90% of native Americans..

leavemeglazzies · May 20, 2016

Can't there be some kind of a compromise?

There's a team called the Vikings, who are a group of white people. What if they changed the name that represents an entire race of people into that of one tribe, similar to how Vikings is used? They wouldn't even have to change the logo.

osh kosh bosh · May 20, 2016

LeaveMeGlazzies said:
Can't there be some kind of a compromise?

There's a team called the Vikings, who are a group of white people. What if they changed the name that represents an entire race of people into that of one tribe, similar to how Vikings is used? They wouldn't even have to change the logo.

wadder yew talmbout bruh?

a) if you think the name is racist why would you compromise on racism. we can compromise on pizza toppings aint nobody compromising on racism. :lol:

b) nobody geoncided the vikings man, they aren't comparable.

d) the ******** are already a caricature of a diverse race of people why would changing the different characterture be an improvement? :lol:

dmxfury · May 20, 2016

LeaveMeGlazzies said:
Can't there be some kind of a compromise?

There's a team called the Vikings, who are a group of white people. What if they changed the name that represents an entire race of people into that of one tribe, similar to how Vikings is used? They wouldn't even have to change the logo.

I don't see how a 'compromise' would work. The name is in appropriate, the logo isn't much better. Just change it to something that isn't an offensive term. As I said, if they are a private company then they can be named whatever they want. But if any public money is used, this shouldn't be a debate. Any public schools that still use the name is gross to me as well.

IATT · May 20, 2016

I don't see why there should be a 'compromise'

for what?

leavemeglazzies · May 20, 2016

But those fools aren't changing the name. The pressure has been on them for many years now and they won't budge. The only thing left to do is flat out ban them from the league.

pmatic · May 20, 2016

A more detailed breakdown by Baxter Holmes, an ESPN beat reporter for the Lakers:

A '*******' Is the Scalped Head of a Native American, Sold, Like a Pelt, for Cash

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a29445/true-********-meaning/

northoaklandfc · May 20, 2016

It's really indefensible. It's not even a caricature of a group of people, it's literally and specifically caricature of the genocide and violence committed against them.

IATT · May 20, 2016

there is no defending the Washington professional football team.. or the Cleveland professional baseball team

none

madj55 · May 20, 2016

If any single one of the owners of your favorite teams made a fuss about the name, it'd be gone.

If anyone of the Skins big sponsors pulled out, the name would be gone.

Unless the trademark appeal doesn't go their way again, Snyder won't change the name until his hand is forced. May not be what is right, but that's the how this will continue to play out.

6 kiss · May 20, 2016

Are the first 2 real? I want that New York hat

cedric ceballos · May 20, 2016

From Snyders perspective, I could totally see why he wouldn't change the name. He paid $800 million to buy the Washington ********, Not the Washington (any other name)

That name has been around for 84 years. It's well known, there's tradition to it, and in terms of apparel sales, one of the better selling teams.

The bullets changed their name to the Wizards almost 20 years ago and people can't stand the change and it affected merchandise sales. Imagine a team with a well established name like the Giants or Cowboys changing their name for whatever reason. It would be damaging to their brand and identity.

On top of that, I understand why he would tell everyone wanting the name to change to kick rocks. They didn't spend close to a billion on the team. They're not offering any type of financial incentive to make up for the likely financial loss that would come with a name/identity change. Look at all the new logos/uniforms in the NFL. For the most part they look like crap. You rarely see traditional teams change their logo, uniform.

From Snyders perspective, I could see his mindset of "you don't like the name, stack a few billion up and buy the team off me, if you can't do that, keep quiet and don't speak on nothing I spent close to a billion on".

Remember I'm strictly looking at this from Snyders perspective, not a moral perspective for you selective readers who like to those people's words and only quote a select part of their post to try and twist things.

If sponsors pull their names from the team, and other owners complain it might impact his bottom line slightly, but the team is still selling out games and one of the better selling teams in terms of merchandise.

I don't see him giving in anytime soon unless he's offered significant financial incentive to make a potential name change worth it for him. And so far, the folks who want the name change expect him to do it for free so I doubt that name change happens anytime soon.

DeadsetAce · May 20, 2016

that NY hat :rofl:

madj55 · May 20, 2016

Cedric Ceballos said:
From Snyders perspective, I could totally see why he wouldn't change the name. He paid $800 million to buy the Washington ********, Not the Washington (any other name)

That name has been around for 84 years. It's well known, there's tradition to it, and in terms of apparel sales, one of the better selling teams.

The bullets changed their name to the Wizards almost 20 years ago and people can't stand the change and it affected merchandise sales. Imagine a team with a well established name like the Giants or Cowboys changing their name for whatever reason. It would be damaging to their brand and identity.

On top of that, I understand why he would tell everyone wanting the name to change to kick rocks. They didn't spend close to a billion on the team. They're not offering any type of financial incentive to make up for the likely financial loss that would come with a name/identity change. Look at all the new logos/uniforms in the NFL. For the most part they look like crap. You rarely see traditional teams change their logo, uniform.

From Snyders perspective, I could see his mindset of "you don't like the name, stack a few billion up and buy the team off me, if you can't do that, keep quiet and don't speak on nothing I spent close to a billion on".

Remember I'm strictly looking at this from Snyders perspective, not a moral perspective for you selective readers who like to those people's words and only quote a select part of their post to try and twist things.

If sponsors pull their names from the team, and other owners complain it might impact his bottom line slightly, but the team is still selling out games and one of the better selling teams in terms of merchandise.

I don't see him giving in anytime soon unless he's offered significant financial incentive to make a potential name change worth it for him. And so far, the folks who want the name change expect him to do it for free so I doubt that name change happens anytime soon.

Pretty much this. Unless it starts hurting his pockets he won't change it. He does have the Washington Warriors trademarked though just in case, but I'm not a fan of that name either.

getback · May 20, 2016

NorthOaklandFC said:
It's really indefensible. It's not even a caricature of a group of people, it's literally and specifically caricature of the genocide and violence committed against them.

Haven't really followed this topic, but if this is true, how in the hell has the logo and nickname been allowed to exist this long?

6 kiss · May 20, 2016

If this is true?

Did you take World History?

northoaklandfc · May 20, 2016

GetBack said:
NorthOaklandFC said:

It's really indefensible. It's not even a caricature of a group of people, it's literally and specifically caricature of the genocide and violence committed against them.

Click to expand...

Haven't really followed this topic, but if this is true, how in the hell has the logo and nickname been allowed to exist this long? :x

I don't think a lot of people are aware of the U.S. governments direct involvement in killing off the Native Americans. Towards the end of the 20th century it had become an a major federal campaign.

It wasn't an accident on some tragedies of war type steeze. This isn't hear say or a theory, it's a matter of official military record.

shogun · May 20, 2016

6 KISS said:
If this is true?

Did you take World History?

Eh, I didn't know the term referred to the collected scalp of a Native American to be sold either. Classes taught us Native Americans scalping people but not the other way around. Textbooks and curriculums probably don't want students to learn even worse stuff about this country. I remember there was a post in general about a black man who was kept in a zoo for years and all his teeth were filed down into sharp fangs. It's a story I never heard about.

northoaklandfc · May 20, 2016

They're teaching that evolution is a farce in some U.S. public schools.

You got public schools in Texas teaching students that the Transatlantic Slave Trade wasn't actually slavery and that victims were fairly compensated workers.

There's nothing that can surprise me about the inadequacy of U.S. education, particularly when it comes to history.

son nelly · May 20, 2016

There's alot of Native imagery in various sports teams across pro leagues and colleges, but Washington and Cleveland are just too flagrant to be ignored, imo.

Search

90% of native Americans..

leavemeglazzies

osh kosh bosh

dmxfury

IATT

leavemeglazzies

pmatic

northoaklandfc

IATT

madj55

6 kiss

cedric ceballos

DeadsetAce

madj55

getback

6 kiss

northoaklandfc

shogun

northoaklandfc

son nelly

Similar threads

Share this page