Alaskins

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

Recommended Posts

Hmm...all the sources I've seen has the word Redskin coming from red war paint.  They used red war paint because it was the color of war and battle.  But I know those who want a name change ignore or spin that and make excuses because it doesn't fit their argument. 

 

Honestly, for any Redskin fan who wants a name change, I think it's time for you guys to put your money where your mouth is and move on to another team. If you think the name is racist, then aren't you supporting racism by continuing to be a Redskins fan?  What's more important to you, your convictions or a sports team? 

 

Who's the one with an agenda here?    You are saying the term Redskins started due to war paint.   Red Skin.  That's all that need be said.  if you can't see that, you are blind.     

 

And to say I'm not welcomed to root for this team anymore just demonstrates your inability to be open minded or objective.

Actually it does not refer to the Native American community as a whole, it refers to the red paints certain tribes used before going into battle or before ceremonies.  Nothing to do with natural pigmentation.  Now, does this mean it shouldn't be considered offensive, no. 

 

Grouping people by skin isn't inherently racist anyway.  When you imply that it is the reason they are inferior, then it is racist.  It is now at the point where the very MENTION of someone's ethnicity means you're a racist. 

 

This is your interpretation after "STUDYING" the topic.   Most won't study the topic and get into it's finer points.    On the surface, Redskins, refers to a people grouped together due to their skin tone.   It's that simple.    It's simply not acceptable anymore and we all have to deal with it.  This thing isn't going away.  The Avalanche has started.  

Edited by GibbsFactor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, you think that if the question was: Do you find the name " Washington Redskins " offensive, or do you find " Washington Redskins " not offensive; there would have been a different outcome ?

 

I can't say.  But I'd like to see the poll redone with better wording, and better controls on who participates.   That would be better evidence, either way.   

 

Honestly, for any Redskin fan who wants a name change, I think it's time for you guys to put your money where your mouth is and move on to another team. If you think the name is racist, then aren't you supporting racism by continuing to be a Redskins fan?  What's more important to you, your convictions or a sports team? 

 

No, I'd like to promote a positive change, one that will provide for the betterment of my team and all mankind.

 

Why do you hate freedom?   :)

Only Redskins fans don't claim to be a voice for anyone and run endless campaigns about it. The difference is appearing to be concerned to further your own agenda while you're dropping thousands of dollars on something that will make no substantial contribution, won't put food on tables, won't put clothes on backs. I'm attacking those people not the ones who find it offensive because only they will benefit from what they are doing. Like I said I could care less about the name but it's wrong to use a cause that involves people that are suffering and not only not help them but draw attention to and invest money into something that poses as "helping the cause" when all they7 are doing is helping themselves. Evil.

 

Your definition of evil is unusual, and your assumptions about everyone else's motivations but your own are unwarranted.   Sure, there are jerks out there who are jumping on the name change bandwagon.  There are also jerks who are jumping on the keep the name bandwagon.   Keeping the name doesn't put food on anyone's table either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SOURCES: NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, & NCAA considering changing every team name to “The Humans”

Full article Here

 

"Is something such as a football team’s nickname so important that it requires endless amount of debate? Some people apparently think so, because, again, this is the United States…all we do is debate over pointless crap every single day. Getting tired of hearing all the white people mad at all the other white people about something that offends none of them, the commissioners of all 4 major sports and the NCAA think they have a solution. According to well placed sources, you may soon become a big “Humans” fan."
 

It doesn’t matter what city, what sport, or even if it’s a professional league. Sources say Roger Goodell, David Stern, Bud Selig, Gary Bettman, and someone from the NCAA (he refused to be named for fear of more litigation from pissed off ex student-athletes) are considering changing every single team name in all of their leagues to “The Humans.” That way, no matter what, everyone will be equally “offended.” It doesn’t matter what they do with team names, someone’s going to be pissed off about it. Take the Washington Bullets change to the Wizards as a prime example. So why not just piss off everyone? It’s what Goodell, Stern, Selig, Bettman, and the NCAA do best anyway.

 

1391857_10201809812149663_1365737206_n.j

Edited by MLSKINS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually it does not refer to the Native American community as a whole, it refers to the red paints certain tribes used before going into battle or before ceremonies.  Nothing to do with natural pigmentation.  Now, does this mean it shouldn't be considered offensive, no. 

 

Grouping people by skin isn't inherently racist anyway.  When you imply that it is the reason they are inferior, then it is racist.  It is now at the point where the very MENTION of someone's ethnicity means you're a racist. 

 

I think this is overstated.  Saying "black men" is not inappropriate.  Saying "colored boys" is inappropriate.  Saying "blackskins" doesn't happen much, but I doubt people would be comfortable with it if it did.

 

Sometimes I think that some people are so afraid of being called a racist that they dig in and refuse to acknowledge that there can be any nuances in names, or symbols, and take it too personally when a change is requested.  Changing the name does not mean that we acknowledge that Redskins fans are or were being racist, or anything like that.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Changing the name does not mean that we acknowledge that Redskins fans are or were being racist, or anything like that.     

But it does. And what's to keep those who are pushing for this from going after fans who continue to use the name next?  What's to keep them from moving on to stigmatizing wearing Redskins clothes?

Edited by visionary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't say.  But I'd like to see the poll redone with better wording, and better controls on who participates.   That would be better evidence, either way.   

 

No, I'd like to promote a positive change, one that will provide for the betterment of my team and all mankind.

 

Why do you hate freedom?   :)

 

Your definition of evil is unusual, and your assumptions about everyone else's motivations but your own are unwarranted.   Sure, there are jerks out there who are jumping on the name change bandwagon.  There are also jerks who are jumping on the keep the name bandwagon.   Keeping the name doesn't put food on anyone's table either.

 

One last time slowly, people are claiming and spending money on campaigns that are supposed to be for the betterment of Native Americans. Those campaigns campaigns are for the betterment of the campaigners while the people they represent are still suffering. Keeping the name doesn't put food on the table but there are no money driven campaigns implying it is for the betterment of Native Americans. You're connecting imaginary dots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who's the one with an agenda here?    You are saying the term Redskins started due to war paint.   Red Skin.  That's all that need be said.  if you can't see that, you are blind.     

 

And to say I'm not welcomed to root for this team anymore just demonstrates your inability to be open minded or objective.

 

This is your interpretation after "STUDYING" the topic.   Most won't study the topic and get into it's finer points.    On the surface, Redskins, refers to a people grouped together due to their skin tone.   It's that simple.    It's simply not acceptable anymore and we all have to deal with it.  This thing isn't going away.  The Avalanche has started.  

No, Redskin fans wanting a name change come across as either hypocritical, expressing faux outrage or easily brainwashed by media talking heads.  Let me go into further detail.  For example, it can be hypocritical for a Redskin fan who thinks the name is bad, but on the other hand, still supports the team and watches the games.  Or it could be expressing faux outrage, to where it feels self-righteous to take up a cause for those without a voice, but when it comes down to it, they don't really care because their Sunday entertainment is more important than the cause.  Finally, you simply have people who hear a talking point about it on t.v., and believe that the talking point is a fact because after all, it was on t.v. and people on t.v. know better than them.

 

For fans of other teams who find it offensive, I've found that most of them just don't like our team and organization, so this is the perfect opportunity to rub salt in our wound, not because they truly care about what Native Americans think, but because it's an opportunity take cheap shots against a team they don't like. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it does. And what's to keep those who are pushing for this from going after fans who continue to use the name next?  What's to keep them from moving on to stigmatizing wearing Redskins clothes?

 

This is something that could happen, because I wouldn't be shocked if this keeps up that a story surfaces about a student being suspended from school because of his racist Redskins shirt. 

Edited by War Paint

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok I've changed my mind. Time to be the Washington Warriors, keeping the imagery. The two biggest native advocates for Redskins were a chief that ended up not being a chief, and Rick Reilly's father in law in his article.

Well. Here's Rick Reilly's father-in-law: http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/10/10/blackfeet-elder-says-rick-reilly-misquoted-him-wants-redskins-banned-151696

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah. I'm done. Not because I think the issue is definitively resolved, just because this debate has gotten so horrendously embarrassing that it isn't worth fighting. Warriors. Spear logo or current one. I'm good with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. The two biggest native advocates for Redskins were a chief that ended up not being a chief, and Rick Reilly's father in law in his article.

 

 

 

Not true at all.

Edited by Spearfeather

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not true at all.

That was a bit of an exaggeration as far as Rick Reilly's father in law goes. But that rebuttal is beyond embarrassing. It's scathing and was from someone who supposedly was ok with the name, who was a subject of one of the VERY few articles in support of the name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who cares what the origins of the word are?  Who cares who used to use it?  Who cares who is offended or not offended by it?   Who cares if you have to get a new jersey?    Who cares how it's meant to be used?  

 

The word is inherently racist.   Redskins groups people together by the color of their skin.   It's racist.   

 

The origin of the word matters when discussing the legitimacy of its offensive, rather than taking it at face value. 

 

Inherently- existing in something as a permanent and inseparable element. Redskins does not apply to your claim of inherently racist because the majority of the country and Native Americans do not view it as racist.

 

Saying someone is or a group of people are black is not racist, but that would be grouping people together by the color of their skin.

 

Native Americans started Redskin as a way to separate themselves from whites in conversation, much like even today people use white and black as descriptors to differentiate based purely off of sight. That is the origin of Redskins. Today, and for a long time now, it means a sports team. Native American high schools use the name as well, so I guess they didn't get your memo that you know better and the name is supposed to be racist to them.

 

Just because red and skins is there, doesn't automatically mean its racist, but that seems to be the assumption you, and others, are using. That is not the perspective of 90% of Native Americans, so perhaps you should consider that their perspective is more important than yours with this matter.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah. I'm done. Not because I think the issue is definitively resolved, just because this debate has gotten so horrendously embarrassing that it isn't worth fighting. Warriors. Spear logo or current one. I'm good with it.

You do realize Harjo doesn't want the team using Warrior either...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok I've changed my mind. Time to be the Washington Warriors, keeping the imagery. The two biggest native advocates for Redskins were a chief that ended up not being a chief, and Rick Reilly's father in law in his article.

Well. Here's Rick Reilly's father-in-law: http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/10/10/blackfeet-elder-says-rick-reilly-misquoted-him-wants-redskins-banned-151696

 

The imagery will go too.

 

They want ALL Native American imagery gone. What you'll have after a name change is new colors, logos, mission statement etc. It would be like an expansion team for us.

Edited by Boss_Hogg
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote from Reilly article

 

"The whole issue is so silly to me," says Bob Burns, my wife's father and a bundle holder in the Blackfeet tribe. "The name just doesn't bother me much. It's an issue that shouldn't be an issue, not with all the problems we've got in this country."

 

 

 

Latest quote:

 

 it’s silly in this day and age that this should even be a battle -- if the name offends someone, change it.”

 

 

He either said this part:

 

"The name just doesn't bother me much .... not with all the problems we've got in this country."

 

or he didn't.

 

Sounds like he's claiming he didn't.

 

Maybe Reilly will respond, now.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it does. And what's to keep those who are pushing for this from going after fans who continue to use the name next?  What's to keep them from moving on to stigmatizing wearing Redskins clothes?

This is true. We can kiss all our fondest Redskins memories goodbye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok I've changed my mind. Time to be the Washington Warriors, keeping the imagery. The two biggest native advocates for Redskins were a chief that ended up not being a chief, and Rick Reilly's father in law in his article.

Well. Here's Rick Reilly's father-in-law: http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/10/10/blackfeet-elder-says-rick-reilly-misquoted-him-wants-redskins-banned-151696

 

Considering the source, I have to call into question the claim. The source is one that Wise constantly is quoting, and seems to be his only source. The article has a guy claiming to be Reilly's father in law, but how could someone seriously misconstrue a message so clear as the one this guy gives? This guy also repeats, almost verbatim, the same talking points that publication and Wise have used repeatedly. He pushes forth the claim that of someone is offended, then change has to happen, indicating that any perceived offense at all merits change, which is dubious. He also cites fears of being labeled an Uncle Tom. So maybe this isn't the same guy, or maybe he's changed his tune after being confronted by some of the loud media types.

 

I feel bad for the guy if he did encounter the racism he claims, but you also forget the direct quotes in Snyder's letter from local tribes and chiefs in favor of the name, that Halbritter, the loudest advocate for change so far, is a fraud and doesn't represent his people but rather kicks them off their land. 

 

As others have said, it's going to take a lot of offended for change to be considered by many, and so far at the most the issue is split, but at current evidence still suggests the majority don't take issue with the name. You still have Native American high schools with the name, tribes and chiefs endorsing it, the fact that our logo was designed by Native Americans, and I have yet to see the change advocates show an understanding of their own history by going after or even mentioning other teams who's names have to do with the massacre of their people, including the Bills, Cowboys, 49ers, and others as mentioned recently by another poster in here, or even a mention of how if red and skins is so offensive to them that they have allowed Oklahoma to maintain its name when it translates to red people.

Edited by elkabong82

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow the Rick Reilly vitriol is immense. I find it humorous that the critics initially panned Reilly's father in law as a joke and now he's being hailed as a hero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow the Rick Reilly vitriol is immense. I find it humorous that the critics initially panned Reilly's father in law as a joke and now he's being hailed as a hero.

 

That could have everything to do with this new story. Either Reilly is a complete liar who figured his father in law would never find out about how he quoted him or would never raise a fuss about it, or this guy completely changed his story after getting heat for his quoted comments by Reilly, which is possible because he repeats some of the same exact talking points and even mentions he didn't want to be viewed as an Uncle Tom. There's no way Reilly could have legitimately confused his father in law's message. So one of them is lying.

 

Either way it doesn't negate the Native American high schools using the name, the Annenberg Poll, the tribes and chiefs quoted in Snyder's letter, or that our own logo was designed by Native Americans.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And as with all twists, we'll see if the screw keeps turning.

 

</dramatic music>

 

~Bang

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.