Alaskins

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

Recommended Posts

But don't you think it's a tad fishy that NBC joins in now when they've never had an issue speaking about the name in the past?

 

Not being familiar with NBC's position, I will defer to your olfactory judgment.  Did NBC which also has a contract with the NFL take an anti Redskins position; or was it just Costas and Cris Collinsworth?

 

Either way a disclaimer is still called for.....

 

 

I frankly doubt however this is some sort of graft situation by a multi billion dollar network trying to protect a few million in revenue.  I would much more likely to chalk this up to Costas and Collinsworth trying to jump on what they deem a political correctness frieght train for maximum benefit with minimum risk.   But as I've said I've not reviewed any information other than what you have presented here.

Edited by JMS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the problem?

Sound like someone has hard feelings towards Native Americans...

 

Not at all.  Not even the slightest.  

 

However, there is no way that under those conditions you can continue having any kind of Native American mascot or name.  I would want to completely avoid ever having a problem like that again.  Call it bitter, but I would not want somebody to tell me "well, you can use Native American imagery if you do this, or that, but you can't if you do this."  To hell with all that, just be done with it.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes larry if you disregard every instance of folks reffering to Native Americans as Redskins, it's easy to make the claim and no such writtings exist.. Coarse for the rest of us who can't self edit on the fly like that, we would have to say such a claim deny's reality....

It's the literary equivelent to closing your eyes, putting your fingers in your ears, and chanting loudly; I can't hear you, I can't hear you, I can't hear you.

Your attempt to accuse me of something despicable might have worked better, if you weren't quoting a post of mine which contradicts your claim.

Here's the entire quote you edited.

Yeah, I had read claims that there was no written record of the word "Redskin" ever being used to refer to Natives (other than by themselves).

But that article looks like, at least in 1897 California, yes, the term was used, to refer to the people.

Now, Painkiller is correct (near as I can tell). The article doesn't say that the word referred to the scalp. But yeah, it definitely did refer to the people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Point of contention.

The court cases have not been going ON for decades.

Over decades they have brought a number of court cases, and they have lost all of them because they can't present the evidence needed to prove the offensive nature of the name.

Every single time.
they don't get thrown out because judges don't like them, they don't get continuances that go on.
They get thrown out because they can't prove their claim.

 

None of these cases go on.

They keep losing. Over and over and over.

 

By the logic of the number of times they've been thrown out of court providing legitimacy, that would mean Orly Taitz has a bulletproof case.

 

~Bang

Edited by Bang
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all.  There is no question that the Redskins under previous ownership,  before I became a fan 40-45 years ago, was a racist organization, even for the times;  the last team to integrate in the NFL.     Likewise there is no question that the Redskins name as envisioned early in the franchise was a racist slur prompting revisions of our logo

 

and fight song over the years.....

 

The previous version of the fight song pre 1963 ( same music ) prompted the imagry of savage indian warriors speaking pigeon english running amuck dismembering the opossing team...

 

Ives Goddard is a smithsonian expert on the languages of a few tribes centered around the Chesapeake.   I don't think he's an english expert,  nor is his pdf report  supported by the facts already published in this thread.    Using his pdf report as a blanket refutation of the racist nature of the origins of the term Redskisn has already been dismissed by the US Trademark board..

 

Godard is not a historian or an expert on the origins of terms in English.   He's a linguist specializing in a few languages of Indian tribes located near the DC area.

 

Yea I think that's where the real meat of this topic belongs....  How many redskins are really offended,  and how many redskins does it take to be offended to vacate the trademark.   I think we need to offend at least 100,000 redskins to have our trademark vacated..

 

It's already been pointed out in here, many times, that Marshall's racism doesn't apply with the team name because it makes no sense why someone would name their team, that they own and love, after a slur. I suggest you read the arguments throughout this thread because it seems that a lot of issues you are raising have already been addressed multiple times.

 

You should also read the article posted in here on the history of our team and why we chose the name. Had nothing to do with racism. I agree the caricature by today's standard is not acceptable, but where is the intent to disparage with it? We obviously changed it, but with the team name how was it used to disparage? Even the fight song, which has been revised, did not have the intent to disparage but rather do the same as the team name, which is to invoke toughness, ferocity, and pride. 

 

I didn't see coach Lone Star Dietz or our Native American players having issue with the name. They were recruited here because of the theme. The team kept the theme because of Boston area's ties to Native Americans historically. Again, read the article on the history of the name.From the onset with Marshall the team name has been one meant for reverence, not negativity, and that's the same with every football team.

 

Ives Goddard wasn't refuted by the Trademark Board. He refuted Harjo's assertions on the origin of the name and the board came to the same conclusion. His work is absolutely relevant in this discussion since it shows the name did not start as racist, and other works have asserted this as well. Your refutation of his work is shoddy. Whether or not he's an expert on English is irrelevant to the Native American usage and origin of the name. His findings are in line with why Oklahoma translates to "red people" and why some Native Americans still use the word in reference to one another and have high schools with the name too. This issue has been raised MANY times in here as well. If the name were racist in origin and frequently used in negative manner since the team's existence, then why would the majority of NAs not be offended, some use it, some cheer for the team, and some have high schools with the same team name? It honestly seems like you didn't read through this thread or make much of an attempt to read up on the pro-name side's arguments, it seems like you just jumped right in and have been unknowingly re-hashing arguments long since addressed.

 

If you're going to try and put an exact number on how many it is necessary to be offended, you're probably better off going with a percentage of the population. 100k out of 5 million is not significant enough. Now if you got to 33% then there might be more cause for consideration because even one third is a serious percentage, though not the majority obviously. But as we've seen that number doesn't exist based on the only poll, and the other surrounding evidence (usage, high schools, lack of numbers for the offended at various events, etc. throughout this thread).

Edited by elkabong82

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Credit goes to Nick Smith@SaveTheRedskins:

 

He tweeted a photo of Doug Williams picture being erased at the Superbowl.

 

"Sorry, Doug Williams, but you were on the wrong side of history." - name changing activists #Redskins #httr

 

I thought this was very powerful.
 
Michael Wilbon once referred to Doug Williams as the "Jackie Robinson" of black quarterbacks.
 
The name change activists (middle aged white men) want the Redskins name and logo 100% expunged from the history books. Which means the name and symbol will be blocked out of all highlight reels and photos.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JMS, I call bull****.

 

I love a great antagonist, but it is not working.

 

Nor should it.

 

seconded. 

 

seriously. i'm going to go watch 'apocalypse now' or maybe 'a clockwork orange' just to get to a more sane place than some of JMS's posts.

 

i think someones been reading too many susan harjo articles.......

 

The Disease (the whiteman)  will want not only the new place, but will desire what we do there - pray or paint or dance or sing - and will try to control our behavior. Once it controls our behavior, it will assume the reigns of our lives and assume our very identity. 

Why does it do this? On the theory that, once in positions of power, we will be as bad to the new whiteman as the Whiteman has been to us. Of course, that is not our history or experience, but the new whiteman still takes it as fact that he must control us or become us, or both. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kinda sucks when you have to start posting articles form TMZ about the Redskins, but here you go...
 

 

Redskins Name Change
Where There's Smoke ...

Something curious/suspicious is going on with the Washington Redskins ... there's evidence the owner might be caving to pressure to change the name.

Here's what we know.  Redskins owner Dan Snyder lives in Potomac, Maryland, a few doors down from a very rich dude, Aris Mardirossian. Aris, a wealthy patent investor, registered the name, WASHINGTON BRAVEHEARTS on October 17th.   According to the Trademark application, obtained by TMZSports, Aris plans to use the name for "Entertainment in the nature of football games."

Aris also created a company called Washington Brave Hearts, LLC on the same day -- Oct. 17th.  We've also obtained the LLC docs but there are no specifics.

As for the relationship between Aris and Dan, we're told the 2 of them formed a united front on their block a few years back -- both men wanted to cut down trees on their lots but they were being blocked by the county. 

Also, we found out both Snyder and Mardirossian attended the University of Maryland ... just at different times.

With all the hubbub over the Redskins name, it's more than curious that a man who has nothing to do with football would suddenly register the name of a football team that would solve his neighbor's problem.

We've made numerous calls to everyone involved, and almost everyone who spoke to us was tight-lipped and would not broach the subject.  Aris flat out hung up on us.  As for the Redskins, we've made multiple calls but so far, no word back.

Edited by MLSKINS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That patent story is very interesting.  Certainly seems like at least a little bit of smoke.  Probably something Snyder's keeping in his back pocket if he absolutely, positively needs to do something.


I hate Bravehearts with a passion. That better not be legit.

 

Like anything, it'd take some getting used to.  If the Redskins weren't currently called the Redskins and were being changed to Redskins, I'd think that was terrible too.  Having nothing to do with any controversy, just as a name.  It's just a shock to the system.

Edited by justice98

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brave Hearts? Yuck!

Any attempt to keep the Native theme is not gonna work long term. Not to mention the Mel Gibson ties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, Larry, Riggo et al. There will be no extended OT exchange on the ACLU.

 

Riggo#44, unless I have you confused with a similar name (can't access verification right now), you had been banned a few months back and allowed back mainly due to tenure. You could have been given a time-out again for that post as an OT troll (as that's the function it serves). People who like to post here should avoid that. If it wasn't you (I will check later) then ignore that aspect, but all the rest holds. 

 

edit: Riggo#44 WAS NOT "that guy" and has also apologized for the OT in a very cool manner. I am sure he still hates the ACLU, which is perfectly fine.  :P  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any attempt to keep the Native theme is not gonna work long term.

That's not true in the slightest. The only reason the Redskins name debate has gotten any traction is because the name sounds like a slur and ignorant people like to talk about things they know nothing about. Seen anything suggesting other Native-theme teams are feeling heat? Nope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kinda sucks when you have to start posting articles form TMZ about the Redskins, but here you go...

 

 

I call bull****.

This seems like TMZ patching a story together. They're not exactly known for their jounalistic integrity. Snyder already owns the rights to the name Washington Warriors--why wouldn't he just use that instead of paying for the atrocious "Bravehearts?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I call bull****.

This seems like TMZ patching a story together. They're not exactly known for their jounalistic integrity. Snyder already owns the rights to the name Washington Warriors--why wouldn't he just use that instead of paying for the atrocious "Bravehearts?"

 

Sounds like his friend down the road is investing a few bucks in the patent to sell if it ever comes down to it, much like twitter handles and website names were bought in mass and some companies would pay the owner for the rights. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Article I was reading about the Bravehearts name and patent suggested that Snyder himself leaked it to gauge how the fan base would react to that particular name.

Judging by the initial responses not so well apparently. I actually don't think it's that bad. Warrior is so generic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I just found a good piece of evidence to support our name.

 

Type "Redskins" into Google images and scroll down. Keep scrolling until you see a picture that isn't football related...

 

Oh, what's that? EVERY image result is related to football?

 

IF it was a racial slur, we have CHANGED the meaning. We should be honored. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I just found a good piece of evidence to support our name.

 

Type "Redskins" into Google images and scroll down. Keep scrolling until you see a picture that isn't football related...

 

Oh, what's that? EVERY image result is related to football?

 

IF it was a racial slur, we have CHANGED the meaning. We should be honored. 

 

There are some reasonable excuses to keep the status quot but Google's algorithms are not one of them. The redskins are one of the premier sports brands in the world, they're going to show up on searches before any mention to questionable nature of the name. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some reasonable excuses to keep the status quot but Google's algorithms are not one of them. The redskins are one of the premier sports brands in the world, they're going to show up on searches before any mention to questionable nature of the name. 

 

Pointing out that what you just said, proves emor09's point. 

 

Google is intentionally designed to find those "hits" which it thinks are most likely to be the term you're looking for. 

 

His point is that the word "Redskins" is used to refer to a football team, not a race.  And your response is to agree with him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pointing out that what you just said, proves emor09's point. 

 

Google is intentionally designed to find those "hits" which it thinks are most likely to be the term you're looking for. 

 

His point is that the word "Redskins" is used to refer to a football team, not a race.  And your response is to agree with him. 

 

The redskins word, at least me isn't intended to be racist, and I don't think google cares whether or not the actual word is. Google is in the business of guessing what most people are looking for. When most people think "redskins" they think football. That is fine, that doesn't the absolve the word from its questionable nature. 

 

Unless you believe the majority is always right...of course the majority changes with time. Segregation I'm sure polled alright back in the earlier parts of the 20th century. (No these sins aren't equivalent just using an example as society changes its views on social paradigms.)

Edited by nuposse87

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.