Sign in to follow this  
KyleMakesConcepts

Washington Redskins Rebranding Project

Recommended Posts

What's next? Change the "Browns" because the Mayans might have been offended if their civilization had survived? So what's next? Better yet maybe the question should be........ Where does it end?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's next? Change the "Browns" because the Mayans might have been offended if their civilization had survived? So what's next? Better yet maybe the question should be........ Where does it end?

Um...

Whaaaa?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They, the team called the Washington Redskins, are calling themselves that so why would someone get offensive obviously Washington takes pride in the name.

When a team takes a name they are honoring what it represents.

The team is saying we want to be like a Redskin!

I guess I just don't see it as being a racial slur sorry.

The problem is Redskins IS NOT a term native americans (which I believe is another one) used to describle THEMSELVES. If it was there would be no issue, or perhaps less of an issue. But it's not a term that was in their lexicon and it only came about in the white mans vocabulary as a derogatory slur.

But if you're confident in your logic go pitch the LA N***ers as the new expansion team and see how you get on. That's also a word that was popular with white settlers at the time and one African Americans never used to descibe themselves (until recently, and misguidedly if you ask me).

Chief and Brave while toeing the line can at least with a relatively clear conscience be considered as respectful tips of the hat to the tribes people who came before, warriors too. Using an actual tribe name, with permission, is genuine tribute but a 200 odd year old slur, I'm sorry I dont care what the intent is, it's continued use is misguided to say the least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, I guess it's my time to chime in on the subject. REDSKINS IS AN OFFENSIVE NAME, plain and simple. I am an Eagle Scout and a member of the Order of the Arrow (if anyone is familiar with the OA program). For those of you who are not, it is a service based organization that is used as sort of an "honor society" of the BSA and as a way for us to give back to our camps and the community. The OA program draws heavily from Native American culture, and that culture is where we draw all of our ceremonies from. I can tell you that we get a lot of praise AND backlash from different Native American people. Some see us wearing their traditional regalia as flattering, and they fully endorse our programs because we are very respectful and pass on their values to more people. Others see us as a bunch of wannabees and insist that we refer to our clothing as costumes, and are offended by it. My point here is that no matter how much you try to be respectful of someone else's' culture, you will still offend some people by using their traditions or using them as a name for your sports team. That being said, the REDSKINS name is not respectful to ANYONE that is Native American, and even those who are not shouldn't endorse a name that is so obviously derogatory. The Florida State Seminoles are one of the only teams to get it right, because they have made sure that the Seminole tribe is always behind them. The Seminoles look at the college team and their logos as a source of pride which is what needs to be done in Washington. They need a name like Potomacs or Warriors that is less offensive and could possibly be something Native Americans of the area could get behind. However it might be better to drop any Native American influence as the team has offended so many over such a long history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there's a huge difference between Indians, Braves, Sioux, Seminoles, Illini, etc and the name Redskins. I equate the word redskin to that of calling them savages. I do think the super PC crowd has gone a little overboard in some cases, but if you're going to change the name of the Washington Bullets and not the Redskins, you're setting a confusing precident.

I'm more offended they can't call Texas vs. Oklahoma the "Red River Shootout" anymore. Racism is ok, but GUNS ARE SCARY Ooooooooooooooooo!

That is very interesting that you find a huge difference -- are you aware that Seminole means "Run Away People" as in cowards or that Sioux means Cut-Throats or that Winnebago means the filthy water people. Tribes did not name themselves, rival tribes did. People, please understand a topic before commenting. Redskins is an old term that simply refers to Native Americans by the color of their skin (not calling them savages). The team started in Boston and was linked to the Boston Braves, just like a lot of teams back in the day (think Cubs and Bears) they tried to going with a stronger name. The logo itself is beautiful and is similar (and personally I believe nicer) than the FSU logo of which the Seminole tribe approves of.

There is not difference between Skins/Indians/Braves logos/names and the Irish/Celtics all of which are " depictions of a race of people".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They, the team called the Washington Redskins, are calling themselves that so why would someone get offensive obviously Washington takes pride in the name.

When a team takes a name they are honoring what it represents.

The team is saying we want to be like a Redskin!

I guess I just don't see it as being a racial slur sorry.

The problem is Redskins IS NOT a term native americans (which I believe is another one) used to describle THEMSELVES. If it was there would be no issue, or perhaps less of an issue. But it's not a term that was in their lexicon and it only came about in the white mans vocabulary as a derogatory slur.

But if you're confident in your logic go pitch the LA N***ers as the new expansion team and see how you get on. That's also a word that was popular with white settlers at the time and one African Americans never used to descibe themselves (until recently, and misguidedly if you ask me).

Chief and Brave while toeing the line can at least with a relatively clear conscience be considered as respectful tips of the hat to the tribes people who came before, warriors too. Using an actual tribe name, with permission, is genuine tribute but a 200 odd year old slur, I'm sorry I dont care what the intent is, it's continued use is misguided to say the least.

Read this Article about Stephen Dodson: Below are pieces of the story.

Stephen Dodson is a full-blooded American Inuit chief originally from the Aleutian Tribes of Alaska, and said he was tired of being spoken for as a Native American.

"We don’t have a problem with [the name] at all; in fact we’re honored. We’re quite honored.”

As the eldest member of his blood line, Dodson represents more than 700 remaining tribe members and talked to Redskins Nation about the positive power of the Redskins’ name.

It’s actually a term of endearment that we would refer to each other as,” he explained. “When we were on the reservation, we would call each other, ‘Hey, what’s up redskin?’ We would nickname it just ‘skins.’”

“‘Redskin’ isn’t something given to us by the white man or the blue eyes, it was something in the Native American community that was taken from us. [it’s] used also as a term of respect, because that’s how we were. We respected each other with that term.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should the K.C. Chiefs be renamed?

Yes. But only to free the name up for Washington.

I'm only half-joking here. If KC didn't already have the name, Chiefs would be the perfect "PC" name change for the Redskins. It would allow them to maintain their Native American imagery and it would mean their fight song would be changed to...

wait for it...

Hail to the Chiefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They, the team called the Washington Redskins, are calling themselves that so why would someone get offensive obviously Washington takes pride in the name.

When a team takes a name they are honoring what it represents.

The team is saying we want to be like a Redskin!

I guess I just don't see it as being a racial slur sorry.

The problem is Redskins IS NOT a term native americans (which I believe is another one) used to describle THEMSELVES. If it was there would be no issue, or perhaps less of an issue. But it's not a term that was in their lexicon and it only came about in the white mans vocabulary as a derogatory slur.

But if you're confident in your logic go pitch the LA N***ers as the new expansion team and see how you get on. That's also a word that was popular with white settlers at the time and one African Americans never used to descibe themselves (until recently, and misguidedly if you ask me).

Chief and Brave while toeing the line can at least with a relatively clear conscience be considered as respectful tips of the hat to the tribes people who came before, warriors too. Using an actual tribe name, with permission, is genuine tribute but a 200 odd year old slur, I'm sorry I dont care what the intent is, it's continued use is misguided to say the least.

Read this Article about Stephen Dodson: Below are pieces of the story.

Stephen Dodson is a full-blooded American Inuit chief originally from the Aleutian Tribes of Alaska, and said he was tired of being spoken for as a Native American.

"We don’t have a problem with [the name] at all; in fact we’re honored. We’re quite honored.”

As the eldest member of his blood line, Dodson represents more than 700 remaining tribe members and talked to Redskins Nation about the positive power of the Redskins’ name.

It’s actually a term of endearment that we would refer to each other as,” he explained. “When we were on the reservation, we would call each other, ‘Hey, what’s up redskin?’ We would nickname it just ‘skins.’”

“‘Redskin’ isn’t something given to us by the white man or the blue eyes, it was something in the Native American community that was taken from us. [it’s] used also as a term of respect, because that’s how we were. We respected each other with that term.”

That's the second time you've posted about this supposed "full-blooded" indian without referencing the reply by this guy's uncle... as follows:

This is a message from "Chief" Stephen Dodson's uncle...

"I'd like to clear some stuff up here. I'm Stephen's uncle, he was raised by my brother, his eldest uncle, not his father. We are Aleut, not Inuit and he is 1/4, not full, as his mother, my sister, is only a half. Stephen isn't a "chief" but in the Air Force that was his nickname, as it was my brother's nickname in the Marine Corp. I'm not even sure Stephen has been to Alaska, to be honest about it all. I know my brother never went to Alaska while he was alive, none of my six siblings have, as far as I know. I have no problem with Stephen expressing his views or standing up for what he believes in, but let's keep it honest. I don't know if the person that wrote this interview embellished Stephens stats or what, but the truth is as I have stated here. Stephen is a good man, a great father and I love him as a son. I know my brother loved him as a son because he adopted him as his own when our sister wasn't capable of taking care of him. I personally find the Redskins name offensive, but we don't always agree on things like this. I know some Indians that aren't offended by the Redskins name and more still that are. The fact remains that it is a racial slur and therefore wrong in my opinion."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They, the team called the Washington Redskins, are calling themselves that so why would someone get offensive obviously Washington takes pride in the name.

When a team takes a name they are honoring what it represents.

The team is saying we want to be like a Redskin!

I guess I just don't see it as being a racial slur sorry.

The problem is Redskins IS NOT a term native americans (which I believe is another one) used to describle THEMSELVES. If it was there would be no issue, or perhaps less of an issue. But it's not a term that was in their lexicon and it only came about in the white mans vocabulary as a derogatory slur.

But if you're confident in your logic go pitch the LA N***ers as the new expansion team and see how you get on. That's also a word that was popular with white settlers at the time and one African Americans never used to descibe themselves (until recently, and misguidedly if you ask me).

Chief and Brave while toeing the line can at least with a relatively clear conscience be considered as respectful tips of the hat to the tribes people who came before, warriors too. Using an actual tribe name, with permission, is genuine tribute but a 200 odd year old slur, I'm sorry I dont care what the intent is, it's continued use is misguided to say the least.

Read this Article about Stephen Dodson: Below are pieces of the story.

Stephen Dodson is a full-blooded American Inuit chief originally from the Aleutian Tribes of Alaska, and said he was tired of being spoken for as a Native American.

"We don’t have a problem with [the name] at all; in fact we’re honored. We’re quite honored.”

As the eldest member of his blood line, Dodson represents more than 700 remaining tribe members and talked to Redskins Nation about the positive power of the Redskins’ name.

It’s actually a term of endearment that we would refer to each other as,” he explained. “When we were on the reservation, we would call each other, ‘Hey, what’s up redskin?’ We would nickname it just ‘skins.’”

“‘Redskin’ isn’t something given to us by the white man or the blue eyes, it was something in the Native American community that was taken from us. [it’s] used also as a term of respect, because that’s how we were. We respected each other with that term.”

That's the second time you've posted about this supposed "full-blooded" indian without referencing the reply by this guy's uncle... as follows:

This is a message from "Chief" Stephen Dodson's uncle...

"I'd like to clear some stuff up here. I'm Stephen's uncle, he was raised by my brother, his eldest uncle, not his father. We are Aleut, not Inuit and he is 1/4, not full, as his mother, my sister, is only a half. Stephen isn't a "chief" but in the Air Force that was his nickname, as it was my brother's nickname in the Marine Corp. I'm not even sure Stephen has been to Alaska, to be honest about it all. I know my brother never went to Alaska while he was alive, none of my six siblings have, as far as I know. I have no problem with Stephen expressing his views or standing up for what he believes in, but let's keep it honest. I don't know if the person that wrote this interview embellished Stephens stats or what, but the truth is as I have stated here. Stephen is a good man, a great father and I love him as a son. I know my brother loved him as a son because he adopted him as his own when our sister wasn't capable of taking care of him. I personally find the Redskins name offensive, but we don't always agree on things like this. I know some Indians that aren't offended by the Redskins name and more still that are. The fact remains that it is a racial slur and therefore wrong in my opinion."

I have never seen the reply by the guy's uncle and if I did I would have referenced it. But the fact remains that you will have people that are for a name change and people that are against a name change and the determining factor will be Daniel Synders and since the Redskins was his favorite team growing up I don't see him wanting to change the name anytime soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there's somewhere between 3 million to 5 million American Indian and Alaska Native people in the world today. One chief representing only 700 of those people would not speak for the grand majority of that population and I highly doubt all 700 of his tribe members blindly believe everything Dodson personally believes.

His embracement of the term Redskin along with some of his people reminds me of the similar way my Mexican friends and I have no problem calling each other wetbacks and dirty Mexicans. Words like these are meant in good fun amongst ourselves and none of us really mean anything by saying them but we do recognize when they're used in bad context by others which in turn paints a negative image of Mexicans as a whole. Such is a similar case with the Washington football team using the name Redskins and why Dodson fails to see that, is beyond me.

It seems to me the Redskins went in search of a tribe leader who would endorse their name to get some good publicity amidst the current name controversy. Heaven forbid they bother looking at the other side of the argument and posting the opinions of the people who are offended by the name; that wouldn't be good for business...

I'm not buying into that article one bit nuordr. My convictions are stronger than to say everything is okay and ignoring the bigger picture at hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there's somewhere between 3 million to 5 million American Indian and Alaska Native people in the world today. One chief representing only 700 of those people would not speak for the grand majority of that population and I highly doubt all 700 of his tribe members blindly believe everything Dodson personally believes.

His embracement of the term Redskin along with some of his people reminds me of the similar way my Mexican friends and I have no problem calling each other wetbacks and dirty Mexicans. Words like these are meant in good fun amongst ourselves and none of us really mean anything by saying them but we do recognize when they're used in bad context by others which in turn paints a negative image of Mexicans as a whole. Such is a similar case with the Washington football team using the name Redskins and why Dodson fails to see that, is beyond me.

It seems to me the Redskins went in search of a tribe leader who would endorse their name to get some good publicity amidst the current name controversy. Heaven forbid they bother looking at the other side of the argument and posting the opinions of the people who are offended by the name; that wouldn't be good for business...

I'm not buying into that article one bit nuordr. My convictions are stronger than to say everything is okay and ignoring the bigger picture at hand.

I am not asking you to buy into the article. I can honestly see both sides of the drama, but for me I live within 2 miles of the Redskins park (headquarters) and I see and talk to way to many fans that get pissed off when people start talking about changing their teams name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's understandable. They're loyal to the sports team they grew up with and with that comes the hate of change from what they know. But I don't expect the average Redskins fan to think beyond that since the overwhelming majority will always be attached to the name. And from what I've seen in their fan forums they simply don't care for what Native Americans have to say about the name either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I guess if Christ can be challenged, a cross as part of a war memorial is offensive, a granite statue of the ten commandments being removed for being offensive and using "Christmas" isn't a politically correct term then the Redskins don't stand a chance in hell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Snyder has gave his final word on the name change of the Redskins:

http://www.usatoday....snyder/2148127/

http://espn.go.com/n...hange-team-name

If the Washington Redskins organization loses federal trademark protection for the franchise's name, Snyder's bold pronouncements about "NEVER" changing the team's moniker will become nothing more than empty posturing.

The minute the Redskins and/or the National Football League couldn't prevent outsiders from producing knock-off merchandise bearing the Washington Redskins name, Snyder and the league would be commissioning a branding company to come up with a new identity. Period. Merchandising is simply too lucrative a revenue stream for modern pro sports franchises to lose trademark protection - and, by extension, the ability to prevent knock-off merchandise from undercutting licensed product sales - to an owner's stubborn insistence on proving a point.

Snyder talks a good game, but he'd cave the minute his coffers were negatively impacted. Either that, or the league would force his hand. They simply wouldn't abide taking the hit in merchandising revenue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other news, an overwhelming percentage of males in the 19th century thought women shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Whaaaaaa?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this