Native American themed teams. I'm not saying this to defend the name, the inconsistency just doesn't make sense to me.
 

Also, didn't a Native American tribe step up and say they would love the team to be named after them?

[skinsmarydu]

1 hour ago, dchogs said:

the history of america and native americans ain't a good thing from the native POV.  WE-- i.e. non-natives-- have romanticized the wild west.  thinking that the native americans WANT or NEED us white folk to preserve their tradition for them is very patronizing. 

Lots of reservations have no running water, electricity, internet access, etc. 

Native Americans need more than an NFL team name change. If the "truly outraged" put their money where their mouth is...

 

Just sayin. 

[mistertim]

4 minutes ago, Simmsy said:

I thought it wasn't just about the name, but culture appropriation and being used as a mascot? If thats the case, than there shouldn't be any Native American themed teams. I'm not saying this to defend the name, the inconsistency just doesn't make sense to me.
 

Also, didn't a Native American tribe step up and say they would love the team to be named after them?

 

I don't necessarily disagree with you. Just explaining why I can see the Chiefs not causing as much of an uproar currently since on its face it's less overt than Redskins, even if it's still a form of cultural appropriation and treating an ethnic group, or some aspect of an ethnic group, as a mascot. As I said, it certainly could be the case that in the future they'll change their name as well. 

[dchogs]

6 minutes ago, skinsmarydu said:

Lots of reservations have no running water, electricity, internet access, etc. 

Native Americans need more than an NFL team name change. If the "truly outraged" put their money where their mouth is...

 

Just sayin. 

let's do both. doesn't have to be either/or.  

[wrilbo67]

3 hours ago, Corcaigh said:

Aside from that not being true, the desperate social plight of many NA communities makes arguing with powerful billionaires about a name drop far, far down this century’s ‘to do’ list.

 

[duffy]

<mod edit---read title---goes in stadium thread>

[Simmsy]

2 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

I don't necessarily disagree with you. Just explaining why I can see the Chiefs not causing as much of an uproar currently since on its face it's less overt than Redskins, even if it's still a form of cultural appropriation and treating an ethnic group, or some aspect of an ethnic group, as a mascot. As I said, it certainly could be the case that in the future they'll change their name as well. 

I understand what you're saying, but if the Chiefs have to be forced to change their name by an investment group, is change really happening? Is that going to take 40 years as well?

[BraveWarrior]

<mod edit---goes in thread in the stadium>

[BraveWarrior]

10 hours ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

DOC WALKER / The Team 980 and former tight end

"I'm in celebratory mode ... for the people that were hurt," Walker said.

While Walker says he's proud of having represented the burgundy and gold, and he's gone back and forth about the logo and name over the years, he also says this: "I met a gentleman from Utah who's a congressman who's Native American. He told me it was offensive. All I needed was one person." 

 

 

 

So, if we get rid of everything that offends/upsets even 1 person, what in the world will be left?

 

I'm not saying this to defend keeping the name. I'll continue to cite the rationale the team's attorneys have used to successfully defend attacks on their trademark rights to do that. I'm just wondering what kind of world we will live in when we go down this path.    

[wrilbo67]

11 minutes ago, skinsmarydu said:

Lots of reservations have no running water, electricity, internet access, etc. 

Native Americans need more than an NFL team name change. If the "truly outraged" put their money where their mouth is...

 

Just sayin. 

that argument works both ways though. The team took the name in 1933. There were protestors at their games as early as the early 90s so this isn’t something new. The team didn’t start the Original Americans Foundation until 2014. Why would a team choose to honor an ethnic minority for decades, profit heavily from their culture, and do nothing to fix or educate others on the unique issues that ethnic minority faces. In their case, it’s not even an issue of putting your money where your mouth is. It’s putting your money where your money is.

Honestly the team completely lost me on this issue 5 years ago when they filed in court that they should be able to keep their trademark not because it isn’t offensive, but because other offensive trademarks like, “Booty Call Sex Aids,” “Party with sluts,” “Take yo panties off clothing,” and “Midget-Man condoms,” had been allowed to be trademarked.

 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

52 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

I can kinda see it and you may be right that it will end up changing, but while "Chief" can definitely be a pejorative/slur when used in a derogatory way towards a Native American (who isn't an actual tribal Chief and you aren't addressing them as such), on its face I don't think it's as overt as "Redskins" because in a literal sense it just refers to a title, like "General". 

 

But the same arguments apply towards "Chief" as they do towards "Redskin", outside of the skin color argument obviously.

 

Would you go onto a reservation and call a stranger there "chief"? Do Native Americans find it offensive when Non-NAs call them "chief"? etc, etc.

 

This whole thing is being dictated by money, on both sides, not by what is supposed to be "right".

[Kosher Ham]

<mod edit--off topic--yes, it is >

 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

8 minutes ago, wrilbo67 said:

that argument works both ways though. The team took the name in 1933. There were protestors at their games as early as the early 90s so this isn’t something new. The team didn’t start the Original Americans Foundation until 2014. Why would a team choose to honor an ethnic minority for decades, profit heavily from their culture, and do nothing to fix or educate others on the unique issues that ethnic minority faces. In their case, it’s not even an issue of putting your money where your mouth is. It’s putting your money where your money is.

Honestly the team completely lost me on this issue 5 years ago when they filed in court that they should be able to keep their trademark not because it isn’t offensive, but because other offensive trademarks like, “Booty Call Sex Aids,” “Party with sluts,” “Take yo panties off clothing,” and “Midget-Man condoms,” had been allowed to be trademarked.

 

 

The Skins/Snyder were contributors to NA issues and helped on reservations before 2014 (2005 stands out in my mind for some reason). If there is one thing Snyder does well--and there may only be one thing--it's being a philanthropist.

[dchogs]

1 minute ago, Califan007 said:

 

The Skins/Snyder were contributors to NA issues and helped on reservations before 2014 (2005 stands out in my mind). If there is one thing Snyder does well--and there may only be one thing--it's being a philanthropist.

that may or may not be true (i honestly don't know or don't remember), but with snyder supposedly being a marketing genius, he's totally screwed the pooch here.  EVERYONE should know that the Redskins org is the leader on NA issues.  There should be a massive tribute or something to NA culture/history at FedEx.  He's had damned near 30 years to craft the team narrative such that this wouldn't be happening today.  sadly, the narrative he's cultivated for the team has been quite different and negative (not towards NA's, but the bumbling billionaire that ruins all he touches). 

[BraveWarrior]

5 hours ago, UK Skins said:

 

As long as you play the "...come out and play" music when they run onto the field!

 

The clip from the movie as well as the Twisted Sister song (which also begins with the clip from the movie).

[skinsmarydu]

6 minutes ago, Kosher Ham said:

Is the US Navy going to eliminate the rank Master Chief?

There are Chiefs and Senior Chiefs below the Master. (solely for reference) 

[Captain Wiggles]

11 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

This whole thing is being dictated by money, on both sides, not by what is supposed to be "right".

 

You new to America? 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

11 minutes ago, dchogs said:

that may or may not be true (i honestly don't know or don't remember), but with snyder supposedly being a marketing genius, he's totally screwed the pooch here.  EVERYONE should know that the Redskins org is the leader on NA issues.  There should be a massive tribute or something to NA culture/history at FedEx.  He's had damned near 30 years to craft the team narrative such that this wouldn't be happening today.  sadly, the narrative he's cultivated for the team has been quite different and negative (not towards NA's, but the bumbling billionaire that ruins all he touches). 

 

Two things:

 

1) When have the Redskins every been PR geniuses? lol...

 

2) More seriously, though, I applaud him for keeping some of his charitable endeavors private and out of the spotlight. He wasn't trying to prop himself up or use it as a shield against claims of the team name being racist (which are the exact criticisms aimed at him and the team in 2014). What you do when no one is looking defines your character.