• Blog Entries

    • By Destino in ES Coverage
         1
      We’re still doing this?  Absolutely!  Despite all the compelling reasons to just let everyone go home and enjoy and extended offseason, this is not an option.  The games must be played, and therefore we the long-suffering fans will feel compelled to watch.  Even games no reasonable football fan would choose to watch like, for example, today’s Redskins Jets game.   

      Today’s convergence of sadness features the 30th ranked scoring offense (Jets 14.4 ppg) versus the 32nd (Redskins 12.0 ppg).  The first team to 15 wins!  With no playoff aspirations the compelling story lines for this game are largely limited to watching young players (hopefully) develop.  Dwayne Haskins gets his first home start and Derrius Guice is back from injury.   
       
      My, reasonable, goals for today’s game:  
      1- Score a touchdown 
      2- Score more than 17 points.   
      3- Haskins throws for 200 yards or more with no interceptions  
      4- Guice runs the ball at least 10 times and finishes at 3.5 yards per carry and healthy.  
       
      Hoping for a win at this point feels like setting myself up for disappointment, so I’m happy to settle for an entertaining loss.  
       
      Special thanks to @pez for some excellent Guinness beef stew.  If you absolutely have to stand in a frozen parking lot at 9am, the best place to do it is at the Extremeskins Tailgate with Pez and @Huly.  Great fans, great people. 
       
      The Redskins have declared for the following players as inactive: 
      Paul Richardson  
      Colt McCoy 
      Deshazor Everett 
      Chris Thompson  
      Ross Pierschbacher 
      Vernon Davis  
      Tim Settle  
       
      The Jets declared the following players as inactive  
      Nate Hairston  
      Darryl Roberts  
      Paul Worrilow 
      Matthias Farley  
      CJ Mosley  
      Jordan Willis  
      Leo Koloamatangi 
       
      1st Quarter - Redskins 0 - 6 Jets
      If you wanted to sit in the cold and watch a football game with some Jets fans at FedEx, but were worried that there were not enough seats available, I have good news.  There’s plenty of space available, so come on down and prove you’re a real fan by sitting though this in person.
       
      Jets dominated the 1st quarter even though they only scored 6 points.  The reason being that Washington managed only 13 yards of offense and a single first down.  
       
      Question: Is it still a check down pass if the QB never looks at anyone else?
       
      2nd Quarter - Redskins 3 - 20 Jets
      The Jets have achieved an insurmountable 13 point lead early in the 2nd quarter.  All hope is lost.

      Is there a more perfect example of the Redskins offense than their first scoring drive in the 2nd quarter?  Interception gives the Redskins the ball on the Jets 16 yard line.  They proceed to march 10 yards backwards before kicking a field goal from the Jets 26.  It's perfect.  Two or three more field goals we can call it a day. 

      The Jets score again and if feels like they are are just piling on at this point.  Three touchdowns in the first half for them, just three points for the redskins.  Our streak of no touchdowns has now extended to 15 quarters. 
       
      3rd Quarter - Redskins 3 - 20 Jets
      There is a spider slowly descending from the ceiling in the press box and it's the most interesting thing that's happened during the third quarter of this game. 
       
      I have decided to allow the spider to live, provided it does not touch me.  I'm off to get some more caffeine. 

      4th Quarter - Redskins 17 - 34 Jets
      The first wave of Redskins fans, the few that are here, started streaming towards the exits after that 4th Jets touchdown.  As if the Jets didn't have this game wrapped up in the 2nd quarter. 
       
      Jet have now more than doubled their average points per game and have matched their season high of 34 points (and they missed two field goals in this game). 
       
      TOUCHDOWN REDSKINS!  THE DROUGHT IT OVER!  Guice took a short pass from Haskins  all the way to the house.  2 point conversion is successful on a pass from Haskins to Quinn. 
       
      The Redskins score another touchdown!  This feels like an embarrassment of riches, even if we are still certain to lose this game. 
       
      End of Game.
       
      Let's review those reasonable goals I mentioned earlier:
       
      1- Success.
      2- Close enough, I'm counting it
      3- Haskins did throw for over 200, but unfortunately did have an interception. 
      4- Guice was not given the opportunity to run the ball ten times today.  He did however score on a 45 yard TD pass and finish the game healthy.  I'll take it.
       
      Even though the Redskins lost, it was good to see the offense show some faint signs of life and end the streak of games without a TD.  The team looked competitive for much of the second half, and perhaps they could have made this a fun game if they carried that same energy throughout.  It was good to see Guice and Mclaurin show out today.  I think both of them have a future with this team that I look forward to seeing. 

       
       

       
       
       
       
       
Alaskins

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

Recommended Posts

If you saw the dude today you wouldn't question his Native cred. He looks like the guy in your sig minus 30 years and the head feather, same w/ his two brothers.

I have red hair, and everyone has always assumed I'm Irish.

 

I'm not at all. Not one Irish person in my tree. But Russians typically have blonde hair, so people never assume that's what i am.

But in terms of descent, that's what I am.

So what is "cred" when it comes to appearances?

I mean, making racial or cultural assumptions based on looks, this isn't offensive?

 

Isn't that typically the ROOT of these offenses?

 

~Bang

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This would be my final test for what's truly offense when it comes to changing the name or not: Go onto a few different reservations and start calling people Redskins. "Hey, Redskin, what's happening?" "How's it going Redskin?"

 

And if you went up to black people and called them boy, "hey boy, what's happening?" "How's it going boy?" you wouldn't get a good response at all. Does that mean boy should be considered an offensive word? No, it means it should only be used in proper context.

 

You would probably get negative results in your "experiment" because of the context, same with if you called all of them Braves or Chiefs, same with if you called a group of Irishmen "fighting Irish." 

 

Redskins today means a football team. Calling Native Americans today Redskins would make as much sense as calling New Englanders Patriots. Plus, Native Americans coined the term Redskins and from what I've read they don't really use the term themselves either, so the name is strictly meant for a football team.

 

And it should go without saying that a poll asking Native Americans if they take offense to the Redskins name as a FOOTBALL TEAM, is much more accurate and representative of the situation at hand then you going to a few reservations and improperly using the word. Your argument/example is a very poor one that only looks at Redskins as a racial identifier, even though that usage is antiquated. and ignores the real context in which it is used today and in which it was asked in the polls.

 

You're right, I would probably get a bad reaction calling random black people "boy." However there is no professional team named the Washington "Boy" with a black person as the mascot.

 

It almost reads as if you are saying that if a team was named with, let's just say a possible racial slur (because that's the interesting debate here), that it's ok if the name is meant in a way to honor that race. Maybe that's not what you mean but you bring up context and you bring up your own meaning of the word Redskin today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This would be my final test for what's truly offense when it comes to changing the name or not: Go onto a few different reservations and start calling people Redskins. "Hey, Redskin, what's happening?" "How's it going Redskin?"

 

And if you went up to black people and called them boy, "hey boy, what's happening?" "How's it going boy?" you wouldn't get a good response at all. Does that mean boy should be considered an offensive word? No, it means it should only be used in proper context.

 

You would probably get negative results in your "experiment" because of the context, same with if you called all of them Braves or Chiefs, same with if you called a group of Irishmen "fighting Irish." 

 

Redskins today means a football team. Calling Native Americans today Redskins would make as much sense as calling New Englanders Patriots. Plus, Native Americans coined the term Redskins and from what I've read they don't really use the term themselves either, so the name is strictly meant for a football team.

 

And it should go without saying that a poll asking Native Americans if they take offense to the Redskins name as a FOOTBALL TEAM, is much more accurate and representative of the situation at hand then you going to a few reservations and improperly using the word. Your argument/example is a very poor one that only looks at Redskins as a racial identifier, even though that usage is antiquated. and ignores the real context in which it is used today and in which it was asked in the polls.

 

You're right, I would probably get a bad reaction calling random black people "boy." However there is no professional team named the Washington "Boy" with a black person as the mascot.

 

It almost reads as if you are saying that if a team was named with, let's just say a possible racial slur (because that's the interesting debate here), that it's ok if the name is meant in a way to honor that race. Maybe that's not what you mean but you bring up context and you bring up your own meaning of the word Redskin today.

I get your last post was tongue in cheek, but truly, no one actually calls natives "redskins".

No one does.  if you say that word, 99.9% of America will think of the football team. 

(Including, i would bet, the people whining the loudest)

 

If you walked through a reservation saying it, you'd probably get more looks of confusion than anything else.

It's not really a fair comparison to make to other slurs that actually are used with the intent of  insulting people.

 

~Bang

Edited by Bang
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This would be my final test for what's truly offense when it comes to changing the name or not: Go onto a few different reservations and start calling people Redskins. "Hey, Redskin, what's happening?" "How's it going Redskin?"

 

And if you went up to black people and called them boy, "hey boy, what's happening?" "How's it going boy?" you wouldn't get a good response at all. Does that mean boy should be considered an offensive word? No, it means it should only be used in proper context.

 

You would probably get negative results in your "experiment" because of the context, same with if you called all of them Braves or Chiefs, same with if you called a group of Irishmen "fighting Irish." 

 

Redskins today means a football team. Calling Native Americans today Redskins would make as much sense as calling New Englanders Patriots. Plus, Native Americans coined the term Redskins and from what I've read they don't really use the term themselves either, so the name is strictly meant for a football team.

 

And it should go without saying that a poll asking Native Americans if they take offense to the Redskins name as a FOOTBALL TEAM, is much more accurate and representative of the situation at hand then you going to a few reservations and improperly using the word. Your argument/example is a very poor one that only looks at Redskins as a racial identifier, even though that usage is antiquated. and ignores the real context in which it is used today and in which it was asked in the polls.

 

You're right, I would probably get a bad reaction calling random black people "boy." However there is no professional team named the Washington "Boy" with a black person as the mascot.

 

It almost reads as if you are saying that if a team was named with, let's just say a possible racial slur (because that's the interesting debate here), that it's ok if the name is meant in a way to honor that race. Maybe that's not what you mean but you bring up context and you bring up your own meaning of the word Redskin today.

 

What I meant was context and applicability. Redskins in the context you propose to use it would not make sense and I assume would be received as an offense because of its generality, just as if you did the exact same thing saying Brave or Chief (2 team names that don't receive as much flak but would definitely be offensive if you called NA folk it). Boy was simply meant to show how context can completely change the meaning of a word.

 

Again, your experiment doesn't use Redskins in the context it is used today, but rather in its antiquated context. That is the same mistake those few claiming offense as NAs, or those few claiming offense FOR NAs make. This is why I pointed out Braves and Chiefs, as well as New England Patriots, because transferring the group they represent onto a group of people today doesn't make sense. Hopefully this clears things up.

 

That is why that question to Snyder "would you call me a Redskin to my face," or whatever, was stupid, because it completely ignored the context of the term today and tried to act as if the word was still used commonly today in a racial context. Snyder should have said "I'd call you your name, I wouldn't call you Brave, Chief, nor would I call a New Englander a Patriots, nor would I call a Scandinavian a Viking," to drive home the point about context and what the team's actually represent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow Larry, you got me with that incredibly pathetic attempt to compare a fictional satire MOVIE to reality.

 

I made no comparison to a movie whatsoever.

I demonstrated that a word can be offensice, or not, based on the context in which it is used.

(A fact of which you are also aware, or else you wouldn't be trying to change the context in which the word "Redskin" is used, to try to make your argument correct.)

Unless you wish to continue trying to claim that a word is either always offensive, or always not.

(In which case, I again cordially invite you to demonstrate your assertion, using the very scientific experiment which you, yourself, asserted was a valid test.)

 

First, my experiment was mostly a joke.

Disagree.  Your experiment was entirely a joke.  A joke of an attempt to try to make a false assertion. 

 

I just laugh at both sides claiming statics that justify their position.

 Also untrue. 

 

There are only one set of statistics being used.  And they completely and conclusively prove that your assertion is untroe. 

 

And you don't "laugh at statistics", you pretend that they don't exist. 

 

 

Third, I mean seriously Larry, you just compared a real world situation to a movie in order to justify your position. You are normally a good poster, but that was weak coming from you especially when you claim I said things I didn't. Bizarre on your part.

 

Untrue again. 

 

I pointed out a real world fact:  The movie "Blazing Saddles" is not racially offensive.  Despite the fact that it contains "the n-word".  Dozens of times. 

 

This is not fiction, and it's not a movie.  It's reality.  (Yes, movies exist in reality.) 

 

Deal with it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right, I would probably get a bad reaction calling random black people "boy." However there is no professional team named the Washington "Boy" with a black person as the mascot.

There is, however, an organization called "The Boy Scouts".

The line to demand that they change their name starts over there.

 

It almost reads as if you are saying that if a team was named with, let's just say a possible racial slur (because that's the interesting debate here), that it's ok if the name is meant in a way to honor that race. Maybe that's not what you mean but you bring up context and you bring up your own meaning of the word Redskin today.

Actually, he brings up pretty much the only meaning of the word "Redskin" today. Today, and for the last 50 years.

(Yeah, I suppose that there's a tiny fraction of the time, where the word refers to potatoes, or to some other sports team or business.)

You're the one bringing up your own personal definition of the word. Nobody else uses that word, that way.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is why that question to Snyder "would you call me a Redskin to my face," or whatever, was stupid, because it completely ignored the context of the term today and tried to act as if the word was still used commonly today in a racial context.

Actually, I would assert that the correct answer to "Would you call me a Redskin to my face?" is "Can you play Free Safety?"
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow Larry, you got me with that incredibly pathetic attempt to compare a fictional satire MOVIE to reality.

 

I made no comparison to a movie whatsoever.

I demonstrated that a word can be offensice, or not, based on the context in which it is used.

(A fact of which you are also aware, or else you wouldn't be trying to change the context in which the word "Redskin" is used, to try to make your argument correct.)

Unless you wish to continue trying to claim that a word is either always offensive, or always not.

(In which case, I again cordially invite you to demonstrate your assertion, using the very scientific experiment which you, yourself, asserted was a valid test.)

 

First, my experiment was mostly a joke.

Disagree.  Your experiment was entirely a joke.  A joke of an attempt to try to make a false assertion. 

 

I just laugh at both sides claiming statics that justify their position.

 Also untrue. 

 

There are only one set of statistics being used.  And they completely and conclusively prove that your assertion is untroe. 

 

And you don't "laugh at statistics", you pretend that they don't exist. 

 

 

Third, I mean seriously Larry, you just compared a real world situation to a movie in order to justify your position. You are normally a good poster, but that was weak coming from you especially when you claim I said things I didn't. Bizarre on your part.

 

Untrue again. 

 

I pointed out a real world fact:  The movie "Blazing Saddles" is not racially offensive.  Despite the fact that it contains "the n-word".  Dozens of times. 

 

This is not fiction, and it's not a movie.  It's reality.  (Yes, movies exist in reality.) 

 

Deal with it. 

 

 

Really really weak on your part. Deal with it??  HAHAHA You're entire response consists of making things up.

 

A movie is reality? HA

 

The Boy Scouts is what you come up with?? Really weak as boys refer to the age of the group and doesn't have a black mascot. Again, not what the actual situation is that's being debated.

 

The word Redskin now only has one meaning? That's an opinion not an actual fact.

 

I'll somehow manage to "Deal with it" HAHAHAHA

 

You're the one bringing up your own personal definition of the word. Nobody else uses that word, that way.

 

If everyone stopped using the N-word, would that make it a non-offensive word? Could we than name a team the Washington N-Words in say 50 years? Just a thought even though I'm still trying to deal with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hersh: "If everyone stopped using the N-word, would that make it a non-offensive word? Could we than name a team the Washington N-Words in say 50 years? Just a thought even though I'm still trying to deal with it."

 

If 90% of African Americans did not have a problem with a team named that, and it hadn't been commonly used as a negative term for a century, would you feel ok telling them they are wrong, that the word is still offensive to them and has to be changed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really really weak on your part. Deal with it??  HAHAHA You're entire response consists of making things up.

 

Really?

You invent a scenario in which somebody is walking around a reservation, greeting everyone with "Howdy, Redskin".

I point out that the movie "Blazing Saddles" exists.

And you claim I made it up?

Have you honestly never heard of that movie?

True of false: The movie "Blazing Saddles" exists.

 

The Boy Scouts is what you come up with?? Really weak as boys refer to the age of the group and doesn't have a black mascot. Again, not what the actual situation is that's being debated.

The actual situation that's being debated is:

Is the name "The Washington Redskins" offensive?

 

There is a well established answer to this question.

The answer is "No".

 

----------

But, glad to see you agreeing that the context in which a word is used, affects whether it's offensive or not.

Now that you have disposed of your "well, let's take the word 'redskin' out of the context which we're discussing, pretend that we were in a completely different, fictional context that I just made up, take the reaction that the word would have, in that context, and pretend that it's somehow relevent to the context we're actually discussing" argument, can we manage to stay on the actual topic?

I'll repeat:

The topic being discussed is: Is the name "The Washington Redskins" offensive?

The answer to that question is "No."

The topic is not "Can we invent a fictional setting in which the word 'redskin' is offensive?"

 

The word Redskin now only has one meaning? That's an opinion not an actual fact.

Actually, yeah, it pretty much does.

Just as an experiment, a while back, I ran a Google search on "redskin". (I intentionally did not put an "s" on the end, nor did I capitalize the first letter, so as not to tilt the results towards the football team.) I went through the first 100 hits I got on the word.

Just going from memory, I got one reference to an elementary school, somewhere, and one reference to a bowling alley, and two dictionaries.

All of the rest of the hits were about the football team.

Please, feel free to indicate to us all of the other examples in which the word, in common, modern, usage, has a different meaning.

----------

If everyone stopped using the N-word, would that make it a non-offensive word? Could we than name a team the Washington N-Words in say 50 years? Just a thought even though I'm still trying to deal with it.

 

Dunno. Try it and find out.

Go create your alternate world in which the n-word is no longer offensive. One where someone actually decides to use the name for his business, because he thinks that the term is a proud honorific, which will, in turn, make his business prosper.

In this alternate world, make it so that the business does prosper. And make it so that the overwhelming majority of the people agree that the term is an honorific.

Let the people continue to believe that it's a non-offensive honorific, for 50 years after it's created.

Then, tell ya what. I'll come along and demand that everybody else be offended, even though they aren't, because I tell them to be.

 

Would that make your alternate world a good analogy for the real one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you saw the dude today you wouldn't question his Native cred. He looks like the guy in your sig minus 30 years and the head feather, same w/ his two brothers.

I have red hair, and everyone has always assumed I'm Irish.

 

I'm not at all. Not one Irish person in my tree. But Russians typically have blonde hair, so people never assume that's what i am.

But in terms of descent, that's what I am.

So what is "cred" when it comes to appearances?

I mean, making racial or cultural assumptions based on looks, this isn't offensive?

 

Isn't that typically the ROOT of these offenses?

 

~Bang

I sort of know how you feel bang. I'm a blonde haired, blue eyed Italian lol. My cousins from New York are unbearable at family reunions, I never hear the end of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really really weak on your part. Deal with it??  HAHAHA You're entire response consists of making things up.

 

Really?

You invent a scenario in which somebody is walking around a reservation, greeting everyone with "Howdy, Redskin".

I point out that the movie "Blazing Saddles" exists.

And you claim I made it up?

Have you honestly never heard of that movie?

True of false: The movie "Blazing Saddles" exists.

 

>The Boy Scouts is what you come up with?? Really weak as boys refer to the age of the group and doesn't have a black mascot. Again, not what the actual situation is that's being debated.

The actual situation that's being debated is:

Is the name "The Washington Redskins" offensive?

 

There is a well established answer to this question.

The answer is "No".

 

----------

But, glad to see you agreeing that the context in which a word is used, affects whether it's offensive or not.

Now that you have disposed of your "well, let's take the word 'redskin' out of the context which we're discussing, pretend that we were in a completely different, fictional context that I just made up, take the reaction that the word would have, in that context, and pretend that it's somehow relevent to the context we're actually discussing" argument, can we manage to stay on the actual topic?

I'll repeat:

The topic being discussed is: Is the name "The Washington Redskins" offensive?

The answer to that question is "No."

The topic is not "Can we invent a fictional setting in which the word 'redskin' is offensive?"

 

The word Redskin now only has one meaning? That's an opinion not an actual fact.

Actually, yeah, it pretty much does.

Just as an experiment, a while back, I ran a Google search on "redskin". (I intentionally did not put an "s" on the end, nor did I capitalize the first letter, so as not to tilt the results towards the football team.) I went through the first 100 hits I got on the word.

Just going from memory, I got one reference to an elementary school, somewhere, and one reference to a bowling alley, and two dictionaries.

All of the rest of the hits were about the football team.

Please, feel free to indicate to us all of the other examples in which the word, in common, modern, usage, has a different meaning.

----------

If everyone stopped using the N-word, would that make it a non-offensive word? Could we than name a team the Washington N-Words in say 50 years? Just a thought even though I'm still trying to deal with it.

 

Dunno. Try it and find out.

Go create your alternate world in which the n-word is no longer offensive. One where someone actually decides to use the name for his business, because he thinks that the term is a proud honorific, which will, in turn, make his business prosper.

In this alternate world, make it so that the business does prosper. And make it so that the overwhelming majority of the people agree that the term is an honorific.

Let the people continue to believe that it's a non-offensive honorific, for 50 years after it's created.

Then, tell ya what. I'll come along and demand that everybody else be offended, even though they aren't, because I tell them to be.

 

Would that make your alternate world a good analogy for the real one?

 

You compared a movie, a piece of fiction in blazing saddles to an actual real world situation. That's bizarre. What on earth are you talking about??

 

You talk about the meaning of a word and use google but not a dictionary. Bizarre.

 

It's no wonder people give up having conversations with you. Good gracious.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You compared a movie, a piece of fiction in blazing saddles to an actual real world situation.

I did not.

You talk about the meaning of a word and use google but not a dictionary. Bizarre.

I talk about the USAGE of a word, and I use a tool which is designed to find me usages of a word, as opposed to a tool which is prohibited, by its own rules, from admitting that the Washington Redskins exist.

I then invite you to find me actual, real world, examples of people using the word in the manner which you claim it's used.

You pretend you haven't read that part. Too complicated?

Maybe my post was too long. This one is shorter.

I assert that, in modern usage (in fact, within either of our lifetimes), whenever the word "redskin" (or it's derivatives, such as its plural or possessive forms) is used, the odds are OVERWHELMING that it is in reference to the football team, the Washington Redskins.

(I would assert such odds as being better than 99%, but I'm aware that establishing an exact percentage is difficult).

I've presented evidence to support that conclusion. I invite you to PROVIDE EVIDENCE to dispute it.

----------

Or you could just drop it. After all, it was simply my response to you falsely claiming that I was claiming that the word "redskin" had only one meaning. ( When, in fact, it was you trying to pull that stunt).

And you could allow the thread to leave your attempted side trip into pretend land, and return to discussing the actual issue:

The subject at hand is: Is the name "The Washington Redskins" offensive?

The answer has been firmly established, using the only test possible, as "No".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is what this leads to.  It's not a joke, unfortunately.

 

The students spoke, and the school board vetoed: One high school opening in Utah won't be calling themselves the "Cougars."

Students across the Canyons school district voted to select the "Cougars" as the new mascot for Corner Canyon High School -- slated to open in fall 2013. But the Board of Education decided that victorious mascot -- selected by 23 percent of voting students -- is too offensive toward women, KSTU-TV reports. The term "cougar" is often informally used to reference an older woman seeking a sexual or romantic relationship with a significantly younger man.

I mean really?  Cougar is offensive to women?  I am thoroughly  disgusted with our nation and political correctness.  Where does it all end?

 

Link:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/20/cougar-mascot-vetoed-for-_n_1218779.html

 

I personally wrote a letter to each congressman involved in sending a letter to Roger Goodell about the Redskins name.  It's mind blowing that these elected officials spend their time worrying about this, but unemployment, immigration, and civil liberties are all facing serious questions.  Is this really what our nation has become? :angry:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my two cents regarding the whole name change thing.  I don't want to change the name, but let's suppose Dan Snyder is forced to change it.  Here is my suggestion:

 

Drop the nickname and don't replace it.  So what if the team doesn't have a nickname?  It's not the end of the world!  There are a lot of soccer clubs around the world that are known only by the name of the city.  It hasn't hurt them.  It would be iconic and would make us different than any other football team in America.  If the Browns can exist without a logo, we can exist without a nickname.  The advantages of such a move would be: 1. Dan Snyder gets to hold true to his word that he'd never change the name of the team. 2. We get to keep the colors, logo, uniforms the same.  3.  Redskins fans and those who don't find the name offensive can still call them the Redskins.  4. Could keep "Hail to the Redskins" as "Hail to Washington" with the understanding that fans will still sing it the old way.  

 

What do you think of this idea?  I'd like your feedback.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't work because Snyder couldn't trademark Washington which means neither him nor the NFL could protect their rights when it came to merchandice.  They'd lose a ton of money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crap!  What about this?  This logo is still trademarked.  Put the logo on everything with the words "Washington Football"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my two cents regarding the whole name change thing.  I don't want to change the name, but let's suppose Dan Snyder is forced to change it.  Here is my suggestion:

 

Drop the nickname and don't replace it.  So what if the team doesn't have a nickname?  It's not the end of the world!  There are a lot of soccer clubs around the world that are known only by the name of the city.

I've also thought about the concept of going nameless for a few years while a new nick name and/or logo is decided. It will be too awkward to immediately transition into a new identity. IMO it would take 3-5 years of getting used to not being the Redskins.

 

I'm not a lawyer but I'm sure the league's brass could find a way to protect a name like Washington Football Club or Washington FC, etc. The current font on our name logo could be continued and remain a protected image as I believe it is now. See the top of Redskins.com for an example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To those who worry that the issue will never go away... familiarize yourself with these people

http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

 

 

Yes, the issue of whether or not the earth is flat has NEVER GONE AWAY.

 

So stop wringing your hands and fretting yourself. No matter what, there will always be a tiny minority who just can't ever admit they're wrong no matter what.

 

~Bang

Edited by Bang
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there will always be a tiny minority who just can't ever admit they're wrong no matter what.

Many of them spend a lot of time online.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the subject of potential name changes, how about the Washington "Nation"? Keep the same logo, same fight song (with "Nation" subbed for "Redskins", same colors, etc).  

 

It would take some getting used to, but I would be okay with it.  Referring to Amerindians as a "Nation" is much more fitting of our times, and it is sort of a compromise because it is not really a mascot change, just a name change.

 

Don't crucify me, it's just an idea.

Edited by s0crates

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the subject of potential name changes, how about the Washington "Nation"? Keep the same logo, same fight song (with "Nation" subbed for "Redskins", same colors, etc).  

 

It would take some getting used to, but I would be okay with it.  Referring to Amerindians as a "Nation" is much more fitting of our times, and it is sort of a compromise because it is not really a mascot change, just a name change.

 

Don't crucify me, it's just an idea.

I like "Nation."  I also like "Founders"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the subject of potential name changes, how about the Washington "Nation"? Keep the same logo, same fight song (with "Nation" subbed for "Redskins", same colors, etc).  

 

It would take some getting used to, but I would be okay with it.  Referring to Amerindians as a "Nation" is much more fitting of our times, and it is sort of a compromise because it is not really a mascot change, just a name change.

 

Don't crucify me, it's just an idea.

I like "Nation."  I also like "Founders"

 

I like Redskins, so does 90% of Native Americans.

 

As Califan pointed out, the few NA people against the Redskins are against ALL NA imagery in sports. If we cave to the minority and change the name, then we lose the theme as well. It won't stop there either, it will just expand to other teams with the theme.

 

And some also seem to think that changing the name will end the debate. LOL. Changing the name would be an admission of guilt, and even though they are wrong those who favored the name change will act as if they were right and the name will still be hung over our heads for a long time. 

 

Again, we have a Native American theme, and owe it to the 90% of them who's voices are being ignored to keep the name and not cave in to the small number of people who are whining for a name change.

 

90% of Native Americans don't have an issue with the team name, 79% of the country does not think the name should change. So no, we shouldn't be caving in to a vocal minority, nor even considering different names.

  • Like 1

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.