Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

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


Alaskins

Recommended Posts

It's actually true, you know.

It's sarcastic, sure, but it's absolutely 100% true.

and yet you brush it off.

Personally, i'm not offended because I really don't care about such things, but what if someone was?

Hell, I sure know our ol' Tailgate pal Honorary Hog would be, and all it takes is one.

 

Philosophical question: What makes it different?

 

~Bang

Everyone else is in a protected class of some sort. Middle aged white dudes are the only remaining group who I can still generalize w/ ease, mostly from experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't really agree with this.  Civil Rights were about actual equality issue in this country.  This is about the name of a Football Team.  One is a given right in this country, the other is a product that is sold.

 

I question the wisdom of forcing business to accommodate such things.  While many may believe that it is wrong, the masses should not have the power to tell people how they do business when it is their own money that is being invested.  If the issue is important enough, economics will solve the issue.  If it is important enough, the product will fall off because people will stop buying and that is the best way to see change. 

 

JMO

If I were a Cowboys fan, I would totally root for my rival's product to "fall off". As a Burgundy & Gold fan, I'd rather not wait for the product to suffer before change occurs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can't just dismiss it [the dictionaries] out of hand, can we?   Whatever level of significance you give it, it does have SOME significance.

Just none relating to the use of the word to refer to a football team. :)

But yep, it does have SOME significance. Somewhere.

 

Yankee is just like Hoosier, Sooner and Tar Heel.  The affected population adopted it as their own, thus pulling the teeth out of it.   If Native Americans affirmatively adopt redskin as their preferred nickname, so be it.

Pointing out that Natives did invent that term, to refer to themselves. Hundreds of years ago.  And that numerous groups do so, today. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pointing out that Natives did invent that term, to refer to themselves. Hundreds of years ago.  And that numerous groups do so, today. 

 

which always gets ignored in this discussion.  Always, when it is the biggest single piece of evidence yet to me that the name has been pigeon-holed by modern revisionists without evidence to do so.  If Natives are offended...WHY oh WHY do they use the name so prevalently.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

which always gets ignored in this discussion.  Always, when it is the biggest single piece of evidence yet to me that the name has been pigeon-holed by modern revisionists without evidence to do so.  If Natives are offended...WHY oh WHY do they use the name so prevalently.  

 

Eh, Frankly, I don't think the "they used that term themselves" is much of a defense.  More along the lines of useless trivia. 

 

I think maybe it's significant as a rebuttal of the claim that The Evil White Man invented it, to refer to scalps.  But that's pretty much it's only significance. 

 

Yeah, "the n-word" HAS been used, by blacks, and by Mel Brooks, and people weren't offended.  That doesn't make the word not offensive.  (Just because a word CAN be non-offensive, doesn't mean it always is.  Some people, however, won't admit that the opposite is true.) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh, Frankly, I don't think the "they used that term themselves" is much of a defense.  

 

but then explain how the Red Mesa Redskins, a school predominately made up of Native Americans, use the term "Redskin" and are terrified it will be taken from them?  Or are they lying?

 

cb-red-mesa-tsosie2.jpg

 

red_mesa_redskins_high_teec_nos_pos_ariz

 

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9689220/redskins-name-change-not-easy-sounds

 

 

"It's a name that honors the people," says Kingston English teacher Brett Hayes, who is Choctaw. "The word 'Oklahoma' itself is Choctaw for 'red people.' The students here don't want it changed. To them, it seems like it's just people who have no connection with the Native American culture, people out there trying to draw attention to themselves.

"My kids are really afraid we're going to lose the Redskin name. They say to me, 'They're not going to take it from us, are they, Dad?'"

Too late. White America has spoken. You aren't offended, so we'll be offended for you.

Same story with the Red Mesa (Ariz.) High School Redskins. They wear the name with fierce pride. They absolutely don't see it as an insult. But what do they know? The student body is only 99.3 percent Native American.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, "the n-word" HAS been used, by blacks, and by Mel Brooks, and people weren't offended. That doesn't make the word not offensive. (Just because a word CAN be non-offensive, doesn't mean it always is. Some people, however, won't admit that the opposite is true.)

YES! im drunk right now, fyi

im black, and i love blazing saddles. the sheriff is a bleep didnt offend me at all, and in fact i laughed my ass off

i wish people wouldnt try so hard to be cool and hip and want to be seen as supporting the latest cause, which now is the redskins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

No, Any name change at all, regardless of theme, will likely later on be viewed by some as an admission of guilt. Kids in the future will be given a narrative. Every time the old "redskins" team is looked back on, the name change and association with racism will be there. I'm glad you are proud of our past with Baugh, I am too, but let's not ignore the reality that those old Redskin teams are tainted by Marshall because the Redskins were the last to integrate, and his accomplishments and contributions to the league are completely overlooked because of that. Of course we are all glad integration happened, but it does taint the past teams. If the name change happens, then it will be viewed by many as an admission of guilt and that the team name was racist, they could be connected with Marshall as "same old Washington team, always last," and the Redskins legacy will be tainted by that, even though the reality of the situation is that most NAs don't care about the name, which leads one to conclude that it isn't considered racist or greatly offensive to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but then explain how the Red Mesa Redskins, a school predominately made up of Native Americans, use the term "Redskin" and are terrified it will be taken from them?  Or are they lying?

 

Well, now we get to the "well, it's OK if they do it.  But if Dan Snyder does it, then, well, it's just disgusting". 

 

You know, suddenly we have to consider context:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw a lady (I'd guess about 10 or so years my senior) in Kroger the other day...she had on a Redskins shirt that was at least my age, no joke, the old "R" with the feather on the front, and gold stripes on the sleeves.  So we got to talkin', re-lived the glory days, and she told me she had e-mailed "Dan" about not changing the name, about how important this was to her.  We both started to cry...it was a little nutty, two grown women breaking down about our team name...in a grocery store!  (I gave her info about ES, invited her to join.  Hope she's here by now.)

Then I got to the self-checkout, and there she was, so the conversation kept going.   

I hate grocery shopping.  That trip was a good one.

HAIL TO THE REDSKINS! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, now we get to the "well, it's OK if they do it.  But if Dan Snyder does it, then, well, it's just disgusting". 

 

You know, suddenly we have to consider context:)

 

ahh, but they aren't saying that it's disgusting if Dan Snyder does it.   :)

 

Not in great numbers anyway.

 

Some will just continue to ignore that fact I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Here's a silent movie from 1929.  Skip to 27 minutes in.   Then to 102 minutes in.   

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1kiNEAHcQA

 

I'm sure there are many more examples in the old movies.

 

Right, because when talking about modern day, the 1920s applies.

 

"Yankee is just like Hoosier, Sooner and Tar Heel.  The affected population adopted it as their own, thus pulling the teeth out of it.   If Native Americans affirmatively adopt redskin as their preferred nickname, so be it. "

 

So the various NA high schools using Redskins as their name, having a NA head coach and players when we switched to the name, having our logo/mascot designed by NAs, and having local NA tribes speak out in favor of the name recently and say they are fans doesn't count as affirmative adoption? 

 

Like I told you before, the name was already being used for the team, so the burden is on the name change advocates to show NAs generally do not want the name. You are trying to assert that NAs have to adopt it, that is not the case, even though there is much evidence to suggest many of them have. The case is, that the name has to be refuted. So the indifference of most NAs works against changing the name and in favor of keeping the name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

YES! im drunk right now, fyi

im black, and i love blazing saddles. the sheriff is a bleep didnt offend me at all, and in fact i laughed my ass off

i wish people wouldnt try so hard to be cool and hip and want to be seen as supporting the latest cause, which now is the redskins

Well, I'm gettin' there, fyi...

My cause is freedom.  If business owners do something I disagree with, I don't buy their product. 

If Dan caves, he no longer gets my wallet.  I will still watch, still care, and still love the DC team.  But I can't say I'd buy new stuff, especially since I still have my stuff from my teenage (winning) years that all still fits.  And most likely, I won't.  My NFL purchasing will be a memory.  As TK says, (and I trust what he knows) it ain't gonna happen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

by the way on that silent film Predicto posted.  

 

Here is the story on Richard Dix, the white man pretending to be a Native American "Wing Foot" in the film.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dix

 

Here is the story about the film itself.  

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_(film)

 

 

 

The title of the film is not meant to be degrading to Native Americans. The title refers to the film's hero, Wing Foot (Richard Dix), who is a Navaho educated in an otherwise all-white school. In the course of the story, he experiences prejudice from both the whites (because of his race) and the Navahos (who disown him because of his upbringing). Thus, Wing Foot is looked upon as neither Indian nor white, but simply a "redskin."

 

so....context matters?

 

Here are a couple movie posters from that time.  Notice the uncanny similarities between the posters and the way Washington Redskins is written at the top of this page?

 

redskinbook_zpsa0630d24.jpg redskinmusicus_zps376b0d59.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At 27 minutes in

 

"after what I saw tonight (from the white people)...I'm proud to be a Redskin"

 

 

At 102 minutes in

 

In what context is the character using it?  "I am only a Redskin, thanks to your education."  

 

He is not saying the term Redskins in and of itself is insulting to him, he is saying that is not all he is.

 

 

Oh come on.   The line I was referring you to was "You sure acted white... for a redskin!"   The fact that he responded "after what I saw tonight [blatant racism from white people] I'm proud to be a redskin."  

 

You asked for use of the word as a slur.  I gave it to you.  The fact that the hero made a proud response doesn't mean that original word wasn't a slur.  We are talking about the word "redskin," are we not? 

Just none relating to the use of the word to refer to a football team. :)

But yep, it does have SOME significance. Somewhere.

 

Pointing out that Natives did invent that term, to refer to themselves. Hundreds of years ago.  And that numerous groups do so, today. 

 

Fine.  If they want to affirmatively adopt it as their preferred term for themselves today, the same way people in Indiana call themselves Hoosiers, that would be excellent.   I'm not seeing much evidence that they have.   At best I see a lot of "we have other things to worry about."   Nor is the Washington Football team owned by or comprised of Native Americans.  

No, Any name change at all, regardless of theme, will likely later on be viewed by some as an admission of guilt. Kids in the future will be given a narrative. Every time the old "redskins" team is looked back on, the name change and association with racism will be there. I'm glad you are proud of our past with Baugh, I am too, but let's not ignore the reality that those old Redskin teams are tainted by Marshall because the Redskins were the last to integrate, and his accomplishments and contributions to the league are completely overlooked because of that. Of course we are all glad integration happened, but it does taint the past teams. If the name change happens, then it will be viewed by many as an admission of guilt and that the team name was racist, they could be connected with Marshall as "same old Washington team, always last," and the Redskins legacy will be tainted by that, even though the reality of the situation is that most NAs don't care about the name, which leads one to conclude that it isn't considered racist or greatly offensive to them.

 

So the Skins shouldn't have changed the "scalp em swamp em" lyrics?  Because that was an admission of guilt too?   We should have dug in our heels and refused to change because that would prove that we didn't have to?  Or something?

this whole argument for me would be different, if hundreds of schools did not use the term "Redskins" as their mascot, and a national scientific poll showed that Natives were offended by the name.

 

I care what they think.

 

Which is why I defend the name so vigorously.  

 

Wait, what?  So you are claiming that you defend the name so vigorously because it would be affirmatively insulting to Native Americans to change it?

 

Really?

 

I think it is fair to say that you and everyone else is defending the name because we like it, it is part of the tradition of the team that we support.  Which is fine.  I have never ever heard anyone claim that we have to keep the name because Native Americans demand that we keep it (as opposed to not caring whether or not we keep it).   As you said in many earlier posts, you dislike political correctness, you dislike seeing the will of the majority be overridden, and you dislike being told what to do.   

Right, because when talking about modern day, the 1920s applies.

 

 

 

I was responding to Painkiller's request that someone show him some evidence that the word "redskin" ever was considered a slur before modern politically correct activists got ahold of it.   Back in post number  2441.  He said: 

 
"I want to know what tangible evidence exists that shows the name to be offensive and disparaging beyond the modern opinions of some.  Seriously, is this too much to ask?  Cold hard facts?"
 
So i showed him.  
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh come on.   The line I was referring you to was "You sure acted white... for a redskin!"   The fact that he responded "after what I saw tonight [blatant racism from white people] I'm proud to be a redskin."  

 

You asked for use of the word as a slur.  I gave it to you.  The fact that the hero made a proud response doesn't mean that original word wasn't a slur.  We are talking about the word "redskin," are we not? 

 

I will give you credit that you were the first person to actually produce something that makes a person stop and think.  Again, though I look at the deeper meaning and the context.  

 

"You sure acted white...for a redskin"  Not only is the white man referring to himself as white, but he is also referring to the other person as a "redskin."  If "redskin" is a slur why is "white" not also a slur?  Why do white people not get upset when others refer to them as "white people."  

 

"After what I saw tonight...I am proud to be a Redskin"  

 

In both passages, the hero is referring to himself as a "redskin"  

 

"I am proud to be a Redskin"  "I am only a Redskin" (the implication he should be more than just a "Redskin" not that the term itself is disparaging)

 

Also bear in mind, from what I could tell this movie is made from a white perspective.  I wonder if they asked the Natives at the time for their input?  

 

Also, just a few years later the Washington Redskins football team was named.  Was there a connection to this film?  Who knows.  I just know that the team was named after a Native American, and there were Native American players on the team.  As far as I can tell...that movie was made strictly by white people.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will give you credit that you were the first person to actually produce something that makes a person stop and think.  Again, though I look at the deeper meaning and the context.  

 

"You sure acted white...for a redskin"  Not only is the white man referring to himself as white, but he is also referring to the other person as a "redskin."  If "redskin" is a slur why is "white" not also a slur?  Why do white people not get upset when others refer to them as "white people."  

 

"After what I saw tonight...I am proud to be a Redskin"  

 

In both passages, the hero is referring to himself as a "redskin"  

 

"I am proud to be a Redskin"  "I am only a Redskin" (the implication he should be more than just a "Redskin" not that the term itself is disparaging)

 

 

At another spot in that movie (19 and a half minutes in) a co-ed says "You MUST invite that redskin to the dance tonight.  He ought to be a new thrill - in the ballroom!"  And when he comes to the dance, the girl gets everyone to dance around in a grotesque parody of Native American dances (about 25 minutes in).   

 

The movie itself is remarkably sensitive on racial issues, especially for its time.  But the use of the word "redskin" in the movie is not a positive one.

 

Also, just a few years later the Washington Redskins football team was named.  Was there a connection to this film?  Who knows.  I just know that the team was named after a Native American, and there were Native American players on the team.  As far as I can tell...that movie was made strictly by white people.     

 

It's a good question, and I don't know the answer.  Perhaps George Preston Marshall was influenced by it.   Doesn't really change my thinking on the overall issue.   The point remains that the word "redskin" was kind of a slur in 1929 and is kind of a slur today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At another spot in that movie (19 and a half minutes in) a co-ed says "You MUST invite that redskin to the dance tonight.  He ought to be a new thrill - in the ballroom!"  And when he comes to the dance, the girl gets everyone to dance around in a grotesque parody of Native American dances (about 25 minutes in).   

 

The movie itself is remarkably sensitive on racial issues, especially for its time.  But the use of the word "redskin" in the movie is not a positive one.

 

but how is a silent movie made by white people in 1929, with a white man portraying a Native American...any different than what Bob Costas and Peter King are doing today?  

 

"Speaking" on behalf of people who have not asked for their help, for something they largely don't care about.  

I guess for me, in certain context ANYTHING can be "offensive"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, Any name change at all, regardless of theme, will likely later on be viewed by some as an admission of guilt. Kids in the future will be given a narrative. Every time the old "redskins" team is looked back on, the name change and association with racism will be there.

That's one of the things that's really depressing, to me, about this whole issue.

The thought that if the name gets changed, then the story in everybody's mind will be that of the racist Redskins and their racist owner and their racist fans, clinging for decades to a blatantly obvious racial insult.

Ray Hallbritter will become Martin Luther King. Dan Snyder will become George Wallace. Redskin shirts will become associated with jacked up pickups with chrome testicles hanging from the trailer hutch.

It will become one of those facts that everybody just knows, like Al Gore claiming to invent the internet, Al Haig claiming to be President, or Nancy Pelosi announcing that nobody is allowed to see Obamacare until after they vote for it.

In the public's mind, the name will have become offensive, and then, after decades of valiant struggle, the name was finally, grudgingly, changed.

When the fact will be exactly the opposite. The name will have been changed first, and then the term will come to be viewed as insulting.

The entire Washington Redskins organization will have been wrongfully convicted, after the fact, in the court of public opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a good question, and I don't know the answer.  Perhaps George Preston Marshall was influenced by it.   Doesn't really change my thinking on the overall issue.   The point remains that the word "redskin" was kind of a slur in 1929 and is kind of a slur today.

 

his wife was a silent movie actress.

 

:)

 

How can something be "kind of slur" though Predicto.  It either is or it isn't, or it could be in certain context.  

 

Just like many other things that are benign in and of themselves.  

 

For example "My prize winning ****" is not offensive.  **** when in context of male genitalia COULD be offensive.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

----------

 

ahh, but they aren't saying that it's disgusting if Dan Snyder does it. :)

Doesn't matter. The dictionary says that the word, in this other context, is . . .

----------

 

Fine.  If they [Natives] want to affirmatively adopt it [the redskins name] as their preferred term for themselves today, the same way people in Indiana call themselves Hoosiers, that would be excellent.   I'm not seeing much evidence that they have.   At best I see a lot of "we have other things to worry about."

Funny. I've pointed out to you that there are at least numerous examples where they have chosen to use that word as a label to refer to themselves. I certainly think it's been pointed out that several high schools proudly use that name.

And somehow, I don't think they were sitting around trying to come up with a team name, and somebody said "whatever, we have other things to worry about. Might as will name ourselves after an insult."

 

Nor is the Washington Football team owned by or comprised of Native Americans.  

 

Is that a goalpost in your pants, or are you just happy to see me? 

 

Suddenly, it's moved from "well, if they use that name themselves, and Dan Snyder sells the team to someone of the correct race"? 

 

 

I think it is fair to say that you and everyone else is defending the name because we like it, it is part of the tradition of the team that we support. 

 

 

Weren't you, a few posts back, getting all huffy because you thought somebody else was attempting to assign motives to you?    :)

 

(Which is not to say that I don't think you're correct, in this case.) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...