• Blog Entries

    • By TK in ES Coverage
         0
      The Redskins have opened their 2019 season with two losses. Both against Divisional foes. Now they get to close out Week 3 at home on Monday Night against the visiting 1-1 Chicago Bears. The Bears don't have much of an offense but seem to have what may be an elite defense.
       
      On the flip side, the Redskins have a developing passing attack and a disastrous defense. The Redskins haven't had a Defense this vanilla since Mike Nolan received his ice cream. Oh, and the Redskins already have more guys on IR then any other team this season. 
       
      Will the Redskins finally put one in the win column? 
       
      As usual, poll closes at kickoff. Go vote!
Alaskins

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

Recommended Posts

Here's the radio piece featuring ES' Huly and Patent lawyer Stan Torgovitsky on the Trademark debate.  If you want people to hear a little bit of the otherside, a fair, but pro Redskins side that is, feel free to share the link.  Huly represented us well as always.

 

http://voiceofrussia.com/us/news/2014_06_19/US-Patent-and-Trademark-Office-Pulls-Redskins-Trademark-1410/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, decided to explore the issue on the radio today. Got a top patent lawyer and a Native American to discuss the trademark decision. Mind you, the NA I chose is an NFL HOFer and our very own Huly. She seemed like a good choice and she represented well.

 

 

got a link?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck trying to get a tomahawk chop removed from thousands of fans that attend college/professional games where the mascot is tied to Native American Indians.  It simply will not happen, nor should it be removed.  

 

I'm a Seminoles fan, the team honors the Seminole tribe that originated in Florida.  They honor said tribe with the spear ceremony each game home football game.  It in no way shape or form is offensive.  As far as the chop, its a metaphor to going to war on the field, beating down your opponent.  

 

Again, the fans do it, and there is no way anyone can stop them from doing it.  

 

 

i will say this- if the braves have connections to a tribe that encourages or sanctions the chop, more power to them. 

 

the FSU seminoles do it the right way- they have a working relationship with the tribe. 

 

i'm not sure thats the case with the braves. if not, the chop is not a good idea. imo, anyway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US Capitol is at the USPTO on Dulany St in Alexandria?

Having staff draft a strongly worded letter doesn't take nearly as much time and energy as you might think. Photo ops on the steps ain't an all day affair either(Usually)

I've never been a fan of the "Why are they spending time on this" argument for anything. The government is people and moving parts. You may argue our capacity to multitask effectively isn't as great as it used to be, but our country doesn't operate like a honey do checklist.

Ok then, reid and his moving parts are at a 33% approval rating. Youd think him and his moving parts would be better suited working on issues in Nevada, not a football team in DC.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i will say this- if the braves have connections to a tribe that encourages or sanctions the chop, more power to them. 

 

the FSU seminoles do it the right way- they have a working relationship with the tribe. 

 

i'm not sure thats the case with the braves. if not, the chop is not a good idea. imo, anyway. 

 

This relies on "authenticity" as the criteria for whether something is morally correct or repellent.  There are a few tribes which have been criticized for not really being Native American, but also some councils who have expelled members to keep the share of casino or tobacco monies larger for each individual remaining.  To an extent, membership is defined politically by others.  That someone would sanction your act or practice does not actually render it acceptable on a moral basis.  This means that acts are defined not by the act but by who engages in the act.  This may apply in cases like spanking children, where a total stranger should not have power that you should, but how does it apply to public acts of sports names or sports cheering?

 

What in and of itself makes the Seminole thing anything other than more palatable, as opposed to imbued with anything other than the political or social derision which opponents insist it possesses.  Being charitable or getting approval from just one tribe doesn't really excuse, if we take the opponents at their word, the spear throwing or imagery used.  Do the Celtics or Fighting Irish have a working relationship with Irish-AMericans?  Should a fighting, drunk (ok, that's my addition) leprechaun be anymore acceptable?

 

It's too bad the Mediterranean names are so tied to ancient history, it'd be interesting to have more Italian, Greek and French names.  Anyone named Huguenots?  Well there are schools named Huguenots.  We should change that.  No names named after anyone historically or any group.  I'm offended by Spartans as a partially-Greek descended person.  Though a "Seattle Boy Lovers" team would be hilarious.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But who are you or anyone to tell Native Americans what they should be offended by?

Who am I to tell natives what they should be offended by? No one. Who are you to tell them they should be offended? Because this is being driven mostly by older white men. There are high schools that use the logo and name. On reservations. Named by natives. That should be a louder statement than what UnWise Mike says. But CNN doesn't interview the native principle from that school. They interview UnWise Mike. Why? Is he an authority? No, he's a tall white dude from Cali/Hawaii/NYC who has been screaming into a bullhorn for 10 years about this issue so he is considered an "expert" by the media.

There is at least as many vocal people behind the name as there are that oppose it. Yet only one side is heard - the side the media promotes.

  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who am I to tell natives what they should be offended by? No one. Who are you to tell them they should be offended? Because this is being driven mostly by older white men. There are high schools that use the logo and name. On reservations. Named by natives. That should be a louder statement than what UnWise Mike says. But CNN doesn't interview the native principle from that school. They interview UnWise Mike. Why? Is he an authority? No, he's a tall white dude from Cali/Hawaii/NYC who has been screaming into a bullhorn for 10 years about this issue so he is considered an "expert" by the media.

There is at least as many vocal people behind the name as there are that oppose it. Yet only one side is heard - the side the media promotes.

I think that's why I chose to do the radio piece in the way I did.  It's balanced, but in a different way.  The balance is a lawyer who can explain trademark law and a Native American/Redskin fan who can explain it from a personal standpoint.

I also had the very top of the piece disclosed that I am a fan of the team which is only fair I thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These few angry Native Americans are just like those gays! I'm sure that argument will prove to be the silver ballet we've been looking for.

No.

 

Yes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes

 

I think you're more than likely just going to have to accept that other fans are going to have a different opinion than you in regards to the name change debate, and leave it at that.

 

You should probably worry about you and your own fandom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i will say this- if the braves have connections to a tribe that encourages or sanctions the chop, more power to them. 

 

the FSU seminoles do it the right way- they have a working relationship with the tribe. 

 

i'm not sure thats the case with the braves. if not, the chop is not a good idea. imo, anyway. 

I respect your opinion on that.  I don't think the chop is offensive, though.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok then, reid and his moving parts are at a 33% approval rating. Youd think him and his moving parts would be better suited working on issues in Nevada, not a football team in DC.

Oh course, but I imagine everyone here would be best suited working on issues in our own lives right now and yet here we having 130 pages of arguments about what a trivial issue this is.

My point was that the apparatus of government is bigger than just Reid, the letter signers, and the small group that had a press conference awhile back.

I've seen the argument(mostly on the wonderful world of FB) that Reid or another member were the cause of this Trademark ruling today, and I'm going to respectfully disagree with that assessment. That's all. We know this has been going on far longer than when senators decided to get some publicity by glombing on. Hell we've already seen this verdict once before so it shouldn't be much of a surprise. It's the next round that counts.

However, props to the day NV decides say "You know, his supposed influence as the top man in the Senate is giving us jack and we think he's wrecking the country" and boots him. I'm pulling for that. I'm just glad it didn't happen with Angle.

Edited by EvilMonkeyBoy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck trying to get a tomahawk chop removed from thousands of fans that attend college/professional games where the mascot is tied to Native American Indians.  It simply will not happen, nor should it be removed.  

 

I'm a Seminoles fan, the team honors the Seminole tribe that originated in Florida.  They honor said tribe with the spear ceremony each game home football game.  It in no way shape or form is offensive.  As far as the chop, its a metaphor to going to war on the field, beating down your opponent.  

 

Again, the fans do it, and there is no way anyone can stop them from doing it.  

 

Someday the organ player will stop jamming the War Chant at Braves games, same with the FSU band. They'll have new jams that aren't relevant to Native themes. The War Chant tune started with the Noles in the 80s and worked its way up to Atlanta with Deion. It's not exactly an ancient tradition. Eventually the pregame, flaming spear ceremony at FSU will come under criticism for it's irrelevance to actual Seminole culture, thus it will be retired. It's all just a matter of time.

Edited by RFKFedEx
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't even care if someone is offended by it..the name the logo what ever. Because quite frankly I am sick of all the colleges that gave in. The Redskins logo is a fantasic logo that has existed for years and looks fantastic/great etc et al. Its as important as Green Bays G and the Rams horns and I don't want to see it change and I need to find work so I can buy 10 redskins shirts just in case it goes wrong and they are hard to find like 1930s sports memorabilia.

why is my avatar stuck on 3 posts ? how do things work around here LOL ?

Edited by ram29jackson
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah but if enough people are upset why not just change it?

 

Because many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many more are not upset by it. 80% of all Americans, 90% of all Native Americans are not upset, going by polling. 

 

So there aren't enough people upset by it to justify changing it, regardless of how much attention the PC brigade gives it via the media.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't help but wonder why Harry Reid isn't heading some committee that could help Indians get more land back from the US government? I don't see how changing the name of some football team is really going to help their cause.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has there been a definitive refutation of the smithsonian linguist's work who published his/her findings on the etymology of the word Redskin? 

 

Because I've not yet gotten the memo, if so.

 

I really am asking because I'd like to read a credible published work that stands affront to what seems like the definitive saying on the matter. I believe that linguist's work was published mid 2000s, quite awhile ago. 

 

But of course, engaging in a debate about the etymology of a word is tedious and it shows weakness for a campaign of change, especially if the findings don't support the charge. Simply calling a thing racist is a far more effective tool, especially if the framework of the exercise is to ridicule and publicly eviscerate the opponent. 

 

It's career suicide to be associated with anything racist in today's world, so, it's an effective tool when trying to cripple a person or company professionally as well as monetarily. 

 

Framing the debate as racist versus not-racist, associating ... (no), claiming as fact, that the word Redskin is equivalent to ... (no), the same as the word n*****, is a big triple-dog-dare-you trump card. Regardless if you can prove it or not, framing the debate like that will have everyone in a position of scrutiny jumping to safety and out of the way of the big politically correct rollerball. 

Edited by Monk4thaHALL
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someday the organ player will stop jamming the War Chant at Braves games, same with the FSU band. They'll have new jams that aren't relevant to Native themes. The War Chant tune started with the Noles in the 80s and worked its way up to Atlanta with Deion. It's not exactly an ancient tradition. Eventually the pregame spear ceremony at FSU will come under criticism for it's irrelevance to actual Seminole culture, thus it will be retired. It's all just a matter of time.

I'm sure in time all of that will eventually happen because the pussification of America is only going to get worse over time.  I'm not against the chops, war chants, our team name, etc.  It's always been part of my teams (Noles, Braves, Redskins).  

 

If the Redskins name ever does get changed, I would still support the team.  I would strongly disagree with the change and despise it, but the organization would still be the same.  The only way I wouldn't pull for the team is if they relocated to another city/area and ceased to be the Washington Redskins (or other team name), which will NEVER happen, at least not in my lifetime.

 

If it's a must to change it, Id prefer it be back to the Braves, simply because that was the original team name before they relocated from Boston.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How in the hell is the tomahawk chop offensive? Indians/Braves, Native American warriors, if you will, fought with tomahawks. How is that even remotely offensive?

I saw a doc one time and a NA says stuff like plays up the narrative that they were nothing but savage warriors.

That's what a lot of us are missing. I've talked to NAs that have said that they don't like the name and all that because it reinforces stereotypes.

They were more than just ppl that were at constant war

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw a doc one time and a NA says stuff like plays up the narrative that they were nothing but savage warriors.

That's what a lot of us are missing. I've talked to NAs that have said that they don't like the name and all that because it reinforces stereotypes.

They were more than just ppl that were at constant war

what does that have to do with anything ? the name of the team doesn't make people stereotype Indians as constantly in a state of war. Its a childish pro-con argument

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 the pussification of America 

 

As long as people continue to think like this, I have no problem with the name being completely erased.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw a doc one time and a NA says stuff like plays up the narrative that they were nothing but savage warriors.

That's what a lot of us are missing. I've talked to NAs that have said that they don't like the name and all that because it reinforces stereotypes.

They were more than just ppl that were at constant war

I can understand that viewpoint.  But, I don't think your average educated man/woman think that all Native Americans were savages just because of chants and chops at sporting events.  

 

When I see a Native American at the store or at a bar, etc. I don't see them as anything other than a man/woman at the store/bar/etc.  I certainly don't think they are a savage or that their ancestors were savages.  Seems almost like they are a little paranoid if they think people view them as savages or only as warriors.

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.