Citing NBA, 50 Senators Want Redskins Name Changed

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2014 1:31 AM GMT
    NYT: Fifty senators signed a letter urging more pressure on the Redskins’ ownership to change the team’s name, pointing to the N.B.A.’s action against the Clippers’ owner, Donald Sterling, for racist comments.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/22/sports/football/citing-nba-example-senators-urge-nfl-to-act-on-redskins-name.html?ref=sports
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2014 3:27 AM GMT
    QUIZ: What were the L.A. Clippers called BEFORE they moved to California? icon_question.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2014 3:30 AM GMT
    Buffalo Braves
    1970–1978
    San Diego Clippers
    1978–1984
    Los Angeles Clippers
    1984–present
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2014 4:05 AM GMT
    woodsmen saidBuffalo Braves
    1970–1978

    San Diego Clippers
    1978–1984
    Los Angeles Clippers
    1984–present


    ding! ding! ding!

    5451.gif

    Buffalo-Braves-logo.jpg

    The owner before Sterling smartly changed the Indian-referenced name after moving the franchise to San Diego... UNLIKE the owner of the R*dsk*ns, who moved the team from Boston (before that they were the football version of the Boston Braves, then became the Boston R*dsk*ns).

    http://www.sportslogos.net/logos/view/5451/Buffalo_Braves/1972/Primary_Logo

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Clippers

    WikiIn 1978, San Diego welcomed the relocation of the Buffalo Braves franchise because the city had lost their Rockets to Houston seven years earlier. San Diego team officials did not think Braves was a representative nickname for the club. A contest decided on Clippers because the city was known for the great sailing ships that passed through San Diego Bay.


    Imagine if the R*dsk*ns owner, George Preston Marshall, simply tried to involve its new home, the place where he was already living, in coming up with an appropriate name.

    Also notice the way the NBA's Hawks changed their name as they moved around the Midwest in the 50s, and how the Warriors changed not their name but all references to Indians after moving to San Fran from Philly in the 60s.
  • metta

    Posts: 39099

    May 23, 2014 5:15 PM GMT
    I think that it should be changed.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2014 5:28 PM GMT
    So THIS is what the PC Warriors spend their time on?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2014 9:18 PM GMT
    libertpaulian saidSo THIS is what the PC Warriors spend their time on?


    Nah, just the Golden State Warriors! LOL
  • muscleONmuscl...

    Posts: 301

    May 23, 2014 9:25 PM GMT
    libertpaulian saidSo THIS is what the PC Warriors spend their time on?


    Here's a little experiment for you, Mr. Anti-PC guardian. Take your ancestry, find the most derogatory racist slur used again your people, now imagine that the nation's capital names its football team that. "Redskins" like "nigger" is a completely racist term with a racist history--when Whites called Blacks "niggers" we felt comfortable enslaving and lynching them; when Whites called Native Americans "Redskins" we felt comfortable lying to them in formal treaties, cheating them out of their land, and committing genocide upon their tribes. Names matter; get it?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 24, 2014 12:00 AM GMT
    So Mr. PC Guardian:

    Why is it OK for the liberal TV news media to display video of signs indicating "God Hates Fags" or "Homos" then repeat the quote verbally? The liberal news media won't do that with the "N" word.

    Why is it OK for liberal Al Sharpton to refer to gays as "Homos"?

    Why is it OK for liberal Charlie Rangel to refer to whites as "Crackers"?

    Why is it OK for liberal Andrew Cuomo to plaster the subway with posters for his dad displaying: "Vote for Cuomo, not the homo"?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 24, 2014 12:03 AM GMT
    muscleONmuscle1 said
    libertpaulian saidSo THIS is what the PC Warriors spend their time on?


    Here's a little experiment for you, Mr. Anti-PC guardian. Take your ancestry, find the most derogatory racist slur used again your people, now imagine that the nation's capital names its football team that. "Redskins" like "nigger" is a completely racist term with a racist history--when Whites called Blacks "niggers" we felt comfortable enslaving and lynching them; when Whites called Native Americans "Redskins" we felt comfortable lying to them in formal treaties, cheating them out of their land, and committing genocide upon their tribes. Names matter; get it?


    Why is it OK for liberal Obama to post a video of himself on the White House website shaking the hand of and praising the Sultan Of Brunei who passed a law to execute gays by stoning?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 24, 2014 12:58 AM GMT
    muscleONmuscle1 said
    libertpaulian saidSo THIS is what the PC Warriors spend their time on?


    Here's a little experiment for you, Mr. Anti-PC guardian. Take your ancestry, find the most derogatory racist slur used again your people, now imagine that the nation's capital names its football team that. "Redskins" like "nigger" is a completely racist term with a racist history--when Whites called Blacks "niggers" we felt comfortable enslaving and lynching them; when Whites called Native Americans "Redskins" we felt comfortable lying to them in formal treaties, cheating them out of their land, and committing genocide upon their tribes. Names matter; get it?


    The problem here is that you are assuming that "Redskins" and "nigger" have a similar lexiconic history. If you do your research, you'll see that that is most likely not the case. Nor is the term "redskin" used derogatorily now. I don't think the term "Redskin" is used positively in the same way that "Braves" is, but it certainly isn't negative (and to be honest, I don't think the term is even in use now). American Indians labeled themselves "Redskins" to distinguish themselves from white people in the same way that someone today would label someone a "white person" or a "black person."

    It is probably a dumb team name (unlike "Braves", which strongly connotes ferocity and courage/bravery), but there are many dumb team names that don't connote something positive, manly, or fierce ("Lakers", "Rockets", "Pelicans", "White Sox", "Red Sox" "Yankees"). Actually, I think the team name "Redskins" is probably closest to the team name "Celtics". Both are labels of a group of people, both de facto extinct as living entities and thus more in the realm of legend than history, and both depend upon perceived strengths of the people without explicitly referencing them (one bravery, and the other luck).

    I suspect the move to get rid of the name "Redskins" is intentional white self-guilt more than anything, just to make our liberal consciences feel better about ourselves. It is artificial.
  • Timbales

    Posts: 13993

    May 24, 2014 1:23 AM GMT
    the should change it to the Washington Quadroons
  • metta

    Posts: 39099

    May 24, 2014 4:10 AM GMT
    Native American leaders call for 'Redskins' name change




    http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2013/11/27/5151544/native-american-leaders-call-for-redskins-name-change
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14335

    May 24, 2014 2:25 PM GMT
    dayumm said
    woodsmen saidBuffalo Braves
    1970–1978

    San Diego Clippers
    1978–1984
    Los Angeles Clippers
    1984–present


    ding! ding! ding!

    5451.gif

    Buffalo-Braves-logo.jpg

    The owner before Sterling smartly changed the Indian-referenced name after moving the franchise to San Diego... UNLIKE the owner of the R*dsk*ns, who moved the team from Boston (before that they were the football version of the Boston Braves, then became the Boston R*dsk*ns).

    http://www.sportslogos.net/logos/view/5451/Buffalo_Braves/1972/Primary_Logo

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Clippers

    WikiIn 1978, San Diego welcomed the relocation of the Buffalo Braves franchise because the city had lost their Rockets to Houston seven years earlier. San Diego team officials did not think Braves was a representative nickname for the club. A contest decided on Clippers because the city was known for the great sailing ships that passed through San Diego Bay.


    Imagine if the R*dsk*ns owner, George Preston Marshall, simply tried to involve its new home, the place where he was already living, in coming up with an appropriate name.

    Also notice the way the NBA's Hawks changed their name as they moved around the Midwest in the 50s, and how the Warriors changed not their name but all references to Indians after moving to San Fran from Philly in the 60s.
    I remember the Buffalo Braves from the 1970s. I have been to several of their home games in Memorial Auditorium in Buffalo. We should have never lost this NBA franchise because Buffalo was an excellent basketball town. But the owner was overly demanding and greedy. He did not want to negotiate a shared lease of the Auditorium with the Buffalo Sabers so he decided to leave town. However he didn't last long in San Diego neither.
  • muscleONmuscl...

    Posts: 301

    May 24, 2014 4:55 PM GMT
    KJSharp said
    muscleONmuscle1 said
    libertpaulian saidSo THIS is what the PC Warriors spend their time on?


    Here's a little experiment for you, Mr. Anti-PC guardian. Take your ancestry, find the most derogatory racist slur used again your people, now imagine that the nation's capital names its football team that. "Redskins" like "nigger" is a completely racist term with a racist history--when Whites called Blacks "niggers" we felt comfortable enslaving and lynching them; when Whites called Native Americans "Redskins" we felt comfortable lying to them in formal treaties, cheating them out of their land, and committing genocide upon their tribes. Names matter; get it?


    The problem here is that you are assuming that "Redskins" and "nigger" have a similar lexiconic history. If you do your research, you'll see that that is most likely not the case. Nor is the term "redskin" used derogatorily now. I don't think the term "Redskin" is used positively in the same way that "Braves" is, but it certainly isn't negative (and to be honest, I don't think the term is even in use now). American Indians labeled themselves "Redskins" to distinguish themselves from white people in the same way that someone today would label someone a "white person" or a "black person."

    It is probably a dumb team name (unlike "Braves", which strongly connotes ferocity and courage/bravery), but there are many dumb team names that don't connote something positive, manly, or fierce ("Lakers", "Rockets", "Pelicans", "White Sox", "Red Sox" "Yankees"). Actually, I think the team name "Redskins" is probably closest to the team name "Celtics". Both are labels of a group of people, both de facto extinct as living entities and thus more in the realm of legend than history, and both depend upon perceived strengths of the people without explicitly referencing them (one bravery, and the other luck).

    I suspect the move to get rid of the name "Redskins" is intentional white self-guilt more than anything, just to make our liberal consciences feel better about ourselves. It is artificial.


    Actually, you should do your homework before making conclusions about the innocence or neutrality of the term. Here's what I gleaned in 60 seconds from Wikipedia:

    In 1863, a Winona, MN newspaper, the Daily Republican, printed among other announcements: "The state reward for dead Indians has been increased to $200 for every red-skin sent to Purgatory. This sum is more than the dead bodies of all the Indians east of the Red River are worth." [18]

    A linguistic analysis of 42 books published between 1875 and 1930 shows that negative contexts in the use of redskin were significantly more frequent than positive usage.[9] The use of the word Indian in a similarly selected set of books was more balanced though negative contexts were still more frequent than positive contexts.[9] The term was in common use in movies during the most popular period for Hollywood westerns (approximately 1920-1970), with "redskins" usually being used to refer to Native Americans as primitive and warlike.


    It is not a benign term like "Celtics" or even "landlubbers"; it's racist, outmoded, and offensive to almost anyone of Native American ancestry--just ask them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2014 3:06 AM GMT
    "60 seconds from Wikipedia".

    I'm glad you know how to conduct research.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFBDn5PiL00
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2014 6:52 PM GMT
    Speaking of research, a good guide via the last RJ thread on this subject (in PDF):

    http://www.ncai.org/attachments/PolicyPaper_mijApMoUWDbjqFtjAYzQWlqLdrwZvsYfakBwTHpMATcOroYolpN_NCAI_Harmful_Mascots_Report_Ending_the_Legacy_of_Racism_10_2013.pdf
  • muscleONmuscl...

    Posts: 301

    May 26, 2014 4:52 PM GMT
    KJSharp said"60 seconds from Wikipedia".

    I'm glad you know how to conduct research.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFBDn5PiL00


    The sources I quoted in the Wikipedia posting are scholarly sources, but apparently you're not good at reading or research. Since you doubt, without evidence, the Wikipedia source, here's the full quote from the Oxford American Dictionary:

    redskin
    Syllabification: red·skin
    Pronunciation: /ˈredˌskin

    /
    noun
    • dated or • offensive

    An American Indian.

    Usage

    Redskin is first recorded in the late 17th century and was applied to the Algonquian peoples generally, but specifically to the 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 Delaware, but to their use of vermilion face paint and body paint. In time, however, through a process that in linguistics is called pejoration, by which a neutral term acquires an unfavorable connotation or denotation, redskin lost its neutral, accurate descriptive sense and became a term of disparagement. Red man is first recorded in the early 17th century and was originally neutral in tone. Red Indian is first recorded in the early 19th century and was used by the British, far more than by Americans, to distinguish the Indians of the subcontinent from the Indians of the Americas. All three terms are dated or offensive. American Indian and Native American are now the standard umbrella terms. Of course, if it is possible or appropriate, one can also use specific tribal names (Cheyenne, Nez Percé, etc.).

    Got it now? Or you could just watch the video posted by metta8, unless of course you're only purpose in the discussion is to shoot your mouth off rather than actually learn something.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 26, 2014 7:37 PM GMT
    I mean, sure, I "got it," though you're missing 2 things (that turn out to be inter-related). You are trying to make this into a mere black and white factual historical issue (we must ban the team name if the team name has frequently been used derogatorily in the past), and there is a far greater subtlety to explore!

    1) There is a difference between outdated and offensive and derogatory.

    2) The American Indian, as an entity that spans the continent, has an array of shared cultural characteristics, has a keen hunting prowess and adaptability to nature, etc etc, is now a thing of myth and legend in the American consciousness.

    We by and large think it is okay to use names like "Celtics", "Trojans", "Spartans", "Redskins", "Braves", "Crusaders" because those peoples feel removed from the tangibility of present reality. Regarding the American Indians, people perceive that we are no longer living in the era of the Wild West filled with Cowboys and Indians, with gun-slinging duels and the hunting of wild buffalo on the Heartland prairie. That world no longer exists. In 1875 that world still did exist, and so it would have been wrong to name a sports team the "Redskins" or the "Braves". But this is the year 2014.

    You will undoubtedly reply that American Indians are still living, unlike Celtics, Trojans, and Spartans. To which in response I give an utter of apathy, for one reason; there is a difference between being an American Indian in the days of yore and being either a descendent of American Indians living in American society or an American Indian on an Indian Reservation today. These latter two are related to the former only as an Irishman is related to his Celtic druidic ancestors, or to the way that the Italians are related to their Roman emperors and legendary legions and gods.

    As a quick example. In the year 500 AD, it would have been completely acceptable for someone living on the Italian peninsula to name a team "Gladiators," "Romans," "Emperors," "Legions of Zeus," "Trojans," "Sons of Wolves" because the reality of what it meant to be a person living on the Italian peninsula had dramatically changed during the 5th century (and "gladiators" would have had a negative connotation in Ancient Rome, but the word becomes positive as a reference that is at once legendary and historical).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 28, 2014 3:52 PM GMT
    In addition to the Clippers (formerly Braves), a couple other pro sports teams that figured it out and moved on without belaboring.

    5508.gif

    5972.gif

    5970.gif

    1. NBA's Warriors, Philadelphia and San Francisco, 1947-1969

    They recognized a "Warrior" didn't have to be a Native American, particularly associating Native Americans with persons willingly engaged in combat.

    1bhcqs6l5t44lw04y1tygdsce.gif

    It took a little longer for them to realize they could even get away with the name without an anthropomorphic human mascot at all.

    qhhir6fj8zp30f33s7sfb4yw0.png

    Unfortunately, it's harder for D.C.'s team to simply put up a silhouette of the Washington Monument and still call themselves something referencing the perceived skin color of a human being. Many joke that the R*dsk*ns could simply change their logo to a batch of mashed red potatoes and be done with it! Here's PETA's idea:

    r-REDSKINS-403xFBcredit.jpg

    I'm down with that! Makes me good and hungry, too! icon_lol.gif

    5658.gif

    2. NBA's Blackhawks/Hawks, Tri-Cities (Moline, Illinois) 1949-1951

    The owner of the Blackhawks didn't have any particular sense of compassion over the use of Native American imagery. Instead, he recognized the historical reference (to the Blackhawk War, waged largely in the Tri-Cities area of Illinois and Iowa) didn't hold any relevance to the Milwaukee area he was moving his team to.

    5659.gif

    lbr7pmgzcio7uqdwkwxch8l30.gif

    Absent that forethought, we could have eventually had a team in Atlanta dealing with a similar issue as the R*dsk*ns do now. In the alleged "City Too Busy To Hate," in the state that's home base for the Trail of Tears, the MLB's Braves are racially insensitive enough for one town to have to deal with.

    5mdhgjh3aa92kih09pgi.gif

    Thankfully, a simple name transition decades before saved us the trouble of arguing with the "But we've always done it this way!" faux-traditionalists.

    pigskins1.jpg

    I've suggested this before, but to me the slam-dunk modification would be to rename D.C.'s football team the Washington Pigskins. Pigskin is a well-known name for the obloid object they play with. Using the name "Skins" for short lives on. They can continue their traditions with the "Hogs" and the "Hogettes". Hey, it would tick off PETA, but in some people's books, that's a plus, too! icon_razz.gif

    What's most telling, particularly with the Warriors, is fandom remains high decades after the name/logo change. No one is logically pining for a return to imagery of yesteryear, and holding the changes against those teams. It's a lesson Washington's owner would do well to learn so he can let go of his truest fear$.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 28, 2014 4:05 PM GMT
    My favorite "Warriors-style" college team-nickname change is at a place just 2.5 hours away from Washington, D.C.

    oi73zum2efx27hv3s57n.png

    The College of William and Mary felt bound to the nickname "Tribe", and generally didn't want to change it. They did realize, however, that a "tribe" didn't have to allude to persons of a minority race. A tribe could be a communal pack of Lions!

    But what about the feathers? Sure, they can come off the W&M letter logo. But how might they continue to embrace the feathers as they transition to a lion-style mascot?

    This here is why they pay people the big bucks. Washington's football team might want to hire those folks.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 29, 2014 10:09 PM GMT
    Show your #Pride! icon_razz.gif

    http://deadspin.com/harry-reids-office-is-laughing-at-the-sad-redskinsprid-1583394139
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 06, 2014 10:51 PM GMT
    How about Cleveland's Chief Wahoo? That's more offensive than the Redskins'logo.

    Cleveland-Indians-Chief-Wahoo.png
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 08, 2014 4:07 PM GMT
    DefensiveEnd saidHow about Cleveland's Chief Wahoo? That's more offensive than the Redskins'logo.


    qvspmz0lenqpyq4hhon5.jpg

    wkzplfdgc1plnqst8clo.jpg

    "But-but-but we're honoring you!" icon_rolleyes.gif Not a good look, bruh!

    http://deadspin.com/cleveland-indians-fan-in-redface-meets-a-native-america-1558499738

    http://www.clevescene.com/scene-and-heard/archives/2014/04/04/its-not-racist-and-other-responses-to-wahoo-protesters-at-home-opener

    Chief Wahoo's gotta go, too. You can sense the team is trying to phase out the logo... slowly... without having to deal with the team name. 90% of the time, their caps have the block "C" on them, and the Chief has been relegated primarily to the side sleeve and the batting helmets.

    On the website, the Chief doesn't really appear until you get to the bottom of the page.
  • Destinharbor

    Posts: 4433

    Jun 08, 2014 4:17 PM GMT
    What's wrong with political correctness? I know southerners who like to fly the stars and bars and claim it isn't meant to offend blacks. I used to hear that about the N-word with some of my elders. Same with fagots. Same with the Indians. If it offends the group it represents, it shouldn't be used. I think the whole anti-PC thing is just right wingers claiming their right to be offensive. PC is society's attempt to minimize and marginalize assholes.