If the Redskins change their name, how will it affect the collecting hobby?

[cubsfan-budman]

No one is suggesting that you call a native american "chief". No one is suggesting that you should call a Latino "Pancho" (unless that's his name).

We're talking about what you call a sports team. No one would have a problem if you named your new minor league baseball team the Albuquerque Amigos. The Panchos might be more controversial, but mainly because it's nonsensical.

I'm not going to argue that the Chiefs and the Braves should absolutely be able to keep their names (though I think they should), but it's not hard to see that Chief and Brave are flattering names, and "Redskin" is NOT.

[packs]

Originally Posted by cubsfan-budman

No one is suggesting that you call a native american "chief". No one is suggesting that you should call a Latino "Pancho" (unless that's his name).

We're talking about what you call a sports team. No one would have a problem if you named your new minor league baseball team the Albuquerque Amigos. The Panchos might be more controversial, but mainly because it's nonsensical.

I'm not going to argue that the Chiefs and the Braves should absolutely be able to keep their names (though I think they should), but it's not hard to see that Chief and Brave are flattering names, and "Redskin" is NOT.

So then the Washington Redskins are named the Redskins because they dislike Native Americans?

[cubsfan-budman]

Originally Posted by packs

So then the Washington Redskins are named the Redskins because they dislike Native Americans?

Its a relic of the past. No more, no less.

This really isn't that complex. It's defined in the dictionary as a "slur".

None of these other words are slurs by their very definition.

People are afraid of change and they don't like being told that things they like suck.

I understand the resistance, but it won't matter in the end. The name won't last for a lot longer.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by packs

So then the Washington Redskins are named the Redskins because they dislike Native Americans?

Actually, quite the opposite. It was to pay tribute to their coach at the time, William Henry "Lone Star" Dietz - a Native American.

Originally Posted by cubsfan-budman

It's defined in the dictionary as a "slur".

If Dietz thought it was a slur, why didn't he speak up at the time? I'd be willing to bet if he were alive today, he would have no problem whatsoever with the name.

[cubsfan-budman]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Actually, quite the opposite. It was to pay tribute to their coach at the time, William Henry "Lone Star" Dietz - a Native American.




If Dietz thought it was a slur, why didn't he speak up at the time? I'd be willing to bet if he were alive today, he would have no problem whatsoever with the name.

Yep, nothing should ever change.

Actually, its pretty common for 80 year old thought processes to adjust over time. Thank goodness.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by cubsfan-budman

Yep, nothing should ever change.

Actually, its pretty common for 80 year old thought processes to adjust over time. Thank goodness.

In today's times, the term "Whitey" is considered a slur as well. So, do we insist Whitey Ford use his real name and stop signing his autograph "Whitey" Ford?

[cubsfan-budman]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

In today's times, the term "Whitey" is considered a slur as well. So, do we insist Whitey Ford use his real name and stop signing his autograph "Whitey" Ford?

Again, these things are relics of the past. Start introducing yourself around town as "Whitey" and see how well that's received.

Cool social experiment. Let us know how it goes!

[celoknob]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

In today's times, the term "Whitey" is considered a slur as well. So, do we insist Whitey Ford use his real name and stop signing his autograph "Whitey" Ford?

But then again, "Whitey" wasn't subjected to mass ethnic cleansing and forced migration by his government. 4,000 Cherokee were "cleansed" in the Trail of Tears alone because they had red skin. Most of the rest were dumped in a wasteland. But that "Whitey" argument is a good one and shows considerable empathy and historical appreciation.

[drcy]

I think it can be viewed as matter of manners. If someone birth named Charles asks to be called Charlie and not Chuckie or Chaz because he's never liked those last two nicknames names, you call him Charlie. If you continue to call him Chuckie or Chaz, fine, but admit you're doing it to be an ass. Saying you're "out of respect" calling people a name they say they find offensive is, of course, BS. And with Charlie, it's not even a matter or whether or not Chuckie or Chaz are offensives or bad names. Charlie may be the first to say there's nothing wrong with those names in general, just as Bob or Tim are perfectly sound names. But if you don't want him to punch you in the nose, quit calling him Chuckie.

That a Jewish person (Snyder) is so adamant and stubborn against changing an offending name amazes me. An elderly couple I know said when they were kids in Baltimore they weren't allowed to use the local public swimming pool because they were Jewish. And think of uproar if the team was named the "Washington Jewish Bankers" with people defending the name as a symbol of respect because "everyone agrees that being good with money is a good thing."

P.s. I was waiting for someone to bring up the Minnesota Vikings, a common example brought up in this debates and because I'm a descent of Vikings. But no one did. If you're wondering, the nickname doesn't offend me or any Scandinavian-Americans I know of. But it's a different situation, only in part because it's the Scandinavians in Minnesota who picked the name. Self determination, like Charlie to be called Charlie and not Chuckie. Though I can tell you that the mascot and emblem is historically incorrect. For example, Vikings didn't wear horns on their helmets. That's just a modern romantic myth.

[clydepepper]

It's also a myth that the Vikings can hang with my Packers!

Sorry, saw an opening.

[steve B]

If they change it they should go with Braves. Especially since that was the team name when they were in Boston and played in Braves field.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

It's also a myth that the Vikings can hang with my Packers!

Sorry, saw an opening.

I'm was raised in Wisconsin, so am a Packers, not a Vikings, fan.

[HalChaseCollector]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Actually, quite the opposite. It was to pay tribute to their coach at the time, William Henry "Lone Star" Dietz - a Native American.









If Dietz thought it was a slur, why didn't he speak up at the time? I'd be willing to bet if he were alive today, he would have no problem whatsoever with the name.

Wrong wrong wrong. This is from a Washington post article

The proof is in a July 6, 1933, edition of the Hartford Courant, which Witten unearthed after the sports Web site MMQB tipped him off about it.

The edition includes a short Associated Press dispatch quoting Marshall saying: “The fact that we have in our head coach, Lone Star Dietz, an Indian, together with several Indian players, has not, as may be suspected, inspired me to select the name Redskins.”

Instead, Marshall explains, he gave up “Braves” to avoid confusion with a Boston professional baseball team of the same name. He apparently picked the Redskins name so he could keep the existing Native American logo.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by HalChaseCollector

Wrong wrong wrong. This is from a Washington post article

The proof is in a July 6, 1933, edition of the Hartford Courant, which Witten unearthed after the sports Web site MMQB tipped him off about it.

The edition includes a short Associated Press dispatch quoting Marshall saying: “The fact that we have in our head coach, Lone Star Dietz, an Indian, together with several Indian players, has not, as may be suspected, inspired me to select the name Redskins.”

Instead, Marshall explains, he gave up “Braves” to avoid confusion with a Boston professional baseball team of the same name. He apparently picked the Redskins name so he could keep the existing Native American logo.

That sure contradicts this article from the July 18th, 1933 issue of the Portsmouth Times.



Who is "wrong wrong wrong" now?

[cubsfan-budman]

Coach Lone Star Dietz could have named the team himself and it wouldn't change any of the modern facts about this issue.

There are many words that were used in the past that were acceptable then that aren't now. You don't need to be very creative to think of them.

Perhaps the fact that this one has stayed around for so long is what makes this confusing to some. I think that maybe it says more about how disenfranchised Native Americans are than anything else.

[packs]

I just think you are too hardline on your definitions. Redskin is a slur in context. So is Indian. So is Chief.

Redskins today is a slur. Indian today is a slur. But at the time I don't think you can argue any other way than it was a misguided sense of tribute.

[cubsfan-budman]

Originally Posted by packs

I just think you are too hardline on your definitions. Redskin is a slur in context. So is Indian. So is Chief.

Redskins today is a slur. Indian today is a slur. But at the time I don't think you can argue any other way than it was a misguided sense of tribute.

This is patently false. This part is factually wrong.

Redskins is a slur OUT of context. It is a slur no matter what, because that's the definition of the word.

Indian and chief and brave can be slurs IN context. But that is true of almost any noun.

[packs]

I think the name is a problem. But I think the same problem exists for Braves, Chiefs, and Indians. We are in agreement over Redskins but not the others.

While you think Braves, Chiefs, and Indians are harmless or titles of respect, I don't think you can make that decision for Native Americans. If they are offended by the titles, then their feelings about them should be just as important as those for Redskins.

[cubsfan-budman]

Originally Posted by packs

I think the name is a problem. But I think the same problem exists for Braves, Chiefs, and Indians. We are in agreement over Redskins but not the others.

While you think Braves, Chiefs, and Indians are harmless or titles of respect, I don't think you can make that decision for Native Americans. If they are offended by the titles, then their feelings about them should be just as important as those for Redskins.

Just to clarify, if Native Americans find Braves, Chiefs and Indians to be offensive, then by all means, change those too. I think a fair argument can be made for and (I suppose) against those.

Redskins on the other hand is indefensible from my point of view. It's a slur any way you look at it. And you don't even need to ask a Native American...its right there in the dictionary.