grhqofb5 Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 I don't need to read TK's post again. I know all about Halbritter. Everything is not, the land aquisition however is. I look at him as the Jesse Jackson / Al Sharpton mold. Sometimes stirring the pot when there is nothing in it, other times making sure that others realize there is something of substanance in that pot. And to answer your question...yes it was Owned and Stolen from my ancestors. The farmers have no right to that land, it's stolen property. What if the current landowners are bona-fide purchasers for value? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 What if the current landowners are bona-fide purchasers for value? Expand on this not sure if I understand what you mean here. Thanks. The State and/or Federal government would have to foot the bill to give this land back, I believe it's one of the problems. Not sure if that's what you mean or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 For those of us who love the name and want to keep it - I have been emailing the Commissioners office. officeofcommissioner@nfl.com I have been telling them that they will make a mistake in alienating a large portion of one of their most profitable teams if they pressure the Redskins to change their name. The Oneida nation and white sportswriters spend zero dollars on Redskins tickets, merchandise, products, concessions etc.. Redskins fans are the reason the Redskins are among the most profitable teams in the league. The day the Redskins name is changed is my last day I spend one penny on the NFL. So you think the NFL should look at this as a financial decision? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 The day the Redskins name is changed is my last day I spend one penny on the NFL. I was thinking about this the other day. I stopped buying Redskins stuff about 5 years ago (besides this Redskins remote for DirecTv). But I have tons of stuff, and would either load up on the firesale to sell it later, or sell all the stuff that everyone buys me for any occasion. I have custom Redskins sneakers that I have only worn twice that I got last Xmas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 I get where USS is coming from. I can't say I'd ever want to buy anything that doesn't say Washington Redskins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RVAbrendan Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 I'm in the camp that believes the name change is inevitable. Being a white male, I can't and shouldn't speak for others on if the name is offensive or not. True, some Native Americans do not take offense to the name, however, some do. Perhaps we simply change one letter in the name, thus dubbing the team the Washington Radskins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 I get where USS is coming from. I can't say I'd ever want to buy anything that doesn't say Washington Redskins. I can't stop being a football fan after 36 years. I can guarantee you that I would no longer be a STH anymore though. And I would likely stop spending so much money on the team. And would probably become a bigger fan of hockey and baseball. But my true love would still be football and the Redskins, no matter what their name was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USS Redskins Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 So you think the NFL should look at this as a financial decision? The NFL is all about dollars, right? From what I understand, the owners dont care about the name change, mostly because it may harm the Redskins financially which means they get harmed financially. A boycott from the Oneida nation (or white sports writers) will do what to the Redskins? Absolutely nothing. Alienating a large portion of the fanbase will definitely give them pause. I know I will cease spending dollars on the NFL. I wont root for a team called renegades or warriors or other such nonsense. I will have to switch to another sport and the NFL will lose my business and I am letting them know that. The thing I hate the most is that none of these people really care about the team or the name at all. If you dont like something, dont support it or buy into it... why do you have to ruin it for the people who actually love it? How is it really harming anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 The NFL is all about dollars, right? From what I understand, the owners dont care about the name change, mostly because it may harm the Redskins financially which means they get harmed financially. A boycott from the Oneida nation (or white sports writers) will do what to the Redskins? Absolutely nothing. Alienating a large portion of the fanbase will definitely give them pause. I know I will cease spending dollars on the NFL. I wont root for a team called renegades or warriors or other such nonsense. I will have to switch to another sport and the NFL will lose my business and I am letting them know that. The thing I hate the most is that none of these people really care about the team or the name at all. If you dont like something, dont support it or buy into it... why do you have to ruin it for the people who actually love it? How is it really harming anyone? I understand how you might feel as a fan and how some other owner who isn't offended might feel about the bottom line. But, in the end, the NFL needs to react to the feelings of Native Americans on the issue. Not what UnWise Mike says. Not what white or black Redskin fans say. Not what other owners say about the financial impact. If enough people are offended, the name should be changed. What constitutes "enough" is something I'm not sure about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 I'm in the camp that believes the name change is inevitable. Being a white male, I can't and shouldn't speak for others on if the name is offensive or not. True, some Native Americans do not take offense to the name, however, some do. Perhaps we simply change one letter in the name, thus dubbing the team the Washington Radskins. But as a wghite male you are ok with a white male driven media proclaiming offense for other people? Goodell said if even 1 person was offended, the NFL should listen. That is ****ing insane. there will always be 1 person offended by everything. If that is the bar, shutter every business. No national outrage at 35,000 people doing the tomohawk chop at Turner Field in games 1 & 2 of the NLDS. No national offense at headdress wearing Indians fans beating on drums in Cleveland. No national offense at Rob Riggle on Fox doing a bit in Arrowhead Stadium with a Chiefs fan in full headdress and war paint. The media decided the Washington Redskins were the target. They are focusing solely on the Redskins, and will not stop until they can pat themselves on the back for a job well done. They ignore anything that refutes there will. They dismiss any facts that don't support their story. They don't care about polls 10 years old because they are obsolete but bring up facts that support them from 1968. It is purely media driven. If 9 protesters showed up to protest the Braves, you wouldn't hear a word. 9 people show up at Lambeau Field to protest the Redskins, and it is mentioned on ESPN, CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, CNN, FoxNews, NY Times, WaPost, Huffington Post, Slate, Mother Jones, and a litany of other broadcasts and publications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grhqofb5 Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 Expand on this not sure if I understand what you mean here. Thanks. The State and/or Federal government would have to foot the bill to give this land back, I believe it's one of the problems. Not sure if that's what you mean or not. If the current landowner purchased the property from the previous "owner" (regardless of whether the previous owner's interest was legitimate), without knowledge of any prior fraud, irregularity, etc., and paid market value for the purchase... Or if there are a succession of bona-fide purchasers for value? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 Have the Redskins ever officially published their version of the history and intent of the team's name? It might do them some good if they could give one account, directly from the team. We have all heard a few different theories and numerous possible definitions of the context of "redskins" as it pertains to the football team. If the PR department/Snyder released a "History of the Redskins" in a program or white paper then organization would have a consistent item to refer to whenever opposition swelled. If this already exists and I just missed it, I'd be curious to read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 Hooters and Twin Peaks restaurants will save the Redskins name !!! This whole thing is absurd to me. I have never heard the word Redskins used to describe a person. However...if you watched Phil Donahue, All in the Family (I think that's the one with Archie Bunker), or the Jeffersons...some of those negatively taken words are common in their presentation of the shows. Clearly racial and meant to be derrogatory...Redskins...nope. Hell, I saw Donahue say the N word several times in his show. He was the host not the guest (like on Jerry Springer). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 how did this thread get to be about genuine concerns for Native Americans? It clearly says in the thread title that this is for superficial bull**** that won't help anyone. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 If the current landowner purchased the property from the previous "owner" (regardless of whether the previous owner's interest was legitimate), without knowledge of any prior fraud, irregularity, etc., and paid market value for the purchase... Or if there are a succession of bona-fide purchasers for value? It would still be stolen property. But it comes down on the seller more than the buyer. If I buy a stolen laptop for 50 bucks and don't know that it is stolen, I could face charges, but the seller would face a harsher penaltiy in most instances. I feel like we are on the same page. Either the State or Fed would have to pay the current "owner" and it could be an absurd amount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 It would still be stolen property. But it comes down on the seller more than the buyer. If I buy a stolen laptop for 50 bucks and don't know that it is stolen, I could face charges, but the seller would face a harsher penaltiy in most instances. I feel like we are on the same page. Either the State or Fed would have to pay the current "owner" and it could be an absurd amount. Not to be a smart ass, but how does the "original owner" prove ownership? I know there was a treaty, but how do we know the parties to the treaty are the original owners and didn't kick someone else off the land "illegally"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 Not to be a smart ass, but how does the "original owner" prove ownership? I know there was a treaty, but how do we know the parties to the treaty are the original owners and didn't kick someone else off the land "illegally"? Umm, because No other people in the world were living there...ever. I'm just joking. The treaty acknowledged that it was their land and they were willing to give up a ton of it to the treaty. The treaty assured them that this was their land. And then they stole it and sold it, or gave it away. Popeman, These treaties back then were the original reservations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grhqofb5 Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 It would still be stolen property. But it comes down on the seller more than the buyer. If I buy a stolen laptop for 50 bucks and don't know that it is stolen, I could face charges, but the seller would face a harsher penaltiy in most instances. I feel like we are on the same page. Either the State or Fed would have to pay the current "owner" and it could be an absurd amount. I think real estate is handled differently in this analysis. Can't tell you about the statement on the laptop example. Problem could also arise in the context of tracing rights back to the original "tribal" owner. Would like to see the legal filings on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 Not too surprised Redskins has so many racists fans. There is a reason this team is loved by so many below the Mason-Dixon Line. If a name change can drive those kind of people away then I'm all for it. What a perfect microcosm for the movement to force the name change. Uninformed, ignorant, and couldn't care less. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 I think real estate is handled differently in this analysis. Can't tell you about the statement on the laptop example. Problem could also arise in the context of tracing rights back to the original "tribal" owner. Would like to see the legal filings on this. The original owner would be the "native" owners as far as property (from what I understand). I don't think that matters though because they admitted it was their land and gave up a certain amount to live in peace. The rest was theirs...unless they gave it up which they did not. If I sold you my 2000 dollar television for 50 bucks and it was indeed mine and legit. I can't say to you the next day you owe me more. If you only give me 25 as a downpayment...I can take it back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soup's Uncle Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 Great article from our owner. Hard to argue with this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/letter-from-washington-redskins-owner-dan-snyder-to-fans/2013/10/09/e7670ba0-30fe-11e3-8627-c5d7de0a046b_story.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/wp/2013/10/09/snyder-lawyer-says-put-it-in-caps-language-will-change/ Redskins lawyer says ‘put it in caps’ language will change By Dan Steinberg, October 9, 2013 Redskins lawyer Lanny Davis went on 106.7 The Fan with Holden Kushner and Danny Rouhier Wednesday morning — to discuss you know what — and his last answer may have been the most noteworthy. (Listen to the interview here.) Davis was asked if he thought Dan Snyder’s now famous quote to USA Today — “We’ll never change the name. It’s that simple. NEVER — you can use caps” — was helpful to the team’s cause. Davis paused. “I wanted you to note the pregnant pause,” he then said. “So,” he continued. “Dan Snyder’s been a friend, I’ve helped him in the past. Since I left the White House, I’ve helped him on several matters. So I know Dan Snyder. And when I saw the all caps comment, I thought that that had the wrong flavor to it. And there are parts of Dan Snyder that I find extremely likable. I think he’s a good guy. I wish he would let people know that. But saying all caps isn’t the side of Dan Snyder that I want him to project. I let my opinions be known. And Dan brought me in. “I don’t always tell him what he wants to hear,” Davis continued. “Sometimes I think that’s why he wants me around, because I get him irritated, by telling him what he doesn’t want to hear. But I’m a friend, and I’m allowed to do that. And so the answer is no, I don’t think saying all caps — never is the right tone. I think saying we care about peoples’ feelings, we’re respectful when anyone is offended, but we have this 80-year name that we love. We sing Hail to the Redskins every Sunday at the stadium, and we say we’re a part of Redskins Nation, that’s our vocabulary, those are terms of honor — that’s what he should have said. But he, I don’t think, is going to say all caps — never again.” MORE AT LINK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AGNT009 Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 The fact that the US government resides in Washington DC and at one point in history made the decision to remove Indians and send them wherever they wanted them, then years later wind up nicknaming their football team after them, is pretty damn snarky. If I was Indian, Id be offended on that point alone, nevermind use of the nickname itself over the years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/wp/2013/10/09/jerry-jones-on-the-redskins-name/ Jerry Jones on the Redskins name By Dan Steinberg October 9, 2013 Cowboys owner Jerry Jones was asked about you know what during his weekly appearance on Dallas sports talker 105.3 The Fan. “Well, I don’t think anyone has ever named their team to be uncomplimentary to the entity or person or group or namesake,” he said on the “New School With Shan & RJ” program. “All team names have always been a positive attempt at [representing] the namesake. And so the intent is very positive here. I’m very sensitive, and we should always listen to those that feel that you’re being insensitive. That’s real, and that’s valid, and ought to be always looked at. “But also we’re dealing with that not everybody looks at it the same way,” Jones continued. “And so I think that’s there, and no, I don’t want to weigh in on it, other than the fact that I know that it was intended initially and is today to be complimentary.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 Redskins lawyer says ‘put it in caps’ language will change Yeah, I think a much better response to "will you change the name?" is "when it becomes offensive". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.