Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You may want to get your facts straight before you continue to lecture me on history. Do you not remember the NA's speaking up before our Super Bowl in Minnesota in 1992. Obviously you do not.
For decades, the team name has been a controversial issue. Some call the "Redskins" moniker nothing short of a racial slur. Others argue that the team's name, which dates back to the 1930s, is tradition and does not need to be changed. In 1992, a quarter century after the name was formally trademarked, a group of Native Americans filed a disparagement lawsuit against the brand, reports the Christian Science Monitor.
They filed a lawsuit in 1992, but it wasn't settled until 1999 and then again settled in 2003. So, who were the seven that filed suit? Who was leading that charge? Susan Harjo. This article actually leaves out a great deal of information. I've read a lot of articles from the Christian Science Monitor in the past and haven't really found them to be very accurate on their reporting - this article no exception.Especially in this article where they don't name the many tribes who were standing behind this lawsuit. Why didn't these tribes act in 1967 when the trademark was filed?And it also goes back to Ives Goddard's dissertation called "I Am Red-Skin". I would take time to read Goddard's research on the Indian language and the origin of the word "redskin".
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveinMtAiry
But since you are such a fan of history, and how the name was originally meant to honor and not offend, how about this account. Nothing offensive here right?
When the newly formed Boston Redskins traveled to Chicago’s Soldier Field to play the Bears on Oct. 1, 1933, the visiting players were barely recognizable. The owner, George Preston Marshall, ordered team members to smear themselves with face paint before going out onto the field. His was the first pro-sports team to co-opt an American Indian identity with such fervor: The Redskins’ halftime band marched in tribal regalia; the coach wore feathers on the sideline; and Marshall had an Indian-head logo printed across the center of their uniforms.
I would be interested to know where the writer of this article got his information. There's quite a few errors in this article. One major error being that the article is supposedly all about the Indian Head logo that the Redskins wear on their helmets today - that is not what was on the sleeve of their jerseys back in the 30's. The logo wasn't presented to them until the 70's - by leaders of the Native American interest groups (Native American chiefs.) Obviously this writer assumed they were one in the same. Secondly, would love it if he had cited the source of his information in your above quote. Am I to assume Daniel Engber traveled back in time and witnessed this himself? "His was the first pro-sports team to co-opt an American Indian Identity with such fervor..." Please. This is an opinion piece. This is not a source of historical information. Nice try, but this doesn't support your argument with any substantial fact.
I understand Marshall was racist toward blacks (which was horrible in itself.) So were many of the other owners across the league at the time. Why does that automatically make him racist toward Native Americans as well? He had a Native American coach (at least he claimed to be), he had Native Americans who played on the team back then. I'm a bit skeptical on Marshall "ordering" his team to dress up like Indians as I don't think that is actually true at all. In fact it seems like I remember reading where it was an idea from one of the players, not the owner. However, I'd need to go back and make sure that is correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveinMtAiry
Look I agree it's a tough call. I even posted that I've been torn because you are right, it's a small percentage who are offended at 10%. So at what number to you begin to listen? As I said I don't believe it needs to be 51%
Dave, I think you're misunderstanding my challenge to you on this subject. You're assuming that I'm not even going to entertain what those in the minority are saying about this subject. That is an incorrect assumption. I've had an open mind on this. It bothered me so much that I might be disparaging NA's that I wanted to know the history myself. If not for the Washington Redskins, I don't know if I would have ever been as interested in Native American culture and history as I turned out to be. And no, I'm no expert, but because my favorite team 'sported that Indian Head logo on their helmets, it was a constant reminder for me to realize that there is a group of Natives, today, still living on reservations, still trying to live off the land, and those who are struggling with issues I've stated previously. And what I have stated before in this thread, even after all the research I've done, the research that others have done who are much smarter than me, and the arguments on both sides of the issue, my conclusion is that the offense is pretty isolated within a small percentage of the Indian population. For every seven that say it's offensive, there's probably 50 that say the name is honorable.
Even so, I still maintain that I'd go along with a name change as long as it's something like the Braves or the Warriors. I do, most definitely, disagree with you on the Indian Head logo. It is not cartoonish - not like the Cleveland Indians logo. It actually looks pretty stoic to me. It looks like the Indian in the logo is proud of his heritage. He doesn't look sad, weak, or angry. He simply looks proud to me. I don't know how one could be offended by that logo. If anything, people would draw strength from it. But to each his own. I just feel that people today are so quick to get offended by any little thing, that it's ridiculous. Especially when there are more tangible issues that need to be addressed in this country.
I'm stealing the text from an article quoted by a friend on FB, sorry I do not have the link. But it spells it out pretty well for me:
"Simple decency. I wouldn’t want to use a word that defines a people — living or dead, offended or not — in a most demeaning way. It’s a question not of who or how many had their feelings hurt, but of whether you want to associate yourself with a word that, for whatever historical reason having nothing to do with you, carries inherently derogatory connotations."
I just think the time has passed where it is appropriate to name a team after any race, creed, or ethnic grouping. That goes for Warriors as well, it's not as in your face offensive as Redskins but it's still a road I don't want to go down. It will still lead to the Tomohawk Chop or guys from Silver Spring wearing feathers etc.
I'm stealing the text from an article quoted by a friend on FB, sorry I do not have the link. But it spells it out pretty well for me:
"Simple decency. I wouldn’t want to use a word that defines a people — living or dead, offended or not — in a most demeaning way. It’s a question not of who or how many had their feelings hurt, but of whether you want to associate yourself with a word that, for whatever historical reason having nothing to do with you, carries inherently derogatory connotations."
Yet you called me insensitive, which for starters, isn't true about me, and two, offends me and degrades me. So, I would question exactly how closely you follow this quote or if its only for the convenience of your argument?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveinMtAiry
I just think the time has passed where it is appropriate to name a team after any race, creed, or ethnic grouping. That goes for Warriors as well, it's not as in your face offensive as Redskins but it's still a road I don't want to go down. It will still lead to the Tomohawk Chop or guys from Silver Spring wearing feathers etc.
Then the Native Americans themselves have been very inappropriate for using names in their language that describes their tribes as "red people". And they have really been bad for.....wait for it......using the nickname "REDSKINS" as their school mascot! Yep, that's happened! Let's not even talk about the state of Oklahoma and what that word means! How offensive!
My goodness, when does it end with you? Maybe we should install that ticketing system like they did in Demolition Man where anything said that may be deemed inappropriate gets fined? Or better yet, maybe we just get rid of all team names altogether. Just in case someone gets offended?
1. I know that is supposed to be gold, but it ain't gold. It's yellow.
2. Stars = terrible mascot for a football team
3. I don't think it's getting changed just because such a small faction is upset about ti.
If the team name is to be changed, I'd suggest that the new name be "Potomacs", the name of the tribe that inhabited the area and gave name to the river that runs alongside Washington, D.C.
I suppose that changing the logo to an accurate representation of a Potomac tribesman would be in order as well. I believe that the current logo is more representative of a plains tribesman.
Yet you called me insensitive, which for starters, isn't true about me, and two, offends me and degrades me. So, I would question exactly how closely you follow this quote or if its only for the convenience of your argument?
Then the Native Americans themselves have been very inappropriate for using names in their language that describes their tribes as "red people". And they have really been bad for.....wait for it......using the nickname "REDSKINS" as their school mascot! Yep, that's happened! Let's not even talk about the state of Oklahoma and what that word means! How offensive!
My goodness, when does it end with you? Maybe we should install that ticketing system like they did in Demolition Man where anything said that may be deemed inappropriate gets fined? Or better yet, maybe we just get rid of all team names altogether. Just in case someone gets offended?
Ya know skinsguy I was trying to take the tone in a different direction yet you keep on firing shots.
You claimed, and I quote "The first sign of an issue was about 15 years ago....Up until then nobody had ever though to the team's name as offensive to Native Americans".
When I pointed out that there were protest prior to the 1992 Super Bowl as well as a lawsuit filed that same year you claimed the suit wasn't settled until '99, which obviously does nothing to change the fact that it was filed in 1992 by people who did in fact care about the issue. I let it go even though you were clearly wrong because I didn't want to continue this pissing match with you. I also get it that high schools have adopted the name and many (most) NAs are not offended. We've covered that already, at length. We are discussing the 10% that are offended.
But I stand by my position that you are being insensitive to those offended. Again they really don't care about the origins and how it was intended 80 years ago. That doesn't mean anything to them, nor should it. That's like me calling your wife fat, then explaining how at one time fat women were seen as attractive. My comment wasn't meant to be offensive so you should just grow a pair, lighten up, and go study your history books. Again what was acceptable 80 years ago is not automatically acceptable today.
Again you do not have the right to tell others that they should not be offended. Again you are being insensitive to tell others how they should feel based on your perception of what the name was originally meant to mean. And again I think the time has passed where it is appropriate to name a team after a race.
Last edited by DaveinMtAiry; 06-10-2014 at 03:14 PM..
1. I know that is supposed to be gold, but it ain't gold. It's yellow.
2. Stars = terrible mascot for a football team
3. I don't think it's getting changed just because such a small faction is upset about ti.
"Stars - terrible mascot for a football team".
Tell that to the Cowboys, who have a star on their helmet - just like the Washington Stars would.
There used to be a USFL team in Philly named the Stars.
gay....... it better stay the redskins. Not even a redskins fan just sick of all the the dumba$$ people who get butthurt over this kind of stuff when it doesn't even apply to them. 95% of native americans don't give a crap, why should these dumb liberals.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
