the Washington RedTails. wait,.. what ?

A White DC councilmember wants the racist Redskin mascot replaced with (race neutral ?) mascot RedTail.. in honor of the Black Tuskegee airmen..
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/30/redskins-name-change-demanded-david-grosso-dc-coun/


Noble chief.. worrying, will his tribe of DWFs peacefully embrace the White man's name change (?)

 

Makes perfect sense to me, the Tuskegee airmen were an average group of airmen the media has put onto a pedestal. Apparently fighting an air force that was already defeated (by the time the Tuskegee airmen were trained the German air force was basically gone) while flying 36 planes as opposed to the standard 24 makes you some kind of overachiever.

Same with the Redskins, they'll never accomplish anything with an "affletic" QB at the helm but that won't stop the media from fawning over them.

 

​

Awesome, maybe these fanatics can dress up as Eleanor Roosevelt!

 

Hollywood's jews will be burning the midnight oil to invent 31 other fictional tales of minority heroism to replace the other team names.

I'm reminded of the linguistic gymnastics previously employed to placate "colored people", who at various points over the last fifty years were referred to as "Negroes", "blacks", "African Americans", "black people", and surely a couple others I'm forgetting... until they finally settled on "people of color" as the current handshake bargain du jour. This will change soon too, of course.

What's in a name, really? My friends and I have been adapting our terms for blacks on the same infinite continuum. The true meaning of "reggins" was exposed in some Tyler Perry movie, so we switched to "Canadians", and eventually the timely "Presidents" to refer to our melanin-adled cohabitants of ill repute. The comfort of impolite company affords us the opportunity for less oblique terms, my favorite of which being "typical undesirables". Adapt to your situation accordingly: for example, "Boy, it sure is dark in this movie theater!" (because of the nonstop talking, duh)

Will the name "Red Tails" eventually be decried for glorifying a culture of violence? Or will the Washington Bullets reclaim their original namesake with a revised logo of a black man triumphantly shooting a white child? WE SHALL SEE

 

Simple solution shorten the name to Skins, everybody is happy, well we would have the Greenpeace and PETA crowd up in arms.....

 

Only thing keeping Indians relevant is these sports mascots, thanksgiving and places named after them

They love this attention. I doubt many of them want to change it. At worse, just rename it to something less offensive like Washington Seminoles.

 

yeah, something that I think is lost in these name controversies.. is/was the intent of Indian names.
Teams chose these American Indian names out of respect, not mockery. They were chosen bcuz teams liked their fighting spirit & imagery. Clubs use animals like Tigers, Lions & Sharks because they're fierce, and want to emulate that spirit. Likewise, colleges & pro teams took on names like 'Braves, Seminoles, Warriors', etc to borrow some of the strength from those likenesses.

No one is mad about the macho leprechaun,

(how are these two really any different ?)

this is just another opportunity to beat up traditional America, & conjur up some White guilt.. I mean even RG3 gets what this is about (see his comments).

 

I always found the Seminole logo to look funny, looks like he's letting out a big sneeze.

 

The idea that the Red Tails were elite and in a class of their own is a black supremacist myth. The genocidists are always claiming that blacks are far superior to whites.

The Red Tails were one of the worst units in the war, statistics prove it.

Are these guys wearing dresses?

 

Yes.



The Hogettes are out in full support for Russ Grimm. (Ben Liebenberg/NFL.com)

 

Syracuse dropped the term Orangemen which is offensive to Irish Catholics who want the whole of Ireland to be united. That battle is largely a non sequitor in North America less Greater Boston or a few ethnic enclaves in NYC. They also did what I said and just called the team the Orange. I'm about as non PC any poster here but being called a Kraut, a Guinea or any other ethnic slur like that is similar to the name Redskins. Maybe the team should name themselves after the now defunct band that lived in the Maryland/D.C area when the English settlers arrived. Of course then a bunch of Blacks err Indian descendants would be up in arms to....

 

The simplest solution is to go with the most accurate nickname. We've long had it down here at CF, considering the vast majority makeup of the team, the BLACKSKINS. Of course, we could probably never get Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton to sign on with that.

 

hey brother.. I don't think Syracuse dropped 'Orangemen', because it was offensive to Catholics (?), it was dropped because Syracuse had a long standing tradition of using an Indian as their unofficial mascot.. (I think the fictitious mascot was Chief Bill Orange ?).. here's some stuff on that..
"..Syracuses's connection to the Iroquois Confederacy extends back to 1884 when student editors named the first SU yearbook, The Onondagan, “in honor of the tribe” (The Onondagas) located south of Syracuse. “Bill Orange” as a university moniker goes back to the 1800s, when it appeared as a song of that name written by a student."
(source: blog.syracuse.com)


I couldn't find any archived stuff on Syracuse's official announcement changing from Orangemen to Orange tho.. so I could be wrong.
but I remember over the years, regional tribal names..(used by the actual tribes), like 'Seminole', also coming under siege from tribal advocates. If the Skins go to a regional tribal name, like u suggest, I don't think it would still satisfy that minority position that wants 'Redskins' changed..

for me, what is the ultimate barometer (?) If a small, but vocal, group tomorrow says 'Patriots' is too nationalistic, will it go (?), or 'Saints' is too religious, it will go (?) Minority opinions/positions deserve a hearing, but how many ppl are really offended by 'Redskins'? (maybe the owner should poll that)
If a single zookeeper comes forward & says the Detroit Tigers should drop their logo because it demeans the dignity of big cats; will it be marked for extinction.. sounds dumb, but it's the world we live in y'know..

 

I guess your right. Since they didn't have a logo anymore I assumed it was about the controversial William of Orange.....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orangemen's_Day

 

I thought Syracuse dropped the Orangemen name because of some feminist rabble-rousers who thought the name was sexist. Because as we all know, anything with the word "man" in it such as fireman, mailman, is discriminatory towards women. (rolls eyes)

 

My understanding of a mascot is that it needs to be something honorable, and/or intimidating. Something that represents your team during competition. The name Redskins is showing honor to the Amerindian. They fought like brave warriors, and thats respectable enough. I cant understand what would be offensive about having a team named after you.

Non whites are mostly just unsatisfied with anything the white man does. Take them from a hell hole third world existence, and feed, and shelter them. Give them their own bathrooms, water fountains, schools, pools, and neighborhoods, and reservations. Allow them to come into our lands to rape, pillage, plunder, and spread drugs, and terror with impunity. Name sports teams after them as a sign of honor, and respect, and ALL you ever hear is how they are being oppressed, and exploited.

 

we're on the same page brother.. Braves, Warriors, etc are/were good things. The Whites that formed sports clubs & franchises back in the day, chose these names bcuz they wanted to inherit some of the fierceness associated with Indian warriors.

A small, but vocal, minority resents the idea of Whites using & creating Indian images (good or bad images), bcuz they don't like the concept of Whites determining cultural perceptions..

 

some additional stuff I found (source PBS):
"In 1992, a group of American Indians..went to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office with a case against the Washington Redskins. The group argued the football moniker does not deserve trademark protection because it is racially offensive. Since trademark law prohibits the registration of a disparaging name, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board canceled the Redskins' trademark rights in 1999.
The Washington Redskins appealed the decision and won in a U.S. District Court on a technicality: the plaintiffs did not file their lawsuit in a timely manner.
Harjo and the group of Native Americans took the case all the way to the Supreme Court, where their efforts were again thwarted."


PBS' backstory on the Redskins name:
"The Washington Redskins team was created in Massachusetts as the Boston Braves. Then-owner George Preston Marshall changed the name to the "Redskins" in 1933 to honor Native American head coach William "Lone Star" Dietz. In 1937, the team moved to D.C."

Something else I thought about, if they do change to the 'RedTails', how will their DWFs dress, bcuz thousands of 'em in blackface isn't gonna go over well.. and if White guys show up @ FedEx in vintage Tuskegee pilot outfits it will also be seen as historically insensitive.. it's gonna be fun watchin the new rounds of Cultural Marxist indignation..

 

Great point. I have been pondering this craziness too, and I find it funny how stupid it all is. Its gonna open up even more worm cans in the long run. I could see in 20 years or so the teams having non offensive names such as the Washington Equality, Dallas Cowpeople, Kansas City Leaders, and the St. Louis Sheep. ANY reference to gender, religion, or race just done away with.

 

Redskins owner Dan Snyder told USA Today Sports this week, "We will never change the name of the team."
Skins GM Bruce Allen also added, "There's nothing that we feel is offensive" (about the Skins' name).

article also cited an April AP poll (for whatever that's worth), showing 79% of Americans are okay w/the current Redskins name.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...-name-change_n_3248542.html?utm_hp_ref=sports

 

Do you not find it pretty discouraging that 21% of people actually have a problem with the name?

 

nuh, not really.. I mean it would be nice if it was 0%, :grouphug: but..

I think some of the respondents are probably just Skins haters, so weeding out the shmucks who just hate the Redskins (& not they're name), and then the ppl who wanted to keep up PC appearances for pollsters, maybe down to 10% opposition (??)

and for me, the good news is that Snyder isn't bending to a vocal, but minority, opinion. I hate it when a minority opinion is granted greater consideration, than the feelings of an overwhelming majority.

 

Unless there's a buck in it. This promise is worthless.

 

With the rest of the government on strike, Lord Purpa Drank took time to address one of the nation's most pressing dilemmas:

Similar to his "evolving views" on the public sanctification and subsidization of sodomy, we can look forward to more infuriating soundbytes in the future from Chief Cornball. Eventually, some appointed judge will simply rule against the Redskins, and this will be hailed as a great victory for democracy.

 

Anything to take all the attention off the real issues that are impacting this country so negatively.