Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

The Official ES All Things Redskins Name Change Thread (Reboot Edition---Read New OP)

Alaskins

By Alaskins
in The Tailgate

Recommended Posts

grego

grego

Posted
Posted
I recall her saying that in an interview on 106.7 THE FAN. IMO, she came off sounding like a whacko. In her logic, any mascot that is based off someone's culture is offensive to her. She lost the radio hosts and callers when she said that one.

i thought the same thiing. she was a complete radical.

Boy CBS sports radio is all over Dan Snyder's comments to USA Today. I heard one about an hour ago comparing it to Jackie Robinson and now I just heard Jim Rome. Rome said, "Why don't you go ask Native American's what they think." Umm, we have Jim and 91% said they have no problem with it. Then he said something like, "To Native American's, it is racist and insensative.' So Jim, you as a white man are telling us how Native American's should feel? See this is the exact bull**** that spews from our media today.

i was hoping jim rome would be better informed than that. then again. probably stirring up garbage for ratings. wouldnt be the first time a talk show host (or him) did or said something for ratings.

I understand, because it's the main concept behind the Viking's logo of a white viking warrior on the side of their helmets. !

not sure i follow? but i asked about your position on the helmet logo specifically because it was put there at the request of walter wetzel, a prominent native american. he wanted the redskins to have an actual indian on the helmet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Main-Maine

Main-Maine

Posted
Posted

not sure i follow? but i asked about your position on the helmet logo specifically because it was put there at the request of walter wetzel, a prominent native american. he wanted the redskins to have an actual indian on the helmet.

Guess I wasn't following your question, but that makes it even better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FanboyOf91

FanboyOf91

Posted
Posted

i was hoping jim rome would be better informed than that. then again. probably stirring up garbage for ratings. wouldnt be the first time a talk show host (or him) did or said something for ratings.

It's telling when Colin Cowherd speaks sense about people wanting to be outraged without knowing why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Troy Fakeman

Troy Fakeman

Posted
Posted
cowherd said that? about the redskins? wow. that is shocking.

I don't believe it, lol...

He has it out for everything DC.

---------- Post added May-10th-2013 at 07:20 PM ----------

Later Thursday, USA TODAY Sports will publish a story about Amanda Blackhorse, who is Navajo and the named plaintiff in the trademark suit. She said if she ever had the chance, she'd ask Snyder if he would dare to call her a redskin to her face

This should have been easy for Dan to field...he should have said the following -

"Well, if you had your face painted with red war paint...then yes, I would call you a Redskin"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bantu

Bantu

Posted
Posted
No offense, Bantu, but it seems you missed an interesting element to this. Did you notice her blantant attempt to "bait" Snyder into making a raially charged comment? Yet, it is not addressed by the USA Today author. And eactly what should have Snyder have stated in re to her challenge? The truth is, Snyder did not engage in her attempt to provoke a racial argument. Why would he bother "calling her a Redskin to her face" when it isn't used in that context? It's used a a team name. As the once great George Carlin would say, "It's not the word you should worried about, it's the ******* using the word you should be concerned about!" It's really all about context, and using the name as your team's name is not even remotely being used in a racial slight. Ridiculous to make it appear otherwise (not specifically at you, Bantu, just in general).

No, I actually didn't miss any element to the comment. In journalism, almost every question is a bait of some sort, so that point is moot. Snyder is not new to this issue, so a question like that is something he should be prepared for already, which is where my point comes in. I don't expect Snyder to be like "yeah, I'd call her a Redskins to her face!". I would expect him to explain why it isn't a slur (this is where your point come in) and how the context of that question is off base. Is that really that hard? The truth is, actions speak louder than words, and his action of "no comment" makes it clear to me, he isn't 100% sure if some Native Americans would take it as a slur or not.

My big beef with Snyder, Allen, & Co. is the fact that defending this name has been up to us fans instead of them. All they say are vague comments like its a tradition and its honoring this or that. They aren't nearly as specific as our fellow fans on this board are. Mention Lone Star Dietz or mention the red paint on faces aspect. My only guess at this point is that they truly don't know where it came from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pjfootballer

pjfootballer

Posted
Posted

Some things in the article:

1) Snyder said he would never change the team name. I'm not sure he said "over my dead body."

2) Are Jews actually considered a race? I thought they were a religion. I see Mexican being put down as a race, but they are Latino or Hispanic. Being Mexican is being from the country of Mexico.

3) Yes, there has been an outcry of diehard fans to return to the name Bullets. Most fans hate Wizards and if they don't go back to Bullets, would still like to see Wizards replaced. He did adress that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MattFancy

MattFancy

Posted
Posted
Some things in the article:

1) Snyder said he would never change the team name. I'm not sure he said "over my dead body."

2) Are Jews actually considered a race? I thought they were a religion. I see Mexican being put down as a race, but they are Latino or Hispanic. Being Mexican is being from the country of Mexico.

3) Yes, there has been an outcry of diehard fans to return to the name Bullets. Most fans hate Wizards and if they don't go back to Bullets, would still like to see Wizards replaced. He did adress that.

As soon as I read #3, I was like, apparently this guy has never been on ES lol.

But I liked the points that Hampton brough up in his letter. If you want to do something for Native Americans, changing the name of a football team isn't going to help. I also liked his points about the KC Star not wanting to print Redskins, but they have no problems with the Chiefs who play at Arrowhead.

Would I get butthurt if the team changed the name? No. Do I think it will happen? I have no idea. Should they change the name? I'm not sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MattFancy

MattFancy

Posted
Posted
Way to take a stand there Fancy :ols:

Lol hey whatever. I mean I want them to keep the name, but I'm not going to stop rooting for them in they decide to change it.

It seems from some of the stuff I've read that most Native Americans have no issues at all with the name. Sure there are a few that do, but there are always a few people that have issues over something. So unless they're willing to name every team after an animal (and then hey maybe PETA might rasie hell) then it's pointless to fight this battle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
grego

grego

Posted
Posted
Really interesting read on the Atlantic today about the name change. I really liked Hampton's letter at the end.

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/05/a-name-change-for-the-redskins-unpopular-insufficient-and-necessary/275949/

Across the four major sports there are the MLB's Cleveland Indians and Atlanta Braves and the NFL's Redskins and Kansas City Chiefs (and that's without addressing the morass of college-sports nicknames a la the Florida State Seminoles).

apprently, "jake" doesnt know the seminoles operate with the support of the seminole tribe.

ok, i'll edit my comment just in case he actually does know, but someone has a problem with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bang

Bang

Posted
Posted

...and the Buffalo Bills.

Jesus, how the hell am I supposed to respect ANY of these demands for sensitivity when they don't even know what is TRULY offensive?

Outrage for the stupid... rile the idiots up, get them yelling. Doesn't matter if they EVER have a clue.

Noise makes right.

~Bang

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Bobby S

Bobby S

Posted
Posted

Forgive me for posting this/or just send to appropriate forum as an alert showed "search feature" on this forum is not operating at this time was displayed when I used it. Aside from that...As soon as I went to my computer homepage... There it was... Redskins name change... Apparently 10 members of congress are pushing it now. How long till we are past this? Thought Danny S said absolutely NOT! Also I remember reading that many Native American tribes have no problem whatsoever with the name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
greenspandan

greenspandan

Posted
Posted

i'd like to see some updated polling done of native americans.  the last poll was like ten years ago and indicated 90% didn't have a problem with the name.  it'd be interesting to see if that's changed.

 

there are a variety of interesting opinions, of course, on what to do with that information, but it'd be nice to have a clear picture of what the consensus among the affected party really is.  THEN we can get into what it means:  should the redskins change it even if only a handful are offended?  and if not, what's the tipping point?  those are good questions but without a clear picture of what native americans currently think, it's a bit hypothetical.

 

i know i encounter a lot of people who like to dismiss the poll just because they don't like its result.  ya know, Romney didn't believe his poll numbers either.  but it's true the poll most commonly cited with that "90%" figure is pretty old now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LittleTinyUnbornBaby

LittleTinyUnbornBaby

Posted
Posted

i'd like to see some updated polling done of native americans.  the last poll was like ten years ago and indicated 90% didn't have a problem with the name.  it'd be interesting to see if that's changed.

 

there are a variety of interesting opinions, of course, on what to do with that information, but it'd be nice to have a clear picture of what the consensus among the affected party really is.  THEN we can get into what it means:  should the redskins change it even if only a handful are offended?  and if not, what's the tipping point?  those are good questions but without a clear picture of what native americans currently think, it's a bit hypothetical.

 

i know i encounter a lot of people who like to dismiss the poll just because they don't like its result.  ya know, Romney didn't believe his poll numbers either.  but it's true the poll most commonly cited with that "90%" figure is pretty old now.

 

There has been a poll done this year, of the US, not just Native Americans, I believe that the approval rate was around 78% said that they had no problem with it.

 

Correction 79%

link:

http://www.examiner.com/article/congress-urges-redskins-owner-to-change-name-79-of-americans-don-t-agree

Link to comment
Share on other sites
greenspandan

greenspandan

Posted
Posted

There has been a poll done this year, of the US, not just Native Americans, I believe that the approval rate was around 78% said that they had no problem with it.

 

Correction 79%

link:

http://www.examiner.com/article/congress-urges-redskins-owner-to-change-name-79-of-americans-don-t-agree

 

 

alright, but who cares if white people are offended?  my question is are native americans offended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...