Redskins Appear to Be Considering Namechange

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • EddieMac
    Canuck Mod, eh!
    • Feb 2004
    • 19618

    I like how this Chief thinks of the name.,, and these comments are 5 days old... so it’s not old..This is why I oppose the change.., there are many different views and opinions And a very vocal group, not proven to be the majority, don’t like it, why do we do things That take away something from all so as not to offend a few ?

    I have some Irish heritage. Do I get to say I’m offended and remove all imagery of leprechauns, st patties day and the fighting Irish at Notre dame? And don’t say it’s different. It is the exact same. Racism knows no skin colour, it is itself racist if one race is excluded from being a victim because of their race.

    And in the big picture does changing a name that is some 90 years old because of money, and that the reason for this change... fix anything ?

    And is this aboriginal person below wrong because he isn't offended ? Why doesn’t his opinion count?

    Chief Walt “Red Hawk” Brown of the Cheroenhaka Tribe, don’t find the name offensive at all. Brown sees it as a representation of his community in broader popular culture — something that doesn’t come around all that often.

    “This is a strong symbol that represents my people, my culture, my traditions,” Brown said. “Redskins. Because we are Redskins. That’s what we are.”

    He’s strongly opposed to the name being changed. He sees the “eradication” of these symbols as an attack on his culture — an attempt to ignore the experiences of his people.

    In Brown’s mind, people who are opposed to the name “Redskins” don’t understand its historical roots.

    “We used red paint for healing,” Brown said. “We used it when we went to war. Our skins were red — red from the sun and red from the particular root that we used to put the red paint on our faces, on our arms and on our legs.”

    He sees the removal of Native imagery and references as essentially an attempt to whitewash history.

    “The solution is to educate, not to eradicate,” he said.
    Last edited by EddieMac; 07-13-2020, 06:27 PM.
    sigpic

    Comment

    • BroncosFanInPA
      Football Immortal
      • Oct 2003
      • 9147

      Originally posted by EddieMac View Post
      I like how this Chief thinks of the name.,, and these comments are 5 days old... so it’s not old..This is why I oppose the change.., there are many different views and opinions And a very vocal group, not proven to be the majority, don’t like it, why do we do things That take away something from all so as not to offend a few ?

      I have some Irish heritage. Do I get to say I’m offended and remove all imagery of leprechauns, st patties day and the fighting Irish at Notre dame? And don’t say it’s different. It is the exact same. Racism knows no skin colour, it is itself racist if one race is excluded from being a victim because of their race.

      And in the big picture does changing a name that is some 90 years old because of money, and that the reason for this change... fix anything ?

      And is this aboriginal person below wrong because he isn't offended ? Why doesn’t his opinion count?

      Chief Walt “Red Hawk” Brown of the Cheroenhaka Tribe, don’t find the name offensive at all. Brown sees it as a representation of his community in broader popular culture — something that doesn’t come around all that often.

      “This is a strong symbol that represents my people, my culture, my traditions,” Brown said. “Redskins. Because we are Redskins. That’s what we are.”

      He’s strongly opposed to the name being changed. He sees the “eradication” of these symbols as an attack on his culture — an attempt to ignore the experiences of his people.

      In Brown’s mind, people who are opposed to the name “Redskins” don’t understand its historical roots.

      “We used red paint for healing,” Brown said. “We used it when we went to war. Our skins were red — red from the sun and red from the particular root that we used to put the red paint on our faces, on our arms and on our legs.”

      He sees the removal of Native imagery and references as essentially an attempt to whitewash history.

      “The solution is to educate, not to eradicate,” he said.
      that bold part...that is an absolutely excellent point that most simply will not even consider
      sigpic

      Comment

      • broncolee
        Football Immortal
        • Jan 2007
        • 13342

        Originally posted by johnlimburg View Post
        When the corporate money got involved, it was just a matter of time regardless of how unpopular it would be. Are the Vikings next ? Wouldn't surprise me.
        People have criticized Dan Snyder for only changing the name because of money.

        I don’t get this, especially from those who point out that he said he would never change the name.

        The moment he said that was the moment we all knew only the money would make the name change.

        Colin Kaepernick isn’t out of the league because he kneeled. He’s out of the league because he messed with the money.

        Once you mess with the money you have to go. That’s why the Redskins name has to go. It’s just now messing with the money. It wasn’t messing with the money before. It is now.

        I am in favor of removing all names that reduce Native Americans to a mascot. That is the only reason I support changing the Redskins’ name. I don’t buy into the popular argument, because no one can prove that Native Americans, as a whole, are offended by the name.
        Stop Feeding The Trolls, Please!!!!!

        Comment

        • Freyaka
          Football Immortal
          • Jan 2007
          • 27407

          Originally posted by EddieMac View Post
          I like how this Chief thinks of the name.,, and these comments are 5 days old... so it’s not old..This is why I oppose the change.., there are many different views and opinions And a very vocal group, not proven to be the majority, don’t like it, why do we do things That take away something from all so as not to offend a few ?

          I have some Irish heritage. Do I get to say I’m offended and remove all imagery of leprechauns, st patties day and the fighting Irish at Notre dame? And don’t say it’s different. It is the exact same. Racism knows no skin colour, it is itself racist if one race is excluded from being a victim because of their race.

          And in the big picture does changing a name that is some 90 years old because of money, and that the reason for this change... fix anything ?

          And is this aboriginal person below wrong because he isn't offended ? Why doesn’t his opinion count?

          Chief Walt “Red Hawk” Brown of the Cheroenhaka Tribe, don’t find the name offensive at all. Brown sees it as a representation of his community in broader popular culture — something that doesn’t come around all that often.

          “This is a strong symbol that represents my people, my culture, my traditions,” Brown said. “Redskins. Because we are Redskins. That’s what we are.”

          He’s strongly opposed to the name being changed. He sees the “eradication” of these symbols as an attack on his culture — an attempt to ignore the experiences of his people.

          In Brown’s mind, people who are opposed to the name “Redskins” don’t understand its historical roots.

          “We used red paint for healing,” Brown said. “We used it when we went to war. Our skins were red — red from the sun and red from the particular root that we used to put the red paint on our faces, on our arms and on our legs.”

          He sees the removal of Native imagery and references as essentially an attempt to whitewash history.

          “The solution is to educate, not to eradicate,” he said.
          I don't disagree that things like leprechauns and other irish related symbolism can have the same impacts, I'm not going to sit here and say that it's two different things or that one is ok and another isn't. A week ago I may have argued that case (as I did in saying white face in white chicks and black face were different) After a good conversation with Cory Winget and Frenchy, I have changed my thoughts on that.

          Really idealistically we shouldn't use caricatures and promote stereotypes for any race, white, black, yellow, green purple... but we do, and you are right, racism is racism, regardless of skin color. Irish people also have a history of slavery in our country that often gets overlooked.

          I concede your point as valid, I'm not going to argue against it and while I see your point, I'm still happy with the Redskins name change and agree with it, I won't however make any attempt to change your mind further on the subject (or anyone elses)
          sigpic

          Comment

          • johnlimburg
            Ring of Famer
            • Sep 2009
            • 14642

            Originally posted by broncolee View Post
            People have criticized Dan Snyder for only changing the name because of money.

            I don’t get this, especially from those who point out that he said he would never change the name.

            The moment he said that was the moment we all knew only the money would make the name change.

            Colin Kaepernick isn’t out of the league because he kneeled. He’s out of the league because he messed with the money.

            Once you mess with the money you have to go. That’s why the Redskins name has to go. It’s just now messing with the money. It wasn’t messing with the money before. It is now.

            I am in favor of removing all names that reduce Native Americans to a mascot. That is the only reason I support changing the Redskins’ name. I don’t buy into the popular argument, because no one can prove that Native Americans, as a whole, are offended by the name.
            Fair enough, and I agree with what you said about the money. I wonder though, with this being as unpopular as every poll ever conducted has indicated, does it affect the money coming in just from another direction, the consumer ? I find the corporate money who put the pressure on the Washington ownership group quite hypocritical though. When they invested that money into the previously named "Redskins", were they not aware of the team name and it's associated connotations which have been discussed for years ? I don't like that aspect because their "threats" weren't based on a change Washington made after their initial investment, it was something they willingly and knowingly invested in at one point of time. I wonder if the corporate money who threatened to not back the team any longer would have had a legal fight on their hands if they broke a contract on no meaningful grounds if the Redskins name remained in place.

            Comment

            • GMTD
              Football Immortal
              • Dec 2016
              • 5739

              Very late to the debate but here is my view.

              If you were to give a name to Washington DC's football team right here, right now, in July 2020; would you chose the Redskins? Obviously not. At best it's anachronistic. At worst it's highly offensive.

              Comment

              • EddieMac
                Canuck Mod, eh!
                • Feb 2004
                • 19618

                Originally posted by johnlimburg View Post
                Fair enough, and I agree with what you said about the money. I wonder though, with this being as unpopular as every poll ever conducted has indicated, does it affect the money coming in just from another direction, the consumer ? I find the corporate money who put the pressure on the Washington ownership group quite hypocritical though. When they invested that money into the previously named "Redskins", were they not aware of the team name and it's associated connotations which have been discussed for years ? I don't like that aspect because their "threats" weren't based on a change Washington made after their initial investment, it was something they willingly and knowingly invested in at one point of time. I wonder if the corporate money who threatened to not back the team any longer would have had a legal fight on their hands if they broke a contract on no meaningful grounds if the Redskins name remained in place.
                Excellent point,,,:thumb:
                sigpic

                Comment

                • Sam_Z
                  Banned User
                  • Dec 2004
                  • 15021

                  Originally posted by johnlimburg View Post
                  Fair enough, and I agree with what you said about the money. I wonder though, with this being as unpopular as every poll ever conducted has indicated, does it affect the money coming in just from another direction, the consumer ? I find the corporate money who put the pressure on the Washington ownership group quite hypocritical though. When they invested that money into the previously named "Redskins", were they not aware of the team name and it's associated connotations which have been discussed for years ? I don't like that aspect because their "threats" weren't based on a change Washington made after their initial investment, it was something they willingly and knowingly invested in at one point of time. I wonder if the corporate money who threatened to not back the team any longer would have had a legal fight on their hands if they broke a contract on no meaningful grounds if the Redskins name remained in place.
                  The thing is that there was always money to be made.

                  These corporate sponsors may have never agreed with the name but there was little they could do about it since there'd always be another company looking to invest.
                  This was the perfect time to force a change if they were in fact unhappy with the name. I don't believe that to be the case but with all the current happenings around the country, why not!
                  Last edited by Sam_Z; 07-14-2020, 08:14 AM.

                  Comment

                  • CanDB
                    Football Immortal
                    • Mar 2008
                    • 45187

                    Originally posted by BroncosFanInPA View Post
                    Changing the name redskins isn't going to change anything in regards to racism & in fact i would go as far as to say the things going on in this country over the past month or so actually may make matters worse by just driving a wedge further between some...

                    some of the stuff going on lately has gotten completely out of hand
                    Maybe so, but some of what I see/read is warranted. And too bad if some don't like it. Are they the offended ones? Heck, I'm not offended. I am not Indigenous, so what gives me the right to think I know better. Same goes for any issues involving race. Unless you are a in specific offended group, how can you know how it feels?

                    Comment

                    • Rastic
                      Modulated
                      • Oct 2013
                      • 14508

                      Originally posted by CanDB View Post
                      Maybe so, but some of what I see/read is warranted. And too bad if some don't like it. Are they the offended ones? Heck, I'm not offended. I am not Indigenous, so what gives me the right to think I know better. Same goes for any issues involving race. Unless you are a in specific offended group, how can you know how it feels?
                      By that logic then you should not have an opinion for or against.

                      Comment

                      • CanDB
                        Football Immortal
                        • Mar 2008
                        • 45187

                        Originally posted by EddieMac View Post
                        ................

                        I have some Irish heritage. Do I get to say I’m offended and remove all imagery of leprechauns, st patties day and the fighting Irish at Notre dame? And don’t say it’s different. It is the exact same. Racism knows no skin colour, it is itself racist if one race is excluded from being a victim because of their race.
                        So are you offended by the leprachaun imagery? Just a question. If you are, as are many others, then I can see it.

                        Maybe Fighting Irish is offensive to you and others. I can't answer, because I am not Irish, at least not what my ancestry test states..

                        The line is not easy to find, but I think the questions around offensiveness involve historical beginnings, how many offended, and how long the discussion.

                        Comment

                        • CanDB
                          Football Immortal
                          • Mar 2008
                          • 45187

                          Originally posted by Rastic View Post
                          By that logic then you should not have an opinion for or against.
                          Disagree with your logic completely. If someone is offended, or some group, and there is substantiated reasons for it, I tend to listen. And if what I hear is reasonable, I have the right to an opinion. It's called being objective, and it involves some intellect. Not emotion. Not "hey, we like it that way".

                          If your logic was true, none of us could be a Judge, unless we only judged things we were a part of.

                          Give open mindedness and fairness some validation.

                          Comment

                          • EddieMac
                            Canuck Mod, eh!
                            • Feb 2004
                            • 19618

                            Originally posted by CanDB View Post
                            So are you offended by the leprachaun imagery? Just a question. If you are, as are many others, then I can see it.

                            Maybe Fighting Irish is offensive to you and others. I can't answer, because I am not Irish, at least not what my ancestry test states..

                            The line is not easy to find, but I think the questions around offensiveness involve historical beginnings, how many offended, and how long the discussion.
                            Apparently it doesn’t matter if I am or am not... if I could be offended..,it shouldn’t exist.., according to current standards.
                            sigpic

                            Comment

                            • EddieMac
                              Canuck Mod, eh!
                              • Feb 2004
                              • 19618

                              Originally posted by CanDB View Post
                              Maybe so, but some of what I see/read is warranted. And too bad if some don't like it. Are they the offended ones? Heck, I'm not offended. I am not Indigenous, so what gives me the right to think I know better. Same goes for any issues involving race. Unless you are a in specific offended group, how can you know how it feels?
                              Originally posted by Rastic View Post
                              By that logic then you should not have an opinion for or against.
                              Originally posted by CanDB View Post
                              Disagree with your logic completely. If someone is offended, or some group, and there is substantiated reasons for it, I tend to listen. And if what I hear is reasonable, I have the right to an opinion. It's called being objective, and it involves some intellect. Not emotion. Not "hey, we like it that way".

                              If your logic was true, none of us could be a Judge, unless we only judged things we were a part of.

                              Give open mindedness and fairness some validation.
                              You contradict your self heavily here, so maybe the attack on rastic should be reigned in. You say you cannot know how it feels, yet you a argue you can have an opinion. But by your own logic you have no idea, so your opinion is based on other people’s, meaning it is essentially regurgitating Other people’s. Not your own. Because you cannot have an idea because you are not them. So either you are parroting someone else’s opinion, or your is completely random.


                              There is some lesson to be told here about objective/subjective reasoning... but I feel it’ll be lost based on what I have read so far. ( see what I did there ? )
                              Last edited by EddieMac; 07-14-2020, 09:52 AM.
                              sigpic

                              Comment

                              • Rastic
                                Modulated
                                • Oct 2013
                                • 14508

                                I'm all for open mindedness.

                                But...

                                Do not be so open-minded that your brains fall out.
                                G.K. Chesterton

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X