Alaskins

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

Recommended Posts

No you won't. A name change won't change anything. Bullets did it. Redskins can do it and make money all through the process. You gonna cheer for the Patriots? Please.

I'll tell you this. I'll be a casual watcher. Maybe I'll catch the game, maybe I'll decide that hanging out at Gravelly Point is more fun. If they ever turn it around and start winning again, I'll join probably. But if the Redskins are going 8-8 or 4-12 by any other name, I won't watch religiously like I do now.

I said it a long time ago but it bears repeating. I am a fan of the NFL because of the Redskins, not the other way around.

To be perfectly honest, I hate the NFL. They have sold out so hard (and why shouldn't they, it's money) that watching a game is a chore. It's more like watching a string of advertisements interrupted by a 10 second play every now and again. This isn't the sport that I remember growing up watching. I have a laundry list of gripes about the NFL and the only thing that keeps me coming back every week is the Redskins.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not aware of the requirement that a word must be offensive the majority of the time, or else it's never offensive. :)

Me, I've certainly never heard it used that way. But then, my life experience is vastly different from what it would have been, if i had LOOKED like a Native, and if I had spent my life on a reservation. I have no trouble at all believing people who have lived under those conditions, when they tell stories, say, of being kicked out of diners for being Native.

But, to me, it's even simpler than that.

The oft-quoted Annenberg poll found that 9% of natives felt that the name of the football team was offensive. That's not a majority. But it's still thousands of people.

I don't think it's remotely possible that ALL of them were lying.

No, it seems blindingly obvious, to me, that there are thousands of people out there who DO find the word offensive. For one reason or another. (And, IMO, their reason really doesn't matter).

Again offensive and a slur are two entirely different things.  I can't control (nor can anyone) what one finds offensive. Redskins is not and never has been a slur.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it's also the case, Burg, that words can become offensive, over time.

For a good part of my youth, the n-word was simply a term to define black people. (Although I also have to confess that, for a good part of my youth, being openly racist against them was cool, too.)

 

I absolutely agree that words can evolve from a positive to a negative meaning. Silliest example is the name Percival or Percy.  Name came from the Arthurian knights and Percy was strong, noble, and powerful. Definitely not a dude to be messed with. For that reason, people began naming their children Percy. Eventually, the name flipped to the point where Percy was synonymous with nerdom and wimpiness. I think it got so bad that the name went almost totally out of fashion. Maybe the YA Percy books will bring it back.

 

Now, I disagree that the N-word (at least during my lifetime or my parents) was one of those neutral words that became negative. I think it always had negative associations. Maybe if we go back 200 years that wouldn't be the case, but I think you have to go back a good ways. Even then, I suspect it was a term used with derision and ugliness and not the polite term.

 

The fact that we as a culture have wrestled so hard with how to name blacks as a group is indicative of how the names have been used.

 

Edit: Re-read your post, Larry. It's possible that the N word might have had different regional meanings and it wasn't used in an ugly fashion where you grew up. It's hard to believe, but I don't know your experiences. Maybe it was.

Edited by Burgold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I take it that's "no".

I take it that's "No, but I've got an attitude, and I'm willing to maker up even more stuff"

 

What am I making up?

 

Would you like more proof?

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/in-minnesota-native-americans-march-rally-to-protest-redskins-name/2014/11/02/fc38b8d0-6299-11e4-836c-83bc4f26eb67_story.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/03/sports/football/washington-redskins-draw-protesters-in-minnesota-before-losing-in-griffins-return.html?_r=0

http://www.newser.com/story/198091/not-your-mascot-native-americans-protest-redskins.html

http://wamu.org/news/14/10/31/native_american_groups_prepare_for_sunday_protest_of_redskins_name_in_minnesota

 

The links contain images and videos which underscore the scope of the protest. 

 

How many other sports teams experience this?

 

I'm done if the name changes.

I've stuck by this team through 20 something years of losing. I'm done with football if the DC team isn't the Redskins any longer.

 

Ill admit, when the name issue become prominent in 2013 I felt the same way. 

 

But keep in mind that the history will remain in tact. We won't lose our Super Bowl trophies and Sammy and Joe's Redskins info will remain in Canton. I also doubt the team would undergo a huge visual transformation. It's still possible to rock the burgundy and gold (best color combo in pro sports) w/o the name and native imagery. 

 

This decision hasn't been easy for me at all, in fact I wrestled with it for a long time. I'm a huge fan and some of my fondest memories are going to RFK with my father and grandfather. In fact, this team was the only bond I ever had with my father. 

 

But I think it's time we embrace change and move on. At this point we're trending towards GPM's refusal to allow black players to play for the team. 

 

This is another point that I've considered deeply.

 

What if "Redskins" is a deeply venomous slur, but to only some tribes? We like talking about Native Americans as one homogeneous group. Frankly, that's racist. They are many separate cultures. It is reasonable to think that within these different cultures, they have had different experiences.

 

Maybe globally, across all Native American experience the Annenburg poll is correct and 90% are correct that the word is inoffensive and has never been used as a slur against them.  Maybe also in some regions of the country or against certain Native Nations the word was used with hostility.

 

What then?

 

I can tell you living on the East Coast my whole life I have never heard the word being used as an insult or pejorative. I certainly don't doubt that people living in Arizona could have a different experience.  On the silly side of logic, I watched a lot of Cowboy movies growing up and when they wanted to insult them they didn't call them Redskins, but dirty injuns. Redskins was used in the Cowboy movies, but more as a clinical term. The white man's land. The Red Man's land. That kind of thing.

 

But somewhere, somewhen Redskin may be an insult. Is it today? Was it widespread? Is it a cancer that needs to be cut out?

 

The mascot argument is also interesting. I'm not sure that I buy it, but I can buy that seeing someone dressed in head dresses might be viewed as mocking your culture. Chief Wahoo is certainly an ugly, racist, stereotypical image. Do the Irish feel that way about Nortre Dame? Do they suffer ill effects? What about Scandinavian people? Are they harmed by the Vikings?

 

I think we are making simple arguments in the light of something complex. I do think it's also useful to be wary of the arguments made by those who clearly seem to be profiteering off the issue: UnWise Mike, Harjo, Halbritter, and the like. What they are doing is probably more hateful and hurtful because they are trying to turn the name into something hateful. 

 

I'm on the pro Redskin side mainly because the data leans that way. I can change. I also know that words are fluid. People like Wise, Harjo, and Halbritter could change the word. It can be a word of history, pride, and tradition and be twisted into one filled with hate, distrust and abuse. I think the latter manipulation is a very sad outcome.

 

another good argument Burgold. 

 

Not all native tribes are the same. They have different languages, customs, cultures ,etc. There really isn't a "one size fits all" approach for all indigenous tribes. 

 

As for Hollywood movies using the word "redskins" as a slur, I give you these:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/wp/2014/06/18/here-are-some-of-the-movie-clips-cited-in-the-redskins-trademark-case/

 

How many Scandinavian people speaking Norse do you know out there? What about Leprechauns? Where's the nearest leprechaun village? Native Americans aren't extinct mystical creatures. 

 

I agree with you the UnWise Mike, Harjo, and Halbritter have hurt the movement more than helping. I wish the Seminole gentleman I met n North Florida could have his voice heard. He listened to me and assured me that our team and fans never intended to harm. But he also told me that the only feelings he got from the name were negative. 

 

What data? Are we still citing the Annenberg poll? From my post a few pages back

 

About that 2004 Annenberg poll. 
 
The survey asked random people if they were Native American; but did not follow with any additional questions about tribal membership, level of heritage, or affiliation. Nor did it question whether said person lives on a reservation.
 
Which poses another problem, many reservations are economically depressed and lack basic first world necessitates such as touch-tone phones. 
 
And now the self-identification problem:
 
In the name change debate, how many times have we heard “Well I’m 1/16th Cherokee, but it’s on my mother’s father’s side.” 
 
The fact is that tribes have specific membership requirements.  Most tribes either require proof that an ancestor was a tribal member, or that you are at least a 1/8th member of the tribe — meaning at least one grandparent was a full-blooded tribal member.
 
There could have been 700 Elizabeth Warren's on the other end of the line...we'll never know if those polled were actually Native American. 
 
The polling question:
 
Here's the question surveyors asked the 700 "self-identified" Native Americans on the phone:
 
“The professional football team in Washington calls itself the Washington Redskins.  As a Native American, do you find that name offensive or doesn’t it bother you?”
 
Sounds confusing to me, especially when the polling folks were looking for a Yes/No answer. 

 

 

^

From my post on age 267

 

I tend to agree with this, but where is that niche. It really doesn't exist. As been stated here, a slur transcends geographical boundaries, its like wildfire. Most everybody in this thread save for a couple posters have never heard it used as a slur and most others heard it through another source. 

 

I've proposed other races have to have an opinion in this because we would be the offenders. Most people have heard every slur about every race. Don't you think it would have permeated through to the general population a little more?

 

Anyway, if you honor a certain tribe that may represent a vast minority (and the reasoning will be left out for arguments sake) than that creates a slippery slope. Honestly, regardless of cause, if some group is offended, a precedence will be set. I usually reference PETA and the Packers here. No the issue isn't race, but many just as passionate. Another I have stated can be offensive on a more serious note is the Saints.

 

Lastly, it was proposed than debunked that no other sports franchises use race as a mascot. See Boston Celtics. Are Irish offended by this, most probably not. Are some possible offended by the mock jig Notre Dame students do after scores, similar to chants and chops, probably not. It is using the likeness of culture in a similar fashion. However, students going to Notre Dame game in Belfast in past were told not to wear clothing that said 'Fighting Irish' and had Leprechaun. Now, what about the offensiveness to other cultures, etc.

 

I just don't think niches that could be offended by extrapolating possible offensive use from a name should influence the overall issue.

 

When did a nationality (Irish) become a race?

 

Redskins is not and never has been a slur.

 

Not true. We've had multiple indigenous guests in this thread who have heard the word used as a slur or experienced it firsthand. 

 

Billy Mills (Lakota-Sioux) is a gold medalist Olympian. He penned an op-ed in which he was called "dirty redskin" by the locals. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What am I making up?

1). Your claim that the name was protested by 5,000 Natives

2). Your claim that I said "it was just a handful of white kids"

Would you like more proof?

3). Your claim that you've provided "proof" of #1 and #2.

Can't wait to see what you make up for #4.

Edited by Larry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Larry, I was there for the Minnesota game last year. My eyeballs could see at least a thousand people partaking in the protest once the march finished with a rally next to the stadium.The rally area was fenced off and there virtually no football fans present, despite the throngs of (mostly purple) fans surrounding the rally. It was easy to tell who was who, protester vs. game goer. Two to three thousand is more probable, five thousand would be my ceiling. Most people appeared to have Indigenous ties based on their clothing, signs, chants, etc. No way of knowing for sure, but the message was very clear.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep seeing people ask "where are the counter protesters?". Well...:

1. Protesting against this would be a PC nightmare. The average citizen would be ok with it or not care, but the media would have a field day.

2. I'm guessing everyone ok with the name would be inside the stadium watching it or watching the game on tv.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

another good argument Burgold. 

 

 

How many Scandinavian people speaking Norse do you know out there? What about Leprechauns? Where's the nearest leprechaun village? Native Americans aren't extinct mystical creatures. 

 

I'd be really wary about using the language argument, Boss. I'm Jewish, but can't speak Hebrew. I know a lot of people who'd be made at you for saying not knowing their traditional language disqualifies them from their group. I suspect that qualifier is even worse amongst Native peoples. Many languages have gone extinct through acculturation. I have a friend working in Guatemala who's objective is to try to bring back some of the native dialects and traditions before they disappear completely.

 

There are many people of Native blood who are not active parts of a native community or can't be because there are so few of their tribe left.

 

In some ways, the Redskins we hearken too are the ancient mythical people. How many Natives where headdresses or use spears. I think they would be really insulted if they thought that was how they lived today.Much like if you want to Norway or Denmark and complained that no one was wearing furs with their funny horned hats. 

I keep seeing people ask "where are the counter protesters?". Well...: 1. Protesting against this would be a PC nightmare. The average citizen would be ok with it or not care, but the media would have a field day. 2. I'm guessing everyone ok with the name would be inside the stadium watching it or watching the game on tv.

The counter protest in reality is everyone who buys tickets, t-shirts, caps, and the like. They are speaking with their cheers, their singing of the team fight song, their allegiance to the team. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Larry, I was there for the Minnesota game last year. My eyeballs could see at least a thousand people partaking in the protest once the march finished with a rally next to the stadium.The rally area was fenced off and there virtually no football fans present, despite the throngs of (mostly purple) fans surrounding the rally. It was easy to tell who was who, protester vs. game goer. Two to three thousand is more probable, five thousand would be my ceiling. Most people appeared to have Indigenous ties based on their clothing, signs, chants, etc. No way of knowing for sure, but the message was very clear.

 

And I don;t really have a problem with estimates of the crowd size.  Yeah, I'm well aware that whenever there's a protest, at least some of the people involved have a really strong desire to over- or under-estimate the protest size.  And yeah, it's been pointed out that the 5,000 number is the number claimed by the protest organizers.  (And is, therefore, pretty much guaranteed to be intentionally inflated.) 

 

But frankly, so what?  Maybe the actual number was closer to 4,000.  Big deal.  I'm certainly not going to waste time arguing it.  (Especially since the only way to argue it would be to point at somebody else's WAG.) 

 

What I do have a problem with, is the assertion that there were (the biggest number I can find) protesters, and that every single one of them was native

 

Really? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What am I making up?

Would you like more proof?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/in-minnesota-native-americans-march-rally-to-protest-redskins-name/2014/11/02/fc38b8d0-6299-11e4-836c-83bc4f26eb67_story.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/03/sports/football/washington-redskins-draw-protesters-in-minnesota-before-losing-in-griffins-return.html?_r=0

http://www.newser.com/story/198091/not-your-mascot-native-americans-protest-redskins.html

http://wamu.org/news/14/10/31/native_american_groups_prepare_for_sunday_protest_of_redskins_name_in_minnesota

The links contain images and videos which underscore the scope of the protest.

How many other sports teams experience this?

Ill admit, when the name issue become prominent in 2013 I felt the same way.

But keep in mind that the history will remain in tact. We won't lose our Super Bowl trophies and Sammy and Joe's Redskins info will remain in Canton. I also doubt the team would undergo a huge visual transformation. It's still possible to rock the burgundy and gold (best color combo in pro sports) w/o the name and native imagery.

This decision hasn't been easy for me at all, in fact I wrestled with it for a long time. I'm a huge fan and some of my fondest memories are going to RFK with my father and grandfather. In fact, this team was the only bond I ever had with my father.

But I think it's time we embrace change and move on. At this point we're trending towards GPM's refusal to allow black players to play for the team.

another good argument Burgold.

Not all native tribes are the same. They have different languages, customs, cultures ,etc. There really isn't a "one size fits all" approach for all indigenous tribes.

As for Hollywood movies using the word "redskins" as a slur, I give you these:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/wp/2014/06/18/here-are-some-of-the-movie-clips-cited-in-the-redskins-trademark-case/

How many Scandinavian people speaking Norse do you know out there? What about Leprechauns? Where's the nearest leprechaun village? Native Americans aren't extinct mystical creatures.

I agree with you the UnWise Mike, Harjo, and Halbritter have hurt the movement more than helping. I wish the Seminole gentleman I met n North Florida could have his voice heard. He listened to me and assured me that our team and fans never intended to harm. But he also told me that the only feelings he got from the name were negative.

What data? Are we still citing the Annenberg poll? From my post a few pages back

^

From my post on age 267

When did a nationality (Irish) become a race?

Not true. We've had multiple indigenous guests in this thread who have heard the word used as a slur or experienced it firsthand.

Billy Mills (Lakota-Sioux) is a gold medalist Olympian. He penned an op-ed in which he was called "dirty redskin" by the locals.

Sorry for quoting whole thing, but it nothing less than ridiculous to consider Redskin a race any less than Celtic.

Please stop going there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

That's simply not true:

 

Brian Cladoosby, the president of the NCAI: ...but only when

 

 

You're right, and overall, especially with the media, it really was well received.

Edited by Spearfeather

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1). Your claim that the name was protested by 5,000 Natives

2). Your claim that I said "it was just a handful of white kids"

3). Your claim that you've provided "proof" of #1 and #2.

Can't wait to see what you make up for #4.

 

1) See my links from highly reputable journalism companies

 

2) Comment was in jest

 

3) See bullet point one

 

4) I'm just warming up

 

I'd be really wary about using the language argument, Boss. I'm Jewish, but can't speak Hebrew. I know a lot of people who'd be made at you for saying not knowing their traditional language disqualifies them from their group. I suspect that qualifier is even worse amongst Native peoples. Many languages have gone extinct through acculturation. I have a friend working in Guatemala who's objective is to try to bring back some of the native dialects and traditions before they disappear completely.

 

There are many people of Native blood who are not active parts of a native community or can't be because there are so few of their tribe left.

 

In some ways, the Redskins we hearken too are the ancient mythical people. How many Natives where headdresses or use spears. I think they would be really insulted if they thought that was how they lived today.Much like if you want to Norway or Denmark and complained that no one was wearing furs with their funny horned hats. 

The counter protest in reality is everyone who buys tickets, t-shirts, caps, and the like. They are speaking with their cheers, their singing of the team fight song, their allegiance to the team. 

 

Much respect to your Burgold, but I'm afraid I wasn't clear in my post. 

 

How many Vikings are in this country? Do we still have folks of Scandinavian lineage wearing horns on their heads? (Flava Flav doesn't count) And of course one doesn't have to know Norse to be Scandinavian or a Viking, I was using the language as am example. 

 

Vikings are extinct Germanic seafarers.

 

Native Americans are 5 million living and breathing people in our country. 

 

B1jA6cCIYAAvdzU.jpg

 

As for the counter protest:

 

Many on this board claims Natives are cool with the name, don't care or are fans of the team. Someone accused the name debate of being nothing more but a "white wash" of all things native. 

 

Well if that's the case don't you think the activists would be out there to denounce said "white wash?" Why aren't the protesting on our side to preserve all native imagery in sports?

 

Also, props to your friend in Guatemala, I think that's awesome what he's doing. 

 

 

Sorry for quoting whole thing, but it nothing less than ridiculous to consider Redskin a race any less than Celtic.

Please stop going there

 

Celt or Celtic:

 

The Celts were people in Medieval Europe who spoke Celtic languages and had cultural similarities. How many celtics reside in this country today? Sure we have descendants from celtics but where are the actual celtic peoples? Same goes for vikings...where are all the active vikings at?

 

the two teams you cite are the Fighting Irish and the Boston Celtics. Have those two mascots been clinically prove to harm white kids of Irish ancestory? Do either one of those team have fans dress up in sacred tribal clothes and mock them? I'll take your Celtics and Irish and raise our team, the chiefs, braves, seminoles, indians, and blackhawks.

 

Tell me something, why does the smallest race in our country (5 million) have 6 professional sports teams using them as mascots? It used to be 7 but the Warriors dropped the Indian logo for the golden gate bridge.

 

Also, are you assuming all people in Ireland and the UK are white? Is that where your getting this whole "it's okay because white people are used as sports mascots too" thing?

 

You're right, and overall, especially with the media, it really was well received.

 

Again, your claims that OAF was well received by native Americans is fiction. 

 

Native Americans Blast Redskins Gambit To Defuse Name Controversy With Financial Contributions

http://thinkprogress.org/sports/2014/03/24/3418459/amid-name-controversy-washington-redskins-launch-foundation-to-help-native-americans/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just so long as you recognize other races are and have been used, good.

 

Why does the smallest race have so many mascots used... Maybe, stay with me here because its a real crazy idea, they were honoring and respecting them. Mind-blowing, I know.

 

But, I get it, they don't need to be honored by people they don't associate with and fought with. But really, that's probably why. And as much as you don't want to accept it, most other races (including caucasian) sympathize with NA past.

 

The 'we're not mascots' stance I respect, I do. And if every NA imagery was removed I would be OK- I've said that all along (my biggest gripe is the scapegoat the Redskins are). It would be a shame, because bottom line is, by and large, it is meant to honor the positive aspects of NA history. Really

 

As far as white Irish American kids being influenced by a mascot, it's palpable my friend. Have you ever seen the ND mascot tattoed on someones arm, neck or back. They may or may not be a ND fan. Trust me, it means a lot more. If you think for a second it doesn't serve a a symbol to many disenfranchised Irish Americans than I personally would take issue with you. And yes, the students imitate a jig in the stands every Saturday.

 

And for the record, I NEVER said 'white people are using mascots for themselves so its ok'. In fact, I said certain white people (or any color) may be offended by the ND mascot and name. I just proved you wrong from a couple days ago when you incorrectly stated no other race is a mascot.

Edited by Bonez3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always thought of ways to honor people of different races. Never really associated mascots of a sports team with honoring said races though. But maybe thats just me :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

 

 

Not true. We've had multiple indigenous guests in this thread who have heard the word used as a slur or experienced it firsthand. 

 

Billy Mills (Lakota-Sioux) is a gold medalist Olympian. He penned an op-ed in which he was called "dirty redskin" by the locals. 

What part of commonly used just can't get through your head?  By your definition any word that has ever been used to cast an aspersion is a slur.  Guess what that is likely just about every single noun in any language.

Edited by nonniey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always thought of ways to honor people of different races. Never really associated mascots of a sports team with honoring said races though. But maybe thats just me :)

Maybe not just you, but certainly has been done by some. Mind bottling 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) See my links from highly reputable journalism companies

From your first "highly reputable journalism company":

 

On a broad grassy patch behind them, a throng of Native Americans, students and other activists chanted, sang, banged drums and waved banners: “Change the Name Now” and “Stop Racism in the NFL.” University of Minnesota police put the estimated crowd at 3,500 to 4,000. Organizers estimated it at 5,000.

 

Not 5,000 Natives.  4,000 people, some of whom were Natives. 

 

From your second link: 

 

Sunday’s rally attracted 1,500 people, according to university and Vikings officials, but Chief Greg Hestness of the campus police department said the crowd was closer to 4,000. It was certainly the biggest protest here since January 1992, when about 2,000 converged on the Metrodome before Washington beat Buffalo in Super Bowl XXVI, 37-24.

Not 5,000 Natives.  4,000 people, with no mention at all of their ethnicity. 

 

From your third "highly reputable journalism company ":  (Newser.  Who does not say where they got their information that all 3,200 protesters were Native.) 

 

Arriving in Minneapolis, the team was met with chants of "Who are we? Not your mascot!" from some 3,200 protesting Native Americans who were none too happy with the "Redskins" moniker. "My Hubby Did Not Fight in Iraq To Be Called A 'Redskin,' read one sign.

 

From your fourth "highly reputable journalism company". 

 

At TCF Bank Stadium in Minneapolis, Minnesota, thousands turned out to protest the Redskins name before the team's game against the Minnesota Vikings. 

 

Carrying signs with slogans like "#NotYourMiscot," Native American protesters gathered in traditional ceremonial garb to call for Washington's team to change their name and mascot, which they describe as racist and hurtful.

 

Two separate paragraphs.  "Thousands turnned out". 

 

 

And "Native protesters wore".

 

2) Comment was in jest

 

 

Been known to do that, myself, so I guess I can't complain.  Although, as I pointed out, it's a really weak response to somebody asking you to back up something you've claimed. 

 

3) See bullet point one

 

Four swings, and four misses. 

 

(And, I will point out, your "proof" came after you claimed that you had provided it.) 

 

In short, you claimed that you had already provided "proof", had not even attempted to do so, then offered "more proof".  Which wasn't. 

 

4) I'm just warming up

 

I believe you. 

 

In my experience, people who make things up, and then, when people call them on it, respond by making more things up, rarely learn anything, the second time they make the same mistake. 

 

Have you heard the one about "What do you do, when you're in a hole that's deeper than you are?" 

 

----------

 

And I really love the assertion that the descendents of vikings aren't vikings (because they don't wear horns on their heads any more).  And that the descendants of the Celts aren't celts any more, because they don;t speak Celtic any more.  But that the descendants of Natives are Natives, not "descendants of Natives".  (For some unspecified reasons.) 

 

That's some real high class logic, there. 

Edited by Larry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right. Im totally bottled...

 

I'm not sure if I'm too bottled, or not bottled enough. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 because bottom line is, by and large, it is meant to honor the positive aspects of NA history.

 

You're correct about the bottom line, but not the honoring. Native themes are a product of $howbusiness. The Boston Braves/Redskins native theme was a marriage of economic convenience for the team's founder. The concept of "honoring" our noble savage warrior mascots is a more recent phenomenon; coming to life after NAs got a voice in the 1960s. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They were the Braves before the Redskins. I understand keeping the NA imagery for uniform reasons or whatever. But what economic convenience was it naming team Braves (and not our owner per se, B/C baseball team started that)? Outside of just general respect, IDK.

Edited by Bonez3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Again, your claims that OAF was well received by native Americans is fiction. 

 

 

Perhaps you misunderstood.

 

I responded to a comment about OAF being quiet, by saying

 

" If I was Snyder I'd keep the workings of OAF quiet too, The media showed him no mercy ...

 

 

 

and this:

I think advertising every gesture made by OAF would just give the media more  opportunity to bash the name and Snyder, but maybe you're right. I mean, there was nothing but praise for him and OAF when it was announced.

( sarcasm )

 

You then responded with a comment from the NCAI ( are they the media ? ), basically saying thanks but no thanks until he changes the name.

 

I then said this:

 

You're right, and overall, especially with the media, it really was well received

( again, sarcasm )

.

You responded with this:

 

Again, your claims that OAF was well received by native Americans is fiction. 

 

 

I never claimed it was ( even though it obviously was by some ) but of course it wasn't well received by NCAI ( formerly led by Walter Wetzel ).

 

I never said it was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They were the Braves before the Redskins. I understand keeping the NA imagery for uniform reasons or whatever. But what economic convenience was it naming team Braves (and not our owner per se, B/C baseball team started that)? Outside of just general respect, IDK.

The economic convenience was piggy backing off the MLB franchise with whom early pro football teams shared stadiums. Native themed fantasy was huge in western films and pop culture at the time. Playing indian was an easy sell.

 

Some players from the mid 30s Redskins teams performed as Native Warriors in half time shows. There was no half time meeting or rest for those players. Not to mention they had to change in and out of their Indian costumes from their game unis. The owner would hand pick the players he deemed would perform best as actors. Can't imagine there was much "honoring" on anybodies mind. But, that's jmo.

  • Like 1

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.