Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Most people aren't overly sensitive little whiny baby Harry Reid robots that have to look at the racism/negativity in every single phrases, logos, mascots, events in order to fuel the ridiculous agenda they have in Washington for the pussification of America. Most of us look at the logo of say the Blackhawks and say "Wow that is a pretty cool logo". Never does a racist thought cross my mind when viewing any of the logos in this picture. If we can't make an argument for the name without bringing up "pussification" and Harry Reid, then "Redskins" doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 I'm just happy that after all these years of staying quiet and having the word "Redskins" eat at their souls, those who are against the name now have the courage to voice their opinions. Amazing. That's basically one of the reasons why the first ruling back in the 90s was overturned...the plaintiff(s) waited too long to sue. Court said "Hold up...you've lived all this time with the name 'Redskins' without feeling offended enough to sue. The time to sue was when the trademark was first registered in 1967, not 30 years later." So this time they added an 18 year old plaintiff to their suit, the idea being they weren't alive when the original trademark was registered so they couldn't have sued back then. So the plaintiffs had to show that the word "Redskins" has been disparaging towards Native Americans over the last 18 years. Two people hearing the case felt it had been. One person did not. The Redskins feel there were too many unprovable assumptions accepted as fact by the two people who voted on the side of the plaintiffs that will not be viewed in that same light in a federal court. As of right now, I tend to agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikered30 Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 NPR is still discussing if you want to hear fake out cries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 This debate was non-existent 2-3 years ago. Social media was definitely around. There are those who are legitmately offended, and there are those with fake outrage who are ambulance chasers. The hell it was lol... This debate has been ebbing and flowing regularly over the last 15 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 MSNBC will "delve into the controversy" after this break, LOL.I don't really have a need to leave the house today, and my husband said he knows that I'll find some random errand that just has to be done so I can wear the 10 Elite into battle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 My 2 cents, without going through the entire thread so please no berating if I hit on some of same points from a post on page 53. The name is going to change...too much pressure and too much of a distraction or ****show for a team that has enough issues. The name will not change tomorrow but there are likely steps being taken or plans being presented. My guess is that Dan should use what little leverage he may have to negotiate a deal lucrative to the team. See the WaPo article about new stadium and see if he can get Goodell to rig the vote for a couple of Super Bowls in a 12 year span or something like that. From a businessman standpoint, it really could be a huge windfall. Can you imagine if they not only changed the name but rebranded? Suddenly, Donovan McNabb and Albert Haynesworth jerseys become collectibles. A chance to liquidate merchandise and then sell whole new batch of gear? I hope and don't think it should be a total rebrand but it has to be put out there as I am sure some people smarter than me are thinking about it. I know everybody thinks it will be the Warriors but why not try go back to tradition and go with the Braves. Keep the logo and the colors. Granted, it probably won't be a financial windfall deal for the franchise or owner but it works. If Braves and the logo is still too offensive to people, guess what Cleveland and Atlanta, your MLB teams are next. I won't hammer you over your views lol...but, yeah, most of your points were brought up and shown to be incorrect about 4-5 pages ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrypticVillain Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 If we can't make an argument for the name without bringing up "pussification" and Harry Reid, then "Redskins" doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell. Who says we can't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFK Lives Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Man our Indian kicks the Blackhawks Indian's ass. Chief Wahoo (Cleveland) is pretty bad though. Atlanta had to get rid of the warrior Brave with his mouth open. I thought it was cool and the Richmond Braves used it too. ESPN pulled RGIII bobble head off the Mike & Mike desk but had all the Cleveland Indians with Chief Wahoo front and center when they did their show in Cleveland and then a few weeks after. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 This debate was non-existent 2-3 years ago. Social media was definitely around. There are those who are legitmately offended, and there are those with fake outrage who are ambulance chasers. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/wp/2014/06/18/edward-bennett-williamss-1972-letter-to-pete-rozelle-about-the-redskins-name/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 I've been seeing a number of articles on sites like buzzfeed that are deliving into the origins of the terms - lots of pictures of old documents from the 1800s giving bounties for scalps, or 'redskins' as they call them -- it's crazy the amount of attention that this issue is getting. Whether 100% accurate or not, this will be the increasing perception of the word 'Redskins'. I hope they keep 'skins' when it's changed... HogSkins, Pigskins, etcetc I think it's an honest debate but where was the white outrage in years past? Did any of those documents on bounties for scalps actually use the term "redskin" in them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dont Taze Me Bro Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Mmmmm....that is a good old man rant. You really need to work in something about how you didn't fight at Guadalcanal so some guy could wear an earring to take it to the next level though. LOL, it's just my point of view, that many people share. I'm not saying that I don't listen and am not sensitive to others feelings. I was saying that it wouldn't surprise me if the name gets changed and was more detailed response to the one poster that told me it was only a matter of time before the tomahawk chops/warchants/spear ceremonies were removed from other college/pro teams. And the reason it wouldn't surprise me is people are more sensitive today than they were 20 years ago when I was a teenager. They have their right to be offended, just like those opposed have our right not to be offended. I dunno about you LKB, but when I was growing up, I never heard anyone claim that Redskins was a racist term, that doing a tomahawk chop is racist and creating a negative stereotype about Native Americans, that Chief Knock-a-homa was racist (even though the man dressed up was Native American), etc. Now all of the sudden, everything is offensive. And I don't have any answers on how to fix things. There are a lot of good arguments from those opposed to the name as well to those that defend the name. Like someone mentioned earlier, what percent does it become offensive enough to force a change? Do we need a set number? That's not for me to decide. It's a sticky topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrypticVillain Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Man our Indian kicks the Blackhawks Indian's ass. I think it's a tie. I appreciate both logos... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 LOL, it's just my point of view, that many people share. I'm not saying that I don't listen and am not sensitive to others feelings. I was saying that it wouldn't surprise me if the name gets changed and was more detailed response to the one poster that told me it was only a matter of time before the tomahawk chops/warchants/spear ceremonies were removed from other college/pro teams. And the reason it wouldn't surprise me is people are more sensitive today than they were 20 years ago when I was a teenager. They have their right to be offended, just like those opposed have our right not to be offended. I dunno about you LKB, but when I was growing up, I never heard anyone claim that Redskins was a racist term, that doing a tomahawk chop is racist and creating a negative stereotype about Native Americans, that Chief Knock-a-homa was racist (even though the man dressed up was Native American), etc. When I was growing up, my grandfather used the word "colored" pretty regularly and smoking on airplanes was permitted. So....what's your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Interesting isn't it? I just made this. Notice that the other teams main color. Can these people be any more hypocritical? I believe the controversy more so about the name than the actual logo. It's been documented that Native Americans helped design the logo and that it's very similar to the old Buffalo Nickel. Actually, more people are offended by the Cleveland Indians logo than any of the other logos you brought up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 When I was growing up, my grandfather used the word "colored" pretty regularly and smoking on airplanes was permitted. So....what's your point? And when you got pulled over for being drunk, the cops would just follow you home and let you off with a warning! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Washington Griffindors? And they could put that Harry Potter lighting scar on the helmets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 PFT Commentator always has the hottest of the hot sports takes. http://kissingsuzykolber.uproxx.com/2014/06/top-10-strongest-takes-about-the-redskins-losing-their-trademark.html Well the Actvist United States Patent and Trademark Office has struck again folks. The USPTO (there called that because the US has been on Paid Time Off sense Obummer took over) ruled today that the term “Redskins” is offensive even though Im not personaly offended by it. This is pretty much sending up a bat singal for internet commenters such as myself to spring into action and defense the Redskins name even if they cant defense their own end zone. Conspicously silent on the affair has been there “Captain” Robert Griffin III. (Funny that a guy whose named ends in I, I, I, claims to be all about team= yeah right.) This whole mess could of been prevented if Griffin had let poor Dan Snyder cut in front of him in line at the USPTO when he was there to register his 3 dozen inspriatonal sayings, but RG-ME took so many numbers at the counter that they ran out of paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RVAbrendan Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Did any of those documents on bounties for scalps actually use the term "redskin" in them? I found an example - I saw a few others and am trying to find them. The Daily Republican newspaper in Winona, Minnesota from Sept. 24, 1863 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 I have to give a lot of praise to the Mods here. They have a lot more tolerance of you guys (and me) that I could ever fathom having. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dont Taze Me Bro Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 When I was growing up, my grandfather used the word "colored" pretty regularly and smoking on airplanes was permitted. So....what's your point? My point, was in the last paragraph that was left out of your quote: Now all of the sudden, everything is offensive. And I don't have any answers on how to fix things. There are a lot of good arguments from those opposed to the name as well to those that defend the name. Like someone mentioned earlier, what percent does it become offensive enough to force a change? Do we need a set number? That's not for me to decide. It's a sticky topic. Everything in this world offends someone in today's society (again, some justified, some not - this is big picture, not just the team name debate). Everyone can't be happy, so where do we draw the line? Or can a line be drawn? What do we do about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 I really like the cities whos sports teams are all the same color. If we were forced to change the name, I wouldnt mind a uniform overhaul that falls in line with the red white and blue of the other DC sports teams. I can only think of Pittsburgh, with the Penguins, Pirates, and Steelers and their black and gold. What other cities do this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 I can only think of Pittsburgh, with the Penguins, Pirates, and Steelers and their black and gold. What other cities do this? Seattle does it with blue and green (especially since the Sonics moved). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmmbobb Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 After reading the history of the reason the team Named them the Redskins(in honor of the then coach), if true, this is a stupid social attack by stupid people. Stupid people, sometimes win because they make stupid connections...you wouldn't call a team...the black skins.....the yellow skins...or white skins...ergo...no red skins. It is a logical assumption that redskins is a pejorative. In simple, to the stupid simple mind....end of story. I do not believe based on the reading that the term, "redskins" is a pejorative. I do believe, that sometimes, stupid people get enough like minded stupid people....to agree with a stupid idea. Here are some stupid people's winning ideas....Electing Bill Clinton....Electing George Bush....yada yada yada. In the end, The stupid people, in this case....a very liberal media, a bunch of New York Giant loving Indians, and Redskin Haters, have the advantage. If they win, I hope the team elects to call itself....The Washington "Brave". The logo and all the rest can stay the same, we can sing , Hail to the Redskins, and WE WIN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 My point, was in the last paragraph that was left out of your quote: Now all of the sudden, everything is offensive. And I don't have any answers on how to fix things. There are a lot of good arguments from those opposed to the name as well to those that defend the name. Like someone mentioned earlier, what percent does it become offensive enough to force a change? Do we need a set number? That's not for me to decide. It's a sticky topic. Everything in this world offends someone in today's society (again, some justified, some not - this is big picture, not just the team name debate). Everyone can't be happy, so where do we draw the line? Or can a line be drawn? What do we do about it? LKB posted this link to a 1972 letter from then-owner Edward Bennett Williams to Pete Rozelle, relating that a group of Native American leaders had contacted him about changing the name: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/wp/2014/06/18/edward-bennett-williamss-1972-letter-to-pete-rozelle-about-the-redskins-name So regardless of what side you come down on in debating this issue, let's get rid of the notion that this has only cropped up recently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.