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

[Commander PK]

And now we are back at the beginning.  

 

I just wanted to suggest that it is not a done deal that if we stop using the word "redskin" we will lose the logo, the imagery, the song, the colors.   The power of this controversy really comes from the fact that the word "redskin" is controversial in 2013.

 

I understand your point...but I also understand that nothing short of dropping the whole thing all together will ever appease Harjo and those who look at this the way she does.  Is it possible we would change the name, and she would still gripe and people would just dismiss her as unreasonable?  Possibly.  The opposite is also a possibility, and people will then decide that changing the name in and of itself was not enough.  Now the feathers and spear offend people.  "Hail to the Redhawks" offends people.  We are back at square one again. 

 

and since you put it in such terms...where exactly is the "power" of this controversy coming from?  If you take Harjo and Halbritter out of the equation...who and what is giving this controversy power? 

[Commander PK]

I read somewhere Danny already claimed the rights to the name Washington Braves or something like that....

 

The trademark is worth 200 million or about 20% of the franchise's value.   If Dan looses it;  I can't see him continuing with the Redskins name even if he says otherwise.    Dan isn't going to abandon the name because it's really going to hit his bottom line to do it.     The only way he would change the name is if keeping it is financially worse.

 

Let's say for the sake of argument they do cancel the trademark.  I'm sure there will be some sort of an injunction while the appeals process plays itself out, and there is no guarantee a new decision stands anyway. 

[Larry]

and since you put it in such terms...where exactly is the "power" of this controversy coming from?  If you take Harjo and Halbritter out of the equation...who and what is giving this controversy power?

Well, now days, I think it's been picked up by the media. Call it political correctness, call it wanting to be in front of a tide, rather than be dragged along by it, call it not wanting to be labeled as racist, for whatever reason, a lot of media have decided that the offensive-ness of the term has been established, and have chosen to announce it as a fact.

And that may well be a claim which comes to be true. Whether something offends people or not is a matter of feelings and opinions. And the media has the power to change those.

Frankly, I assume that, if the Annenberg poll were done again, the results would be different. (I have no idea how much different, but I'd be seriously surprised if the numbers haven't changed at all.)

It's entirely possible that, 10 years from now, "everybody will just know" that the word redskin is offensive.

(In fact, it's entirely possible that, 10 years from now, "everybody will just know" that the name was always offensive, and that racist Dan Snyder than the team's racist fans were the only people who wouldn't admit it.)

Public perceptions do change over time. And the media absolutely do have a big impact on that.

Heck, look at what's happened to public perception of gay marriage, over the last 10 years.

[Commander PK]

Well, now days, I think it's been picked up by the media. Call it political correctness, call it wanting to be in front of a tide, rather than be dragged along by it, call it not wanting to be labeled as racist, for whatever reason, a lot of media have decided that the offensive-ness of the term has been established, and have chosen to announce it as a fact.

And that may well be a claim which comes to be true. Whether something offends people or not is a matter of feelings and opinions. And the media has the power to change those.

Frankly, I assume that, if the Annenberg poll were done again, the results would be different. (I have no idea how much different, but I'd be seriously surprised if the numbers haven't changed at all.)

It's entirely possible that, 10 years from now, "everybody will just know" that the word redskin is offensive.

(In fact, it's entirely possible that, 10 years from now, "everybody will just know" that the name was always offensive, and that racist Dan Snyder than the team's racist fans were the only people who wouldn't admit it.)

Public perceptions do change over time. And the media absolutely do have a big impact on that.

Heck, look at what's happened to public perception of gay marriage, over the last 10 years.

 

and here is where it becomes impossible to not bring politics into the equation.  I have seen no evidence that a time honored tradition, and a beloved trademark should be changed to appease a very small minority of people because a few people have now decided it's offensive.  Why should we do this just because some people want to sabre rattle and force all of us to see things the way they do, but with no tangible evidence to back it up?  The problem is this thing has everything to do with "political correctness."  In general, the concept of "political correctness" has brought necessary change.  I don't dispute that.  Things do change over time, when the time is right for the change, and people have decided at large that they should change. 

 

but I don't see that with the Redskins name.  Where are the people at large deciding this, and who are they?  Should the majority allow themselves to be bullied into making a change they are not ready for or don't care about just because?

[aREDSKIN]

IMO a good perspective

 

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/redskin

[Commander PK]

as promised...here is the definition of "red skin" according to Webster's Dictionary with Student Handbook in 1974. 

 

[Predicto]

 

 

and since you put it in such terms...where exactly is the "power" of this controversy coming from?  If you take Harjo and Halbritter out of the equation...who and what is giving this controversy power? 

 

I can only speak for myself.  The more I have thought about it, the more I realized that the use of the word "redskin" to name a professional sports team not owned by or composed of Native Americans simply is not appropriate in 2013.  

 

Harjo or Harbritter or others may have been the squeaky wheel that got the issue back into the public consciousness this year, for the 43rd time, but if they hadn't suceeded in doing so this time, there would have been a 44th time next year, or the year after.   Ultimately, the reason that the issue has any power is that there is a kernel of truth behind it.

[Larry]

as promised...here is the definition of "red skin" according to Webster's Dictionary with Student Handbook in 1974.

I don't think anyone disputed you.

[Commander PK]

I don't think anyone disputed you.

 

I know...just putting it out there.  I don't make claims without backing them up with evidence. 

so I guess the dictionary does pose the question. 

 

What new information, data, or research has prompted the definition to change over the last several years?  What has surfaced that we did not know about in 1974?

 

or is Webster's not a reputable enough dictionary?

Changing sensibilities? 

 

Ok...where is the evidence of that?  I know we don't just change definitions over media reports and handful of people's opinions...do we?

[Commander PK]

I can only speak for myself.  The more I have thought about it, the more I realized that the use of the word "redskin" to name a professional sports team not owned by or composed of Native Americans simply is not appropriate in 2013.  

 

Harjo or Harbritter or others may have been the squeaky wheel that got the issue back into the public consciousness this year, for the 43rd time, but if they hadn't suceeded in doing so this time, there would have been a 44th time next year, or the year after.   Ultimately, the reason that the issue has any power is that there is a kernel of truth behind it.

 

and that is fine Predicto.  I'm not trying to tell you what you should think.  I am defending something that I love, that has come under attack, and I am putting a considerable amount of effort into it.     

 

You just like everyone else is entitled to your opinion, but you do realize that it is just that...an opinion.  You and other like-minded individuals do not have the right to force all of us to change because of your realization.  Majority rules in this country, and there is no evidence that the majority want or care about changing this team's name.  If/when that changes...it is what it is. 

 

What I cannot abide, is a few deciding for the many what is offensive. 

 

Edit: and for clarification...in this case I am talking about the Native American majority.

[GhostofSparta]

as promised...here is the definition of "red skin" according to Webster's Dictionary with Student Handbook in 1974. 

 

"Red Snapper" has no mention of Ethan Albright, I see. Clearly a flawed source. Your argument is invalid, sir.

[Commander PK]

"Red Snapper" has no mention of Ethan Albright, I see. Clearly a flawed source. Your argument is invalid, sir.

 

I've long held in this thread that dictionary definitions are not the "be all end all." 

[CrypticVillain]

I read somewhere Danny already claimed the rights to the name Washington Braves or something like that....

 

The trademark is worth 200 million or about 20% of the franchise's value.   If Dan looses it;  I can't see him continuing with the Redskins name even if he says otherwise.    Dan isn't going to abandon the name because it's really going to hit his bottom line to do it.     The only way he would change the name is if keeping it is financially worse.

I burst out laughing at your avatar picture. Well played sir lol

Oh, and if they want to take out the Native American imagery, that's sad. If it wasn't for the Redskins, I don't think I would even care as much about Native Americans as I do. I wouldn't be wearing a Chicago Blackhawks hat because it reminds me of the Redskins logo. I mean, I would always respect Native Americans, but the Redskins has taken that respect to a higher level.

 

I wish Snyder would just start up a fund for the Native Americans or something. Help them out a little.

[Commander PK]

 

I wish Snyder would just start up a fund for the Native Americans or something. Help them out a little.

 

I could certainly get behind this.  Lord knows they could use it.

[JMS]

Oh, and if they want to take out the Native American imagery, that's sad. If it wasn't for the Redskins, I don't think I would even care as much about Native Americans as I do. I wouldn't be wearing a Chicago Blackhawks hat because it reminds me of the Redskins logo. I mean, I would always respect Native Americans, but the Redskins has taken that respect to a higher level.

 

I wish Snyder would just start up a fund for the Native Americans or something. Help them out a little.

 

I agree...  Start up a scholarship fund and give them some free tickets.....    Jack Kent Cooke   used to do that stuff.   He also used to keep Native American spokes people on the payroll and would bring them out to answer criticism...   Not that I think we should white wash this but just demonstrate our usage isn't meant to offend with some responsive PR and demonstrations.....

 

Anyway  Jack Kent Cook owned newspapers.   He knew how to deal with reporters and get his message out.    I don't think Dan is as accomplished at that as the Squire.    The squire used to hold court with reporters.

[grego]

Of course, the word "fag" can mean a cigarette if you are in England. Dick can mean a private investigator.

I might buy this argument if we didn't have a Native American as our logo. But we do. The connection is unavoidable. We intend the connection to be there. BY being called the Washington Redskins, we absolutely mean it to be understood as a word that refers to the Native American theme of our franchise. That makes it very hard (I would say impossible) to separate the word as a team name from the word as defined in the abstract.

Agreed. No doubt, "redskins" is meant to refer to native Americans, but absolutely not in a derogatory way- not in the websters dictionary way. So, how can the dictionary- and native Americans who embrace the word- both be right?

Here's the way I'm making sense of this current debate- "redskins" was originally a word made by Indians to refer to themselves In a perfectly benign way.

At some point- some white people apparently put the word "dirty" in front of it, or used it in a sentence such as "let's get those redskins". For a time, One can understand the word taking on a negative connotation, just based on its context. In that context , the word itself still just refers to native Americans, even if it's saying something bad about them.

Substitute "Mexican". Now say "Dirty Mexicans". Better yet, "Yankees". All of a sudden, it sounds bad. "New York Yankees"- baseball team, fine. "Dirty Yankees"- somebody doesn't like somebody else.

Same word, different context, different meaning altogether. In fact, a positive to negative swing.

My problem is, (one of them), that redskins in the negative connotation appears so rare in use that many people (apparently many native Americans) haven't even heard it used that way. Conversely, the nfl has grown to be the national past time. With the redskins becoming one of the most popular sports franchises in the world. Understandably, the only context of the word the vast majority of the world knows is that one.

The dictionary definition argument is an imperfect one, demonstrated by any number of words defined in ways nobody ever actually uses rather than the obvious ones people actually use. For some reason, the way dictionaries define words- the rules they use about proper nouns and such- in their desire to be thorough, come up with some bizarre, antiquated definitions. It is what is.

Curiously, Predicto, many are saying "we don't refer to groups by traits like skin color now".

Except for black and white, right? No harm intended. No offense taken.

Unless it's "black mother****er". Or "white son of a ****". Sounds bad, doesn't it?

[Commander PK]

I agree...  Start up a scholarship fund and give them some free tickets.....    Jack Kent Cooke   used to do that stuff.   He also used to keep Native American spokes people on the payroll and would bring them out to answer criticism...   Not that I think we should white wash this but just demonstrate our usage isn't meant to offend with some responsive PR and demonstrations.....

 

Anyway  Jack Kent Cook owned newspapers.   He knew how to deal with reporters and get his message out.    I don't think Dan is as accomplished at that as the Squire.    The squire used to hold court with reporters.

 

For once we agree.  How could the popularity of the Washington Redskins be used to expose the plight of Native Americans and help them?  I'm not just talking about handing out money either.  Maybe something good could come from all this.      

Except for black and white, right? No harm intended. No offense taken.

Unless it's "black mother****er". Or "white son of a ****". Sounds bad, doesn't it?

 

CONTEXT

 

it means everything. 

[Birdlives]

I have a Random House unabridged dictionary from 1967. The definition is virtually identical to the one noted above but includes the italicized comment "often offensive". Make of it what you will. I've stated my opinion on this already. I don't see the point in fighting the tide that will eventually change the name of this team. I'd rather take control of the situation and change it to something we decide now than wait for the tide to hit the beach and force a bad decision. In light of the way Marshall ran this team, I think the time is now, before we're shouted down. People can grouse all they want, but our children will not be rooting for the Redskins. That's the reality.

[elkabong82]

I can only speak for myself.  The more I have thought about it, the more I realized that the use of the word "redskin" to name a professional sports team not owned by or composed of Native Americans simply is not appropriate in 2013.  

 

Harjo or Harbritter or others may have been the squeaky wheel that got the issue back into the public consciousness this year, for the 43rd time, but if they hadn't suceeded in doing so this time, there would have been a 44th time next year, or the year after.   Ultimately, the reason that the issue has any power is that there is a kernel of truth behind it.

 

Do you hold the same opinion about the Kansas City Chiefs and Atlanta Braves? After all, if you went to a reservation and called people that they would probably be offended. 

 

Does the history of the name involving Dietz as head coach and NA players, and the mascot being designed by NAs, and the local tribes speaking in favor of the name not count for anything? 

 

I expect a letter from you addressed to Notre Dame that the team be run by only Irish people. 

 

If the majority of NAs are indifferent to the team's usage, then who's perspective are you using to determine the usage is inappropriate in 2013?

 

Ultimately the reason that the issue has any power is that some apply the assumption that a color "red" along with "skins" is automatically racist/derogatory even though it is no way suggests inferiority nor is its usage done on a way to disparage or demean.

[elkabong82]

I don't see the point in fighting the tide that will eventually change the name of this team. 

 

I'm glad not everyone has this same attitude, otherwise PETA would have succeeded in getting the Packers' name changed. 

 

I'm glad the team didn't have this same attitude at 3-6 last year.

 

As pretty much everyone has said, if it came out definitively that the majority of NAs are offended by the name then we're all on board for a name change. It is nobody's intent to disparage. But the evidence is actually to the contrary, yet we see the local media, long-time grudge holders, pushing the name change and distorting the reality of the situation, we see the reasons cited completely ignore the current context and usage of the word as well. So why should we cave in given all that?

 

Plus, if you want to talk reality, let's talk the real reality. If the name gets changed, then down the road our kids won't be cheering for the Redskins, and when they look back on the old team it will be tainted by the assumption that the name was racist and the fans supported that. Any time the old team is looked back on, the name change will be forever associated and the old team will always carry a negative connotation. A tainted legacy, all because vocal advocates not representing the majority of the people they claim to represent wanted all NA themed names removed from sports and decided Redskins was the easiest first target because many in modern society and in the media see red and skins together and assume it must be racist (hence the incorrect blackskins analogy that is constantly made). If our kids are watching the Washington somethings play instead, then they probably won't be watching the Chiefs, Braves, Blackhawks, etc. play either (though Buffalo Bills and Sooners and others will be around due to ignorance of real issues). 

[Timmy Smith]

I could probably live with something like this:

 

http://www.behance.net/gallery/Washington-Redhawks-Brand-Proposal/11458543

[RFKFedEx]

If the name gets changed, then down the road our kids won't be cheering for the Redskins, and when they look back on the old team it will be tainted by the assumption that the name was racist and the fans supported that. Any time the old team is looked back on, the name change will be forever associated and the old team will always carry a negative connotation.

So keeping the Native theme will prevent that? We move on pretty quickly in the digital age. Kids in the future aren't going to care like middle aged white guys do today.

 

I sport a #33 Sammy Baugh jersey. Slingin played for all white teams during his entire career; under an owner who was considerred racist even for the time. I'm proud of our franchise' accomplishments on the field, regardless of the politics. I'm proud that my grandparents watched Baugh w/ the same ST account I hold today. I grew up w/ a father who frequently reminded me how lucky I was to enjoy championships and winning in the 80s (long before I was old enough to appreciate it). My dad grew up watching awful (white only) teams in the 50s, and he liked to let me know about that. Going to Griffith Stadium usually meant collecting another L for young pops.  

 

Social change was the best thing that could have happened to this franchise in 1962. The same will ring true when the Native theme is retired in two thousand whenever.

[Bang]

So keeping the Native theme will prevent that? We move on pretty quickly in the digital age. Kids in the future aren't going to care like middle aged white guys do today.

You keep forgetting all those natives who don't want the name changed. Like they don't even exist.

By the way, why is it you have absolutely no compunction against referring to Caucasians as only a color?

They're really not that color, and they vary in shade so much that it seems as if you're lumping everyone with light skin complexions together under one derogatory term.

Does it even cross your mind?

~Bang

[RFKFedEx]

By the way, why is it you have absolutely no compunction against referring to Caucasians as only a color?

They're really not that color, and they vary in shade so much that it seems as if you're lumping everyone with light skin complexions together under one derogatory term.

Does it even cross your mind?

~Bang

You've had wittier rebuttals Bang. This one reeks of desperation.

 

Still entertaining none the less.

[Commander PK]

I have a Random House unabridged dictionary from 1967. The definition is virtually identical to the one noted above but includes the italicized comment "often offensive". Make of it what you will. I've stated my opinion on this already. I don't see the point in fighting the tide that will eventually change the name of this team. I'd rather take control of the situation and change it to something we decide now than wait for the tide to hit the beach and force a bad decision. In light of the way Marshall ran this team, I think the time is now, before we're shouted down. People can grouse all they want, but our children will not be rooting for the Redskins. That's the reality.

 

Not that I have any reason to doubt you, but do you have pics?  and really the larger point is that there definitely is no "consensus" on "Redskins"  

 

How is capitulating "taking control?"  For me, it's not just about the team's name either.  You are setting one hell of a precedent in this country when a few people can bully the owner of a private business into changing the name of his business.  Aside from me being a huge fan of the team for all of my life...that is the other issue at play here as well.  

 

If the name was so destructive and so disrespectful...why is the team so damn rich?  Why do so many Natives say they don't dislike the name?  Why do so many Native schools use the name "Redskins?"  Is it like that Dave Chappelle skit where he is blind, and the grand dragon of the klan?  The joke is on them, they just don't know it? 

 

 

Social change was the best thing that could have happened to this franchise in 1962. 

 

agreed, but these two issues are not even remotely the same thing.  To try to portray them as such is disingenuous at best.