Wash.Redskins to change name to Redtails?

I actually LOVE this one..and the awesome name!


Or....

 

The Washington Tribe is leading in the clubhouse on my home team message board.

What bugs me is that why didn't somebody put out commercials and what-not about the nickname being so offensive and racist when when Doug Williams won the SB???

Normally I'm the first person to call out racism, and maybe technically the name of the franchise is inexcusable, but I really think non-sports fans are trying to read bigotry and offensive language where none was intended.


I understand the principle behind wanting the name changed, but I really do question the motives behind people trying to make it seem as if the entire country is behind a name change.

And if the term 'redskin' is racially insensitive, aren't franchises whose nickname are the 'Indians', 'Braves', or 'Chiefs' likewise culturally offensive??

Should we boycott Jeep Cherokee???

How much claim does a non-Native American have on symbols of Indian heritage in this country??

Dan Snyder should do a census level survey of every near or full blooded Native American in this country and get the real count from the people that matter to find out if the name 'Washington Redskins' is racially and culturally offensive.

 

The cherokkke are some racist mofos..

They didn't free a single AFRICAN SLAVE during their trail of tears...and more recently....ejected every Black memeber from the tribe..not the white ones...the black ones.

Learn your history BM.

MANY tribes lost their land and were placed on reservations because THEY REFUSED TO END SLAVERY.

 

Yes, Don Cheadle traced his roots with Skip Gates below to find out his ancestors were owned by Native Americans who did not free them after emancipation

[YOUTUBE]MzWnSM7TxNE[/YOUTUBE]

 

This is why I don't give a shit about Indians. They got theirs.

 

I came across a recent poll on a national news website asking if they should change it, and the results were startling....

I found this bit of info on the history of the word... according to this, it apparently never meant the murdering and then 'skinning" of Indians....?


...Linguist Ives Goddard has stated, "When it first appeared as an English expression in the early 1800s, "it came in the most respectful context and at the highest level," Goddard said in an interview. "These are white people and Indians talking together, with the white people trying to ingratiate themselves."[7] It was not until July 22, 1815, that "red skin" first appeared in print, he found—in a news story in the Missouri Gazette on talks between Midwestern Indian tribes and envoys sent by President James Madison to negotiate treaties after the War of 1812.

REDSKIN:

The term derives from the use of "red" color metaphor for race following European colonization of the Western Hemisphere, and one of the earliest known citations of its use is by a Native American called Chief Black Thunder [8] in which he stated:
"My Father—Restrain your feelings, and hear calmly what I shall say. I shall tell it to you plainly, I shall not speak with fear and trembling. I feel no fear. I have no cause to fear. I have never injured you, and innocence can feel no fear. I turn to all, red skins and white skins, and challenge an accusation against me".

Although initial explorers and later Anglo-Americans termed Native Americans light-skinned, brown, tawny, or russet. According to historian Alden T. Vaughan,
"Not until the middle of the eighteenth century did most Anglo-Americans view Indians as significantly different in color from themselves, and not until the nineteenth century did red become the universally accepted color label for American Indians."[9]

It is argued by sociologist Irving Lewis Allen that slang identifiers for ethnic groups based upon physical characteristics are by nature derogatory, emphasizing the difference between the speaker and the target.

[10] However, Professor Luvell Anderson of the University of Memphis, in his paper " Slurring Words ", argues that for a word to be a slur, the word must communicate ideas beyond identifying a target group, and that, slurs are offensive because the additional data contained in those words differentiates those individuals from otherwise accepted groups.[11]


Historic use

"Redskin" was used throughout the English-speaking world (and in equivalent transliterations in Europe) throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries as a common term of reference for indigenous Americans. However, the more commonly used term from early colonization through the twentieth century was "Indian", perpetuating Columbus' belief that he had found the Indies.[12]

The first use of red-skin or red Indian may have been limited to specific groups that used red pigments to decorate their bodies, such as the Beothuk people of Newfoundland who painted their bodies with red ochre.[13]

Redskin is first recorded in the late 17th century and was applied to the Algonquian peoples generally, but specifically to the Lenape or Delaware (who lived in what is now southern New York State and New York City, New Jersey, and eastern Pennsylvania). Redskin referred not to the natural skin color of the Lenape, but to their use of vermilion face paint and body paint.[14]

The indigenous peoples of the continent had no common identity, and referred to themselves using individual tribal names, which is also preferred to the present day. Group identity for Native Americans only emerged during the late 18th and early 19th century, in the context of negotiations between many tribes signing a single treaty with the United States, where Native American Chiefs referred to themselves and the tribes they represented, as " redskins ".[15] Oklahoma is based on Choctaw Indian words which translate as red people (okla meaning "people" and humma meaning "red").[16]


[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_%28slang%29"...]more[/URL]

 

Richard,some tribes respected Blacks and others didn't. On the latter some tribal members became Confederate generals.

 

Great post Bliss!!!

If Snyder doesn't want to have to keep defending the name of his franchise, it would help if he really broke it down historically for those who are automatically making negative associations with the term 'redskin'.

 

Whatever. They've got their issues and we've got ours.

 

Yeah, it would behoove Dan to do this in the best interest for the team, the players, and the loyal fans and highlight in particular, the last paragraph.
The Redskins name is no doubt genuinely loved and revered and spoken with pride (except by your NFC enemies :-?), so I can definitely understand yours and others objections to change it.

 

Every nation is different. The Seminoles were strong advocates of inclusion of blacks and whites who abided by their laws within the nation. In fact, the Seminole designation is really an amalgamation of the various groups both indigenous to Florida and fleeing to the state from the colonizers' advance as well as the blacks and whites who joined them. The current chief is a mix of all three races.

 

Patent office cancels Redskins' trademarks, rules it 'disparaging'

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/...americans-061814?cmpid=msn:foxsports:ansfox11

WASHINGTON -- A federal trademark board ruled Wednesday that the Washington Redskins nickname is "disparaging of Native Americans" and that the team's trademark protections should be canceled, a decision that applies new financial and political pressure on the team to change its name.

The 2-1 ruling from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board came in a case that has been working its way through legal channels for more than two decades. It doesn't force the team to abandon the name, but it comes at a time of increasing criticism of team owner Dan Snyder from political, religious and sports figures who say it's time for a change.

The Redskins quickly announced that they will appeal, and the cancellation for trademark protections will be on hold while the matter makes its way through the courts. That process could take years.

It was the second time the board had issued an opinion on the case. A similar ruling from 1999 was overturned on a technicality in 2003.

"We've seen this story before," Redskins attorney Bob Raskopf said. "And just like last time, today's ruling will have no effect at all on the team's ownership of and right to use the Redskins name and logo. We are confident we will prevail once again."

The ruling involves six uses of the "Redskins" name trademarked by the team from 1967 to 1990. If it stands, it would mean the team can continue to use the name, but it would lose a significant portion of its ability to protect the financial interests connected to it. If others printed the name on sweatshirts or other apparel without permission, it would become more cumbersome to go after such groups.

Courts overturned the board's previous ruling in part because the plaintiffs waited too long to voice their opposition after the original trademarks were issued. The case was relaunched in 2006 by a younger group of Native Americans who had recently become adults and therefore would not have able to file a case earlier. The hearing was held in March of last year.

The chorus of critics against the use of the name has grown over the past year.

On Saturday, a major sector of the United Church of Christ voted to urge its 40,000 members to boycott the Redskins. Half of the U.S. Senate recently wrote letters to the NFL urging a change, one of the letters stating that "racism and bigotry have no place in professional sports." D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray suggested Wednesday the name will almost certainly have to change if the team ever wants to build a new stadium in the city.

Snyder, who has vowed repeatedly never to change the name, declined comment as he walked off the field after a minicamp practice Wednesday. Redskins players have mostly avoided the topic, aware of a potential conflict because they are employed by the team.

"Our job as players is to focus on what we can on this field day-in and day-out and let the legal people take care of that stuff," quarterback Robert Griffin III said after practice. "And when it's the right time, then we can voice whatever it is we know about the situation."

The Redskins have responded to critics by creating an Original Americans Foundation to give financial support to Native American tribes. Suzan Shown Harjo, a lead figure in the trademark case, called the foundation "somewhere between a PR assault and bribery."

Supporters of a name change quickly hailed the decision.

"Daniel Snyder may be the last person in the world to realize this," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said on the Senate floor, "but it is just a matter of time until he is forced to do the right thing."

 

the most upsetting thing about this is listening to the conservatives. (fox and talk radio)

they are saying "this is pc going out of control..."

 

Right wingers are pure comedy

 

If they can't understand why the name should be changed, shame on them

 

if Daniel Snyder ever changes the name, it'll be a devastating blow to their fanbase. Black Deniro, the problem isn't the mascot. Hell, I don't even have a problem with the logo.

it's just the name..

 

if you guys have ever noticed, the Chicago Blackhawks Indian head logo looks very similar toto the Redskins logo. Personally, I don't have a problem with either logo, but don't be surprised if they become the next target after this fiasco is over & done with....

 

hate to sound mean but you dont have a problem because its not aimed at you.

 

It's liberal guilt that's driving the name change.
Every poll of Native Americans shows the overwhelming majority don't have a problem with the name, and many view the word the way African-Americans see the word 'Black'.

I understand it's still problematic to name a sports franchise after the nickname of an ethnic or racial group, but the word is really has no meaning outside of being the nickname of a sports franchise.

Do I think Dan Snyder should have exclusive copyright protection for the name Redskins?? Probably not. The copyright office still got it right IMO deciding the term is still considered somewhat disparaging, but they didn't say it was a racial slur.

Another issue is that historically Native Americans have used and defined themselves by the term, 'red people', or 'red skin'.

It would kind of be like if Alabama got an NFL franchise and decided to call their team the Birmingham Rednecks. Is that automatically offensive to poor WHite southerners?? (Maybe not the best comparison since the history of poor WHites and Native Americans in this country is totally different.}

For those up on your Black cultural literacy, you know the term 'youngblood' was a popular term during the 1970s for young African Americans.

If NJ got an NFL franchise and named them the Trenton Youngbloods, would that automatically be racially offensive??
(That would be cool as shit. :smt004lol)

Redskins fans see the term 'redskin' as synonymous with warrior, a fighter.
That's all it's ever meant to them.

That said I don't think Snyder changes the name but loses exclusive rights to it and will lose a percentage of his merchandising with knockoff jerseys, hats and t shirts.

There are levels of offense in American society and on a scale of 1 to 10, the name of the Washington Redskins is probably 2-3, which means most football fans will move on from the issue.

Hell there are groups who believe the idea of NFL cheerleaders is offensive and the two piece unis they wear sexist.


YEah I've been a Redskins fan forever and still have pics attending the SB parade in D.C. after their first two SB championships.rayer:

Unless Native Americans as a group poll over 50-60% agreeing they believe the name is offensive, I can't see Snyder changing the name.

 

Absolutely correct