eme123 Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 (edited) I had seen a bunch of Redskins programs from the 50's on ebay a few months back. They did a series in which they honored native american heroes in their programs. I can't find any good examples of where you can read the passage but here is an example of the cover. http://www.ebay.com/...=item233ab01887 Edited June 12, 2014 by eme123 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Thank you. I have pointed it out before. Boston Redsox - Boston Redskins. Played at the same stadium. It says in your article he picked the name out of a desire to keep the logo. "He apparently picked the Redskins name so he could keep the existing Native American logo." http://www.sportslog...33/Primary_Logo Does that look like the logo of someone who wishes to disparage or resents Native Americans? The true history of the word as you admitted was not a slur. If the Redskins Organization believes it to be a term of honor as it was prior to the 1800's then why can't it be? What I have maintained, is that the origin of the word was not a slur. The history of the word, in context, has been a slur for the last 200 years. If the Redskins Organization wants to say that it is a term of honor, they do so in contrast to history, as well as the several hundred Native American tribes represented by the National Congress of American Indians. That's the way I see it. I've always felt that history should be embraced, and acknowledged. It's just my perspective. This country has been responsible for some of the greatest accomplishments in the world. We have also been responsible for some travesties. I believe that to deny the latter does a disservice to the former. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirtbag Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 No, my point is that he would have been the last person to "honor" Native Americans or any other person of color. exactly. marshall was a straight up rascist who was likely behind the banning of black players in the '30's and '40's. and the only reason washington eventually drafted a player in the '60's was because the government forced them to (yes, apparently politicians can get involved in sports). before rushing to the defense of marshall and the "honorable" tradition of washington i suggest reading this book: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0807000825/ref%3Das_at?tag=thedailybeast-autotag-20&linkCode=as2& if you don't have time for that, here's a decent summary: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/01/the-racist-redskins.html and if you don't have time for that, this passage is probably enough: When George Preston Marshall died in 1969, he left some money to his children but directed that the bulk of his estate be used to set up a foundation in his name. He attached, however, one firm condition: that the foundation, operating out of Washington, D.C., should not direct a single dollar toward “any purpose which supports or employs the principle of racial integration in any form.” Think about that. This was not 1929 or 1949. Even in 1960 such a diktat might have been, well, “understandable” in a Southern city such as Washington then was. But 1969; “in any form.” This is the man who gave the Washington Redskins their name. He was one of the most despicable racists in the American sporting arena of the entire 20th century. He thought Redskins was funny, just as he thought the war paint and feather headdress he made the head coach wear were funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 (edited) Because a lot of people who they suggest they are honoring find it insulting. As a native american who is not a "Native American" and a student of history somewhat, I find it insulting that our nations capital has a football team named after a group of people said nation tried to wipe all traces of off the face of the earth. Edited June 12, 2014 by reddogblitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 I had seen a bunch of Redskins programs from the 50's on ebay a few months back. They did a series in which they honored native american heroes in their programs. I can't find any good examples of where you can read the passage but here is an example of the cover. http://www.ebay.com/...=item233ab01887 You could probably find testimonials for Al Jolson from the 50's too. Doesn't make it right in 2014. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt in KC Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 As a native american who is not a "Native American" and a student of history somewhat, I find it insulting that our nations capital has a football team named after a group of people said nation tried to wipe all traces of off the face of the earth. Ditto. And I find the suggestions that Marshall, an out-and-out racist, somehow meant the name as an honor, and therefore the offense is negated, to be laughable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eme123 Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 You could probably find testimonials for Al Jolson from the 50's too. Doesn't make it right in 2014. Thank god for 2014. The year PC's woke up and realized a billion dollar entity has a nickname that contains the word 'Red' next to the word 'Skin'. Lets shake this issue silly until an overwhelming majority just says "F it......just change it". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Thank god for 2014. The year PC's woke up and realized a billion dollar entity has a nickname that contains the word 'Red' next to the word 'Skin'. Lets shake this issue silly until an overwhelming majority just says "F it......just change it". You think the movement to get the named changed began in 2014? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hplarrm Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Thank god for 2014. The year PC's woke up and realized a billion dollar entity has a nickname that contains the word 'Red' next to the word 'Skin'. Lets shake this issue silly until an overwhelming majority just says "F it......just change it". Its already happened which it is why my GUESS is that the name is done for. In the end, the NFL is all about the money. The money is found in eyeballs watching the game so that the TV nets are happy to ship billions of $ to the NFL. The NFL is going to make a choice about whether it makes more $ selling a story which has the distractrion of whether the name is racist or not or alternately telling a story more focused on football. Just as the NFL owners were willing to cave into Gene Upshaw's dictate that the players must get 60% of the gross receipts from the new CBA, NFL team owners will happily cave and make Snyder change the name because it matters less who is right in this dispute than the fact it is a distraction to selling football. Its over as best as I can tell without regard to who is right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eme123 Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 You think the movement to get the named changed began in 2014? Do you think it started in 1930? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Do you think it started in 1930? The aggrieved parties of that era were certainly in no position to mount any challenge to disparaging imagery/names that were popular in American Culture. But you go ahead and continue hiding behind the erroneous, intellectually lazy, fallback position of PC. Revel on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Caveman Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 I don't understand how Politically Correct gets thrown around like a goddamned radioactive potato. It's Politically Correct because it's correct. It's the right thing to do or say so as not to disrespect a group of people. Calling something / someone Politically Correct shouldn't be an insult. Jesus would have been Politically Correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pondslider Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Interestingly, the ad itself states they never refer to themselves as, then they show the helmet but these quotes seem to indicate otherwise: This, I think, hurts the validity of the ad some. Is this a real post? Citing anecdotes from over 100 years hurts the validity of the ad today? I'm shocked at how low people will go to justify something so ****ty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 (edited) Thank god for 2014. The year PC's woke up and realized a billion dollar entity has a nickname that contains the word 'Red' next to the word 'Skin'. Lets shake this issue silly until an overwhelming majority just says "F it......just change it". I asked this question of another poster (who was unwilling to answer), who seemed to hold a similar view in this debate: What level of negative connotation would "redskin" have to possess before a name change became a question of common decency, and not of political correctness? Edited June 12, 2014 by Rocky Landing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 I asked this question of another poster (who was unwilling to answer), who seemed to hold a similar view in this debate: What level of negative connotation would "redskin" have to possess before a name change became a question of common decency, and not of political correctness? Don't expect an answer...it would require actual critical thought to seriously consider the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
What a Tuel Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 I asked this question of another poster (who was unwilling to answer), who seemed to hold a similar view in this debate: What level of negative connotation would "redskin" have to possess before a name change became a question of common decency, and not of political correctness? I would argue that negative connotation should not be the sole determining factor in determining whether something is decent or not. The problem I have is that nowadays I see all kinds of movies, and tv and I wonder how people would treat them if they came out today. What should be classified as indecent and offensive? Should they be stricken from the record? How far are we willing to go to make sure everything in the world is decent? Is it possible that you may just have to deal with being offended at some points in your life? I feel like the world is overcompensating for the crimes of the past by treating ordinary people like glass. There is a difference between ensuring that an injustice does not recur, and being overprotective. On the other hand comedy just seems to get away with it, because they are just joking, but in reality are cashing in on racist/hateful/derogatory/intolerant humor which sole purpose is to offend you. (shock value) Blows my mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 Maybe you should read through the last nine pages of this debate... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Dog Named Kelso Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 (edited) Is this a real post? Citing anecdotes from over 100 years hurts the validity of the ad today? I'm shocked at how low people will go to justify something so ****ty. If you have read any of my other posts you will see I have not justified anything. The point of that post is that the ad clearly states they do not use that term and in the past, more than 100 years ago or not it was nearly a badge of pride and distinction from the context of those quotes. Edited June 13, 2014 by A Dog Named Kelso Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eme123 Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 I asked this question of another poster (who was unwilling to answer), who seemed to hold a similar view in this debate: What level of negative connotation would "redskin" have to possess before a name change became a question of common decency, and not of political correctness? I would argue that "redskin" be proven negative in connotation before we discuss a name change. The fact that the word "red" sits next "skin" in a nickname doesn't prove it to be negative. The history of the term is under debate. So that fails to prove it negative in connotation. Hopefully this is intellectual enough for 26cornerblitz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Dog Named Kelso Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 If such a plaque does exists, I would think its very presence provide great credence to Snyder's position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts