"Redskins" are history!

[Peej7245]

From the HOGETTES: 4 Reasons a Redskins Name Change Should Not Bother You
http://www.hogshaven.com/2013/2/8/39...not-bother-you


On my commute to work today, several things came clear regarding the "Redskins" name:

It's the organization we root for and bond with, not a picture or mascot name: does the "Redskins" name mean anything? No. It's the many levels of the organization that make me proud. The mascot has nothing to do with that. If RGIII scored the winning touchdown in Super Bowl XLVIII wearing burgundy and gold with a "W" on his helmet instead of the Redskins, would it matter then? Of course not, we have a Super Bowl parade to get ready for.

Washington Bullets: After going through the pain of losing the Bullets name to the Wizards, I will tell anyone, a Redskins name change will hurt less. I challenge anyone to name a better mascot in any sport than the Bullets. The name was changed in 1997 due to the high violence rate in D.C. and the assassination of Abe Pollin's longtime friend, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. It probably wouldn't have meant much to Abe at the time, but bullets are used every day by our police force and military to keep our country safe when democracy does not work. Either way, after enduring that name change, the Redskins to Warriors or something of the sort will be easy for me (see #1 above).

George Preston Marshall: The guy that gave the Redskins their nickname was the same owner who was last to integrate African Americans into his team. That's downright embarrassing and will always be a black eye on our organization. It's hard for me to defend a nickname when the original Redskins owner has a history of racism. From a NY Times 2011 article, "As his second head coach, Marshall hired William "Lone Star" Dietz, a journeyman coach at the collegiate level whose mother was most likely a Sioux. It was in "honor" of Dietz, who coached the team for just two seasons and who at Marshall's urging willingly put on war paint and Indian feathers before home games, that Marshall changed the team's name to the Redskins. " Anything that distances our franchise from the beliefs of this guy I'm OK with.

"Redskins" does offend people: Via that same NY Times article, "In 1992, the Native American writer and activist Suzan Harjo, who had moved to Washington, D.C., in the 1970s, became the lead plaintiff in a case against the Redskins organization joined by six other Native Americans, including the writer Vine Deloria Jr." A common defense we hear as Redskins fans is "But there are Native Americans that don't find the name offensive." Well, that's great, but when those Indians are nameless while well-known, Native Americans claim it is racist, then that does carry water. Let's be real here. Even Merriam-Webster defines "redskins" as usually offensive: AMERICAN INDIAN. Let's put this a different way. If Washington was just awarded a NFL franchise and the team announced "Redskins" was the leading option, there would no doubt be outrage everywhere. So, because it was inherited from the past it's OK?...

You'll have to forgive me for saying this but when a survey indicates that 90% of Native Americans are OK with a name, but only 10% find it hurtful, I wonder why you seem to dismiss those results.

To another of your examples, when those leading the "racist" bandwagon are "activists", I am inclined to place less credence on the "activists" because I am not sure if they truly hold their opinions or if they are just taking a side in order to demonstrate their "activism".

[HAIL2BNG]

That isn't from the Hogettes. That's the opinion of one bleeding heart liberal fan.

[HAIL2BNG]

Those are old lyrics. Keep up the fake outrage and worthless arguments.

[Marchetti]

Quote:
Originally Posted by HAIL2BNG
Those are old lyrics. Keep up the fake outrage and worthless arguments.

(hmmm why were the old lyrics altered? Because they were embarrassingly racist??

There is no "fake outrage", nothing fake at all about being against racism.
The worthless arguments are all yours, thats been proven countless times.

Keep up ignoring how Native Americans find the name hurtful and offensive.
That and putting your ignorance on display is all you've accomplished.

The day is coming when the racist nickname will change, it's inevitable
as it's been pointed out by numerous times by those who support the team and live and work inside the capital beltway...and the list is growing.

[HAIL2BNG]

And the day it changes, Snyder will make millions from it. Carry on, oh righteous warrior, AKA Skins hater.

[NCBirdfan]

And the day it changes, Snyder will make millions from it. Carry on, oh righteous warrior, AKA Skins hater.

It is true that Napoleon Snyder does know how to make money. It's just that he knows he doesn't have to win to do it.

[Marchetti]

I don't like the steelers but I respect them.

the racialslurs don't matter enough to dislike, thats for cowboys, giants and eagles fans.

[Rael]

That isn't from the Hogettes. That's the opinion of one bleeding heart liberal fan.

I am far from a bleeding heart liberal and before the Ravens came to town I did root for the Redskins. I like having a team to follow and those teams in the late eighties and early nineties were very good teams. I really have no axe to grind about the Redskins but the name is offensive. As someone asked (and to me it is the most cogent argument) would the name be ok for a new franchise today? If the answer is no then it isn't ok for an old franchise either. If it only offends a small but still significant percentage of people, I'd ask "Why continue to offend them"?

[Peej7245]

([SIZE="1"]...There is no "fake outrage", nothing fake at all about being against racism....

First of all, it is not "racism" as you call it. Look up racism in the dictionary.

Second, the "fake outrage", while not being totally accurate, does catch the spirit of an issue that is important to only 10% of a large sample of Native Americans surveyed. The "outrage" is expressed by those who either have political agendas, have an economic stake (racism whores like the Rhyming Reverends), politicians who embrace the touchy-feely side of an issue out of cowardice or people who just seem to be anti-anything.

Third, as a man who is 1/32 Cherokee, I have read a lot about team names. I have discovered that many if not most organizations adopted a name in order to have the respective organization be associated with the good qualities associated with the name. Now, activists (professional whiners like yourself) have twisted the original intent into something disrespectful.

Fourth and finally, when does it stop???? When do we stop assigning our own meaning to terms, etc., regardless of their original intent, and act on only our interpretation?

[Peej7245]

...I really have no axe to grind about the Redskins but the name is offensive. As someone asked (and to me it is the most cogent argument) would the name be ok for a new franchise today? If the answer is no then it isn't ok for an old franchise either. If it only offends a small but still significant percentage of people, I'd ask "Why continue to offend them"?

Why is the name offensive to you? Are you a Native American (fully or partially)? I am (partially) and don't find it so. My best friend from school is a full-blooded Native American (with the official native american name - Bob) and he is not offended (good news) but also a Redskins fan (bad news).

To my friend Bob, also called "son", "pal", "boy", "lughead" and other tribal names, he once told me when he sees the logo or the name he is reminded of Sonny Jurgensen, Bobby Mitchell, Sam Huff, Darrell Green and others. [Gee (short for God), I guess he is a racist too!]

Do you know why the name was first adopted by the team? It was because "The Washington National League Football Club" was a bit too wordy and would have been difficult to market. Not to mention, it would have been difficult to design a logo.

Can you imagine the team song:

"Hail to the Washington National League Football Club" as the team song? LOL!

How about:

"Bear Down, Chicago National League Football Club" when sung at Soldier Field in Chicago?

By the way, other team names:

• Cleveland Browns (color - could be misconstrued) named after Paul Brown.
  
• Chicago Bears (origionally, the Decatur Staleys - named after A.E. Staley the founder of the team and a cofounder of the NFL)
  
• Pittsburgh Steelers (named after a piece of metal - actually an industry that drove the local economy).
  
• Baltimore Ravens (named in honor of E.A. Poe and one of his best known books)

Hate to say it, but "being offended" is not a passive situation...you have to want to be offended. It is also a selfish action: you assign your reactions but ignore the intended meaning.

A team adopted a name to piggy back on the good about that which was adopted. If it is offensive, maybe it's because the offensive image is one you hold.

[Rael]

Why is the name offensive to you? Are you a Native American (fully or partially)? I am (partially) and don't find it so. My best friend from school is a full-blooded Native American (with the official native american name - Bob) and he is not offended (good news) but also a Redskins fan (bad news).

I never said the name is offensive TO ME. I said if it is offensive to a significant minority, why offend? Even if it were offensive to me personally are you suggesting that since I am not Native American, I have no standing to find it offensive? I'm a white man but I find the N word offensive. Am I wrong to do that?

[HAIL2BNG]

What's a significant minority? These are often people like Susan Harjo who complain about everything and don't want any use of Indians for teams, regardless of the name.

[Rael]

What's a significant minority? These are often people like Susan Harjo who complain about everything and don't want any use of Indians for teams, regardless of the name.

True, there are people who are overly sensitive and that should be factored into any decision. On the other hand, what is the threshold for offense that you would find acceptable vs. unacceptable? If 50% of Native Americans are offended? 25%? 10%?

[Pickle20]

I think the differing factor with the Redskins is that it actually mentions the color of the mascot's skin. It wouldn't work for any other race or ethnicity. I'm not all for changing the name, but I could see why it could one day happen.

[HAIL2BNG]

I think the differing factor with the Redskins is that it actually mentions the color of the mascot's skin. It wouldn't work for any other race or ethnicity. I'm not all for changing the name, but I could see why it could one day happen.

That's just it. Many of the loudest complainers don't even want them to change to something like the Warriors. The idea that the name is the same as calling blacks the N word is ridiculous.

[Marchetti]

Quote:
Originally Posted by HAIL2BNG
The idea that the name is the same as calling blacks the N word is ridiculous.

Said the white guy who so desperately wants his team to retain an outdated, racist name.

Originally Posted by Peej7245
You'll have to forgive me for saying this but when a survey indicates that 90% of Native Americans are OK with a name, but only 10% find it hurtful, I wonder why you seem to dismiss those results.

You'll have to forgive me for saying this but when said 10 year old survey is trumped by Indian Country Today Magazine where 81 percent of respondents found the use of American-Indian names, symbols and mascots in professional sports offensive and disparaging, I wonder why you seem to dismiss those results.

Originally Posted by Marchetti Yesterday 11:55 AM Quote:
One Annenberg election survey released several years ago found that 90 percent of American Indians -- those who should be the most offended -- found the name Redskins acceptable. Conversely, according to Indian Country Today magazine, 81 percent of respondents found the use of American-Indian names, symbols and mascots in professional sports offensive and disparaging. Many Redskins fans themselves are vehemently against the idea of renaming their beloved franchise, but then again, the majority of the football-viewing public is white.

http://www.ibtimes.com/washington-re...ng-say-1089220

[HAIL2BNG]

Too bad you can't prove that Redskins is remotely like the nword. Just more b.s. from a hater. Bleed heart, bleed. I will believe people like you give a crap when you star caring about real issues that plague Indians. Nah, it's easier to bleat about a football team name instead.

Also, yes I am white but I am also 1/32 Iroqois. I won't pretend to speak as an Indian but I am sure I have more of that blood than you.

[Pickle20]

That's just it. Many of the loudest complainers don't even want them to change to something like the Warriors. The idea that the name is the same as calling blacks the N word is ridiculous.

No, but it is the same as calling them the Brownskins, Blackskins or even Negroes and do you think either of them would fly?

The name has racist connotations. There's no denying that regardless of how big a fan you are of the team. Whether it is changed depends on the number of people who are offended by it, and since the Native American represents about 0.8% of the country's population, the chances are pretty slim.

if I were a fan I wouldn't worry too much about it, and it would be frustrating when it's brought up time and after time. It probably is about as tiring as the Ray Lewis debate that never seems to die for Ravens fans.

[Peej7245]

I never said the name is offensive TO ME. I said if it is offensive to a significant minority, why offend? Even if it were offensive to me personally are you suggesting that since I am not Native American, I have no standing to find it offensive? I'm a white man but I find the N word offensive. Am I wrong to do that?

No you are not wrong, but the "N" word was coined and evolved solely as a perjorative term and always has had no other use.

As to your "standing", you also have no standing because you are not the owner of the team. He will make a decision based on self-interest. Remember he is getting pulled by multiple forces in this process too. Remember, for every "activist" shouting in his ear, there are at least an equal number of ticket holders, sponsers and other parties telling him that it is no big deal and that a change could be very expensive.

As to your standing as a White Man, remember you do have a right to your opinion, but not your own facts. Define "significant minority" for me if you will? How does a one in ten ratio acquire significance when in many disciplines, it can be considered a rounding error?

I can give you a real (true it is anechdotal) example. When I worked in an auto plant in the 70s, I remember a survey of us workers was taken and eventually was followed by a full vote on a strike. The survey showed 80 - 85% in favor of a strike, but when the vote was taken, the results were much closer: like 53%-47% for the strike.

Later, a grad student at a local college took it upon himself to conduct his own survey and analyze the numbers. He found out that of the people who voted for the strike (the 53%) were heavily involved, and nearly all of them participated in the survey. Of course, they indicated their preference for the strike. He also found that of those who voted against the strike (the 47%), only 25 - 30% responded to the original survey - voting against the strike.

His conclusions: With an emotional issue, those who feel strongly are more likely to participate in surveys, marches, etc. but those who don't get so worked up over the issue are likely to ignore it until an important action is required. As a result, surveys, in his opinion, were questionable as the basis for any action or policy change.

So when I hear the results of an Annenburg Survey that indicated 10% of the respondents felt the name "Redskins" was thought to be offensive, I do not consider that a "significant minority", question the survey's methods, and certainly would not support any action based on that nebulous result.

[Peej7245]

Said the white guy who so desperately wants his team to retain an outdated, racist name.

So now you can read his mind too? Your arrogance is quite laughable!

You'll have to forgive me for saying this but when said 10 year old survey is trumped by Indian Country Today Magazine where 81 percent of respondents found the use of American-Indian names, symbols and mascots in professional sports offensive and disparaging, I wonder why you seem to dismiss those results.

You said it not I: the one you referenced has always been suspect. The Annenburg Survey was savaged because its conclusions did not match the media narrative, but its methodology was found to be goos. So it is less suspect!