Alaskins

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

Recommended Posts

A&P Supermarkets refuse to use potential racial slur in their advertisements.

-Fairfax, VA

Despite assertion that the name has entirely benign origins, national supermarket chain A&P considers the name to be offensive and has removed it from its upcoming ad campaign aimed at selling party foods for the upcoming NFL draft.

"For many fans, this day is almost like Superbowl day of the offseason. They throw parties and argue over selections while wolfing down snacks in front of the TV," A&P CEO Norman Greenbaum explains. "It's a great opportunity to capitalize on food and snack sales, but we can't let racial epithets be a part of that, regardless of the beliefs or attitudes of our consumers."

Others seem less convinced.

"It's a goddamn cookie!" snapped diehard football fan and Oreo lover Len Pasquarelli. "If they don't wanna sell them, I'll buy a case from (expletive deleted) Safeway!"

"You can't dispute what's clearly printed in the dictionary," commentator Bob Costas insisted. "It's a racist term, end of story. Perhaps someday Nabisco will accept responsibility for the damage it has done to the African-American community."

Rest at link....

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A&P filed for chapter 11 in 2015. This could be a marketing ploy to woo back customers

 

...Or drive more people away

Edited by Boss_Hogg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Besides, after "Spirit in the Sky", Norman Greenbaum isn't worth listening to.

 

~Bang

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If need be, we can use our "arrow" helmet or the "R" helmet.


Apparently the Giants refer to us as Washington on their schedule and everyone else is referred to by their nickname.

We can just call them New Jersey.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New poll finds 9 in 10 Native Americans aren’t offended by Redskins name

 

Nine in 10 Native Americans say they are not offended by the Washington Redskins name, according to a new Washington Post poll that shows how few ordinary Indians have been persuaded by a national movement to change the football team’s moniker.
 
The survey of 504 people in every state and the District reveals that the minds of Native Americans have remained unchanged since a 2004 poll by the Annenberg Public Policy Center found the exact same result. Responses to The Post’s questions about the issue were broadly consistent regardless of age, income, education, political party or proximity to reservations.
 
Among the Native Americans reached over a five-month period ending in April, more than 7 in 10 said they did not feel the word “Redskin” was disrespectful to Indians. An even higher number — 8 in 10 — said they would not be offended if a non-native called them that name.

 

More from the link.

 

Ci0ki9YUkAEagAq.jpg

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same results as Annenberg. WaPo didn't take into account the fact that those who are outspoken on the issue are actually the only opinions that count, therefore the results of the survey are useless.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same results as Annenberg. WaPo didn't take into account the fact that those who are outspoken on the issue are actually the only opinions that count, therefore the results of the survey are useless.

 

Are you being sarcastic? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did people read the verbatims by respondants?

 

This is an absolute stunner to me that after the millions spent against the name the last 3 years, attitude remain unchanged by Native Americans. Overwhelming 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can change the name, but don't change the logo and colors. 

 

Agreed.  The logo is all that matters to me.  I'll always call them the Redskins but trying to champion the idea that the term "Redskin" isn't offensive is a loser. 

 

I'm 1/4 Cherokee and have given up trying to change peoples minds.  I just want to watch football and every station, the NFL, ESPN, etc..should just refer to teams by their city if it's such a big deal right now. 

Snyder has BOTCHED the argument against keeping the name.  He never once referred to the Beothuk tribe or how Native American's self identified with the term "Redskin."

 

I'd say that changing the name to the Warriors and setting a date for a name change (5 to 7 years) so that he doesn't eat the cost of already produced merchandise would be fine. 

At some point the loudest voices will prevail, because we are too liberal these days, and it will take the focus off of football.  I support the name change, especially since we aren't going to fight this whole thing the correct way.

 

http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/09/09/220654611/are-you-ready-for-some-controversy-the-history-of-redskin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did people read the verbatims by respondants?

 

This is an absolute stunner to me that after the millions spent against the name the last 3 years, attitude remain unchanged by Native Americans. Overwhelming 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly can't believe Florio let Smith publish this story.  He's so anti-Redskins it's ridiculous. 

 

That said, just because Native American's don't think it's offensive doesn't mean that it isn't offensive.

 

If we are going to stick with the notion that it's a sign of "warpaint" then I'm on board.

If it's because of someone's skin color....change it but we need to pick a lane...I mean Snyder needs to pick a lane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That said, just because Native American's don't think it's offensive doesn't mean that it isn't offensive.

I have a tough time with this logic. The only people that the relative offensivenss of the name matter sarethe Native American peoples. Their view matters. If they don't feel they are being disparaged. More, if they feel they are being honored and respected that is ALL that matters.

 

I have long complained (including in this thread) that something stinks about the fact that there hadn't been another poll of Native Americans. After all, polls are cheap, easy, and can be accurately done. When I worked at VOR, we could get a scientifically sound, national poll produced for about $5,000.

 

There's only one reason why polls weren't being done. Someone didn't want to get that answer. This answer matters. The rest of it is nonsense.What UnWise Mike thinks is offensive is non sense. What I think is non sense. What they think about it and how it impacts them matters.

 

Period.

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That said, just because Native American's don't think it's offensive doesn't mean that it isn't offensive.

 

This is a great victory for those of us who think this entire issue is bogus.

 

When the justification shifts from the claim that people are being disparaged to: The people that are being disparaged don't think they are being disparaged, but that doesn't matter....

 

Well, then they've lost.

 

Victory, yay!

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a tough time with this logic. The only people that the relative offensivenss of the name matter sarethe Native American peoples. Their view matters. If they don't feel they are being disparaged. More, if they feel they are being honored and respected that is ALL that matters.

 

I have long complained (including in this thread) that something stinks about the fact that there hadn't been another poll of Native Americans. After all, polls are cheap, easy, and can be accurately done. When I worked at VOR, we could get a scientifically sound, national poll produced for about $5,000.

 

There's only one reason why polls weren't being done. Someone didn't want to get that answer. This answer matters. The rest of it is nonsense.What UnWise Mike thinks is offensive is non sense. What I think is non sense. What they think about it and how it impacts them matters.

 

Period.

 

I understand that a majority of the NA's aren't offended but that doesn't mean it isn't offensive.  That's the only logic I'm using here. 

 

You can't talk about skin color, in today's age, and not expect the tide to shift against that language.

 

I'm sick of the narrative and the lawmakers will never support the notion that "Redskin" isn't offensive.  As much as I hate Florio, he's right on this one.  There's no advantage to not changing the name and having an open mind.  It's about football and that logo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that a majority of the NA's aren't offended but that doesn't mean it isn't offensive.  That's the only logic I'm using here. 

Sketchy logic. If they say they aren't offended and in fact 73% find it a term of respect... it's hard then to pivot and say this proves that they find it offensive.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that a majority of the NA's aren't offended but that doesn't mean it isn't offensive.  That's the only logic I'm using here. 

 

You can't talk about skin color, in today's age, and not expect the tide to shift against that language.

 

I'm sick of the narrative and the lawmakers will never support the notion that "Redskin" isn't offensive.  As much as I hate Florio, he's right on this one.  There's no advantage to not changing the name and having an open mind.  It's about football and that logo.

Well then, there's no hope for you. "Redskin(s)" is a native term first used by Native Americans long long ago. Just because the term has/had been co-opted and distorted by some to be used a a porjarative does not make it so. And the logo? I don't think anyone with an open and lucid mind ever questioned that.

 

I'd suggest the only contex you've ever used the term "Redskins" is with the football team. But it's just my opinion.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  There's no advantage to not changing the name and having an open mind.  It's about football and that logo.

 

And just like you said, it's about "football."  I've lived all up and down the east coast from Maryland to Florida and not once in my 48 years have I ever heard anyone call a Native American, "Redskin" as a pejorative.  I've heard "chief," "blanket ass," "squaw" or "savage", but the only time I've heard Redskin used is in old cowboy movies and in reference to our football team.

 

I'll quote Allen Iverson- "We talking about a football team.  A football team."

Edited by pjfootballer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The team shouldn't say anything more then what was said today and must pivot to insist that "Redskins" specifically refers to the NFL team located in the Washington DC area. Nothing more, nothing less. 

 

Changing the logo from the current to the old school '70s R would be helpful. And I think fans should avoid wearing the Native American painting and head dresses to the games

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sketchy logic. If they say they aren't offended and in fact 73% find it a term of respect... it's hard then to pivot and say this proves that they find it offensive.

 

Did you expect them to say "Well darn, I guess we were wrong. Sorry about that!" ?

 

Best we can hope for is that the number of people crying for the name to be changed dwindles a bit.

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.