New Column For an Old Argument: Change the Name

Talk about the Washington Football Team here. Do you bleed burgundy and gold?
User avatar
Red_One43
Hog
Posts: 4609
youtube meble na wymiar Warszawa
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2008 7:31 pm
Location: D.C.

Post by Red_One43 »

ATX_Skins wrote:I like the team name. I personally don't give a rats ass who is offended.

I am not sensitive to peoples feelings, get a clue natives (the ones complaining), nobody really cares about what you think. It's just really annoying.

Until the "fighting Souix" of the University of South Dakota change their name, the Redskins aren't going anywhere.

Nobody brought up that the Eagles are a disgrace to our national bird? Philly sucks and everyone knows America is the best! I find Philly to be offensive!

Didn't some bible thumper groups have issues with the "Devil" Rays?

I'm an Atheist and I could care less about the Angels...

Why do we even bother to entertain these morons?
By you posting on this thread, I think you have the answer to your last question.

I am not offended by those who say that they are offended by the name, "Redskins." I welcome them to challenge my beliefs. Since I have been posting on this thread, I have come to embrace the name, "Redskins" even more.

The most recent court case did not resolve the issue. It only went away for now because the Supreme Court refused to hear the case because of a proceedural issue not because of the merits of the case.
Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo, 415 F.3d 44 (D.C. Cir. 2005), is a case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia considered the decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) to cancel the registration of the Washington Redskins football team, based on the claim that the name was disparaging to Native Americans. The Court of Appeals did not actually reach the merits of the TTAB's decision; it sent the case back to the trial court for consideration of a procedural issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-Footba ... ._v._Harjo
ATX_Skins
ATX
ATX
Posts: 3386
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:59 am
Location: NOVA
Contact:

Post by ATX_Skins »

Red_One43 wrote:
ATX_Skins wrote:I like the team name. I personally don't give a rats ass who is offended.

I am not sensitive to peoples feelings, get a clue natives (the ones complaining), nobody really cares about what you think. It's just really annoying.

Until the "fighting Souix" of the University of South Dakota change their name, the Redskins aren't going anywhere.

Nobody brought up that the Eagles are a disgrace to our national bird? Philly sucks and everyone knows America is the best! I find Philly to be offensive!

Didn't some bible thumper groups have issues with the "Devil" Rays?

I'm an Atheist and I could care less about the Angels...

Why do we even bother to entertain these morons?
By you posting on this thread, I think you have the answer to your last question.

I am not offended by those who say that they are offended by the name, "Redskins." I welcome them to challenge my beliefs. Since I have been posting on this thread, I have come to embrace the name, "Redskins" even more.

The most recent court case did not resolve the issue. It only went away for now because the Supreme Court refused to hear the case because of a proceedural issue not because of the merits of the case.
Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo, 415 F.3d 44 (D.C. Cir. 2005), is a case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia considered the decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) to cancel the registration of the Washington Redskins football team, based on the claim that the name was disparaging to Native Americans. The Court of Appeals did not actually reach the merits of the TTAB's decision; it sent the case back to the trial court for consideration of a procedural issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-Footba ... ._v._Harjo
Exactly how? Don't read too deep there buddy... Nice stab though.
Support the troops, especially our snipers.
langleyparkjoe
**LPJ**
**LPJ**
Posts: 6714
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Langley Park, MD *Tick Tock*
Contact:

Post by langleyparkjoe »

Wait.. a Redskins fan site with a bunch of lawyers? Nooooooooo
Hog Bowl Champions
'09 & '17 langleyparkjoe, '10 Cappster, '11 & '13 DarthMonk,
'12 Deadskins, '14 PickSixerTWSS, '15 APEX PREDATOR, '16 vwoodzpusha
SkinsJock
08 Champ
08 Champ
Posts: 18385
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 10:23 pm
Location: New England

Post by SkinsJock »

It's not all bad LPJ - we could start with the lawyer jokes - that's a lot more fun that any speculation about the stupid idea that the Washington Redskins are going to be changing their name anytime in the next 50 years :lol:
Until recently, Snyder & Allen have made a lot of really bad decisions - nobody with any sense believes this franchise will get better under their guidance
Snyder's W/L record = 45% (80-96) - Snyder/Allen = 41% (59-84-1)
User avatar
Red_One43
Hog
Posts: 4609
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2008 7:31 pm
Location: D.C.

Post by Red_One43 »

ATX_Skins wrote:
Red_One43 wrote:
ATX_Skins wrote:I like the team name. I personally don't give a rats ass who is offended.

I am not sensitive to peoples feelings, get a clue natives (the ones complaining), nobody really cares about what you think. It's just really annoying.

Until the "fighting Souix" of the University of South Dakota change their name, the Redskins aren't going anywhere.

Nobody brought up that the Eagles are a disgrace to our national bird? Philly sucks and everyone knows America is the best! I find Philly to be offensive!

Didn't some bible thumper groups have issues with the "Devil" Rays?

I'm an Atheist and I could care less about the Angels...

Why do we even bother to entertain these morons?
By you posting on this thread, I think you have the answer to your last question.

I am not offended by those who say that they are offended by the name, "Redskins." I welcome them to challenge my beliefs. Since I have been posting on this thread, I have come to embrace the name, "Redskins" even more.

The most recent court case did not resolve the issue. It only went away for now because the Supreme Court refused to hear the case because of a proceedural issue not because of the merits of the case.
Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo, 415 F.3d 44 (D.C. Cir. 2005), is a case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia considered the decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) to cancel the registration of the Washington Redskins football team, based on the claim that the name was disparaging to Native Americans. The Court of Appeals did not actually reach the merits of the TTAB's decision; it sent the case back to the trial court for consideration of a procedural issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-Footba ... ._v._Harjo
Exactly how? Don't read too deep there buddy... Nice stab though.
Thanx for thinking that I am deep, but there is nothing deep in my response. You raised a question, "Why do we even bother to entertain these morons?" I know why "I" post on this thread. Only you know what motivated you to write what you wrote and post it." In effect, posting on tis thread is entering into the discussion on this thread which is quite entertaining. Nothing deep there.

My other comment is saying that unlike you, I don't get upset with those who find the name offensive. Unlike you, I do care about how other people feel. I care enough to debate them and learn something about them and myself and maybe even convince a person or two. So basically, I countered what you said. Nothing deep here.

I cited the case to point out that we might be in court again in the not too distant future. Nothing deep there.

Now, I could have pointed out that most of your arguments are not arguments at all but weak analogies. "Eagels are a disgrace to our national bird?" That one really fits.

I could have said that whether or not the Fighting Sioux of South Dakota change their name has little to do with the Redskins changing their name. The NCAA is pressuring it's schools to change their names. Suzan Harjo used the Federal Courts. Sioux represents a tribe. Redskins does not. Nothing deep here either.

Why do we even bother to entertain these morons? Respond to this post and you will have your answer. Nothing deep here. Only you know why "you" care to entertain this discussion especially since you find it so "annoying."
Last edited by Red_One43 on Mon Apr 11, 2011 8:59 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Red_One43
Hog
Posts: 4609
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2008 7:31 pm
Location: D.C.

Post by Red_One43 »

langleyparkjoe wrote:Wait.. a Redskins fan site with a bunch of lawyers? Nooooooooo

Now, LPJ, I find THAT offensive. :lol:
User avatar
Red_One43
Hog
Posts: 4609
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2008 7:31 pm
Location: D.C.

Post by Red_One43 »

SkinsJock wrote:It's not all bad LPJ - we could start with the lawyer jokes - that's a lot more fun that any speculation about the stupid idea that the Washington Redskins are going to be changing their name anytime in the next 50 years :lol:
Lawyer jokes? I was kinda of counting on your support to get a UFL franchise in DC called the DC Lawyers. Sounds like you don't think lawyers are worthy of such an honor. :)
Countertrey
the 'mudge
the 'mudge
Posts: 16632
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 11:15 pm
Location: Curmudgeon Corner, Maine

Post by Countertrey »

The DC Parasites...
The G'Town Bottom-Feeders...
The Rock Creek Carp...
The Anacostia Muckrakers...
The Capitol Hill Brown Ticks...
The Tide Water Leeches...

OOOH! The Tick Tock Takers!

But, if you want to call them lawyers, that's cool, too...
Last edited by Countertrey on Mon Apr 11, 2011 10:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
"That's a clown question, bro"
- - - - - - - - - - Bryce Harper, DC Statesman
"But Oz never did give nothing to the Tin Man
That he didn't, didn't already have"
- - - - - - - - - - Dewey Bunnell, America
SkinsJock
08 Champ
08 Champ
Posts: 18385
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 10:23 pm
Location: New England

Post by SkinsJock »

I'm not exactly 'against' lawyers and I probably shouldn't generalize but I just wish that profession was more interested in doing their job than looking at most cases with an eye to billable hours than a quick resolution

I understand that we live in a litigous society where lawyers are a necessary evil - HOWEVER - this name issue is really not happening and the only way it stays 'open' is because some legal beagle just wants to keep thinking he (or she) can make a buck and a name for themselves :lol:

The Washington Redskins name is only offensive to those that want to make it so - get over it
Until recently, Snyder & Allen have made a lot of really bad decisions - nobody with any sense believes this franchise will get better under their guidance
Snyder's W/L record = 45% (80-96) - Snyder/Allen = 41% (59-84-1)
Skinsfan55
+++++++++
+++++++++
Posts: 5227
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 12:21 pm
Contact:

Post by Skinsfan55 »

SkinsJock wrote: The Washington Redskins name is only offensive to those that want to make it so - get over it
You could say that about the N word too. That it only is offensive to those who choose to take offense to it. I don't think they should change the name, or worse yet, pay for the privilege to use it but that's a weak argument.
"Guess [Ryan Kerrigan] really does have a good motor. And is relentless. And never quits on a play. And just keeps coming. And probably eats Wheaties and drinks Apple Pie smoothies and shaves with Valvoline." -Dan Steinberg DC Sports Bog
SkinsJock
08 Champ
08 Champ
Posts: 18385
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 10:23 pm
Location: New England

Post by SkinsJock »

I don't think that the "n" word is something that anyone is interested in 'owning' or using for profit - not a good example :roll:
Until recently, Snyder & Allen have made a lot of really bad decisions - nobody with any sense believes this franchise will get better under their guidance
Snyder's W/L record = 45% (80-96) - Snyder/Allen = 41% (59-84-1)
User avatar
broomboy
Hog
Posts: 974
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 10:15 am

Post by broomboy »

SkinsJock wrote:I don't think that the "n" word is something that anyone is interested in 'owning' or using for profit - not a good example :roll:
Tell that to the rap/hip-hop community :lol:
SkinsJock
08 Champ
08 Champ
Posts: 18385
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 10:23 pm
Location: New England

Post by SkinsJock »

broomboy wrote:
SkinsJock wrote:I don't think that the "n" word is something that anyone is interested in 'owning' or using for profit - not a good example :roll:
Tell that to the rap/hip-hop community
there's legal proceedings in the music community regarding 'ownership' or proprietary use of the N word? that's amazing - only in America :lol:

I was going to ask for links but I really don't want to go there


The Washington Redskins are not changing the name and there is really no reason to
Until recently, Snyder & Allen have made a lot of really bad decisions - nobody with any sense believes this franchise will get better under their guidance
Snyder's W/L record = 45% (80-96) - Snyder/Allen = 41% (59-84-1)
User avatar
Red_One43
Hog
Posts: 4609
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2008 7:31 pm
Location: D.C.

Post by Red_One43 »

Countertrey wrote:The DC Parasites...
The G'Town Bottom-Feeders...
The Rock Creek Carp...
The Anacostia Muckrakers...
The Capitol Hill Brown Ticks...
The Tide Water Leeches...

OOOH! The Tick Tock Takers!

But, if you want to call them lawyers, that's cool, too...
Those are all good. How about about this one?

The Foggy Bottom Bottom-Feeding Carp

Might be a tad bit too much redundancy.
User avatar
Red_One43
Hog
Posts: 4609
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2008 7:31 pm
Location: D.C.

Post by Red_One43 »

Skinsfan55 wrote:
SkinsJock wrote: The Washington Redskins name is only offensive to those that want to make it so - get over it
You could say that about the N word too. That it only is offensive to those who choose to take offense to it. I don't think they should change the name, or worse yet, pay for the privilege to use it but that's a weak argument.
Your statement is correct in that any word is only offensive to those who choose to take offense to it. True, a majority of African Americans take offense to it and some African Americans do not. BUT, Skinsfan55, here is something to think about, I would bet from my experience that a majority of the caucasion population in the urban areas take, not just offense, but great offense to the N word.

What makes a word offensive depends on how it is used and who it is directed.

The team names, "Chiefs," "Braves," and "Warriors" do not refer to the Native Americans today. Yes, tribes still have chiefs but these names do not refer to the modern chiefs, but the warrior chiefs. "Redskins" is not directed to the modern Native Americans but the warrior red skinned people who fought bravely for their land. The team name is not one in the same as the slur, "redskin" of today. Do y'all remember the term, "colored?" Well, it is tabbo to call African Americans "colored" today, but yesterday, we called Army regiments "colored" like the 10th Cavarly (Colored). You may have recognized this regiment as the "Buffalo" soldiers, so named by the Indians because they had the courage of the Buffalo and similar hair. Not an insult but an honor. Today, 10th Cavarly re-enactors proudly display the 10th Cav (Colored) insignia. They don't remove "colored" because it is part of a proud history - the glory and the pain.

Personally, I like the word as the team name because it encompasses the glory of the red warrior and the pain of the red people. I have said this in earlier posts and now I have Lone Star Dietz's grandnephew's comments which appear to support my view.

But it wouldn't surprise One Star if Coach Dietz himself had suggested the name Redskins. "This was a way to be a fierce team. For him to give that name to the team, I can imagine him fighting back in a way," says One Star. "I could see that he named that team for a reason. So we can go on fighting."
http://www.lonestardietz.com/BuryMyHeartatRFK.pdf

Despite all I said above, there are folks who see the team name "Redskins" as one in the same as redskin. I know folks who cringe at the sound of the word redskin because of how it was used toward them personally. I disagree with those supporters of our team name that lump all those who find the team name offensive as one homogenous group and in turn call them derogatory names. This kind of attitude gives ammunition to those who go to court. Don't forget that Suzan Harjo won her case at the lower federal court.

I am also aware of how things get changed. People with power get things changed. It is not about the majority. It is about power. Like I said before, where I come from, a white person will join the fight against the N word just as fast as a black person.

Now, just a comment on the N word vs the R word. Folks try to make that comparison of the N word with the R word. There is little comparison.

According to Dictionary.com:
nig·ger   /ˈnɪgər/ Show Spelled
[nig-er] Show IPA
—Usage note
The term nigger is now probably the most offensive word in English. Its degree of offensiveness has increased markedly in recent years, although it has been used in a derogatory manner since at least the Revolutionary War.
According to Dictionary.com:
redskin (ˈrɛdˌskɪn)

— n
an old-fashioned informal name, now considered taboo, for a Native American

[C17: so called because one particular tribe, the now extinct Beothuks of Newfoundland, painted themselves with red ochre]
"Nigger" was always a derogatory word in history. Redskin was not always a derogatory word in its history. "Nigger" is associated with African American slavery which many Americans are ashamed that this "peculiar institution" is a part of our history (I am not one of the many). IMO, I would say that is the single most reason that folks of all different colors choose not to use "nigger" and even call it the N word. "Redskin," the slur has not reached common status as the " R word." Perhaps someday it will, but until then, perhaps, you might consider comparing "colored" to "redskin." They both refer to skin color. At one time, they were both considered by the powerful as fashionable now both are taboo.

Nevetheless, you are still right with your comment that the N word is only offensive to those who choose to take offense to it.
Last edited by Red_One43 on Mon Apr 11, 2011 10:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
SkinsJock
08 Champ
08 Champ
Posts: 18385
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 10:23 pm
Location: New England

Post by SkinsJock »

Speaking for myself - I think the N word is almost always used in a VERY derogatory way - the same cannot be said for the term redskins or the nickname of the Washington NFL team

one is a slur the other is not
Until recently, Snyder & Allen have made a lot of really bad decisions - nobody with any sense believes this franchise will get better under their guidance
Snyder's W/L record = 45% (80-96) - Snyder/Allen = 41% (59-84-1)
User avatar
1niksder
**********
**********
Posts: 16741
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 2:45 pm
Location: If I knew ... it would explain a lot but I've seen Homerville on a map, that wasn't helpful at all
Contact:

Post by 1niksder »

SkinsJock wrote:Speaking for myself - I think the N word is almost always used in a VERY derogatory way - the same cannot be said for the term redskins or the nickname of the Washington NFL team

one is a slur the other is not
For some reason the N word is now used as a greeting and as a reference to close associates in some circles...

"What's up n....., how you been?" and "That's my n..... we go way back"

I hear this almost everyday and it's never taken as a slur but more as a complement.

IIWII :roll:
..__..
{o,o}
|)__)
-"-"-

When you reach the end of your rope, tie a knot in it and hold on....

If the world didn't suck we'd all fall off
User avatar
Red_One43
Hog
Posts: 4609
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2008 7:31 pm
Location: D.C.

Post by Red_One43 »

1niksder wrote:
SkinsJock wrote:Speaking for myself - I think the N word is almost always used in a VERY derogatory way - the same cannot be said for the term redskins or the nickname of the Washington NFL team

one is a slur the other is not
For some reason the N word is now used as a greeting and as a reference to close associates in some circles...

"What's up n....., how you been?" and "That's my n..... we go way back"

I hear this almost everyday and it's never taken as a slur but more as a complement.

IIWII :roll:
Uh, I think the phrase you are talking about is "Wassup n....gah?" Not Wassup n...ger? I am no expert, but I think that the two, though derived from the same root, don't exactly mean the same. In other words, the N word usually refers to n...ger and not n..gah. I think that SkinsJock is semantically correct when he says that the N word, which I assume he means n..ger, is almost always used as derogatory.
User avatar
1niksder
**********
**********
Posts: 16741
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 2:45 pm
Location: If I knew ... it would explain a lot but I've seen Homerville on a map, that wasn't helpful at all
Contact:

Post by 1niksder »

Red_One43 wrote:
1niksder wrote:
SkinsJock wrote:Speaking for myself - I think the N word is almost always used in a VERY derogatory way - the same cannot be said for the term redskins or the nickname of the Washington NFL team

one is a slur the other is not
For some reason the N word is now used as a greeting and as a reference to close associates in some circles...

"What's up n....., how you been?" and "That's my n..... we go way back"

I hear this almost everyday and it's never taken as a slur but more as a complement.

IIWII :roll:
Uh, I think the phrase you are talking about is "Wassup n....gah?" Not Wassup n...ger? I am no expert, but I think that the two, though derived from the same root, don't exactly mean the same. In other words, the N word usually refers to n...ger and not n..gah. I think that SkinsJock is semantically correct when he says that the N word, which I assume he means n..ger, is almost always used as derogatory.
I think I've been Black/Colored/African American long enough to know what version of the word I hear and how it impacts me when I hear it (and at times use it) to know the difference. Nigger and niggah have the the effect the user intends for it to have, kinda like Redskins and redskin.

Many things can be derogatory and those same things be harmless with no malice intended depending on how they are used and received. Personally I don't have a problem with either word until some A-hole with half a brain starts using them to a reaction that only a-hole with half a brain wp4ld seek
..__..
{o,o}
|)__)
-"-"-

When you reach the end of your rope, tie a knot in it and hold on....

If the world didn't suck we'd all fall off
User avatar
Red_One43
Hog
Posts: 4609
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2008 7:31 pm
Location: D.C.

Post by Red_One43 »

1niksder wrote:
Red_One43 wrote:
1niksder wrote: For some reason the N word is now used as a greeting and as a reference to close associates in some circles...

"What's up n....., how you been?" and "That's my n..... we go way back"

I hear this almost everyday and it's never taken as a slur but more as a complement.

IIWII :roll:
Uh, I think the phrase you are talking about is "Wassup n....gah?" Not Wassup n...ger? I am no expert, but I think that the two, though derived from the same root, don't exactly mean the same. In other words, the N word usually refers to n...ger and not n..gah. I think that SkinsJock is semantically correct when he says that the N word, which I assume he means n..ger, is almost always used as derogatory.
I think I've been Black/Colored/African American long enough to know what version of the word I hear and how it impacts me when I hear it (and at times use it) to know the difference. Nigger and niggah have the the effect the user intends for it to have, kinda like Redskins and redskin.

Many things can be derogatory and those same things be harmless with no malice intended depending on how they are used and received. Personally I don't have a problem with either word until some A-hole with half a brain starts using them to a reaction that only a-hole with half a brain wp4ld seek
Yes, intent is key. In the South where I grew up and when it was fashionable in some parts to use the N word. I often heard "niggah" but the intent was clearly to say "nigger." The only reason "niggah" was used instead of "nigger" is the Southern dialect would not allow it. Southerners tend to pronounce the "ers" as "ahs." Intent is key.

Bottomline - as we see in the postings on this thread, people often choose to use "N word" for "nigger," but most are very comfortable using "redskin" instead of "R word." My point - there is little comparison between the two words as Skinsfan55 tried to make.

I still have to agree with SkinsJock, when "nigger" (emphasis on the er) is used is almost always derogatory and of course down South, one can distinguish between the Southern dialect "niggah" and the buddy friendly, "niggah" very easily.
SkinsJock
08 Champ
08 Champ
Posts: 18385
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 10:23 pm
Location: New England

Post by SkinsJock »

It basically goes back to the same thing - there are some that for whatever reason want to make something of the term "Redskins" as it applies to our team

I have heard the word "niggah" used in a friendly fashion but when I have heard the "n" word used it has seemed to me to be derogatory


I just don't think that this team's name is being changed in the forseeable future - there is always going to be somebody that has an agenda but that is not getting it done here :lol:
Until recently, Snyder & Allen have made a lot of really bad decisions - nobody with any sense believes this franchise will get better under their guidance
Snyder's W/L record = 45% (80-96) - Snyder/Allen = 41% (59-84-1)
User avatar
Red_One43
Hog
Posts: 4609
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2008 7:31 pm
Location: D.C.

Post by Red_One43 »

I have read the preface and 1st chapter in Keep A-goin' The Life of Lone Star Dietz by Tom Benjey. It is the biography of William H. Dietz. The Redskins were named for him.

Sometimes, when one gets a book they are excited to read, it turns out it is poorly written and downright boring to read - NOT with this book. It is an easy smooth read. The author wastes no time dwelving into Dietz's life. He spends just enough on the his boyhood to set up the identity stuggles that Dietz would have for the rest of his life then gets right into early adulthood. The author also acknowledges Dietz's talent as an artist by including, throughout the book, copies of Dietz's original artwork. These prints tell us much more about Dietz than words ever can.

If you haven't read this book. It is a must read for all Redskin fans. It is a great read for all those interested in history.
User avatar
Red_One43
Hog
Posts: 4609
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2008 7:31 pm
Location: D.C.

Post by Red_One43 »

From an Interview with 22 year old Lone Star Dietz in January1908 by the St. Louis Globe-Democrat:
"They like to see the redskin pictured as ferocious creatures shooting coach drivers, drawing a circle of fire around a devoted band of survivors making their fight behind breastwork of recumbent horses, or shooting flaming arrows as a signal to red men to ride on red raids."
Keep A-goin The Life of Lonstar Dietz, Tom Benjey. p. 42.
User avatar
Red_One43
Hog
Posts: 4609
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2008 7:31 pm
Location: D.C.

Post by Red_One43 »

Why post the quote in my previous post above? Knowing that the Redskins are named for Dietz, and knowing that the Redskins already had a Native American team name and an indian head logo on their uniforms before Dietz, a new question came to me. Why not leave the team name the same and still honor Dietz. Knowing that the team was named for the Boston Braves MLB team and that it is believed that "Braves" really referred to the "Sons of Liberty" who dressed as braves when they dumped tea in the harbor, it made sensee that they couldn't used the samename to honor Dietz especially since they wanted to distance themselves from the MLB Braves. A new name was needed. To honor Dietz with "Redskins," I wrote in an earlier post that Dietz must have accepted folks calling or referring to him as redskin as long as it was not intended as an insult. I posted the above quote from Dietz referring to his people as redskins, because it supports that he may have even been called redskin affectionately. Also, Dietz had a serious identity crisis because he didn't find out that he was half Indian until he was in his teens. He may have more eagerly accepted being called "redskin" because there was controversy on whether he was truly an Indian. From what I have read so far, I could easily see why Marshall would honor Dietz by naming the team "Redskins" after him. In an earlier post, I posted a quote from his grandnephew saying that he believes that Dietz may have even suggested the name.

I am only on chapter four and no where near where he is signed as coach of the Redskins. I will keep you posted.
langleyparkjoe
**LPJ**
**LPJ**
Posts: 6714
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Langley Park, MD *Tick Tock*
Contact:

Post by langleyparkjoe »

We're still the Redskins?

Hahahhahahahahaha... HAIL TO THE REDSKIIIIINNNSSSSS, OUR NAME WILL NEVER CHAAAANGE.. EVEN IF YOU CHANGE IT, WE'LL STILL CALL IT THE SKIIIIIINNNNNNSSSSS.
Hog Bowl Champions
'09 & '17 langleyparkjoe, '10 Cappster, '11 & '13 DarthMonk,
'12 Deadskins, '14 PickSixerTWSS, '15 APEX PREDATOR, '16 vwoodzpusha
Post Reply