• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Redskins Name Change Thread

awaken said:
Like the Braves, the Redskins originated in Boston. The name comes from the disguised colonists in the Boston Tea Party. So all this actually about white guys, technically.
Click to expand...

Link for the bolded? Didn't find anything in a quick google search and only thing I've ever heard about the name switch was that there were already a lot of teams with the "Braves" name out there but the owners wanted the continuity of a Native American name for their fanbase. Never once heard or read that the name originated from the Boston Tea Party.
 
sailordeac said:
but you can dismiss intent and context?
Click to expand...

I think words can still be damaging/offensive without intent.
I don't think you can so easily remove the history of the word from its context.

The name and its imagery perpetuates native stereotypes. Those stereotypes are damaging to native people.
 
MHBDemon said:
I think words can still be damaging/offensive without intent.
I don't think you can so easily remove the history of the word from its context.

The name and its imagery perpetuates native stereotypes. Those stereotypes are damaging to native people.
Click to expand...

Jesus... I bet you're a fucking blast at parties.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Link for the bolded? Didn't find anything in a quick google search and only thing I've ever heard about the name switch was that there were already a lot of teams with the "Braves" name out there but the owners wanted the continuity of a Native American name for their fanbase. Never once heard or read that the name originated from the Boston Tea Party.
Click to expand...

You're right, that is a legend.

Several online sources say the same thing, this one the most succinctly
http://mentalfloss.com/article/24358/whats-nickname-origins-all-30-mlb-team-names

The Braves, who played in Boston and Milwaukee before moving to Atlanta in 1966, trace their nickname to the symbol of a corrupt political machine. James Gaffney, who became president of Boston's National League franchise in 1911, was a member of Tammany Hall, the Democratic Party machine that controlled New York City politics throughout the 19th century. The Tammany name was derived from Tammamend, a Delaware Valley Indian chief. The society adopted an Indian headdress as its emblem and its members became known as Braves. Sportswriter Leonard Koppett described Gaffney's decision to rename his team, which had been known as the Doves, in a 1993 letter to the New York Times: "Wouldn't it be neat to call the team the 'Braves,' waving this symbol of the Democrats under the aristocratic Bostonians? It wouldn't bother the fans."� And it didn't, especially after the Braves swept the Philadelphia Athletics in the 1914 World Series.
Click to expand...

Now the Braves became the Redskins when they moved from playing in the baseball Braves stadium to the Red Sox stadium. The name was changed from Braves to Redskins to coattail along the more popular baseball team. It was common for football teams to adopt same/similar names as their baseball teams: Giants, Cardinals, Bears/Cubs, Tigers/Lions, Steelers were Pirates prior to 1940, etc.
http://www.examiner.com/article/the-truth-behind-the-redskins-name-change-controversy

Likewise the Washington Redskins originated as the Boston Braves, copying the same name of the National League baseball team whom they rented use of their stadium from. The football Braves lost $46,000 their first season in the NFL and were threatened with a rate increase to continue to play at Braves Field. As a result two-thirds of the ownership group bolted, leaving George Preston Marshall at the helm.

Marshall in response worked out a deal with the Boston Red Sox of the American League to play at Fenway Park. Instead of changing his football team name to the Red Sox, Marshall was intent on keeping the Native American theme but still needed to feed off the Red Sox popularity. His solution and compromise came with the creation of the Redskins name.
Click to expand...

Also interesting http://www.footballperspective.com/the-origin-of-the-name-redskins/
 
DG3 said:
Jesus... I bet you're a fucking blast at parties.
Click to expand...

I was attempting to politely discuss with Sailor. I don't generally discuss this topic at parties. But good job being an asshole.
 
MHBDemon said:
I think words can still be damaging/offensive without intent.
I don't think you can so easily remove the history of the word from its context.

The name and its imagery perpetuates native stereotypes. Those stereotypes are damaging to native people.
Click to expand...

Why are you so adamant about this? You like the Royals, are you a Chiefs fan too? Whats your stance on their name?
 
DaDeacs said:
Why are you so adamant about this? You like the Royals, are you a Chiefs fan too? Whats your stance on their name?
Click to expand...

I work with tribes in my current job. I'm not really a Chiefs fan. I have less of a problem with the name than i do with the tomahawk chop, the imagery and drums. It is cultural appropriation.

There are studies that have shown native mascots to be damaging to native youth. This thread is FULL of examples of opposition to the name from tribes, tribal leaders, inter-tribal groups, etc.. I think that the actions and words of those groups are more representative of native people than the flawed polls presented by proponents of the name.

Yet we still have people ignoring those native voices, insisting that this is just a cause of the day for the liberal media.
 
MHBDemon said:
I work with tribes in my current job. I'm not really a Chiefs fan. I have less of a problem with the name than i do with the tomahawk chop, the imagery and drums. It is cultural appropriation.

There are studies that have shown native mascots to be damaging to native youth. This thread is FULL of examples of opposition to the name from tribes, tribal leaders, inter-tribal groups, etc.. I think that the actions and words of those groups are more representative of native people than the flawed polls presented by proponents of the name.

Yet we still have people ignoring those native voices, insisting that this is just a cause of the day for the liberal media.
Click to expand...

The word chief is used more often as a slur than redskin - this is purely anecdotal from my experiences, and maybe just a southern thing.

The polls aren't flawed, the mascot does not impact daily life, nor is it an issue. Are there some that speak out? Sure, you could say the same thing about any culture and any issue.

Completely my own thought, but changing the name could actually lead to less public awareness and less acknowledgement of the culture.
 
DaDeacs said:
The word chief is used more often as a slur than redskin - this is purely anecdotal from my experiences, and maybe just a southern thing.

The polls aren't flawed, the mascot does not impact daily life, nor is it an issue. Are there some that speak out? Sure, you could say the same thing about any culture and any issue.

Completely my own thought, but changing the name could actually lead to less public awareness and less acknowledgement of the culture.
Click to expand...

But as a non-native person, you see no problem declaring it a non-issue when you have tribal leaders saying that it is an issue? And I don't really think tribes want their culture to be acknowledged by white people wearing headdresses and doing the tomahawk chop. How does that help native causes?
 
Deaconblue said:
Well, let me give you a little history that might help explain the name. Originally the Washington Redskins were the Boston Braves, for a year (1932), then the Boston Redskins, until George P. Marshall bought the time the team and moved it to DC. At the time the team was formed and named, there was an old (founded 1871), established baseball team in Boston known as the Boston Braves.

At the time a newly formed professional football team sometimes used either use the same name as the established baseball team in a city, or something related. Chicago Cubs, Chicago Bears; Detroit Tigers, Detroit Lions; Boston Braves, Boston Braves, Boston Redskins.

The new professional football teams were trying to get a little fandom carryover from the much better known and older baseball team in town.
Click to expand...

Oh. Well it doesnt have much to do with any recent history. I think an update wouldn't be so bad.
 
MHBDemon said:
But as a non-native person, you see no problem declaring it a non-issue when you have tribal leaders saying that it is an issue? And I don't really think tribes want their culture to be acknowledged by white people wearing headdresses and doing the tomahawk chop. How does that help native causes?
Click to expand...

As a non-native person, I see no problem declaring it a non-issue when polling says it is a non-issue to 90% of Native Americans in a recent poll. After everything that's been done to inflame the issue, only 10% GAF. There's a high school in Mesa that is 99% Native Americans that has a Redskin mascot. Turns out they don't care as much as you want them to. Let's spend our energy working on education, alcoholism, and other things that actually impact their lives instead of insisting on an empty platitude.

Another non-native thought I have is that if it were me, I would find the mascots of white oppressors more offensive to Native Americans. Cowboys, Cornhuskers, Sooners, even Patriots would be examples. A Lumbee called into 2 Guys Named Chris radio show today, and said the Redskins name didn't bother him, but Andrew Jackson on the $20 did. He also said the headdress, and war chants bothered him.

How Ole Miss keeps the Rebel mascot is beyond me - an antebellum slave owner with confederate flag? How the heck do they sign an African American recruit with options?
 
awaken said:
As a non-native person, I see no problem declaring it a non-issue when polling says it is a non-issue to 90% of Native Americans in a recent poll. After everything that's been done to inflame the issue, only 10% GAF. There's a high school in Mesa that is 99% Native Americans that has a Redskin mascot. Turns out they don't care as much as you want them to. Let's spend our energy working on education, alcoholism, and other things that actually impact their lives instead of insisting on an empty platitude.

Another non-native thought I have is that if it were me, I would find the mascots of white oppressors more offensive to Native Americans. Cowboys, Cornhuskers, Sooners, even Patriots would be examples. A Lumbee called into 2 Guys Named Chris radio show today, and said the Redskins name didn't bother him, but Andrew Jackson on the $20 did. He also said the headdress, and war chants bothered him.

How Ole Miss keeps the Rebel mascot is beyond me - an antebellum slave owner with confederate flag? How the heck do they sign an African American recruit with options?
Click to expand...

Good point. But it's easier to tilt at windmills than actually to do something beneficial. Poor leadership trying to appear to be doing something, while simultaneously distracting people from noticing their failures.
 
MHBDemon said:
I work with tribes in my current job. I'm not really a Chiefs fan. I have less of a problem with the name than i do with the tomahawk chop, the imagery and drums. It is cultural appropriation.

There are studies that have shown native mascots to be damaging to native youth. This thread is FULL of examples of opposition to the name from tribes, tribal leaders, inter-tribal groups, etc.. I think that the actions and words of those groups are more representative of native people than the flawed polls presented by proponents of the name.

Yet we still have people ignoring those native voices, insisting that this is just a cause of the day for the liberal media.
Click to expand...

"Studies have shown"]..................three of the most useless words in the English language. Yes, yes, cries the native youth I've been seriously damaged by a native mascot (no proof needed of course).

And cultural appropriation-just another vague term with an even more vague meaning. :tard:
 
MHBDemon said:
But as a non-native person, you see no problem declaring it a non-issue when you have tribal leaders saying that it is an issue? And I don't really think tribes want their culture to be acknowledged by white people wearing headdresses and doing the tomahawk chop. How does that help native causes?
Click to expand...

The chop is fine, wearing tribal gear is an issue, agreed there. I am native american, homeslice, just not part of a tribe - a decent amount of my relatives are part of the eastern band of cherokee.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top