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

[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.

[TUM301]

I really don`t mind the name Redskins at all. But can appreciate the uproa. It`s gotten so bad, wouldn`t want "Washington" linked to anything I could be identified with. That is the truly offensive part of the equation.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by TUM301

I really don`t mind the name Redskins at all. But can appreciate the uproa. It`s gotten so bad, wouldn`t want "Washington" linked to anything I could be identified with. That is the truly offensive part of the equation.

YOU GOT IT! That is the problem. We have all been looking at this the wrong way...and I am being totally serious when I agree that the first part of the name is the problem, not the second part. Remember it is Washington (and the ilk that ooses from it) that broke all the treaties; stole all the land; and liquidated tens of thousands of whatever you decide to call them. Why not call them 'The Innocents' or 'The Victims' - but, be careful, us European-Americans will need a way to distinguish them from the other Innocents and Victims.

Mind you, I don't feel any personal guilt over the way those races were vanquished...remorse, yes; regret, yes...and I do sincerely wish that it should never, ever, happen again.

All that said, maybe just changing names of sports teams is not that big a deal.
?

[Runscott]

I agree with Raymond.

If I were an uber politically correct white guy, because of the way they've treated Indians, I would be offended that Washington is allowed to have any sports teams, unless they call them something appropriate;e.g: 'Washington Treaty Breakers', 'Washington Liars', 'Washington Slimy White Guys', etc.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by celoknob

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.

So we can re-write history by changing the team's name?

Once again, the team name Redskins was never intended to be a racial slur but, instead, to pay tribute to their coach (who was Native American).

Now, 80 years later, a very small percentage of the population gets their panties in a wad and demands a name change. You really think Snyder is going to change the name? Get real. Let me drop a couple of facts on you. From Wikipedia: "According to Forbes Magazine, the Redskins are the third most valuable franchise in the NFL behind the Cowboys and Patriots, and were valued at approximately $1.6 billion as of 2013. They have also broken the NFL's mark for single-season attendance ten years in a row." You think Snyder is going to cave into pressure? Why? Is he afraid fans will stop attending the games if he doesn't change the team's name? Yeah, right! Long live the Washington Redskins!

[cubsfan-budman]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

So we can re-write history by changing the team's name?

Once again, the team name Redskins was never intended to be a racial slur but, instead, to pay tribute to their coach (who was Native American).

Now, 80 years later, a very small percentage of the population gets their panties in a wad and demands a name change. You really think Snyder is going to change the name? Get real. Let me drop a couple of facts on you. From Wikipedia: "According to Forbes Magazine, the Redskins are the third most valuable franchise in the NFL behind the Cowboys and Patriots, and were valued at approximately $1.6 billion as of 2013. They have also broken the NFL's mark for single-season attendance ten years in a row." You think Snyder is going to cave into pressure? Why? Is he afraid fans will stop attending the games if he doesn't change the team's name? Yeah, right! Long live the Washington Redskins!

Eh, never mind

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by cubsfan-budman

Wait and see what happens if the FCC bans the word.

Are you for real ?!?!?

[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.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by drcy

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

That's OK, I think they have an ointment for that.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by drcy

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

Okay, so there is one team name that gives me an unpleasant visual: 'Packers'

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Okay, so there is one team name that gives me an unpleasant visual: 'Packers'

Scott- I think you need to take your mind down by the river and beat it on a rock.

[packs]

I know they're not a team anymore but "Oilers" always sounded weird to me.

[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.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by cubsfan-budman

There are many words that were used in the past that were acceptable then that aren't now.

Whether or not Marshall named his team the Redskins to honor his coach, we'll probably never really know for sure. That doesn't change the fact that his coach and 6 of the players were indeed Native American. Therefore, do you really think the name Redskins was intended to be a racial slur at the time?

So because it's offensive now, but wasn't 80 years ago when the team adopted the name, they're supposed to change it? Seriously?!? What if in 80 years from now the word 'dolphin' somehow evolves into a slang word to mean a derogatory term or a racial slur? Do we make the Miami Dolphins change their name? It's a serious question because you are making the same argument about the Redskins name.

[barrysloate]

David- in all fairness, language and culture change all the time. There was a time when "negro" was a commonly used term, and now it's totally disappeared from use. The fact that "Redskins" was acceptable eighty years ago, and it apparently was, doesn't give it a free pass today. Things do change. And it's okay to have the discussion regarding whether or not it's offensive. If most people don't care one way or the other, I'm totally fine with it. But if a large enough group is offended, then it's reasonable to find a substitute.

You may recall the Washington Wizards were once called the Bullets. The team felt it was inappropriate and changed the name. And the St John's Redmen are now called the Red Storm. All well and good.

I don't have that strong an opinion on whether or not the Redskin name stays or goes, just trying to make the point that our language and culture evolves, and certain terms fall out of everyday usage.

[nolemmings]

Given his intense racism against the black man, I highly doubt George Preston Marshall did anything out of honor or respect for the American Indian. This is a man who owned the last team to integrate, forced to do so when Udall and Kennedy threatened to revoke his stadium lease. A man who left behind lots of money at death for a foundation with the proviso that not one penny of it be used for any cause or entity that supported racial integration in any form. A man who required the marching band to play Dixie before the Star Spangled Banner at his home games. A man who so admired and respected Coach Dietz--who may not have been Indian in the first place-- that he fired him after two years. Seems highly doubtful to me that a man like this would make his decision on the team name as any kind of tribute to another race or culture.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

You may recall the Washington Wizards were once called the Bullets. The team felt it was inappropriate and changed the name. And the St John's Redmen are now called the Red Storm. All well and good.

I remember when Stanford changed their name from the 'Indians' to the 'Cardinal'. As a kid, I thought: "What's wrong - they have something against Indians?"

Here's an interesting article on that name change: http://nacc.stanford.edu/mascot.html