Alaskins

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

Recommended Posts

Well, I pulled a Westy and was actully out of the county on vacation in Peru, where my wife is from.  I didn't post, but I've been following the thread enough to keep up.  A couple of things that kind of bother me about some of our fans.

 

1) I don't want to call anyone hypocritical, but I'm not sure what word to use in its place. I know this doesn't apply to everyone and I'm not trying to single anyone out in here.  But some fans who have rooted for the team for over 30-40 years or more, displayed the name and logo all that time, are now agreeing with this and are wanting us to change the name.  I'm not sure how you can do that all those years and then just flip a switch.  I know some in here have been fans that long and don't want the name changed, but have given up the fight and have resigned themselves to the name change.  I do not lump you in the first category of hypocrites that I mentioned, so please don't take it that way.

 

2) I've seen Redskins compared to the N word, or spic, dago, etc.  I just don't think they is comparable.  Those words still are used the same way that they were used when they first came out.  I don't think I've ever heard anyone in my lifetime use Redskin other than to reference the team or a potato. Redskin hasn't been used is an pejoritive in decades.  Sure, I can't say for sure that not one person has used it, but it's not a mainstream word like the others.  You just don't hear it like you do the others.

 

3) The dictionary definition.  Well, I suppose you could say that it is our "bible" of language.  The dictionary was written by humans as was the bible and most people who study the bible do not take everything it says literally.  I mean, who said the dictionary was the end all to language.  Language changes every day and morphs.  The word Fag has become a slur.  It meant a bundle of sticks, but I don't know anyone who calls a bundle of sticks that word because it change.  So has the word Redskin.

 

4) Some have also said that the nickname doesn't matter as long as it reps Washington.  Well, there are 4 other teams that use the name Washington:  Nationals, Capitals, Wizards and Mystics.  I like that most of us are loyal to all the DC teams, but the nickname gives the team it's identity along with the colors.  Emblems on the helmets are symbolic of the team and represent each individual team.  I still hate the name Wizards like many others and "went along" with the name change.  But like the Bobcat fans here in Charlotte, who are getting the Hornets back, I'd love to have the Bullets back.  I own nothing Wizards and would own nothing of our new team nickname if that happens. 

 

I know my points are rather simplistic and someone will quote me and put down each of my points.  I don't think I'm going to respond.  I just wanted to say my peace.  I get an hour at lunch and sometimes I feel rushed to put down what is going through my head and sometimes I have trouble putting down exactly what I'm trying to say, so my message gets skewed.  Like I said, I want my points to be just some food for thought and not meant to spark debate as I just wanted to get some things off my chest.

 

I just hope that this will eventually die down.  I would love for the chief of a local tribe in the DC/VA/MD area to come out and denounce Harjo and Halbritter.  I think they both have an agenda, and it's not for the NAs in the country.  I mean, Harjo wants "all" NA imagery removed from the sports world.  She's not willing to compromise on anything.  Is she ashamed or hiding something?  Seems fishy to me.  And we know what Halbritter is about. 

 

Well, sorry for the length.  I know some of you will like my post and others will be pissed, but that's OK.  I'm taking the high road on this one.  Enjoy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hornets was a sick name.  Are they getting the colors back, too?

 

I remember kids in school just got the hats for the logo and the colors haha

Edited by Who Del

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about this, if the Redskins have to change their name, all 32 teams need to change their name. This would shake up the NFL as much as the media is trying to shake up our organization. Just food for thought.

 

 

HTTR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really enjoyed telling the Washington Post rep why I cancelled my subscription a few minutes ago...

 

I told her it was because the paper has decided its ok to maliciously insinuate that my team, my family, other fans, supporters, and the owner of the Redskins are racist on a daily basis.

 

Looking for more facts and less derogatory techniques for shoving a minority opinion down my throat in my next paper subscription. An opinion piece here and there is fine.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really enjoyed telling the Washington Post rep why I cancelled my subscription a few minutes ago...

 

I told her it was because the paper has decided its ok to maliciously insinuate that my team, my family, other fans, supporters, and the owner of the Redskins are racist on a daily basis.

 

Looking for more facts and less derogatory techniques for shoving a minority opinion down my throat in my next paper subscription. An opinion piece here and there is fine.

Thank you!  I am considering filing a complaint against UnWise Mike after his attack on me Sunday. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't heard it. Last year, Smith called the name a slur. So, I'm curious what his opinion on the letter is.

Well, again, at the risk of being a shill, we have the full audio of it on the podcast, due out tomorrow.

Snyder's letter caused him to change his mind, and he makes some very good sound arguments.

Chiefly, that it's not up to him, or Skip or Costas or anyone but native Americans to make the call.

I can post up the link in here when it's ready if anyone would like.

~Bang

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you!  I am considering filing a complaint against UnWise Mike after his attack on me Sunday. 

 

I demand details.  Please.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I demand details. Please.

I'm assuming it was one of his self-righteous hateful twitter rants directed at anyone who criticizes his articles. He is a pathetic, shameful excuse for a human being. His article on Chief Z was the lowest level I've ever seen journalism dip from the WaPo, because reading through it you could tell Z had no clue how that article was going to be framed. What basically was made to seem like a nice piece on the history of the Chief Z character was nothing more than a new way for Wise to frame the name debate. He basically insinuated that Z was a poor, ignorant piece of trash that was clueless as the bigotry he represented. I was furious as a Redskins fan, but more furious that he would take advantage of someone like that. It was awful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://deadspin.com/redskins-a-natives-guide-to-debating-an-inglorious-1445909360

 

Three days ago, in his halftime essay for Sunday Night Football, Bob Costas called the "Redskins" nickname an "insult" and a "slur," joining a chorus of people—from the Washington Post to Slate to Keith Olbermann to even President Obama—suggesting or demanding that the team change its name. That's cool, and you tend to believe that they're bringing this up as a matter of social justice. Still, as a Native American writer and lawyer who 1) speaks, through various media, to educated/scholarly Native Americans, but also 2) lives on a reservation and was born and raised on various reservations where there are decidedly different interests from those of the Native intelligentsia, I find the recent mainstream attention to the Washington Redskins both encouraging and suspicious.

 

FYI: It's not a new topic amongst Native people; there have been those who have been encouraging this discussion literally for decades.

I wanted to give a quick primer on that discussion for those who are interested, separating some of the mythology of the Washington Redskins mascot controversy from the reality. It's not quite as clear as it seems, in either direction. And like many social justice movements historically, the allegedly aggrieved—Native Americans—haven't come to anything resembling a consensus on this topic. (Don't believe the hype.) That doesn't mean that it's not a social justice issue, though. Confusing, right?

Exactly.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the tweets.  I posted them on my FB page where he could not delete them.  I do not follow nor interact with him at all as even before of this I never liked his style of writing.  I was just tweeting among friends about the upcoming game before this came through.

 

@MikeWiseguy: @sonnyandsam @skinshuly It's the Washington pro football team.

My response: @skinshuly: @MikeWiseguy @sonnyandsam you mean the REDSKINS! OH YES I LOVE MY REDSKINS!

He responded: @MikeWiseguy: @skinshuly @sonnyandsam Hail to Christie's Racial Slurs, hail insensitivity...Caucasians on the towpath, fight for inequality. Fight..

I responded: @skinshuly: @MikeWiseguy @sonnyandsam and I am unlike you Cherokee GO REDSKINS!

He never responded!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, again, at the risk of being a shill, we have the full audio of it on the podcast, due out tomorrow.

Snyder's letter caused him to change his mind, and he makes some very good sound arguments.

Chiefly, that it's not up to him, or Skip or Costas or anyone but native Americans to make the call.

I can post up the link in here when it's ready if anyone would like.

~Bang

 

Outstanding

 

The bottom line, is that if a majority of Native's say they are offended by the term I would get behind changing the name.  I think most fans probably would.  Again, the NATIVES themselves.  You get the feeling though that the other side doesn't want a new poll, mainly because they ignore the existing one.  This is why they try to play to the "sensibilities" of the public, instead of presenting facts or actively seeking facts.  "Well, it uses "Red" and "Skins" in the same word so it MUST be racist"   (Again, which also shows a lack of knowledge of what the word "racist" actually means)

 

"Redskins" is certainly "racial" in nature as far as origin, but that does not  automatically make the word offensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That Deadspin article was fantastic.

 

 


I actually appreciate Rick Reilly's perspectivewhen he says he wants to keep non-Native liberals from driving this discussion. It's a fair point, and it shows at least some awareness of who has a real stake in the outcome. There is certainly a decent amount of liberal absolution at work here, too, even if it's bound up with a creditable forbearance on the part of white liberals regarding the use of freighted language that doesn't belong to them. Still, it's not Rick Reilly's job to discern who is talking for whom. If he sees a Native person talking, he should probably assume that the Native person is talking for himself or herself. Would Reilly argue that white people are free to use the word "******" because white liberals largely led the movement that pushed white people to stop using it in everyday conversation?

 

Notice the disconnect?

 

Which leads me to my final point:

 

The "Redskins" debate is similar to the "******" debate, yet unlike with the "******" debate, outsiders feel perfectly comfortable telling Native people how they should feel. I suppose that's the most frustrating part of the debate—that we Native people, the folks who are the only meaningful stakeholders in this debate—are not allowed to have a voice in the matter. Correct that: We can have an opinion so long as it is pro-Redskin. Otherwise, we're being "too sensitive."  

Edited by Lombardi's_kid_brother

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that white liberals leading this debate is problematic. But the reason for that - I think - is because there is not a very strong civil rights infrastructure in place for Native Americans. The Oneida Nation is a problematic group in myriad ways, but it's one of the very few Native groups with the resources and organization to be heard at all.

Edited by Lombardi's_kid_brother

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that white liberals leading this debate is problematic. But the reason for that - I think - is because there is not a very strong civil rights infrastructure in place for Native Americans. The Oneida Nation is a problematic group in myriad ways, but it's one of the very few Native groups with the resources and organization to be heard at all.

I live in NM within a couple hours drive of a number of different reservations that have sizable populations.  At least among Navajo and Apache's there is a hesitancy to be outspoken.  A cultural thing where even looking someone in the eye is frowned upon let alone taking up the torch in a charged issue like this one. 

 

Just another thing to add to the confusion and making a clear answer a thing that we are never likely to get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that white liberals leading this debate is problematic. But the reason for that - I think - is because there is not a very strong civil rights infrastructure in place for Native Americans. The Oneida Nation is a problematic group in myriad ways, but it's one of the very few Native groups with the resources and organization to be heard at all.

 

and then there is the question of whether or not Ray Halbritter even speaks for the Oneida Nation.  Unless there is something new I have missed, that is a legitimate question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the tweets.  I posted them on my FB page where he could not delete them.  I do not follow nor interact with him at all as even before of this I never liked his style of writing.  I was just tweeting among friends about the upcoming game before this came through.

 

@MikeWiseguy: @sonnyandsam @skinshuly It's the Washington pro football team.

My response: @skinshuly: @MikeWiseguy @sonnyandsam you mean the REDSKINS! OH YES I LOVE MY REDSKINS!

He responded: @MikeWiseguy: @skinshuly @sonnyandsam Hail to Christie's Racial Slurs, hail insensitivity...Caucasians on the towpath, fight for inequality. Fight..

I responded: @skinshuly: @MikeWiseguy @sonnyandsam and I am unlike you Cherokee GO REDSKINS!

He never responded!

 

So basically Wise called you (a native American) a racist Caucasian.  You should send this in to the Post. How much native American are you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wise and I initially butted heads and he called me dumb and racist, However he has since apologized and we've had clean debates on social media for roughly a month.

 

One of his fans however has been attacking me with homophobic slurs. I think this individual stalks Wise's feed and attacks pro-Redskin posters if they disagree with Wise...either that or I'm just special. 

 

I don't want to ignore/block the aggressor, I want UnWise Mike to see what he's created: unsolicited vitriol towards Redskins fans from a far-left extremist. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am at least 1/4 maybe a little more a little less. My Aunt is a member of the tribe and our Cherokee family name is Gahye.

Wise and I initially butted heads and he called me dumb and racist, However he has since apologized and we've had clean debates on social media for roughly a month.

One of his fans however has been attacking me with homophobic slurs. I think this individual stalks Wise's feed and attacks pro-Redskin posters if they disagree with Wise...either that or I'm just special.

I don't want to ignore/block the aggressor, I want UnWise Mike to see what he's created: unsolicited vitriol towards Redskins fans from a far-left extremist.

He intentionally called me out. I have never spoken to him before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UnWise Mike is getting entirely too much credit on this issue which, to my knowledge, he didn't create.  Unless he was writing about it long before he ever came to the Washington Post in 2004 he was at least 12 years late to this particular party.  Truth is I have no idea when Wise first picked up this issue and made it his pet cause and joined the "World Tribe" (whatever the heck that is).  Tony Kornheiser wrote about the name being offensive in 1992 and apparently liberals weren't told that this was a political battle back then.
 

The “Redskin” question makes me uncomfortable. I wrote five months worth of Bandwagon columns and avoided it. I don’t sense any groundswell out there to change the name, and I suspect most people would rather the issue go away. You might think there’s a liberal-conservative split. But good liberals I admire think the whole thing is silly. “It’s just a football team,” one told me in exasperation. “There are far worse examples of racial insensitivity in the world. This is not going to solve discrimination. The fans associate ‘Redskins’ with something positive.”

The problem is, apparently many Indians don’t see it that way. Shaw talked about mascots portrayed as savages, in paint and feathers on the warpath, and said, “What does an Indian father say to his kids when they ask, ‘Daddy, is that how you used to do it?’ ”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/wp/2013/02/14/when-tony-kornheiser-wrote-about-the-redskins-nickname/

 

My point is that this issue is not a Wise, WashingtonPost, or even a media creation. Like it or not this issue started outside of the media and liberal politics.  None of those people/groups kidnapped Harjo and friends and forced them to petition the Trademark Office.  This isn't as simple as a grudge against an owner either, Snyder wasn't the owner when this started.  

What we are saying when we blame all of this on a write, the media, or liberals is that it would be easier to ignore this issue if those other groups would stop talking about it.  The issue, at it's heart however, is still lead by people like Harjo and Halbritter that claim to be offended and are certainly not white liberal members of the press.  There is no getting around that even if it is more fun to pretend the Post did this because they are consumed by their hatred for Dan Snyder.   

 

Harjo and Casino Ray are not alone.  Native American symbols and names are opposed currently, or previously, in virtually every city with a pro or college team using them.  Are all those groups really just the puppets of white liberals, as Daniel Greenfield likes to imply?  (personal note, the implication that white liberals are behind this and that minority supporters are just puppets, is offensive as hell)  

 

Like it or not there is clearly a group out there that wants no part of native american culture being adopted by sports teams.  There is also a larger group of native americans that have no problem with it.  How do we resolve this?  I think that's the issue that needs to be addressed.  ****ing about Wise, the newspaper, liberals, and Costas (again, **** that guy) might feel good, damn good, but it's not going to do a thing to solve this and make it go away for good.  

 

Edit:

 

 

fantastic article.  

Edited by Destino

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/wp/2013/10/16/cris-collinsworth-redskins-no-longer-works/

Cris Collinsworth: ‘Redskins’ no longer works

 

Almost made it to the end of the day without a post on this topic. Came so close.

 

NBC Sunday Night Football analyst Cris Collinsworth — who helped call last Sunday’s Redskins-Cowboys game — weighed in on the topic of the moment during this week’s episode of Showtime’s Inside the NFL. This transcript comes from Showtime.

 

“I believe in Daniel Snyder,” Collinsworth said. “I believe in his great passion for the Washington Redskins. I admire the fact that he wants to defend the legacy of this fantastic franchise that has won so many championships over the course of years. But I have to admit, as I was watching the game Sunday night and I was saying the word Redskins, in my brain it was coming out red skin. And there was something about that that just didn’t feel right.

 

“I have a feeling if it were the blackskins, the brownskins, the name would have already been changed,” Collinsworth said. “And I think that despite the fact that they were trying to honor Native Americans. I really do believe that. You don’t name something after something derogatory. You wouldn’t name your child something derogatory. You wouldn’t name your team something derogatory. So at one time it was meant to honor the great history of Native Americans. And in this day and age, Redskins just doesn’t work. And I think Daniel Snyder, the good man that he is, will eventually see what is best for the Washington Redskins is for him to lead a name change. And I hope he does.”

 

Edited by visionary

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.