Alaskins

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

Recommended Posts

Number five in your list is ridiculous. The present outweighs the past whe it comes to language. If times change and the word means something else the history becomes an interesting bit of trivia. I agree that it's not the ONLY thing that matters but current meaning outweighs everything significantly. I'm not sure there is even room for a debate there. I can't think if anyone using an accepted but of hate speech and justifying it by rattling off some history and be taken seriously by anyone.

You completely misunderstood my post and point.

I'll reiterate it:

"This one pretty much says the only thing that matters is how we feel today." - Me

Notice I didn't say how the word is USED today. I said how we feel about it.

Let me ask you: why is "Redskin" deemed offensive?

I would love to know your answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting to the point where you can feel the wave getting bigger and bigger. I know they have the Warriors already owned and ready if it happens, but lets just drop the name all together. The Washington Football Club and leave it at that. Jerks.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I gotta say that I am starting to get this feeling that the government is going to step in and make the team change the name. Then the team will sue the government.

It could get messy.

Here's an interesting article about the legal ramifications circling the whole Redskins name debate:

A quick sampling:

I suggested doing an e-mail interview with McCarthy, and he agreed. I didn’t ask about his personal feelings regarding the team’s name, and he didn’t offer them. We just stuck to the legal issues. Here we go:

....

UW: I’m told that you believe that even if the Redskins lose their trademark protection, it will not impact them financially. Why not?

JM: Even if the REDSKINS trademark registrations are cancelled, they still have very valuable, nationwide common law rights based on the extensive and continuous use of the mark. These rights are exclusive and enforceable.

In addition to the basic trademark rights, the team has a First Amendment right to “commercial speech” that probably protects its ability to use the term REDSKINS, even if the trademark registration is lost.

..........

UW: Gut feeling: Taking everything into account (legal issues, public opinion, political pressure, etc.), will the Redskins still be called the Redskins 15 years from now?

JM: The brand is so valuable, and First Amendment rights are so valued in the United States, that the Redskins will probably be named the Redskins for as long as the team’s owners want to keep the name. It is doubtful that they will be forced to change it....

UW: Okay, so you’re basically saying anything is possible — but we all knew that already. I’m asking you what you think will happen.

JM: Fifteen years is a long time. Certainly opinions can change — it was only about 15 years ago that President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act that was just challenged in the Supreme Court. Based on the state of the laws today, however, I would guess that the Redskins will still be the Redskins 15 years from now, especially since it has been over 20 years since the trademark was originally challenged.

http://www.uni-watch.com/2013/04/05/sorting-out-the-redskins-trademark-issues-with-trademark-attorney-james-mccarthy-attorn/

Edited by Califan007

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny bc its the same people who post in these threads week after week, month after month. The passion doesn't waiver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok. I've avoided this for various reasons, but due to popular demand and my cursed ability to accurately predict human behavior (and this matter will be seeing increasingly more attention, I'm sorry to say) we now have the Redskins Name Change Mega Thread. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks Jumbo! :point2sky

Yeah, it's time.

If you guys would be so helpful as to steer the ones who miss this here when needed, it will be appreciated.

And I'm not merging this with any other current name-change threads. Those will closed when convenient (like when I see them) and I'll post a link to here when I do such.

Edited by Jumbo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, it's time.

If you guys would be so helpful as to steer the ones who miss this here when needed, it will be appreciated.

And I'm not merging this with any other current name-change threads. Those will closed when convenient (like when I see them) and I'll post a link to here when I do such.

Sounds like a good plan Jumbo. Thanks for keeping the peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anytime anyone gives this argument, you automatically know they haven't thought their stance through very well. It's one of the more asinine and ignorant arguments you can make, and three former FCC Commissioners thought it was valid and intelligent

This post should be mandatory reading for any righteous media goofball who feels the need to speak ignorantly on the subject.

Edited by grego

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A true public service Jumbo, having them gathered together here will make it much easier to avoid the whole issue...........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

grego, I am going to let your post above stand without applying the normal one week off for violating rule 11---which is perhaps the single sorest subject rule-wise for all mods now that people can't quite pics. :evilg:

We hate how many gazillion times we've warned about it, posted threads on it, and made posts reminding people of it (and they're supposed to know and follow all the rules anyway of course). :mad:

So I want to know you will go right to the rules page as soon as you see this and read rule 11 and follow it from now on, ;) even though I'm not counting it this time because that is a post worth having repeated in its entirely. :cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You completely misunderstood my post and point.

I'll reiterate it:

"This one pretty much says the only thing that matters is how we feel today." - Me

Notice I didn't say how the word is USED today. I said how we feel about it.

Let me ask you: why is "Redskin" deemed offensive?

I would love to know your answer.

You are now splitting hairs. The way a word is generally perceived (how people FEEL about it) leads to how it is commonly used. Also, I stated that I don't feel it's been established that redskin is hate speech so I can't tell you why it's deemed offensive with any certainty. I suspect most of it is because people think its referring to skin color and that generally frowned upon in American society at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jumbo,

Sorry about that. Recently got an iPhone and haven't quite figured out how to edit text properly.

Damn technology. :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet we change the name within 10 yrs. When we do will will also have to change the song lyrics

I still say keep the name and make our symbol a redskin peanut instead of a Indian Redskins the fightin nuts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not to mention the ancient Greeks (of all stripes) were pederasts. So anybody that's not a member of NAMBLA should be offended by any team naming themselves after any group of ancient Hellenic peoples.

And the Trojans? Really, you're going to name your team after a condom? Please, I demand it be changed. And who cares if it meant something different back when they were founded, I think it means something different NOW, so I demand it be changed because shut up, that's why.

Haha, because shut up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And, yes, the Wizards should have stayed the Bullets! :mad: :mad:

Agreed. And what was ironic is, the Wizards were "allowed" to not only celebrate the 1978 championship team, but they gave out identical rings, a card to go along with it and raised a new banner in the stadium reflecting the team name as Bullets. If' the name is so horrendous, how did the NBA allow this?

ibl9Qwsbpq5Kse.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I also heard UnWise Mike is now leading the crusade to force Dick Van Dyke to change his name.

Why?

I'd understand if his name was Dick N. Dyke..... :rolleyes::)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agreed. And what was ironic is, the Wizards were "allowed" to not only celebrate the 1978 championship team, but they gave out identical rings, a card to go along with it and raised a new banner in the stadium reflecting the team name as Bullets. If' the name is so horrendous, how did the NBA allow this?

The NBA didn't force the name change in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The NBA didn't force the name change in the first place.

Thta's right. Pollin did. But from what everyone has said, the NBA pretty much agreed and it would take an act of congress for Ted to change it back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thta's right. Pollin did. But from what everyone has said, the NBA pretty much agreed and it would take an act of congress for Ted to change it back.

I think the NBA agreed back then. Hell, I think a decent number of our own fans agreed, and we all know better than most how much fans don't like their team names changing. Having a team named the Bullets when your city leads the country in murders is a little uncomfortable. But seeing as that's not even close to true anymore, I'm not even sure if it's legal for the NBA to just refuse to allow the team to call itself the Bullets again. I know that technically the league has to approve a name change, but if Ted wanted to do it with a name that he owns the rights to and was already approved before, he could probably sue if the league said no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People do realize that the the name was changed in Boston back in 1933 to honor of Head Coach William Henry Dietz...or by his Sioux name; Lone Star Dietz...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People do realize that the the name was changed in Boston back in 1933 to honor of Head Coach William Henry Dietz...or by his Sioux name; Lone Star Dietz...

Wasnt there something about matching up with the Red Sox name as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the NBA agreed back then. Hell, I think a decent number of our own fans agreed, and we all know better than most how much fans don't like their team names changing. Having a team named the Bullets when your city leads the country in murders is a little uncomfortable. But seeing as that's not even close to true anymore, I'm not even sure if it's legal for the NBA to just refuse to allow the team to call itself the Bullets again. I know that technically the league has to approve a name change, but if Ted wanted to do it with a name that he owns the rights to and was already approved before, he could probably sue if the league said no.

I would dance out in front of my house in my underwear, if they ever approved them changing back to the bullets.

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.