truth on hold Posted May 25, 2014 Author Share Posted May 25, 2014 (edited) Different era. Some teams had a few nicknames. The original owner was pretty racist, probably didn't hold his players and team in high regard like teams are today. Again, nickname goes back to a different cultural era. You can't compare that era with today. Not so sure about that. The incentives then for owning and naming a team are the same as now: power, success, local identity, monetizable. Why knowingly use a name that conveys oppression, defeat, annihilation, segregation? If the era can explain the illogic why not a lot more examples? Edited May 25, 2014 by Joe_the_6_pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 25, 2014 Share Posted May 25, 2014 Not so sure about that. The incentives then for owning and naming a team are the same as now: power, success, local identity, monetizable. Why knowingly use a name that conveys oppression, defeat, annihilation, segregation? If the era can explain the illogic why not a lot more examples? Wasn't illogical back then. Players and teams weren't held in such high regard. Natives were considered to be the same as fierce animals... Players brutes. Look who their market was. We are talking names during the "separate but equal" era in American history. And we all know that it was decided that separate is inherently unequal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted May 25, 2014 Author Share Posted May 25, 2014 (edited) A) Players and teams weren't held in such high regard. B),And we all know that it was decided that separate is inherently unequal. A. Really? Names of other teams when redskins were formed: Bears Packers Spartans Giants Dodgers Cardinals Stapletons Other than local identifiers seems like lofty names to me B) I know that, but why identify with the under privileged? Its self evident discrimination was more pervasive which would seem even greater incentive not to be identified with that class. Edited May 25, 2014 by Joe_the_6_pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
machine gun kelly Posted May 25, 2014 Share Posted May 25, 2014 A bunch of bleeding heart liberals. Almost every Seator was a democrat basically pandering to one of their demographics. I hope Snyder sticks to his guns and says "NO"? Bruce Allen prepared a response indicating when the name was founded there were some Indian Nations consulted, and they came up with the logo and name as a matter of pride and unity amongst all Indian Tribes. I have yet to hear one leader of any of the Indian Nations come out in protest. To the contrary, I've heard enough tribal leader who have jumped on NFL radio as guests, and absolutely do not want the name changed. The reasoning was interesting as they said so much of the Indian culture is fading away from the mainstream and it concerns them. They don't want names like the Redskins, Chiefs, Seminoles, etc going away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMan Posted May 25, 2014 Share Posted May 25, 2014 With this country in the bad shape it's in, the US senate is doing useless crap like this ? That's messed up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LB3 Posted May 25, 2014 Share Posted May 25, 2014 (edited) A bunch of bleeding heart liberals. Almost every Seator was a democrat basically pandering to one of their demographics. I hope Snyder sticks to his guns and says "NO"? Bruce Allen prepared a response indicating when the name was founded there were some Indian Nations consulted, and they came up with the logo and name as a matter of pride and unity amongst all Indian Tribes. I have yet to hear one leader of any of the Indian Nations come out in protest. To the contrary, I've heard enough tribal leader who have jumped on NFL radio as guests, and absolutely do not want the name changed. The reasoning was interesting as they said so much of the Indian culture is fading away from the mainstream and it concerns them. They don't want names like the Redskins, Chiefs, Seminoles, etc going away. Well there is this... "The R-word is a dictionary defined racial slur, which likely explains why avowed segregationist George Preston Marshall decided to use the term as the team's name. Continuing an infamous segregationist's legacy by promoting such a slur is not an honor, as Mr. Snyder and Mr. Goodell claim." -Ray Halbritter, Oneida Indian Nation rep http://www.oneidaindiannation.com/pressroom/Oneida-Indian-Nation-and-the-National-Congress-of-American-Indians-Praise-50-US-Senators-for-Letter-to-NFL-Urging-Change-for-the-DC-Teams-Mascot-260255271.html Edited May 25, 2014 by KikoSeeBallKikoGetBall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
What a Tuel Posted May 25, 2014 Share Posted May 25, 2014 (edited) I suppose it is just a question of which side of history you choose to stand. What does this even mean? To answer your first question: probably. Google George Preston Marshall. So you think that he named the team the Redskins because he was so racist that he wanted to be reminded every day of the people he allegedly (is it even alleged that he hated Indians?) so very much hated? Really? You are really going to believe that over the organizations story of the origin of the team name? Regardless, it doesn't matter, because the organization stands behind the name as honoring Native Americans. Do you think they are secretly closet racists? The team started as Boston Braves (same name as the baseball team), and then moved to Fenway Park where the Boston Red Sox played. Boston Red Sox. Boston Red Skins. See a correlation? By the way, the Redskins first win was against the New York Giants. Where's the Senates letter about the Giants obviously picking on those poor people with gigantism? Edit: I could go on and on all day haha. How about those Bills? What does the Buffalo Bills organization think Buffalonians can't pay their Bills? How insulting! ( I know that isn't the true meaning of the name, but who cares!) What about the New York Jets? Isn't that a little insensitive in the aftermath of 9/11? What about the Vikings? Didn't they do some cruel things to people? How could they celebrate that? What about the Tampa Bay Buccaneers? They celebrate pirates who did their share of damage to innocent people. They even have a pirate ship in their stadium! New Orleans Saints? Are they really trying to mock a large amount of peoples religion? Quite insensitive! Sounds pretty ridiculous when you take context and intent out of it. Edited May 25, 2014 by What a Tuel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keukasmallies Posted May 25, 2014 Share Posted May 25, 2014 So...we've been urging Senators to act on any number of things with no action taken so far. If the name Washington Redskins is interpreted by some to be a slur against native Americans, it's equally fair to say the the name United States Senate has come to stand for a slur against the concept of effective government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted May 25, 2014 Share Posted May 25, 2014 (edited) Why hasn't this been a big deal for the last 81 years? Lets not act like this conversation is 3 weeks old. There was a decent sized protest when we played them in the Super Bowl. The debate spans decades. A. Really? Names of other teams when redskins were formed: Bears Packers Spartans Giants Dodgers Cardinals Stapletons Other than local identifiers seems like lofty names to me B) I know that, but why identify with the under privileged? Its self evident discrimination was more pervasive which would seem even greater incentive not to be identified with that class. I've long thought it to be a mixed bag - not pure hatred but not honor either. More circus side show perhaps, having their coach dress up for home games even. Sure they picked a warrior image but I don't think they were trying to honor it as much as create spectacle. Edited May 25, 2014 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted May 26, 2014 Author Share Posted May 26, 2014 (edited) Lets not act like this conversation is 3 weeks old. There was a decent sized protest when we played them in the Super Bowl. The debate spans decades. I've long thought it to be a mixed bag - not pure hatred but not honor either. More circus side show perhaps, having their coach dress up for home games even. Sure they picked a warrior image but I don't think they were trying to honor it as much as create spectacle. Could be I just don't know. But ultimately intent shouldnt be dererministic; people stop doing things all the time due to unintended consequences. btw I was at that game in 92'. Demonstration was small, maybe around half a dozen outside main entrance. But I agree it's time stamped as having gone on a for a while. IMO Senators may have done Snyder a favor ... he can change name to Washington Indians (or something) and cite growing political pressure along with right thing to do. Before if he's giving in to a handful of demonstrators and letter writers, makes him look weak. Edited May 26, 2014 by Joe_the_6_pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted May 26, 2014 Share Posted May 26, 2014 Could be I just don't know. But ultimately intent shouldnt be determistic; people stop doing things all the time due to unintended consequences. btw I was at that game in 92'. Demonstration was small, maybe around half a dozen outside main entrance. But I agree it's time stamped as having gone on a for a while. IMO Senators may have done Snyder a favor ... he can change name to Washington Indians (or something) and cite growing political pressure along with right thing to do. Before if he's giving in to a handful of demonstrators and letter writers, makes him look weak. Ah - I thought it was larger. Wasn't there but having read mention of it things seemed larger than just a dozen. I don't know how I feel about original intent on this discussion. It's certainly not my deciding factor by any means. I just often hear that it had good intent out of the gate and I don't believe that from the bits and pieces I've read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 26, 2014 Share Posted May 26, 2014 So...we've been urging Senators to act on any number of things with no action taken so far. If the name Washington Redskins is interpreted by some to be a slur against native Americans, it's equally fair to say the the name United States Senate has come to stand for a slur against the concept of effective government. Be careful about going down this road. Et tu, Brute? If you want to call asassination effective governing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted May 26, 2014 Share Posted May 26, 2014 Ah - I thought it was larger. Wasn't there but having read mention of it things seemed larger than just a dozen. I don't know how I feel about original intent on this discussion. It's certainly not my deciding factor by any means. I just often hear that it had good intent out of the gate and I don't believe that from the bits and pieces I've read. An issue like this has millions of different arguments that justify both sides. I think if Native tribes got together, wrote letters or even protested, it'd be an easier decision to change the name. The problem is almost all of the "stories" about the name come from sportswriters who need to write an article this week for their job. The "debate" arises every offseason because sportswriters run out of news. The US senators' letter smacks of taking a stand on a morally defensible issue that can't be argued. It could be racist. The senators say it sounds racist, and it should be changed. It's a great way to gain some goodwill from activists for doing next to nothing. It's inarguable that it could be construed as racist. The question is, who finds it racist? Some minute population of Natives? That's why the common counter is "Vikings/Fighting Irish could be racist." A common person could take offense to just about anything. That's why there is no legal avenue to force a name change. Saying that it could as easily be the "Washington Kikes" ignores a few fundamental parts of the issue. Like the fact that that term is way more common and less dated today. And that it hasn't been a label for "Proud warrior culture" for almost 100 years. Many Natives are honored that their culture and lineage is associated with bravery, honor, and fierceness in sports teams across the country. That's why the Nordic populations don't care about the "Vikings." It isn't used in a derogatory sense at all in today's era. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EasternOHBillsFan Posted May 26, 2014 Share Posted May 26, 2014 Be careful about going down this road. Et tu, Brute? If you want to call asassination effective governing. The assassination of freedom by the minority has overcome us as judging by this PC movement, so it is apropos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 26, 2014 Share Posted May 26, 2014 The assassination of freedom by the minority has overcome us as judging by this PC movement, so it is apropos. Freedom to do what? What freedom is being asassinated? The freedom to hate? Freedom to exploit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hplarrm Posted May 26, 2014 Share Posted May 26, 2014 As a football fan and member of our society, I mostly view the decisions made by the NFL as a test. In my view is totally up to the NFL to decide, but for us outside observers it is simply a test which will show whether the NFL (and to some degree our society as matured. Unlike any other ethnic group Americans have simply treated the Native American community horribly and brutality. On no other subject is the greatest similarity between how our culture has treated a discrete ethnic group do we have more in common with the genocide which the country of Rwanda visited on Rwandans who were members of the Tutsi tribe. It isn't most important whether a majority of Native Americans are offended or not. A significant chunk of them are (despite the seemingly willful ignorance or just plain ignorance shown by some such as the poster on TSW who has not seen the official protests of folks like the Oneida nation numerous individual native Americans. It seems pretty clear that no one can force the Deadskins ir the NFL to give up the name. However, I would see it as a sign of maturity and growth if the NFL got rid of it. The NFL and Dan Snyder simply look small and immature not to be able to dispense with the name given US history of distributing small pox laden blankets, flat out massacres and ignoring of treaties our society visited on the tribes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted May 26, 2014 Share Posted May 26, 2014 I'm wondering where this notion that a significant number of Native Americans don't find the term "redskin" offensive comes from?-- all evidence to the contrary. The word "redskin" as a derogatory term goes back well over a century. All of the legal challenges to the name have come from Native American groups. as well as numerous protests-- all going back decades. Numerous Native American groups have publicly condemned the name. What more does it take? I also have to disagree with machine gun kelly that this is some issue for "a bunch of bleeding heart liberals," (a sentiment echoed by some other posters in less obnoxious terms). If anyone knows anything about Charles Krauthammer, they will know that he is one of the most conservative editorialists in print. And, he gets it exactly right in this link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-redskins-and-reason/2013/10/17/cbb11eee-374f-11e3-ae46-e4248e75c8ea_story.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hplarrm Posted May 26, 2014 Share Posted May 26, 2014 Many thanks to you for adding a link to a reference which I think answers your simple question (what's the most valid estimate of the offense taken by some generally not known to most % of the possible offended community). Krauthammer shares a perspective which also provides what seems to me to the best answer for the broader question of whether the Deadskins should change their name. Its the Deadskins choice and in our system they are entitled to insist on using a name even if as Krauthammer has pointed out the use and meaning of the phrase have become quite negative for some folks. They have the right to insist upon their tradition, but I hope they have the maturity and personal strength and security to move beyond using a designation some find offensive. I doubt they do (given the seeming rich guy childishness Snyder has shown) but we will see. I'm wondering where this notion that a significant number of Native Americans don't find the term "redskin" offensive comes from?-- all evidence to the contrary. The word "redskin" as a derogatory term goes back well over a century. All of the legal challenges to the name have come from Native American groups. as well as numerous protests-- all going back decades. Numerous Native American groups have publicly condemned the name. What more does it take? I also have to disagree with machine gun kelly that this is some issue for "a bunch of bleeding heart liberals," (a sentiment echoed by some other posters in less obnoxious terms). If anyone knows anything about Charles Krauthammer, they will know that he is one of the most conservative editorialists in print. And, he gets it exactly right in this link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-redskins-and-reason/2013/10/17/cbb11eee-374f-11e3-ae46-e4248e75c8ea_story.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted May 26, 2014 Share Posted May 26, 2014 (edited) I'm wondering where this notion that a significant number of Native Americans don't find the term "redskin" offensive comes from?-- all evidence to the contrary. The word "redskin" as a derogatory term goes back well over a century. All of the legal challenges to the name have come from Native American groups. as well as numerous protests-- all going back decades. Numerous Native American groups have publicly condemned the name. What more does it take? I also have to disagree with machine gun kelly that this is some issue for "a bunch of bleeding heart liberals," (a sentiment echoed by some other posters in less obnoxious terms). If anyone knows anything about Charles Krauthammer, they will know that he is one of the most conservative editorialists in print. And, he gets it exactly right in this link: http://www.washingto...c8ea_story.html How does "Redskins" have a negative connotation in history and go against common decency, and "Vikings" doesn't? Instead of being named after victims of tragedy, Vikings is named after the AGGRESSORS. The rapists, the pillagers. I honestly need someone to explain this to me. I don't get it. Edited May 26, 2014 by FireChan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 26, 2014 Share Posted May 26, 2014 (edited) The last three posts were spot on. EDIT: That is, the last three posts before the one above this. ;-P How does "Redskins" have a negative connotation in history and go against common decency, and "Vikings" doesn't? Instead of being named after victims of tragedy, Vikings is named after the AGGRESSORS. The rapists, the pillagers, but nope, no one cares. Does anybody really associate with being called a Viking? Do Vikings even exist? Edited May 26, 2014 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts