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

Redskins =/= N-word

Ergo false equivelancy.

I agree, and this is something that really irks me in the debate over the name.  It is pretty much the standard for people opposed to the name to say Redskins is just like the N word.  I see this as similar to invoking Hitler in a political debate. 

 

True, NAs were treated badly by the power structure in the US, but the historical relationship between NAs and European Americans is very different from the historical relationship between African Americans and European Americans.  Examples:  Colonists dressed as NAs to show their affinity with the new land at the Boston Tea Party, The U.S. government negotiated treaties with NAs (albeit most were broken), a large portion of the guns used against Custer at Little Bighorn were supplied to the NAs by the U.S. Government to hunt with, Sitting Bull was not executed, NAs have appeared on US currency, NAs played for the Redskins in the 1930s, NA imagery is prevalent throughout sports and commercial branding.  I am not belittling the terrible things that happened to NAs, I am aware of Wounded Knee, the broken treaties, smallpox blankets, etc.  But the indignity of slavery surpasses the atrocities of what may be considered a war for control of land.  When people say why not call them the Washington "N Word", it would be just the same, we need to ask ourselves why is their no team named the Tuskegee Airmen, Buffalo Soldiers, etc.  I think the guilt associated with slavery actually plays a large part in the debate over the name, it having become a proxy for racism in America. 

 

The maddening thing to me is I believe the team name is a positive reference to a part of our cultural history that is held in high regard, and that changing the name will do nothing to fix any problems with racism other than to make some armchair activists feel like they have accomplished something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few thoughts

...........

Personally I'm still stuck on the question "is it derogatory or not" because it seems that the scalping origin is accepted as true while having been debunked. I'm not sure why these two narratives continue to exist without one side using facts to bash the other over the head.

One side is using facts (The Keep the name side) but the media for the most part isn't on that side and marginalizes the facts of the issue allowing the other side to use fabrications which the ignorant seize upon. Now it is sliding into being a politically partisan issue and many will slowly adjust their positions to match their political teams positions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/05/25/holmgren-says-redskins-should-change-name/

 

 

Mike Holgren chimed in and said change the name.

 

The last part of that article is what I think will lead to the eventual name change.   The NFL itself will be threatened with the removal of the anti-trust exemption; which will hurt the ability for them to sell TV rights in a bundle. Lose that exemption and teams would have to sell TV rights individually and anyone honestly think the all the teams by themselves could generate what the leauge as a whole does?   Yeah, teams like the Redskins, Cowboys, Packers, Patriots, etc..  would be fine but I would venture to say at least half the league wouldn't be able to generate much income.

 

 

That's when the name change will occur, when it affects the rest of the NFL owners pockets.  When that threat occurs, Snyder will then be forced to change the name.

 

Now, when will that day come?  I think sooner than later.  It the Dems win big in 2016 and get full control; 2017/8 could be when the name change will happen.  If not then, then probably by 2023/2024 but I do believe sometime in the next 10 years it will happen.

 

This issue will not go away and it increased 10 fold if we play in the NFC Championship game anytime in the future and probably 100 fold if we are in a Superbowl.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol, the Redskins name will not have an affect on the NFL's tax exempt status.  Any move that congress makes in the future, if ever, to remove the NFL's tax exempt status will be because they see an industry that generates billions of dollars not paying taxes.  It won't be because of the Redskins name.

 

In other words, some congressmen like Tom Coburn care more about the NFL being taxed exempt than they do the name Redskins.  Those wanting to remove the NFL tax exemption aren't going to quit wanting that just because the Redskins changed their name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, and this is something that really irks me in the debate over the name.  It is pretty much the standard for people opposed to the name to say Redskins is just like the N word.  I see this as similar to invoking Hitler in a political debate. 

 

 

The maddening thing to me is I believe the team name is a positive reference to a part of our cultural history that is held in high regard, and that changing the name will do nothing to fix any problems with racism other than to make some armchair activists feel like they have accomplished something.

 

Truly a worthy read. Feel exactly the same. I fear not today, but tomorrow the legacy of the Native American will be diminished if the name is changed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Truly a worthy read. Feel exactly the same. I fear not today, but tomorrow the legacy of the Native American will be diminished if the name is changed. 

Found this article today, have not seen it posted here:

 

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/Nov/02/real-reason-dont-mind-redskins-chargers-calkins/2/?#article-copy

 

 

"If there’s one universal feeling among the American Indians I spoke with last week, it isn’t necessarily that they are oppressed or bullied — it’s that they are ignored. In the words of Dr. Joely Proudfit, a Native Studies professor at Cal State San Marcos, “we are an invisible community.”"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really wonder if the opposition really believes that things will be better for Natives if the Redskins name is changed, and all Native American imagery is removed from sports eventually.  

 

They claim they are trying to help Natives...well what is really the benefit to Natives if this happens?

 

What do they really hope to accomplish with this other than pissing off thousands of people.  

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/05/25/holmgren-says-redskins-should-change-name/

 

 

Mike Hol(m)gren chimed in and said change the name.

 

 

 

Why should any of us give a **** what Mike Holmgren thinks?  I guess their plan now is to ask every single person on earth who was ever affiliated with the NFL what their opinion is and then publish a write-up about it?     

 

edit: As long as they agree with changing the name....while the others are completely ignored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/05/25/holmgren-says-redskins-should-change-name/

 

 

Mike Holgren chimed in and said change the name.

 

The last part of that article is what I think will lead to the eventual name change.   The NFL itself will be threatened with the removal of the anti-trust exemption; which will hurt the ability for them to sell TV rights in a bundle. Lose that exemption and teams would have to sell TV rights individually and anyone honestly think the all the teams by themselves could generate what the leauge as a whole does?   Yeah, teams like the Redskins, Cowboys, Packers, Patriots, etc..  would be fine but I would venture to say at least half the league wouldn't be able to generate much income.

 

 

That's when the name change will occur, when it affects the rest of the NFL owners pockets.  When that threat occurs, Snyder will then be forced to change the name.

 

Now, when will that day come?  I think sooner than later.  It the Dems win big in 2016 and get full control; 2017/8 could be when the name change will happen.  If not then, then probably by 2023/2024 but I do believe sometime in the next 10 years it will happen.

 

This issue will not go away and it increased 10 fold if we play in the NFC Championship game anytime in the future and probably 100 fold if we are in a Superbowl.

 

What you are talking about is extortion.  Read the original interview, not PFT.  Holmgren doesn't say he thinks the Senate will extort the NFL to change the name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty soon we will be reading what Paris Hilton, the Kardashian sisters, and the Olsen twins have to say on the matter.

 

Sadly, that's when the public will get behind the name change battle.

 

Most Americans follow their reality show stars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Count me as surprised that every time this pops up again, That there isn't a  "Change the name of Oklahoma" push just to see people squirm from an elected official looking to make a name for themselves.

 

Nobody only calling it "The 46th State" and refusing to use its name. That would be a trip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Count me as surprised that every time this pops up again, That there isn't a  "Change the name of Oklahoma" push just to see people squirm from an elected official looking to make a name for themselves.

 

Nobody only calling it "The 46th State" and refusing to use its name. That would be a trip.

 

You may want to go back a page or two, I met Oklahoma, and he told me don't change the name. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Redskins =/= N-word

Ergo false equivelancy.

To you, and probably the majority of people that have no contact with NA's. Again, I experienced the word used that way.

IMO, that's a big part of the issue, the majority of people in this thread have most likely never spent a significant time around a NA population to observe how their treated. I know some have and may not have the same experience, just as I do not have the same negative racial experiences towards African Americans. Each person has his own experiences. But to just say it doesn't mean this or that, that's your opinion based on your experiences.

Personally, I wish it were possible to have a vote among all NA tribes. Put it to rest that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To you, and probably the majority of people that have no contact with NA's. Again, I experienced the word used that way.

IMO, that's a big part of the issue, the majority of people in this thread have most likely never spent a significant time around a NA population to observe how their treated. I know some have and may not have the same experience, just as I do not have the same negative racial experiences towards African Americans. Each person has his own experiences. But to just say it doesn't mean this or that, that's your opinion based on your experiences.

Personally, I wish it were possible to have a vote among all NA tribes. Put it to rest that way.

 

 

Fair enough, but I again raise the point to you, where is the outraged majority of Native Americans? 

 

When African Americans had enough there was an uprising, this is not the 1940's, we have the internets now. There is no ground swell here, there are politicians making a political statement.

 

Do you know that fat people offend me, should we ban them. I think they take food away from the hungry and don't share. In fact I bet I could find quite a few people to agree with me, should we stop them from eating for their own good? (btw, I have nothing against people who are larger, just making a point) Will some politician come to the aid of the plight of the glutinous, before they are forced to change? 

 

A few can't speak for many with any clarity. The only polling of this issue showed it was a non-issue by majority. I certainly would welcome a new polling of Native Americans, after all polling is voting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't this all come to a head because some NA's brought it to the forefront? I get it that to many, the Dems or left wingers are using this as a PC agenda thing. I'm not for a name change because of that. (I'm not really even "for" a name change).  To say that none of the NA's have a problem with the name is far fetched.

I can def see where many have far more pressing issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dan, I hope you are reading this. We need Native American day at FedEx this season. Have them do the halftime show, have proceeds donated to them, have them sing the anthem, and have them ride horses in war paint during the per game

I just want to read Wise and Peter K*** call them all Uncle Toms the next morning. Please oh please make it happen Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't this all come to a head because some NA's brought it to the forefront? I get it that to many, the Dems or left wingers are using this as a PC agenda thing. I'm not for a name change because of that. (I'm not really even "for" a name change).  To say that none of the NA's have a problem with the name is far fetched.

I can def see where many have far more pressing issues.

 

7, 7 NA's brought it to the forefront in '92. Where is the outcry, where are the supporters of the 7? Settled in a court of law, now they are trying the court of public opinion and twisting the facts, posting false information is the motions that won't be denied as the media's judgement is not bound by written laws governing a just and fair procedure. 

 

http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/dct/documents/football.html

 

III: CONCLUSION

*8 For the reasons set forth above, the Court-pursuant to its considered discretion-shall deny the Native American Defendants' Motion to Conduct Limited Discovery. An appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I wish it were possible to have a vote among all NA tribes. Put it to rest that way.

1). You mean, other than the one that's already been done?

2). And, if so, what's your theory as to why the name change crowd hasn't asked them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/16/AR2009111601298.html     High court won't hear case involving Redskins' nickname  
 
Network News XPROFILE
 
 
 
TOOLBOX
font_resize_small.giffont_resize_medium.giffont_resize_large.gif Resize
 
 
 
 
By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer 
Tuesday, November 17, 2009

 

A nearly two-decade legal challenge by Native American activists to the nickname of the Washington Redskins came to a close Monday when the Supreme Court declined to review the group's last loss in federal courts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't this all come to a head because some NA's brought it to the forefront?

Uh, no, the MEDIA brought it to the forefront.

The name change crowd are the same people who've been pushing the same arguments they've been using, for what, 40, 50 years?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1). You mean, other than the one that's already been done?

2). And, if so, what's your theory as to why the name change crowd hasn't asked them?

 

1- yes polling has been done. 

 

2- Why would they? results don't suit them. As I stated they have taken their fight to the people, oh not the people supposedly offended but by open wallets and ears, from the Capital to the White House, who shall listen and take? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Larry, of course the Media has brought it to the attention of everyone, the media brought the Treyvon case to the attention of everyone and ultimately because of the Media, Zimmerman was arrested.  

 

Using wikipedia to find fast population stats, whites(european americans) make up 70% of the population, blacks (african american) make up 12%, native amercians and alaskans make up .9%.

They are an extremely small minority.  Why don't we hear more outrage? Because there are not that many of them and they are not found everywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are an extremely small minority.  Why don't we hear more outrage? Because there are not that many of them and they are not found everywhere.

AND because the vast majority of them say it's not offensive.

There's no outrage in the places where they constitute the majority, either.

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...