Alaskins

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

Recommended Posts

Ahh this is getting so annoying.

Has Snyder commented on anything new since this bs about the teams name has come up again recently?  I have a Redskins tattoo on my forearm, and if the team changes its name, Im not sure what Im going to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe Dan. This may be the only time, lol...

The Redskins have been his favorite team since he was a kid, right? He's the owner of his favorite team. (Wow, :) ) There is no way, imo, he will change the name of this team unless he is actually forced by law, and I don't see any way that can happen. Does anyone really believe that Congress would get this through (just which) committee and onto the floor?

NEVER! :D HAIL!

He can't be forced to change it no, but there could come a point where it starts affecting his bottom line. In which case, he'd be left with no other choice.

Read recently that at the next owners meeting this topic will likely be discussed. Article stated that there will provably come a point where the other owners put pressure on him to change it.

Edited by Bubble Screen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a thread in the Tailgate for all of this. Someone starts a thread in the Stadium about this stuff seemingly every 5 minutes. Hopefully ou don't get banned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, this happens to be directly Redskins related as Berry has been a full tilt lifelong fan.  If the moderators feel this is not relevant for the stadium, then I'll take it down, or they can take it down.  The fact that a "true fan" has adopted this policy is weird.  I have never been a member who starts needless threads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Berry needs to read Rick Reilly's article. It was the "drop the mic and walk off the stage" moment in this debate. I'll admit to being slightly on the fence about it until I read Reilly's article. I hope Berry reads it as well.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, this happens to be directly Redskins related as Berry has been a full tilt lifelong fan.  If the moderators feel this is not relevant for the stadium, then I'll take it down, or they can take it down.  The fact that a "true fan" has adopted this policy is weird.  I have never been a member who starts needless threads.

 

I don't think a "true fan" adopting this policy is weird at all.  There's probably more of those people than you think, they just don't hang out here or care enough to announce it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you said about the Confederate flag is a load of crap and offensive to people from the South. You don't get to decide what a flag represents, especially if you have no ties to it. You are being arrogant by claiming your opinions as "facts."   

 

I'm sure people who were the target of one (apparently) of the many things that flag stood for, weep at the fact that you're offended. Give me a ****ing break.

 

Here's what I think of when I see that flag waving... Slavery, Pro Secession, racial intolerance, white supremacy. And if whoevers flying it isn't flying it with any of that in mind, then to me, it's basicaly like feigning igorance, which is insulting.

 

You're not going to have very much success trying to convince everyone that all it stands for is a "Good Ol' kind hearted Southern Boy" that likes to kick back and swig down beers and watch Nascar.

Edited by Mr. Sinister

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Berry needs to read Rick Reilly's article. It was the "drop the mic and walk off the stage" moment in this debate. I'll admit to being slightly on the fence about it until I read Reilly's article. I hope Berry reads it as well.

 

I'm starting to think the Reilly did more harm than good with that article. I am for keeping the name but was cringing while reading that article. I thought it was a terrible defense. Comparing the Redskins name to atheists offended by the New Orleans Saints. Really?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm starting to think the Reilly did more harm than good with that article. I am for keeping the name but was cringing while reading that article. I thought it was a terrible defense. Comparing the Redskins name to atheists offended by the New Orleans Saints. Really?!

 

I disagree, I thought it was the best defense of this team name change topic EVER!

 

This is the problem with our entire country, we think WE always know best, and when these Native Americans who are supposed to be offended are not and even refer to themselves by those names and have sports teams named the exact same, we still think we know best so we are going to work to change it cause we can not be wrong right, no way possible the US government could be wrong about something.....

 

We got bigger problems than a sports franchise and what they call themselves....I could go on the rant of what about this name and that name some I actually do feel offended by, but the bottom line someone will always be offended about something so where is the line, Rodger Goodell offends me about the way he wants the game of football played, so should we stop the NFL? Because as Goodell says "if one person is offended we have to listen" so when is it my turn to speak? See how ridiculous all of this is?

 

If you please everyone then you are usually doing NOTHING...no matter what you do someone will always have something negative to say about it, so we might as well be ourselves.

 

This team is the Washington REDSKINS and it will always be

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One person? I know an atheist who is offended by religious names like the New Orleans Saints and Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. There are people who who don't think Ole Miss should be the Rebels. People who lost family to Hurricanes. There are people who think Wizards promotes paganism. Shall we listen to all of them?

 

I think Reilly is lying his ass off here. The only one of these statements that is remotely true is the Ole Miss one - and that doesn't have so much to do with the name but rather the iconography associated with it. I want to meet this atheist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an idea, when some idiot decides to stop using our name, how about we decide to never post their thoughts on this site again?

 

Ignore them, all they want is attention anyway. Stop giving it to them.

 

~Bang



I'm starting to think the Reilly did more harm than good with that article. I am for keeping the name but was cringing while reading that article. I thought it was a terrible defense. Comparing the Redskins name to atheists offended by the New Orleans Saints. Really?!

i don't see why that is so cringe-worthy.

it's on par with the protest going on about our name now.

 

Reilly poked big fat holes in their complaint. With facts, realities, and actual people's opinions.

If that means they double down their efforts, so be it.

You can't ever convince an idiot when they're are wrong, and don't expect that to start now. Especially self-important douchebags from the 'media'.

they are an industry without shame, and as the state of the media is now, 'facts' and 'investigative journalism' to discover facts is not even part of the job description.

 

~Bang

Edited by Bang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an idea, when some idiot decides to stop using our name, how about we decide to never post their thoughts on this site again?

 

Ignore them, all they want is attention anyway. Stop giving it to them.

 

~Bang

i don't see why that is so cringe-worthy.

it's on par with the protest going on about our name now.

 

Reilly poked big fat holes in their complaint. With facts, realities, and actual people's opinions.

If that means they double down their efforts, so be it.

You can't ever convince an idiot when they're are wrong, and don't expect that to start now. Especially self-important douchebags from the 'media'.

they are an industry without shame, and as the state of the media is now, 'facts' and 'investigative journalism' to discover facts is not even part of the job description.

 

~Bang

 

 

Or it could be a matter of conscience for him.  Maybe he doesn't want to write a racial slur any more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how the article could have done more harm than good. I suppose if people just want the issue to go away, there's that. But he did a great job of calmly and objectively articulating the counterpoints to the points being made by other journalists.

 

Believe it or not, there isn't a right or wrong here. I have no doubt that most of the people who are speaking out against the name are doing so for the right reasons. Similarly, Reilly was just offering a differing viewpoint to make sure both sides are represented. If both sides are fairly represented in the public, it's easier to identify the main sticking points to both parties. I think this issue is here to stay at least at this level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or it could be a matter of conscience for him.  Maybe he doesn't want to write a racial slur any more.

then he'd do himself well by actually finding one so he doesn't have to write it.

 

if a person does something out of conscience, why do they feel the need to announce it?

Look at me. I'm so wonderful.

 

~Bang

Edited by Bang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm starting to think the Reilly did more harm than good with that article. I am for keeping the name but was cringing while reading that article. I thought it was a terrible defense. Comparing the Redskins name to atheists offended by the New Orleans Saints. Really?!

 

 

i read several responses to the article- all but one bashed reilly. 

 

i kind of feel bad for saying this, but i didnt understand the outrage directed at reilly. i still dont know if people took issue with the facts (i didnt see anyone specifically refute them), the last line about reservations (i understood what he was saying, and actually agreed wtih it), the saints comparison (before anyone cries BS, last week my wife showed me an exchange on some einstein high school facebook page where an atheist went back and forth demanding an apology and equal treatment because a member had asked for prayers for another member who had a family member get in a serious car accident and subsequently die- religious talk brings out the crazy in both the religious and non religious. it was lunacy).

 

and did anyone else mention the post on deadspin? "i hope the next article he writes is his suicide note". i mean, the hate reilly got, i was shocked. 

Edited by grego

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

then he'd do himself well by actually finding one so he doesn't have to write it.

 

if a person does something out of conscience, why do they feel the need to announce it?

Look at me. I'm so wonderful.

 

~Bang

 

So...are you of the opinion that no overt social action is ever warranted in any circumstance? Because an act of social conscience only truly become powerful once it becomes a political act.

 

Are you so cynical to believe that everyone who thinks the name is wrong is faking it?

i read several responses to the article- all but one bashed reilly. 

 

i kind of feel bad for saying this, but i didnt understand the outrage directed at reilly. i still dont know if people took issue with the facts (i didnt see anyone specifically refute them), the last line about reservations (i understood what he was saying, and actually agreed wtih it), the saints comparison (before anyone cries BS, last week my wife showed me an exchange on some einstein high school facebook page where an atheist went back and forth demanding an apology and equal treatment because a member had asked for prayers for another member who had a family member get in a serious car accident and subsequently die- religious talk brings out the crazy in both the religious and non religious. it was lunacy).

 

and did anyone else mention the post on deadspin? "i hope the next article he writes is his suicide note". i mean, the hate reilly got, i was shocked. 

 

The Reilly article is the confluence of a rising "Reilly is like Marmaduke in Written Form" movement and a rising "The Redskins name is wrong" movement. The fact that Reilly wrote a truly awful column in defense of something a lot of people feel is indefensible hit a particular blog sweet spot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i read several responses to the article- all but one bashed reilly. 

 

i kind of feel bad for saying this, but i didnt understand the outrage directed at reilly. i still dont know if people took issue with the facts (i didnt see anyone specifically refute them), the last line about reservations (i understood what he was saying, and actually agreed wtih it), the saints comparison (before anyone cries BS, last week my wife showed me an exchange on some einstein high school facebook page where an atheist went back and forth demanding an apology and equal treatment because a member had asked for prayers for another member who had a family member get in a serious car accident and subsequently die- religious talk brings out the crazy in both the religious and non religious. it was lunacy).

 

and did anyone else mention the post on deadspin? "i hope the next article he writes is his suicide note". i mean, the hate reilly got, i was shocked. 

The reality is people are stupid.  When said stupid people are proven to be so they get pissed off instead of using it as an learning experience.  Very much like my ex-girlfriend lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So...are you of the opinion that no overt social action is ever warranted in any circumstance? Because an act of social conscience only truly become powerful once it becomes a political act.

 

Are you so cynical to believe that everyone who thinks the name is wrong is faking it?

No, i'm not so cynical as to think that most who find it offensive are faking it.

I think they're wrong and they're not listening to those they pretend to champion.

I think they're wrapped up in themselves so much that they don't want to hear it when the Native Americans disagree with them. (they don't hear it, that's for sure.)

i think journalists are now making themselves the news by announcing their conscience.

i think it's self serving, artificial and plastic.

I think self serving artificial and plastic social movements are bull****, and serve no one.

This movement is not representative of the people it's supposedly being so sensitive toward.

It ignores them, in fact.

Reilly didn't write anything new, after all. All he did was confirm what was already factual and known.

I think that in this particular case, when the people who are supposedly so offended are saying that not only are they NOT offended, but feel honored by it, that when decidedly non-native journalists hop on a bandwagon to tell these people that they SHOULD be offended, that these social actions are completely out of line.

When the people these self-aggrandizing "journalists" pretend to champion say they're not offended, the cue is to then decide as a "journalist" to deal with fact of that, and not to continue to tell these people to go to hell. But that's what they do. They say, "who are you to tell me what offends you?"

You say you were shocked at the hate responses reilly got, and this is exactly where i have my problem with this entire thing.

these people didn't give a damn what reilly actually wrote, that he actually researched among actual natives and reported what he found out.

These folks working for 'social change' don't even bother to ask their society if they want it to change, and when they find out they'd rather keep it the way it is, and that they are actually proud of it, they respond with hatred. How do they do that if they are supposedly so sensitive to their feelings?

(Because they don't care about them. these "journalists" care about their Q rating, and how this announcement of their awesome conscience is going to affect it. Nothing more. they have cheerfully made themselves the story, interjected themselves into the news.)

to me THAT is what is the most offensive thing about all of this, and if we are going to change anything in society based on what is happening here, it is this propensity for the dense, unthinking mob to bully their way through no matter what.

to use a term I hate, this is like "reverse racism".. these supposedly sensitive bullies are no different than the whites in Alabama protesting against integrated schools 50 years ago. They were wrong, they ignored facts, they ignored pretty much everything but their own ignorant narrow point of view, and tried to shove their own small ignorance down everyone else's throats.

You say " alot of people feel this is indefensible", and yet whenever they actually ask natives, they say the op[posite.

Pardon me if I put more stock in their opinion on wheter they're offended as compared to whether Peter King thinks it is offensive, despite what they say.

shut up Native. the white man will civilize you yet.

I don't see it any differently.

~Bang

Edited by Bang
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The Reilly article is the confluence of a rising "Reilly is like Marmaduke in Written Form" movement and a rising "The Redskins name is wrong" movement. The fact that Reilly wrote a truly awful column in defense of something a lot of people feel is indefensible hit a particular blog sweet spot.

 

 

can you tell me specifically what part (or parts) of the article were 'awful'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I probably sound very prejudiced and close minded on the subject at times.

i'm not. If a majority of the people in question says they're offended, I am for changing. After all, in terms of this, it's not really my call. I am not of the group, and as such, do not have the personal experience to honestly say one way or another. I'll go with the group. Right now the group seems to like it, and in regards to facts vs the accusation, the facts have it.

But what is happening now is not even remotely close to that. Most of those making the call,..  it's not theirs to make.

 

~Bang

Edited by Bang
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a thread in the Tailgate for all of this. Someone starts a thread in the Stadium about this stuff seemingly every 5 minutes. Hopefully ou don't get banned.

Not sure if serious?

It may be just an alcohol-related incident that you found your way here into the TailgateZone? :lol: j/k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I probably sound very prejudiced and close minded on the subject at times.

i'm not. If a majority of the people in question says they're offended, I am for changing. After all, in terms of this, it's not really my call. I am not of the group, and as such, do not have the personal experience to honestly say one way or another. I'll go with the group. Right now the group seems to like it, and in regards to facts vs the accusation, the facts have it.

But what is happening now is not even remotely close to that. Most of those making the call,..  it's not theirs to make.

 

~Bang

 

This is how I feel with a slight change. I don't really care if it's a majority of the people in question saying that they're offended. I think a number far less than the majority should force consideration. But, some significant percentage of Native Americans should be offended for the team/league to consider a change.

 

If different tribes were speaking up every couple of months, I would get behind a name change (and probably hope that they would help in that process) even if they didn't make up a majority of the NA population. As it stands now though, a handful of people seem bothered by it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is how I feel with a slight change. I don't really care if it's a majority of the people in question saying that they're offended. I think a number far less than the majority should force consideration. But, some significant percentage of Native Americans should be offended for the team/league to consider a change.

That's me, too.

I don't think that a majority of Natives have to be offended.

I don't have some hard and fast magic number which triggers a threshold. (Frankly, I think that if a new poll showed a significant change from 10 years ago, that would certainly be a major telling point.)

I just think that, wherever the threshold is, it's got to be more than 9%.

Heck, I bet that 9% of Americans still think Obama hasn't shown enough birth certificates. I don't think they need to be catered to. (I'm not a Republican politician.)  :)

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.