Change needed in Washington...

Although I will admit that there's not a snowball chance in the hot place that a new startup team could come into the league with a name like the Redskins, there's still no way that they're going to change their name anytime soon. Just consider it historical happenchance and worry about the things that you can actually change and/or those things that actually mean something.

Originally posted by English:
I thought from the title you meant they needed a new owner.

I was going to nominate Oakland as having a bigger need!!

Maybe the Raiders need a change too...I'm sure their are plenty pirates out there who don't appreciate Oakland representing them so poorly.

Originally posted by nvninerfan1:

Originally posted by Black59Razor:
Washington Dark Complexion Humans? PC enough? How about we just call them the Reds? The blushing communists in Cincinnati have never seemed to mind this name for all these years.

If we're naming them after the city, how about the Washington Devoids (as in devoid use of brain power within the beltway).

As part Swedish and Part Norweigian, I take offense at the Vikings. They really didn't do any raping and pilaging. Why not name them something less offensive like the Minnesota Lutherans. Oh wait, St. Paul was alway primarily Catholic and that might offend them.

And the St. Louis Rams, why that's a negative for a wonderful animal. Maybe the St. Louis Blues (no that ones taken and it might offend New Orleans since they are
the birthplace of the blues)

Let's see the Miami Dolphins (wow those mammals have been abused for so long).

Oh, and I could go on and on.

yeah it really is as simple as you make it

Originally posted by ramanz16:

Originally posted by English:
I thought from the title you meant they needed a new owner.

I was going to nominate Oakland as having a bigger need!!

Maybe the Raiders need a change too...I'm sure their are plenty pirates out there who don't appreciate Oakland representing them so poorly.

Somalians must be furious

[ Edited by pwilly52 on Sep 15, 2009 at 19:00:26 ]

See, people fail to realize how Washington got the name Redskins.

The reason why they are the redskins was that the owner wanted to honor the great Native American players on their team, which included Jim Thorpe and I think about 5 other starters.

Ppl automatically assumed a negative connotation towards the name, but in fact it was meant to honor the great players whom had established the franchise. I know people are offended, but at the time it wasn't meant to be or was considered offensive.

Originally posted by Crazy49er1313:
See, people fail to realize how Washington got the name Redskins.

The reason why they are the redskins was that the owner wanted to honor the great Native American players on their team, which included Jim Thorpe and I think about 5 other starters.

Ppl automatically assumed a negative connotation towards the name, but in fact it was meant to honor the great players whom had established the franchise. I know people are offended, but at the time it wasn't meant to be or was considered offensive.

The owner wanted to honor them?? They used to called the Boston Braves!!! Then ticket sales went bad..then they changed the name to Boston Redskins!!!

Here is a little more information on this so called honorable owner:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

A little history then: the Redskins were once the Boston Braves, that is until majority owner George Preston Marshall moved them to good old Washington, DC and changed the team's name to Redskins.

Why change the name from somewhat benign to strongly offensive, at least to Indians? Because, George Preston Marshall was the most notorious racist in the National Football League.

According the Encyclopedia Britannica of the 21st Century, Wikipedia, one year after entering the league as an owner, Marshall engineered the re-segregation of a game that had "had a sprinkling of black players."

Sadly, George Halas of the Chicago Bears and Art Rooney of the Pittsburgh Steelers, among others, were sweet talked by Marshall into going along with the re-segregationist program. And so they did.

From 1934 to 1945, black players who had once played in the NFL were turned into athletic UFO's: there were sightings, in the alleys and junkyards of pro ball, but the evidence was unreliable and unseen.

Most Redskins fans know that once the game became re-re-integrated in 1946 and teams began signing black players again, Massa Marshall did not follow suit. The Washington Redskins have the notorious distinction of being the last National Football League squad to draft and sign a black football player.

It is pretty racist. But I'm soured on these Native American tribes because they've basically been on a crusade against every Native American name even when most are not offensive.

see: North Dakota Fighting Sioux

[ Edited by Schulzy on Sep 15, 2009 at 19:48:25 ]

Originally posted by susweel:
No, demeaning is when you kill the entire Native American population, take there land and give the few remaining left a couple gambling casinos.

Real Talk

Originally posted by jimmythegreekjr:

Originally posted by Crazy49er1313:
See, people fail to realize how Washington got the name Redskins.

The reason why they are the redskins was that the owner wanted to honor the great Native American players on their team, which included Jim Thorpe and I think about 5 other starters.

Ppl automatically assumed a negative connotation towards the name, but in fact it was meant to honor the great players whom had established the franchise. I know people are offended, but at the time it wasn't meant to be or was considered offensive.

The owner wanted to honor them?? They used to called the Boston Braves!!! Then ticket sales went bad..then they changed the name to Boston Redskins!!!

Here is a little more information on this so called honorable owner:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

A little history then: the Redskins were once the Boston Braves, that is until majority owner George Preston Marshall moved them to good old Washington, DC and changed the team's name to Redskins.

Why change the name from somewhat benign to strongly offensive, at least to Indians? Because, George Preston Marshall was the most notorious racist in the National Football League.

According the Encyclopedia Britannica of the 21st Century, Wikipedia, one year after entering the league as an owner, Marshall engineered the re-segregation of a game that had "had a sprinkling of black players."

Sadly, George Halas of the Chicago Bears and Art Rooney of the Pittsburgh Steelers, among others, were sweet talked by Marshall into going along with the re-segregationist program. And so they did.

From 1934 to 1945, black players who had once played in the NFL were turned into athletic UFO's: there were sightings, in the alleys and junkyards of pro ball, but the evidence was unreliable and unseen.

Most Redskins fans know that once the game became re-re-integrated in 1946 and teams began signing black players again, Massa Marshall did not follow suit. The Washington Redskins have the notorious distinction of being the last National Football League squad to draft and sign a black football player.

Sorry it took me so long to respond, been finishing up eating my crow...


Didn't realize who the owner actually was (and just finishing up the crow), and for that crap they said that they were "sweet talked" is just a ploy to not have any blame on themselves. They followed him and should get as much of the blame. Good thing our niners have none of these negative connotations

Originally posted by teeohh:

Originally posted by nvninerfan1:

Originally posted by Black59Razor:
Washington Dark Complexion Humans? PC enough? How about we just call them the Reds? The blushing communists in Cincinnati have never seemed to mind this name for all these years.

If we're naming them after the city, how about the Washington Devoids (as in devoid use of brain power within the beltway).

As part Swedish and Part Norweigian, I take offense at the Vikings. They really didn't do any raping and pilaging. Why not name them something less offensive like the Minnesota Lutherans. Oh wait, St. Paul was alway primarily Catholic and that might offend them.

And the St. Louis Rams, why that's a negative for a wonderful animal. Maybe the St. Louis Blues (no that ones taken and it might offend New Orleans since they are
the birthplace of the blues)

Let's see the Miami Dolphins (wow those mammals have been abused for so long).

Oh, and I could go on and on.

yeah it really is as simple as you make it

Yes it is that simple, it's called get over it. I'm really sick of the "third rail". Racism can go many ways.

Originally posted by Crazy49er1313:

Originally posted by jimmythegreekjr:

Originally posted by Crazy49er1313:
See, people fail to realize how Washington got the name Redskins.

The reason why they are the redskins was that the owner wanted to honor the great Native American players on their team, which included Jim Thorpe and I think about 5 other starters.

Ppl automatically assumed a negative connotation towards the name, but in fact it was meant to honor the great players whom had established the franchise. I know people are offended, but at the time it wasn't meant to be or was considered offensive.

The owner wanted to honor them?? They used to called the Boston Braves!!! Then ticket sales went bad..then they changed the name to Boston Redskins!!!

Here is a little more information on this so called honorable owner:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

A little history then: the Redskins were once the Boston Braves, that is until majority owner George Preston Marshall moved them to good old Washington, DC and changed the team's name to Redskins.

Why change the name from somewhat benign to strongly offensive, at least to Indians? Because, George Preston Marshall was the most notorious racist in the National Football League.

According the Encyclopedia Britannica of the 21st Century, Wikipedia, one year after entering the league as an owner, Marshall engineered the re-segregation of a game that had "had a sprinkling of black players."

Sadly, George Halas of the Chicago Bears and Art Rooney of the Pittsburgh Steelers, among others, were sweet talked by Marshall into going along with the re-segregationist program. And so they did.

From 1934 to 1945, black players who had once played in the NFL were turned into athletic UFO's: there were sightings, in the alleys and junkyards of pro ball, but the evidence was unreliable and unseen.

Most Redskins fans know that once the game became re-re-integrated in 1946 and teams began signing black players again, Massa Marshall did not follow suit. The Washington Redskins have the notorious distinction of being the last National Football League squad to draft and sign a black football player.

Sorry it took me so long to respond, been finishing up eating my crow...


Didn't realize who the owner actually was (and just finishing up the crow), and for that crap they said that they were "sweet talked" is just a ploy to not have any blame on themselves. They followed him and should get as much of the blame. Good thing our niners have none of these negative connotations

Actually, the overall violence during the 1894 goldrush was an ugly time in our states history.


"The gold rush was a free-for-all.

The gold rush represented freedom to farm boys in Kansas or clerks in Boston, who reveled in the Wild West lawless experience where drinking, gambling and houses of ill repute - as well as the not infrequent murder or lynching - were part of everyday life."

http://www.cyberwest.com/cw17/goldrush.html


It was also a very ugly time when the Chinese were discriminated on a grand scale:

http://www.sfmuseum.org/hist6/chinhate.html


I could continue to research the era, and post links, but why bother? Apparently, by any standard, it's very, very insensitive of us to be called Forty Niners, if you know the history.


So where does the use of a name/mascot it stop?

Originally posted by IWASATTHECATCH:

Originally posted by Crazy49er1313:

Originally posted by jimmythegreekjr:

Originally posted by Crazy49er1313:
See, people fail to realize how Washington got the name Redskins.

The reason why they are the redskins was that the owner wanted to honor the great Native American players on their team, which included Jim Thorpe and I think about 5 other starters.

Ppl automatically assumed a negative connotation towards the name, but in fact it was meant to honor the great players whom had established the franchise. I know people are offended, but at the time it wasn't meant to be or was considered offensive.

The owner wanted to honor them?? They used to called the Boston Braves!!! Then ticket sales went bad..then they changed the name to Boston Redskins!!!

Here is a little more information on this so called honorable owner:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

A little history then: the Redskins were once the Boston Braves, that is until majority owner George Preston Marshall moved them to good old Washington, DC and changed the team's name to Redskins.

Why change the name from somewhat benign to strongly offensive, at least to Indians? Because, George Preston Marshall was the most notorious racist in the National Football League.

According the Encyclopedia Britannica of the 21st Century, Wikipedia, one year after entering the league as an owner, Marshall engineered the re-segregation of a game that had "had a sprinkling of black players."

Sadly, George Halas of the Chicago Bears and Art Rooney of the Pittsburgh Steelers, among others, were sweet talked by Marshall into going along with the re-segregationist program. And so they did.

From 1934 to 1945, black players who had once played in the NFL were turned into athletic UFO's: there were sightings, in the alleys and junkyards of pro ball, but the evidence was unreliable and unseen.

Most Redskins fans know that once the game became re-re-integrated in 1946 and teams began signing black players again, Massa Marshall did not follow suit. The Washington Redskins have the notorious distinction of being the last National Football League squad to draft and sign a black football player.

Sorry it took me so long to respond, been finishing up eating my crow...


Didn't realize who the owner actually was (and just finishing up the crow), and for that crap they said that they were "sweet talked" is just a ploy to not have any blame on themselves. They followed him and should get as much of the blame. Good thing our niners have none of these negative connotations

Actually, the overall violence during the 1894 goldrush was an ugly time in our states history.


"The gold rush was a free-for-all.

The gold rush represented freedom to farm boys in Kansas or clerks in Boston, who reveled in the Wild West lawless experience where drinking, gambling and houses of ill repute - as well as the not infrequent murder or lynching - were part of everyday life."

http://www.cyberwest.com/cw17/goldrush.html


It was also a very ugly time when the Chinese were discriminated on a grand scale:

http://www.sfmuseum.org/hist6/chinhate.html


I could continue to research the era, and post links, but why bother? Apparently, by any standard, it's very, very insensitive of us to be called Forty Niners, if you know the history.


So where does the use of a name/mascot it stop?

You stop and listen any a group of people small or large find it insensitive to their race, ethnicity, religion, etc. These Native Americans as small a number as they are had to find enough courage to stand up for themselves. If the Chinese community of today felt so strongly about the gold miners of yesterday and they protested, people should listen.

Originally posted by jimmythegreekjr:


You stop and listen any a group of people small or large find it insensitive to their race, ethnicity, religion, etc. These Native Americans as small a number as they are had to find enough courage to stand up for themselves. If the Chinese community of today felt so strongly about the gold miners of yesterday and they protested, people should listen.

When we boil any mascot down, offense can be found by any "small" group that desires to crusade against a cause.

Let's do away with all mascots and just be identified by our city's namesake.

"The San Franciscans vs The Washingtonians, tonight on Monday Night Football...."

Originally posted by kidash98:

Originally posted by Carney16:
Ur a f*g

Ur banned!

- 98

Originally posted by BobS:
So the Redskins should change their name because 7 people are offended by it?

Haha, you might think that crack was funny. But I don't. And the truth is that a large number of people (including a few Washington fans I know personally) are embarrassed and very offended by the name.