Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Do you think Snyder should change the name of the Redskins?


DBIsports

Should the Washington Redskins change their name?  

746 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

I'd also like to point out that I still think that Sheik is way cooler than the #####y argument he's running with right now.

It's kinda surprising and disappointing, right? I'm a charter member of the Sheik fan club.

I have no ill will towards either of you. You're actually two of my favorite posters.

The only point I'm trying to make here is that people can become offended over any word. I understand what you guys are saying. And I understand what your arguments are. But I don't feel that they apply with the word Redskin. I don't think people should be able to say, "Hey. You know that name that you guys use? The one that you chose because you felt it represented strength and warrior like fight about your team? The one that your players feel pride wearing knowing they have similar qualities as the people it represents? Well, it turns out some of our people think you're being offensive rather than honoring them. And even though I know no one has used that word in a derogatory manner in over a century, at least, some of our people are offended by it. So, I guess what I'm saying is, you need to change it." Offense can only be taken. It can't be given.

I realize we differ in opinions. And that's cool. We don't have to agree on everything. Doesn't mean we can't still be besties. Amirite?

It wasn't so much your opinion as the arguments you made in support of it. The "analogy to other sports nicknames that reference groups of people" one has been made many times before, as has the "origins of the word" one. Neither makes much sense.

Also, FWIW the Redskins didn't choose the name "because they felt it represented strength and a warrior like fight." They chose it because they used to be called the "Braves" and played in Boston and the owner at the time, George Preston Marshall, decided he wanted to avoid confusion with the baseball team (also in Boston at the time) but wanted to keep the imagery and whatnot. Link

Marshall, by the way, was a horrible racist. So his choosing that word as an alternate way to refer to Native Americans is not great for the pro-name argument.

If he was racist, why would he name is team after them at all? That makes no sense. "Boy I hate black people. Guess I'll call my team the ######s."

"Racists wouldn't make sense in your version" isn't a great argument.

Because it was already a Native American name and he didn't want to have to completely rebrand.

It's more like "well, I don't want to be confused with that other team called the Nelson Mandelas. I'll change mine to ######s."

Yeah. That makes zero sense as well.

And just so we're clear, Yankee was originally an offensive term. It's origin is directly from being used as a derogatory term.

So it's cool to use a term that started out as derogatory. Just not one that people eventually started thinking was derogatory. Interesting.

That is almost as baffling as saying that someone is so racist that they name the team they own a racist name. That'll show them.

It's cool to use a term that isn't currently offensive. If a bunch of white people came out and said they find the term "Yankee" offensive, and said we should remove it from "Yankee Doodle Dandy" and the New York MLB team, and stop calling people that, it would absolutely be worth looking at doing that. Unfortunately, the only people doing that are... you. And you don't actually find it offensive, you are trying to make a point. It's just a bad point, because the term you're using is a word that's been fully adopted by the people who were being called that, and has been used as a point of pride for hundreds of years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd also like to point out that I still think that Sheik is way cooler than the #####y argument he's running with right now.

It's kinda surprising and disappointing, right? I'm a charter member of the Sheik fan club.

I have no ill will towards either of you. You're actually two of my favorite posters.

The only point I'm trying to make here is that people can become offended over any word. I understand what you guys are saying. And I understand what your arguments are. But I don't feel that they apply with the word Redskin. I don't think people should be able to say, "Hey. You know that name that you guys use? The one that you chose because you felt it represented strength and warrior like fight about your team? The one that your players feel pride wearing knowing they have similar qualities as the people it represents? Well, it turns out some of our people think you're being offensive rather than honoring them. And even though I know no one has used that word in a derogatory manner in over a century, at least, some of our people are offended by it. So, I guess what I'm saying is, you need to change it." Offense can only be taken. It can't be given.

I realize we differ in opinions. And that's cool. We don't have to agree on everything. Doesn't mean we can't still be besties. Amirite?

It wasn't so much your opinion as the arguments you made in support of it. The "analogy to other sports nicknames that reference groups of people" one has been made many times before, as has the "origins of the word" one. Neither makes much sense.

Also, FWIW the Redskins didn't choose the name "because they felt it represented strength and a warrior like fight." They chose it because they used to be called the "Braves" and played in Boston and the owner at the time, George Preston Marshall, decided he wanted to avoid confusion with the baseball team (also in Boston at the time) but wanted to keep the imagery and whatnot. Link

Marshall, by the way, was a horrible racist. So his choosing that word as an alternate way to refer to Native Americans is not great for the pro-name argument.

If he was racist, why would he name is team after them at all? That makes no sense. "Boy I hate black people. Guess I'll call my team the ######s."

"Racists wouldn't make sense in your version" isn't a great argument.

Because it was already a Native American name and he didn't want to have to completely rebrand.

It's more like "well, I don't want to be confused with that other team called the Nelson Mandelas. I'll change mine to ######s."

Yeah. That makes zero sense as well.

And just so we're clear, Yankee was originally an offensive term. It's origin is directly from being used as a derogatory term.

So it's cool to use a term that started out as derogatory. Just not one that people eventually started thinking was derogatory. Interesting.

That is almost as baffling as saying that someone is so racist that they name the team they own a racist name. That'll show them.

I don't understand why this is confusing. History/etymology is irrelevant- see the obvious example of f##### (slur for gay men). All that matters is how the word is currently interpreted. Many Native Americans and others clearly think it's a derogatory term. Why does anything else matter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/powerful-anti-redskins-ad-to-air-during-game-3-of-nba-finals-203013166.html

linked article:

The anger in some circles over the "Redskins" nickname for Washington's NFL team isn't going away, no matter how much the league would like to put it off until it does.
The latest commentary came in the form of an advertisement that ran in some markets during Game 3 of the NBA Finals on Tuesday night. The ad, which has been on YouTube since January but had not gotten as much widespread exposure as it did during the Heat-Spurs game, is two minutes on YouTube but the Washington Post wrote that a one-minute version would run during the game. According to the Post, it was scheduled to run in seven major cities during halftime of the game.
In the ad, the culture and history of Native Americans are celebrated. Near the end of the ad, the narrator says, "Native Americans call themselves many things. The one thing they don't ... "
And then it cuts to a photo of a Washington Redskins helmet. It's powerful.
According to the Post, the ad was paid for by the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation, which is about an hour northeast of San Francisco. The tribe would not tell the Post how much the ad cost, only that it was a "significant investment."
“It’s just a time to get people thinking about putting an end to outward hatred and using sports as a tool to focus on racism,” Chairman Marshall McKay said, according to the Post.
The issue surrounding Washington's nickname has been debated for many years and gets more heated every year, it seems. Politicians have argued against it. Redskins owner Daniel Snyder has said he doesn't plan to change the name, citing a study that suggests a majority of Native Americans don't find the nickname offensive. The NFL has never made any comments or taken any action that would indicate it has any desire to change the name, either.
Until that happens, there will be a vocal opposition that won't stop fighting it.
- - - - - - -
Frank Schwab is the editor of Shutdown Corner on Yahoo Sports. Have a tip? Email him at shutdowncorner@yahoo.com or follow him on Twitter! Follow @YahooSchwab

Outward Hatred? Has anyone thought of the Washington Redskins football team name and hate come to mind? 99% of fans do not even think of Indians when talking about the Redskins let alone hatred. Change the name or whatever..but don`t say that people use the name as a tool of hatred.

Edited by Da Guru
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd also like to point out that I still think that Sheik is way cooler than the #####y argument he's running with right now.

It's kinda surprising and disappointing, right? I'm a charter member of the Sheik fan club.

I have no ill will towards either of you. You're actually two of my favorite posters.

The only point I'm trying to make here is that people can become offended over any word. I understand what you guys are saying. And I understand what your arguments are. But I don't feel that they apply with the word Redskin. I don't think people should be able to say, "Hey. You know that name that you guys use? The one that you chose because you felt it represented strength and warrior like fight about your team? The one that your players feel pride wearing knowing they have similar qualities as the people it represents? Well, it turns out some of our people think you're being offensive rather than honoring them. And even though I know no one has used that word in a derogatory manner in over a century, at least, some of our people are offended by it. So, I guess what I'm saying is, you need to change it." Offense can only be taken. It can't be given.

I realize we differ in opinions. And that's cool. We don't have to agree on everything. Doesn't mean we can't still be besties. Amirite?

It wasn't so much your opinion as the arguments you made in support of it. The "analogy to other sports nicknames that reference groups of people" one has been made many times before, as has the "origins of the word" one. Neither makes much sense.

Also, FWIW the Redskins didn't choose the name "because they felt it represented strength and a warrior like fight." They chose it because they used to be called the "Braves" and played in Boston and the owner at the time, George Preston Marshall, decided he wanted to avoid confusion with the baseball team (also in Boston at the time) but wanted to keep the imagery and whatnot. Link

Marshall, by the way, was a horrible racist. So his choosing that word as an alternate way to refer to Native Americans is not great for the pro-name argument.

If he was racist, why would he name is team after them at all? That makes no sense. "Boy I hate black people. Guess I'll call my team the ######s."

"Racists wouldn't make sense in your version" isn't a great argument.

Because it was already a Native American name and he didn't want to have to completely rebrand.

It's more like "well, I don't want to be confused with that other team called the Nelson Mandelas. I'll change mine to ######s."

Yeah. That makes zero sense as well.

And just so we're clear, Yankee was originally an offensive term. It's origin is directly from being used as a derogatory term.

So it's cool to use a term that started out as derogatory. Just not one that people eventually started thinking was derogatory. Interesting.

That is almost as baffling as saying that someone is so racist that they name the team they own a racist name. That'll show them.

Yankee became a "badge" of honor worn by the "Yankees", so it's not the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd also like to point out that I still think that Sheik is way cooler than the #####y argument he's running with right now.

It's kinda surprising and disappointing, right? I'm a charter member of the Sheik fan club.

I have no ill will towards either of you. You're actually two of my favorite posters.

The only point I'm trying to make here is that people can become offended over any word. I understand what you guys are saying. And I understand what your arguments are. But I don't feel that they apply with the word Redskin. I don't think people should be able to say, "Hey. You know that name that you guys use? The one that you chose because you felt it represented strength and warrior like fight about your team? The one that your players feel pride wearing knowing they have similar qualities as the people it represents? Well, it turns out some of our people think you're being offensive rather than honoring them. And even though I know no one has used that word in a derogatory manner in over a century, at least, some of our people are offended by it. So, I guess what I'm saying is, you need to change it." Offense can only be taken. It can't be given.

I realize we differ in opinions. And that's cool. We don't have to agree on everything. Doesn't mean we can't still be besties. Amirite?

It wasn't so much your opinion as the arguments you made in support of it. The "analogy to other sports nicknames that reference groups of people" one has been made many times before, as has the "origins of the word" one. Neither makes much sense.

Also, FWIW the Redskins didn't choose the name "because they felt it represented strength and a warrior like fight." They chose it because they used to be called the "Braves" and played in Boston and the owner at the time, George Preston Marshall, decided he wanted to avoid confusion with the baseball team (also in Boston at the time) but wanted to keep the imagery and whatnot. Link

Marshall, by the way, was a horrible racist. So his choosing that word as an alternate way to refer to Native Americans is not great for the pro-name argument.

If he was racist, why would he name is team after them at all? That makes no sense. "Boy I hate black people. Guess I'll call my team the ######s."

"Racists wouldn't make sense in your version" isn't a great argument.

Because it was already a Native American name and he didn't want to have to completely rebrand.

It's more like "well, I don't want to be confused with that other team called the Nelson Mandelas. I'll change mine to ######s."

Yeah. That makes zero sense as well.

And just so we're clear, Yankee was originally an offensive term. It's origin is directly from being used as a derogatory term.

So it's cool to use a term that started out as derogatory. Just not one that people eventually started thinking was derogatory. Interesting.

That is almost as baffling as saying that someone is so racist that they name the team they own a racist name. That'll show them.

Yankee became a "badge" of honor worn by the "Yankees", so it's not the same thing.

Southerns despised being called Yankees.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd also like to point out that I still think that Sheik is way cooler than the #####y argument he's running with right now.

It's kinda surprising and disappointing, right? I'm a charter member of the Sheik fan club.

I have no ill will towards either of you. You're actually two of my favorite posters.

The only point I'm trying to make here is that people can become offended over any word. I understand what you guys are saying. And I understand what your arguments are. But I don't feel that they apply with the word Redskin. I don't think people should be able to say, "Hey. You know that name that you guys use? The one that you chose because you felt it represented strength and warrior like fight about your team? The one that your players feel pride wearing knowing they have similar qualities as the people it represents? Well, it turns out some of our people think you're being offensive rather than honoring them. And even though I know no one has used that word in a derogatory manner in over a century, at least, some of our people are offended by it. So, I guess what I'm saying is, you need to change it." Offense can only be taken. It can't be given.

I realize we differ in opinions. And that's cool. We don't have to agree on everything. Doesn't mean we can't still be besties. Amirite?

It wasn't so much your opinion as the arguments you made in support of it. The "analogy to other sports nicknames that reference groups of people" one has been made many times before, as has the "origins of the word" one. Neither makes much sense.

Also, FWIW the Redskins didn't choose the name "because they felt it represented strength and a warrior like fight." They chose it because they used to be called the "Braves" and played in Boston and the owner at the time, George Preston Marshall, decided he wanted to avoid confusion with the baseball team (also in Boston at the time) but wanted to keep the imagery and whatnot. Link

Marshall, by the way, was a horrible racist. So his choosing that word as an alternate way to refer to Native Americans is not great for the pro-name argument.

If he was racist, why would he name is team after them at all? That makes no sense. "Boy I hate black people. Guess I'll call my team the ######s."

"Racists wouldn't make sense in your version" isn't a great argument.

Because it was already a Native American name and he didn't want to have to completely rebrand.

It's more like "well, I don't want to be confused with that other team called the Nelson Mandelas. I'll change mine to ######s."

Yeah. That makes zero sense as well.

And just so we're clear, Yankee was originally an offensive term. It's origin is directly from being used as a derogatory term.

So it's cool to use a term that started out as derogatory. Just not one that people eventually started thinking was derogatory. Interesting.

That is almost as baffling as saying that someone is so racist that they name the team they own a racist name. That'll show them.

It's cool to use a term that isn't currently offensive. If a bunch of white people came out and said they find the term "Yankee" offensive, and said we should remove it from "Yankee Doodle Dandy" and the New York MLB team, and stop calling people that, it would absolutely be worth looking at doing that. Unfortunately, the only people doing that are... you. And you don't actually find it offensive, you are trying to make a point. It's just a bad point, because the term you're using is a word that's been fully adopted by the people who were being called that, and has been used as a point of pride for hundreds of years.

I'm fairly sure I'm not the only one. I'm just wondering how many people have to find it offensive before it needs to be changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd also like to point out that I still think that Sheik is way cooler than the #####y argument he's running with right now.

It's kinda surprising and disappointing, right? I'm a charter member of the Sheik fan club.

I have no ill will towards either of you. You're actually two of my favorite posters.

The only point I'm trying to make here is that people can become offended over any word. I understand what you guys are saying. And I understand what your arguments are. But I don't feel that they apply with the word Redskin. I don't think people should be able to say, "Hey. You know that name that you guys use? The one that you chose because you felt it represented strength and warrior like fight about your team? The one that your players feel pride wearing knowing they have similar qualities as the people it represents? Well, it turns out some of our people think you're being offensive rather than honoring them. And even though I know no one has used that word in a derogatory manner in over a century, at least, some of our people are offended by it. So, I guess what I'm saying is, you need to change it." Offense can only be taken. It can't be given.

I realize we differ in opinions. And that's cool. We don't have to agree on everything. Doesn't mean we can't still be besties. Amirite?

It wasn't so much your opinion as the arguments you made in support of it. The "analogy to other sports nicknames that reference groups of people" one has been made many times before, as has the "origins of the word" one. Neither makes much sense.

Also, FWIW the Redskins didn't choose the name "because they felt it represented strength and a warrior like fight." They chose it because they used to be called the "Braves" and played in Boston and the owner at the time, George Preston Marshall, decided he wanted to avoid confusion with the baseball team (also in Boston at the time) but wanted to keep the imagery and whatnot. Link

Marshall, by the way, was a horrible racist. So his choosing that word as an alternate way to refer to Native Americans is not great for the pro-name argument.

If he was racist, why would he name is team after them at all? That makes no sense. "Boy I hate black people. Guess I'll call my team the ######s."

"Racists wouldn't make sense in your version" isn't a great argument.

Because it was already a Native American name and he didn't want to have to completely rebrand.

It's more like "well, I don't want to be confused with that other team called the Nelson Mandelas. I'll change mine to ######s."

Yeah. That makes zero sense as well.

And just so we're clear, Yankee was originally an offensive term. It's origin is directly from being used as a derogatory term.

So it's cool to use a term that started out as derogatory. Just not one that people eventually started thinking was derogatory. Interesting.

That is almost as baffling as saying that someone is so racist that they name the team they own a racist name. That'll show them.

Yankee became a "badge" of honor worn by the "Yankees", so it's not the same thing.

Southerns despised being called Yankees.

But not because "Yankee" is derogatory, because they hate Northerners and are proud of being Southerners. They hate being called Northerners, New Yorkers, Chicagoans, etc. just as much. That's like saying we should ban "Hondurans" because Guatemalans hate it when you call them Hondurans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm fairly sure I'm not the only one. I'm just wondering how many people have to find it offensive before it needs to be changed.

People have asked this question a lot. There's no real answer. For me it's just when it gets to the point that the group that think it's offensive aren't a fringe element. Maybe 5-10% of the minority or the general population.

Yankee is a bad analogy by the way since the team is from the group that's supposedly the target of the derogatory word. The debate over "Redskins" would be different if we were talking about a Native American high school. People might still oppose it, but it would be a completely different discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

time will tell

Is this really that big of a deal? Really?

Nope.

I'll say this, if they would ever lose their trademark Snyder would dump this name so fast your head would spin. And given that the trademark office has been rejecting anything with then name redskin in it, the idea that the team would lose there's is not beyond the realm of possible

but you are right

native Americans are such a small minority that we are so used to abusing and ignoring, that to most Americans anything about their struggle is really no big deal. If we acknowledge they are humans orthy of respect, we may have to face the ugly truth about their plight. It's much better to just keep them in a box with a chief wahoo sticker on it labeled "lovable savages"

Edited by B-Deep
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this really that big of a deal? Really?

I don't think it is, but that's also why I'm okay with a name change. It's not a big deal, except to those that are offended by the name.

If that were true the name would already have been changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this really that big of a deal? Really?

I don't think it is, but that's also why I'm okay with a name change. It's not a big deal, except to those that are offended by the name.

If that were true the name would already have been changed.

I'm not following that. Some that are offended have filed repeated lawsuits with PTO, lobbied Congress and the NFL, bought expensive ad time during highly-rated sporting events, and staged protests outside of games. It seems like you would have to think it is somewhat of a big deal to do all of those things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should also mention - the Patent and Trademark Office ruled that the trademarks should be cancelled 15 years ago and an appeals court vacated the ruling because they held that the plaintiffs were barred from bringing the action. Not because "Redskins" isn't offensive.

Long decision, but here:

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/foia/ttab/2aissues/1999/21069.pdf

Decision: As to each of the registrations subject to
the petition to cancel herein, the petition to cancel under
Section 2(a) of the Act is granted on the grounds that the
subject marks may disparage Native Americans and may bring
them into contempt or disrepute. As to each of the
registrations subject to the petition to cancel herein, the
petition to cancel under Section 2(a) of the Act is denied
on the ground that the subject marks consist of or comprise
scandalous matter. The registrations will be canceled in
due course.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this really that big of a deal? Really?

I don't think it is, but that's also why I'm okay with a name change. It's not a big deal, except to those that are offended by the name.

If that were true the name would already have been changed.

I'm not following that. Some that are offended have filed repeated lawsuits with PTO, lobbied Congress and the NFL, bought expensive ad time during highly-rated sporting events, and staged protests outside of games. It seems like you would have to think it is somewhat of a big deal to do all of those things.

Right now it has turned into more of a "cause" against Snyder than people actually being offended by the name. The "cause" has gained more steam every time Snyder has said he will never change the name. So getting the name changed is secondary to putting Snyder in his place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this really that big of a deal? Really?

I don't think it is, but that's also why I'm okay with a name change. It's not a big deal, except to those that are offended by the name.

If that were true the name would already have been changed.

I'm not following that. Some that are offended have filed repeated lawsuits with PTO, lobbied Congress and the NFL, bought expensive ad time during highly-rated sporting events, and staged protests outside of games. It seems like you would have to think it is somewhat of a big deal to do all of those things.

Right now it has turned into more of a "cause" against Snyder than people actually being offended by the name. The "cause" has gained more steam every time Snyder has said he will never change the name. So getting the name changed is secondary to putting Snyder in his place.

Native Americans have been filing actual lawsuits for almost 20 years trying to get the name changed - since before Snyder owned the team. I think that may be primary in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this really that big of a deal? Really?

I don't think it is, but that's also why I'm okay with a name change. It's not a big deal, except to those that are offended by the name.

If that were true the name would already have been changed.

I'm not following that. Some that are offended have filed repeated lawsuits with PTO, lobbied Congress and the NFL, bought expensive ad time during highly-rated sporting events, and staged protests outside of games. It seems like you would have to think it is somewhat of a big deal to do all of those things.

Right now it has turned into more of a "cause" against Snyder than people actually being offended by the name. The "cause" has gained more steam every time Snyder has said he will never change the name. So getting the name changed is secondary to putting Snyder in his place.

Native Americans have been filing actual lawsuits for almost 20 years trying to get the name changed - since before Snyder owned the team. I think that may be primary in general.

Snyder has owned the team 15 years now. Every time he says "NEVER and to use caps when writing NEVER" it fires up the cause against him even more. Had Snyder just been receptive and say things like "We will definitely explore all options and have dialogue regarding the name" things would be much quieter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm fairly sure I'm not the only one. I'm just wondering how many people have to find it offensive before it needs to be changed.

What seems fair to you? If it offended 90% of the U.S. should it be changed? Where's your cutoff?

I'm asking you. You seem to be the one who feels if people are offended, it needs to be changed. But laugh at me when I say Yankess is offensive to me and a few others. What is your cutoff?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Southerners play on the Yankees, right?

Southerners are one of the only groups that still use it as a kind of slur. I can almost guarantee no southern player for the Yankees is upset or insulted by their team name, unless they really feel like their team name has to describe only them for some bizarre reason. The New York Southerners just doesn't quite work, though. Weird, but true. I can also say, with a large degree of confidence, that almost no one really finds the term yankee offensive any more.

Edited by The Football Freak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm fairly sure I'm not the only one. I'm just wondering how many people have to find it offensive before it needs to be changed.

What seems fair to you? If it offended 90% of the U.S. should it be changed? Where's your cutoff?

I'm asking you. You seem to be the one who feels if people are offended, it needs to be changed. But laugh at me when I say Yankess is offensive to me and a few others. What is your cutoff?

I'm not laughing at you saying that you're offended, I flat out asked you if you were offended by it and you said that you were trying to prove a point about how Redskin shouldn't be offensive just like "if" you were offended by Yankee. I'm laughing at trying to conflate a word that no one I'm aware of is actually offended by, even you with the term "redskin." But maybe I misunderstood when you were talking about what it would be like "if I was offended by the term Yankee."

If you're actually offended by it, by all means, take up the banner on this cause. I apologize for laughing. If you can get the Patent and Trademark Office's Board to agree with you that it's offensive, I'll handle the appeal in Federal Court for you for an extremely reasonable fee when the Yankees appeal that ruling. I'll help you find an attorney to take up the cause. It will take five years or so to get in front of the board, and proof is tough, but it can be done.

The fact is, it is extremely clear that "redskin" is an offensive term at this point in history, and it's been proven in front of an appeals board at the PTO - 15 years ago. That part of the decision was never overturned, which is why the PTO doesn't issue trademarks with the word "redskin" in them anymore. It's not really up for debate at this point whether "redskin" is an offensive word to a lot of people.

Edited by Henry Ford
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this really that big of a deal? Really?

I don't think it is, but that's also why I'm okay with a name change. It's not a big deal, except to those that are offended by the name.

If that were true the name would already have been changed.

I'm not following that. Some that are offended have filed repeated lawsuits with PTO, lobbied Congress and the NFL, bought expensive ad time during highly-rated sporting events, and staged protests outside of games. It seems like you would have to think it is somewhat of a big deal to do all of those things.

Definitely. You said wasn't a big deal except for those people, but if that were the case the name would have already been changed. I'm simply pointing out that there are those on the other side who don't want the name to change and also think it's a big deal.

Snyder, in particular, seems pretty darn adamant. I wouldn't bet on it changing anytime soon.

Edited by jonessed
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/06/13/dan-snyder-on-name-change-over-my-dead-body/

Dan Snyder on name change: “Over my dead body”

Posted by Darin Gantt on June 13, 2014, 7:35 AM ED
At a time when public pressure seems greater than ever, Redskins owner Dan Snyder seems to be digging in deeper on the subject of his team’s nickname
During an interview with Jim Rome on Showtime this week, NBC Sunday Night Football play-by-play man Al Michaels was asked if he thought Snyder would try to hang onto the name despite the complaints.

It seems to me as if he is going to hold on,” Michaels said, via the Washington Post. “I mean all of the sudden — I mean, for 70-some odd years this was a zero issue, and then it became an issue. I understand we live in this politically correct environment. It’s crazier than ever; you know, senators want to weigh in on this, like there’s nothing better to do in Congress. This becomes a big issue. I mean, I just think it’s nuts.

“And I do know, I’ve talked to Snyder about it — not recently but when we were in Washington last year — and he basically said ‘over my dead body.’”

The defiant stance is nothing new from Snyder, which is unsurprising since rich people seldom like hearing they’re wrong.

But when respected players (and former players) such as Champ Bailey chime in, and name-change commericals air during the NBA Finals to a nationwide audience, at some point the voices may turn into a roar that Snyder can no longer pretend to not hear.

Edited by squistion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Southerners play on the Yankees, right?

Southerners are one of the only groups that still use it as a kind of slur. I can almost guarantee no southern player for the Yankees is upset or insulted by their team name, unless they really feel like their team name has to describe only them for some bizarre reason. The New York Southerners just doesn't quite work, though. Weird, but true. I can also say, with a large degree of confidence, that almost no one really finds the term yankee offensive any more.

[salsa]New York City? [/salsa]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure why Danny wouldn't want to change the name. Doubles the marketing plus he may just be confused with being a good owner.

Because he's not going to lose fans in favor of a name change by waiting until he's forced to change it. But he very well could lose some fans against the name change if he does it by choice before he has to. He's not losing money over this, so why risk alienating fans who say (for whatever personal reasons) they wouldn't want to support a team not named the Redskins? Those fans do exist.

Edited by ConnSKINS26
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason he doesn't want to change the name is brand equity. Changing the name would likely instantly make the brand less valuable. Look at this quote below about the upcoming name change for Charlotte's NBA team:

The Hornets led the NBA in attendance for seven consecutive seasons in Charlotte, but the Bobcats have not been as successful in the market, which spurred the movement to return to the name.

I don't think it would have as much effect with hardcore fans, but they'd be losing value with less recognition amongst casual fans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again.

We'll see what happens with the appeals this time.

In the meantime can people make bootleg Redskins gear without consequence?

This is why Snyder was such an idiot about this. I mean there's lot of reasons that he's an idiot, but he backed himself into a corner with his rhetoric. He can still keep the name like he promised he would, but it's gonna cost him many millions of dollars. It's either go back on his loud, repeated declarations or lose merchandising.

Edited by TobiasFunke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again.

We'll see what happens with the appeals this time.

In the meantime can people make bootleg Redskins gear without consequence?

This is why Snyder was such an idiot about this. I mean there's lot of reasons that he's an idiot, but he backed himself into a corner with his rhetoric. He can still keep the name like he promised he would, but it's gonna cost him many millions of dollars. It's either go back on his loud, repeated declarations or lose merchandising.

The cancellation is pending the expiration of the appeal period. If the Redskins appeal (and they will) it will be further delayed pending the outcome of the appeal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again.

We'll see what happens with the appeals this time.

In the meantime can people make bootleg Redskins gear without consequence?

This is why Snyder was such an idiot about this. I mean there's lot of reasons that he's an idiot, but he backed himself into a corner with his rhetoric. He can still keep the name like he promised he would, but it's gonna cost him many millions of dollars. It's either go back on his loud, repeated declarations or lose merchandising.

The cancellation is pending the expiration of the appeal period. If the Redskins appeal (and they will) it will be further delayed pending the outcome of the appeal.

:kicksrock:

My dreams of amassing a fortune selling bootlegged RGIII gear are not completely dead, but I have to think that if the Skins lose the appeal my customer base will know the name is not long for this world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again.

We'll see what happens with the appeals this time.

In the meantime can people make bootleg Redskins gear without consequence?

This is why Snyder was such an idiot about this. I mean there's lot of reasons that he's an idiot, but he backed himself into a corner with his rhetoric. He can still keep the name like he promised he would, but it's gonna cost him many millions of dollars. It's either go back on his loud, repeated declarations or lose merchandising.

The cancellation is pending the expiration of the appeal period. If the Redskins appeal (and they will) it will be further delayed pending the outcome of the appeal.

:kicksrock:

My dreams of amassing a fortune selling bootlegged RGIII gear are not completely dead, but I have to think that if the Skins lose the appeal my customer base will know the name is not long for this world.

RGIII will probably not be playing for the Redskins by the time the appeals have fully run on this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The PTO decision I linked to upthread was decided in 1999. The final disposition of the case was when the Supreme Court denied cert at the end of 2009.

Yeah but that's because it was remanded on a procedural issue. The original litigation took six years to get from the PTO through the District Court to the DC Circuit. Would be surprised if it took that long this time around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again.

We'll see what happens with the appeals this time.

In the meantime can people make bootleg Redskins gear without consequence?

This is why Snyder was such an idiot about this. I mean there's lot of reasons that he's an idiot, but he backed himself into a corner with his rhetoric. He can still keep the name like he promised he would, but it's gonna cost him many millions of dollars. It's either go back on his loud, repeated declarations or lose merchandising.

The cancellation is pending the expiration of the appeal period. If the Redskins appeal (and they will) it will be further delayed pending the outcome of the appeal.

:kicksrock:

My dreams of amassing a fortune selling bootlegged RGIII gear are not completely dead, but I have to think that if the Skins lose the appeal my customer base will know the name is not long for this world.

With the caveat that my knowledge of trademark law is pretty limited, even with this decision, I think they still have state law claims to the trademark with respect to use in that jurisdiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again.

We'll see what happens with the appeals this time.

In the meantime can people make bootleg Redskins gear without consequence?

This is why Snyder was such an idiot about this. I mean there's lot of reasons that he's an idiot, but he backed himself into a corner with his rhetoric. He can still keep the name like he promised he would, but it's gonna cost him many millions of dollars. It's either go back on his loud, repeated declarations or lose merchandising.

The cancellation is pending the expiration of the appeal period. If the Redskins appeal (and they will) it will be further delayed pending the outcome of the appeal.

:kicksrock:

My dreams of amassing a fortune selling bootlegged RGIII gear are not completely dead, but I have to think that if the Skins lose the appeal my customer base will know the name is not long for this world.

RGIII will probably not be playing for the Redskins by the time the appeals have fully run on this case.

The other thing is that from a practical standpoint the appeals period is gonna be about a thousand times more awkward for the team now than it was in 1999-2009. Back then not many people were aware of the issue and Native Americans hadn't really come forward in big numbers to oppose it. Now virtually every person who turns on a game on Sundays is gonna now that a federal agency ruled that the name is a slur. Snyder was already losing the PR battle, this is gonna turn that battle into a massacre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't remember: are merchandise revenues shared in the NFL or 100% goes to the team?

Shared.

At some point the NFL needs to be above this and force a change with or without this guy's approval.

Goodell is so big on 'protecting the shield' and then he lets this go on right under his nose. :loco:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't remember: are merchandise revenues shared in the NFL or 100% goes to the team?

Shared.

At some point the NFL needs to be above this and force a change with or without this guy's approval.

Goodell is so big on 'protecting the shield' and then he lets this go on right under his nose. :loco:

at some point Snyder should see the name change is going to happen, right or wrong, and try and capitalize on it by doing it on his terms. That does not gel with ths history of this franchise, however, which had to be dragged kicking and screaming into racial integration. He is doing a great job honoring the traditions of the team's racist founder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...