Re: This again
 

I live extremely close to a cherokee reservation in western North Carolina and this whole thing kind of cracks me up. I wish you guys could see this place. Their whole town is a giant mockery of their culture. Every other building sells rubber hatchets and fake moccasins. Most of them have places to get your picture taken with a chief in a headdress. One specifically says "get your picture taken with Big Chief Bear"...and they're saying the name Redskins is disrespectful? Frankly, they need to stop dragging their own culture down before they start attacking organizations like the Redskins.

Re: This again
 

could it happen?

that would be bullshit

we could keep the name w/o a trademark though....... right?

Re: This again
 

I am suprised by these numbers and fully concede that I was wrong in arguing that an overwhelming majority oppose these names. But there still exists a sizable group that I think clearly extends beyond an "activist minority," and I do not think its appropriate to mock their intentions.

But whatever, that wasn't my point. Rather, I just can't understand how people from outside the Native American culture think they have any right to argue what should and should not be offensive for people within the culture, which is essentially what this thread has done. And I fail to understand the fervor with which so many insert themselves into this debate. Why argue against Native American advocates, even if they are a minority? Why not let the have this one? I mean, if the worst case scenario happened and the skins had to change their name to the magicians or something what it would really be that big a deal? I know everyone would have to go get a new Mark Brunell jersey, but we would get over it right?

Even if only one hundred thousand Native Americans are offended by the name (and I'm pulling a number out of thin air here) why would anyone object to satisfying their demands. Of course the answer is not rooted in any question of offensiveness, but instead revolves around people liking the colors and tradition of their favorite sports team.

It may well be the case that the name is not offensive, and I have confidence that that will be fleshed out in court. But in the meantime I will not tell any representative of the Native American nation that they are wrong for objecting to a mascot, Redskin or otherwise.

Re: This again
 

[QUOTE=flyfischer]I live extremely close to a cherokee reservation in western North Carolina and this whole thing kind of cracks me up. I wish you guys could see this place. Their whole town is a giant mockery of their culture. Every other building sells rubber hatchets and fake moccasins. Most of them have places to get your picture taken with a chief in a headdress. One specifically says "get your picture taken with Big Chief Bear"...and they're saying the name Redskins is disrespectful? Frankly, they need to stop dragging their own culture down before they start attacking organizations like the Redskins.[/QUOTE]

Who is they? Do the owners and operators of those vendors represent the entire Native American population. And who do you think you are to have any opinion about what they do within those reservations? If some otherwise impoverished entrepenurial Native Americans choose to cash in on the mainstream's love affair with kitsch, that's not the same as a multi-billion dollar revenue sports team appropriating their likeness. Also, I'd like to alert you to the last couple hundred years of history, and the material conditions that have prompted tribes to resort to activities not otherwise deemed culturally respectful by people like you, e.g. the operation of casinos and tobacco stands.

But again, I really have only one point to make and that is this. If you are not Native American you have no right, in my opinion, to argue what is and isn't "respectful" of Native American culture. And that's pretty much all I have to say about this.

Re: This again
 

[QUOTE=djnemo65]Who is they? Do the owners and operators of those vendors represent the entire Native American population. And who do you think you are to have any opinion about what they do within those reservations? If some otherwise impoverished entrepenurial Native Americans choose to cash in on the mainstream's love affair with kitsch, that's not the same as a multi-billion dollar revenue sports team appropriating their likeness. Also, I'd like to alert you to the last couple hundred years of history, and the material conditions that have prompted tribes to resort to activities not otherwise deemed culturally respectful by people like you, e.g. the operation of casinos and tobacco stands.

But again, I really have only one point to make and that is this. If you are not Native American you have no right, in my opinion, to argue what is and isn't "respectful" of Native American culture. And that's pretty much all I have to say about this.[/QUOTE]

Well, as I recall, the reservations are in America so I can have an opinion on them if I want to. This particular one doesn't represent the entire Native American population, but it does represent an aspect of that population. Furthermore, I am not responsible for the plight of the Native Americans. Its history buddy, it happens. I'm not saying it was right. Infact many times on this subject, I am the only one who condemns what our ancestors did to them, but if you're suggesting that the Native Americans can sit around and blame their problems on what whoever's great great grandpa did to them...then how do you expect them to survive much longer? The truth is, I don't care what they do on their reservations, but when they start affecting aspects of MY life ie the Washington Redskins then I care. Don't say I don't know either. Heck, I should take offense to the Ole Miss Rebels shouldn't I? Many of my ancestors fought and died for Virginia in the name of the Confederacy only to be made a mockery later by a D I school using their name as a mascot. What about the 49ers, the Cavaliers of UVA, the Appalachian Mountaineers, the Notre Dame Fighting Irish. Anyone could take offense to any of these. COME ON MAN! This is complete crap, and if we're not careful it won't be long till we're watching the Washington non denominationals take on the Dallas non violents, both wearing non offenseve grey uniforms and partaking in a game of two hand touch where score isn't kept!

Maybe we should just change the name to the Washington Native Americans...no one could say anything then!

Re: This again
 

How about the Dallas "Cowpeople?"

Re: This again
 

DJnemo65:

Are you really THAT upset over our team moniker, or are you just trying to be politically correct? To me, it seems logical to think if you are a fan of this team and have pulled for them over the years, then the name "Redskins" must not be that offensive to you. I mean, it's kind of like saying drinking beer is completely wrong while you're holding a big 'ol can of Miller lite in your hand!

Until my research proves otherwise, this is an activist issue not a majority issue. There are so many other things in this world to be concerned with than a football name.

Re: This again
 

It's slightly offensive and that's all it takes. Change the name and keep the logo. How about The Washington Warriors? Just as the Cleveland Indians logo is slightly offensive (we would be in the midst of a civil war if the face of the logo was black) they should change the logo and keep the name. If you don't have a problem with it as it is, you shouldn't have a problem if it's changed. Just like the GEICO commercial, "... so easy, even a caveman could use it." Now try replacing the word 'caveman' for Jew, black man, or even woman. Not cool, huh? :oink:

Re: This again
 

[QUOTE=skinsguy]DJnemo65:

Are you really THAT upset over our team moniker, or are you just trying to be politically correct? To me, it seems logical to think if you are a fan of this team and have pulled for them over the years, then the name "Redskins" must not be that offensive to you. I mean, it's kind of like saying drinking beer is completely wrong while you're holding a big 'ol can of Miller lite in your hand!

Until my research proves otherwise, this is an activist issue not a majority issue. There are so many other things in this world to be concerned with than a football name.[/QUOTE]

Let's change the name to the Washington Palefaces?! :oink:

Re: This again
 

Looking at this from a legal standpoint, I don't see how the petitioners can win this case. Sure, a small percentage of Native Americans say they are offended by the name, but that carries no weight in court whatsoever. The only way the offensiveness of the name could come into play is if a very large percentage of Native Americans were offended by it, in which case the franchise might encounter pressure from the public to change the name; the court will not act on the grounds that someone feels offended. The only exception to this is if the name has been used deliberately in a derogatory manner, and we can all agree that is not the case for our team name.

In order for them to win, the petitioners have to prove that the name 'Redskins' is somehow damaging to their people and/or their culture. I don't see how they can prove this. What are they going to say, that this team name has contributed to the degradation of their culture over the past 50 years? How so? Are they going to argue that had the name been changed long ago, that Native Americans would be more respected as a minority in this country? What proof do they have?

This lawsuit makes no sense to me. I hope it finally gets put down for good this time. If I were a betting man, I would put big money on the Skins winning this case.

Re: This again
 

[QUOTE=BossHog]It's slightly offensive and that's all it takes. Change the name and keep the logo. How about The Washington Warriors? Just as the Cleveland Indians logo is slightly offensive (we would be in the midst of a civil war if the face of the logo was black) they should change the logo and keep the name. If you don't have a problem with it as it is, you shouldn't have a problem if it's changed. Just like the GEICO commercial, "... so easy, even a caveman could use it." Now try replacing the word 'caveman' for Jew, black man, or even woman. Not cool, huh? :oink:[/QUOTE]



if im not mistaken its the logo thats most offensive. The symbol on our helmet was used in trading posts to signify that that trading post sold skinned indian heads. Which is pretty offensive.

Re: This again
 

I haven't read where the logo is most offensive, but if what you say is true, I can understand.....if that was the case...then just change the logo back to the spear and feather that they used decades ago....

Re: This again
 

I'm African American, and never lived in Africa, so what should I be...just another black face

Re: This again
 

When your the Majority of course it doesn't matter, but when your the Minority, then Identy is very important, I love the Redskins too....but If they had a picture of a Blackman on a helment, and said....the Washington Blackskins, who out there think that Black Americans, wouldn't be offended.....so show some sensitivity to these people were not trying to beat them in the ground.....I say Spear and Feather is fine with me....or like one man said in hear set up a fund or scholarship to show we at least care........if someone came up to me and said hey Blackface....two in the forehead.....boom

Re: This again
 

all bullshit and jokes aside, if it is so offensive, then change it. We've all seen names changed for dumber reasons (Wizards). If it offends 1 or 1 billion it's still offensive and in some instances considered racist.

I think Chris Rock said it best with "its like if we changed the name of the New York Giants to the New York Niggers" its totaly offensive and derogatory to the members of the native american nation. I'm black and I can understand when people want understanding and they get lude and obnoxious comments from fans and staff alike.