N/S Redskins likely to change name..What would be a good one? (Update: Redskins to announce name change) (1 Viewer)

Previous Next
Status
Not open for further replies.
DavidM said:
Our history isn't being erased. The problem is that the sharing and understanding of our history has been grossly incomplete and heavily manipulated to tell a very specific narrative, intentionally at the expense of the very people who were abused and systemically marginalized throughout that history.
Click to expand...
to some degree that is true but the narrative is still being manipulated just in the opposite way. Characterizing our founding fathers as evil slavers isn’t fair because the entirety of the 17th century world was filled with slavery. The world was captured by tyrants for longer than it was held in race-based slavery. It took thousands of years to end monarch sovereignty, its reasonable to expect race-based slavery to take hundreds of years to be abolished as well. Any attempt to mark slavery as an American evil is wrong...it’s an evil the world was/is plagued with.
 
DavidM said:
Our history isn't being erased. The problem is that the sharing and understanding of our history has been grossly incomplete and heavily manipulated to tell a very specific narrative, intentionally at the expense of the very people who were abused and systemically marginalized throughout that history. What we are witnessing is a reckoning of that shameful, deliberate practice.

If you met a black Army colonel, would you expect a very different reaction if you referred to him by his rank or as a Blackskin? That's the difference in the false equivalency made between Vikings and Redskins. Vikings and the military can both be associated with events that might offend some people, but neither carries the same negative connotation that a racially contrived word does.
Click to expand...
If you really knew or were knowledgable about 20% of the events, practices, treatment of native peoples of the European countries, kingdoms the old Norse, primarily Danish and Norwegian Viking raiders killed, raped, murdered, performed gruesome blood eagle executions on king's, nobles, priests, and commoners alike for 300 years during the Viking Age, you might have a different perspective on why some people, including historians, cultural anthropologists have made negative views towards old Norse Scandinavian Vikings. True, they were explorers, traders, colonists, helped established cities, towns and trading ports like Edinburgh, Glascow in Scotland, Eire, Dublin, Belfast, Carrie, Cork in Ireland. They also dealt in human slavery trafficking among captured Christian slaves in Ireland, Scotland, and northern England, and also among their distant ethnic cousins the Rus Tribe in modern-day Russia. The Vikings also practiced human sacrifices before and during the Viking Age in Uppsala in modern Sweden every 9 years and in other conquered territories, along with 9 similar animals of all other species. It wasn't as extreme or constant or done on a massive, near-industrial scale like the Aztecs and the Mayans on top of their pyramid temples but it was extreme for it's time.

There's also the matter that the Viking Age ended around the end of the 11th century and a great deal of negative connotations, events, rituals they performed or were associated with have been forgotten, lost, or decontextualized or many of old Norse ideals, attitudes and imagery were purposely distorted, repackaged by British, German and Scandinavian romantics and late 19th century nationalists, Social Darwinists and then by racial ideologues and totalitarian regimes like Nazi Germany (the SS runic insignia was inspired or derived by Himmler's distorted view of Nordic runic symbols, also weddings in the Nazi period involved the giving of salt and bread to newlyweds after exchanging vows in churches based on accounts from old Norse rituals) these catastrophes cant be blamed on medieval Vikings while European colonialization and treatment of Native Americans and African slaves and their descendants are complex, very difficult moral/ethical injustices where trying to rectify.


But, honestly Dave, if you really did know what the Vikings were accused of doing 1,000-1,100 years ago and how some still depict them as brutal, bloodthirsty, violent pagans who raped, killed, murdered with impunity, or as stupid, inept simple-minded savages, you might see why a lot of Scandinavians or Americans of Scandinavian descent might take offense with how popular culture depicts their ancestors today.
 
Last edited:
IceHot said:
to some degree that is true but the narrative is still being manipulated just in the opposite way. Characterizing our founding fathers as evil slavers isn’t fair because the entirety of the 17th century world was filled with slavery. The world was captured by tyrants for longer than it was held in race-based slavery. It took thousands of years to end monarch sovereignty, its reasonable to expect race-based slavery to take hundreds of years to be abolished as well. Any attempt to mark slavery as an American evil is wrong...it’s an evil the world was/is plagued with.
Click to expand...
Not all of the founding fathers owned slaves. So the narrative is not being manipulated "in the opposite way." Bringing a more accurate account of history is being done in a reasonable way so that we can make a better assessment of the family destructive institution of slavery.
 
DavidM said:
So you do agree that the use of Redskins is offensive?

To the other point, I stand by my original comment questioning the sincerity of the co-opting of indigenous culture for the purposes of deriving mascots, particularly for profitable enterprises like pro sports, with long histories of exclusion on the field, in the stands, and among ownership. Yeah, that seems exploitative to me under the conditions of our history.

Generally, I think it's distasteful in any society to market and profit off of people who have been horribly mistreated.

In cases where agreements have been reached with local tribes, I think that's a better approach as opposed to the attitude of just continuing with something because that's just the way it is and we like it fine. I do, however, find the term Redskin to be particularly offensive and outdated.
Click to expand...

I always thought the name "redskins" was a strange name for a team to have given the movies I watched growing up. You have to do some serious mental gymnastics to make it not so. This is without the silly argument of "black skins."

The Football team's profitability has nothing to do with the name. Mascots have an interesting history. In baseball, the team's nickname" was often coined by sportswriters, rather than a choice by the team. Later, teams chose a nickname that represents the community. The use of Amerindians as a name is no different than "Cowboys," or "Oilers" or even "49'ers." You can also consider such groups as, "Fighting Irish," Trojans," or "Spartans." If we were to use your argument, then these groups are all being exploited. In fact, it would also nullify the use of "red tails" if they were to refer to the WWII fighter group. Unfortunately, your argument is very weak and tenuous at best. As I said, the profitability has nothing to do with the name. This was actually brought up in a recent article. Naming a team after these people is meant to honor those peoples, not disparage them. It is silly to argue otherwise. I do not think you thought this out. (Though, I am sure you will claim otherwise (if so I don't know if I should laugh or cry).

-----
 
Jeff Miller said:
Wait, Americans are a race...that would be a no no.
Click to expand...


tenor.gif


uh...nationality
 
I live in the DC area and the people I've talked to about the name seem to like the Red Tails. I'm down with that idea. Many hate the idea of changing the name because it's been around so long and people don't like change to begin with. It's understandable, but, it's well past time to change it.

A change in ownership would help as well. Snyder has overstayed his welcome and he's hurting the franchise more than helping.
 
Maybe something like the Vampire Bats, Lampreys, Mosquitos, Leeches or any other animal that sucks.
 
I think people need to stop throwing rocks. The Redskins won THREE Superbowls to our one. (if we count prior to the SB error the disparity widens). We also had 20+ years of consecutive non-winning seasons.


----
 
Last edited:
St. Pike said:
I think people need to stop throwing rocks. The Redskins won THREE Superbowls to our one. (if we count prior to the SB error the disparity widens. We also had 20+ years of consecutive non-winning seasons.


----
Click to expand...

They won 3 Super Bowls with 3 different QB's.
 
Red Tails seems like a really bad idea for a name--not because it's not a noble idea to honor true American heroes, but because it's so easily parodied.

What about Washington Potomacs, which references the river and the tribe from the name originates?

For a more patriotic/historical name: Washington Continentals?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Previous Next

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

    Share this page

     

    Twitter

    Back
    Top Bottom