ESPN Redskin Name Article

You need to dial it way back brother. If you want to go after someone personally, take it to PM please.
 
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5um6HM89AlY[/media]
 
I wish Christie would have jumped back up immediately after he finished and asked, "Again sir, why wait until 3 days before the start of Free Agency to administer a fine for competitive advantage...clearly you could have done it at the end of the 2011 season to give them adequate time to adjust?!?!?!?"
 
MikeSr619 said:
well, its not just me that doesnt agree with the whole Marshall tie. So if you have any evidence that would actually hold up I am sure we would all like to see it.

if not..all good, too.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I misspoke; I've already given you what I consider circumstantial evidence, which is my own observations, and what I consider to be the most likely scenario. Perhaps circumstantial evidence is an inaccurate description. Either way, I'm not trying to continue the debate, only clarify my previous posts. Didn't want anyone thinking I had some secret evidence stashed somewhere, its just my opinion.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device
 
Ok Lanky the problem with your take is you're trying to make imaginary circumstantial (yes imaginary since you can't site one instance or episode to back your take) evidence supersede and trump actual empirical evidence to the contrary. Not too many bigots hire and befriend the race they are supposedly bigoted against...hence the resistance to blacks playing for the team by Marshall. Lone Star Dietz actually coaching the team and being the man to name kind of nukes the whole "the name was based in bigotry" take too.

And no it's not a problem of perspective (your trees comment), it's a problem with facts. I choose to keep my argument grounded in them and folks from your POV tend to either run loosey goosey with facts or ignore them outright. Like I said the history of the word DOES matter.

Hey E, here ya go...I have 3 for ya. All ya need to ever argue this case in the "court of public opinion":

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/02/AR2005100201139.html

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/magazine/08/17/indian.wars030402/index.html


http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/downloads/political_communication/naes/2004_03_redskins_09-24_pr.pdf
 
Again, opinions differ, but its not "imaginary" that Marshall was a racist. Maybe some of you have not been around racism that much, but spend a few years in the South and you'll see it. And this is in the 2000s, Marshall was around long ago, when it was infinitely more prevalent.

The only thing "imaginary" in this thread is the idea that Marshall was some sort of stand-up guy who was honoring his friend. He was a racist and a bigot; those are facts. He chose a moniker that could be deemed racist in order to match the Boston Red Sox; he could have chosen any other number of non-offensive names. It is that mind-boggling to anyone, that a racist like Marshall would choose a somewhat derogatory nickname for his team in "honor" of Lone Star Dietz? Don't answer, this is a rhetorical question.

For real this time this is my last post on the subject.
 
I keep reading that Marshall named the team the Redskins partially to honor Native Americans.

This is pretty interesting, from the Hogs Haven article:

"As his second head coach, Marshall hired William "Lone Star" Dietz, a journeyman coach at the collegiate level whose mother was most likely a Sioux. It was in "honor" of Dietz, who coached the team for just two seasons and who at Marshall's urging willingly put on war paint and Indian feathers before home games, that Marshall changed the team's name to the Redskins."
 
Last edited:
It just makes zero sense.

Marshall was an open bigot but he was also a businessman. So let me get this straight...he moved the team from Boston to Washington to increase revenue, and changes the name FROM the honorific Braves TO a supposedly offensive slur. :insane:

And being the racist he was, instead of keeping out Indians like he did Blacks whom he held open racial contempt for, he kept the Indian theme for his team's mascot, kept the Indian head Coach and had a new logo that was an honorific portrait of a real Indian painted. He then went further 3 decades later and allowed the Cowboys to blackmail him into entry over a fight song...and he was doing all of this knowing it was offensive and yet still thinking it would make money and draw fans? Come on! Even with as many racists as there were back in those days not even a simpleton could think that courting such supposedly offensive themes would lead to financial and popular windfalls.

Like I said...imaginary...as in you have not one instance of evidence other than your own speculation which is contrary to logic and what the actual facts tell us.
 
Well, I'm not going to get into a debate about racism in the 20th century, because that won't get us anywhere. I will just state I think you're take on Marshall and the team may be slightly skewed by burgundy-colored glasses, that's all.

RE: changing the name to an offensive slur - it was a different time. African Americans were still being called "coloreds" back then, and racism was still very prevalent, and part of the status quo.
 
Lanky one thing about racism in terms of historical perspective. You're right racism was much more prevalent and open back in those days. In fact so much so that racists were openly proud of it (think the clan march on D.C.). So if Redskin was indeed this pejorative slur it's being claimed as now then those open and proud bigots would have been openly and proudly using the slur with reckless abandon. You certainly would be able to come up with MANY examples of it. But the trouble is that's not the case...the facts just don't bear that out at all.

It's not that it was racist and offensive and people being the bigoted ignoramuses they were chose to ignore it, no it's that it wasn't considered offensive and wasn't used that way.

edit: also no B&G glasses here. I was actually FOR a name change about 20 years ago until I had a friend who's an Indian and also a liaison for the Government to reservations out west set me straight. His take pretty much was identical to Ryman and Tenshi's and he was a Browns fan, so no dog in the hunt.
 
CounterTrey said:
Lanky one thing about racism in terms of historical perspective. You're right racism was much more prevalent and open back in those days. In fact so much so that racists were openly proud of it (think the clan march on D.C.). So if Redskin was indeed this pejorative slur it's being claimed as now then those open and proud bigots would have been openly and proudly using the slur with reckless abandon. You certainly would be able to come up with MANY examples of it. But the trouble is that's not the case...the facts just don't bear that out at all.

It's not that it was racist and offensive and people being the bigoted ignoramuses they were chose to ignore it, no it's that it wasn't considered offensive and wasn't used that way.
Click to expand...

Right...but the Native American hasn't been prevalent in America since the 1800s. They were pretty much wiped out and hidden on reservations since the Indian Wars ended.
 
Right which would make it even easier for the bigots to run wild...no one to hold them accountable. Sorry, I don't buy it. I might if the name wasn't still top 3 among names they name their own teams. If it was that offensive a few decades of pro football wouldn't erase that legacy enough for it to actually become considered popular and an honorific on reservations. The black community has by many accounts empowered and taken back the N word, but no one has forgotten it's legacy, nor ever will. It would require ubiquitous amnesia and a huge conspiracy among the History buffs for this all to be true.
 
Alright, I'm really done now...this is obviously a sore subject. And to be honest, I see both sides of the coin. I think a change is inevitable; the only question is when.
 
fanboyof91 said:
Status date is for 2006. I also thought a federal judge ruled a few decades ago that the trademark couldn't be invalidated because the activists had waited too long.
Click to expand...

Look to the dates on the bottom, reopened and hearing scheduled for March 2013 from what I can tell. This is on the PDf from the 01/23/13 Oral Hearing scheduled date.


Cancellation No. 92046185
Amanda Blackhorse, Marcus Briggs, Phillip Gover,
Shquanebin Lone-Bentley, Jillian Pappan, and Courtney
Tsotigh
v.
Pro Football, Inc.
Mailed: January 23, 2013
Hearing Date: March 7, 2013
Time: 2:00PM





otherwise, I was under the same belief you were,
 
That's not surprising. CNN (or maybe it's their hosts?) loves to jump on anything that ties into racial/gender issues.

edit: I am happy to see they seem to be bringing up all teams with names that may be offensive. I feel like far too often the conversation centers exclusively around the redskins, but that may just be because i'm a fan and only pay attention to the one team.
 
One more season until the name changes. This will be the last.

2 at tops.
 
McD5 said:
One more season until the name changes. This will be the last.

2 at tops.
Click to expand...
Not a chance in hell. It will never change unless a sympathizer buys the team, and that will likely never happen. Nobody can force a name change, no matter how much they bitch and call it offensive.

Besides, what if these groups ever are successful? PETA would probably want to strike while the iron is hot and remove animal names. It's absurd.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Help Users

You haven't joined any rooms.

    You haven't joined any rooms.
    Top