Page 1 of 3
Ahh those petty Redskins....
Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 4:57 pm
by wormer
If they spend 1/2 as much time prepping for the draft than they did worrying about media outlets using their name they would have won multiple super bowls the past decade...
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdo ... =nfl-wp217
Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 5:39 pm
by TCIYM
If the Post didn't go out of their way to insult Snyder at every opportunity he probably wouldn't care. There are other media using "Redskins" that he didn't appear to hit with a C&D. Dan Steinberg is not only a douche but is also one of the douches defensing the other douche, Dave McKenna. Quite the double standard when it's OK for the media to be douchey and practice targeted character assassination but not OK for the attacked to fight back.
Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 9:22 pm
by skinsfan#33
TCIYM wrote:If the Post didn't go out of their way to insult Snyder at every opportunity he probably wouldn't care. There are other media using "Redskins" that he didn't appear to hit with a C&D. Dan Steinberg is not only a douche but is also one of the douches defensing the other douche, Dave McKenna. Quite the double standard when it's OK for the media to be douchey and practice targeted character assassination but not OK for the attacked to fight back.
Haven't you figured it out yet, the media in dc blames Snyder for every problem and they have trained the fan base to do the same. They tick him off and just rip him a new one for taking legal action against those he should take legal action against. The Washington Post has treated him like some type of a monster and they are surprised when he doesn't want them making money off of his trade marks.
I have no love for Snyder, but he gets constantly bashed by the media. Heck his own radio station clubs him or his team on a constant bases. Any negative spin that can be put on something they do it.
If MS and BA bring a SB trophy to DC, the media will say they won it in spite of Snyder or the media well take credit for pushing Snyder to get rid of Vinny.
I hate how the local media just absolutely hates Snyder. It really makes it hard to listen to 92.7, 106.7, or to read the Wash Post.
To the first person that posted to this thread, I'm sure Dan's legal team has zero input on that draft weather they are filing a law suit or not. So I don't see how him taking legal action against the Post or City paper had any impact on the product on the field.
Re: Ahh those petty Redskins....
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 12:48 pm
by VetSkinsFan
Yup, b/c the same people who are talent scouts and watching film are also handling their public image...
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 1:04 pm
by CanesSkins26
For a major sports franchise the PR department of the Skins is awful. It's like the Skins under Snyder just can't help themselves from stirring up drama and controversy.
Someone mentioned the Post bashing Snyder as justification for this move, but this isn't only directed at the Post...
For many years, the "Redskins" name was used freely in the titles of local sports highlight shows on TV and radio. No longer. The team put an end to the practice several years ago, now only permitting "authorized" uses of its name — that is, under contractual agreement.
It's just the usual attempt by Snyder to try and control everything. Other teams don't do this kind of nonsense...
Newspapers in Dallas, New York and Philadelphia all use the team name and/or logo in their NFL blogs without interference.
Just take a look at the NY Daily News and their blogs...
Jets Insider
NY Giants Insider
Mets Insider
Yankees Insider
Knicks Knation
The InterNets
Vet is right that this doesn't really affect the team's performance, but it does make the team look petty and once again creates an unnecessary non-football story about the team. It makes the franchise look like even more of a joke.
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 5:04 pm
by Bob 0119
Yeah, Snyder should leave the Post alone and go back to meddling with the team...
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:03 pm
by skinsfan#33
CanesSkins26 wrote:Newspapers in Dallas, New York and Philadelphia all use the team name and/or logo in their NFL blogs without interference.
Just take a look at the NY Daily News and their blogs...
Jets Insider
NY Giants Insider
Mets Insider
Yankees Insider
Knicks Knation
The InterNets
Vet is right that this doesn't really affect the team's performance, but it does make the team look petty and once again creates an unnecessary non-football story about the team. It makes the franchise look like even more of a joke.
Do you know if those papers pay for the right to use the team's name?
Snyder never said people couldn't use the Redskins' name, he just wants to be fairly compensated for the use of his property.
I know that is an alien concept for a business owner to feel he should be compensated when another business makes a profit off of his product.
If the Wash Post treated Snyder and the Skins fairly I bet he might let them use his property to make a profit, but they don't so why should he look the other way?
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:14 pm
by TCIYM
The Redskins also have a licensing agreement with a competing news media source, ComCast, owner of CSNWashington. Why should CSN pay for rights the Post takes without authorization or license? The true insider is the media source with the exclusive agreement, and that isn't the Post. They can thank their tabloid schills like LaCanfora and Steinberg for Dan Snyder's having barred them from Redskins Park. There are more than enough legitimate reasons to dislike Dan Snyder without making him out to have less rights than everyone else.
Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 11:02 pm
by Skinsfan55
"The Hogs" is a registered trademark of the Washington Redskins and Mr. Snyder demands that we change the name of this site immediately to "The Washington Area Offensive Lineman of the 80's and Early 90's" or he will seek further legal action!
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 8:53 am
by langleyparkjoe
Skinsfan55 wrote:"The Hogs" is a registered trademark of the Washington Redskins and Mr. Snyder demands that we change the name of this site immediately to "The Washington Area Offensive Lineman of the 80's and Early 90's" or he will seek further legal action!
I didn't see anywhere where "the hogs" are trademarked
.. but I can't blame Danny for this one after that other paper put out the "fan guide" for Danny and he became pretty upset. So technically he could've done this many years ago but he didn't until just now.
Could care less really if the papers can use the name or not, I watch the games and come here for my Skins info.
Posted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 9:40 am
by oops
Posted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 11:04 am
by Countertrey
Here's one from that board that is clearly written by a genius... not...
It amazes me that people can't get this right.
"Braves" is not an insult to Native Americans.
"Indians" is not meant as an insult to Native Americans.
"Redskins" is derogatory, demeaning and racist. There is a huge difference!
Dude calls himself the "sage of the north"... Clearly, clown of the north would be more of a fit, but, that's just me...
Obviously has no concept of the "intent" of the name "Redskins".
Posted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 11:23 am
by oops
It sounds like you didn't go deep into the thread, but yes, pete is probably not the brightest bulb on the porch.
So what, precisely, is the "intent" of the name?
Re: Ahh those petty Redskins....
Posted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 12:28 pm
by old-timer
Dan Snyder is a juvenile in a man's body. There are a couple of ways this latest stab at the WaPo reflects on Dan, neither of them good. It's just one more symptom of how through poor management this team has descended to yet another low. Can he do this? Does he have the right to do this? Should he do this? Yes, yes, and no.
I'm sure Dan means well, but there's no denying that this team has been mediocre to awful since he bought it. Dan, as the owner, by definition is responsible, and as with anyone else in his position, doesn't like being reminded of that. I can certainly understand how he resents the Post, particularly LaCanfora, because of the incisive job the Post has done in documenting the team's decline under Snyder. Dan probably doesn't like mirrors, either.
Would all this change if Danny won a SB? Sure. Let's just not hold our breath on that one.
Posted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 6:55 pm
by Countertrey
oops wrote:It sounds like you didn't go deep into the thread, but yes, pete is probably not the brightest bulb on the porch.
So what, precisely, is the "intent" of the name?
The team was named to honor it's head coach at the time, William Dietz
You can probably tell his heritage from his photo...
"George Preston Marshall, owner and founder of the Boston Braves in 1932, sought to rename the franchise in 1933 after leaving the stadium they shared with the baseball team of the same name. He chose the name Redskins in honor of Dietz, who is of the Sioux Nation."
So, if "intent" is all that makes the name "Indians" and "Braves" ok, then it seems, the same judgement should apply to the name of the "Redskins". I don't plan to join your board, but feel free to share the insight with "pete".
BTW, I really didn't feel the need to go "deep" into the thread... as it seemed rather shallow...
Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2011 2:05 pm
by oops
Thanks for the response. That is an interesting take on the name choice.
The thread on the Saints board had quite a few people who didn't think the name was offensive. I thought it would be a good idea to go closer to the source for explanations. There are a lot of members on Saintsreport.com from other teams. In fact, I believe it is the largest enrollment in the NFL and goes back quite a few years. A fun bunch, really.
I knew about the Native American coach, but ESPN Sports Talk Radio (Andy and Steve) framed it differently. They said when the team was moved to Boston, they wanted something to go with "Red Sox." Since the coach was a Native American "redskins" was an obvious choice for someone like Marshall.
The tone was that George Preston Marshall was not prone to honoring other races.
I live in Rockville, MD., but have had a really hard time warming up to the Redskins as a fan. This is a bit of an issue for me.
Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2011 3:04 pm
by Countertrey
oops wrote:Thanks for the response. That is an interesting take on the name choice.
The thread on the Saints board had quite a few people who didn't think the name was offensive. I thought it would be a good idea to go closer to the source for explanations. There are a lot of members on Saintsreport.com from other teams. In fact, I believe it is the largest enrollment in the NFL and goes back quite a few years. A fun bunch, really.
I knew about the Native American coach, but ESPN Sports Talk Radio (Andy and Steve) framed it differently. They said when the team was moved to Boston, they wanted something to go with "Red Sox." Since the coach was a Native American "redskins" was an obvious choice for someone like Marshall.
The tone was that George Preston Marshall was not prone to honoring other races.
I live in Rockville, MD., but have had a really hard time warming up to the Redskins as a fan. This is a bit of an issue for me.
1: Your "interesting take" comment suggests you have your own agenda... my take is the story that is validated historically by those who knew Marshall... unfortunately, most are gone, and are no longer available for comment. I suppose that goes with the territory of following a team that has existed for almost 80 years. If you doubt their veracity, feel free.
2: The team ORIGINATED in Boston... they did not move TO it.
3: ESPN's mouthpieces are certainly being very "creative" with the facts. Whatever... I'm sure it suits their agenda. The bottom line is, there is plenty that is in evidence that Marshall's intent was to honor his coach... none regarding the manufactured "facts" presented by Andy and Steve. Nice thing about being "press"... you don't need actual facts in order to write a story. The clear evidence is that they moved to a different stadium, and that he wanted to differentiate the football team from the baseball team. That seems adequate as a reason to change the name, but, I suppose, if you need to be provokative, you can make up anything you'd like.
Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2011 3:25 pm
by oops
You sound overly defensive. I have no agenda other than the fact that I live here now and would like to feel better about the team. I got a very rude welcome when I arrived from New Orleans. I am a huge football fan. I only missed seeing two Saints games in their entire history. I was in Taiwan at the time.
There are lots of uncanny similarities between the present Redskins ownership and the original Saints ownership so I feel I have a few things to contribute.
I did learn from you that the team originated in Boston. I had read on another site that the Braves actually started in Newark. I stand corrected.
Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2011 3:42 pm
by Red_One43
oops wrote:Thanks for the response. That is an interesting take on the name choice.
The thread on the Saints board had quite a few people who didn't think the name was offensive. I thought it would be a good idea to go closer to the source for explanations. There are a lot of members on Saintsreport.com from other teams. In fact, I believe it is the largest enrollment in the NFL and goes back quite a few years. A fun bunch, really.
I knew about the Native American coach, but ESPN Sports Talk Radio (Andy and Steve) framed it differently. They said when the team was moved to Boston, they wanted something to go with "Red Sox." Since the coach was a Native American "redskins" was an obvious choice for someone like Marshall.
The tone was that George Preston Marshall was not prone to honoring other races.
I live in Rockville, MD., but have had a really hard time warming up to the Redskins as a fan. This is a bit of an issue for me.
This comes from an article written in 2006 to honor Dietz:
Dietz became coach of the Boston Braves of the National Football League for two seasons in 1933 and 1934. He so impressed owner George Preston Marshall that the team was renamed the Redskins in his honor, a name which stuck after the move to Washington, D.C.
Whenever critics demand the team change its racially inflammatory name, supporters contend it is actually an honor that was bestowed on Dietz, Benjey said. As a result, researchers in court cases over the name have tried to disprove Dietz' Indian heritage.
"Some claim he was not an Indian and the Redskins were not named for him," Benjey said.
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/sep/2 ... nd/?sportsFrom Tom Benjey, William Dietz's biographer who wrote
Keep A Goin-
No one disputes that Marshall thought Dietz was an Indian when naming the Redskins.
"To me, the central point with the naming issue is that Marshall thought he was Indian," Benjey says. "Whether he was or not, maybe that doesn't matter so much."
More on Tom Benjey - "(He was) a Pennsylvania computer consultant and sometime college professor who has spent five years crisscrossing the country in pursuit of Dietz's true story."
I'll take the biographer researching 5 years over Andy and Steve.
You seem to be implying that George Preston Marshall was a racist. Sure one can argue that, but whether he was or not has nothing to do with how he saw Dietz as a person and coach. The fact that he hired Dietz during the 1930's tells you that there was great respect for Dietz. Still not convinced - Bobby Mitchell will tell you that he faced racisim in DC when he became the first African American to play for the Redskins, but he said that George Preston Marshall showed him nothing but respect his whole time that Marshall was the owner. Marshall keeping African Americans of the Redskins was a business decision to keep hold of the Southern market. Before the 60's, the Skins were the only team south of the Mason-Dixon line.
Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2011 3:49 pm
by oops
Red_One43 wrote:This comes from an article written in 2006 to honor Dietz:
Dietz became coach of the Boston Braves of the National Football League for two seasons in 1933 and 1934. He so impressed owner George Preston Marshall that the team was renamed the Redskins in his honor, a name which stuck after the move to Washington, D.C.
Whenever critics demand the team change its racially inflammatory name, supporters contend it is actually an honor that was bestowed on Dietz, Benjey said. As a result, researchers in court cases over the name have tried to disprove Dietz' Indian heritage.
"Some claim he was not an Indian and the Redskins were not named for him," Benjey said. No one disputes that Marshall thought Dietz was an Indian when naming the Redskins.
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/sep/2 ... nd/?sportsFrom Tom Benjey, William Dietz's biographer who wrote
Keep A Goin-
"To me, the central point with the naming issue is that Marshall thought he was Indian," Benjey says. "Whether he was or not, maybe that doesn't matter so much."
More on Tom Benjey - "(He was) a Pennsylvania computer consultant and sometime college professor who has spent five years crisscrossing the country in pursuit of Dietz's true story."
I'll take the biographer researching 5 years over Andy and Steve.
Red_One43, Thanks. That is helpful.
Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2011 4:20 pm
by Red_One43
oops wrote:Red_One43 wrote:This comes from an article written in 2006 to honor Dietz:
Dietz became coach of the Boston Braves of the National Football League for two seasons in 1933 and 1934. He so impressed owner George Preston Marshall that the team was renamed the Redskins in his honor, a name which stuck after the move to Washington, D.C.
Whenever critics demand the team change its racially inflammatory name, supporters contend it is actually an honor that was bestowed on Dietz, Benjey said. As a result, researchers in court cases over the name have tried to disprove Dietz' Indian heritage.
"Some claim he was not an Indian and the Redskins were not named for him," Benjey said. No one disputes that Marshall thought Dietz was an Indian when naming the Redskins.
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/sep/2 ... nd/?sportsFrom Tom Benjey, William Dietz's biographer who wrote
Keep A Goin-
"To me, the central point with the naming issue is that Marshall thought he was Indian," Benjey says. "Whether he was or not, maybe that doesn't matter so much."
More on Tom Benjey - "(He was) a Pennsylvania computer consultant and sometime college professor who has spent five years crisscrossing the country in pursuit of Dietz's true story."
I'll take the biographer researching 5 years over Andy and Steve.
Red_One43, Thanks. That is helpful.
You're welcome.
I added this to my previous post after you responded to it.
You seem to be implying that George Preston Marshall was a racist. Sure one can argue that, but whether he was or not has nothing to do with how he saw Dietz as a person and coach. The fact that he hired Dietz during the 1930's tells you that there was great respect for Dietz. Still not convinced - Bobby Mitchell will tell you that he faced racisim in DC when he became the first African American to play for the Redskins, but he said that George Preston Marshall showed him nothing but respect his whole time that Marshall was the owner. Marshall keeping African Americans of the Redskins was a business decision to keep hold of the Southern market. Before the 60's, the Skins were the only team south of the Mason-Dixon line.
Marshall wanted to attract and keep fans in the Southern states and this was a marketing strategey to do so. Also, the original lyrics to the went, "Fight for Old Dixie!"
http://www.haruth.com/RedskinsHailtotheRedskins.htmlI am by no means saying what Marshall did was morally right, but Marshall was clearly motivated by making lots of money and pleasing his fans (first to have a marching band). I think it would be a tough argument to say that Marshall named the team, the Redskins, because he was racist toward American Indians. When you keep all of this in perspective, it is easy to see that Marshall wanted honor Dietz.
Check out Dietz's record:
Washington State, which hadn't had a winning season since 1909, hired Dietz as coach in 1915 after getting a reference letter from (Pop) Warner.
He led the Cougars to a 17-2-1 record over three years. The team outscored opponents 497-38.
He coached the 1915 team to a 7-0 record and a 14-0 upset of Brown in the 1916 Rose Bowl.
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/sep/2 ... nd/?sports
Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2011 7:33 pm
by Countertrey
oops wrote:You sound overly defensive. I have no agenda other than the fact that I live here now and would like to feel better about the team. I got a very rude welcome when I arrived from New Orleans. I am a huge football fan. I only missed seeing two Saints games in their entire history. I was in Taiwan at the time.
Perhaps... this is a topic that I am sick of... it is loaded with crap. On the other hand, I make my living reading nuance... and your response was just loaded.
There are lots of uncanny similarities between the present Redskins ownership and the original Saints ownership so I feel I have a few things to contribute.
Well... another nuanced response...
Of course, you are welcome here. If your opinion is that the current management is less than competent, well, you are welcome to that, as well... and you will find plenty of folks here who agree with you.
Red-One adds much color to this discussion. Of all the things that can be said about Marshall, it is true that he was stubborn, strongly opinionated, and, at times, just plain oppositional. Whatever his reasons, the results of his decisions regarding Black players really hurt just the same (thank God for Bobby Mitchell). Yet, if racism were his motivation in chosing the team name... why, then, was Deitz his head coach?
Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2011 11:26 pm
by oops
>>Yet, if racism were his motivation in chosing the team name... why, then, was Deitz his head coach?
I suppose one can only speculate about these things. I have enough information to paint a picture in my mind of how it might have gone down. Apparently Deitz was known to be a great coach, but being AmerInd, he was also a novelty item to someone looking for a marketing angle. I'm sure "Redskins" sounds waaay more offensive to the public now than it did in the 1930s. Americans are much more socially conscious now. The team was named long before we even had 50 states in the union.
I don't think Marshall chose the name to offend anyone, but the choice by today's standards shows a lack of regard for the dignity of the indigenous people.
I understand why you are sick of the topic. I can only imagine what type of discourse it may have evoked in the past.
But people and societies evolve. Confederate flags are beginning to disappear as symbols in state capitols and universities. My personal feeling is that references to skin color should be out of bounds for the greater good. But I'm an outsider at this point. My perspective is different than yours.
Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:02 am
by Red_One43
oops wrote:I suppose one can only speculate about these things. I have enough information to paint a picture in my mind of how it might have gone down. Apparently Deitz was known to be a great coach, but being AmerInd, he was also a novelty item to someone looking for a marketing angle.
Knowing about George Preston Marshall and his marketing startegies, I would say that that might have been part of the naming of the Redskins. As in a lot of cases when there are two stories floating, there often is a little truth in both. Dietz was hired by the Boston Braves not the Redskins. I have little doubt that Dietz was referred to as a "Redskin" given the times. I believe that Marshall chose to name the team the Redskins in honor of Dietz, but Marshall also found a marketing ploy in it as well. Look, the Team was already named with an Native American moniker - named for the MLB Boston Braves I am sure to attract baseball fans of that team. The Red Sox are the other MLB team in Boston. Now, he has a team in keeping with the Braves' Native American moniker and he has a team with a play on the name of Red Sox, the other MLB team. Marketing strategy to attract fans of both teams. No racism here. As you said given the times, the word was not considered by the general public as offensive. Without Dietz, I honestly believe that the name does not come up. I have the support of the biographer who spent five years researching Dietz to back up my belief. All of the above is purely my speculation and that I have enough to put together what really happened as you claim that you do.
Here's the issue I have with you. I was visiting a Native American reservation in Colorado this summer. As I past the high school, I noticed that the High School mascot was the "Redskins." In big bold letter on the roof of the building was the words - "Home of the Redskins." I have no problem with you having your personal views that you do not like the name, but you are not satisfied with your own views, you have to try to claim that the name is offensive to everyone. In poll after poll of Native Americans a majority of the those polled say no only do they no see the name as offensive, but they are proud to have a NFL team named for their heritage. Who are you to tell everybody what is offensive? Context says whether or not something is offensive and in your case and some others - individual choice for whatever you personol reasons.
It is one thing to write on this site as an inquiring mind, but it is another to write on this site with a hidden agenda. It speaks a lot about yourself. So going believing that it is offensive, that is your choice - I am not tired of dealing with this issue. How can calling a Native American "Redskin" be offensive but having a team named "Redskins" not be offensive. Do some research buddy and vist some reservations where the schools have named the mascot the Redskins. I think then you will have your answer and understand that contextual usuage is the key in all that we say.
With all that being said, I welcome your response, but drop the hidden agenda and just spell it out - I would love to hear the truth why you wrote on this site on this subject. Also, do a little homework - opinions on this site only go so far.
oops wrote:But people and societies evolve. Confederate flags are beginning to disappear as symbols in state capitols and universities. My personal feeling is that references to skin color should be out of bounds for the greater good. But I'm an outsider at this point. My perspective is different than yours.
Being an outsider has nothing to do with your differing opinion. There are Redskins fans, that would welcome a name change. Your differing opinion is your agenda. Why don't you do some research and find out why the majority of the Native Americans polled do not find the term offensive? Will ther come a day when the name will be forced to be changed, you might be right especially as political correctness covers everything. Notice I say Native Americans and African Americans and I saw caucasian instead of white. I do that because my job setting emphasizes it. Look, you don't like the name, fine. You don't want to be a Redskin fan, fine. You want a debate - bring it on! You want to ease your "guilt" - go see a counselor.
Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 11:54 am
by langleyparkjoe
I love this board.
Redskins for the SB in 2011 Season, if we have a season.
HAIL BRUTHAZ AND SISTAZ!