Alaskins

The Official ES Redskins Name Change Thread---All Things Related to Changing the Team's Name Go Here

Recommended Posts

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?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Bonez3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  

Edited by PleaseBlitz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 "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.

Edited by War Paint

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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...

Edited by Renegade7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Edited by elkabong82

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 . . . "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
Edited by PleaseBlitz
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.