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

clydepepper · #1 10-02-2014, 02:25 PM

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

cubsfan-budman · #2 10-02-2014, 02:32 PM

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.

packs · #3 10-02-2014, 02:49 PM

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.

cubsfan-budman · #4 10-02-2014, 03:03 PM

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.

packs · #5 10-02-2014, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cubsfan-budman

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.

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

cubsfan-budman · #6 10-02-2014, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by packs

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.

vintagetoppsguy · #7 10-02-2014, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by packs

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by cubsfan-budman

It's defined in the dictionary as a "slur".

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.

packs · #8 10-02-2014, 03:35 PM

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.

bnorth · #9 10-02-2014, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by packs

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.

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.

drcy · #10 10-02-2014, 05:02 PM

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."

Runscott · #11 10-02-2014, 05:35 PM

...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.

Runscott · #12 10-02-2014, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clydepepper

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

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

Footballdude · #13 10-02-2014, 02:35 PM

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.

cubsfan-budman · #14 10-02-2014, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Footballdude

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.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
baseball's falling popularity and its affect on our hobby	honus94566	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	148	01-31-2014 10:03 AM
Life events that change your collecting experience for the better	markf31	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	6	10-28-2013 10:12 PM
how often do you change your collecting focus?	benderbroeth	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	47	07-23-2011 04:29 PM
Redskins cut Shaun Suisham	Abravefan11	Watercooler Talk- ALL sports talk	7	12-20-2009 08:15 AM
How Would You Change The Hobby	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	54	04-06-2008 03:32 PM