Are we allowed to talk about the Washington Redskins name change?
 

I know that political discussion of any sort is frowned upon around here for good reason.

I’m not sure how discussing this topic wouldn’t evolve into some sort of political debate (even if light hearted).

However, this is a MAJOR multi generational sports story (my uncle is a Redskins fan (haha. reminds me that I need to call him).

So is this a subject that is open for conversation? Thank you.

We have changed the names and logos of sports teams.

We have taken away the guns from Elmer Fudd and Yosemite Sam.

We have removed the racist imagery from food products.

We have removed statues of slave owners that lived 100s of years ago (while wearing clothing made by slaves in other countries today).

Once we get rid of Chase from Paw Patrol, all should be right in the world. :rolleyes:

Clothing Items
 

was talking with a co-worker today and we both were wondering if the organization will ban all clothing articles with the old logo/image from being worn by fans inside the stadium. Just saw that they are currently removing the signs and ads on and around the stadium itself, thinking maybe these items will be next.

I think the Washington Monuments would be a cool name for the team.

Once we address ignorance, stupidity, and racism we will be closer to solving some of these problems. The tide is changing and leaving you behind. The sooner it occurs the better. Read some history and think critically.

It's been a long, a long time coming
But I know a change gonna come, oh yes it will
-Sam Cooke


(David Lu$ti$)

What problems are you referring to? And how does re-naming a sports team help cure these problems?

And who gets to decide what's racist? Who gets to decide who's stupid? You?

All I see going on is a hell of a lot of bullying by people who have no respect for the founding of the country and no knowledge of actual history.

I'd suggest most of you first....Look in the mirror

Let me guess, you went to a four year university.

If that tide includes looting, rioting, violence and the destruction of property, I'll gladly be left behind.

Oh, it will include waaaaaaaay more than that. https://disrn.com/news/city-of-seatt...ation-seminars

I think the current prevailing social view that anyone who claims to be offended (well, anyone on a certain political side, if the other claims it it does not count) is automatically correct and everyone must cater to their view, or they are racist/sexist/50-other-ists and need to be censored, banned etc. is incompatible with a cultural value of free speech and expression. Outrage over faked hate crimes because we apparently cannot find real ones, tearing down or defacing statues of even abolitionists like Grant, Douglas and the 54th Massachusetts, rioting and destroying Targets (including the 3 closest to me) and Autozones, claiming that to value human life of all skin colors is racism and white supremacy, none of this appears to have any actual legitimacy to me or follow any coherent logic. Emotionally driven outrage and violence and robbery is difficult for the logical to support.

I fail to see how outrage over a sports team name is beneficial to anyone. Everyone can be offended by anything.

That devolved quickly! I think the term "redskin" is a little crappy, and it doesn't matter if I wear an R or a D.

On the lighter side, they were saying on the radio today that the reason we don't know the new name is because a group went ahead and registered every conceivable name, meaning if they wanted to be the "Washington Monuments" they'd have to pony up a fortune.

Crap, hope I don't have to pay to say "Washington Monuments!"

Double crap, I did it again!!!

I suggest the Washington Kneelers or the Washington Social Justice Warriors.

I have no issue with the subject as long as it doesn't devolve too much.

And if you want to debate very much in this thread your name will need to be out here....

My personal view is they (protestors) have gone too far and it's bordering crazy.

I am not sure what the rates are today but according to the FBI, in 2016, black on black homicide was about the same as white on white, except only one side seems to be making a fuss today. Somewhere in the 90% range of black homicides occur by blacks. Why not concentrate on the 90% instead of the 10%? I think it's a little less on white on white but still.....

And lastly, it has always been my belief that the biggest problem in America is parenting. WE need to break the chain of those thinking it's great to live off of handouts.....IT isn't good on so many levels....Take half the money of all of the freaking social programs and put it into mandatory parenting class, every day of the week, for those on govt. assistance. Teach them it isn't the right thing to do because it isn't in almost all cases. Again, just my opinion.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s...ta-table-3.xls

.

Dipped my head into this thread and already regret it...but will mention that the Boston Globe had an article today on when the team name changed, shortly before the team moved to DC from Boston.

how 'bout we call them the Red, White & Blue Skins.

Might as well elminate the Washington city name as well.

I like that idea.

Here's a monument they can take down:

Attachment 409229

No, no... don't want to piss off Poppa Smurf.


.

The U.S. Copyright Office will take a very critical view of that. They can deny and/or rescind a copyright if they feel it was intended to hold someone financially hostage. Copyright pirates do this every time a new election cycle comes along and a name is floated as a possible candidate. They have done it before, especially when they try to copyright the various versions of a living person's name.

Washington monuments..... oh … NOBODY will make any off color t shirts about that name and monument.... :rolleyes:

They could just change the logo to an onion or potato...

It is easy to look without, but many times you need to look within. Ignorance, stupidity and racism runs on both sides of the street. The protesters want to change the name of everything that offends them. Yet there is a park in New York City named after Marcus Garvey. Garvey, a Caribbean Black, not U.S. Citizen, was a rabid anti-Semite, segregationist and intolerant of mixed race people. He wanted Blacks to move back to Africa and created a steamship line to facilitate that. He cohorted with the KKK feeling that they had similar goals. He was tried and convicted of mail fraud, defrauding Blacks no less. He was also tried, though not sure if convicted of plotting to kill someone. He lashed out at anyone who criticized him. He called W.E.B. DuBois something like 'a mulatto who is ashamed of every drop of his African blood.' Where are the protests about the name of that park? Very hypocritical. Should we even talk about Louis Farrakhan a blatant racist or Al Sharpton - Tawana Brawley anyone? This is about as political as I get. Work for a 9 employee company owned by two women of color. Not a big deal for me. The house I live in only the windows are glass.

A good friend of mine (white) married a black guy. They have two boys, one dark skin and the other basically looks white. The kid who is basically white is a complete shit kicker, idiot trouble maker, teachers hate him, hangs out with low lifes, lots of drugs. The darker skin son is extremely quiet, a model student and may well go to an Ivy league school.

Which of the sons has been stopped by the police for jogging in the middle of the street getting ready for football season?

Which son has been stopped by the police 3 times driving since getting his license yet never issued a ticket?

Which son is followed around stores for no reason in the shopping mall.

Not a difficult quiz. But people will still argue whether skin colors immediately still bestows an advantage or disadvantage on people in America in 2020.

I won't argue that point, but let's not pretend it's one sided either. If you're Black, you have certain advantages and privileges as well based solely on skin color that White people don't have. Would you like to discuss a few?

Oh I'm sure tons and tons of advantages.

Things not one white person has ever said in the history of the country:

"Wow. I wish I was born black. There are so many freakin' advantages out there to black folks."

Really not interested in a debate, but thanks.

I guess you didn’t get the memo, from here on out and especially after January 20 only Black is capitalized, capitalizing white denotes white supremacy and is forbidden.
https://www.cjr.org/analysis/capital...styleguide.php

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Dolezal

:D

And changing the name of the Washington Redskins will improve this how, exactly? Putting a BLM sign in your front lawn will improve this how, exactly? Tearing down a statue will improve this how, exactly? De-funding the police will improve this how, exactly?

What do you, personally, intend to do about the plight of your good friend's son? Telling the story on a message board isn't going to change a thing for that kid. Let's hear your plan of action. Or are you just telling the story to make yourself feel better and to make it look like you really care.

I find that interesting. I do surveys for money. For years when they asked race one of the choices was White. I would always click other and fill in "Caucasian - White is not a race!" They have all changed the designation to White/Caucasian. Black and African/America are not races either, but the hell you would raise if Negroid was offered as a choice.
I also put Caucasian on the 2020 Census for race.

How about the Washington Four-score-and-seven-years-ago skins? The could always shorten if it too, if they wanted.

Other than the census, I always put "Pacific Islander," just because I'd rather bo on a tropical isle. I figure nobody cares that I'm an old white guy.

A friend got in trouble for checking other on some form at his work.
They asked why he didn't check white, and he said "because I'm not white, I'm sort of a pinkish light tan."...……...Off to sensitivity training.

In my first college class group we had to fill out cards about ourselves which included some demographic info.
First meeting with our advisor a week or so later and one kid said he had a problem that was a bit embarrassing. Advisor said he could keep it private or just say the problem because the answer might help someone who wouldn't ask. His problem?
Well, he's a bit of a wiseass, so he filled out the card saying he was a blind black Eskimo woman. And the student organizations that offered help in the way of scholarships etc plus the army and other government recruiters wouldn't leave him alone.
The adviser said that some poor choices had consequences and that he didn't even know how to help besides actually meeting with each group and coming clean about making a poor joke.

So now I've spent the last 20 minutes and I can't get it out of my head: What secret mission did the army have where they needed a blind, black, Eskimo woman?

I think its interesting that many black protestors probably belong to the 75% of males that do not stay with the family and results in single mothers raising kids on their own. I am not sure why there is not protesting about that. That seems systematic to me.

Stephen Jackson the player with the antisematic comments has a video telling kids do not be like him and have 5 baby mothers. In his case he has money too take care of them but im sure he made the video as he believes there are a lot of men out there int he same position with no resources so he is trying to do something about it..

I think they should change their name to the redskin potatos.....

In the early 80's they had a big recruiting thing to bring in more diverse volunteers (I forget the exact language, but that was the general angle. ) There may have been bonuses of some kind too. If he'd been all he checked off the boxes for, he'd have been a major PR coup.

A friend from High school took the ASVAB to see what sort of career he might qualify for in or out of the military. Scored very high and had to fend off recruiters from every branch.

I suggest the Washington 'engines'.

Also, my billiard team was formed by local Indians ('Native Americans' to white people) and they named their team the 'Redskins' - I even have a shirt.

Do the white people require that we change our name to something else? You know - because it's offensive to white people?

I think about 99% of the different things I could say here will offend about 50% of this board...so guess I will bow out. LOL

.

Leon, you're a good guy. That's the problem these days - 50% on either end, and about so many different things.

I apologize to the 50% who I certainly offended, but I wasn't kidding about my team being Indians and naming themselves the 'Redskins'. I got invited to be on the team because I knew someone who was married into the team, so I'm a pale face outsider, but they treat me like we're all the same. It's a weird concept, but it works in the microcosm of billiards.

Similar story...

My Dad used to wear an Indians Cap with Chief Wahoo front and center. He said he got offers on a monthly basis from Native Americans who wanted to buy the Cap. They all said they loved the logo and what it stood for.

We live in the Pacific NW, where there is a huge Native American population. And he never received one negative comment or had a confrontational incident, having worn that cap hundreds of times. Take it for what it's worth.

As for a proposed name... How about Washington Puppets? I bet that particular domain name wasn't taken, so it should be available. And the only person to take offense might be Pinocchio (who is actually a Marionette, so even he should be ok with it).

Next MLB Name change for consideration
 

Shouldn't the NY "YANKEE"S" discuss a name change--it may be offensive to some?? (will deleting history really prevent history from repeating itself ?)

Being close to the Canadian border, I get to be able to listen to both US and Canadian radio. There is a distinct difference between the two but one is relevant to this thread.

On Canadian radio, they often will talk about the natives, or the First Nations. On US radio, they are only talked about when refering to sports team name/logo controversies or casinos (usually when cities/towns try to get tax money from them)

Maybe it's because people from all over the world, including native Americans, have assimilated in the USA to a very large degree. When we meet someone, the subject of genetic ancestry seldom comes up.

I thought I was reading The Onion when I saw this: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-new...526555?mod=mhp

IDK I mean, the reservations still exist. They aren't really integrated compared to other peoples.

The relatively few people who live on the reservations really only have one main thing going on that people outside the reservations are aware of, and that would be the casinos. Not very many people outside the reservations are interested in how the maple syrup taps are going on the reservations, or whether fishing is good, etc.

When I drive north in MN through the Nett Lake Reservation, every Native American I pass makes it a point to wave to me. The relationship between the people on the res and off is very good. But they don't have restaurants or gas stations along the roads, and prefer to live more privately. So of course that doesn't generate much news.

That's just my observation. My guess is that few people with American Indian genetic ancestry live on reservations and those who do value their privacy.

Except for the casinos of course, where positive publicity and advertising are seen as advantageous, economically.

Nearly one third of all Native Americans live on more than 300 reservations in this country. According to a 2010 study, 28 percent of all Native Americans living on reservations live beneath the poverty line. The overall US average for everyone else is 12 percent.

I also don't think forced cultural assimilation is the same as integration. Native American children were forced to attend boarding schools to be "Americanized". These schools forbade any cultural customs or traditional languages and is the reason many have disappeared.

In addition, 58 % (or the majority) of tribes do not have any gaming operations.

Who would of thought the early football video games that didnt have the real team names and would say 'washington football team' now got the team name dead right

I am sure before the colonist came to north america there were warring indian nations and the winning indian nation took the losers and made them slaves and forced them to assimilate or die. Its not like the colonists have the patent on things. If the indians won the war, do you think the colonists would be given casinos? even if its just 42% of them..?

When you say colonists do you mean the people who came here to commit genocide? No, I don't think anyone would be in favor of rewarding them.

Might also help to remember the first Native American casino was built in 1979 (after two defeats in lower courts and a unanimous Supreme Court decision, not really giving, right?). Total time from Jamestown to 1979 is 362 years.

How do you know the "Native Americans" were really Native Americans? Maybe some other Native Americans were here before them and the "Native Americans" savagely wiped them out? I can't prove that it's true, but you can't prove that it isn't. If that were the case, then the "Native Americans" aren't really Native Americans.

Had the goal been "genocide" it was a miserable failure. Many more Native Americans are alive today than before 1600, when the plains Indians were hunting buffalo with arrows and spears, on foot (no horses until the Spanish brought them to this continent.)

Some Indian tribes used to routinely butcher each other. War paint and scalping dead enemies were their inventions, before Europeans came on the scene. And yes, they captured women and children as slaves or concubines.

One of the reasons the Ojibwe (Chippewa) have never been at war with Europeans is that they were allies against the Dakota (Sioux,) who were known as fierce warriors.

Some tribes were known as being more peaceful, like the Navajo, Ojibwe, and Hopi. Others were known as dangerous warriors, like the Dakota and Cheyenne. Definitely, all Indians were not alike, just like all Europeans were not all alike. This notion that all Indians were innocent, peaceful victims and all westward-expanding Europeans were bad people is silly.

And a previous poster has it right. If you look at all conquered peoples throughout the known history of the world, the American Indian came out best.

People have taken land with the World's ok in a lot lesser manner than how the U.S came across their land.

So total time from jamestown is 362 years..and 400 years from now the casinos will still be there....so no idea what your point is ..if its by number of years...you then mean its ok if casinos are allowed for the next 400 years....its a fake argument..

North america was not organized ...open borders is not a country....of course rivers in america were 'discovered' by other people before certain people 'discovered' them like hernando de soto ....its who organized it first...


So warring indian tribes that took land from other indian tribes need to give that land back as well.....some land in which casinos were built on may of been owned by an older tribe 200 years earlier but lost a war that they did not start......

Right..the way i look at it...what advances the human race

eventually the sun (already lived half its life) will die and all life on earth will die....so if we lived off the earth like native americans....thats a death sentence eventually....we need to get into space....of course native americans wont nuke each other either...

I can't tell if this is tongue in cheek or not. Are you suggesting that if Europeans never conquered the Americas that in a billion+ years 1) the indigenous people never would have come up with advanced technology & 2) that somehow Europeans & Asians wouldn't have eventually figured out space travel?

we dont know...however if the indians did come up with advanced technology, are you saying they wouldnt take the chance to take over land from another culture that didnt? It goes on and on...

If it took 6 billion years to come up with space travel, the sun is burning out in 5 billion years by the way..

Thus, bird in the hand, the culture that can get the human race off earth and avoid extinction I will take over the the wait of another culture. At least I would not vilify the culture that can lead man to space and other issues that advance the human species. Its not like Indians became extinct now, far from it.

Not sure what you mean about Asians and Europeans who are already part of space travel but yeah i would support them too if they were the ones in North America first and created their own country at expense of the Native Americans..

I'm sure Indians would have taken land from others but that has nothing to do with what I'm asking about. My point about Asians & Europeans is simply that their technology advanced rapidly independent of what was going on in Americas. The father of the US space program grew up in Germany & if he never went to the States he would have practiced his craft somewhere in Europe. Basically I'm saying that if it was European brain power in the US that led to space travel then those same minds could have done the same thing if they never left Europe.

The sun will become too hot for earth far sooner than five billion years. Even so, once European civilization reached the technological level of the first century Romans it only took about 2,000 years to reach space. The Incas were pretty close to that level as were the Maya & Aztecs. It was Europeans who put an end to their progress (for the Incas and Aztecs, at least).

Just wondering if all of what you say here makes what the citizens of the United States did to the Native Americans in the 1800's right?

Sort of a loaded question, were Native Americans in every corner of North America? Were Colonists allowed to have some land. what amount of land would you agree they could have? What if the indians did not agree? War is a political way to solve issues.

Should Germany have their land, What about Rome, what about every country in which there was an indigenous people before it..

Aliens come down with superior weapons and take over earth..i guess 5000 yeas later we can argue if what they did was right too........

Right what if we have 200 years to get off of earth as we see a huge asteroid (can come up with other huge problems that maybe technology would stave off ) coming due to technology such as the use of telescope that indians did not have...if have 200 years, you think we can rely on indian space technology and wait a few thousand years.......bird in the hand versus 2 in the bush........which culture has best chance to save the human race.in those 200 years...you dont know if we will have the benefit of waiting 2000 years..

Isn't it rather simplistic to lump all US citizens in one group, lump all Native Americans in another group, then play them off against each other?

Many US citizens and Native Americans got along quite well. US citizens brought horses and rifles to the Indians, making it easier and safer to hunt. They brought written language to preserve Native American history. Have you ever wondered why most of the earliest Native Americans we know about lived in the 1800s, like Crazy Horse, Sitting Bull, Little Crow, and so on? Those who lived before have largely been lost to history because of the lack of written language.

The Ojibwe had a famine crisis every winter, until Europeans taught them to parch their rice so it would last through the winter. European medicines extended life expectancy. And US citizens ended what had been constant raiding and warfare between various tribes.

Look at the attached picture. Before Europeans came to this continent, Native Americans hadn't even invented the wheel; they used travois instead, and before horses came to the continent, they were pulled by hand.

Take all of it together. The US citizens treated the Native Americans better than any "conquerers" in history. Better than Ghengis Khan treated his conquered, better than Alexander treated his, better than PolPot, Hitler, Caesar, Hannibal, and so on.

In fact, it wasn't even a "conquering." It was a melding.

agree..and your comments about written language is what I was commenting about first to organize things. Not the first but first to discover a river etc .

I think we are lucky that the U.S was the first country to have the nuclear weapon, what if it was Iran?

Ghengis Khan was in many ways - especially for his time - a benevolent ruler.
The immediate conquering was very harsh, but once a city was part of the Mongol empire they were allowed to keep their religion, usually local form of government (Not the original rules, they were usually the first to go)
Crafts people were held on esteem, as well as the literate.
Contemporary accounts of traveling to China from Europe say the mongo empire was very peaceful. While the journey across Europe was perilous due to bandits and "difficult" feudal lords, the travel from eastern Europe all the way to China was entirely uneventful.

Sometimes I picture Ghengis and Cobb sitting down griping about what a raw deal they got from history.

Slaves on plantations tended to be peaceful too. What choice was there?

If some of these conquered people stepped out of line......... I wonder how "benevolent" Ghengis Khan would've been then.

I've never heard Khan, one of the worst butchers of innocents who ever lived, defended so eloquently. I guess I focus on the The immediate conquering was very harsh part, and the realization that living under such a ruler was only "peaceful" as long as one accepted the fact he was now a conquered slave.

Cobb got a raw deal from history. Ghengis Khan was one of its worst mass murderers. That his conquered saw resistance as futile doesn't mean they were happy or content.

Changing the name is a good start.
As a white guy, I have no real say in the matter. all I can do is listen to native americans who say "hey, that depiction of my culture is offensive to me." Who am I to say, "no it isnt?" All I know, if there was a team called the New York Heebs, and the logo was a stereotypical jewish person, it would offend me.

furthermore, "those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."