Alaskins

The Official ES Redskins Name Change Thread---Yea or Nay? (do not post suggestions for new name or logos etc--thread in stadium for that stuff)

Recommended Posts

I can't understand those (primarily Causcasian0 who claim the name "redskin" isn't offensive. Yet they take offense to those who suggest renaming the team. Change the name and let's move on. Call em what you want-they'll also be the Skins to me.

I can't understand Caucasians insisting native Americans should be offended by the name when they overwhelmingly are not.

However, I do understand being offended at the notion of white people telling minorities how to think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw the news today said 83% or right around that number opposed Congress wasting time addressing the name change.

 

And to the "would you call a Native American a Redskin to their face" question: would you call a Norwegian a Viking, or a Carribeaner a buccaneer, or any New Englander a patriot? A Bostonian a celtic? Just because a team names itself after a certain group of people, does not mean it automatically applies today. In fact, most of those team names honor a group from the past that they feel is worth honoring, it is not insulting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...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?

 

 

Great point. You would think the Cleveland Indians name, and ESPECIALLY their logo would be priority #1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

holden and danny talking about this now with mike freeman. http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/blog/mike-freeman/21697405/time-for-washington-to-dump-offensive-redskins-nickname

 

shocker. non-native american columnist writes column in favor of name change, while discounting the polls that show native americans arent offended. 

 

nothing new here. 

Edited by grego

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Claims that most Indians are honored by the offensive name are both laughable and insupportable. Pro Football, Inc. and fans rely on 2002 and 2004 polls that purportedly represent what Native American people think about the name, but the pollsters have yet to prove that any respondents were, in fact, Native.

Read more athttp://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/05/29/fighting-racist-stereotypes-sports-one-poll-time-part-ii

 

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/05/29/fighting-racist-stereotypes-sports-one-poll-time-part-ii

 

looks like freeman isnt the only one who discounts polls that disagree with their agendas. susan harjo herself apparently is under the delusion that since native americans couldnt possibly support the name, the polls must be flawed. 

 

whats she going to do next? tell the native american high schools who use the name that their kids are actually all white? or just say that they 'dont count' a la UnWise Mike?

 

laughable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wanted to share some things I've found.  I'm starting to feel that, regardless of what we show or educate others w/, we will never be able to win this argument or gain public favor.  It's so overly abused and such a trend to jump on the bandwagon about how Redskin is 'racist', equivolent to the N word, etc.  We have statements from local Chiefs, polls in our favor, as well as gems like what I will list below.......but we will still have the same issue.  We're going to start seeing larger(er) protests at games....we're going to start having broadcasters not call us the Redskins on-air, we're going to continue to see the same players in the media continue to take the same stance w/o knowing the true meaning of the word, and if we continue to have success and make the Super Bowl................I believe this topic will gain even more attention and public outcry.  We're losing - and going to continue to lose on this, even if we know true in our hearts the meaning of the term Redskin, its origins, its unjustly use by Hollywood dogma, and even when pure intellectuals state this:

 

http://anthropology.si.edu/goddard/redskin.pdf

 

 

Ives Goddard is a senior linguist at the Smithsonian Institution.  You would think that he would be the supreme authority on the term "Redskin"...and you would think the entire collection of educated white liberals in both journalism and media, Amanda BLACKhorse, and Tom Cole would give this some ounce of recogniztion - but they do not.  They won't. 

 

I love my Redskins.  I live in Washington DC.  I went to the University of Maryland - one of the most diverse institutions in America.  I'm not a racist.  I've never, outside of one or two Hollywood movies, have heard the "redskin" term applied in a negative fashion.  In fact...the only movie I can think of is Thunderheart where Val Kilmer is jokingly called a Redskin bc' he is an FBI agent from DC.  Even in my close network of best friends that represent SEVERAL minorities and / or diverse nationalities where we constantly joke on each other's race, religion, and nationality............................have I EVER heard anyone apply "Redskin" in a negative fashion. 

 

My license plate says "RG3n21".  My dog's name is Taylor, for the great Sean Taylor.  My facebook timeline photo is of the Sean Taylor mural / painting at the Brookland metro.  I've been a member here for well over 5 years.  There isn't any one person who could ever question my allegiance or affinity for my Redskins - but I must say this is just something I would rather not deal with.  I hate distractions.  I hate that, with every step forward towards success with this great organization, we always have to deal with some obtuse item that just clouds our team.  This topic is never going to go away.  It's starting to gain momentum and additional media pundits, former / current players, as well as political figures will continue to join the other side.  I don't want them to change their name and I certainly do not feel Dan has to - but at some point after getting frustrated at the lack of knowledge and public education on the term "redskin" and how we are misrepresented by just about EVERYONE in the media....I sit back and think of all the possibilities we could achieve with a new identity.  No hate.  No distraction.  Just Robert...and just football.


Sorry to vent - but please read the work by Ives Goddard.  He concludes:

 

“This terminology was developed by Native Americans to label categories of the new ethnic and
political reality they confronted with the coming of the Europeans,” Goddard wrote in the
European Review of Native American Studies after a seven-month investigation. “The actual
origin of the word is entirely benign and reflects more positive aspects of relations between
Indians and whites.”

 

You would think that Dan and Bruce would take a more logical approach to "why" we are the Redskins, how we came to have the current logo on our helmets, the origins and use of the word "Redskin".  Vague statements about history and tradition are not helping. 

Edited by Troy Fakeman
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

troy, you echo my sentiment exactly when you say that the masses (and the media) are ignorant of the facts. its extremely frustrating fighting a battle against ignorance. i dont know if people are just to lazy to do a little research, feel guilty about possible offending someone, or afraid of being seen as a racist. 

 

ive always felt like if a few intelligent people spoke up about the facts regarding the name, things may change. nobody will change the minds of the susan harjos or amanda blackhorses- they are radicals who have an agenda and refuse to even recognize native americans who disagree with them. but, for those who dont have their minds made up, i think theres a chance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grego - I'm with you.  Just watch an episode of Around the Horn, for example, and you'll clearly see where everyone is afraid to speak up and defend the term.  It doesn't matter who you are in the public eye - a media pundit, broadcaster, news reporter, public official / politician...you simply will not (and cannot b/c of our society) defend the Redskins name.  If you are in the public eye you cannot risk beling "labelled" which is one of the dirty tactics these people are using. 

 

...or afraid of being seen as a racist. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonderful.  Our paid elected officicals in congress would rather not address debt, unemployment, rising healthcare costs, foreclosures, homelessness, road repair, etc, but would rather bring their focus to a team nickname.  So proud of them.  Yes, we elected these 10 wonderful men and women to truly represent what is in our best interests.  I wanted I-77 fixed, but that can wait.  This is more important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"ive always felt like if a few intelligent people spoke up about the facts regarding the name, things may change."

 

We're the most educated city (per capita) in the US, if not the world. Why can't we find anybody with credibility to take our side?

 

 

 

*I'm still grasping our new quote features, sry for the double post.

Edited by RFKFedEx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter who you are in the public eye - a media pundit, broadcaster, news reporter, public official / politician...you simply will not (and cannot b/c of our society) defend the Redskins name. 

 

Why is this the case if there's nothing wrong with our name and imagery?

Edited by RFKFedEx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is this case if there's nothing wrong with our name and imagery?

 

Because it "sounds" racist by today's perspective and people would rather be offended than gain any actual knowledge on it.

 

Look at Daniel Tosh's skit where he made up terms and people got offended by them.

http://tosh.comedycentral.com/video-clips/erckcq/is-it-racist----slurs

 

Like Bang pointed out on the last page, some people just want to make noise no matter how clueless they really are, and those who do not take offense typically aren't going to speak up near as loud as those who think they are offended.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because it "sounds" racist by today's perspective and people would rather be offended than gain any actual knowledge on it.

 

Look at Daniel Tosh's skit where he made up terms and people got offended by them.

http://tosh.comedycentral.com/video-clips/erckcq/is-it-racist----slurs

 

Like Bang pointed out on the last page, some people just want to make noise no matter how clueless they really are, and those who do not take offense typically aren't going to speak up near as loud as those who think they are offended.

 

Funny how the white chick seemed to be the most randomly offended person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still waiting for someone to get a poll of Native Americans. If the majority find it offensive, then sure change it. But if they don't have a problem, then let's move on to something else. So tired of hearing about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A little old, but it does show Native Americans don't seem to have a problem. And that a federal judge didn't see the name as offensive. It's time to move on. Like others have said, why are we beining singled out. What about the Cleveland Indians? Atlanta Braves? Kansas City Chiefs? Is it because ours has the word "skin" in the name?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is this case if there's nothing wrong with our name and imagery?

Because the moronic masses don't listen.

Brands are easier to establish than fact.

(ever see a news item about a man who has been accused of harming a child? Does anyone ever care if they might be, or are eventually proven innocent? Nope. the headline is enough for everyone to want him castrated.)

 

this thread is a fine example.

Fact after fact after fact after fact have been presented to show why the term is not a slur, and yet here are the same people from page one still trying to say that it is, because an EXTREME minority have decreed that it is so.

Troy just posted the history of the term by an accredited expert in te field, and the UnWise Mike's of the world will hear none of it.

Why listen to experts when ignorance and gut reactions serve us so well?  Blind enraged crusades are infinitely more common since they don't really require any thought, and breaking with such a proud human tradition is bound to be difficult.

 

it's interesting to note that this is what is happening, while you're asking "why won't any intelligent people take this side"

Because intelligent people recognize roused rabble.  Not vice versa.

It's pointless to speak when there is no one listening.

 

~Bang

Edited by Bang
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's interesting to note that this is what is happening, while you're asking "why won't any intelligent people take this side"

Because intelligent people recognize roused rabble.  Not vice versa.

It's pointless to speak when there is no one listening.

Do you think people would listen if a poltical leader, educator, or journalist of note stood up for us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more I think of this idea the more I like it:

Keep the name REDSKINS and the Burgundy & Gold color scheme. But change the helmet logo to a wicked Coop style red fleshed Devil. Upper torso illustration with a cigar dangling out of his mouth along with a jug of whiskey in one hand and a revolver in another (shout out to the Bullets).

 

It's the ultimate middle finger to the PC police and jettisons ANY claim to being "racist"... and we get to keep the name. Sure beats a potato.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listen....

 

We are going to lose on this.  We will have to embrace change unless Dan, Bruce, or someone of intellectual merit brings scientific documentation to the table.  Complaining about liberals, telling Congress they have more important things to worry about, and arguing slippery-slope style by brining up Oklahoma, Indiana, Iowa, the Paleface River in Minnesota (and things like that) isn't going to get the results we want.

 

There is enough scientific evidence, documentation, and historical FACT to support our side....yet we dont' have anyone from the organization willing to argue with such weaponry.  It kind of makes me feel like they see the writing on the wall. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more I think of this idea the more I like it:

Keep the name REDSKINS and the Burgundy & Gold color scheme. But change the helmet logo to a wicked Coop style red fleshed Devil. Upper torso illustration with a cigar dangling out of his mouth along with a jug of whiskey in one hand and a revolver in another (shout out to the Bullets).

 

It's the ultimate middle finger to the PC police and jettisons ANY claim to being "racist"... and we get to keep the name. Sure beats a potato.

Not happening homey....considering Dan tried to sue a paper who depicted him with horns, crying that it was offensive to Israelites. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he wants to keep the name, it may be his only choice, irony be damned. The "newspaper image" angle could also be another subtle kiss off to Snyder's enemies.

Edited by hawgboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   1 member