Alaskins

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

Recommended Posts

I hate the idea personally, I am religious and do not want to root for a demon team. That's just my opinion

 

Fair enough, there are no wrong answers here.... but I guess that puts you against the Duke Demons, Wake Forest Demon Deacons, and the Arizona Sun Devils, lol.

 

Just funning you, man. Like I said, no wrong answers what you believe/ feel is what you believe/ feel. Anyone else???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough, there are no wrong answers here.... but I guess that puts you against the Duke Demons, Wake Forest Demon Deacons, and the Arizona Sun Devils, lol.

 

Just funning you, man. Like I said, no wrong answers what you believe/ feel is what you believe/ feel. Anyone else???

Without getting too far off topic, can somebody please tell me how a Catholic school went with the Blue Devils as their mascot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like you don't understand what is going on with the court cases and why he brought them up.  It's ok, the law can be confusing if you can't, or won't, read it.  

 

I agree that one of the author's points is a linguistic one.  But he also goes WAY out of his way to bring up, and quote, the court cases . . . He spends the first four long paragraphs on them, until (finally) getting to "although the main topic."  Which is what i take issue with:  the author appears to give a totally biased reading of the cases, AND THEN sets up his "real" premise.  

 

The author's assertion that "[t]o a large extent the decisions of the court have focused on the "technicality of laches, not the question of whether redskin is disparaging" is totally untrue.  ONE case focuses on laches.  One case entirely focuses on the word redskin, one case I am still waiting for you to provide to me rather than telling me what it says, in your lay opinion.

 

So . . . about that case?  Can you send it to me, since you obviously have it, what with your explaining it to me and all.   

 

That's "one" of the author's points?...No, that's the author's MAIN point of discussion. You could remove every single word dealilng with the trademark cases and his "real" premise would still remain 1 million percent in tact and accurate. So it was not necessary to set up his premise using talk about the court cases.

 

And you should really look this stuff up yourself lol...

 

At any rate...from the 2003 appeals ruling:

 

While the national debate over the use of Native American terminology and imagery as depictions for sports teams continues to raise serious questions and arouse the passions of committed individuals on both sides of the issue, the Court’s decision on the motions before it does not venture into this thicket of public policy. Rather, at the summary judgment stage, the Court only assesses the legal

sufficiency of the TTAB’s decision and whether a laches defense is appropriate on the basis of the undisputed material facts. The Court’s conclusions in this case, as to the sufficiency of the evidence before the TTAB and the applicability of the laches defense, should not be interpreted as reflecting, one way or the other, this Court’s views as to whether the use of the term “Washington Redskins” may be disparaging to Native Americans.

 

 

So...when the author said the following: "To a large extent the decisions of the courts have focussed on the "technicality" of laches, not on the question of whether redskin is disparaging."...the part in bold above is probably what he was referring to. Add to that the fact that you yourself said that the third link talked not about the name but about laches...I don't think it's too confusing to understand why the author claimed that to a large extent the decisions of the courts focused on the technicality of laches, since 2 out of the 3 links you mentioned indeed do just that.

 

If you wanna read the whole thing, have at it:

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDwQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oblon.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fnews%2F156.pdf&ei=0hmaU5DAFs6myATot4KoDw&usg=AFQjCNFafNYu60ysUk5X5JY2OJ8Av2CJjQ&bvm=bv.68911936,d.aWw

 

And looky there...wasn't confusing in the slightest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough, there are no wrong answers here.... but I guess that puts you against the Duke Demons, Wake Forest Demon Deacons, and the Arizona Sun Devils, lol.

 

Just funning you, man. Like I said, no wrong answers what you believe/ feel is what you believe/ feel. Anyone else???

 

I don't like any of those teams lol good guess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And for the "the name change is inevitable" brigade lol...

 

Forbes: Why The Washington Redskins Will Never Change Their Name

 

In a page out of the 1990s, the issue of Native American sports nicknames is cropping up again. Specifically, the Washington Redskins are suddenly under the microscope.

 

[...]Goodell was the first to respond, sending a letter to the Congressional Native American Caucus in which he politely told the members to butt out.

 

A snippet of Goodell’s response: The Washington Redskins name has thus from its origin represented a positive meaning distinct from any disparagement that could be viewed in some other context.

 

In other words, the name isn’t going anywhere. Goodell knows it’s a strong brand that’s good for business. So does Snyder, who has publicly proclaimed he won’t change it. Not that the nickname’s critics don’t have an argument. When you get down to it, a term like “Redskins” – literally denoting skin color – does carry a more improper tone than “Braves,” “Indians,” “Chiefs” or other traditional monikers. But some people point to the last word in the Goodell excerpt – context.

 

“If you walk around and call people redskins, it’s offensive,” says Robert Passikoff, president of Brand Keys, a research firm that measures consumer attitudes toward sports teams and athletes, among other properties. “But when it’s for the Washington Redskins, it’s not offensive, it’s everything the commissioner said.”

 

The public can debate the name and context all day, but a change will remain unlikely. Passikoff’s research captures the reason: strong fan loyalty that’s based above all else on history and tradition. The Redskins, the NFL’s third-most valuable franchise at $1.6 billion, rank 13th of the league’s 32 clubs in Brand Keys’ sports loyalty index.

 

That’s only slightly above average, but as Passikoff notes, the club ranks No. 7 in the “history and tradition” component of the index, keeping company with franchises like Green Bay, Chicago and Dallas. That history component is the foundation – it varies little from year to year, bringing sustained value, while the rest of the index fluctuates with the recent fortunes of the team. Washington had been mired in mediocrity for years until Robert Griffin III created a new buzz and a playoff ride this past season.

 

Meanwhile, Forbes assigns $131 million of the Redskins’ $1.6 billion valuation to its brand strength, behind only the Cowboys and Patriots. How much of that brand strength is specifically tied up in the name? It’s impossible to say, exactly. But when you’re minting money even in down years, as the Redskins do, you don’t have much interest in trying to find out.

Edited by Califan007
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think I've ever 'written to a company, owner'. But I'm fairly sure I'm gonna write to Goodell that I will never purchase another NFL item for me or family if name changes.

NEVER, I will use caps.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point Cali in linking the Forbes article. That should be proof enough to the fans that our loyalty will keep the name from changing. 

 

Those just wanting it all to stop and willing to cave in because of it are falling victim to the opposition's ploy. Who cares what they think or say though? The majority of the country is on our side and the only empirical evidence on the consensus Native American opinion shows 90% don't support a name change. So until that changes and the majority of NAs think we are offensive there is NO other reason for Redskins fans to waiver in loyalty.

 

Thankfully the majority of us aren't. If the team is good this season sales will go even higher and this issue will grow even quieter.

 

But we fans have to stay loyal. If the team loses fan support, that is what will lose us the name, and that would be truly r. We could never again say we are a great fanbase if we caved in to a name change pushed by fraction of loudmouths. The only justification would be if a majority of NAs truly were offended, but we know why the anti-name crowd hasn't commissioned any valid  polling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope it never changes but I accept with the current strategy that it's more likely to change then not. The teams take on this is not working for the masses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope it never changes but I accept with the current strategy that it's more likely to change then not. The teams take on this is not working for the masses.

 

The poll numbers really haven't changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 The side that wants to change the name wants to ignore these types of questions and ones like it because it will open the discussion to what it should have been all along, if you want to force a change then where does it start and when does it end? The Redskins name change while I think it does happen shouldn't actually happen because the Redskins are the head of the snake here and the PC correctives will not stop when that changes. If every sports fan out there understood that this issue would not have the traction it does now. It's all related. You shouldn't try and silence conversations like this. 

 

I'm not a big fan of slippery slope arguments in situations like this.   They always seem exaggerated, plus you can make them anytime.  "If I can't call black people the n-word, then where will it end?!?!?!?  PC COrrectness gone amuck   aaaaaahhhhhh"  

 

(and no, please don't suggest that I'm saying the word Redskin is as bad as the n-word because I'm not saying that).

 

It may be because I'm not as scared of the PC correctness boogeyman as some people seem to be.  

 

By the way, no one is silencing you.  Some of us are disagreeing with you,

I would lose so much respect for them if they did this. It's one thing for us to throw it around. But for the team to do it, it makes them look weak. Unless they somehow, someway, find a way to do it in a way that it is not coming from them. 

 

I don't understand how keeping up with the times is "weakness."  

 

Just a matter of perspective I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without getting too far off topic, can somebody please tell me how a Catholic school went with the Blue Devils as their mascot?

 

Duke isn't a Catholic school.  The only catholic schools in major college sports are Notre Dame and Boston College, with some basketball schools like Georgetown, St. Johns, Seton Hall and Villanova.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes words become outmoded even if we don't intend them to be offensive. We don't use "colored boys" anymore. We don't use "Chinaman" any more. We don't use "wench" anymore. It's a natural process in the evolution of language. It is unfortunate that the guy who owned this team didn't use a different word for Native Americans, like Indians or Chiefs or a specific tribe name, because it looks like the word he used got passed up by history.

Please understand that many people disagree with the Diehard Redskins Fan point of view about whether the name is appropriate without being stupid, ignorant of history, or liars.

Yes, but those words disappear because people realize the usage of the words in there context was offensive and pejorative.

That's not the same thing.

Nobody uses the term redskin that way. It's simply the name of washingtons football team.

Those that claim to be offended by it, aren't offended because the term is used as an attack. They claim to be offended because of the media hoopla and a bizarro desire for political correctness.

If anyone can point to an example of the term redskin being used in a similar fashion to other actual offensive terms, I'll gladly listen and reconsider my pov.

I've said before, I'd be more understanding if te complaint was our logo and the use of imagery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but those words disappear because people realize the usage of the words in there context was offensive and pejorative.

That's not the same thing.

Nobody uses the term redskin that way. It's simply the name of washingtons football team.

Those that claim to be offended by it, aren't offended because the term is used as an attack. They claim to be offended because of the media hoopla and a bizarro desire for political correctness.

If anyone can point to an example of the term redskin being used in a similar fashion to other actual offensive terms, I'll gladly listen and reconsider my pov.

I've said before, I'd be more understanding if te complaint was our logo and the use of imagery.

 

 

Its funny.  I really don't think the logo and imagery are the problem.  When we say that they are "respectful," its really true.  

 

I think the word "redskin" is the problem, even though the team and we fans didn't intend it to be, because time has passed it by.   No one uses it because it's a lousy word.  No one calls African Americans "coloreds" anymore, nobody except your 97 year old grandfather.  He probably talks about redskins too, if he ever thinks about them.  

 

However, if we dig in on the word "redskin" too long, we are going to lose all of it.  Logo, imagery, history.  I really believe that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or people finally do look at the historical context and realize its a fake controversy

I'd bet the term redskin hasn't been used as a slur in more than a century.

If I called a black man "colored", it has a recent context that makes it unacceptable. But the term redskin does not.

And I don't think Snyder changes anything in my lifetime

And thus to keep the name we have to go away from an Indian logo.

And is be fine with that. Go with a spear or a script R and be done with it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or people finally do look at the historical context and realize its a fake controversy

I'd bet the term redskin hasn't been used as a slur in more than a century.

If I called a black man "colored", it has a recent context that makes it unacceptable. But the term redskin does not.

And I don't think Snyder changes anything in my lifetime

And is be fine with that. Go with a spear or a script R and be done with it

Except it won't... As long as there's anything related to Indians or Indian culture in combination with the name, then there will be a voice against it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except it won't... As long as there's anything related to Indians or Indian culture in combination with the name, then there will be a voice against it.

 

Well, that is certainly going to be true as long as our portrayal of native american culture is attached to the controversial word "redskin."  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry hawgboy, I appreciate your sentiment but changing the logo a and keeping the name is a cop out. It would be the same as changing the logo to a redskin potato. To me, it's basically admitting that redskin is a racist term and you are attempting to redefine it. Keeping the name with a different meaning is about as bad as changing it altogether. It's like we admit that we are wrong and redskin is racist but we want to keep the name so we try to apply a different meaning to it. It's sleazy.

This is the Washington Redskins. Braves on the warpath, fighting for the District of Colombia.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has Snyder's stance on the name issue harmed the franchise financially? Any indication? If and when that hsppens , I can see a change. Otherwise, no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

skins- not trying to pester, but i asked about this a page or two back.

 

where did you get this info from?

 

 

You were saying this a couple of pages back and I find it just as dumb now as I did then.  You still have not given any proof the name was derived from warpaint.  If you read these pages, you know I support the team name Redskins just like you.  However, I do not support false information no matter the side. 

 

Prove to us that the name came from warpaint.  I have seen this written in a lot of places with no proof.  You will have to dig really deep on this one.  Until then, Redskin does refer to the color of the skin. 

 

Also, yes the color is not an accurate representation of the skin.  However, that is how we almost always have referred to ourselves.  Are you white?  Do you run around telling people, 'Don't call me white, I am peach!'  or something to that affect?

 

Honestly, arguing the red, black, white etc colors of skin just sounds like attention seeking.

There are many places on the internet that suggest this if you do a little research.  If you stop, sit back and think about it, it makes a lot of sense.  Native american skin color is not red, so where did the term come from? Well they did paint them selves in red, so it makes sense to me.  In a quick search this is the first thing I found on native american paint.

 

Paint - Indians found many things in nature from which they could make paint.  They used fine clays containing different oxides of iron.  These they mixed with bear grease or buffalo tallow.  The hard, yellow substance in the gall bladder of the buffalo was prized as a medicine paint.  The Sioux used bullberries, a plant like sumac.  Flowers, barks, and other vegetable matter also provided paints and colorings.

Usually the Indian applied the paint with his fingers.  But sometimes he made brushes from sticks which were chewed or beaten on the ends.  Plains Indians employed a spongy bone from the knee joint of the buffalo which held paint as the modern fountain pen does ink.

the Indian painted himself to be admired or to strike fear in his enemy.  Sometimes he painted as a disguise and other times merely to protect his skin from insects and the wind and the sun.  he also painted for dances and other ceremonies.

Without a doubt Indians were first called Red men because of their use of red paints in decorating their faces and bodies.  Red was a sacred color with all Indians and usually stood for strength and success.  For this reason red was the favorite color for painting the face and body for dance and warpath, and for painting the war pony, lance, and other articles of war and ceremony.

While it might appear that the Indian's colors and designs were often put on merely to satisfy his own whims, the fact was he commonly followed a definite pattern and each design and color had a meaning.  however, when an Indian found a certain color had proved lucky, or had been "good medicine," he might continue its use regardless of any meaning that others might give it.

The meaning of certain colors varied among tribes.  War paint among the Plains Indians, for instance, might be an excessive use of any color.  White stood for mourning, black for joy, and red for happiness and beauty.  The Cheyenne used rings, strips of different colors when going to war, and on returning they used only black to indicate their joy at arriving back safely.  The Cherokee, on the other hand, used red for success, blue for defeat or trouble; black meant death, and white, peace and happiness.

Women beautified themselves with paint.  it was used to decorate lodges, totem poles, parfleche bags, robes, and for ceremonial pictures.  Red paint might be daubed on stones, trees, or other objects to which the Indian wanted to show respect.  Ponies were painted for war, and in historical paintings men were shown with blood red wounds.

 

 

-Also TK made a post back on page 112.  Post #4464.  His post also explains how the paint was used to repeal bugs.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just some trivia. (This thread could use a diversion.)

Anybody know why the Little Red Schoolhouse was red?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the word "redskin" is the problem, even though the team and we fans didn't intend it to be, because time has passed it by. No one uses it because it's a lousy word.

I use it all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Duke isn't a Catholic school.  The only catholic schools in major college sports are Notre Dame and Boston College, with some basketball schools like Georgetown, St. Johns, Seton Hall and Villanova.   

lol Always thought they were Catholic. Somebody lied to me...

 

I don't understand how keeping up with the times is "weakness."  

 

Just a matter of perspective I guess.

No what you didn't understand was what I was really saying in that post.

Let's take another look at the post I responded to:

1. I personally see the name changing and don't really think there is any defense left for the team to make except one, ask the question and demand an answer...why us first? Make the case that other team names are offensive too and demand they change as well

Your perspective was maybe off target a little. I'll take some blame though for responding to the whole reply, and not just the italicized part that I was really responding to.What I was saying was that it would be weak to use the "Why us first" argument. That is finger pointing. That is lame for an organization to use. 

 

But no, I can "keep up with the times".. But again, I'm using your own words against you. You keep basically saying that you would like the word  to not be used for what it is known for in 2014. But what it's known for today, would be the football team from Washington. So getting with the times would be to just use the word exclusively for the football team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 But what it's known for today, would be the football team from Washington. So getting with the times would be to just use the word exclusively for the football team.

 

Exactly. Instead of throwing it eternally into The Pit of Slurdom.

 

 

 

Larry on 12 Jun 08:52 PM

 

This thread could use a diversion.

 

 

 

:) Check out this French brand of clothing.

 

Redskins.png

Edited by Spearfeather

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.