codeorama Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 Champ Bailey agrees with me. That's good enough for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 It seems to me that the anti-name crowd has no legal backing on anything. Their last resort is exactly what they are doing now - change public opinion against the name. It's all they have, which is why they get loud during the offseason because there's nothing else to talk about. Once the season starts they'll be drowned out again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 Champ Bailey agrees with me. That's good enough for me. Really? THAT is good enough for you? The opinion of a former player with NO connections to Native Americans, who left here disgruntled because of his wife, who now says the word is a slur like the N word but didn't say a damn thing when he was taking pay check from the team, who has likely done no research on the matter at all (hence the stupid N word comparison), and THAT is good enough for you? The Annenberg Poll isn't good enough, the NA schools that use the name isn't good enough, the NAs in this very thread that like the team, the local tribes that have spoken in favor of the name, the tribes and leaders abroad who have spoken in favor of the name, the origin of the name and the context it is used in by the team, NONE of that is good enough for you, BUT what Champ Bailey has to say is? Your credibility on this topic may have just boarded a flight to Malaysia if that's the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 Really? THAT is good enough for you? The opinion of a former player with NO connections to Native Americans, who left here disgruntled because of his wife, who now says the word is a slur like the N word but didn't say a damn thing when he was taking pay check from the team, who has likely done no research on the matter at all (hence the stupid N word comparison), and THAT is good enough for you? The Annenberg Poll isn't good enough, the NA schools that use the name isn't good enough, the NAs in this very thread that like the team, the local tribes that have spoken in favor of the name, the tribes and leaders abroad who have spoken in favor of the name, the origin of the name and the context it is used in by the team, NONE of that is good enough for you, BUT what Champ Bailey has to say is? Your credibility on this topic may have just boarded a flight to Malaysia if that's the case. No, I was making a douchey response to a douchey comment. I just get tired of "there's only one possible view" theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~HTTR4LIFE~ Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 Native Americans Speak on the Meaning of the Word Redskin "Each of their stories is unique in it’s own as Mark One Wolf, an Apache Indian, spoke on saying that ‘each tribe views things differently’. What all four of these individuals agreed on was the unifying spirit of the team and how the term “Redskin” wasn’t viewed by them as any sort of negative terminology. http://httr4life.com/native-americans-speak-on-the-meaning-of-the-word-redskin/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWFLSkins Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 No, I was making a douchey response to a douchey comment. I just get tired of "there's only one possible view" theory. arrrrgh..'; LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 No, I was making a douchey response to a douchey comment. I just get tired of "there's only one possible view" theory. Ok, that makes more sense. I'm glad I used "may" and "if" in my post to show my uncertainty as to your seriousness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 Native Americans Speak on the Meaning of the Word Redskin "Each of their stories is unique in it’s own as Mark One Wolf, an Apache Indian, spoke on saying that ‘each tribe views things differently’. What all four of these individuals agreed on was the unifying spirit of the team and how the term “Redskin” wasn’t viewed by them as any sort of negative terminology. http://httr4life.com/native-americans-speak-on-the-meaning-of-the-word-redskin/ This was a great read and listen to hear other perspectives of Native Americans and why they support the team name. I wish the team and media outlets gave coverage like this. I wish some of our fans in this thread who disagree about keeping the name also gave this some consideration. There are plenty of Native Americans who are proud of our name, we should stay that way as fans too. HTTR! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 Bonez, Aztecs, Vikings and Knights are non existent anymore. All that's left are ancestors. (unless Sir Paul McCartney counts... ) Fighting Irish, I never thought of that. Great point. Same with NA's really. They only paint their faces for celebrations...yep, celebrations. And yes, the Irish were the original slaves. Irish were NOT the original slaves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonez3 Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 That was taken out of context Kosher... I meant to 'new world', where in 1600s most early slaves were Irish in west indies. I did not mean history of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 A boycott has been proposed. http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/a-redskins-boycott-united-church-of-christ-leaders-are-about-to-vote-on-one/2014/06/13/575e56ca-f279-11e3-914c-1fbd0614e2d4_story.html I wonder if this church puts their money with their mouth is. Are they only condemning the name or also aiding in good in Native American communities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnhay Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 What annoys me the most is that people will put their own spin on the word Redskin, and transform its meaning to something they can relate to and be offended by. It's not the same as calling a team "brown skins" or the n-word. If the team changed its name to the n-words, black people (and of course, people of other skin colors) would be outraged and there's no way 99.9% wouldn't be against it. You don't see that with the NA population. Why? Because it's not like calling the team the Washington N-words! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 What annoys me the most is that people will put their own spin on the word Redskin, and transform its meaning to something they can relate to and be offended by. It's not the same as calling a team "brown skins" or the n-word. If the team changed its name to the n-words, black people (and of course, people of other skin colors) would be outraged and there's no way 99.9% wouldn't be against it. You don't see that with the NA population. Why? Because it's not like calling the team the Washington N-words! Well the "browns" were named after Joe Luis because of his......... The name of the team was at first left up to Paul Brown, who rejected calls for it to be christened the Browns.[12][13] The franchise then held a naming contest to publicize the team, promising a $1,000 war bond to the winner. In June 1945, a committee selected "Panthers" as the new team's name.[14] McBride, however, changed it to the Browns two months later, the result of another naming contest that suggested Browns, not after Paul Brown himself, but as a shortened version of Brown Bombers, a reference to the nickname of boxer Joe Louis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Browns Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulSkin Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 The Redskins had an idea this was coming from the CAC of the UCC and tried to make their point to them. http://www.christianpost.com/news/washington-redskins-lobby-united-church-of-christ-ahead-of-boycott-vote-120940/ Does anybody know what corporate entities I should quit supporting and giving my money to that have partnerships with Oneida, The UCC, etc? I may be being simplistic (please let me know why, if you think I am), but I think it would be nice to have a central list of organizations and their corporate partners that have put their name behind this movement so that we can speak with our money as well. I did find this: http://www.ncai.org/about-ncai/our-supporters Goodbye Wells Fargo, someone else is getting all of my service fees and I will definitely NEVER use you for a loan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearfeather Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 Sounds like the UCC had their mind made up regardless of what any supporters within the American Indian community thought. I found the Reverend's comments, " unusual ". I think the Redskins will be fine without them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 Redskins fans who are also members of that church should boycott the church until they recant. Plenty of other congregations to join. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFKFedEx Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 Just another straw on the camel's (not yet broken) back. A public sponsorship pull will be the next move of any significance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan2k Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 Just another straw on the camel's (not yet broken) back. A public sponsorship pull will be the next move of any significance. No one cares about a church and their viewpoints about a football team's name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 Just another straw on the camel's (not yet broken) back. A public sponsorship pull will be the next move of any significance. Yeah right. Because some church is such a huge deal and clearly the next logical step is a major sponsor that wants to lose millions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrypticVillain Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 The church should be involved in a lot of things, A LOT OF THINGS!, this is not one of them. And the fact that they are even involved makes me wonder what they're trying to gain from this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearfeather Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 The church should be involved in a lot of things, A LOT OF THINGS!, this is not one of them. And the fact that they are even involved makes me wonder what they're trying to gain from this... Things like this don't unite people. If anything they further divide us. I sent them an e-mail, and I agree completely; while remembering the children's hymn, we used to sing in Sunday school: Red and yellow, black and white. They are precious in his sight. Jesus loves the little children of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFKFedEx Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 Yeah right. Because some church is such a huge deal and clearly the next logical step is a major sponsor that wants to lose millions. A "straw" isn't supposed to be a huge deal. This church is simply one of many straws increasing the weight on our backs. When a sponsor eventually pulls, it probably won't be due solely to the efforts of these church groups. Until that day, I don't see any more major milestones in the movement occuring. On the same token, I've been surprised at the rapid momentum gains this movement has achieved since early 2013. So one never knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 A "straw" isn't supposed to be a huge deal. This church is simply one of many straws increasing the weight on our backs. When a sponsor eventually pulls, it probably won't be due solely to the efforts of these church groups. Until that day, I don't see any more major milestones in the movement occuring. On the same token, I've been surprised at the rapid momentum gains this movement has achieved since early 2013. So one never knows. If this straw isn't supposed to be a huge deal then why did you say the very next move is a public sponsor dropping out? That would be a giant leap and this church is no basis for making such a conclusion. Until you guys bumped this thread with church news that had already been reported earlier but finally made official today, this thread had gone quiet again. That's all you'll see is occasional bumps and then when training camp starts and then the season this will be almost nothing again. Frankly I'm not surprised with the oversaturation of coverage on a topic few actually support. The local media hates the team/owner and rails on them both at any chance and the rest of the media sees this as a PC crusade and that fits their agenda very well. But they lack great support from NAs, because most don't agree with them, so the public only sees the crusaders whining and sticks with us. The media may be louder, but they don't have the numbers. If the team does well this season money will talk even louder and fan support will take that fervor and apply it to the name change should it get brought up mid-season. That's why this didn't rear it's head until after the 2012 season. The only significant weight on our backs is what we allow to be placed there. So long as we fans support the team there won't be financial loss and the name will stay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFKFedEx Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 If this straw isn't supposed to be a huge deal then why did you say the very next move is a public sponsor dropping out? Because that's not what I said. IMO there's nothing else significant waiting to happen with this movement until a sponsor pulls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamebreaker Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 I was on a rival message board, and it is interesting getting the perspective of this topic from a rival. They absolutely had their minds made up that Redskins is a racial slur, and can't seem to understand how completely duped they are. None of them provide facts to back up their rhetoric, and it just seems like their goal is to side with anything negative against Snyder and the Redskins. http://boards.philadelphiaeagles.com/topic/693662-twitter-fail-of-the-week-redskinspride/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.