Packers Huddle

I never understood the need to change the logo and name. That original Redskins logo was a noble depiction of a Native American warrior- it portrayed him in an admirable light. I didn't think the Cleveland Indians should have had to change their name/logo either, but of the two logos, I think there was more of a case to change the baseball logo because it was basically a picture of a bucktoothed, drunken idiot. Still, nobody cared until like 5 years ago.

Captain_Ben wrote: ↑

02 Aug 2023 09:57

I never understood the need to change the logo and name. That original Redskins logo was a noble depiction of a Native American warrior- it portrayed him in an admirable light. I didn't think the Cleveland Indians should have had to change their name/logo either, but of the two logos, I think there was more of a case to change the baseball logo because it was basically a picture of a bucktoothed, drunken idiot. Still, nobody cared until like 5 years ago.

A small but vocal segment have cared for much longer than 5 years. The recent cultural/political focus on...well...you all know...has brought it to the forefront, though. In that regard, you are correct.

A refresher on how they got the name in the first place:

https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch ... of-redskin

Boston Braves owner George Preston Marshall decided in 1933 to change the franchise's name from the Braves (another name with a racial history) to the Redskins. Team lore says the franchise adopted the name in honor of former coach William "Lone Star" Dietz, who identified as Native American. Dietz brought several Native American players he had coached at the Haskell Indian School with him to the team. Marshall also sought to strongly tie the team to Native American imagery, occasionally requiring Dietz to wear a Sioux headdress on the sidelines and telling players to wear war paint while on the field.

Sounds to me like naming them the Redskins was a cynical marketing ploy. What makes it worse is William Dietz was put on trial, twice!, for posing as a Native American, which he likely did to dodge the draft in WWI.

wallyuwl wrote: ↑

02 Aug 2023 03:16

Just had a WR go down, now this.

Screenshot_20230802-031651_Chrome.jpg

Gets pericarditis, now Broncos cut him because of it.

This is veering close to podium stuff, but I think we can handle it if it stays as tame and respectful and relevant to team names as it currently is. Hopefully my contribution below remains in, and is read in, that spirit.

Crazylegs Starks wrote: ↑

02 Aug 2023 12:41

A refresher on how they got the name in the first place:

https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch ... of-redskin

Boston Braves owner George Preston Marshall decided in 1933 to change the franchise's name from the Braves (another name with a racial history) to the Redskins. Team lore says the franchise adopted the name in honor of former coach William "Lone Star" Dietz, who identified as Native American. Dietz brought several Native American players he had coached at the Haskell Indian School with him to the team. Marshall also sought to strongly tie the team to Native American imagery, occasionally requiring Dietz to wear a Sioux headdress on the sidelines and telling players to wear war paint while on the field.

Sounds to me like naming them the Redskins was a cynical marketing ploy. What makes it worse is William Dietz was put on trial, twice!, for posing as a Native American, which he likely did to dodge the draft in WWI.

If we're noting the trials about posing as a Native American are brought up, we should also include that a) the jury was hung.

b) Dietz's personal story is absolutely wild. He was raised by two white parents who were having trouble conceiving. After some time, the husband/father vanished for a day or two. Upon his return, he had with him a baby.

He told his wife that he had been having an affair with a local indigenous woman who lived nearby (I believe on a reservation) and that this child was his and that woman's. And that because he loved his wife and did not love the woman with whom he was having an affair... and because they hadn't been able to conceive a child on their own... he wanted them to raise this child together.

There is no way of knowing (hence the hung jury) if the infant truly belonged to the father at all. Or if the infant truly belonged to an indigenous woman. Or if the infant was kidnapped. No one knows.

But Deitz was then raised by two white parents. Upon learning of his alleged maternal lineage, he got SUPER into native american iconography and culture... but it was the 1920s and 30s. A young white-ish boy "getting into Native iconography" wasn't available in the ways it is now. So he leaned into it as it was known to him--a series of stereotypes. And thus, the namesake for the Washington football team was an honorific for a very misunderstood use of images and identity.


As for the changing meaning of the term, the etymological history of when/if it became pejorative, and if it should have changed, we must simply accept that words have changing and altering meaning within societies. The only point of language is that it helps you communicate ideas. As the understood ideas being communicated by specific words change, so too does the intent and use of the word. I sort of hate it. It invests a LOT of social capital and intellectual heft into re-educating people how words are being used in changing times without significantly changing or altering the underlying attitudes. But it is what it is.

At some point, the name of the football team in Washington became unacceptable to a large enough number of people that it made sense to consider alternatives; and when the trademark applications started coming under fire due to the changing nature of words in our culture, the profitability of NOT changing was threatened. At that point, in a big business in a capitalist society, it's time to change. And honestly, after a generation of fans get old, no one will ever care. It's just not a big deal.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

02 Aug 2023 13:01

This is veering close to podium stuff, but I think we can handle it if it stays as tame and respectful and relevant to team names as it currently is. Hopefully my contribution below remains in, and is read in, that spirit.

If we're noting the trials about posing as a Native American are brought up, we should also include that a) the jury was hung.

b) Dietz's personal story is absolutely wild. He was raised by two white parents who were having trouble conceiving. After some time, the husband/father vanished for a day or two. Upon his return, he was carrying a baby. He told his wife that he had been having an affair with a local indigenous woman who lived nearby, I believe on a reservation.

And that this child was his. And that because he loved his wife and did not love the woman with whom he was having an affair... and because they hadn't been able to conceive a child on their own... he wanted them to raise this child together.

There is no way of knowing (hence the hung jury) if the infant truly belonged to the father at all. Or if the infant truly belonged to an indigenous woman. Or if the infant was kidnapped. No one knows.

But Deitz was then raised by two white parents. Upon learning of his alleged maternal lineage, he got SUPER into native american iconography and culture... but it was the 1920s and 30s. A young white-ish boy "getting into Native iconography" wasn't available in the ways it is now. So he leaned into it as it was known to him--a series of stereotypes. And thus, the namesake for the Washington football team was an honorific for a very misunderstood use of images and identity.

Regarding A: The hung jury was at the first trial. The second time he pleaded "no contest".

Part of the impetus for the trial was that he stole a man named James One Star's identity. Why would he do that if he felt he was really Native? He also claimed to be the "head of an American film company that produced propaganda films for the war." I don't know, this guy seems like he was a serial liar to me.

Pugger wrote: ↑

31 Jul 2023 08:31

I just learned our old pal Amari Rodgers got cut by Houston. What a waste of a pick this was for us.

The Colts signed Amari Rodgers yesterday.

NCF wrote: ↑

04 Aug 2023 08:24

I have a feeling Lewis will be as effective for the Bears as Jimmy Graham was...

meh.

I am not one of those people who think Lewis is a scrub. Great blocking TE, and the value in that is not insignficant.

But this simply amounts to an added annoyance in facing them; it doesn't make them more than a (best case) mediocre team this season, which was what they were before this signing anyway.

NCF wrote: ↑

04 Aug 2023 08:24

There goes my theory that not a single team would sign Lewis if he wasn’t in the Packers. Then again are the Bears a real team? Considering he’s an aging vet and the Bears have no chance at a SB I think it’s safe to say no other team wanted his bummy butt.

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

04 Aug 2023 10:16

NCF wrote: ↑

04 Aug 2023 08:24

There goes my theory that not a single team would sign Lewis if he wasn’t in the Packers. Then again are the Bears a real team? Considering he’s an aging vet and the Bears have no chance at a SB I think it’s safe to say no other team wanted his bummy butt.

the Bear picked him up because they need both better run blocking and pass pro, and Lewis offers that, maybe, whatever this seems like a smart hire for them.

Pugger wrote: ↑

04 Aug 2023 08:31

NCF wrote: ↑

04 Aug 2023 08:24

I have a feeling Lewis will be as effective for the Bears as Jimmy Graham was...

Oh Come On ........

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

04 Aug 2023 10:16

NCF wrote: ↑

04 Aug 2023 08:24

There goes my theory that not a single team would sign Lewis if he wasn’t in the Packers. Then again are the Bears a real team? Considering he’s an aging vet and the Bears have no chance at a SB I think it’s safe to say no other team wanted his bummy butt.

Damn you for stealing the thunder of throwing that in your face...

Bears signed Lewis for him to tell them our secrets. Not for his play.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

04 Aug 2023 19:12

Bears signed Lewis for him to tell them our secrets. Not for his play.

To get info on how good Love really is

All anyone needs to know about marcedes is he’s not a jet

Drj820 wrote: ↑

04 Aug 2023 19:12

Bears signed Lewis for him to tell them our secrets. Not for his play.

I think Lewis was the last available OL candidate worth a damn the Bears can barely field 5 worth while starter caliber OL man, and lewis even though being a TE is probably number 6