The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

skinsfan#33 wrote:

welch wrote:They were the Boston Redskins, and I suspect they were named to suggest a link to the Boston Braves, and I think the Braves were named for the guys who dressed as Indians when they dumped tea in Boston harbor in 1773.

There are important things to worry about.

For a small start, read Henry David Thoreau's "Walden", and slow down to think about his chapter "Reading". Thoreau suggests that his town's small subsidy to its Lyceum is one of the most valuable ways to spend its money. Here in New York, the last two mayors have repeatedly cut funding for the city libraries, which don't get much money anyhow. Meanwhile, the city pumps money into Yankee Stadium III and Shea Stadium II (aka "CITIField) and probably donated money to build a basketball arena in Brooklyn.

(Libraries are a personal thing. Much of what little I know came from the PG County Library near PG Plaza, and the old DC Central Library on 9th Street. A public library used to be called "the people's university". It should be again, and why fuss over the name of a pro-football team??)

Welch,
I know this is like a month late, but they were the Boston Braves at forst when they played in the same stadium as the MLB Boston Brave (who later maove to Milwalkie then Atlanta). Then the team moved to Fenway Park (don't know why) and changed their name to keep the Indian theme and add a connection to the MLB team that played (and still does) at Fenway Park. REDskins was a natural fit. That is as much though that went into the name change.

When they move to DC the following year they just kept Redskins.

So there are the motives behind Redskins, the name was chosen to pay tribute to Native Americans and to add a connection to the Redsox.

If they change to any name (which i'm whole heartedly against) then the only name I would welcome is Braves. You wouldn't even need to change the fight song!

I agree. This is how I understand the history of the name and this is the only name change I could welcome at this point. Braves is a clear honorific though, as many have posted, there will always be at least one "offended" person ... and the fight song would remain pretty much perfect. Redskins and Braves would simply switch roles so to speak.

welch wrote:Much of what little I know came from the PG County Library near PG Plaza

Same here.

Though there are more important things to worry about we shouldn't simply ignore the smaller stuff. I think if the team name were repugnant enough to you, you'd understand fussing over it. #shrug But the examples you cite are sad.

grampi wrote:It's becoming almost a daily news thing now ... the crybaby whiners trying to get the name "Redskins" changed to something else
if I were Danny Boy I'd tell them the name has been the same since 1932 and it's staying this way no matter what!

The Washington Redskins are NOT changing the name of this franchise - NO WAY

riggofan wrote:"Yes, we realize the name may be offensive to a very small minority of people. We're sorry about that. We just don't care about it enough to change the name."

PURE GOLD!

I fear the name change is inevitable. I hope it doesn't happen. I don't think it should happen but it is gaining traction because we are good now. But I have been kicking around an idea. Please tell me what you think. Oh, and keep an open mind. Lol. The haters always use the term DeadSkins to make fun of us. That coupled with an all-time high in zombie popularity and you have your new name. The Washington Deadskins. You instantly take away the haters ammo. You only have to tweak the helmet logo a little to look like a zombie and even the song only gets slightly adjusted "Eat em, Stomp em touchdown let the points soar". That kind of thing. One of our colors is almost that of blood anyway. Just a thought. Maybe a dumb one.

paulvs wrote:The Washington Deadskins. You instantly take away the haters ammo.

I like it!

Just change the logo and the name becomes PC!

Deadskins wrote:

paulvs wrote:The Washington Deadskins. You instantly take away the haters ammo.

I like it!

REALLY?!?

skinsfan#33 wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

paulvs wrote:The Washington Deadskins. You instantly take away the haters ammo.

I like it!

REALLY?!?

Yes. I'll gladly sell The Danny my avatar for the new team logo.

DarthMonk wrote:Just change the logo and the name becomes PC!

lol. Now THAT is awesome.

we may or may not see the Redskins change their name ... EVER

we will NOT see the name changed to the Washington Deadskins ... EVER

riggofan wrote:

DarthMonk wrote:Just change the logo and the name becomes PC!

lol. Now THAT is awesome.

@redskin_potato

HAHA Awesome: http://www.theonion.com/articles/report ... /?ref=auto

Don't know why you think that's awesome.

The only people who are offended by the name are the people who want to be offended, and as they want to be offended, they will be offended no matter what anyone does.

Just say no ... to political correctness.

Political correctness has nothing to do with being sensitive to anyone, it's a weapon. For people who preach tolerance, the politically correct crowd demonstrate none.

Deadskins wrote:Don't know why you think that's awesome.

Not sure I would have used "awesome" either. Funny maybe being a piece from the Onion.

"Awesome" is just a word. Nothing more. People should stop being so sensitive.
Hmmm... where have I heard that argument before?

KazooSkinsFan wrote:The only people who are offended by the name are the people who want to be offended, and as they want to be offended, they will be offended no matter what anyone does.

Just say no ... to political correctness.

Political correctness has nothing to do with being sensitive to anyone, it's a weapon. For people who preach tolerance, the politically correct crowd demonstrate none.

This is very often the case (but not always). As I get older, I get more and more fed up with the ultra-liberal people around me. That said, I really don't care if the Redskins name gets changed or not. It affects me very little, as my sense of self is not wrapped up in a sports team name, logo, or mascot.

I've mentioned before, we just went through this exact same thing up here at the University of North Dakota. People cried out on both sides of the Fighting Sioux argument. The nickname is gone, and it's amazing how the issue is now dead. There's not a single letter to the editor, etc. The people who do really care about keeping the Fighting Sioux name still call them the Sioux, still wear the logos, still sing "...And the home of the Sioux" during the National Anthem at home games. It's really not a big deal.

DaveD1420 wrote:"Awesome" is just a word. Nothing more. People should stop being so sensitive.
Hmmm... where have I heard that argument before?

KazooSkinsFan wrote:The only people who are offended by the name are the people who want to be offended, and as they want to be offended, they will be offended no matter what anyone does.

Just say no ... to political correctness.

Political correctness has nothing to do with being sensitive to anyone, it's a weapon. For people who preach tolerance, the politically correct crowd demonstrate none.

This is very often the case (but not always). As I get older, I get more and more fed up with the ultra-liberal people around me. That said, I really don't care if the Redskins name gets changed or not. It affects me very little, as my sense of self is not wrapped up in a sports team name, logo, or mascot.

I've mentioned before, we just went through this exact same thing up here at the University of North Dakota. People cried out on both sides of the Fighting Sioux argument. The nickname is gone, and it's amazing how the issue is now dead. There's not a single letter to the editor, etc. The people who do really care about keeping the Fighting Sioux name still call them the Sioux, still wear the logos, still sing "...And the home of the Sioux" during the National Anthem at home games. It's really not a big deal.

For the record, political correctness is not an exclusively ultra liberal weapon. Political correctness is a dismissive term used by anyone in, or who self identifies with, a position of power, control or entitlement when their way of doing or thinking about something is called out (rightly or wrongly) for being insensitive, hurtful, outmoded or [fill in appropriate adjective] and they feel threatened. Not arguing that this "redskins is derogatory, change it!" movement is or isn't the politically correct crowd run amok (I keep going back and forth).

The bastardized screeching by the politically correct crowd has turned it into a weapon, to be sure. And it absolutely reeks of intolerance to any opposed to their viewpoint. Bear in mind, though that this tactic is a learned response to the failure of more reasonable methods of trying to alter the course of some actual/perceived slight only to be met with smug disdain. Political correctness, non-bastardized form, is about sensitivity, or at least sympathy, to view point that you necessarily don't share the same perspective on. But we're all too busy shouting at each other for that point to actually get made.

Funny how the only people offended by the name are non Native American talking heads of the media.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:The only people who are offended by the name are the people who want to be offended, and as they want to be offended, they will be offended no matter what anyone does.

Just say no ... to political correctness.

Political correctness has nothing to do with being sensitive to anyone, it's a weapon. For people who preach tolerance, the politically correct crowd demonstrate none.

I think this applies to the online magazines (Slate, others who love to simply pick up the mantle of any cause) who have decided that they won't even print the name of my team because of its obvious racism. I'm not sure it does to Suzan Harjo and her camp. If someone is offended, not for the sake of being offended, but actually offended (you do believe that someone can be offended, right? I ask because if you don't then this point is moot.) then it seems silly for someone who isn't offended to simply tell them they are being ridiculous for x y and z reason. I mean, being offended is an emotional not an intellectual response in the first place.

I don't think whether the name is offensive can be decided by the majority who thinks it isn't or the vocal minority (no matter small or large) that thinks it is. Some kind of reason and logic has to be brought to be bear to decide this question. As does the realization that not everyone is going to be happy with the result. I think that taking the history of the team's name, the way we fans used to and still do celebrate our team and it name, the way the term has been used throughout history outside of the context of our team, and quite frankly figuring out how Native Americans (as many and as broadly as possible) feel about the name and weighing all of that together is pretty much the only way this gets resolved. Anyone who has a problem with it after that is just SOL. I also think that that calculus results in the name staying. I understand why proponents don't want to bother with all of that and why detractors won't be satisfied until they get it, and probably not even afterward if it ends up with "Redskins" still sticking around, but I think its a worthwhile exercise anyway.

emoses14 wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:The only people who are offended by the name are the people who want to be offended, and as they want to be offended, they will be offended no matter what anyone does.

Just say no ... to political correctness.

Political correctness has nothing to do with being sensitive to anyone, it's a weapon. For people who preach tolerance, the politically correct crowd demonstrate none.

I think this applies to the online magazines (Slate, others who love to simply pick up the mantle of any cause) who have decided that they won't even print the name of my team because of its obvious racism. I'm not sure it does to Suzan Harjo and her camp. If someone is offended, not for the sake of being offended, but actually offended (you do believe that someone can be offended, right? I ask because if you don't then this point is moot.) then it seems silly for someone who isn't offended to simply tell them they are being ridiculous for x y and z reason. I mean, being offended is an emotional not an intellectual response in the first place.

I don't think whether the name is offensive can be decided by the majority who thinks it isn't or the vocal minority (no matter small or large) that thinks it is. Some kind of reason and logic has to be brought to be bear to decide this question. As does the realization that not everyone is going to be happy with the result. I think that taking the history of the team's name, the way we fans used to and still do celebrate our team and it name, the way the term has been used throughout history outside of the context of our team, and quite frankly figuring out how Native Americans (as many and as broadly as possible) feel about the name and weighing all of that together is pretty much the only way this gets resolved. Anyone who has a problem with it after that is just SOL. I also think that that calculus results in the name staying. I understand why proponents don't want to bother with all of that and why detractors won't be satisfied until they get it, and probably not even afterward if it ends up with "Redskins" still sticking around, but I think its a worthwhile exercise anyway.

Well stated moses.

When someone can either name one person the name is intended to offend or one person who has a legitimate reason to be offended then we can talk. Haters gonna hate.

Some basic life rules:

Don't take offense when none is intended.

Don't apologize when you did nothing wrong.

Don't listen to the Washington Compost and Mike Wise, Sally Jenkins and the rest of the Narcissistic, self absorbed, agenda driven idiots who write for them.

emoses14 wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:The only people who are offended by the name are the people who want to be offended, and as they want to be offended, they will be offended no matter what anyone does.

Just say no ... to political correctness.

Political correctness has nothing to do with being sensitive to anyone, it's a weapon. For people who preach tolerance, the politically correct crowd demonstrate none.

I think this applies to the online magazines (Slate, others who love to simply pick up the mantle of any cause) who have decided that they won't even print the name of my team because of its obvious racism. I'm not sure it does to Suzan Harjo and her camp. If someone is offended, not for the sake of being offended, but actually offended (you do believe that someone can be offended, right? I ask because if you don't then this point is moot.) then it seems silly for someone who isn't offended to simply tell them they are being ridiculous for x y and z reason. I mean, being offended is an emotional not an intellectual response in the first place.

I don't think whether the name is offensive can be decided by the majority who thinks it isn't or the vocal minority (no matter small or large) that thinks it is. Some kind of reason and logic has to be brought to be bear to decide this question. As does the realization that not everyone is going to be happy with the result. I think that taking the history of the team's name, the way we fans used to and still do celebrate our team and it name, the way the term has been used throughout history outside of the context of our team, and quite frankly figuring out how Native Americans (as many and as broadly as possible) feel about the name and weighing all of that together is pretty much the only way this gets resolved. Anyone who has a problem with it after that is just SOL. I also think that that calculus results in the name staying. I understand why proponents don't want to bother with all of that and why detractors won't be satisfied until they get it, and probably not even afterward if it ends up with "Redskins" still sticking around, but I think its a worthwhile exercise anyway.

+1 A good way of looking at the issue.

I think they should change the name because I am a liberal and that's how I roll. However, I don't think they should be forced to change the name so unless The Danny chooses to change the name I am agaisnt it. Plus I don't want a stupid name. I think it would be cool if they did like the NY Giants baseball and football teams did back in the day. They could be the Washington Football Nationals (or Senators). But no matter, I am too old to call them anything but Redskins. I still say the California Angles for example.

cleg wrote:I think they should change the name because I am a liberal and that's how I roll. However, I don't think they should be forced to change the name so unless The Danny chooses to change the name I am agaisnt it. Plus I don't want a stupid name. I think it would be cool if they did like the NY Giants baseball and football teams did back in the day. They could be the Washington Football Nationals (or Senators). But no matter, I am too old to call them anything but Redskins. I still say the California Angles for example.

+1, I like your honesty, cleg. Nicely stated. Not my view, but I like the way I stated yours.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Not my view, but I like the way I stated yours.

Of course you do!

Deadskins wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Not my view, but I like the way I stated yours.

Of course you do!

I can always count on you to spell check and catch typos, thanks!