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

Gnome wrote:The ultra long replies here smack of guilt motivated justification.

Now I've been a Skins fan since 1965. And I love the name because the team means 'home' and 'family' to me. But the man who brought the Skins to DC was a bigot. The Skins were the last team in the league to have a black player on the roster. That's reality.

We live in a different time from the era when the team was named 'redskin'. And we live in a country that leads the world in equality. Changing the name would be the American thing to do. But not the capitalist. So it doesn't change. And that's a shame.

You can't out 'fan' me. I bleed burgundy and gold. And I'm a registered republican so don't call me bleeding heart or liberal. But the way I see it is that the name is based on 'race' and that makes it 'racial' and that makes it just as offensive as the old Denny's mascot sambo.

Hate on me if you want. But the way I see it is that even if the case fails in court it still has merit in the context of a nation of men created equal no matter the color of their skin. If you think that's bogus imagine a team called the blackskins with an african face as the mascot or the whiteskins with a white caricature as the mascot.

In my opinion it's time for the name to change.

And I'm a registered republican so don't call me bleeding heart or liberal.

Susan Collins, Maine. Liberal. Bleeding Heart. RINO.





Oh... btw... isn't your response a little long, Mr "Guilt motivated justification"?

With so many other name options, I don't see the big deal. We have the "Liars", the "Cheaters", the "Suits", the "Hypocrites", and my personal favorites, the "Gang-Bangers" and the "Crack s." The Crack s even comes complete with its logo embedded into the BBC.

Monkey

Gnome wrote:The ultra long replies here smack of guilt motivated justification

Ultra long? You're not a frequent dweller in the political forums, are you?

Gnome wrote:In my opinion it's time for the name to change.

Because...

Countertrey wrote:

And I'm a registered republican so don't call me bleeding heart or liberal.

Susan Collins, Maine. Liberal. Bleeding Heart. RINO

When they start with "I'm a Republican, but..." on Boortz, Rush, Sean et al you ALWAYS know they're a big lib.

I've been a life long Repubican, but I'm not voting for them anymore, they're not going to give me free health care and they're doing NOTHING for gas prices. Government should give me cheap gas. I've had it with the Republicans, I'm not voting for them anymore.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:I've been a life long Repubican, but I'm not voting for them anymore, they're not going to give me free health care and they're doing NOTHING for gas prices. Government should give me cheap gas. I've had it with the Republicans, I'm not voting for them anymore.

Crazyhorse? Is that you?

Gnome wrote:The ultra long replies here smack of guilt motivated justification.

Now I've been a Skins fan since 1965. And I love the name because the team means 'home' and 'family' to me. But the man who brought the Skins to DC was a bigot. The Skins were the last team in the league to have a black player on the roster. That's reality.

We live in a different time from the era when the team was named 'redskin'. And we live in a country that leads the world in equality. Changing the name would be the American thing to do. But not the capitalist. So it doesn't change. And that's a shame.

You can't out 'fan' me. I bleed burgundy and gold. And I'm a registered republican so don't call me bleeding heart or liberal. But the way I see it is that the name is based on 'race' and that makes it 'racial' and that makes it just as offensive as the old Denny's mascot sambo.

Hate on me if you want. But the way I see it is that even if the case fails in court it still has merit in the context of a nation of men created equal no matter the color of their skin. If you think that's bogus imagine a team called the blackskins with an african face as the mascot or the whiteskins with a white caricature as the mascot.

In my opinion it's time for the name to change.

What's even worse is that it's only offensive if you WANT it to be offensive. Words are words. They only promote what you ALLOW them to promote. I call my best friend a ballerina dancing in tutu. He happens to have his own Kung Fu franchise and is the primary instructor. I also call him other names that I can't post in this forum, with no angst or ill-will. People need to stop with their lawsuits and their crying because the world will not manipulate its will to the individual. I have American Indian ancestry and I still think these Indians are wasting their time and lots of taxpayer money. They're not going to change the past, they need ot educate the future.

Gnome wrote:The ultra long replies here smack of guilt motivated justification.

Okay, here's my reply to the situation: No, the name isn't offensive to reasonable people. Having someone, somewhere say that the name is offensive is not a good reason to change it. It's still less a good reason to point a gun at Snyder's head and force him to change it.

I don't know if that's short or blunt enough to avoid guilt-motivated justification, but there it is.

Now I've been a Skins fan since 1965. And I love the name because the team means 'home' and 'family' to me. But the man who brought the Skins to DC was a bigot. The Skins were the last team in the league to have a black player on the roster. That's reality.

It's also irrelevant to the name "controversy."

Hate on me if you want.

No hate from me; everyone can have his opinion. Obviously I can't tell people what does or does not offend them. But thankfully, what does or does not offend isn't a good enough reason to take people to court.

Irn-Bru wrote:

Gnome wrote:The ultra long replies here smack of guilt motivated justification.

Okay, here's my reply to the situation: No, the name isn't offensive to reasonable people. Having someone, somewhere say that the name is offensive is not a good reason to change it. It's still less a good reason to point a gun at Snyder's head and force him to change it.

I don't know if that's short or blunt enough to avoid guilt-motivated justification, but there it is.

Now I've been a Skins fan since 1965. And I love the name because the team means 'home' and 'family' to me. But the man who brought the Skins to DC was a bigot. The Skins were the last team in the league to have a black player on the roster. That's reality.

It's also irrelevant to the name "controversy."

Hate on me if you want.

No hate from me; everyone can have his opinion. Obviously I can't tell people what does or does not offend them. But thankfully, what does or does not offend isn't a good enough reason to take people to court.

I am sure that a picky female would be offended that you said "his" and not "his or her" opinion. The point being you can't make everyone happy and that people will be offended at the dumbest things. Majority usually rules and as anyone can see, the majority of not just people, but Native Americans are not offended by use of the term "Redskins."

If I had said "everyone can have their opinion" I would have offended myself, an editor by trade.

Irn-Bru wrote:If I had said "everyone can have their opinion" I would have offended myself, an editor by trade.

Now, this I can appreciate. Lawyers generally are of the belief that everyone can have my opinion.

Well, if it had to be changed, I'd keep the same logo and colors and be called the: Washington Warriors.. but thank goodness its not, I love the Redskins name

langleyparkjoe wrote:Well, if it had to be changed, I'd keep the same logo and colors and be called the: Washington Warriors.. but thank goodness its not, I love the Redskins name

They will complain about any name with native American inferences. The Braves, the Chiefs, the Indians, and, yes, the Warriors, all have similar issues.

This isn't about justice... it is about having something to complain about.

Countertrey wrote:

langleyparkjoe wrote:Well, if it had to be changed, I'd keep the same logo and colors and be called the: Washington Warriors.. but thank goodness its not, I love the Redskins name

They will complain about any name with native American inferences. The Braves, the Chiefs, the Indians, and, yes, the Warriors, all have similar issues.

This isn't about justice... it is about having something to complain about.

That eliminates "Jungle-Bunnies", "Jive Turkeys" and "Peckerwoods" from consideration. My apologies to Richard Pryor.

Bottom line Redskins is a name based on a people's skin color and Redskin has been used as a racial slur for the majority of it's usage in our nation's history. And in our culture over the past half century racial slurs used as business names have been steadily challenged and changed. Sambos is a great example. Sambos is now Denny's.

According to the rationale that Redskin honors heritage why not rename the team Blackskins since the majority of the players are black and it would honor the great black politicians and civil leaders from the mostly black washington DC? And put the profile of an African Warrior on the helmet? Or actually 'darkie' more appropriately translates to the slur 'Redskin'.

If that makes you squirm or want to censor this thread then you might want to be more honest about what the name really means. Doesn't matter whether it fails to offend you or native americans or millions of fans. It is a word created to use as slur. That makes it a lousy team name.

I would take that to a jury any day and would win the case. Sooner or later the name will go.

And as a comprimise why not change the name to Warriors and the logo to a sheild with two feathers? The shape of the logo would stay the same. And it would be no more offensive than Raiders, Knights, or Vikings. Snyder could make millions selling new merch.

It's not the nod to Native Americans that's an issue it's the use of a slur and a caricature of a man's face associated with the slur. The trademark should be revoked. It will be one day.

Gnome wrote:Bottom line Redskins is a name based on a people's skin color

. . .or is it based on the war paint they wore? Where's that article that gets cited in this debate every offseason?

I would take that to a jury any day and would win the case. Sooner or later the name will go.

You might win (especially with a typical jury) but it would be a victory for injustice. Proving that a word is offensive or racist isn't sufficient grounds for silencing the person using it. In other words, people are free to speak how they please. One of those dead white guys wrote about that. . .somewhere in some legal document. . .

Gnome wrote:
I would take that to a jury any day and would win the case.

You're aware it has been before a jury multiple times?
You're aware there is no such skin color as red?
You're aware skin is pigmented, not colored?
You're aware pigments are shades of black and white?
You're aware no combination of black and white make red?
You're aware the presence or absence of melanin accounts for skin pigment?
You're aware the team was named in honor of the head coach at the time?
William Henry "Lone Star" Dietz (1884-1964) was the head coach of the Boston Redskins (now Washington Redskins).


You're aware some of us are actual attorneys?

Gnome wrote:Bottom line Redskins is a name based on a people's skin color and Redskin has been used as a racial slur for the majority of it's usage in our nation's history. And in our culture over the past half century racial slurs used as business names have been steadily challenged and changed. Sambos is a great example. Sambos is now Denny's.

According to the rationale that Redskin honors heritage why not rename the team Blackskins since the majority of the players are black and it would honor the great black politicians and civil leaders from the mostly black washington DC? And put the profile of an African Warrior on the helmet? Or actually 'darkie' more appropriately translates to the slur 'Redskin'.

If that makes you squirm or want to censor this thread then you might want to be more honest about what the name really means. Doesn't matter whether it fails to offend you or native americans or millions of fans. It is a word created to use as slur. That makes it a lousy team name.

I would take that to a jury any day and would win the case. Sooner or later the name will go.

And as a comprimise why not change the name to Warriors and the logo to a sheild with two feathers? The shape of the logo would stay the same. And it would be no more offensive than Raiders, Knights, or Vikings. Snyder could make millions selling new merch.

It's not the nod to Native Americans that's an issue it's the use of a slur and a caricature of a man's face associated with the slur. The trademark should be revoked. It will be one day.

Cry all you want. Words are only as effective as the masses let them be. Whatever intention that was there decades ago has been lost in time and now, it brings the fans of this professional football team together. This is a fundamental problem with the world today. If a slur from 75 years ago is all you have to worry about, then you need more substance in your life.

How many people know that the origin of the name is not from Native Americans themselves, but from whites dressed as Native Americans at the "Boston Tea Party"?

yupchagee wrote:How many people know that the origin of the name is not from Native Americans themselves, but from whites dressed as Native Americans at the "Boston Tea Party"?

If we want to get extremely technical:
"redskin" referred to the blood from being scalped, not to the color of the skin of native Americans. See the Complete Works Of John Bunyan.

Free Download here: http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/6049

Gnome wrote:The ultra long replies here smack of guilt motivated justification.

Now I've been a Skins fan since 1965. And I love the name because the team means 'home' and 'family' to me. But the man who brought the Skins to DC was a bigot. The Skins were the last team in the league to have a black player on the roster. That's reality.

We live in a different time from the era when the team was named 'redskin'. And we live in a country that leads the world in equality. Changing the name would be the American thing to do. But not the capitalist. So it doesn't change. And that's a shame.

You can't out 'fan' me. I bleed burgundy and gold. And I'm a registered republican so don't call me bleeding heart or liberal. But the way I see it is that the name is based on 'race' and that makes it 'racial' and that makes it just as offensive as the old Denny's mascot sambo.

Hate on me if you want. But the way I see it is that even if the case fails in court it still has merit in the context of a nation of men created equal no matter the color of their skin. If you think that's bogus imagine a team called the blackskins with an african face as the mascot or the whiteskins with a white caricature as the mascot.

In my opinion it's time for the name to change.

Another factless argument. The original owner being a bigot has absolutely nothing to do with the name REDSKINS. Nothing. Bigot or not, he did not choose the name Redskins because he thought it would be fun to disparage a minority group for pure bigotry joy. (should I really have to point this out?) (are you the same guy that needs a "warning: hot liquid" on your coffee cup?)

Furthermore, there is no historical context for the name "blackskin" or "whiteskin" to warrant their use as a mascot or emblem. there are movies, comic books, novels and much more describing the great attributes of Native Americans. At the time, Redskin was a perfectly acceptable synonym for Native American. Remember, the Redskins started as the Boston Braves in 1932 and when they changed to the Boston Redskins in 1933, their Head Coach was a Native American named Lone Star Dietz! Yeah, he must have been really offended to have the team named Redskins in his honor, by that bigot owner.

Hail to the Redskins

Gnome wrote:Bottom line Redskins is a name based on a people's skin color and Redskin has been used as a racial slur for the majority of it's usage in our nation's history

Doesn't matter whether it fails to offend you or native americans or millions of fans. It is a word created to use as slur

We should change the name of the team because of the history of the word? One which has as has been pointed out in this forum multiple histories and you're ignoring all but one? It doesn't even matter if the word fails to offend or not?



The team name fails to offend because it's not being used in a way that's intended to offend. So if it's not intended to offend and it's not being taken as offensive for that reason, how can you argue the name of the team should be changed? For what purpose? For who's benefit? You're not arguing anyone who benefits from this, anyone who's harmed by it. You have no argument at all in any way shape or form. You've argued nothing.

I seem to have evoked similar responses here

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/3794 ... asy-target

I published an article on this topic and it got picked up by a site called indianz.com so now I'm being swamped by that sites members comments and could certainly use some support.

It would appear that about 40 people joined the site just to disagree with me!

I just posted one there to some guy named J-Dogg. Enjoy

I was just thinking (I know it hurt) and I came up with a term that is racist: "Native American." Yes, that term has been right in front of our faces all along. Think about it, before Amerigo Vespucci and the Declaration of Independence, Indians were not Native Americans. They were the Sioux, Cherokee, Seminoles, etc. etc.. The term Native American, by its very own nature, has racist overtones, because the origination of that term comes from Europe aka the White Man.

I bet you never thought of that one before!

Bob 0119 wrote:I seem to have evoked similar responses here

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/3794 ... asy-target

I published an article on this topic and it got picked up by a site called indianz.com so now I'm being swamped by that sites members comments and could certainly use some support.

It would appear that about 40 people joined the site just to disagree with me!

I've got your side of the argument, under an alias of course, but you'll know it was me from the context of the language. Some people have to take up any cause they can find, whether legitimate or not.