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

Deadskins wrote:No, but I've seen George Preston Marshall being accused of naming the team that because he was a racist, and the fact that the Danny won't change the name showing that he is racist as well. There was a New York Times editorial a couple of weeks ago comparing Snyder's refusal to change the name to George Wallace standing in the schoolhouse door, and comparing Obama's weighing in to Kennedy working behind the scenes to get GPM to integrate the team. When I get home, I'll post a link to it.

grampi wrote:I've mentioned this before, and I'm gonna keep mentioning it until people get it, is the fact that most native Americans DO NOT find the name "Redskins" offensive. In light of this fact, it puzzles me that the issue continues on. If MOST native Americans were offended by the name, then I could see the issue having some merit, otherwise, where do we draw the line on these issues? Have we really come to the point in this society whereas if just one person is offended by something, the thing that's said to be offensive must be changed? The old saying "you can't please all the people all the time" still applies here....

riggofan wrote:

grampi wrote:I've mentioned this before, and I'm gonna keep mentioning it until people get it, is the fact that most native Americans DO NOT find the name "Redskins" offensive. In light of this fact, it puzzles me that the issue continues on. If MOST native Americans were offended by the name, then I could see the issue having some merit, otherwise, where do we draw the line on these issues? Have we really come to the point in this society whereas if just one person is offended by something, the thing that's said to be offensive must be changed? The old saying "you can't please all the people all the time" still applies here....

Oh great. I see we have a spokesperson for the entire Native American population who knows what they want and feel and is happy to speak for them. Yay for old white guys!

”National Football League executives spoke Friday to an Oneida Indian who told them he was not offended by the name of Washington’s football team, offering a starkly different perspective than the one they heard last week during a meeting with the Native American leader from the same New York tribe.

"The conversation between NFL officials and Melvin Phillips was arranged by his attorney, Claudia Tenney, a New York state assemblywoman who has been a vocal critic of Ray Halbritter, the Oneida Indian Nation representative who is behind a national campaign to change the team’s name.

"Tenney, who also participated in the conversation, which occurred over Skype, said it took place with Jeff Pash and Adolpho Birch, two of the three NFL vice presidents who met with Halbritter and other Oneida representatives Oct. 30.

“'I think we enlightened them,' said Tenney, a Republican who represents Oneida County in the state legislature. 'Their eyes were wide open and their ears were wide open. They asked a lot of questions and they took a lot of notes.'"

In the USA there are 2 million Native Americans enrolled in 566 federally recognized tribes, plus another 3.2 million who tell the Census they are Native American. In the only recent poll to ask native people about the subject, 90 percent of respondents did not consider the term "Redskins" offensive or racist.

ReGina Zuni is a full-blooded Isleta Pueblo resident of her reservation near Albuquerque and she is a third generation Washington Redskins fan. Here is what she wrote on the Facebook Save the Redskins page after seeing images of anti-Redskins protesters at the Redskins at Vikings game.

"Arguing with the Anti-Redskins sect is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good your argument the pigeon is going to knock over all the pieces, crap all over the board, and strut around like it’s victorious."

1niksder wrote:

ReGina Zuni is a full-blooded Isleta Pueblo resident of her reservation near Albuquerque and she is a third generation Washington Redskins fan. Here is what she wrote on the Facebook Save the Redskins page after seeing images of anti-Redskins protesters at the Redskins at Vikings game.

"Arguing with the Anti-Redskins sect is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good your argument the pigeon is going to knock over all the pieces, crap all over the board, and strut around like it’s victorious."

Countertrey wrote:

1niksder wrote: ReGina Zuni is a full-blooded Isleta Pueblo resident of her reservation near Albuquerque and she is a third generation Washington Redskins fan. Here is what she wrote on the Facebook Save the Redskins page after seeing images of anti-Redskins protesters at the Redskins at Vikings game.

"Arguing with the Anti-Redskins sect is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good your argument the pigeon is going to knock over all the pieces, crap all over the board, and strut around like it’s victorious."

Best commentary EVER!!!

SkinsJock wrote:waiting patiently for our buddy riggofan to come up with something …… anything ……


btw - what a great analogy

hanburgerheel wrote:He's not "the spokesperson" at all. He's merely relaying what has become common knowledge. 80-90% of those asked are not offended.

riggofan wrote:

SkinsJock wrote:waiting patiently for our buddy riggofan to come up with something …… anything ……


btw - what a great analogy

I think it is a great analogy too. What's great about it is that you can say the EXACT same thing about some of the people who are PRO-Redskins.

"We're right because we found one Native American who likes the name! Woo-hoo!! Victory! We're pretty sure the majority of native americans all support the name! Woo-hoo! I heard it on Fox News I think!!"

I say 100% keep the name. Just quit trying to make up bs excuses to justify it and quit with the phony white victimization crap we have to hear from the Rush Limbaugh set like Grampi.

riggofan wrote:

grampi wrote:I've mentioned this before, and I'm gonna keep mentioning it until people get it, is the fact that most native Americans DO NOT find the name "Redskins" offensive. In light of this fact, it puzzles me that the issue continues on. If MOST native Americans were offended by the name, then I could see the issue having some merit, otherwise, where do we draw the line on these issues? Have we really come to the point in this society whereas if just one person is offended by something, the thing that's said to be offensive must be changed? The old saying "you can't please all the people all the time" still applies here....

Oh great. I see we have a spokesperson for the entire Native American population who knows what they want and feel and is happy to speak for them. Yay for old white guys!

riggofan wrote:

hanburgerheel wrote:He's not "the spokesperson" at all. He's merely relaying what has become common knowledge. 80-90% of those asked are not offended.

80%-90% of who? Asked by who? Where are you getting this information? I think there have been like two polls, conflicting no less, done in the past ten years.

Common knowledge? What a freaking joke. 33% of Americans still believe Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11. Remember Gallup telling us the day before the election that Romney was going to win? A lot of people believe what they want to believe is true.

I don't personally claim to know what the majority of Native Americans feel about that name, and I'm 100% sure YOU don't know either.

And just so it doesn't get lost in this discussion, I am in favor of keeping the name.

grampi wrote:It's called reading poll results, but then again, after reading your posts, that might be something that's too difficult for you to handle...

grampi wrote:That's hilarious! You sound more like one of the protesters...

riggofan wrote:

grampi wrote:That's hilarious! You sound more like one of the protesters...

I'm 100% in favor of keeping the Redskins name. I just don't think the protestors are necessarily cranks, nuts or PC idiots. I think they probably have a legitimate complaint, just not a strong enough argument that the team should have to change the name. Its not really a difficult position to understand.

riggofan wrote:

SkinsJock wrote:it does not really matter about how many OR why people are offended by the team's name …
all that matters is that Dan Snyder has considered the pros and cons and he has decided that the name is not offensive TO HIM

THAT IS ALL THAT MATTERS - it's his team and he does not feel that the name is offensive

Yeah, yeah, nobody can legally change the name but Dan Snyder. What does that have to do with anything?

It doesn't change the fact that there is a loud public debate about the name going on right now. It doesn't change the facts of the argument or the fact that 700+ people were out there protesting or that the national media is hammering him on it. The issue isn't whether or not Snyder can or wants to change the name. The issue is whether or not the Native Americans can bring enough pressure on him to make him change the name.

Kilmer72 wrote:If it goes to court and the Redskins win

Deadskins wrote:Two things:
1: Were these protestors Indians, or just Minnesotans?
2: I don't think Indians can ever bring that much pressure. It will have to come from other races.

Deadskins wrote:

Kilmer72 wrote:If it goes to court and the Redskins win

It has, and they did. The supreme court is the only avenue now, and I doubt they're going to hear arguments on this issue.

skinsfan#33 wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

Kilmer72 wrote:If it goes to court and the Redskins win

It has, and they did. The supreme court is the only avenue now, and I doubt they're going to hear arguments on this issue.

Actually that isn't exactly true. The Indians won the original case, but the judgment was overturned on appeal because of a technicality. The judge ruled that the plaintiff was too old and should have filed in a timelier manner. The Indians that are the plaintiffs now are all young so the technicality won’t be an issue this time and unless the Skins have better representation this time they will probably lose.

skinsfan#33 wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

Kilmer72 wrote:If it goes to court and the Redskins win

It has, and they did. The supreme court is the only avenue now, and I doubt they're going to hear arguments on this issue.

Actually that isn't exactly true. The Indians won the original case, but the judgment was overturned on appeal because of a technicality. The judge ruled that the plaintiff was too old and should have filed in a timelier manner. The Indians that are the plaintiffs now are all young so the technicality won’t be an issue this time and unless the Skins have better representation this time they will probably lose.

In 1999, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ruled that the name was disparaging and should be changed, but the Redskins were able to overturn the decision in federal court. A U.S. district judge in 2003 found that the trademark office hadn’t explained why the Redskins mark was disparaging. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2009 also sided with the Redskins, but for procedural reasons, concluding that the challengers had waited too long to make their complaint.

The trademark office is now considering the petition of a group of younger challengers, who weren’t alive when the Redskins first trademarked their name. The current petitioners are five Native Americans from different tribes who say they are offended by the team’s name. A decision by the trademark appeal board could come any day.

The Redskins says the term isn’t disparaging in the context of professional football.

“The record here is replete with factual evidence that Native Americans, including tribal chiefs and recognized leaders, react positively to ‘Redskins’ as used to denote the NFL’s professional football team from Washington, D.C.,” said Robert L. Raskopf, an attorney representing the Redskins, in a brief filed with the trademark office. Mr. Raskopf wasn’t immediately available for comment.

Under federal trademark law, what matters is how a term was perceived at the time of registration, notes law professor Barton Beebe, a trademark scholar at New York University. So the Redskins say it’s not enough for the challengers to show that the term is disparaging to people in 2013, but say they would have to show that it was widely seen as an offensive term decades ago.