Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Relapse wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Relapse wrote:

I think we may be somewhat on the same page, though with all other things being said, about the name Redskins not being a good thing.

I think we are, our exchange was a bit tounge-in-cheek (at least on my side).

Most definatly on my side as well. Could it be that we both had ear to ear grins as we were typing our comments at each other?

I wish this moment could last forever...

As a redskins fan, I think it's stupid, but it makes sense. It's almost as racist as a team named the "sambos", or something along those lines.

 d-usa wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Relapse wrote:

I think we may be somewhat on the same page, though with all other things being said, about the name Redskins not being a good thing.

I think we are, our exchange was a bit tounge-in-cheek (at least on my side).

Most definatly on my side as well. Could it be that we both had ear to ear grins as we were typing our comments at each other?

I wish this moment could last forever...

I love you, d.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Captain Fantastic wrote:
As a redskins fan, I think it's stupid, but it makes sense. It's almost as racist as a team named the "sambos", or something along those lines.

There was a restaraunt chain by that name back in the day:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sambo's

 cincydooley wrote:
Rick Reilly had a really good article pointing out how very few of the people this is actually supposed to offend are offended:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9689220/redskins-name-change-not-easy-sounds

Ahh, American white guilt and political correctness. Gotta love it.

That's nice that a different tribe had a independent origin of the term... Doesn't mean that other tribes are going to feel the same way, especially the Penobscot tribe of Massachusetts, the place where the Boston redskins was originated where they were murdered by the hundreds in the name of the king and redskins was the name of their scalps.

Just because one Native American somewhere is not offended or the term had independent origins with other connotations doesn't make it "ok".

Actually, the thing we will see is that Washington DC will disallow the redskins from using "Washington" because they are not actually in the city. Also, they plan to break the ability to license and patent a racial slur, so the NFL won't be able to license or legally protect any of their redskins logos. So how fun will it be for the "largo redskins" to exist with unwell able merchandise?

The local politicians here, it is pretty much going to happen. Local papers have even taken to not printing the team's name, and California is close to banning the team from playing in their state which means the skins would forfeit all road games in California.

When it is a pain in the ass for the NFl they will change it.

Relapse wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

I wish this moment could last forever...

I love you, d.

This is a beautiful moment.

Didn't they try to do this a while ago?

About the time the Bullets got renamed the "wizards".
I heard about the Redskins being renamed "warriors"

ahtman wrote:
but calling a Blackfoot a redskin is just dickish.

Is that along the same line as "If you call a blackfoot a redskin, you better be prepared to eat crow." ?

Relapse wrote:
Do I like the name Redskins? Not really, due to reasons I stated in my earlier post, and I think the name ought to be changed.

However I don't think the fans that get decked out in red face paint are anymore
racist than people that dress up like ridiculous a drunken Leprechaun or Viking.

I agree totally. I think the name is racist as hell, and should be changed; but I don't find the fans dressing up in "redface" to be an allegory for blackface at all. Football has a rich history of fans painting their faces with the team color.

 Ouze wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Do I like the name Redskins? Not really, due to reasons I stated in my earlier post, and I think the name ought to be changed.

However I don't think the fans that get decked out in red face paint are anymore
racist than people that dress up like ridiculous a drunken Leprechaun or Viking.

I agree totally. I think the name is racist as hell, and should be changed; but I don't find the fans dressing up in "redface" to be an allegory for blackface at all. Football has a rich history of fans painting their faces with the team color.

See, my issue with these particular fans is not the red face paint. It's the mouth, eyes, feathers that makes it go from "fans with red faces" to "fans in red face".

Do Redskins fans do that?

Redskins fans? No idea.

The Indians fans that we were talking about in comparison to the Viking and Irish fans did though.

 d-usa wrote:
Redskins fans? No idea.

The Indians fans that we were talking about in comparison to the Viking and Irish fans did though.

Redskin fans don't do the sambo indian thing, but they do dress up in headdresses and warpaint.


Chief Zee is the most famous, he is basically an old guy who is redskins royalty.


But a large portion of fans dress up as hoggettes instead which has become the defacto mascot as if you look at NFL merchandise and such, they always use a PIG for the redskins.

Hoggettes


Old Mascot who has been dead for about 20 years:


If you buy anything 'mascot-themed' you will get something with a pig:



So ever since the mid 80's the Hogettes have basically taken over, and merchandizing for the skins has already dumped all Indian references outside the actual logo. If they changed to the arrowhead logo (which was the logo before the indian head which started in the 60s) no one would care really.

They use a pig because of The Hogs, arguably one of the best offensive lines in the history of football.

But yes, by and large Redskins fandom has dropped the Native American theme. There are a few holdouts you can still see at games, but they are often hard to find considering how many fans of the the opponent are usually there...

Some superfans use the history of the nation's capital as a theme, such as Uncle Skins (interestingly enough, he is a friend of mine):


While I understand why people would object to being used a mascot, I personally think that this:

Is definitely not on the same level as this:

As far as being considered offensive.

 WarOne wrote:

tl;dr Yankee isn't really an insult anymore, Redskin still is.

Have you been in the South lately?? they sill use the term Yankee, or Yank or some variation of it do negatively describe anyone not of a Southern Birth.


I doubt many teams gave their names to be offensive to anyone on purpose... Many of the articles that come out screaming for name changes, or a law that prohibits the use of ANY native american names/icons/logos, etc. always fail to remember that many of these establishments have permission to use the names they do.

Florida State University had to get, and now has to maintain permission to use their Seminoles name. South Dakota (cant remember if its State or just U), had permission to use Fighting Sioux as their name, but recently changed it due to political changes in their area. Chiefs, Braves, and Indians are in no way derogatory terms, yet there are people out there DEMANDING they change names, or change imagery, etc. Just about the only sports team in the US that has one of these "offensive" names is the Redskins, which, honestly, I think that there is almost no real way to change the team name/colors... they are just too steeped into that city. For most of these teams and others out there, I think these attempts at making life PC are pathetic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
They use a pig because of The Hogs, arguably one of the best offensive lines in the history of football.

Thank you for explaining that... I hate when even "die hard" Skins fans do not know where the Hogettes thing comes from.

Change it to the Washington Skinheads and sponsor the local SHARP chapters.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 WarOne wrote:

tl;dr Yankee isn't really an insult anymore, Redskin still is.

Have you been in the South lately?? they sill use the term Yankee, or Yank or some variation of it do negatively describe anyone not of a Southern Birth.

And the only people that think it is all that insulting are people from the south. "Anyone not from the south" isn't really a ethnic category either. It is not on par with all sorts of words I can't say here because of the word filter and common decency.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 WarOne wrote:

tl;dr Yankee isn't really an insult anymore, Redskin still is.

Have you been in the South lately?? they sill use the term Yankee, or Yank or some variation of it do negatively describe anyone not of a Southern Birth.

And the only people that think it is all that insulting are people from the south. "Anyone not from the south" isn't really a ethnic category either. It is not on par with all sorts of words I can't say here because of the word filter and common decency.

Yeah, Yankee is a term of geographical origin. If you happen to hate someone from that geographic origin, you can attempt to use it as an insult, but the term itself is not an insult. New Yorkers will use 'Your from Jersey' as an insult but New Jersey itself is not a slur.

Comparing Yankee to a racial slur doesn't mesh.

Yankee was originally an insult towards US settlers by the British... Most of the times I've heard idiots use it here has been in the derogatory sense. So people may not regard it as an insult all over, but that doesn't change the imprecation. =/

nkelsch wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Rick Reilly had a really good article pointing out how very few of the people this is actually supposed to offend are offended:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9689220/redskins-name-change-not-easy-sounds

Ahh, American white guilt and political correctness. Gotta love it.

That's nice that a different tribe had a independent origin of the term... Doesn't mean that other tribes are going to feel the same way, especially the Penobscot tribe of Massachusetts, the place where the Boston redskins was originated where they were murdered by the hundreds in the name of the king and redskins was the name of their scalps.

Just because one Native American somewhere is not offended or the term had independent origins with other connotations doesn't make it "ok".

Actually, the thing we will see is that Washington DC will disallow the redskins from using "Washington" because they are not actually in the city. Also, they plan to break the ability to license and patent a racial slur, so the NFL won't be able to license or legally protect any of their redskins logos. So how fun will it be for the "largo redskins" to exist with unwell able merchandise?

The local politicians here, it is pretty much going to happen. Local papers have even taken to not printing the team's name, and California is close to banning the team from playing in their state which means the skins would forfeit all road games in California.

When it is a pain in the ass for the NFl they will change it.

The District cannot make Dan Snyder drop the word "Washington" from name of the team. There was trademark lawsuits against the team in the late 90s that has was thrown out and has since been reopened, that even if they lost, they would still be allowed to use the name "Washington Redskins," they just wouldn't be able to trademark it meaning anyone could use it.

The District has said that if the team wanted to move back into town, they would have to change their name, but they can't force them to do it. California has not and will not ban the team from playing in the state. You're thinking of the state's decision in 2004 to ban teams in the state from using Native American names. That has no bearing on teams and entities outside the state of California.

One local [alternative] news paper (Washington City Paper) has stopped using the name "Redskins" and did so last year. It is just a continuation of a feud with Daniel Snyder after he got pissed about a scathing (and accurate) story about his failings as an owner and tried to sue them for libel.

Bottom line is: no one can really force the team to change the name. As a fan, I know it will probably happen eventually and I'm okay with that so long as they don't change from burgundy and gold.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Rick Reilly had a really good article pointing out how very few of the people this is actually supposed to offend are offended:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9689220/redskins-name-change-not-easy-sounds

Ahh, American white guilt and political correctness. Gotta love it.

That's nice that a different tribe had a independent origin of the term... Doesn't mean that other tribes are going to feel the same way, especially the Penobscot tribe of Massachusetts, the place where the Boston redskins was originated where they were murdered by the hundreds in the name of the king and redskins was the name of their scalps.

Just because one Native American somewhere is not offended or the term had independent origins with other connotations doesn't make it "ok".

Actually, the thing we will see is that Washington DC will disallow the redskins from using "Washington" because they are not actually in the city. Also, they plan to break the ability to license and patent a racial slur, so the NFL won't be able to license or legally protect any of their redskins logos. So how fun will it be for the "largo redskins" to exist with unwell able merchandise?

The local politicians here, it is pretty much going to happen. Local papers have even taken to not printing the team's name, and California is close to banning the team from playing in their state which means the skins would forfeit all road games in California.

When it is a pain in the ass for the NFl they will change it.

The District cannot make Dan Snyder drop the word "Washington" from name of the team. There was trademark lawsuits against the team in the late 90s that has was thrown out and has since been reopened, that even if they lost, they would still be allowed to use the name "Washington Redskins," they just wouldn't be able to trademark it meaning anyone could use it.

So anybody could make the most racist vile and disgusting Washington Redskins merchandise and post it everywhere. By doing that they can damage the brand so much that changing a name would be easier than continuing damage control.

The District has said that if the team wanted to move back into town, they would have to change their name, but they can't force them to do it.

Sure they can. Won't change the name? No leases, no tax breaks, no incentives, etc etc etc. It's pretty easy to do.

Bottom line is: no one can really force the team to change the name. As a fan, I know it will probably happen eventually and I'm okay with that so long as they don't change from burgundy and gold.

But people can put a ton of pressure on the team to change it.

Looking at a lot of the post about their other "unofficial" mascots it almost seems like the team has almost already changed to a new mascot and the only reason they are still the Redskins seems like a pissing match.

The Brand itself is pretty closely associated with burgundy and gold, and it seems like the non-Redskins mascots all incorporate them already, so I wouldn't think that it would change. Keeping everything the same except for a name and a logo wouldn't be very hard to do while keeping the rest of your branding intact.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:


Bottom line is: no one can really force the team to change the name. As a fan, I know it will probably happen eventually and I'm okay with that so long as they don't change from burgundy and gold.

Agree. I was actually more annoyed when the Capitals went away from Red/White/Blue for a while but we are back to 'Rock the red' so I am happy.

But on the other hand, the Wizards are dead to me.

I am fine with Warriors and the spear logo which is basically the previous logo before the face one.

So anybody could make the most racist vile and disgusting Washington Redskins merchandise and post it everywhere. By doing that they can damage the brand so much that changing a name would be easier than continuing damage control.

Yes, that is the only outcome of the trademark lawsuit. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that it would happen. The owner has gone on record saying that he wouldn't change it even if he lost the lawsuit.

Sure they can. Won't change the name? No leases, no tax breaks, no incentives, etc etc etc. It's pretty easy to do.

No, they can't. It is trademark protected name and the the team has no facilities within the District. The stadium is in Landover, MD, the main office/training facility is in Ashburn, VA, and their training camp is in Richmond, VA. There is nothing the District can do about it.

But people can put a ton of pressure on the team to change it.

No one can force them. Trust me, Daniel Snyder is one of the most stubborn rich guys there is and he really doesn't care what anyone thinks of him. At all. He more or less took the team from the family of the previous owner (Jack Kent Cooke) while doing everything he could to prevent Cooke's son from buying the team and then spent over a decade destroying one of the most storied franchises in the sport by treating it like his own personal fantasy football team and blowing millions upon millions on worthless players. No one, not even offended Native Americans or alt weekly papers, hate Dan Snyder more than fans of the team. He didn't listen to the collective voice of the entire fanbase over the past 14 years, what makes you think he would listen to anyone else?

You said that the district couldn't force them to change their name IF they moved back into town, that is what I countered.

If they are staying outside the city the the city doesn't have any leverage of course.

You know what... I concur... the Washington Redskins are really offensive, due to negative associations...

Let's rename it to the Maryland Redskins.

Can't lie, I snickered at that.

Actually, I saw some logos for 'Washington Warriors' which are based around a US army WWII soldiers and name the team for the war memorials in DC. I am totally sold if they do that.

One I really like:
http://images.ftw.usatoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/27751605ce90c170a5ca9652e3ba80f2cc3673859ea9e01a-original.jpg

Also:

In the spring of 2000, Snyder applied with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to register "Warriors" under Washington Football Inc. The goods and services described in his application were "entertainment services in the nature of professional football games and exhibitions."

I am a Washington Native with crap-tons of Skins stuff. I would totally embrace a new name and logo. I don't think it would ruin tradition at all.

Seriously... I'd be really cool with that.

Honestly I have no problem with the team being native themed my problem is that it's name is a racial slur and that the logo looks like a racial stereotype.

 Cheesecat wrote:
Honestly I have no problem with the team being native themed my problem is that it's name is a racial slur and that the logo looks like a racial stereotype.

Indeed. If it were called the Washington Indians this wouldn't be nearly as big an issue. The problems the Cleveland Indians had wasn't that they were called the "Indians" but there mascot was a Native American Samba, existentially.



The Indianapolis Indians haven't had any issues like this, but then their symbol is this:

 Ahtman wrote:

These guys, next to your avatar....kind of disturbing

 d-usa wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

These guys, next to your avatar....kind of disturbing

What is his avatar supposed to be?