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

[Larry]

"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."

I've seen that argument used, before, in other contexts, and I have a problem with it, there and here.

Possibly because the white people referring to themselves as white haven't had a lifetime of having everybody around them treat "white" like it's a genetic defect.

I assume that it makes a guy kinda touchy about the subject.

[Predicto]

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"

 

You asked for specific evidence about the meaning of the word "redskin" in the past.  I gave it to you.

[Larry]

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.

So what you're saying is, the movie you held up as proof that the word redskin is a racial insult, is rather like holding up Blazing Saddles as proof that the n-word is insulting.

They're both films where the minority character is the good guy, who's proud of his heritage, and is constantly being treated badly, by the white folk, who are intentionally portrayed as buffoons, if not downright insulting.

[Predicto]

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.  

 

But the context of the word "redskin" here is to identify a Native American (the guy on our logo), not peanuts (we do not have a peanut on our logo).   

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

 

Meh.  Stanford got past it ok.  St. Johns got past it ok.  We can too.   

 

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.) 

 

That's true.   my bad

[Commander PK]

You asked for specific evidence about the meaning of the word "redskin" in the past.  I gave it to you.

 

is that what we did there?  Define the meaning of the word "Redskin" in the past?  I've already said it was a racial descriptor.  I don't deny that.  Like I said...I give you credit.  At least you were able to produce something that makes a person look a bit deeper.

 

I just fail to see anything definitive that shouts out "gotcha, it's a slur" about that film.  

 

If I was Native, I may look at the film and think who is this "white man" that thinks he can speak for my people?  Kind of like "you people" from Tropic Thunder.  

 

"What do you mean...you people?"  "What do YOU mean you people!"   

But the context of the word "redskin" here is to identify a Native American (the guy on our logo)  

 

 

Ok, I will grant you that one.

 

but the question remains.  In the context of the Football team with the logo of the Native on the helmet, is it offensive and disparaging.  

Not for me to decide.  

alright, I'm out for a bit.

 

I have to pry myself away from this discussion and take my wife and kids to dinner.  

[Predicto]

is that what we did there?  Define the meaning of the word "Redskin" in the past?  I've already said it was a racial descriptor.  I don't deny that.  Like I said...I give you credit.  At least you were able to produce something that makes a person look a bit deeper.

 

I just fail to see anything definitive that shouts out "gotcha, it's a slur" about that film.  

 

If I was Native, I may look at the film and think who is this "white man" that thinks he can speak for my people?  Kind of like "you people" from Tropic Thunder.  

 

"What do you mean...you people?"  "What do YOU mean you people!"  

 

Perhaps.  As I have said many times, I have never been one who thinks that Native American teams and imagery are negative or insulting.  My problem is with the particular word "redskin."   

 

I don't have time to go through all of the thousands of hollywood westerns to find you more examples of the word being used disparagingly.  There isn't a database for that sort of thing.  I wasted a lot of time digging through this movie because of its title.   I don't think it would change your mind on the underlying issue anyway.  

 

I don't think it is reasonable to assume that all those dictionaries chose to define the term as questionable for no reason at all, but I just don't have the time to provide any more examples.  Sorry.

[RFKFedEx]

so you see this as not winnable?  

 

Why?

I look at the history of these movements, and America in general.

 

GPM saw integration as a "winnable" battle for 15 years after Jackie Robinson's debut*. GPM lost his battle in 1962. I wasn't around to see it, but I'll bet most of our fans supported Marshall. It was a different time. The heads of SEC football long resisted the integration movement. They lost in 1972. Ole Miss was the last team to 'give in' as many fans felt they had to do at the time.

 

In retrospect, nothing was lost and much was gained, on and off the field.

 

 

 

*NFL integrated before Jackie Robinson's MLB debut, but the league barely mattered yet.

[amm0409]

 

 

I lived in South Carolina when the State Capital building flew the confederate flag.  As a black man it annoyed me, but I didn't care enough to picket outside or protest.  that **** didn't affect my life so i didn't give a ****. 

 

 

They only moved it off the top of the Capitol building to then place it on a flag pole directly in front of the Capitol building with spot lights, a little fence around it and two cop cars.  You could argue that its worse

[elkabong82]

 

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?

 

 

The lyrics were disparaging, even though such was not the intent, and the team changed it accordingly. The team name is not used disparagingly. You really think anyone other than the team fans is going to take great notice to a slight change in song lyrics like they would with a team name change? Those are two different situations and a rather poor comparison.

[Bang]

I look at the history of these movements, and America in general.

 

GPM saw integration as a "winnable" battle for 15 years after Jackie Robinson's debut*. GPM lost his battle in 1962. I wasn't around to see it, but I'll bet most of our fans supported Marshall. It was a different time. The heads of SEC football long resisted the integration movement. They lost in 1972. Ole Miss was the last team to 'give in' as many fans felt they had to do at the time.

 

In retrospect, nothing was lost and much was gained, on and off the field.

 

 

 

*NFL integrated before Jackie Robinson's MLB debut, but the league barely mattered yet.

 

it is mind blowing to me that you equate these things to this.

This is not one of those movements. It's not even close to being similar to one of those movements.

 

Here's what re-naming this team will accomplish - Nothing.

Obviously it will make Snyder money with new merch and there will be a new name for people to get used to.. but what actually changes?

Nothing.

No major sweeping social change, no sudden shift in the predicaments of the native.

 

Nothing.

After it's done, it will go on with a new name, and that will be the only thing that has changed.

As Painkiller pointed out, there is absolutely no discrimination here, there is nothing that at all compares to any of the integration movements of the past. No one is beng excluded, no one is being mistreated beyond a name, and changing corporate labels really aren't societal change on the scale of full racial integration. 

 

It's a name that some people find offensive, and that's all it is.

 

the inflation of ego is ridiculous. 

 

So many microcosms for what bugs me the most about this issue in this thread the last few days.

No listening to the natives that don't want the name changed. they don't understand why they should be offended. Dictionary trumps them. Minority trumps them. All this is on display here in full.

the Egomaniacal media who must each announce that they have individually made a personal choice, and use this cause du'jour for only their own self congratulation have now got you convinced you're actually participating in some Selma-March like moment in Human history.

 

the spirit of righteousness,...  it listens to nothing but itself. My but the head swells with pride when I think about the good you're doing.

 

Wait... what tangible good is it doing again?

 

~Bang

[elkabong82]

I look at the history of these movements, and America in general.

 

GPM saw integration as a "winnable" battle for 15 years after Jackie Robinson's debut*. GPM lost his battle in 1962. I wasn't around to see it, but I'll bet most of our fans supported Marshall. It was a different time. The heads of SEC football long resisted the integration movement. They lost in 1972. Ole Miss was the last team to 'give in' as many fans felt they had to do at the time.

 

In retrospect, nothing was lost and much was gained, on and off the field.

 

 

 

*NFL integrated before Jackie Robinson's MLB debut, but the league barely mattered yet.

 

That movement had droves of people investing time and effort to changing the culture and showed they were not treated equal and should belong. The team name situation is not the same because 80% of the country does not support a name change and the majority of Native Americans are completely indifferent. Plus, nobody is being treated unequally or disparagingly. Just because some people are claiming the team name is racist (though there is no way it is used in a way that suggests inferiority) doesn't mean it is anything like the Civil Rights Movement. That was a real movement to enact a needed change affecting millions. That is not the case at all here, which is exactly why you see a majority of the country NOT in favor of a name change and why the majority of NAs remain indifferent.

 

That may be the poorest comparison I have seen in here yet, and frankly its insulting to the history and cause of the Civil Rights Movement. African Americans were being kept separate because of a view held by many of inferiority, and were being treated unequally in that system. This situation is a small group of activists wanting a team name change that isn't used in a disparaging manner and isn't even supported by the majority of their own people. There's no comparison.

 

Tell me, what exactly would be gained by changing the Redskins team name when most NAs don't care?

[Spearfeather]

Just saw an interview with longtime sportscaster Jim Gray. He said the protest may continue, and we may continue to hear about it, but that Snyder will not change the name, and that he thinks people need to move on. He also said that he anticipates some tribes coming out in support of the name, sometime in the near future.

 

We'll see.

[RFKFedEx]

 My but the head swells with pride when I think about the good you're doing. Wait... what tangible good is it doing again?

 

~Bang

The team we all love will eventually overcome this impending dilemma.

[RedskinsFan44]

 

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? 

 

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.  

 

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?

 

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.   

 

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.  

 

I would posit that "Redskin" the movie is not the best example of the word being used in a derogatory manner,  The movie itself seems pretty sympathetic to NAs, or Indians, or "Redskins"(color in the NA world scenes, B+W in the white world), and parallels the prejudice between whites and the main characters with prejudice between tribes.  None the less it is irrefutable that it has been used in a derogatory manner, particularly in the westerns of the 50s. It is reasonable to suggest that its use as a derogatory word is anachronistic, as even the use of it in movies made over a half century ago were in period pieces portraying the late 19th century.

 

I appreciate the Reilly article, I think it an important point to make in the discussion.  The term was originated by NAs to distinguish themselves in a new paradigm they were presented with where race was significant.  While hopefully we are moving towards a time where race is insignificant in how people are judged, there is still a pride in heritage and history that is expressed in team names like Vikings, Fighting Irish, Braves, and Redskins.  The use of the name by High School teams in areas were NAs are a majority suggests that the term has been re-appropriated into a non-negative association.  80,000 people cheering the Redskins is hardly demeaning. I am not a NA, so maybe my opinion does not count for much, butI think it would be a disservice to them to eliminate all cultural references to them from sports teams.  While there have been inappropriate stereotypes such as the original lyrics to HTTR , Chief KnockAHoma, and Chief Wahoo, I believe the NAs hold a prestigious place in the American psyche, as evidences by the Red Man society, Boy Scouts, brand names, etc etc.

[RedskinsFan44]

I look at the history of these movements, and America in general.

 

GPM saw integration as a "winnable" battle for 15 years after Jackie Robinson's debut*. GPM lost his battle in 1962. I wasn't around to see it, but I'll bet most of our fans supported Marshall. It was a different time. The heads of SEC football long resisted the integration movement. They lost in 1972. Ole Miss was the last team to 'give in' as many fans felt they had to do at the time.

 

In retrospect, nothing was lost and much was gained, on and off the field.

 

 

 

*NFL integrated before Jackie Robinson's MLB debut, but the league barely mattered yet.

I agree with others that Marshall's resistance to integrating the team is not an appropriate comparison to the current situation, but racists protesting integration of the team with "Keep the Redskins White' placards was a historically significant example of irony.

[RFKFedEx]

racists protesting integration of the team with "Keep the Redskins White' placards was a historically significant example of irony.

I've read several team history books, but don't recall learning of this. Do tell more.

[grhqofb5]

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.

[grhqofb5]

If there's one Snyder loves more than money its this franchise. He runs the team like a 13 year old boy,at least the football part of it. He's never been shy about blowing money since he came here. Of course he squeezes the fan base, but he'd probably sue himself if he changed the name. Can't see him giving in on this.

[RedskinsFan44]

I've read several team history books, but don't recall learning of this. Do tell more.

Picture about halfway down page:http://deadspin.com/was-an-nfl-racial-pioneer-cut-for-being-caught-with-a-w-1400333153

 

[Bang]

I've read several team history books, but don't recall learning of this. Do tell more.

There's photos of neo-nazis marching in Washington in support of non-integration holding said placards,, but when i tried to google them up, it kept flooding the search results with images from the current controversy and I didn't find them. I have seen them, though.

They do exist, and it did happen..  and i'm not surprised team history books keep them out.

I did notice a book i'd never seen while i was googling for this, "SHOWDOWN: JFK and the Integration of the Redskins"

Here it is on Amazon

http://www.amazon.com/Showdown-JFK-Integration-Washington-Redskins/dp/0807000825

 

~Bang

[RFKFedEx]

Picture about halfway down page:http://deadspin.com/was-an-nfl-racial-pioneer-cut-for-being-caught-with-a-w-1400333153

 

Interesting. Thx for sharing. I hope those clowns in that pic were merely piggy backing their support for Marshall. I doubt they were actual team fans.

There's photos of neo-nazis marching in Washington in support of non-integration holding said placards,, but when i tried to google them up, it kept flooding the search results with images from the current controversy and I didn't find them. I have seen them, though.

They do exist, and it did happen..  and i'm not surprised team history books keep them out.

I did notice a book i'd never seen while i was googling for this, "SHOWDOWN: JFK and the Integration of the Redskins"

Here it is on Amazon

http://www.amazon.com/Showdown-JFK-Integration-Washington-Redskins/dp/0807000825

 

~Bang

Thanks for sharing. Looks like a new 'must read' for me.

[Bang]

No problem,, and i should say..  i may be passionate about how i feel on this issue, but none of it is personal towards anyone here.

As RFK said above, it'll figure itself out, and we'll go on.

 

Peace, all

 

~Bang

[RedskinsFan44]

Interesting. Thx for sharing. I hope those clowns in that pic were merely piggy backing their support for Marshall. I doubt they were actual team fans.

Thanks for sharing. Looks like a new 'must read' for me.

From the picture I would say they were fans of Hitler first.

[thebluefood]

From the picture I would say they were fans of Hitler first.

It still boggles my mind that Neo-Nazism actually had a noticeable following in this country 20 years after we finished putting them away. 

 

Whenever anyone tries to equate this controversy with GPM's refusal to integrate the team, show them those pictures of brownshirts demanding the team stay "white," barring Americans from employment just because of their skin.

 

Try equating that with a nickname most Native Americans don't seem to find offense. 

[Commander PK]

I enjoyed catching up.

 

One thing that I would like to see, and Bang kind of touched on the point a bit about what really changes if the Redskins change.

 

In a surreal setting, a conversation between Harjo and Bob Costas may go something like this

 

Costas: "Alright!  We finally got that racist Redskins name changed for you!"

 

Harjo: "Ok, who is next the Braves or Indians?"  

 

Costas: "Huh?"  

 

Harjo: "It's been known since the beginning that I want all of my people's imagery removed from sports teams...so who's next?"

 

Costas: "You can't be serious...we spent all our time reporting on how the Redskins name was racist and should be changed, and now that it has been you still aren't happy?"

 

Harjo: "It's a start...let's move on to the next one.  My people's imagery needs to be removed from "The Disease."  

 

Costas: "I think you are being unreasonable."  

 

Harjo: "Who are you to tell me what is unreasonable?"  (If I could be a fly on the wall at this point, I would bust out laughing)