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..?