If the Redskins change their name, how will it affect the collecting hobby?
 

Just curious what peoples thoughts are on this. If they do wind up changing the name because the word "Redskins" is deemed offensive will auction houses and places like ebay still allow the word to be attached to items being sold? Will the word have to be blacked out in pictures of, say, vintage Redskin programs? Will everything with the printed word "Redskins" have to be burned or destroyed? Will the Hall of fame have to change the plaques of Sammy Baugh, and any other Washington players by striking the name Redskins from them?

Couldn't they just say they meant to represent these:
 

IMHO, they won't change things from the past, destroy any records, etc. For better or worse, that (was/is?) the name of the team and they'll keep it that way.

On a related topic, I think that Snyder knows he's wrong and fully intends to change the name. I think that he has to put up a fight in order to keep a certain segment of the fans happy, but will change it in order to placate the masses.

The masses halve already spoken and oppose a name change. There was a poll on MSN back in June and an overwhelming 82% said the Redskins should keep their name. Only 13% were in favor of a name change. I am in the 82%.

Where in the world did you pull that one from?

David - +1 As a long-time Cowboys fan, I can't imagine playing the Washington Native Americans.

I see both sides and ultimately I do think the name has some offensive overtones. However, I don't think the name is being used in an offensive way. As in I don't think their use of "Redskins" is an attempt to be derogatory towards Native Americans.

Honestly I don't know why there isn't equal uproar about the Braves, Chiefs, and Indians. "Indian" is seen as a derogatory slur now too, that's why we say Native American. Chief and Brave could be argued the same way. Look at Chief Bender, Meyers, etc.

However, The main point for me is that these names weren't intended to be negative. That doesn't change the way people view them, but I think sentiment is important.

Snyder (or his "neighbor") has already trademarked the Washington Bravehearts.

You are correct that the percentage is in favor of keeping the name, but that support is declining rapidly. Down to 71%...and will continue to drop (IMHO) as people become educated about the issue.

The change is a foregone conclusion, in my estimation and Snyder knows it. Good for him.

From a business standpoint, it's pretty shrewd.

Stick & stones...
 

People need to toughen-up. Words are just that words.

Like most Dogs, I respond to the TONE of what is being said.

Humans should respond to the CONTEXT within which the word is being used.

BRAVES & CHIEFS are honorable titles in just about any context I can think of.

When Cleveland had a farm team here, we had to change the name to REDSTIXX and virtually nobody knew the meaning. ( 'Native' Americans used them for signaling. )

'Native Americans' needs to be changed to 'Earlier Americans' since us late-arriving, party-crashing Europeans wiped them out (aka 'genocide')

so there you go...IMHO

I have to disagree with you on this - the Redskins did everything possible to avoid changing their name and made plenty of mistakes during the 'battle' to avoid it. From a business standpoint, I think they missed opportunities to take this with vaseline. Any decline in percentage of disagreement has nothing to do with education, and everything to do with the bandwagon effect once it became a foregone conclusion. Still, 71% is huge - good for those people.

I'm out of this one, as it's gotten so spinny I'm getting dizzy.

The difference between Redskin and Chief/Brave:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/redskin?s=t

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/brave?s=t

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/chief?s=t

Choose whatever reference material you like, redskin is derogatory, the others are not.

Most Indians do not call themselves 'Native Americans' - that's white people trying to be politically correct when no one asked them.

You make great points about sound and context - most people do not associate anything with a team name other than the city. How many non-NY'ers give the word 'Mets' any thought as it relates to what it really means? or Astros? Do you envision gigantic football players when you think of the Giants?

The Utah Jazz and other teams that moved and kept their name, are good examples. Of course, some really stupid names might conjure up images, but I can't think of any at the moment.

Anyway, as I promised - "Bye". you guys have fun :)

The point, to me, is that it was 82% just back in June (according to numbers submitted above). Its @ 71% now. That's a precipitous drop in such a short amount of time.

I think the issue in the past is that no one really gave it any thought.

I'm just afraid that if it does happen, ebay will have their usual knee jerk reaction and start to filter out all items with the term "Redskins" in it. They've done it before in other areas. I would hate to be a Redskins team collector and have to do item searches without using the name Redskins.

I don't have a problem with them changing the name from here on out, but the past is the past, and items exist with the name on it and you can't erase that. They are there.

I would hope that ebay wouldn't do that...like you said, the past is the past.

I disagree. If you're calling a Native American "Chief" because they're Native American I think you are being just as general and derogatory as any other moniker given to any one individual from an ethnic group. For example, if you were to call someone who is Hispanic "Amigo" or "Pancho" I think that's exactly the same as calling any old Native American "Chief."

If one is bad, they are all bad. Like I said I think sentiment is important but in general I see the offensiveness of each name.

No one is suggesting that you call a native american "chief". No one is suggesting that you should call a Latino "Pancho" (unless that's his name).

We're talking about what you call a sports team. No one would have a problem if you named your new minor league baseball team the Albuquerque Amigos. The Panchos might be more controversial, but mainly because it's nonsensical.

I'm not going to argue that the Chiefs and the Braves should absolutely be able to keep their names (though I think they should), but it's not hard to see that Chief and Brave are flattering names, and "Redskin" is NOT.

This PC stuff is way out of hand. As far as chief or brave not being offensive come say that to a Indian where I live and see what happens. For me it is a age thing that is 100% politically motivated . You call an Indian over 40 a Native American and they will take it as a racial slur. At the same time call a Indian a Indian that is under 30 and they take it as a racial slur. This is how it really is in my small part of America.

I personally have had racial slurs thrown my way and yes it pissed me off but you have to take it in context and sports teams DID NOT name themselves the Redskins, Indians, or Braves to put down anybody.

So then the Washington Redskins are named the Redskins because they dislike Native Americans?

Its a relic of the past. No more, no less.

This really isn't that complex. It's defined in the dictionary as a "slur".

None of these other words are slurs by their very definition.

People are afraid of change and they don't like being told that things they like suck.

I understand the resistance, but it won't matter in the end. The name won't last for a lot longer.

Actually, quite the opposite. It was to pay tribute to their coach at the time, William Henry "Lone Star" Dietz - a Native American.


If Dietz thought it was a slur, why didn't he speak up at the time? I'd be willing to bet if he were alive today, he would have no problem whatsoever with the name.

I just think you are too hardline on your definitions. Redskin is a slur in context. So is Indian. So is Chief.

Redskins today is a slur. Indian today is a slur. But at the time I don't think you can argue any other way than it was a misguided sense of tribute.

Yep, nothing should ever change.

Actually, its pretty common for 80 year old thought processes to adjust over time. Thank goodness.

This is patently false. This part is factually wrong.

Redskins is a slur OUT of context. It is a slur no matter what, because that's the definition of the word.

Indian and chief and brave can be slurs IN context. But that is true of almost any noun.

In today's times, the term "Whitey" is considered a slur as well. So, do we insist Whitey Ford use his real name and stop signing his autograph "Whitey" Ford?

I think the name is a problem. But I think the same problem exists for Braves, Chiefs, and Indians. We are in agreement over Redskins but not the others.

While you think Braves, Chiefs, and Indians are harmless or titles of respect, I don't think you can make that decision for Native Americans. If they are offended by the titles, then their feelings about them should be just as important as those for Redskins.

White people don't get to tell Indians what names should or shouldn't offend them. It's comical for middle aged white male sports fans on chat boards to be professing they know what nicknames should and shouldn't offend a minority group. If you're a Red Sox fan, do you want New Yorkers deciding your team nickname? (Obviously, it won't be flattering). Let the Indians decide (within reason) what they consider offensive.

Reminds me of the old white lady from a small town who said "I don't know what's so bad about the word nigger. We always called them niggers and it never bothered us."

Again, these things are relics of the past. Start introducing yourself around town as "Whitey" and see how well that's received.

Cool social experiment. Let us know how it goes!

...and David drops the bomb.

I wasn't going to look at this thread again, but when I saw that David had posted....well, I couldn't resist.

David - that's a good point about white guys not getting to tell Indians what offends them. This is all about what offends white people, which is pretty much always what everything is about.

Just to clarify, if Native Americans find Braves, Chiefs and Indians to be offensive, then by all means, change those too. I think a fair argument can be made for and (I suppose) against those.

Redskins on the other hand is indefensible from my point of view. It's a slur any way you look at it. And you don't even need to ask a Native American...its right there in the dictionary.

David like always great post.

On these type threads I try to limit myself to 1 post, I just couldn't this time.

This is in my area only and could be very different where you live but Indians here couldn't give two shits about the Washington Redskins name. At the same time my Indian friends and relatives are way more concerned with the terms Native American and Indian. Like I said in my earlier post it is all about age. Those of us over 40 are offended by Native American because in the 70's-80's Native was used as a racial slur and now we are supposed to accept it.:confused:

Sorry for the rant carry on.

Nothing will change in collecting, there are many offensive cards that are bought and sold, its history

But then again, "Whitey" wasn't subjected to mass ethnic cleansing and forced migration by his government. 4,000 Cherokee were "cleansed" in the Trail of Tears alone because they had red skin. Most of the rest were dumped in a wasteland. But that "Whitey" argument is a good one and shows considerable empathy and historical appreciation.

I really don`t mind the name Redskins at all. But can appreciate the uproa. It`s gotten so bad, wouldn`t want "Washington" linked to anything I could be identified with. That is the truly offensive part of the equation.

YOU GOT IT! That is the problem. We have all been looking at this the wrong way...and I am being totally serious when I agree that the first part of the name is the problem, not the second part. Remember it is Washington (and the ilk that ooses from it) that broke all the treaties; stole all the land; and liquidated tens of thousands of whatever you decide to call them. Why not call them 'The Innocents' or 'The Victims' - but, be careful, us European-Americans will need a way to distinguish them from the other Innocents and Victims.

Mind you, I don't feel any personal guilt over the way those races were vanquished...remorse, yes; regret, yes...and I do sincerely wish that it should never, ever, happen again.

All that said, maybe just changing names of sports teams is not that big a deal.
?

So we can re-write history by changing the team's name?

Once again, the team name Redskins was never intended to be a racial slur but, instead, to pay tribute to their coach (who was Native American).

Now, 80 years later, a very small percentage of the population gets their panties in a wad and demands a name change. You really think Snyder is going to change the name? Get real. Let me drop a couple of facts on you. From Wikipedia: "According to Forbes Magazine, the Redskins are the third most valuable franchise in the NFL behind the Cowboys and Patriots, and were valued at approximately $1.6 billion as of 2013. They have also broken the NFL's mark for single-season attendance ten years in a row." You think Snyder is going to cave into pressure? Why? Is he afraid fans will stop attending the games if he doesn't change the team's name? Yeah, right! Long live the Washington Redskins!

I agree with Raymond.

If I were an uber politically correct white guy, because of the way they've treated Indians, I would be offended that Washington is allowed to have any sports teams, unless they call them something appropriate;e.g: 'Washington Treaty Breakers', 'Washington Liars', 'Washington Slimy White Guys', etc.

Hey, I'd VOTE for that!

Eh, never mind

Are you for real ?!?!?

Seriously, is any Cubs fan for real?

I think it can be viewed as matter of manners. If someone birth named Charles asks to be called Charlie and not Chuckie or Chaz because he's never liked those last two nicknames names, you call him Charlie. If you continue to call him Chuckie or Chaz, fine, but admit you're doing it to be an ass. Saying you're "out of respect" calling people a name they say they find offensive is, of course, BS. And with Charlie, it's not even a matter or whether or not Chuckie or Chaz are offensives or bad names. Charlie may be the first to say there's nothing wrong with those names in general, just as Bob or Tim are perfectly sound names. But if you don't want him to punch you in the nose, quit calling him Chuckie.

That a Jewish person (Snyder) is so adamant and stubborn against changing an offending name amazes me. An elderly couple I know said when they were kids in Baltimore they weren't allowed to use the local public swimming pool because they were Jewish. And think of uproar if the team was named the "Washington Jewish Bankers" with people defending the name as a symbol of respect because "everyone agrees that being good with money is a good thing."

P.s. I was waiting for someone to bring up the Minnesota Vikings, a common example brought up in this debates and because I'm a descent of Vikings. But no one did. If you're wondering, the nickname doesn't offend me or any Scandinavian-Americans I know of. But it's a different situation, only in part because it's the Scandinavians in Minnesota who picked the name. Self determination, like Charlie to be called Charlie and not Chuckie. Though I can tell you that the mascot and emblem is historically incorrect. For example, Vikings didn't wear horns on their helmets. That's just a modern romantic myth.

It's also a myth that the Vikings can hang with my Packers!

Sorry, saw an opening.

If they change it they should go with Braves. Especially since that was the team name when they were in Boston and played in Braves field.

Wrong wrong wrong. This is from a Washington post article

The proof is in a July 6, 1933, edition of the Hartford Courant, which Witten unearthed after the sports Web site MMQB tipped him off about it.

The edition includes a short Associated Press dispatch quoting Marshall saying: “The fact that we have in our head coach, Lone Star Dietz, an Indian, together with several Indian players, has not, as may be suspected, inspired me to select the name Redskins.”

Instead, Marshall explains, he gave up “Braves” to avoid confusion with a Boston professional baseball team of the same name. He apparently picked the Redskins name so he could keep the existing Native American logo.

As someone who is 1/2 Native American I feel that I can speak comfortably on this issue. Until the recent uproar I did not really have a big problem with the team name redskins. It was just a name, why did it matter? But then my grandmother explained to me that when she was growing up kids would verbally abuse her and redskin was one of the insults they threw at her. I find it offensive as part of the Native American culture when redskin fans dress up with feathers on their head and red paint on their face. Change it to something that doesn't have a negative connotation. Do it like Florida state and have real native Americans at the games representing their culture.

That sure contradicts this article from the July 18th, 1933 issue of the Portsmouth Times.

http://theaxisofego.files.wordpress....pg?w=504&h=630

Who is "wrong wrong wrong" now?

Coach Lone Star Dietz could have named the team himself and it wouldn't change any of the modern facts about this issue.

There are many words that were used in the past that were acceptable then that aren't now. You don't need to be very creative to think of them.

Perhaps the fact that this one has stayed around for so long is what makes this confusing to some. I think that maybe it says more about how disenfranchised Native Americans are than anything else.

.

Well, this got of hand.
I just wanted some opinions about the possible hobby ramifications IF the name got changed because Redskins was viewed as offensive.

Having said that, I think the Washington Warriors would be a good name.