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

[Larry]

Grego and Painkiller, I totally see where you guys are coming from but on the flipside, I also see the other side saying "no way its a slur", "no chance", "youre an idiot for thinking that".

You forgot "and presenting reasoning and facts to demonstrate that point."

See, there's these pesky facts that show that the name of the football team isn't offensive.

There are no facts that show that it is. Not one. Closest they can come are reasons for why they claim that it should be offensive. And reasons that don;t even make sense, at that. (Seriously, how many times am I going to read that "The name of the Redskins is offensive, because the n-word is" presented as if that makes any sense at all?)

[codeorama]

You misread his post. He said team name was never a slur, but the word itself was at times used as a slur.

My bad..!

Also, explain the PC Agenda..? I'm serious. I hate that we have become so PC, have to watch what we say and so on, but what is the gain? I've never understood that? What I mean is, if there is an organized political PC agenda, what's the end game? Not saying I don't believe, I just don't get it I guess.

[Popeman38]

The team is without a doubt one of the worst teams in football during his tenure.  Only three playoff appearances in 14 years.  Three.  From a franchise that won Superbowls regularly just prior to him buying the team.  The fan experience at games is miserable.  He's done everything he can think of to wring money out of his fanbase.  Aside from that, he is a world class asshole.  He is THE WORST THING that has ever happened to this franchise, show's no signs of un****ing himself, and is in no way "a fan just like us."

 

Not to mention, this whole argument that he stands to lose a bunch of money if they change the name is nonsense.  

The Redskins won 3 SB in 1983, 1988, & 1992 (82, 87, 91 seasons). Snyder bought the team in 1999. In the 7 seasons after SB26, the Redskins SUCKED.  Between 1945 and 1971, the Redskins made ZERO playoff appearances. 3 playoff appearances in 14 years is heaven to the fans born in 1940-1950. People think back on the glory years of the 1980s so fondly because we won. This team has had 2 stretches  of dominant football in its history -- 1936-1945 (6 championship games with 2 wins) and 1982-1991 (4 SB with 3 wins). There was a SB in 1972. Playoff appearances by decade: 2 in the 30s, 4 in the 40s, 0 in the 50s, 0 in the 60s, 5 in the 70s, 5 in the 80s, 4 in the 90s, 2 in the 00s, 1 in the 10s.  You really want to grumble about how bad this team has been for the last 12 years? Your ignoring our own history.

[Larry]

If you mean that the teams name wasn't intended as a slur, then I agree.

To say the word redskin isn't a slur is just wrong. I've put my personal experiences on here. I posted a link from ESPN's Rick Reilly's NA Father in law. I'm sure it's been used in positive ways as well, but to deny the negative use is just not right.

 

No.  You haven't. 

 

You've pointed out that the word redskin can be offensive. 

 

But, only when it isn't referring to the football team. 

 

Unfortunately, the issue we're discussing is whether the name of the football team is offensive. 

 

The word "boy" can be offensive, too. 

 

But that does not in any way mean that The Boy Scouts must be forced to change their racist name. 

[Bonez3]

Honestly, outside of a few anecdotal experiences noted by some here and media, where is it documented in history that the term is a slur?

At least Allen used an objective approach from a very reliable source.

I get maybe somebody here or there used the term in derogatory fashion. But they couldn't substitute Indian or chief or cowboy for that matter.

I mean really, where is it documented it was a predominate racial slur and when?

And forgive me if its been posted somewhere ad naseum in this thread.

[PleaseBlitz]

The Redskins won 3 SB in 1983, 1988, & 1992 (82, 87, 91 seasons). Snyder bought the team in 1999. In the 7 seasons after SB26, the Redskins SUCKED.  Between 1945 and 1971, the Redskins made ZERO playoff appearances. 3 playoff appearances in 14 years is heaven to the fans born in 1940-1950. People think back on the glory years of the 1980s so fondly because we won. This team has had 2 stretches  of dominant football in its history -- 1936-1945 (6 championship games with 2 wins) and 1982-1991 (4 SB with 3 wins). There was a SB in 1972. Playoff appearances by decade: 2 in the 30s, 4 in the 40s, 0 in the 50s, 0 in the 60s, 5 in the 70s, 5 in the 80s, 4 in the 90s, 2 in the 00s, 1 in the 10s.  You really want to grumble about how bad this team has been for the last 12 years? Your ignoring our own history.

 

#1, I said "won Superbowls regularly just prior to him buying the team."  This is a true fact.  The rest of what you said has nothing to do with what I said.  When Snyder bought the team, which is all that matters for a discussion about Snyder, the Skins were a cornerstone franchise and had had as much success as any team during the Super Bowl era with the exception of the Steelers and, arguably, the Niners, Packers, and Cowboys.  Snyder bought a gem.

#2, Since Snyder bought the team, they are one of the 3 losing-est teams and, with an occasional glimmer, are an annual ****-show.  Snyder turned that gem into a turd.  

[Bonez3]

No. You haven't.

You've pointed out that the word redskin can be offensive.

But, only when it isn't referring to the football team.

Unfortunately, the issue we're discussing is whether the name of the football team is offensive.

The word "boy" can be offensive, too.

But that does not in any way mean that The Boy Scouts must be forced to change their racist name.

This is where the true debate focuses for me. If the context is derogatory, than any name is offensive. I truly think this is the factual truth.

I know of no widespread understanding Redskin is a known and accepted slur. Further, if the linguist from Smithsonian couldn't corroborate racial slur attached, I'd be hard pressed to take individual events.

So, to me if a racist uses the term, doesn't make the term necessarily offensive. Because, it's interchangeable with chief and Indian and cowboy or native american

Don't blame the name, address racism.

[elkabong82]

My bad..!

Also, explain the PC Agenda..? I'm serious. I hate that we have become so PC, have to watch what we say and so on, but what is the gain? I've never understood that? What I mean is, if there is an organized political PC agenda, what's the end game? Not saying I don't believe, I just don't get it I guess.

 

Seems to be to get rid of anything they perceive as being offensive to others. Good on the surface, but they don't seem to look deep into the issue and are mainly just reactionary and fall victim to the same logical fallacies and dubious debate tactics that most do when they're too wrapped up in an issue.

[War Paint]

 "WASHINGTON" is what binds the franchise and the fanbase together. 

 

 

To a degree.  That might be the case for part of the fanbase who were born and raised in the Washington area, but you have to consider the fact that a very large amount of the fanbase spreads into other states, especially throughout the south.  Heck, we even have some fans here who are from the UK and Australia.  The Redskins were considered the south's team in the past.  North and South Carolina always got Redskins coverage and televised games, kind of like the Braves used to be on TBS all the time.  There is a huge portion of the Redskins fanbase who don't really have any emotional ties to the Washington area.  They, like myself, were born and raised Redskin fans because they were the most influential team in my area. 

 

If a radical change is made where the Redskins team I grew up to love is radically different, like an expansion team, I'll be a liar if I say I'll still be passionate about rooting for them.  The fact that they are in Washington is not why I love them.  I am passionate about them because they represent the bonds I had growing up with my family pulling for them every Sunday.

[elkabong82]

#1, I said "won Superbowls regularly just prior to him buying the team."  This is a true fact.  The rest of what you said has nothing to do with what I said.  When Snyder bought the team, which is all that matters for a discussion about Snyder, the Skins were a cornerstone franchise and had had as much success as any team during the Super Bowl era with the exception of the Steelers and, arguably, the Niners, Packers, and Cowboys.  Snyder bought a gem.

#2, Since Snyder bought the team, they are one of the 3 losing-est teams and, with an occasional glimmer, are an annual ****-show.  Snyder turned that gem into a turd.  

 

The gem was a turd for almost a decade before he bought it, he just kept it going.

[@DCGoldPants]

Meh. I went to the OBX last summer and saw mostly Skins and Steelers stuff.

 

Are the people who would switch teams because they are forced to change names the same people who buy season tix, gear, etc? I honestly don't know.

 

The team of the south thing is cool, but also not as relevant anymore. You have a generation of Panther and Titan fans. Few generations of Falcons and Dolphins. Beyond that, there are so many teams...it doesn't matter that much.

 

If you aren't passionate about rooting for the franchise if the nickname changes. Then that's your choice I guess.

[daveakl]

#1, I said "won Superbowls regularly just prior to him buying the team."  This is a true fact.  The rest of what you said has nothing to do with what I said.  When Snyder bought the team, which is all that matters for a discussion about Snyder, the Skins were a cornerstone franchise and had had as much success as any team during the Super Bowl era with the exception of the Steelers and, arguably, the Niners, Packers, and Cowboys.  Snyder bought a gem.

36-59-1 was our record 1993-1998.

0 playoff games

[PleaseBlitz]

The gem was a turd for almost a decade before he bought it, he just kept it going.

 

 

When he bought it, it was a great and proud franchise.  It is irrelevant what it was decades before he bought it.  

[codeorama]

No. You haven't.

You've pointed out that the word redskin can be offensive.

But, only when it isn't referring to the football team.

Unfortunately, the issue we're discussing is whether the name of the football team is offensive.

Now that you've cleared that up, then if JayZ buys a team and renames it the Niggas, it's totally ok because we are talking about the name of a team, not a word that can be used offensively.

I know, next you'll point out that my example is imaginary.. I get the drill.

[daveakl]

To a degree.  That might be the case for part of the fanbase who were born and raised in the Washington area, but you have to consider the fact that a very large amount of the fanbase spreads into other states, especially throughout the south.  Heck, we even have some fans here who are from the UK and Australia.  The Redskins were considered the south's team in the past.  North and South Carolina always got Redskins coverage and televised games, kind of like the Braves used to be on TBS all the time.  There is a huge portion of the Redskins fanbase who don't really have any emotional ties to the Washington area.  They, like myself, were born and raised Redskin fans because they were the most influential team in my area. 

 

If a radical change is made where the Redskins team I grew up to love is radically different, like an expansion team, I'll be a liar if I say I'll still be passionate about rooting for them.  The fact that they are in Washington is not why I love them.  I am passionate about them because they represent the bonds I had growing up with my family pulling for them every Sunday.

 

To expand on this, how many of us are from the area but no longer live there?

 

I line in Raleigh now and have 4 kids who are fast becoming Redskins fans.  They have 0 connection to Washington, but love the team because their daddy loves the team.  They see me wearing Redskins gear, watching Redskins games, and cheering for Redskins players.  The Washington portion means nothing to them.

 

How much of that future fan base will be lost if the team changes the name?

[Renegade7]

 

I honestly want the name to change.  I don't think it is used as a slur, but I also don't want the focus to be the name all the time.  I would prefer to have that distraction removed.  The constant, for me, as I stated above is the "Washington" before the team name.  

 

I'm kinda getting to this point, too. I just want to watch my team play, not constantly being pecked at for being closet racists, which we're not. If they changed it to Washington Warriors tommorrow, I don't know if I'd care anymore. Getting tired of fighting gravity...

[@DCGoldPants]

To expand on this, how many of us are from the area but no longer live there?

 

I line in Raleigh now and have 4 kids who are fast becoming Redskins fans.  They have 0 connection to Washington, but love the team because their daddy loves the team.  They see me wearing Redskins gear, watching Redskins games, and cheering for Redskins players.  The Washington portion means nothing to them.

 

How much of that future fan base will be lost if the team changes the name?

 

That depends on you. Will you get them new t-shirts and explain that while you didn't want it to change, sometimes things happen out of your control? Or will you start rooting for the Panthers? No law will tell you to stop wearing Skins gear. Hell, you see some nice Bullets gear at Wizards games. That stuff will become vintage. 

[PleaseBlitz]

36-59-1 was our record 1993-1998.

0 playoff games

 

But, a Super Bowl championship the season just prior to the stretch you cherry picked, right?

[elkabong82]

When he bought it, it was a great and proud franchise.  It is irrelevant what it was decades before he bought it.  

 

Still is a great and proud franchise. Snyder's ownership adds to the team history, it doesn't negate everything prior.

 

Sometimes I feel like a percentage of our fanbase won't be happy if we win a Superbowl because Snyder is the owner. 

[PleaseBlitz]

Still is a great and proud franchise. Snyder's ownership adds to the team history, it doesn't negate everything prior.

 

 

I guess it depends on ones definitions of "great" and "proud."  As I stated before, IMO, the team has been a ****show since the Danny purchased it.  Something new every year, but always something.  Its fans deserve far better. 

[Larry]

This is where the true debate focuses for me. If the context is derogatory, than any name is offensive. I truly think this is the factual truth.

Oh, I don't find it hard to believe at all that, if you

1). Go through every time the word "redskin" is used.

2). Eliminate all proper names. This means the NFL team, a type of potato or nut, and any high school or similar mascots.

3). And then look at what's left.

That a good chunk of what's left is as a racial slur. Probably the majority. (Or maybe something like the way the n-word is used today: as a slur that's ok for friends to use, to each other).

I would also assert that the folks pointing at dictionaries are supporting this assertion.

Only problem is, when you get to step 2, above, you are throwing out probably 99.9% of the times the word us used! AND throwing out the usage that's actually the subject of the thread.

You cannot answer the question "is the name of the NFL team offensive?" With "Well, if you ignore when it's referring to the NFL team, then . . . "

[PleaseBlitz]

Sometimes I feel like a percentage of our fanbase won't be happy if we win a Superbowl because Snyder is the owner. 

 

I will be incredibly happy because, among other reasons, it will mean that Snyder has completely changed his stripes.

 

Not holding my breath though.  

[daveakl]

But, a Super Bowl championship the season just prior to the stretch you cherry picked, right?

I was thinking "just prior" was about 5 years.  I went 6.  Sure I could have gone back 8 and included a Super Bowl win but how many players / coaches / front office people from that team were still there when Snyder purchased it?  

[PleaseBlitz]

Oh, I don't find it hard to believe at all that, if you

1). Go through every time the word "redskin" is used.

2). Eliminate all proper names. This means the NFL team, a type of potato or nut, and any high school or similar mascots.

3). And then look at what's left.

That a good chunk of what's left is as a racial slur. Probably the majority. (Or maybe something like the way the n-word is used today: as a slur that's ok for friends to use, to each other).

I would also assert that the folks pointing at dictionaries are supporting this assertion.

Only problem is, when you get to step 2, above, you are throwing out probably 99.9% of the times the word us used! AND throwing out the usage that's actually the subject of the thread.

You cannot answer the question "is the name of the NFL team offensive?" With "Well, if you ignore when it's referring to the NFL team, then . . . "

 

 

These folks did.  http://www.changethemascot.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/NFL-Players-Letter-FINAL.pdf

 

Sincerely, 

 

Akiak Native Community, Councilman Mike Williams 

Alaska Inter-Tribal Council 

American Indian College Fund, President & CEO Cheryl Crazy Bull 

American Indian Higher Education Consortium, President & CEO Carrie Billy 

Americans for Indian Opportunity 

Anti-Defamation League 

Asbury United Methodist Church, Senior Pastor Rev. Dr. Ianther M. Mills, Associate Pastor Rev. Adam Briddell 

Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance 

California Indian Museum and Cultural Center, Executive Director Nicole Lim 

California Valley Miwok Tribe 

Center for Native American Youth, Executive Director Erin Bailey 

The Central Atlantic Conference United Church of Christ 

Central Council of Tlingit & Haida Tribes of Alaska 

Children and Youth Ministry, St. Paul’s United Church of Christ, Rev. Lucy Brady 

Civil Rights Memorial Center 

Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Chairman Michael Finley 

Colorado River Indian Tribes, Councilman Dennis Welsh, Jr. 

The Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement 

Cowlitz Indian Tribe, Chairman & COO William B. Iyall 

Eradicating Offensive Native Mascotry (EONM) 

First Nations Development Institute, President Mike Roberts 

First Peoples Fund, President Lori Pourier 

Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa 

Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Tribal Chairman Al Pedwaydon 

Great Lakes Inter-Tribal Council, Inc., Executive Director Michael W. Allen, Sr. 

The Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development 

Honoring Nations 

Indian Land Tenure Foundation 

Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe, Tribal Chairman & CEO W. Ron Allen 

Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma, Committeeman Steven Smith 

Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law 

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights 

Lenape Indian Tribe of Delaware, Principal Chief Dennis J. Coker 

Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians 

Midwest Alliance of Sovereign Tribes, Executive Director Scott Vele  

 

NAACP 

NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 

Narragansett Tribe, Councilman Randy Noka 

National Congress of American Indians, Executive Director Jacqueline Pata 

National Fair Housing Alliance 

National Gay and Lesbian Task Force 

National Indian Child Welfare Association, Executive Director Terry Cross 

National Indian Education Association, Executive Director Ahniwake Rose 

National Indian Gaming Association, Chairman Ernie Stevens, Jr. 

National Indian Justice Center, Executive Director Joseph Myers 

National Native American Bar Association 

National Urban League 

Native American Contractors Association, Executive Director Kevin Allis 

Native Public Media, President & CEO Loris Taylor 

Native American Rights Fund, Executive Director John Echohawk 

Native Village of Buckland, President Percy Ballot 

Native Voice Network 

Nottoway Indian Tribe of Virginia, Chief Lynette Allston 

Oneida Indian Nation of New York, Representative Ray Halbritter 

Organized Village of Saxman, Saxman I.R.A. Council, President Lee Wallace 

PFLAG National 

Plymouth Congregational Church, Senior Pastor Rev. Graylan Scott Hagler 

Pueblo de Cochiti, Governor Joseph Henry Suina 

Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma, Chairman John Berrey 

Quinault Indian Nation, President Fawn Sharp 

Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, Chairperson Rose Soulier 

Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, Chairman Arlan Melendez 

San Carlos Apache Tribe, Chairman Terry Rambler 

Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Chairperson Aaron Payment 

Self-Governance Communication & Education Tribal Consortium 

Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, Chairman Robert Shepherd 

Sobobo Band of Mission Indians, Tribal Chairwoman Rosemary Morillo 

Sojourners 

Spirit Lake Tribe, Chairman Leander McDonald 

Stevens Village Tribal Council, Chief Randy Mayo 

Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, Chairman Brian Cladoosby 

Tanana Chiefs Conference, President & Chairman Jerry Isaac 

Tribal Law & Policy Institute, Executive Director Jerry Gardner 

United Cherokee Ani-Yun-Wiya Nation, Charles Yow, Esq. 

United South & Eastern Tribes 

United Tribes of Michigan, Executive Director Frank Ettawageshik 

Women Empowering Women for Indian Nations

[elkabong82]

I guess it depends on ones definitions of "great" and "proud."  As I stated before, IMO, the team has been a ****show since the Danny purchased it.  Something new every year, but always something.  Its fans deserve far better. 

 

Franchise still is great and proud. Snyder ownership hasn't been good, but it doesn't negate the team's past accomplishments. Some fans deserve better, others get exactly what they deserve.

 

Does a fan who overdramatically acts as if 24 years negates the previous 67, ignores that the team had decades of poor performance prior as well, just because they don't like the current owner, deserve to see the team win? Does that kind of fan even truly want to see the team win under such an owner?

 

I always thought true fans endured even in the face of poor ownership and always held their team's history in high esteem regardless.