• Blog Entries

    • By Destino in ES Coverage
         1
      Good afternoon Redskins fans!  I have once again been invited to sit in the relative comfort of the press box and shout my thoughts into the void via this blog.  As you watch the game today and see the rain  pour relentlessly from the heavens, know that I am safe and dry.  Know also that @Spaceman Spiff is out there somewhere, cold and unappreciated, rolling around in the muck trying to capture that perfect picture.  Maybe say a little prayer for his health (or laugh, whatever, I’m not judging you).  Also, be sure not to miss the pictures he posts on this site after each game.     
       
      Before we get into today's Redskins game, I want give some thanks for more positive occurrences in DC sports.  Congrats to the Washington Mystics for winning their first championship.  Congrats go out to the Washington Nationals as well for reaching the world series.  These two teams (along with the Caps) are working hard to change the sports related mood around this town, and we're all happier for it. 
       
      Lets move now into less cheerful topics, namely your Washington Redskins!  Yow know things are going bad, and I mean really dang bad, when your team has gone through three quarterbacks and two coaches and your not even half way through the season.  Today's fresh hell comes in the form of a specter of the our recent past coming to smirk at our misfortune.  Im talking of course of Kyle.  Kyle's spent the week assuring everyone that he isn’t holding a grudge, while very obviously holding a grudge.  “Everything else.”  You know what I’m talking about. 
       
      If all he brought to town were his hurt feelings we wouldn’t have a problem.  Sadly, he’s arrived with an undefeated football team that the NFL says we have to play this week.  This feels entirely unfair. 
       
      My generic key to the game:  Run the ball and stop the run.  The team (spoiler alert: 49ers) that does this today will win.   
       
      Redskins Inactives  
      QB Colt McCoy  
      S Deshazor Everett  
      CB Josh Norman  
      RB Chris THompson  
      LB Josh Harvey-Clemons 
      G Wes Martin  
      TE Vernon Davis  
       
      49ers inactives  
      QB CJ Beathard 
      WR Deebo Samuel  
      CB Ahkello Witherspoon  
      FB Kyle Juszczyk 
      T Mike McGLinchey 
      T Joe Staley 
      DL DJ Jones 
       
      1st Quarter Update
      Redskins 0 – 0 49ers
       
      Callahan wasn’t playing around when he said he wanted to run the ball.  That first drive was all runs, and looked great... right up until they tried to pass the ball.  Hopkins missed the relatively short fied goal, because of course he did.     

      Maybe Quinn isn’t a good choice to be returning punts?  Consider it.    
       
      That second Redskins drive looked more like what we’ve come to expect from this offense.  Run for negative yards, pass dropped, and an unsuccessful screen pass.  A quintessential Redskins three and out. 

      Passing yards this quarter:  Redskins 3. 49ers 9.  Are you not entertained?! 
       
      Half Time Update
      Redskins 0 – 0 49ers 
       
      How happy are you to spend your Sunday afternoon watching this game?  Consider that some people paid money, to sit in a poncho, in the rain, to watch this game. 
       
      It’s now time for those half time adjustments that our beloved skins do so well.  It’s unlikely the second half mirrors the first. 
       
      3rd Quarter Update 
      Redskins 0 – 3 49ers  
       
      Good news, this game will not end in a 0-0 tie.  Those half time adjustments have kicked in as expected and the 49ers have found a way onto the scoreboard in this messy throwback game.  The Redskins have decided to spend the second half collecting holding penalties and sadness.  Mercifully, only one quarter remains. 
       
      End of Game Update 
      Redskins 0 – 9 49ers 
       
      Callahan hasn’t spent much time as the head coach of the Washington Redskins, but he’s already proven that his team can waste 2nd half timeouts like a veteran.  It makes little sense to adopt a strategy that shortens the game when your team is losing, and it makes even less sense when your team is short on time outs.  I’m not really sure what the thinking as late in this game.    
       
      Next week Kirk Cousins!   
       
       
Alaskins

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

Recommended Posts

rfk, i have to disagree here. i dont know what the 1930s has to do with a prominent native american asking the redskins to put a chief on the helmet because the team wasnt native american enough.

There are some Natives who approve of what we do today, and some who even encourage it. But you don't hear much from them. Blame the media. What can't be debated is our name and theme were conceived by a man who flaunted his (less than steller) rep when it came to human rights issues.

i can find very little evidence of the name as a slur.

Neither can I in a historical context, but times have changed. What hasn't changed is the name refers to an oppressed group whose cause has been gradually gaining support in the public eye.

i dont know about you, but when i take a close look at who's complaining about the name, while native american high schools continue to use this 'obvious slur' as their mascots, i become skeptical.

This is where I make the Chris Rock analogy. Not everyone can do and say something on the basis that someone else is already doing the same. Then there's NWA and Guns-N-Roses. Both acts used the N word 25 years ago, but it didn't go over well with critics who questioned the latter.

im not sure i've heard this. but i do think its relevant. when it comes to native american high schools, it shows that, at the very least, there is wide disagreement about the name.

True dat. But the gap is closing and we're steadfast on a southward drifting iceberg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its unauthorized bc of what the public knows about history today, as opposed to the 1930s when the Native theme and imagery were born with the franchise. Its too late to get approval from a Native org. today. The PR damage has been done in the grand scheme of 21st century history bc we now know better..

Hmm.. so I can't draw a picture of a native without permission anymore?

You can't believe that one can "authorize" a drawing of an image that is in the artist's mind. (Other than a previously copyrighted image.)

None of the imagery of the Redskins is "stolen" from anywhere, no more than the Mona Lisa is stolen from the people of Italy, or PETA can stop drawings of Bugs Bunny,

Do the Vikings owe anything to the people of Norway? Any special permission needed?

how about the Raiders and Buccaneers? Have a proper governing body of Somali pirates OK'd the use of their traditional way of life?

Who agreed to allow the Patriots to represent us with their colors and revolutionary mascot? i dont' remember getting a vote on that, and as an American, i think i should if we're needing to be "authorized" to use abstract non-specific imagery.

Why would any artist anywhere have to ask permission of an entire race to depict anything regarding them at all, so long as it's not an already copyrighted image or trademark?

Art would die. there's nothing, and i mean NOTHING on earth that does not offend SOMEBODY.

Intent is key.

Compare our helmet logo with the Cleveland Indians to see the major and massive difference in a racial stereotype caricature and an honorable drawing.

If folks want to argue the name is offensive, OK, i disagree, but your argument makes sense.

Arguing we need some sort of authorization to draw a non-specific logo.. that's just a side trip down Ridiculous Avenue.

~Bang

Edited by Bang
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its just a name. I don't have a problem with the name Redskins . . . words are racist when they have a racist intent. And here, there is none.

That being said, ITS JUST A NAME. I root for the franchise. Whatever its called, i will root for it. Whatever players and coaches make up the team, i will root for it. Change the stadium, change the jerseys, change the coach and GM, GOD PLEASE change the owner. It will take a lot more for me to stop rooting for the franchise. Basically, it would have to leave the DC Metro Region.

I would like a name like Monuments or Federals. Capitals, Nationals, Monuments, and ****, please change the Wizards to something like that too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmm.. so I can't draw a picture of a native without permission anymore?

:ols: run wild w/ it Bang.

Of course the imagery of headdresses, spears, and arrows should belong to us. Its as natural a fit as dashikis and conicals on the performers at the Grand Ole Opry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think its just a name. I don't have a problem with the name Redskins . . . words are racist when they have a racist intent. And here, there is none.

That being said, ITS JUST A NAME. I root for the franchise. Whatever its called, i will root for it. Whatever players and coaches make up the team, i will root for it. Change the stadium, change the jerseys, change the coach and GM, GOD PLEASE change the owner. It will take a lot more for me to stop rooting for the franchise. Basically, it would have to leave the DC Metro Region.

I would like a name like Monuments or Federals. Capitals, Nationals, Monuments, and ****, please change the Wizards to something like that too.

I think it goes beyond the fact that "it is just a name". Changing the name for an arbitrary and incorrect reason is a tacit agreement that anyone, at any time, for any reason, can find something objectionable and the world, not that person, must change their point of view. Not to mention my point above that illegitimizing the brand and logo is tantamount to erasing the largest reminder to the world that Native Americans even existed. This is a top 5 sports franchise on Earth.. not a local high school. Native Americans are represented with dignity by this organization for the entire world to see. Should we just eliminate that on the premise that some people think they think it might be offensive?

People who demand the name be changed can go blow as far as I am concerned. I hope Dan Snyder laughs at the councilman when he calls him on the phone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmm.. so I can't draw a picture of a native without permission anymore?

You can't believe that one can "authorize" a drawing of an image that is in the artist's mind. (Other than a previously copyrighted image.)

None of the imagery of the Redskins is "stolen" from anywhere, no more than the Mona Lisa is stolen from the people of Italy, or PETA can stop drawings of Bugs Bunny,

Do the Vikings owe anything to the people of Norway? Any special permission needed?

how about the Raiders and Buccaneers? Have a proper governing body of Somali pirates OK'd the use of their traditional way of life?

Who agreed to allow the Patriots to represent us with their colors and revolutionary mascot? i dont' remember getting a vote on that, and as an American, i think i should if we're needing to be "authorized" to use abstract non-specific imagery.

Why would any artist anywhere have to ask permission of an entire race to depict anything regarding them at all, so long as it's not an already copyrighted image or trademark?

Art would die. there's nothing, and i mean NOTHING on earth that does not offend SOMEBODY.

Intent is key.

Compare our helmet logo with the Cleveland Indians to see the major and massive difference in a racial stereotype caricature and an honorable drawing.

If folks want to argue the name is offensive, OK, i disagree, but your argument makes sense.

Arguing we need some sort of authorization to draw a non-specific logo.. that's just a side trip down Ridiculous Avenue.

~Bang

Well said, Bang. I agree with the same line of thinking. If I understand correctly, since Snyder owns the team and it is a private enterprise, basically he can name the team whatever he wants. He could call the team the Snyderattos, the Six Flags or Johnny Rockettes if he wanted to.

Update on ESPN, http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9235381/poll-majority-approve-washington-redskins-name vast majority of Americans see no problem with the name Redskins. Down ten percent though since last poll in 1992...right before the Skins won Super Bowl XXVI. A lot of this is coming up because the Skins are a good team with the potential to be great in the coming years and plus RG3 is such a well known persona nationally, not just in sports.

Edited by Braxford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it goes beyond the fact that "it is just a name". Changing the name for an arbitrary and incorrect reason is a tacit agreement that anyone, at any time, for any reason, can find something objectionable and the world, not that person, must change their point of view. Not to mention my point above that illegitimizing the brand and logo is tantamount to erasing the largest reminder to the world that Native Americans even existed. This is a top 5 sports franchise on Earth.. not a local high school. Native Americans are represented with dignity by this organization for the entire world to see. Should we just eliminate that on the premise that some people think they think it might be offensive?

People who demand the name be changed can go blow as far as I am concerned. I hope Dan Snyder laughs at the councilman when he calls him on the phone.

I agree with some of that, especially your 2nd sentence.

But, it is just a name. If the Skins were called the Monuments, would you stop rooting for them? Would RG3 be any less fun to watch? Snyder would almost certainly make MORE money.

And the bit about Native Americans being represented . . . have any of them expressed that they WANT that? I've seen reports where some think its offensive, and ive seen some where they don't care. I havent seen anything in support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The name will be changed within two years. It doesn't matter what the truth is anymore. It's all about the narrative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

US poll finds widespread support for Redskins name

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/us-poll-finds-widespread-support-162823315--nfl.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- It's been a rough offseason for the Washington Redskins, and not just because of the knee injury to star quarterback Robert Griffin III. The team's nickname has faced a new barrage of criticism for being offensive to Native Americans. Local leaders and pundits have called for a name change. Opponents have launched a legal challenge intended to deny the team federal trademark protection. A bill introduced in Congress in March would do the same, though it appears unlikely to pass.

But a new Associated Press-GfK poll shows that nationally, ''Redskins'' still enjoys widespread support. Nearly four in five Americans don't think the team should change its name, the survey found. Only 11 percent think it should be changed, while 8 percent weren't sure and 2 percent didn't answer.

Although 79 percent favor keeping the name, that does represent a 10 percentage point drop from the last national poll on the subject, conducted in 1992 by The Washington Post and ABC News just before the team won its most recent Super Bowl. Then, 89 percent said the name should not be changed, and 7 percent said it should.

The AP-GfK poll was conducted from April 11-15. It included interviews with 1,004 adults on both land lines and cellphones. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.9 percentage points.

more at link

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, it is just a name. If the Skins were called the Monuments, would you stop rooting for them?

I mean C'Mon if you were a hornets fan how you going to feel about the New Orleans Pelicans? How would you like Washington Pansies? A good name goes a long way. Redtails, stinks. So a name and icon is significant and important to show who you are (a lot of history with the Redskins and the NFL). Its also something that old, now, and new fans have something to cheer about.

On a side note I didnt even know about Oklahoma is based on Choctaw Indian words which means red people until just recently.

Edited by amm0409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is where I make the Chris Rock analogy. Not everyone can do and say something on the basis that someone else is already doing the same. Then there's NWA and Guns-N-Roses. Both acts used the N word 25 years ago, but it didn't go over well with critics who questioned the latter.

In order for that analogy to work, we'd all have to agree that the original use of the term "Redskin" was actually a slur.There is evidence that that term actually refers to warpaint as well as it just being the way Native Americans identified themselves. They referred to white people as whiteskins and black people as blackskins. Just a matter of fact term.

There is no question in anyone's mind that the N word was a pejorative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I mean C'Mon if you were a hornets fan how you going to feel about the New Orleans Pelicans? How would you like Washington Pansies? A good name goes a long way. Redtails, stinks. So a name and icon is significant and important to show who you are (a lot of history with the Redskins and the NFL). Its also something that old, now, and new fans have something to cheer about.

On a side note I didnt even know about Oklahoma is based on Choctaw Indian words which means red people until just recently.

I am confident they would not intentionally give them the worst possible name, like Pansies. The Danny would find something AWESOMELY MARKETABLE, because thats what he does.

And frankly, even if they were called the Pansies, I doubt it would impact my fanship, if all the ****ing losing over the past two decades didn't send us all away, nothing will. :ols:

Edited by PleaseBlitz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

****ing Wizards :doh: Worst ****ing name in the history of sports, and exhibit a for why teams should not change their name

This whole thing is a bunch of ****. I loathe our lame ass society

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:ols: run wild w/ it Bang.

Of course the imagery of headdresses, spears, and arrows should belong to us. Its as natural a fit as dashikis and conicals on the performers at the Grand Ole Opry.

here's that word "Belong" again.

How do you figure any imagery of this belongs to anyone?

Who is this "us" you speak of when sarcastically saying who this imagery should belong to? Me? I'm white. What about black fans, are they part of this? How about native fans? Do they count as us? Japanese fans? Chilean fans? Do these folks constitute "us:" when talking about "us" owning headdresses and spears and such?

for someone so interested in fairness, you sure do seem to want to separate "us" and make sure "we" don't get anything that you fear may be "theirs".

I truly don't follow this at all.

can a black artist get a job drawing Batman? Batman is white. what if that offends someone?

If a performer at the Grand Ol' Opry wanted to wear a dashiki, you'd be upset with that?

Why? Is clothing style somehow now culturally owned? Are white country singers somehow barred from wearing anything but that which is approved by society to be appropriate clothing to fit their type? (Maybe they should stop selling dashikis in Penneys. After all, selfish white shoppers go there. maybe we should have ethnically pure clothing stores?)

How about Hindu plumbers? anything they should know before they make a fashion error and draw society's ire?

If a chinese accountant wanted to wear Lederhosen, would he need to get permission from the Germans? maybe a license he must display if someone like you demands to know why he's using someone else's imagery and fashion?

I like to eat with chopsticks when i eat Sushi. Should i stop? Am I stealing Asian culture by putting rice and fish in my mouth with two sticks?

How politically correct do you want to get here? Frankly, this imagery belonging to people is WAY over the top.

~Bang

Edited by Bang
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In order for that analogy to work, we'd all have to agree that the original use of the term "Redskin" was actually a slur.There is evidence that that term actually refers to warpaint as well as it just being the way Native Americans identified themselves. They referred to white people as whiteskins and black people as blackskins. Just a matter of fact term.

There is no question in anyone's mind that the N word was a pejorative.

Exactly! This is the argument which will squash it all. It is documented fact the term was used as self-identification for Native Americans. If whites later adopted it as a slur (for a relatively short period of time) it doesn't mean the meaning of the word changed forever. If we start calling words offensive just because of the way a few people choose to use them, we need to get rid of the words homosexual, lesbian, white people, blacks, Asian, Mexican, Korean, democrat, republican, politician, police officer......on and on. I guarantee I could use any of those words in a sentence in such a way it comes across as offensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How do you figure any imagery belongs to anyone?

This is why I love this thread. Its all perspective.

Who is this "us" you speak of...

Redskins fans. The B&G. I'm one of your people and you're one of mine.

Frankly, this imagery belonging to people is WAY over the top.

Because its always been ours and the idea of it belonging to someone else makes us feel violated. Our families have lived, died, cheered, jeered, and cried w/ our nameless Indian head. We love him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, the logo of the Redskins is Snyder's, and i guess it's "ours" since it's the logo of the team we cheer for, but we don't own it any more than anyone else does.

but motifs of headdresses, spears, any of it.. it doesn't "belong' to anyone. That isn't perspective. How do you own "imagery"?

Because its always been ours and the idea of it belonging to someone else makes us feel violated. Our families have lived, died, cheered, jeered, and cried w/ our nameless Indian head. We love him.

Now i'm confused, because above you seemed to be mocking when you said "Of course the imagery of headdresses, spears, and arrows should belong to us. Its as natural a fit as dashikis and conicals on the performers at the Grand Ole Opry."... i got the impression that you say the team had stolen the native motif and it didn't belong to "us", because they didn't get approval from a native organization when the team began using it so long ago.

But I don't follow this response to what i said. Who owns what, and who needs approval from where?

~Bang

Edited by Bang
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thought I would put this in here too. Seems the AP has discovered that the vast majority of people are against changing the Redskins name. Surprising how extreme the results of this poll are.

http://voicerussia.com/radio_broadcast/70924886/112372593.html

I know you're too busy starting 15 threads a week in the tailgate/stadium and promoting yourself like a hooker with a meth addiction during Fleet Week to look around much, but I posted it two posts above you, even before you put it in your other (or one of your other) threads. :pfft: :evilg: :D

:cheers:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My husband hates the FACT that he will pay for my trip to the city to stand on the steps.

I only get to protest once, on his dime.

He agrees: we'll both protest to KEEP the Redskins name.

He's not even a fan, but he's an RGIII believer.

I love him. And RGIII.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, the logo of the Redskins is Snyder's, and i guess it's "ours" since it's the logo of the team we cheer for, but we don't own it any more than anyone else does.

I agree. Fans own nothing and we're owed nothing. The Dodgers "B" didn't belong to Brooklyn, nor the Colt's horse shoe to Baltimore. Few fans imagined either would ever go away bc there's a perception of ownership that comes with fandom. The imagery provides us with a sense of belonging. I’m as guilty as anybody for loving what we are, and who we've always been. But you learn things along the way and you gain perspective as a result.

but motifs of headdresses, spears, any of it.. it doesn't "belong' to anyone. That isn't perspective. How do you own "imagery"?

This is where you and I differ philosophically. The Colts horse shoe never had an ethnic group demanding a cease and desist, only powerless fans. The horse shoe meant as much to Baltimorons as the Native head matters to us.

i got the impression that you say the team had stolen the native motif and it didn't belong to "us",

You're getting it.

because they didn't get approval from a native organization when the team began using it so long ago.

Only because the Natives didn't matter yet. By the 1930s the few remaining Americans who had once clashed with Natives were dying off. It was totally legit to celebrate the romantic qualities of Native warriors as long as they were in legend, and not the real life Natives who were far away from mainstream American life. The cinemas routinely depicted bold Native warriors in that era, why not replicate an already successful formula in the competitive entertainment biz? and why would you need permission?

Edited by RFKFedEx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree. Fans own nothing and we're owed nothing. The Dodgers "B" didn't belong to Brooklyn, nor the Colt's horse shoe to Baltimore. Few fans imagined either would ever go away bc there's a perception ownership that comes with fandom. The imagery provides us with a sense of belonging. I’m as guilty as anybody for loving what we are, and who we've always been. But you learn things along the way and you gain perspective as a result.

No, I'm not talking about fans. I'm talking about humanity in general. Grand Ole opry stars in dashikis brngs this argument way beyond the realm of fans and their traditions and into the realm of "stay in your place".

This is where you and I differ philosophically. The Colts horse shoe never had an ethnic group demanding a cease and desist, only powerless fans. The horse shoe meant as much to Baltimorons as the Native head matters to us.

You're getting it.

And you're clearly not. It's not about a logo. The ethnicity of the imagined horse is as fictitious a concept as the profile on our helmet belonging to a particular race, only to be used with permission from.. what exactly, i don't know..

No one holds any rights to imaginings of headdresses and spears as much as anyone holds any rights over viking horns or dashikis or original images of horseshoes.

We don't differ philosophically on logos, we differ philosophically on freedom of expression.

If i create a company and use a brave's head for my logo, I don't have to ask anyone's permission to do so, so long as I'm not infringing on any copyright. Same as if i use a spear, or a bow, or a featherdress, or moccasins or whatever i want to imagine..

As it should be. Even if I chose to be offensive, like those fine folks up in Cleveland. Hell, if i want to name my team after a man who is known primarily for exploiting natives and killing their way of life, I can, as they do up in Buffalo.

The public is free to protest, but i'm under no obligation to have asked permission to use the enabler of a genocide, or the ridiculous racist caricature they use in cleveland.

Only because the Natives didn't matter yet. By the 1930s the few remaining Americans who had once clashed with Natives were dying off. It was totally legit to celebrate the romantic qualities of Native warriors as long as they were in legend, and not the real life Natives who were far away from mainstream American life. The cinemas routinely depicted bold Native warriors in that era, why not replicate an already successful formula in the competitive entertainment biz? and why would you need permission?

Sorry, but you've completely missed my point.

I get what you're saying and I totally reject it.

Who is anyone to sy you can't use a vague representation of anything that might resemble vague general representations any particular people or their culture?

ridiculous.

this isn't like the seminoles, who are an actual tribe and have given permision to use their proper name as their title.

our Redskins "imagery" isn't real. Feathers and the image of a native guy's' profile are not owned by any culture, and no one has to ask permission of anyone to use them in any way.

You failed to grasp my meaning with the comparisons to what you're saying. Why should the vikings not have to get permission from Norway in your world? Why can't a country singer wear a dashiki without you protesting? Do africans somehow own it and no one else is allowed to wear one with express written consent for fear of derision from guys like you?

besides,if they matter so much now, why aren't you bothering to listen to them? You aren't hearing anyone but the small little tiny but LOUD minority. Don't the majority matter?

~Bang

Edited by Bang
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What pisses me off is that this wasn't an issue until we started winning.

With Zorn and Cerrato, no one gave a ****

Agreed. And if you look back to 1992 when it became a big issue...wonder why.

This is where it's not a bad time to be a rich guy and just not give two ****s about what anyone thinks. Keep on keepin on, Danny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not about a logo.

Then why are you so passionate about this?

No one holds any rights to imaginings of headdresses and spears as much as anyone holds any rights over viking horns or dashikis or original images of horseshoes.

The Vikings are extinct. You don't see people of other ethnicities wearing daskikis. The Colts horse shoe belongs to the Irsay's in Indianapolis, as it did in Baltimore until 1984.

we differ philosophically on freedom of expression.

Agreed.

Feathers and the image of a native guy's' profile are not owned by any culture

We differ on our concepts of ownership when it comes to ethnic culture.

Don't the majority matter?

There was a time when a majority of our fanbase wanted the team to stay white. As we learned more, we evolved as a group and adapted to better ways. We still have living members of our fanbase from that era.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, but if they broadcast "Warriors....come out to PLAYIIIEYAYE!!!" over the big screen followed by the team bursting out of the tunnel, I would lose it. That would be awesome.

Come to a basketball game at the Roaracle in Oaktown. :)

---------- Post added May-3rd-2013 at 10:41 AM ----------

Predicto, I must live under a rock cuz I'm still not aware of how it's now become derogatory.

I don't know exactly how the word Redskin developed into a derogatory term over the decades, but it definitely happened. In another thread I checked over 20 dictionaries. Every single one of them defined the word "redskin" as an offensive or insensitive archaic way to refer to Native Americans. Check it for yourself.

http://www.onelook.com/?w=redskin&ls=a

Our good intent is not really the point. Just like talking about "colored boys" has become insensitive, the word redskin has become insensitive, IMO.

regarding the imagery, you said that 99% of the complaints were about the name and not things like the chief on the helmet. i cant put a # on it, but i would bet thats off by quite a bit. for example, the junkies had a guest on who was a rep from a native american organization (cant recall the name of either, but its posted here somewhere) and she was opposed to ANY use of native american imagery or names, even 'warriors'. i have read plenty of complaints about the team and it goes deeper than the name with many of those who claim to be offended.

the whole being offended thing is really something i dont get. i'd like to make a list of things that people claim to be offended by, and then propose we appease those people and see where that gets us. i say this because i believe harjo and her ilk and those kinds of people- people who are incredibly sensitive about things that most others are not. shes fringe, and appeasing the fringe opinion is the wrong answer, imo.

walter wetzel said the same thing- people are who are offended are radicals, not the mainstream.

Yeah, there are always people who go too far. However, that doesn't mean that there isn't a kernel of truth in what they are saying, at least with regard to the word "redskin." Many people I know (who are not radicals) still think that was have kind of a lousy name but don't care that much about it, and certainly don't give a damn about our Native American imagery. Our logo is not Chief Wahoo.

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.