Page 1 of 2
This is a 1st!
Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2013 3:17 pm
by yupchagee
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/93753 ... skins-name
NFL commissioner Roger Goodell defended the Washington Redskins' nickname in a letter to 10 members of Congress who had earlier urged team owner Daniel Snyder and the NFL to change the name because it is offensive to many Native Americans.
The members of Congress had sent their letters to Snyder, Goodell and the other 31 NFL franchises on May 13. Goodell's response was sent June 5, a digital copy of which was posted by the Indian Country Today Media Network.
PDF: Congress Wants Change
Ten members of Congress have sent a letter to Redskins owner Daniel Snyder urging the team to change their name because it's offensive to Native Americans. PDF
"The Washington Redskins name has thus from its origin represented a positive meaning distinct from any disparagement that could be viewed in some other context," Goodell writes in the letter. "For the team's millions of fans and customers, who represent one of America's most ethnically and geographically diverse fan bases, the name is a unifying force that stands for strength, courage, pride and respect."
Among the group from Congress that sent the letters are the leaders of the Congressional Native American Caucus, Tom Cole (R-Okla.) and Betty McCollum (D-Minn.).
McCollum and Eni Faleomavaega (D-American Samoa) responded to Goodell's letter with statements of their own, according to the Indian Country Today Media Network.
McCollum said Goodell's letter was "another attempt to justify a racial slur on behalf of Dan Snyder and other NFL owners who appear to be only concerned with earning ever larger profits, even if it means exploiting a racist stereotype of Native Americans."
Faleomavaega, meanwhile, said that Goodell "completely missed the point regarding the Washington franchise's name."
The letter to Snyder said that "Native Americans throughout the country consider the 'R-word' a racial, derogatory slur akin to the 'N-word' among African Americans or the 'W-word' among Latinos."
The nickname is the subject of a long-running legal challenge from a group seeking to have the team lose its trademark protection.
Snyder has vowed that he will never change the name.
Re: This is a 1st!
Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2013 4:28 pm
by Deadskins
The letter to Snyder said that "Native Americans throughout the country consider the 'R-word' a racial, derogatory slur akin to the 'N-word' among African Americans or the 'W-word' among Latinos."
This is a totally false statement. In fact, the same groups who oppose the use of the word "Redskins," also oppose the use of the term "Native Americans."
Re: This is a 1st!
Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2013 6:35 pm
by oj
yupchagee wrote:http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9375313/roger-goodell-defends-washington-redskins-name
NFL commissioner Roger Goodell defended the Washington Redskins' nickname in a letter to 10 members of Congress who had earlier urged team owner Daniel Snyder and the NFL to change the name because it is offensive to many Native Americans.
The nickname is the subject of a long-running legal challenge from a group seeking to have the team lose its trademark protection.
Snyder has vowed that he will never change the name.
What 'nickname' are they referring to?
Is this 'lawyer speak', seems to me the 'Washington Redskins' is a proper name an that would make 'the skins' a nickname, right?
So, what is it they are talking about?
Re: This is a 1st!
Posted: Thu Jun 13, 2013 10:55 am
by riggofan
Deadskins wrote:The letter to Snyder said that "Native Americans throughout the country consider the 'R-word' a racial, derogatory slur akin to the 'N-word' among African Americans or the 'W-word' among Latinos."
This is a totally false statement. In fact, the same groups who oppose the use of the word "Redskins," also oppose the use of the term "Native Americans."
How does that make the above statement "totally false"? All you did was agree with the statement and add that these groups also oppose the term "native american".
It is totally false that I hate chocolate chip cookies. In fact, I hate chocolate chip cookies, and also hate chocolate chip cookies with nuts in them.
I'm sure its not totally false that native americans throughout the country consider the word derogatory. I'm also sure that many other Native Americans throughout the country could care less and have other things to worry about!
Re: This is a 1st!
Posted: Thu Jun 13, 2013 3:37 pm
by Deadskins
riggofan wrote:Deadskins wrote:The letter to Snyder said that "Native Americans throughout the country consider the 'R-word' a racial, derogatory slur akin to the 'N-word' among African Americans or the 'W-word' among Latinos."
This is a totally false statement. In fact, the same groups who oppose the use of the word "Redskins," also oppose the use of the term "Native Americans."
How does that make the above statement "totally false"? All you did was agree with the statement and add that these groups also oppose the term "native american".
It is totally false that I hate chocolate chip cookies. In fact, I hate chocolate chip cookies, and also hate chocolate chip cookies with nuts in them.
I'm sure its not totally false that native americans throughout the country consider the word derogatory. I'm also sure that many other Native Americans throughout the country could care less and have other things to worry about!
It's totally false because there have been polls which show that it's totally false. I added the part about the same groups also disliking "Native Americans," to point out that these members of congress, who sent the letter, are totally out of touch with the very people they claim to represent in the matter.
Posted: Thu Jun 13, 2013 7:03 pm
by ACW
Tony and especially Mike went OFF on Goodell on PTI yesterday.
Re: This is a 1st!
Posted: Thu Jun 13, 2013 10:15 pm
by riggofan
Deadskins wrote:It's totally false because there have been polls which show that it's totally false. I added the part about the same groups also disliking "Native Americans," to point out that these members of congress, who sent the letter, are totally out of touch with the very people they claim to represent in the matter.
There are polls that show that not a single Native American in the country is offended by the name "redskins"? I kinda doubt that.
I completely agree with you about the members of congress though. Tired of white guys in Washington telling us how this small portion of Native Americans feel. How many native Americans do you think they've even spoken to?
Re: This is a 1st!
Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 6:52 am
by Deadskins
riggofan wrote:Deadskins wrote:It's totally false because there have been polls which show that it's totally false.
There are polls that show that
not a single Native American in the country is offended by the name "redskins"? I kinda doubt that.
I doubt it too, but since that's not what their statement said, I'm not sure how you think that negates my point. They said "NAs throughout the country," which, while maybe technically, geographically correct, implies that a vast majority feel this way. That is patently false.
Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 2:04 pm
by riggofan
Your whole argument is patently whack.
I'd love to see what polls you're citing as evidence btw. From what I can tell, polls limited to Native Americans have been kind of all over the place and rare, and the most recent one was from like 2004.
Not to mention the fact that polls aren't conclusive evidence of anything. Just ask Karl Rove and President Mitt Romney.
Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 2:52 pm
by fredp45
Riggofan... What hell does this mean...?
"Tired of white guys in Washington telling us how this small portion of Native Americans feel."
The letter was drafted by the Congressional Native American Caucus...10 congressman with ONE white guy, one white Samoaian, two white ladies, one Mexican guy, one Japanese guy, 4 black ladies...
I do agree with you on being a Riggo Fan.
Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 7:20 pm
by Cappster
I believe it's only a matter of time before the name changes to something else. I think the sooner we get used to that fact the better we will be at adapting to the change. I love the Redskins as much as anyone else, but I can see how native tribesmen could be and how some are offended by the slang term for their kind of people.
Posted: Sat Jun 15, 2013 11:31 am
by GoSkins
In my view this is a non negotiable issue. We are the Washington Redskins. That's who we are and that should always be who we are.
Posted: Sat Jun 15, 2013 3:29 pm
by oj
GoSkins wrote:In my view this is a non negotiable issue. We are the Washington Redskins. That's who we are and that should always be who we are.
Amen.
Posted: Sat Jun 15, 2013 10:43 pm
by ACW
GoSkins wrote:In my view this is a non negotiable issue. We are the Washington Redskins. That's who we are and that should always be who we are.
Not sure about that. The name was given by a racist douchebag. Yes, our founder was a racist douchebag.
Posted: Sat Jun 15, 2013 10:48 pm
by welch
ACW wrote:GoSkins wrote:In my view this is a non negotiable issue. We are the Washington Redskins. That's who we are and that should always be who we are.
Not sure about that. The name was given by a racist douchebag. Yes, our founder was a racist douchebag.
He was, but George Preston Marshall was a devoted Jim Crow segregationist. I doubt he cared one way or the other about American Indians.
Posted: Sun Jun 16, 2013 8:44 am
by Countertrey
welch wrote:ACW wrote:GoSkins wrote:In my view this is a non negotiable issue. We are the Washington Redskins. That's who we are and that should always be who we are.
Not sure about that. The name was given by a racist douchebag. Yes, our founder was a racist douchebag.
He was, but George Preston Marshall was a devoted Jim Crow segregationist. I doubt he cared one way or the other about American Indians.
It would also be germaine, here, to point out that Marshall's first head coach was an American Indian.
Posted: Sun Jun 16, 2013 10:56 am
by Deadskins
riggofan wrote:Your whole argument is patently whack.
I'd love to see what polls you're citing as evidence btw. From what I can tell, polls limited to Native Americans have been kind of all over the place and rare, and the most recent one was from like 2004.
Not to mention the fact that polls aren't conclusive evidence of anything. Just ask Karl Rove and President Mitt Romney.
Exactly how is my argument "whack?" No, the polls haven't been all over the place. They have consistently shown that only a small minority of Indians feel the term "Redskins" to be offensive. Just because Rove tried to spin poll results in Romney's favor, doesn't make the polling numbers inaccurate. Go back and look at
this thread from the election where DarthMonk was following Nate Silver's 538 polling predictions which, as it turned out, were dead on accurate.
BTW, do you know how the Redskins' current logo of the Indian head came into being? Would it surprise you to know that it was designed by, and put on the helmets at the request of, Indians? The logo was added in 1972 at the request of Walter Wetzel, president of the National Congress of American Indians, and chairman of the Blackfoot tribe. He said, "I'd like to see an Indian on your helmets. It made us all so proud to have an Indian on a big-time team... It's only a small group of radicals who oppose those names. Indians are proud of Indians."
Posted: Sun Jun 16, 2013 4:34 pm
by HTTRRG3ALMO
Cappster wrote:I believe it's only a matter of time before the name changes to something else. I think the sooner we get used to that fact the better we will be at adapting to the change. I love the Redskins as much as anyone else, but I can see how native tribesmen could be and how some are offended by the slang term for their kind of people.
Painful to read this comment, but the reality is, I have to agree; sooner or later the name is going to change. I've been preparing myself accordingly so that I can "recover" faster. I love this team; a name change would, in my mind, make it a different team. Really hope I can get past that quickly...can't see myself rooting for the Ravens.
Hang on...gotta throw up lol
That said, my last plea is that the fans have a strong say in the new name; last thing I want is some corny name that I'm embarrassed of. The Rocs, Metros, Leopards...I mean serious man...are you kidding??
I remember when the Bullets were changing their name and I saw the options...my heart sank. The Wizards being the best people could come up with? I was so frustrated, would love to not endure that again.
I do hope this name sticks around for a while. Perhaps just changing the logo and the organization defining what THEY mean by the name would help, but it would only buy us time.
Folks are quick to forget that the name has a positive as well as a negative meaning. Many Native Americans are proud of the name, some are offended. I say "some" because I'm
assuming the polls are accurate in that a small portion of Native Americans feel the name is racist. I don't personally think its racist; I think its a name of warrior pride, but hey, that's just me, and I do have an emotional attachment to the name. Painfully, I have to admit I could be wrong here :/
Posted: Sun Jun 16, 2013 4:37 pm
by HTTRRG3ALMO
Countertrey wrote:welch wrote:ACW wrote:GoSkins wrote:In my view this is a non negotiable issue. We are the Washington Redskins. That's who we are and that should always be who we are.
Not sure about that. The name was given by a racist douchebag. Yes, our founder was a racist douchebag.
He was, but George Preston Marshall was a devoted Jim Crow segregationist. I doubt he cared one way or the other about American Indians.
It would also be germaine, here, to point out that Marshall's first head coach was an American Indian.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Posted: Sun Jun 16, 2013 4:40 pm
by HTTRRG3ALMO
Deadskins wrote:riggofan wrote:Your whole argument is patently whack.
I'd love to see what polls you're citing as evidence btw. From what I can tell, polls limited to Native Americans have been kind of all over the place and rare, and the most recent one was from like 2004.
Not to mention the fact that polls aren't conclusive evidence of anything. Just ask Karl Rove and President Mitt Romney.
Exactly how is my argument "whack?" No, the polls haven't been all over the place. They have consistently shown that only a small minority of Indians feel the term "Redskins" to be offensive. Just because Rove tried to spin poll results in Romney's favor, doesn't make the polling numbers inaccurate. Go back and look at
this thread from the election where DarthMonk was following Nate Silver's 538 polling predictions which, as it turned out, were dead on accurate.
BTW, do you know how the Redskins' current logo of the Indian head came into being? Would it surprise you to know that it was designed by, and put on the helmets at the request of, Indians? The logo was added in 1972 at the request of Walter Wetzel, president of the National Congress of American Indians, and chairman of the Blackfoot tribe. He said, "I'd like to see an Indian on your helmets. It made us all so proud to have an Indian on a big-time team... It's only a small group of radicals who oppose those names. Indians are proud of Indians."
Say what?? I never knew this.
Why isn't this being brought up in the media????!! This whole one-sided reporting is sickening. Hopefully all of this will come to light as it appears the media is strictly on a smear campaign to have their 15 minutes.
Posted: Mon Jun 17, 2013 10:45 am
by Mississippiskinsfan2
They can change the name but I will still call my team the Redskins..... and if you ain't down with that I got two words for ya!
Posted: Tue Jun 25, 2013 7:06 am
by die cowboys die
i think the name will probably change at some point, and i do want to be sensitive to those who take it as a racial slur, since to the best of my knowledge the term has been used in that capacity by some. it is hard for me to see how it's meant to be derogatory though; why would you name your team something you felt was pejorative? it makes no sense. obviously the intention was to draw on the strength/bravery/skill/intensity represented by native american warriors. but nonetheless, if it's a word that was used as a slur it's probably best to change it.
HOWEVER, what makes NO sense to me at all is that it seems most of the people i've seen discussing this on TV or whatever, they say that it is offensive not just because of the name but the very use of a native american figure as the mascot altogether. changing the name to "The Washington Warriors" and keeping the mascot would be just as offense to them. i don't understand that at all. i have never heard a word about people thinking that the Minnesota Vikings is somehow offensive because it appropriates a stereotype from a specific ethnic group's history.
Posted: Tue Jun 25, 2013 6:58 pm
by cowboykillerzRGiii
I'm down to change it to "CowboyKillers".... Nothing else will suffice!
Posted: Tue Jun 25, 2013 11:09 pm
by yupchagee
cowboykillerzRGiii wrote:I'm down to change it to "CowboyKillers".... Nothing else will suffice!
Giant Killers would also work.
Posted: Wed Jun 26, 2013 2:56 pm
by gushogs
The way things are going with the politically correct terms, the new name will be the Washington ______, so it won't affect a soul in the whole wide world. And then, ten years from now, the _______ people will want a name change!!!
GO REDSKINS
HaiL,