This real money site caters to all players, with reviews on mobile games you can play, including slots, blackjack, and roulette.

With Extreme Prejudice

richards.jpg

You know about Jackie Robinson. You know about Satchel Paige. And after the last two weeks, you sure as hell know about Michael Richards. (In case you’ve been under a very large rock, the video clip that’s the source of that particular fuss is available here.) What you probably don’t know about — and what nothing can really prepare you for, so I won’t even try — is this.

That photo is the front side of a postcard, which Uni Watch auction consultant David Brown discovered for sale on eBay. According to the seller, it dates from somewhere between 1904 and 1918, and this appears to be borne out by the jerseys’ pointed collars and other details (although the catcher’s chest protector, with its large panels of padding, looks surprisingly modern).

Phony? Photoshop? Probably not. This 2003 article, part of which is quoted in the eBay listing, says there’s a Nigger Island in Maryland (it’s now technically known as Negro Island), and there used to be another one in Ontario. Such place names were once common, and many of them have endured. According to that same article, America still had at least 144 “Nigger”-identified places in 2003. The controversy surrounding one of them — a Kentucky road called Nigger Fork — is discussed in this 1995 article.

And there’s more. Nigger Island is also the setting for Agatha Christie’s And Then There Were None (no word on whether they had a baseball team), considered by many to be her finest mystery novel, although most recent editions have changed the reference to Indian Island. In fact, the book’s original UK title was Ten Little Niggers (some editions with this title can be seen here and here), after the nursery rhyme we know today as “Ten Little Indians.”

As for the uniforms, there’s an irony — or at least a few shades of complexity — in the sight of an all-white team wearing Nigger Island jerseys. Like, what was the team’s full name, the Nigger Island Caucasians? Did other white teams mock them for wearing “Nigger” on their chests? Or were they proud to wear a racist epithet? Did any of them grow up to play for the old minor league Atlanta Crackers? One thing’s for sure: None of them played for the Crackers’ Negro League counterparts, the paradoxically named Atlanta Black Crackers.

What a mess. I already knew baseball and dysfunctional race relations were both quintessentially American, but I hadn’t thought about them intersecting quite like this before today. And as reader Austin Gray points out, the best commentary may be contained within the photo itself, where one of the guys in the back row has “ISLAND” misspelled as “ILSAND.” A subtle bit of subversion, or a textbook case of stupid is as stupid does? You be the judge.

I trust everyone will keep today’s comments intelligent, rational, and on topic, right? Right.

Contest Update: Thanks and congrats to everyone who entered the Distant Replays $200 gift card quiz/raffle, from Don Norwood, who submitted his entry barely an hour after the quiz was posted last Thursday, to Edward Ra, who clicked “Send” about 90 seconds before last night’s 11pm deadline. (Those who submitted after the deadline — you know who you are — will be entered into the drawing for the wild card berth but will not be eligible for the scoring-based finalist spots.)

A small battalion of trained lemurs is scoring the entries at this very moment (I tried to get chimps but they were too expensive). We should be ready to announce the 11 finalists tomorrow, as long as I don’t run out of Lemur Chow™. Hang tight till then.

Uni Watch News Ticker: That same eBay postcard seller also has this gorgeous 1906 shot — full listing here. … Yesterday’s pics of Marko Jaric’s backwards jersey prompted this recollection from Adam Ross: “Ala Abdelnaby never played when he was with the Blazers in 1992, so it was kind of a big deal when coach Rick Adelman motioned for him to get off the bench one time late in a blowout — except when he took off his warm-up jacket there was nothing on underneath. This led to the strange scene of a topless Ala running into the locker room to retrieve his jersey. He never did get in that night.” … More advertising apparently in store for soccer jerseys. … You can just barely see Hunter Hillenmeyer’s latest torn “C” decal here. … The BC Lions’ orange postseason helmets are up for auction (with thanks to Sheldon Spencer). … All our recent chatter about NFL officials’ garb prompted this hard-line observation from Ben Matthias: “I think it should be noted that the NFL officials don’t follow any protocol on what other accessories can be worn with their uniforms. In the ACC, for example (and in many other D-1 conferences), all members of a crew must wear gloves or nobody does. Same with earmuffs, hand warmers, etc. The NFL is lax on that rule. I think it makes the officiating crew stand out more (in a bad way) when each guy wears different things.” That seems a bit harsh to me. If only one guy wants to wear gloves, let him. … “The secretary where I work brought her high school yearbook to work the other day and I thought I’d take a look at the sports uniforms,” writes Chris Lemley. “It turns out that she graduated from Michigan’s Iron Mountain High School, the alma mater of the pride of the Upper Peninsula, Tom Izzo and Steve Mariucci.” Take a look here and here. … Xavier will be wearing throwbacks tonight (with thanks to Andy Ingram). … Several readers have noted that Seahawks kicker Josh Brown had his earholes covered in Sunday night’s game. I’m assuming he did this for warmth, not to drown out the crowd noise (especially since his earholes have been unobstructed in other road games). … In other placekicker news, Jason Brown notes that Martin Gramatica was wearing his wedding band on Sunday, as you can just barely see here, here, and here.

 

178 comments to With Extreme Prejudice

  • Teebz | December 5, 2006 at 8:35 am |

    Interesting topic, Paul. I was unaware that there were actual places using that “name”, or it’s politically-correct name today. You’d think that as far as humanity has come – space travel, medical achievements, etc. – that we’d be able to fix the injustices of the past.

    Thanks for bringing this to light. Great post.

  • Skip | December 5, 2006 at 8:37 am |

    Obviously if we were naming teams today these examples, and others (Washington Redskins) would never pass. The obvious problem comes from a less tolerant era.

  • Steve from Austin | December 5, 2006 at 8:42 am |

    Wow…

    Great find

  • Pat | December 5, 2006 at 8:58 am |

    Interesting stuff. I don’t feel like it’s my place to comment. So I won’t.

    But I will say this. I am incredibly jealous of Tom Izzo and Steve Mariucci. Those basketball uniforms they got to wear are absolutely gorgeous.

  • BtotheE | December 5, 2006 at 9:10 am |

    Great article and pics.

  • Greg | December 5, 2006 at 9:14 am |

    I like that last picture of Grammatica with the back of the NY jersey reading Short.

    http://espn-i.starwa...

  • Austin Gray | December 5, 2006 at 9:15 am |

    Let me be the first to point out that the player in the middle of the back row has a misspelling on his jersey. It says “ILSAND” instead of “ISLAND.” I find this more than a little funny – you know, racism hand-in-hand with ignorance/stupidity. OK, it was probably just carelessness, but it’s still funny.

  • PDXclark | December 5, 2006 at 9:29 am |

    [quote comment=”26866″]I like that last picture of Grammatica with the back of the NY jersey reading Short.

    http://espn-i.starwa...[/quote]

    How about the fact that he is wearing actual thigh pads- most kickers & some receivers don’t use them at all.

  • Kelli | December 5, 2006 at 9:30 am |

    Looks like Gramatica has been talking to Dre Bly’s tailor.

  • Chad E. | December 5, 2006 at 9:33 am |

    Gramatica wore his wedding ring when he kicked for the Colts this year too.

  • Christopher "fuegote" | December 5, 2006 at 9:48 am |

    I’m just happy Gramatica didn’t pull a muscle or tear anything. :-D.

    Those photos of Izzo and Mariucci are classic. Great unis too.

  • Kenny | December 5, 2006 at 9:57 am |

    [quote comment=”26874″]I’m just happy Gramatica didn’t pull a muscle or tear anything. :-D.

    Those photos of Izzo and Mariucci are classic. Great unis too.[/quote]

    Wasn’t that his brother that got hurt? But I know where you are going with that

  • Richard | December 5, 2006 at 10:14 am |

    [quote comment=”26876″][quote comment=”26874″]I’m just happy Gramatica didn’t pull a muscle or tear anything. :-D.

    Those photos of Izzo and Mariucci are classic. Great unis too.[/quote]

    Wasn’t that his brother that got hurt? But I know where you are going with that[/quote]

    both of them hurt their legs around the same time – celebrating successful field goals.

  • Banker Bill | December 5, 2006 at 10:17 am |

    [quote comment=”26867″]Let me be the first to point out that the player in the middle of the back row has a misspelling on his jersey. It says “ILSAND” instead of “ISLAND.” I find this more than a little funny – you know, racism hand-in-hand with ignorance/stupidity. OK, it was probably just carelessness, but it’s still funny.[/quote]

    That may be the defining moment of the entire situation – you can’t be racist without being stupid.

    What a thought provoking post today Paul. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a uniform that made me want to throw up so much in my life – and that includes the purple unis and the unnecesasry piping. Those are just asthetically not pleasing to look at – the Island (I won’t even dignify the use of the first word) uniforms are truly ugly – in every sense of the word.

  • skott | December 5, 2006 at 10:17 am |

    wow.
    it is completely unbelieveable that there are so many places in the US still with names that are so obviously offensive.

    how does one go about finding this list? i’d love to know where and what they are…ugh.

  • Pat | December 5, 2006 at 10:27 am |

    [quote comment=”26881″][quote comment=”26867″]Let me be the first to point out that the player in the middle of the back row has a misspelling on his jersey. It says “ILSAND” instead of “ISLAND.” I find this more than a little funny – you know, racism hand-in-hand with ignorance/stupidity. OK, it was probably just carelessness, but it’s still funny.[/quote]

    That may be the defining moment of the entire situation – you can’t be racist without being stupid.

    What a thought provoking post today Paul. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a uniform that made me want to throw up so much in my life – and that includes the purple unis and the unnecesasry piping. Those are just asthetically not pleasing to look at – the Island (I won’t even dignify the use of the first word) uniforms are truly ugly – in every sense of the word.[/quote]

    I actually rather like the uniforms from a purely aesthetic standpoint. If you can ignore the use of that particular word in the team name and look at the uniform itself it actually works quite nice. They could ceertainly use some better socks but I like the arched type with the horizontal underneath. I like the collar (what’s up with dude on the left in the middle row? Does he have another collar on under the regular collar?). And, I like the plain white hats.

    The manager on the right has some real awful posture.

  • Christopher | December 5, 2006 at 10:27 am |

    [quote comment=”26882″]wow.
    it is completely unbelieveable that there are so many places in the US still with names that are so obviously offensive.

    how does one go about finding this list? i’d love to know where and what they are…ugh.[/quote]

    Here’s a start:

    http://en.wikipedia....

  • JimmyMac | December 5, 2006 at 10:36 am |

    To MLB’s credit, the retiring of all #42 jerseys Leaguewide while a minor gesture is significant in the bigger picture when you see this crap.

    This insideous stuff makes me sick. Kudos to Paul for bringing it up (as difficult as is to confront) and addressing it today…

    As a lifelong Blackhawks fan I get uncomfortable seeing Hawks fans facepainted in war paint and such. Yet, I admire the graphic integrity of which the team crest is handled…somewhat hypocrital…geez, I hope not.

    On a lighter note… I really like the Springfield Cardinals minor league identity…system relevant, animated and attractive… but not looking like the latest plush toy packaging from Fisher-Price. I detest the continued dumbing down of minor league marks…but that’s just me.

  • Steve | December 5, 2006 at 10:38 am |

    As for Izzo and Mariucci’s uniform, they look like a copy of the early 1970’s Marquette basketball uniforms. Maybe someone could find a picture.

  • joe | December 5, 2006 at 10:38 am |

    Interesting…but the use of a word doesn’t connote racism. The baseball players in the picture are not automatically racist because they are wearing the name of a locale that (today) we consider controversial.

    I think we all get too bent out of shape over words, when its action and behavior that really matters. Michael Richards’s actions were over the top and malicious (reminded me of the scene from Blazing Saddles when the Sheriff rides into town for the first time).The use of the word nigger on a place name and subsequently on the jersey of a 1920s era bush-league ball club is hardly equivalent to the racist rantings of a hack comedian or even burning a cross.

    Just a thought, but if pre-20th century Americans attached the same intentionally derogatory connotation to the word nigger that we do today, wouldn’t most white Americans be uncomfortable telling others that they lived on Nigger Island, or played for the Nigger Island Baseball Team? I’m just asking people to look at it in its historical context in addition to applying a 21st century perspective.

    Interesting bit of American history.

  • JimmyMac | December 5, 2006 at 10:42 am |

    Speaking of Blackhawks…great footage from late 60’s before helmets, dasherboard signage and logos on the ice visually obliterated hockey…

    http://www.youtube.c...

    Old theme song included…

  • tedkerwin | December 5, 2006 at 10:49 am |
  • Pat McDermott | December 5, 2006 at 10:51 am |

    About Brown’s covered earholes:
    I know that playing high school football in Central Pennsylvania it was quite common for players to tape their earholes at practice or even for playoff games in late November – early December. It’s amazing how much warmer you feel when two strips of athletic tape are applied to your helmet.

  • Banker Bill | December 5, 2006 at 10:51 am |

    [quote comment=”26889″]Interesting…but the use of a word doesn’t connote racism. The baseball players in the picture are not automatically racist because they are wearing the name of a locale that (today) we consider controversial.

    I think we all get too bent out of shape over words, when its action and behavior that really matters. Michael Richards’s actions were over the top and malicious (reminded me of the scene from Blazing Saddles when the Sheriff rides into town for the first time).The use of the word nigger on a place name and subsequently on the jersey of a 1920s era bush-league ball club is hardly equivalent to the racist rantings of a hack comedian or even burning a cross.

    Just a thought, but if pre-20th century Americans attached the same intentionally derogatory connotation to the word nigger that we do today, wouldn’t most white Americans be uncomfortable telling others that they lived on Nigger Island, or played for the Nigger Island Baseball Team? I’m just asking people to look at it in its historical context in addition to applying a 21st century perspective.

    Interesting bit of American history.[/quote]

    Joe, I thought the same thing as you – until I thought about it a little more – I think blatant racists in their own warped way would be PROUD to wear such things because it reinforces their beliefs. Everyone else is right though – I understand that it was acceptable vernacular back then, and as part of the history it should be noted and discussed – but as a 36 year old white person, I was raised to ALWAYS associate that word with a negative connotation. I guess I am a product of my upbringing – as are the players in the photo.

  • JimmyMac | December 5, 2006 at 10:52 am |

    And yet we sure can roll out the “nationalism” when we really want to…The 1991 National Anthem (for the Madhouse on Madison) and Kate Smith bringing down the Spectrum… outstanding…

    http://www.youtube.c....

    http://www.youtube.c...

  • Richard | December 5, 2006 at 11:25 am |

    [quote comment=”26896″]And yet we sure can roll out the “nationalism” when we really want to…The 1991 National Anthem (for the Madhouse on Madison) and Kate Smith bringing down the Spectrum… outstanding…

    http://www.youtube.c....

    http://www.youtube.c...

    this one – Super Bowl 25 – is one of the best performed renditions ever.

  • Paulio | December 5, 2006 at 11:34 am |

    [quote comment=”26895″][quote comment=”26889″]Interesting…but the use of a word doesn’t connote racism. The baseball players in the picture are not automatically racist because they are wearing the name of a locale that (today) we consider controversial.

    I think we all get too bent out of shape over words, when its action and behavior that really matters. Michael Richards’s actions were over the top and malicious (reminded me of the scene from Blazing Saddles when the Sheriff rides into town for the first time).The use of the word nigger on a place name and subsequently on the jersey of a 1920s era bush-league ball club is hardly equivalent to the racist rantings of a hack comedian or even burning a cross.

    Just a thought, but if pre-20th century Americans attached the same intentionally derogatory connotation to the word nigger that we do today, wouldn’t most white Americans be uncomfortable telling others that they lived on Nigger Island, or played for the Nigger Island Baseball Team? I’m just asking people to look at it in its historical context in addition to applying a 21st century perspective.

    Interesting bit of American history.[/quote]

    Joe, I thought the same thing as you – until I thought about it a little more – I think blatant racists in their own warped way would be PROUD to wear such things because it reinforces their beliefs. Everyone else is right though – I understand that it was acceptable vernacular back then, and as part of the history it should be noted and discussed – but as a 36 year old white person, I was raised to ALWAYS associate that word with a negative connotation. I guess I am a product of my upbringing – as are the players in the photo.[/quote]

    If you read the Wikipedia link that Christopher included you’ll find in there that the term did not have the harsh stigma attached to it as it does now until the 1960 (which is why as a 36-yr.-old you have heard it as a taboo word your whole life, Banker Bill.) It goes on to say that authors, such as the celebrated Mark Twain used it until the late 1800s.

    Although a lot can change in a decade or two, seeing as how Paul and the auctioneer estimate this to be before 1920, I don’t see how anyone should assume that these ballplayers were racist. It seems to me that it’d be the equivalent of someone from African-American Island to be wearing that on their jerseys. I’m with Joe on this one… Bill, I think you are digging too deep and looking for controversy where there is none.

  • iowaboy277 | December 5, 2006 at 11:47 am |

    [quote comment=”26882″]how does one go about finding this list? i’d love to know where and what they are…ugh.[/quote]

    You can search the Geographic Names Information Service from the U.S. Dept. of Interior and U.S. Geological Survey.

    A search for the n-word there yields 190 hits, though all of them apparently part of variant names and not current, standard names.

  • Minna H. | December 5, 2006 at 11:56 am |

    [quote comment=”26902″]

    If you read the Wikipedia link that Christopher included you’ll find in there that the term did not have the harsh stigma attached to it as it does now until the 1960 (which is why as a 36-yr.-old you have heard it as a taboo word your whole life, Banker Bill.) It goes on to say that authors, such as the celebrated Mark Twain used it until the late 1800s.

    Although a lot can change in a decade or two, seeing as how Paul and the auctioneer estimate this to be before 1920, I don’t see how anyone should assume that these ballplayers were racist. It seems to me that it’d be the equivalent of someone from African-American Island to be wearing that on their jerseys. I’m with Joe on this one… Bill, I think you are digging too deep and looking for controversy where there is none.[/quote]

    I am at work, but I had to comment on this. Just because it wasn’t a term of derision back then doesn’t make it not racist to wear it. I flinched at seeing the word, as I flinched when reading ‘Jap’–also a commonly accepted term during WWII.

    Take the Washington football team. It is an offensive slang term, and yet, it is still being worn. With pride by some. To me, the casual use of the term in a time when said community in question has less or no rights is indicative of the problems of racism.

    Paulio, African American is an accepted term (sort of) by blacks today. No matter how accepted that term was back then, I highly doubt that black people (with no rights) liked hearing it. Banker Bill in not digging too deep on this one, and I do feel there is more to the issue than just, ‘Oh, well. That’s how it was back then.’

    Words lead to action. Words allow us to communicate. I think words even shape our thoughts and belief.

    No witty repartee in this post—just my heated opinion.

  • Leigh | December 5, 2006 at 11:57 am |

    I’m not sure if it’s been touched on yet, but Korea is wearing, what appears to be, a new batting helmet for the Asian Games. With the back view here and here it looks like Nike has taken a hockey helmet and put a bill on it.

  • seth | December 5, 2006 at 12:04 pm |

    if you look at the catcher’s chest protector in the Nigger Island picture, it looks pretty close to the same as the one in the Wellington HS picture. That may be evidence of not photoshoping.

  • DJ | December 5, 2006 at 12:05 pm |

    As a lifelong Blackhawks fan I get uncomfortable seeing Hawks fans facepainted in war paint and such. Yet, I admire the graphic integrity of which the team crest is handled…somewhat hypocrital…geez, I hope not.

    The Blackhawks are named after the Blackhawk Regiment of WW I, which was named after the Sauk and Fox Chief Black Hawk. A specific person in history; kind of like naming a team the Napoleons, or the Caesars. The Blackhawks do a good job of avoiding offensive imagery in their logos and mascot (the Indian Head, the crossed tomahawks over the “C”, the recently-added Tommy Hawk mascot (a black bird wearing the four feathers). Fans in Indian “warpaint” and headdresses are over the top. There aren’t too many of those, though.

  • specs | December 5, 2006 at 12:07 pm |

    I consent that the historical context of the Island baseball team makes each individual player’s beliefs on race a gray area. However, as Minna mentioned, there are equivalents today, which have absolutely no defense in a historical context, with the Washington Redskins being the most offensive and obvious example. I think only Native Americans can really say what is and is offensive to them (i.e. the Seminole tribe OK’ing FSU’s logo and mascot), but I’d be willing to bet that “Redskins” is nowhere near acceptable. We can sit here and talk about how offensive a 1920s baseball team name was, but how can we look down at them when we do nothing about current offenses of the same extreme?

  • specs | December 5, 2006 at 12:09 pm |

    That should read “what is or is not offensive”

  • Teebz | December 5, 2006 at 12:26 pm |

    [quote comment=”26902″]

    If you read the Wikipedia link that Christopher included you’ll find in there that the term did not have the harsh stigma attached to it as it does now until the 1960 (which is why as a 36-yr.-old you have heard it as a taboo word your whole life, Banker Bill.) It goes on to say that authors, such as the celebrated Mark Twain used it until the late 1800s.

    Although a lot can change in a decade or two, seeing as how Paul and the auctioneer estimate this to be before 1920, I don’t see how anyone should assume that these ballplayers were racist. It seems to me that it’d be the equivalent of someone from African-American Island to be wearing that on their jerseys. I’m with Joe on this one… Bill, I think you are digging too deep and looking for controversy where there is none.[/quote]

    No one is saying they are racist. In fact, I agree that it was an acceptable term. The problem is that the associated connotation on the word has changed, and it is no longer used in the same form as what it was. This is why it is offensive to us in today’s society.

    The swastika was once a symbol of peace before being used by the Nazi Party in Germany. We all know the images the swastika carries now.

    Gay means happy, but if someone said you were gay, you’d probably assume the negative connotation before the accepting the original definition of the word.

    As for the Blackhawks, the Seminoles, the Fighting Sioux, the Braves, the Redskins, et cetera… I don’t have a problem with these names. While some may take offense to them, I think they are a sign of respect of a team who proudly walks onto a field of battle. While it is somewhat politically incorrect, they honour a heritage and the people of that heritage in a way that is inoffensive. Redskins is probably as close as one can get in team names in regards to being remotely disrespectful, but doesn’t that represent all aboriginal people without creed or geographical location?

    Just as a disclaimer, I am open to intelligent discussion about this. If you want to rip me, please take your discussion elsewhere. Thank you. :o)

  • Flounder | December 5, 2006 at 12:28 pm |

    [quote comment=”26871″]Gramatica wore his wedding ring when he kicked for the Colts this year too.[/quote]

    Billy Cundiff had his on too while kicking off for the Saints this weekend.

  • Pat | December 5, 2006 at 12:30 pm |

    [quote]If you read the Wikipedia link that Christopher included you’ll find in there that the term did not have the harsh stigma attached to it as it does now until the 1960 (which is why as a 36-yr.-old you have heard it as a taboo word your whole life, Banker Bill.) It goes on to say that authors, such as the celebrated Mark Twain used it until the late 1800s.

    Although a lot can change in a decade or two, seeing as how Paul and the auctioneer estimate this to be before 1920, I don’t see how anyone should assume that these ballplayers were racist. It seems to me that it’d be the equivalent of someone from African-American Island to be wearing that on their jerseys. I’m with Joe on this one… Bill, I think you are digging too deep and looking for controversy where there is none. [/quote]

    Completely agree. Just because you where the shirt does not mean you should be immediately condemned a racist. As the article in reference states, the term was not a harsh racist term like it is now. But that’s beside the point. The name of the island from which this team hailed was “Nigger Island.” Why does wearing the name of your hometown/island immediately make you a blatant racist? Sure, as it was the early 1900s, a few of them may have been guilty of bigotry but to accuse an entire team of such a vice even isn’t right.

    The use of the word “nigger” was not only to define a specific group of people but also to lump them together without proper judgement. Isn’t that what Banker Bill and Minna H are doing by suggesting that every member of the team is racist because of a name that is on their jersey?

    Being brought up in a modern society and being told that this word has such harsh meaning is understandable. But isn’t it also understandable that the players in those pictures were brought up knowing that this word was acceptable and did not do any harm when used? They almost certainly didn’t know any better. Between it being an accepted word and the name of their country I don’t see how you can immediately accuse any of them of anything more than ignorance.

  • Pat | December 5, 2006 at 12:32 pm |

    Sorry, “island” not “country” in that last paragraph.

  • Scott Barkett | December 5, 2006 at 12:35 pm |

    I dunno if anyone else mentioned this yet in a comment, but the Browns defense had cotton in their earholes against the Chiefs this sunday.

  • Timmy D | December 5, 2006 at 12:36 pm |

    Just have to say I loved that video about the Blackhawks. A good point made about the name of the team being named after the regiment by way of the great Indian chief who like every story about Indians turns out tragically (even though he fought valiantly and is revered here in Illinois and also in Wisconsin). The name of the team was Black Hawks, which lends more legitimacy to the name, it was not until the 80’s that they changed it,

    In 1986, while going through the team’s records, someone discovered the team’s original NHL contract, and found that the name “Blackhawks” was printed as a compound word as opposed to two separate words (“Black Hawks”) which was the way most sources had been printing it and as the team had always officially listed it. The name officially became “Chicago Blackhawks” from that point on.

    which I guess takes away some of the legitimacy of it seeing as it was not a two part name to begin with, but nonetheless it is still done tastefully and beautifully. I commented last night that Chicago had the best uniforms collectively (all major sports) in the country. Those uniforms are just spectacular, as are all Chicago home/away uniforms (alternates…ehhh) even the cubbies, yes Minna, I am a Sox fan, you hit it right on the head.

    It is amazing how much one word can mean so much in this world. How much hatred and pain can come through six letters and it is still sad that people still have to resort to words that are so hateful. Even though in the context of their time it was acceptable for whites, it was still a racist slur and does not take them off the hook. Another wonderful post Paul.

  • kevlay | December 5, 2006 at 12:36 pm |

    from dictionary.com:
    red·skin
    –noun Slang: Often Disparaging and Offensive. a North American Indian.

    cleary, redskin is a derogatory term for Indians, and does not “honor” them in any way. it amazes me that washington still uses this nickname.

  • joe | December 5, 2006 at 12:37 pm |

    For Redskins discussion, read this article from 2002.

  • Timmy D | December 5, 2006 at 12:39 pm |

    Sorry, the quote i used was from wikipedia, as a college student i should know better and cite my source.

  • Patrick | December 5, 2006 at 12:49 pm |

    I beleive that the use of any Indian mascot or logo is offensive, even if it is done to honor a certain chief or tribe. There is a very interesting article here about the psychological effects of the use of Indian mascots. I believe that one of the best arguments against their use is stated in point 10, which argues… “Indian” mascots “freeze” Indigenous Peoples in a romanticized historical period that ended over a century ago – and which in truth never existed. By continuing to portray American Indians in such a manner the reality of how First Nations peoples are today – living, struggling and adapting like everyone else in the modern world – is set askew.

  • Andy (#11) | December 5, 2006 at 12:49 pm |

    One thing I think is interesting in the N-word Island photo is that most of the players have their caps tilted to the right side. At first I thought maybe it was some sort of gang sign…a shout-out to their fellow racist peeps, but then I decided that they’re probably just using the brims to shield their eyes from the sun.

  • joe | December 5, 2006 at 12:51 pm |

    I’m not offended in the least. Actually its pretty funny.

  • J. Mark English | December 5, 2006 at 12:56 pm |

    Hello,

    This is a great blog. I’m going to be sure to link yours to mine. Would you mind doing the same for me?

    Thank you very much.

    My site:
    http://www.americanl...
    Take care,
    Mark

  • joe | December 5, 2006 at 1:00 pm |

    [quote comment=”26922″]I beleive that the use of any Indian mascot or logo is offensive, even if it is done to honor a certain chief or tribe. There is a very interesting article here about the psychological effects of the use of Indian mascots. I believe that one of the best arguments against their use is stated in point 10, which argues…

    “Indian” mascots “freeze” Indigenous Peoples in a romanticized historical period that ended over a century ago – and which in truth never existed. By continuing to portray American Indians in such a manner the reality of how First Nations peoples are today – living, struggling and adapting like everyone else in the modern world – is set askew.[/quote]

    I read those points. Most of them are ungrounded, uncited ridiculous assumptions. Moreover, the article is unsigned, which should tip you off about its credibility, and the site looks like it was put together by a middle school student.

    For some reason, I can’t convince myself that a struggling Washington area football team somehow is setting back an entire group of people. Jim Thorpe didn’t seem to have much trouble.

  • specs | December 5, 2006 at 1:04 pm |

    [quote comment=”26924″]I’m not offended in the least. Actually its pretty funny.[/quote]

    Me neither, but that has absolutely no bearing on the other issues at hand. White people living in America (like myself) have never had to deal with racism, slavery, internment camps, reservations, or restricted (or completely non-existent) civil rights. What we find offensive, in my opinion, is completely irrelevant.

    Teebz, I’m not trying to rip you, but I don’t see how “Redskins” could not be considered offensive. If a team was called the “Blackskins” or the “Yellowskins” and had a picture (caricature or not) of a black person or an Asian person, I’m pretty sure black or Asian people would be upset about it. As a white person, I’m not in a valid position to define what is or is not offensive to other people. I personally find “Redskins” offensive, as well as as the Cleveland Indians’ Chief Wahoo, or any other logo, mascot, or team name that simplifies (and in my opinion, demeans) any group of people.

  • Pat | December 5, 2006 at 1:05 pm |

    [quote comment=”26921″]Sorry, the quote i used was from wikipedia, as a college student i should know better and cite my source.[/quote]

    But, as a college student, shouldn’t you also know that as a professor of mine once put it: “Any paper citing wikipedia will be failed.”

  • Timmy D | December 5, 2006 at 1:12 pm |

    [quote comment=”26928″][quote comment=”26921″]Sorry, the quote i used was from wikipedia, as a college student i should know better and cite my source.[/quote]

    But, as a college student, shouldn’t you also know that as a professor of mine once put it: “Any paper citing wikipedia will be failed.”[/quote]

    Damn, got me there

  • Minna H. | December 5, 2006 at 1:15 pm |

    [quote comment=”26914″]
    Completely agree. Just because you where the shirt does not mean you should be immediately condemned a racist. As the article in reference states, the term was not a harsh racist term like it is now. But that’s beside the point. The name of the island from which this team hailed was “Nigger Island.” Why does wearing the name of your hometown/island immediately make you a blatant racist? Sure, as it was the early 1900s, a few of them may have been guilty of bigotry but to accuse an entire team of such a vice even isn’t right.

    The use of the word “nigger” was not only to define a specific group of people but also to lump them together without proper judgement. Isn’t that what Banker Bill and Minna H are doing by suggesting that every member of the team is racist because of a name that is on their jersey?

    Being brought up in a modern society and being told that this word has such harsh meaning is understandable. But isn’t it also understandable that the players in those pictures were brought up knowing that this word was acceptable and did not do any harm when used? They almost certainly didn’t know any better. Between it being an accepted word and the name of their country I don’t see how you can immediately accuse any of them of anything more than ignorance.[/quote]

    Pat, I am not saying they were all racist. What I am saying is that they lived in racist times (don’t we all), and the word in and of itself is racist. I am also saying they benefit from that time solely because of their race. They didn’t play against people of color, for example, to keep it in the context of sports.

    Teebz, I respectfully disagree that the names are a tribute–especially not Washington. Nor do I see the fans, such as Atlanta, being respectful with their behavior. As for the Fighting Whities, there is just no equivalent derogatory term for white people.

    joe, it is disingenious to bring up one person and say that it didn’t harm him, and therefore it’s all right. The name of a team is not the most important problem faced by any group, but, again, it is indicative of the disregard the majority has for a minority.

    As someone who has been called chink, gook, jap, bitch and cunt—I can tell you that words do hurt and that they are destructive.

  • joe | December 5, 2006 at 1:15 pm |

    [quote comment=”26927″]White people living in America (like myself) have never had to deal with racism, slavery, internment camps, reservations, or restricted (or completely non-existent) civil rights.[/quote]

    Please speak for yourself, although I don’t want to get into a drawn out discussion about it.

  • Minna H. | December 5, 2006 at 1:24 pm |

    [quote comment=”26932″][quote comment=”26927″]White people living in America (like myself) have never had to deal with racism, slavery, internment camps, reservations, or restricted (or completely non-existent) civil rights.[/quote]

    Please speak for yourself, although I don’t want to get into a drawn out discussion about it.[/quote]

    joe, you may have felt prejudice or discrimination on some level (if you are white), but not the rest as dictated by goverment. There is a difference.

  • joe | December 5, 2006 at 1:25 pm |

    [quote comment=”26931″]
    joe, it is disingenious to bring up one person and say that it didn’t harm him, and therefore it’s all right.
    [/quote]

    Conversely, it is similarly disingenuous to bring up another individual or minority (of persons) who does find a word offensive or harmful, and therefore, the word must be offensive and treated as taboo by the public as a whole. If any of you had bothered to read the Washington Post article, you would have learned that an American Indian leader was partially responsible for the current Redskins Indian head logo IN THE 1960s.

  • specs | December 5, 2006 at 1:25 pm |

    [quote comment=”26932″][quote comment=”26927″]White people living in America (like myself) have never had to deal with racism, slavery, internment camps, reservations, or restricted (or completely non-existent) civil rights.[/quote]

    Please speak for yourself, although I don’t want to get into a drawn out discussion about it.[/quote]

    Perhaps you’ve been the target of racist coments or behavior. If so, then I apologize for lumping you in with myself and the white Americans I know. Obviously, I don’t know what you’ve experienced, but no matter what was said/done to you, I don’t believe it carries the same weight as what many non-white people have gone through in America, because it lacks the same social and historical context, which does play a role in these issues.

  • Pat | December 5, 2006 at 1:33 pm |

    [quote]Pat, I am not saying they were all racist. What I am saying is that they lived in racist times (don’t we all), and the word in and of itself is racist. I am also saying they benefit from that time solely because of their race. They didn’t play against people of color, for example, to keep it in the context of sports.[/quote]

    Maybe I misunderstood your original statement. I don’t think you can put blame on these people just because of the time period they happened to live in though. I may be wrong, but it seems like you are by saying they “benefitted from that time solely because of their race.” Maybe I’m taking it the wrong way again but I think cultural norms have a lot more to do with the issue here than any of these people’s personal beliefs.

    For the record I have to agree with the nickname ‘Redskins’ being offensive. I, personally, am not offended by it but I can see how it would be the same as calling a team the Washington Spics or the Washington Heebs. Both offensive words to one particular group of people but don’t really affect another. But, I don’t think that some native american based logos should be considered offensive. While I was at Merrimack College they had to change their logo from this to this. Seems to me that the logo depicting the native american was more of an honor than slight. Although I can see the issue with this, especially given his nickname (Chief Wahoo).

  • Paulio | December 5, 2006 at 1:39 pm |

    I think Minna’s missing my point. The word was not racist at that point in time, therefore how can we say that the players wearing the jerseys were.

    It’s kind of the opposite of what happened with the word Yankee. Before the Revolution, the British used it as a derogatory word, so had they had a soccer team called Yankee Island F.C. that could have meant they were using it in a malicious way. Nowadays we’d just assume that they were from a place called Yankee Island.

  • Pat | December 5, 2006 at 1:52 pm |

    [quote comment=”26934″][quote comment=”26931″]
    joe, it is disingenious to bring up one person and say that it didn’t harm him, and therefore it’s all right.
    [/quote]

    Conversely, it is similarly disingenuous to bring up another individual or minority (of persons) who does find a word offensive or harmful, and therefore, the word must be offensive and treated as taboo by the public as a whole. If any of you had bothered to read the Washington Post article, you would have learned that an American Indian leader was partially responsible for the current Redskins Indian head logo IN THE 1960s.[/quote]

    Joe,
    The point of your post is half the problem. We held very different values as a society back in the 1960s and even further back when the team migrated from Boston. Back in the 60s “nigger” was still a commonly used term. We were still a segregated society. Women were barely getting rights for which the entire country has taken for advantage in recent years. Whether or not a leader from the Blackfoot tribe wanted to help with the logo in the 1960s and was not offended by it does not mean that with the maturation of a more culturally accepting society Native Americans have not realized just how offensive the name ‘Redskins’ is.

    I forgot to mention before that the Merrimack College nickname was ‘Warriors.’ That is part of what made it seem like more of an honor for the Native American depiction in their logo. Seeing as how the Redskins have a similar logo and not a cartoonish representation they may be better served changing their nickname as opposed to their logo. I don’t really have a problem with depicting Native Americans in a proudm powerful role but no matter how respectful the logo may be calling them ‘Redskins’ is almost certainly offensive. No matter what the writer from the Post says.

  • Pat | December 5, 2006 at 1:53 pm |

    The country has taken their rights ‘for granted’ not ‘for advantage.’ I really should proof read before I hit “Say It”

  • Nolan | December 5, 2006 at 2:10 pm |

    I had a NCAA basketball jersey revelation the other day that was not specifically mentioned in the espn article.

    Up early watching SportsCenter and there were a ton of basketball highlights on. I noticed you only see close ups of the players from around the numbers up, and in those shots there was not a swoosh to be found or an adidas logo or any other manufacturer logo either.

    Curious, I looked it up. No logos are allowed on the jersey by NCAA rule.

    This explains the Nike shoulder stripe, it’s a swoosh without being a swoosh, a way to get around the rule. Lame.

  • JimmyMac | December 5, 2006 at 2:13 pm |

    There are certainly many team names (mascots) that that can be considered border line racist (or at least ethnically insensitive)… Redskins, Indians and mascots such as Chief Illiniwek for the Figthin’ Illini.

    http://static.flickr...

    As an Irish-American, some have even made the case the ND Fightin’ Irish logo suggests Irish folks look like leprechans and are willing to fight at the drop of a hat. I do not feel this way but see how some can make this point.

    http://realhoboken.c...

    Since day one, the Atlanta Braves tomahawk chop is the most ridiculous chant and it’s really unfortunate that it continues even today…totally ridiculous…and the team supports it with a neon grapchic and piped in music…no B.S.

    http://www.youtube.c...

    I mean come on…try something else…

  • ACC (the Brain) | December 5, 2006 at 2:20 pm |

    [quote comment=”26937″][quote]Pat, I am not saying they were all racist. What I am saying is that they lived in racist times (don’t we all), and the word in and of itself is racist. I am also saying they benefit from that time solely because of their race. They didn’t play against people of color, for example, to keep it in the context of sports.[/quote]

    Maybe I misunderstood your original statement. I don’t think you can put blame on these people just because of the time period they happened to live in though. I may be wrong, but it seems like you are by saying they “benefitted from that time solely because of their race.” Maybe I’m taking it the wrong way again but I think cultural norms have a lot more to do with the issue here than any of these people’s personal beliefs.

    For the record I have to agree with the nickname ‘Redskins’ being offensive. I, personally, am not offended by it but I can see how it would be the same as calling a team the Washington Spics or the Washington Heebs. Both offensive words to one particular group of people but don’t really affect another. But, I don’t think that some native american based logos should be considered offensive. While I was at Merrimack College they had to change their logo from this to this. Seems to me that the logo depicting the native american was more of an honor than slight. Although I can see the issue with this, especially given his nickname (Chief Wahoo).[/quote]

    This site could do a public service and design a new plainer Redskins logo – sans the face. It’s time to get away from the offensive logo. Snyder will take flak for this but in the long run the NFL would benefit and fewer people will be offended.

    My concern is the logo would still be in demand because it would become a retro logo. But there could be a rule prohibiting sales of new merchandise displaying the old logo.

    I would start by researching old Redskins games and stories and incorporating something of importance into the new logo.

  • kevlay | December 5, 2006 at 2:22 pm |

    next uni topic: cheerleader uniforms.
    make it happen, paul.

  • Chad G | December 5, 2006 at 2:36 pm |

    [quote comment=”26949″]next uni topic: cheerleader uniforms.
    make it happen, paul.[/quote]

    hehe,

    these win by far…Simple, clean, and…you know what else

  • joe | December 5, 2006 at 2:40 pm |

    Ives Goddard, a linguist with the Smithsonian, posits that the term Redskin came from literal translations of the Native American term for themselves (in relation to White skins).

    Most of the historical record (by this research) would support the contention that redskin was not used in a derogatory manner. James Fenimore Cooper (“Last of the Mohicans) used it regularly, and his novels consistently celebrated Native American culture. In fact, redskin was not considered derogatory until the related victim class decided so in the latter half of the twentieth century, in spite of the fact that the intentions of most people who had used the expression in that century were not derogatory but meant to recall romantic ideals of valor, pride, and athleticism associated with Native Americans, ideals they would like to impart upon their cherished football team.

    Who then is responsible for turning redskin into a derogatory word? Not the mainstream society, but the victim class who feigns injury.

  • al | December 5, 2006 at 2:42 pm |

    [quote comment=”26951″][quote comment=”26949″]next uni topic: cheerleader uniforms.
    make it happen, paul.[/quote]

    hehe,

    these win by far…Simple, clean, and…you know what else[/quote]

    Thanks Chad on two fronts):

    1. for attempting to divert the thread to a more lighthearted, uni-centric tangent.
    2. for posting a picture of my favorite girls… if only one of them were Minnie Driver & an Almost famous-era Kate Hudson….(heart flutters).

  • Lou | December 5, 2006 at 2:44 pm |

    [quote comment=”26948″]

    This site could do a public service and design a new plainer Redskins logo – sans the face. It’s time to get away from the offensive logo. Snyder will take flak for this but in the long run the NFL would benefit and fewer people will be offended.

    My concern is the logo would still be in demand because it would become a retro logo. But there could be a rule prohibiting sales of new merchandise displaying the old logo.

    I would start by researching old Redskins games and stories and incorporating something of importance into the new logo.[/quote]

    I would like to see them go back to the old yellow helmet with the red “R” logo in the circle. Simple, elegant and less offensive.

  • Matty L. | December 5, 2006 at 2:51 pm |

    The ABA expansion team in Quebec City next year was originally gonna be named the Jumping Frogs but a fan poll switched the name to Kebekwa or Kebs for short. Logo and mascot are still a frog though apparently.

    I don’t find it offensive at all, and I’ve got French-Canadian heritage so I see people making a fuss over it as pretty stupid, especially seeing as a Quebecois businessman owns the team.

  • Metsfan AZ | December 5, 2006 at 2:52 pm |

    [quote comment=”26954″][quote comment=”26948″]

    This site could do a public service and design a new plainer Redskins logo – sans the face. It’s time to get away from the offensive logo. Snyder will take flak for this but in the long run the NFL would benefit and fewer people will be offended.

    My concern is the logo would still be in demand because it would become a retro logo. But there could be a rule prohibiting sales of new merchandise displaying the old logo.

    I would start by researching old Redskins games and stories and incorporating something of importance into the new logo.[/quote]

    I would like to see them go back to the old yellow helmet with the red “R” logo in the circle. Simple, elegant and less offensive.[/quote]
    Did they ever have the arrow and feathers that FSU has? I thought I saw something like that once.

  • Teebz | December 5, 2006 at 2:57 pm |

    I respect the opinions given. Thanks for the intellectual conversation and refraining from any irrational ranting.

    Minna, as for “Fighting Whities”, weren’t the Yankees a group of white people who fought? While the stigma is not negative due to their fighting for a good cause, it is still a term to label a bunch of people. This would also apply to the Philadelphia Quakers.
    I agree that Redskins is a term that is bordering on insulting. However, this wasn’t what was intended in 1933 when the team changed names. “The city of Boston, Massachusetts was awarded an NFL franchise in 1932, under the ownership of George Preston Marshall.
    Initially the new team took the same name as its landlords, the Boston Braves, one of the two local baseball teams at the time. When the football team moved to Fenway Park (home of the Boston Red Sox) the next year, Marshall also changed the name of the football Braves to the ‘Redskins’, to honor their head coach, who claimed Sioux ancestry, and to further distinguish the team from its ex-landlords”.
    However, “George Preston Marshall, owner and founder of the franchise, sought to rename the Boston Braves after leaving the stadium they shared with the baseball team of the same name. He chose the name Boston Redskins in honor of William Henry ‘Lone Star’ Dietz, who falsely claimed to be part ‘Sioux’. In fact Dietz was entirely of European ancestry, as was proven by an Indian Country Today article”.
    In fact, the Redskins have a much more insulting past. The Redskins were the last team to be integrated. “Under threat of civil rights legal action by the Kennedy administration, which would have prevented a segregated team from playing at the new District of Columbia Stadium, as it was owned by the U.S. Department of the Interior and thus federal government property, the Redskins became the final pro football franchise to integrate, in 1962, its second season in the stadium.”
    Personally, if you ask me, a team being forced to integrate by the American Government because the owner doesn’t want to integrate would be far higher up the list of things that offend me than the name “Redskins”.

  • JimmyMac | December 5, 2006 at 2:57 pm |

    THE HISTORY

    ‘Redskin’ Through the Years.

    Red Cloud. Red Thunder. Red Eagle. Redlands. Red Mud.

    “The term redskin, applied by Europeans to Algonquians in general and the Delawares in particular,” says the Reader’s Digest in its book America’s Fascinating Indian Heritage.” was inspired not by their natural complexion but by their fondness for vermillion makeup, concocted from fat mixed with berry juice and minerals that provided the desired color.”

    The men “would streak their faces and bodies with bright red ocher and bloodroot,” adds the Reader’s Digest.

    Indians painted their skin for decorative and ceremonial purposes. “Red is generally accepted as being one of the colors most easily available to and most used by Indians,” As Ronald P. Koch states in his book Dress Clothing of the Plains Indians.

    FYI- Some inside information from a contact who worked at the Redskins and sent me this…he also suggested that the ‘Skins would have a very difficult time making any changes to their marks because of litigation surrounding this sensitive topic…Not to come to the defense of Dan Snyder…God forbid, but sounds like a case of you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t if you are trying to rebrand the Redskins.

  • Monkeysandwich | December 5, 2006 at 2:58 pm |

    Like many of you, I visit Uni Watch for information on 82-year-old seamstresses, helmet stickers, and….hardcore social justice. I can’t figure out why the Redskins don’t go back to these helmets and replace the “profile logo.”

    I liked them when they used them as the throwback unis.

  • Chad G | December 5, 2006 at 2:59 pm |

    Al, this is for you

    I have also had enough of the offensive logo/sports name discussion. All these long posts with no pictures is making my time wasting at work not as enjoyable as usual.

    Also I kinda even feel more comfortable displaying pictures of hot cheerleaders on my computer screen more so than a discussion of the N word. Just seeing it typed gives me the willies a little.

  • Natron | December 5, 2006 at 3:01 pm |

    [quote comment=”26952″]Ives Goddard, a linguist with the Smithsonian, posits that the term Redskin came from literal translations of the Native American term for themselves (in relation to White skins).

    Most of the historical record (by this research) would support the contention that redskin was not used in a derogatory manner. James Fenimore Cooper (“Last of the Mohicans) used it regularly, and his novels consistently celebrated Native American culture. In fact, redskin was not considered derogatory until the related victim class decided so in the latter half of the twentieth century, in spite of the fact that the intentions of most people who had used the expression in that century were not derogatory but meant to recall romantic ideals of valor, pride, and athleticism associated with Native Americans, ideals they would like to impart upon their cherished football team.

    Who then is responsible for turning redskin into a derogatory word? Not the mainstream society, but the victim class who feigns injury.[/quote]

    I applaud the insight here (and I’ll have to assume it’s based on fact, because I’m naive to the points made, and too lazy to verify them myself ;-), but I think the point is a little moot. Historically “redskins” may not have been considered a derogatory term, but then again “N-word” wasn’t either.

    The fact of the matter is that in today’s society – and by “today’s society” I guess I would classify that as being post-civil rights movement America – the term “redskins” certainly would be considered offensive. There may well be credence in the argument that the “victim is feigning injury”, but it’s irrelevant today. Many “victims” have cried foul throughout history and have initiated change as a result, more often than not, a positive change.

    I’m not comparing the renaming of the Washington football team to say sailing the Atlantic in search of the “new world”, mind you, but I seriously doubt the long term negative consequences of changing the nickname to something else.

  • Monkeysandwich | December 5, 2006 at 3:04 pm |

    Meant to link:

  • joe | December 5, 2006 at 3:05 pm |

    [quote comment=”26958″]THE HISTORY

    “The term redskin, applied by Europeans to Algonquians in general and the Delawares in particular,” says the Reader’s Digest in its book America’s Fascinating Indian Heritage.” was inspired not by their natural complexion but by their fondness for vermillion makeup, concocted from fat mixed with berry juice and minerals that provided the desired color.”[/quote]

    Hey, I have that book on my shelf. I guess that means I’m a bigot, nevermind my Redskins pennants and shrine to Joe Theismann.

  • John from KY | December 5, 2006 at 3:08 pm |

    [quote comment=”26956″][quote comment=”26954″][quote comment=”26948″]

    This site could do a public service and design a new plainer Redskins logo – sans the face. It’s time to get away from the offensive logo. Snyder will take flak for this but in the long run the NFL would benefit and fewer people will be offended.

    My concern is the logo would still be in demand because it would become a retro logo. But there could be a rule prohibiting sales of new merchandise displaying the old logo.

    I would start by researching old Redskins games and stories and incorporating something of importance into the new logo.[/quote]

    I would like to see them go back to the old yellow helmet with the red “R” logo in the circle. Simple, elegant and less offensive.[/quote]
    Did they ever have the arrow and feathers that FSU has? I thought I saw something like that once.[/quote]

    Yes, per Helmet Hut the Redskins did use the spear logo from 1965 through 1969 (they had it before FSU; I think FSU started using it in 1975 or 1976). The Redskins used the feather decals from 1959-1964, the yellow “Circle R” in 1970-71, and the current design since 1972 (with minor changes like adding yellow face masks, wider white stripes, metallic shell, different position of the feathers, etc. over the years).

  • JimmyMac | December 5, 2006 at 3:13 pm |

    Hey, I have that book on my shelf. I guess that means I’m a bigot, nevermind my Redskins pennants and shrine to Joe Theismann.

    No one is suggesting as such Joe. Cheering for a team named Redskins does not make one a bigot…absolutely not…just a loyal fan.

  • joe | December 5, 2006 at 3:15 pm |

    [quote comment=”26966″]Hey, I have that book on my shelf. I guess that means I’m a bigot, nevermind my Redskins pennants and shrine to Joe Theismann.

    No one is suggesting as such Joe. Cheering for a team named Redskins does not make one a bigot…absolutely not…just a loyal fan.[/quote]

    Eh, I was just being facetious. Thanks for the info and quote from the book.

  • Phil | December 5, 2006 at 3:21 pm |

    Great topic today Paul. I check the site daily. This is the first time I have ever written anything. The only reason I am checking in today is because I truly believe in this issue and I know many Lakota who feel the same way.
    The use of Indian mascots is something that I think should be dropped entirely by all sports teams and schools. Research clearly indicates the impact of the use the stereotypic images on Indigenous people and how non-native people treat this group of human beings. I also think that teams like the Redskins, Chiefs, and Indians, as well as schools like FSU, Illinois, and UND are missing out on a golden opportunity to create new uni’s and logos and subsequently cash in on merch sales.

  • M Flick | December 5, 2006 at 3:24 pm |

    In news relevant to few Americans over the age of 12:

    US Soccer has a new coach, and his name may be Jürgen.

    “There were two sticking points in signing Klinsmann: The first was Klinsmann’s long relationship with adidas. The U.S. national soccer team is heavily underwritten by Nike, and sources at the shoewear companies said talk of the appointment initially caused some concern. According to a person connected with the shoe company today, Klinsmann has left adidas, solving the issue in one fell swoop.”
    http://msn.foxsports...

  • JimmyMac | December 5, 2006 at 3:25 pm |

    Joe- No prob.
    The source told me that Dan has a bronze bust of an Indian Head with this saying etched underneath the bust. When Dan interviews top executives, he makes it a point to show them the statue to understand it’s relevance, point out the passion he has for the team and the importance of the name to the entire organization.

    Urban legend, who knows? He had no reason to bs me so i guess it might be true.

  • BBFAN | December 5, 2006 at 3:27 pm |

    Man, this has been the worst comment section in a while. I mean, you all have valid arguments and all, but I come here for pictures of Antonio Bryant’s a$$ and Dre Bly’s spandex. I wish we could save the political commentary for family get-togethers at the in-laws.

  • STUBZ | December 5, 2006 at 3:29 pm |

    I can’t understand how anybody could have picked out the wedding band on his finger. Somebody must have been studying those pictures since Sunday.

  • al | December 5, 2006 at 3:35 pm |

    [quote comment=”26961″]Al, this is for you

    I have also had enough of the offensive logo/sports name discussion. All these long posts with no pictures is making my time wasting at work not as enjoyable as usual.

    Also I kinda even feel more comfortable displaying pictures of hot cheerleaders on my computer screen more so than a discussion of the N word. Just seeing it typed gives me the willies a little.[/quote]

    Watch it, chad…
    You’ll be branded a ‘sexist’ as no male cheerleaders appear in that link!

    Before the PC watchdogs start barking, it was said firmly tongue in cheek. Oy, I much rather spend my day checking links of mismatching piping and player uniform transgressions.

  • dgc | December 5, 2006 at 3:43 pm |

    Kornheiser has long called for the Redskins to drop the head logo and replace it with a potato. Problem solved.

  • Phil | December 5, 2006 at 3:51 pm |

    In the first set of Izzo and Mariucci pictures, (in the pictures that they’re not in) that uniform with the stripe around the pants, under the waist, must have been very popular in the U.P. back then. Notice that both opponents are wearing them, and one has writing on the jersey and one doesn’t. Two teams with the same wild design. And how about those away unis in the second set of pictures: white on dark pinstripes?!? Say yah to the U.P., eh?

  • Kenny | December 5, 2006 at 3:51 pm |

    [quote comment=”26972″]Man, this has been the worst comment section in a while. I mean, you all have valid arguments and all, but I come here for pictures of Antonio Bryant’s a$$ and Dre Bly’s spandex. I wish we could save the political commentary for family get-togethers at the in-laws.[/quote]

    Couldn’t agree more

  • Matt | December 5, 2006 at 3:51 pm |

    I see how Redskins is offensive… but is a name like the Indians or Braves any more offensive than the Vikings? I don’t think I see any Scandanavian people complaining racism.

  • Matthew S. | December 5, 2006 at 3:54 pm |

    I am familiar with racist geographical names, but the post today was nonetheless startling. I had never heard of a sports team using such a local place name in the team name.

    I’m originally from Houston. A couple of years ago there was an FM road (that’s Farm-to-Market road, for those of you unfamiliar with this concept, it’s like small state or county highway) that had been officially named Jap Road back in the 1910’s. The road was named, actually as a sign of respect, for a Japanese immigrant who had settled in South East Texas in the early 20th century and had developed a thriving farm between Houston and Galveston Bay.

    Since connotations of this word have changed (especially since WWII), the county commissioners voted two years ago to rename the road (short story about it: http://www.chron.com...)

    Now I live in Dallas. To the northeast of here is a town called White Settlement. The residents of the town nearly renamed the town in a ballot referendum two or so years ago, but most voters agreed that the name was not racist in it’s connotations nor in it’s history (which is here: http://www.wstx.us/w...).

    I guess the point to all of this is that, the way we look at certain words and the way we connect them with certain races and ethnicities has changed over the years and while history is important, it’s also important to remember why and how racist slurs came into existence: to make someone feel like less of a human being.

    Fascinating picture and post today Paul, but it makes me glad that the time when racial epithets can be so haphazardly attached to a person or a place is coming to an end.

  • Richard | December 5, 2006 at 3:55 pm |

    [quote comment=”26970″]In news relevant to few Americans over the age of 12:

    US Soccer has a new coach, and his name may be Jürgen.

    “There were two sticking points in signing Klinsmann: The first was Klinsmann’s long relationship with adidas. The U.S. national soccer team is heavily underwritten by Nike, and sources at the shoewear companies said talk of the appointment initially caused some concern. According to a person connected with the shoe company today, Klinsmann has left adidas, solving the issue in one fell swoop.”
    http://msn.foxsports...

    This won’t be a problem so quickly, though, as US Soccer has said there is no deal on a new coach…

  • Phil | December 5, 2006 at 3:59 pm |

    “There were two sticking points in signing Klinsmann: The first was Klinsmann’s long relationship with adidas. The U.S. national soccer team is heavily underwritten by Nike, and sources at the shoewear companies said talk of the appointment initially caused some concern. According to a person connected with the shoe company today, Klinsmann has left adidas, solving the issue in one fell swoop.”

    Do you think the article should have said “one fell swoosh”?

  • WVU Tom | December 5, 2006 at 4:01 pm |

    Officially (not) commenting today.

    Stay tuned for tomorrow’s topic:
    Pro-life vs. Pro-choice, and what it means to the uniformed sporting world!

    …just kidding, hoping my frail attempt at humor would lighten things up a bit!

  • specs | December 5, 2006 at 4:04 pm |

    [quote comment=”26980″]I see how Redskins is offensive… but is a name like the Indians or Braves any more offensive than the Vikings? I don’t think I see any Scandanavian people complaining racism.[/quote]

    Whether Sacndinavian people are offended by the term “Vikings” has no bearing on whether Native Americans can/should be offended by terms like “Redskins” or “Indians”. Just because one group of people may or may not be offended by one term doesn’t make it a rule across the board. If Scandinavian people are offended by “Vikings”, then they should petition the team to change its name, as Native Americans have done with other teams. And once again, social and historical context matters. Perhaps I’m mistaken, but I’m unaware of a time when “Viking” was a common slur used to demean a group of people living in America who were unable to enjoy basic civil rights that were being afforded to other Americans.

  • Kel | December 5, 2006 at 4:04 pm |

    [quote comment=”26951″][quote comment=”26949″]next uni topic: cheerleader uniforms.
    make it happen, paul.[/quote]

    hehe,

    these win by far…Simple, clean, and…you know what else[/quote]

    Nicely done, Chad. :) After all, what’s the use of a Trojan without a beautiful woman in a tight sweater and short skirt to make you stand tall? :)

  • ACC (the Brain) | December 5, 2006 at 4:05 pm |

    [quote comment=”26976″]Kornheiser has long called for the Redskins to drop the head logo and replace it with a potato. Problem solved.[/quote]

    I am calling for ESPN to replace Kornheiser with a potato on MNF telecasts.

    Seriously why not go with a plain burgundy helmet until we can get a logo that at least a 75% majority will accept?

  • todd krevanchi | December 5, 2006 at 4:05 pm |

    for years, i’ve often wondered why no one has ever questioned the validity of “white american cheese”. i mean isnt this the same thing? i tried to hold out as long as i could. this discussion, while productive, civil and needed in some arena, is driving me nuts…

    on a lighter note, and as 7th grade as this sounds, have any of you thought of getting a chat room together? it would be a neet way to directly communicate with one another, wouldnt have to be monitored to much. just a thought…

  • WVU Tom | December 5, 2006 at 4:07 pm |

    [quote comment=”26980″]I see how Redskins is offensive… but is a name like the Indians or Braves any more offensive than the Vikings? I don’t think I see any Scandanavian people complaining racism.[/quote]

    …hmmm, said I wasn’t going to comment today, but…

    I think the difference is that the Minnesota area was largely settled by Scandanavian peoples, whereas native americans were indigenous people historically exploited by (primarily) the europeans that came to settle in the US.

    It’s a valid argument, but there’s definately a subtle difference, IMO.

  • Souder | December 5, 2006 at 4:08 pm |

    [quote comment=”26894″]About Brown’s covered earholes:
    I know that playing high school football in Central Pennsylvania it was quite common for players to tape their earholes at practice or even for playoff games in late November – early December. It’s amazing how much warmer you feel when two strips of athletic tape are applied to your helmet.[/quote]
    I don’t know if anyone else has mentioned this, I haven’t read all the comments yet. When I was in high school we would tape our ear holes for warmth, but we would also do it to be able to hear. When it was particularly windy the ear holes would create a whistling noise which can make it hard to hear snap counts and defensive adjustments, and is also damn annoying.

  • todd krevanchi | December 5, 2006 at 4:09 pm |

    oh, and, p.s.
    i just wanted to say, since the song girls were posted earlier today, since we had a discussion on posh spice about a month ago, AND since you all know about my affection for a certain seattle storm point guard from syossett new york,
    god, i love women…

  • WVU Tom | December 5, 2006 at 4:12 pm |

    [quote comment=”26987″][quote comment=”26951″][quote comment=”26949″]next uni topic: cheerleader uniforms.
    make it happen, paul.[/quote]

    hehe,

    these win by far…Simple, clean, and…you know what else[/quote]

    Nicely done, Chad. :) After all, what’s the use of a Trojan without a beautiful woman in a tight sweater and short skirt to make you stand tall? :)[/quote]

    SECOND!

    but why limit it to NCAA cheerleaders?

  • specs | December 5, 2006 at 4:15 pm |

    [quote comment=”26990″][quote comment=”26980″]I see how Redskins is offensive… but is a name like the Indians or Braves any more offensive than the Vikings? I don’t think I see any Scandanavian people complaining racism.[/quote]

    …hmmm, said I wasn’t going to comment today, but…

    I think the difference is that the Minnesota area was largely settled by Scandanavian peoples, whereas native americans were indigenous people historically exploited by (primarily) the europeans that came to settle in the US.

    It’s a valid argument, but there’s definately a subtle difference, IMO.[/quote]

    I’m not sure the difference is all that subtle.

  • maximumK | December 5, 2006 at 4:19 pm |

    [quote comment=”26988″][quote comment=”26976″]Kornheiser has long called for the Redskins to drop the head logo and replace it with a potato. Problem solved.[/quote]

    I am calling for ESPN to replace Kornheiser with a potato on MNF telecasts.

    Seriously why not go with a plain burgundy helmet until we can get a logo that at least a 75% majority will accept?[/quote]

    Well put, sir. I believe something like that was done in the 75th anniversary season, and I love playing as that team on Madden.

    Now, I don’t really like this discussion, but the two ‘skins jerseys in my closet make me feel obligated to comment. Of course I see how the name is offensive, and I would say that it would be a nice gesture for Dan Snyder to change it. However, I’m a caucasian and cannot speak for Native Americans (kind of like the dopes in the NCAA who decided to act on behalf of Native Americans in trying to eliminate “offensive” knicknames Seminoles and Utes — another, seperate rant). However, the name is one thing Dan Snyder won’t change, because he stands with the tradition of the team. If Native Americans want the name changed, go right to the top: the United States Government. If you can’t get it changed there, it wont happen anywhere.

    Side note: is “Redskin” any different from calling African-Americans “Black”, or European-Americans “White”? Think about it.

  • Metsfan AZ | December 5, 2006 at 4:26 pm |

    [quote comment=”26996″][quote comment=”26988″][quote comment=”26976″]Kornheiser has long called for the Redskins to drop the head logo and replace it with a potato. Problem solved.[/quote]

    I am calling for ESPN to replace Kornheiser with a potato on MNF telecasts.

    Seriously why not go with a plain burgundy helmet until we can get a logo that at least a 75% majority will accept?[/quote]

    Well put, sir. I believe something like that was done in the 75th anniversary season, and I love playing as that team on Madden.

    Now, I don’t really like this discussion, but the two ‘skins jerseys in my closet make me feel obligated to comment. Of course I see how the name is offensive, and I would say that it would be a nice gesture for Dan Snyder to change it. However, I’m a caucasian and cannot speak for Native Americans (kind of like the dopes in the NCAA who decided to act on behalf of Native Americans in trying to eliminate “offensive” knicknames Seminoles and Utes — another, seperate rant). However, the name is one thing Dan Snyder won’t change, because he stands with the tradition of the team. If Native Americans want the name changed, go right to the top: the United States Government. If you can’t get it changed there, it wont happen anywhere.

    Side note: is “Redskin” any different from calling African-Americans “Black”, or European-Americans “White”? Think about it.[/quote]
    Before I comment I should say that I don’t fully understand your point. But I’m sure you’re not saying that naming a team the “Blacks” or “Whites” would be ok. Are you?

  • Chad G | December 5, 2006 at 4:26 pm |

    [quote comment=”26994″][quote comment=”26987″][quote comment=”26951″][quote comment=”26949″]next uni topic: cheerleader uniforms.
    make it happen, paul.[/quote]

    hehe,

    these win by far…Simple, clean, and…you know what else[/quote]

    Nicely done, Chad. :) After all, what’s the use of a Trojan without a beautiful woman in a tight sweater and short skirt to make you stand tall? :)[/quote]

    SECOND!

    but why limit it to NCAA cheerleaders?[/quote]

    haha,

    Colin Cowherd actually had a discussion today about ncaa vs pro cheerleaders. I think he concluded something like pro cheerleaders are strippers who can’t get work.

    I am in no way a USC fan, but those song girls are the cream of the crop.

  • Big L | December 5, 2006 at 4:30 pm |

    As much as I enjoy reading about sociological issues detailing the use of “controversial” or “offensive” issues, believe me I’ve heard a lot having spent 4 years at Illinois, I do agree with another poster’s comment that I came here to be entertained about the wardrobe malfunctions of the sports world.

    But I must admit, posting such dialogue in arenas that would have a large audience is a step toward the right direction in finding a solution to these so-called offensive images and names.

    The last one was tongue-in-cheek, but there’s nothing wrong with a little humor.

  • WVU Tom | December 5, 2006 at 4:31 pm |

    [quote comment=”26998″][quote comment=”26994″][quote comment=”26987″][quote comment=”26951″][quote comment=”26949″]next uni topic: cheerleader uniforms.
    make it happen, paul.[/quote]

    hehe,

    these win by far…Simple, clean, and…you know what else[/quote]

    Nicely done, Chad. :) After all, what’s the use of a Trojan without a beautiful woman in a tight sweater and short skirt to make you stand tall? :)[/quote]

    SECOND!

    but why limit it to NCAA cheerleaders?[/quote]

    haha,

    Colin Cowherd actually had a discussion today about ncaa vs pro cheerleaders. I think he concluded something like pro cheerleaders are strippers who can’t get work.

    I am in no way a USC fan, but those song girls are the cream of the crop.[/quote]

    Yes, but were trying to focus on the uniforms here people!

    not sure what this is all about, but it definately looks uni-related

  • todd krevanchi | December 5, 2006 at 4:32 pm |

    lets play 10,000 pyramid… remember you guess the category based on the answers i give…
    ready, go…
    cheerleader
    gymnast
    stripper
    womens pro beach volleyball tour player
    young hot lpga golfer

  • WVU Tom | December 5, 2006 at 4:34 pm |

    [quote comment=”27001″]lets play 10,000 pyramid… remember you guess the category based on the answers i give…
    ready, go…
    cheerleader
    gymnast
    stripper
    womens pro beach volleyball tour player
    young hot lpga golfer[/quote]

    Google searches that can get me fired at work!

  • Metsfan AZ | December 5, 2006 at 4:39 pm |

    [quote comment=”27001″]lets play 10,000 pyramid… remember you guess the category based on the answers i give…
    ready, go…
    cheerleader
    gymnast
    stripper
    womens pro beach volleyball tour player
    young hot lpga golfer[/quote]
    Women who laugh in my face…

  • joe | December 5, 2006 at 4:40 pm |

    [quote comment=”26999″]
    But I must admit, posting such dialogue in arenas that would have a large audience is a step toward the right direction in finding a solution to these so-called offensive images and names.
    [/quote]

    This is offensive to salty snack foods. For shame.

  • WVU Tom | December 5, 2006 at 4:43 pm |

    [quote comment=”27001″]lets play 10,000 pyramid… remember you guess the category based on the answers i give…
    ready, go…
    cheerleader
    gymnast
    stripper
    womens pro beach volleyball tour player
    young hot lpga golfer[/quote]

    Things I’ve called my friend’s moms!

  • todd krevanchi | December 5, 2006 at 4:46 pm |

    your answers are cracking me up, but you havent hit it on the head yet…

  • Metsfan AZ | December 5, 2006 at 4:49 pm |

    [quote comment=”27001″]lets play 10,000 pyramid… remember you guess the category based on the answers i give…
    ready, go…
    cheerleader
    gymnast
    stripper
    womens pro beach volleyball tour player
    young hot lpga golfer[/quote]
    women with pretty belly buttons

  • Metsfan AZ | December 5, 2006 at 4:50 pm |

    [quote comment=”27001″]lets play 10,000 pyramid… remember you guess the category based on the answers i give…
    ready, go…
    cheerleader
    gymnast
    stripper
    womens pro beach volleyball tour player
    young hot lpga golfer[/quote]
    your last 5 hook-ups you lying bastard…

  • Chad G | December 5, 2006 at 4:51 pm |

    [quote comment=”27001″]lets play 10,000 pyramid… remember you guess the category based on the answers i give…
    ready, go…
    cheerleader
    gymnast
    stripper
    womens pro beach volleyball tour player
    young hot lpga golfer[/quote]

    eye candy?

  • Nolan | December 5, 2006 at 4:51 pm |

    [quote comment=”27001″]lets play 10,000 pyramid… remember you guess the category based on the answers i give…
    ready, go…
    cheerleader
    gymnast
    stripper
    womens pro beach volleyball tour player
    young hot lpga golfer[/quote]

    Joe Nameth?

    Wait, what’s the game?

  • todd krevanchi | December 5, 2006 at 4:51 pm |

    [quote comment=”27008″]
    your last 5 hook-ups you lying bastard…[/quote]

    getting warmer…

  • Matt G | December 5, 2006 at 4:52 pm |

    [quote comment=”26951″][quote comment=”26949″]next uni topic: cheerleader uniforms.
    make it happen, paul.[/quote]

    hehe,

    these win by far…Simple, clean, and…you know what else[/quote]

    The lady in the middle is hot and almost upskirting it. Is she related to Ms. Spears. Sorry I had to try to lighten it up today.

  • Natron | December 5, 2006 at 4:53 pm |

    [quote comment=”27001″]lets play 10,000 pyramid… remember you guess the category based on the answers i give…
    ready, go…
    cheerleader
    gymnast
    stripper
    womens pro beach volleyball tour player
    young hot lpga golfer[/quote]

    Reasons for my wife to slap me?

  • cubsnum1snce1908 | December 5, 2006 at 4:55 pm |

    [quote comment=”27001″]lets play 10,000 pyramid… remember you guess the category based on the answers i give…
    ready, go…
    cheerleader
    gymnast
    stripper
    womens pro beach volleyball tour player
    young hot lpga golfer[/quote]
    Categories Paul plans to add in the new “Not Uni-o-Watch” blog.

  • Broker75 | December 5, 2006 at 4:55 pm |

    Is it ok to say we are having a White Christmas?
    or, there was a Black Out last night at my house?
    or, Red Sky at night..
    We are in the 2000’s now.
    overplayed=Redskins logo, it’s a classic, it’s not mocking anybody or any race.
    History means History.

  • todd krevanchi | December 5, 2006 at 4:55 pm |

    DISCLAIMER: this post is in no way related to my earlier post dealing with the 10,000 dollar pyramid, and in no way should cease your commenting on it.

    have any of you guys watched the new tbs series “my boys” yet? i highly recommend it. tonight at 10pm. the show is great, the main character is smoking, and a sportswriter…
    she is the one i’ve been looking for…

  • cubsnum1snce1908 | December 5, 2006 at 4:58 pm |

    Someone stole my letters ^

  • todd krevanchi | December 5, 2006 at 5:00 pm |

    ok, im getting ready to leave work so i’ll give you the category to this…(remember people, this is all done out of sheer comedy to lighten up an otherwise, how do i say, NPR day)

    cheerleader
    gymnast
    stripper
    womens pro beach volleyball tour player
    young hot lpga golfer

    category: women on todd’s “to do” list

  • Metsfan AZ | December 5, 2006 at 5:02 pm |

    [quote comment=”27020″]ok, im getting ready to leave work so i’ll give you the category to this…(remember people, this is all done out of sheer comedy to lighten up an otherwise, how do i say, NPR day)

    cheerleader
    gymnast
    stripper
    womens pro beach volleyball tour player
    young hot lpga golfer

    category: women on todd’s “to do” list[/quote]
    They are all somewhere down the list from a certain WNBA star I assume.

  • C.N. | December 5, 2006 at 5:03 pm |

    The University of Cincinnati just announced its new coach, formerly of Central Michigan, will coach the team in its bowl game. The Bearcats’ AD has already announced they are only doing this because Central Michigan has played Western Michigan, Cincinnati’s bowl opponent, this season, and beat them by 24. Does this strike anyone else as showing very low class and as just plain wrong? Also, what must Central Michigan think of this?

  • todd krevanchi | December 5, 2006 at 5:09 pm |

    [quote comment=”27021″][quote comment=”27020″]ok, im getting ready to leave work so i’ll give you the category to this…(remember people, this is all done out of sheer comedy to lighten up an otherwise, how do i say, NPR day)

    cheerleader
    gymnast
    stripper
    womens pro beach volleyball tour player
    young hot lpga golfer

    category: women on todd’s “to do” list[/quote]
    They are all somewhere down the list from a certain WNBA star I assume.[/quote]

    actually you assume wrong. those others are on my “to do” list. in other words they are on my “wife for a night” list.

    whereas,

    #10 for the storm is on my “to marry” list.

  • joe | December 5, 2006 at 5:09 pm |

    [quote comment=”27020″]
    cheerleader
    gymnast
    stripper
    womens pro beach volleyball tour player
    young hot lpga golfer
    [/quote]

    Category: People you look at pictures of because you are an athletic uniform aficionado, not (just) a pervert.

  • joe | December 5, 2006 at 5:13 pm |

    Just an aside, I would like to commend everyone for being very civilized in our discussion earlier in the thread.

    Now lets inanely discuss cheerleaders.

  • ToasterPoodle | December 5, 2006 at 5:23 pm |

    [quote comment=”26972″]Man, this has been the worst comment section in a while. I mean, you all have valid arguments and all, but I come here for pictures of Antonio Bryant’s a$$ and Dre Bly’s spandex. I wish we could save the political commentary for family get-togethers at the in-laws.[/quote]

    Sorry that you’ll have to spend one day talking about something more significant than which pajamas grown men play games in (not dissing our favorite site by any means, just saying that in the grand scheme of things it isn’t all that important).
    I also am pretty proud of the supporters of UniWatch b/c of the intellegent and bait free discussion.

  • Chad G | December 5, 2006 at 5:28 pm |

    [quote comment=”27026″]Just an aside, I would like to commend everyone for being very civilized in our discussion earlier in the thread.

    Now lets inanely discuss cheerleaders.[/quote]

    More trivia:

    Anyone know what uniform this cherleader donned? ;)

  • Matthew S. | December 5, 2006 at 5:35 pm |

    [quote comment=”27028″][quote comment=”27026″]Just an aside, I would like to commend everyone for being very civilized in our discussion earlier in the thread.

    Now lets inanely discuss cheerleaders.[/quote]

    More trivia:

    Anyone know what uniform this cherleader donned? ;)[/quote]

    Was she one of the infamous Carolina Panther cheerleaders that were arrested at a bar last year? If so, I bet this was her uniform: http://z.about.com/d...

  • Chad G | December 5, 2006 at 5:39 pm |

    [quote comment=”27029″][quote comment=”27028″][quote comment=”27026″]Just an aside, I would like to commend everyone for being very civilized in our discussion earlier in the thread.

    Now lets inanely discuss cheerleaders.[/quote]

    More trivia:

    Anyone know what uniform this cherleader donned? ;)[/quote]

    Was she one of the infamous Carolina Panther cheerleaders that were arrested at a bar last year? If so, I bet this was her uniform: http://z.about.com/d...

    nope

  • Brendan | December 5, 2006 at 5:40 pm |

    Explanations for the colour-scheme and nickname of Notre Dame, enjoy.
    http://www.college-f...

  • tedkerwin | December 5, 2006 at 5:48 pm |

    OK, I have mildly obsessed with figuring out where this baseball team was from and based on the seller’s other items I would guess this postcard is from a town in Maine now known as Curtis Island, part of Camden Maine. The Island was changed to Negro island and then Curtis Island in 1964. It was originally named after the former slave that settled the island.

  • Matthew S. | December 5, 2006 at 5:50 pm |

    [quote comment=”27032″][quote comment=”27029″][quote comment=”27028″][quote comment=”27026″]Just an aside, I would like to commend everyone for being very civilized in our discussion earlier in the thread.

    Now lets inanely discuss cheerleaders.[/quote]

    More trivia:

    Anyone know what uniform this cherleader donned? ;)[/quote]

    Was she one of the infamous Carolina Panther cheerleaders that were arrested at a bar last year? If so, I bet this was her uniform: http://z.about.com/d...

    nope[/quote]

    Didn’t think she was one of them, but I thought I’d take a guess and go for the joke at the same time.

  • DVG | December 5, 2006 at 5:53 pm |

    mooch and joaquin phoenix look very much alike in that yearbook picture. thought i’d throw this out there, since it was off the ni**er topic.

  • Chad G | December 5, 2006 at 5:54 pm |

    [quote comment=”27035″][quote comment=”27032″][quote comment=”27029″][quote comment=”27028″][quote comment=”27026″]Just an aside, I would like to commend everyone for being very civilized in our discussion earlier in the thread.

    Now lets inanely discuss cheerleaders.[/quote]

    More trivia:

    Anyone know what uniform this cherleader donned? ;)[/quote]

    Was she one of the infamous Carolina Panther cheerleaders that were arrested at a bar last year? If so, I bet this was her uniform: http://z.about.com/d...

    nope[/quote]

    Didn’t think she was one of them, but I thought I’d take a guess and go for the joke at the same time.[/quote]

    good try though

    here’s a hint: Don’t try to find pictures of this person while at work.

  • Eric | December 5, 2006 at 6:00 pm |

    Sorry to get off topic, but I was listening to the 105.9 here in Pittsburgh, and supposedly some guy was calling in and reporting his pre-game visit to the Penguin’s locker room as a part of some kind of contest (I think, I tuned in halfway through the convo). Apparently, there was a rug on the locker room floor with a new Penguin logo on it that, due to some hockey tradition, noone was allowed to walk on. Of course, a Florida reporter backed into it, but either way I am intrigued. New Logo? Could the Pens be getting a 3rd Jersey? If they are, I’m hoping they are using Dark blue on light blue. It would make sense since they Baby Pens in the AHL are trying it out first. But the “New” logo makes me doubt they’d use “old” colors. I’m going to take a guess and say they use some awful design with vegas gold as the primary color, sorta like what Pitt wore against Louisville….Just awful.

  • troi | December 5, 2006 at 6:07 pm |

    More trivia:

    Anyone know what uniform this cherleader donned? ;)

    She wore an arizona state uni…don’t ask me y i know that

  • Big L | December 5, 2006 at 6:07 pm |

    [quote comment=”27038″][quote comment=”27035″][quote comment=”27032″][quote comment=”27029″][quote comment=”27028″][quote comment=”27026″]Just an aside, I would like to commend everyone for being very civilized in our discussion earlier in the thread.

    Now lets inanely discuss cheerleaders.[/quote]

    More trivia:

    Anyone know what uniform this cherleader donned? ;)[/quote]

    Was she one of the infamous Carolina Panther cheerleaders that were arrested at a bar last year? If so, I bet this was her uniform: http://z.about.com/d...

    nope[/quote]

    Didn’t think she was one of them, but I thought I’d take a guess and go for the joke at the same time.[/quote]

    good try though

    here’s a hint: Don’t try to find pictures of this person while at work.[/quote]

    Oh, does she work in a certain niche?

  • tedkerwin | December 5, 2006 at 6:08 pm |

    I am going to make one more assumption/guess about this team, the Island was the location of a lighthouse manned by the Coast Guard, this might be the station name for a coast guard team.

  • Chad G | December 5, 2006 at 6:12 pm |

    [quote comment=”27043″]More trivia:

    Anyone know what uniform this cherleader donned? ;)

    She wore an arizona state uni…don’t ask me y i know that[/quote]

    Troi is the winner!

  • Al | December 5, 2006 at 6:25 pm |

    [quote comment=”27020″]ok, im getting ready to leave work so i’ll give you the category to this…(remember people, this is all done out of sheer comedy to lighten up an otherwise, how do i say, NPR day)

    cheerleader
    gymnast
    stripper
    womens pro beach volleyball tour player
    young hot lpga golfer

    category: women on todd’s “to do” list[/quote]

    what a letdown…. Chad’s answers were much better.

  • Sean | December 5, 2006 at 6:32 pm |

    [quote comment=”27046″][quote comment=”27043″]More trivia:

    Anyone know what uniform this cherleader donned? ;)

    She wore an arizona state uni…don’t ask me y i know that[/quote]

    Troi is the winner![/quote]

    does this seem backwards to you?

    Courtney Simpson is the stage name of Courtney Cox, an American pornographic actress, best known for having been kicked off of the Arizona State University cheerleading team and subsequently making an adult film, Gina’s Double Dutch, while wearing her college uniform. – wikipedia

    courtney cox seems like the more obvious porn name… or is it too obvious?

  • troi | December 5, 2006 at 6:38 pm |

    she probably changed her name because there is an already famous courtney cox…

  • Chad G | December 5, 2006 at 6:51 pm |

    [quote comment=”27049″][quote comment=”27046″][quote comment=”27043″]More trivia:

    Anyone know what uniform this cherleader donned? ;)

    She wore an arizona state uni…don’t ask me y i know that[/quote]

    Troi is the winner![/quote]

    does this seem backwards to you?

    Courtney Simpson is the stage name of Courtney Cox, an American pornographic actress, best known for having been kicked off of the Arizona State University cheerleading team and subsequently making an adult film, Gina’s Double Dutch, while wearing her college uniform. – wikipedia

    courtney cox seems like the more obvious porn name… or is it too obvious?[/quote]

    I think she probably changed it so she wouldn’t be mixed of with the courtney cox from friends

  • M Flick | December 5, 2006 at 6:53 pm |

    Regression from serious debate is welcome, but this is getting pathetic.

  • todd krevanchi (krvanch) | December 5, 2006 at 7:07 pm |

    here she is in uniform…
    i had to save the pic and host it on tiny pic to post…
    http://i13.tinypic.c...

  • Teebz | December 5, 2006 at 7:14 pm |

    [quote comment=”26989″]
    on a lighter note, and as 7th grade as this sounds, have any of you thought of getting a chat room together? it would be a neet way to directly communicate with one another, wouldnt have to be monitored to much. just a thought…[/quote]

    Mina and I have spoken like that before. It is fun and much easier due to real-time. The problem is that most work servers will brlock access to chatrooms.

  • Teebz | December 5, 2006 at 7:15 pm |

    Minna*

    Apparently I need a typist.

  • maximumK | December 5, 2006 at 7:26 pm |

    discussion on best NFL cheerleaders! aaand….GO!

    (ps: i’m slightly biased, but my vote goes to the beautiful ladies in burgundy and gold (whose team name has come up enough times already today…))

  • Teebz | December 5, 2006 at 7:30 pm |

    Jamie Campbell of Rogers Sportsnet in Canada has hopped on the Blue Jays retro bandwagon, and the kill the Black Jays bandwagon.

    Read it here.

  • julie | December 5, 2006 at 7:56 pm |

    Lots of comments today, sorry if I’m reapeating anything…

    1- I love the irony of Korea’s hats and batting helmets with the K (strikeout!)

    2- Has anyone been offended by the team name “Fighting Irish” for a school founded by French missionaries? How about the non-catholic irish? And, in 2006, “Trojans” is kinda kinky for a school nickname. Ditto for Oregan State’s team. Some of these names are living fossils. (Like the ‘save’ icon on my pc with the 3.5″ floppy disk image – who uses that anymore?)

  • M Flick | December 5, 2006 at 8:12 pm |

    Brett Hull has had his 16 retired by the St. Louis Blues.

    http://www.stltoday....

  • Sean Janssen | December 5, 2006 at 9:11 pm |

    I’d venture that “redskin” doesn’t have nearly the same history and connotation as the N-word.

  • ThresherK | December 5, 2006 at 9:13 pm |

    To muck up things further on “whose nickname should go”: The Cleveland Indians were so renamed long ’bout 1900 or so for Lew Sockalexis, a Penobscot who had a comet of a career before succumbing to injury and alcoholism.

    Prior to that they were known as the Spiders.

  • Mark | December 5, 2006 at 9:20 pm |

    [quote comment=”27022″]The University of Cincinnati just announced its new coach, formerly of Central Michigan, will coach the team in its bowl game. The Bearcats’ AD has already announced they are only doing this because Central Michigan has played Western Michigan, Cincinnati’s bowl opponent, this season, and beat them by 24. Does this strike anyone else as showing very low class and as just plain wrong? Also, what must Central Michigan think of this?[/quote]
    i saw the press release on the bearcats’ website. obviously the language wasn’t as plain as you put it, here is a link to the article. in it, it is noted that ole miss did this in 1998 with cutcliffe, who went on to beat texas tech. while winning the game may have been part of the reason for this decision, i think it is much more important that the new coach is getting 18 extra days of practice with his new team, which is young. this gives him some knowledge as he heads into the offseason.

    i love the pics of the USC song girls!

  • Patrick Gaughan | December 5, 2006 at 9:44 pm |

    When I played football in high school in Ohio we taped our earholes also. It helped a great deal to block the cold wind. I saw many of the Browns doing it this weekend against the Chiefs (no screen shots though).

  • Andy | December 5, 2006 at 10:00 pm |

    Paul,
    Sorry to come in late on this but I wanted to add my voice for what it’s worth.

    As a father to an adopted bi-racial son whose black and white I am sickened and outraged by the use and the meaning of the word “Nigger”. My wife and I adopted Sam in Nashville where it’s still in vogue to wear a t-shirt with a Confederate flag that says, Heritage not Hate. Bulls#*t! It’s demeaning and just as racist as using nigger.

    I only hope I can teach my son the values of Humanity and Social Justice. I cring every time I see or hear something like this because soon I’m going to have explain it to him.

    Thank you for being a voice of reason and thought. There are so many in prominent positions and locations (Michael Irvin and Rush Limbaugh et al) that do not share the values and respect that you possess and use everyday.

    Sorry for my long windedness. Thank you again.
    Andy

  • Heath | December 5, 2006 at 10:02 pm |

    Racism…..bad

    Cheerleaders…..good

    The “N” word…..bad

    Cheerleaders who star in pornography…..good

    This is the coolest website ever.

  • C.N. | December 5, 2006 at 10:28 pm |

    [quote comment=”27068″][quote comment=”27022″]The University of Cincinnati just announced its new coach, formerly of Central Michigan, will coach the team in its bowl game. The Bearcats’ AD has already announced they are only doing this because Central Michigan has played Western Michigan, Cincinnati’s bowl opponent, this season, and beat them by 24. Does this strike anyone else as showing very low class and as just plain wrong? Also, what must Central Michigan think of this?[/quote]
    i saw the press release on the bearcats’ website.

    obviously the language wasn’t as plain as you put it, here is a link to the article. in it, it is noted that ole miss did this in 1998 with cutcliffe, who went on to beat texas tech. while winning the game may have been part of the reason for this decision, i think it is much more important that the new coach is getting 18 extra days of practice with his new team, which is young. this gives him some knowledge as he heads into the offseason.

    i love the pics of the USC song girls![/quote]

    Actually, read the article on espn.com. It quotes the AD as saying that, indeed, Brian Kelly will be coaching the Bearcats in the bowl game because of his experience against WMU this season. So, yeah, obviously, the language was that plain.

  • C.N. | December 5, 2006 at 10:31 pm |

    [quote comment=”27074″][quote comment=”27068″][quote comment=”27022″]The University of Cincinnati just announced its new coach, formerly of Central Michigan, will coach the team in its bowl game. The Bearcats’ AD has already announced they are only doing this because Central Michigan has played Western Michigan, Cincinnati’s bowl opponent, this season, and beat them by 24. Does this strike anyone else as showing very low class and as just plain wrong? Also, what must Central Michigan think of this?[/quote]
    i saw the press release on the bearcats’ website.

    obviously the language wasn’t as plain as you put it, here is a link to the article. in it, it is noted that ole miss did this in 1998 with cutcliffe, who went on to beat texas tech. while winning the game may have been part of the reason for this decision, i think it is much more important that the new coach is getting 18 extra days of practice with his new team, which is young. this gives him some knowledge as he heads into the offseason.

    i love the pics of the USC song girls![/quote]

    Actually, read the article on espn.com. It quotes the AD as saying that, indeed, Brian Kelly will be coaching the Bearcats in the bowl game because of his experience against WMU this season. So, yeah, obviously, the language was that plain.[/quote]

    From http://sports.espn.g...:

    “Our goal was to put the best opportunity for success on the sidelines for our student-athletes,” Bearcats athletic director Mike Thomas said. “Coach Kelly and his staff have a wealth of knowledge regarding our opponent in the International Bowl and are ready to lead our team against Western Michigan. I am excited that we have Cincinnati coaches leading our Bearcats on the field as that is how it should be.”

  • Jim | December 5, 2006 at 10:35 pm |

    A couple of Kansas-related notes from yesterday:

    Check out the one-shot yellow uniforms from 87-99 here: http://phogblog.com/... (That Larry Brown always was a fashion trendsetter.)

    The only time KU wore red basketball uniforms between the early 50s and 2003 was the 1986 Final Four. We lost to Duke in the semifinal. That was a great KU team.

    And Jaric’s jersey problem reminds me of the time ESPN’s own Doug Gottleib took the floor for Oklahoma State with his shorts on backwards. This was at KU, and the students serenaded him with “Shorts On Back-Wards! (clap clap clapclapclap) until his teammates circled around and he fixed them. Once in a while, someone on ESPN will bring this up on-air.

  • since57 | December 5, 2006 at 10:55 pm |

    Interesting news from Detroit…no, not that they have resorted to a backup QB playing receiver (which McCown can only do because he’s number 12 instead of a single digit). This story is regarding the hardware onboard with McCown when he took the field. According to an article in the Detroit Free Press,

    “When backup quarterback Josh McCown lined up at receiver for one play Nov. 19 at Arizona, he could hear offensive coordinator Mike Martz call the play in his helmet…. But NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said in an e-mail that “a player in the game as a receiver cannot wear a helmet with coach-to-QB communication.” And the Lions should have known McCown could play receiver. He has been practicing as one for weeks.”

    Not strictly uni-related but interesting, nonetheless.

  • Justin | December 5, 2006 at 11:14 pm |

    Paul, as I’m watching Any Given Sunday… I have an idea. Would you be able to do a blog entry about the good, the bad, and the ugly of sports uniforms in movies? I checked the blog archives and haven’t seen much about it. What do you think?

  • Paul Lukas | December 5, 2006 at 11:18 pm |

    [quote comment=”27080″]Paul, as I’m watching Any Given Sunday… I have an idea. Would you be able to do a blog entry about the good, the bad, and the ugly of sports uniforms in movies? I checked the blog archives and haven’t seen much about it. What do you think?[/quote]

    Look here.

  • Allison | December 5, 2006 at 11:46 pm |

    Was looking through my pics from Cardinals games from the past few seasons and found this thing of beauty. Can’t remember the game but I remember it clearly…may have been a throwback day? Although it’s hard to tell because the uni has been fairly consistent through the years.

  • Tom K | December 6, 2006 at 12:20 am |

    Im watching Best Damn and they’re talking to Vince Young, and Eddie George asked him about the all baby blue jerseys. VY said it was his, pacman, and keith bullocks choice, and that they wanted to look good on the fied. Then eddie said he wished he couldve worn the blue pants

  • Randy Miller | December 6, 2006 at 12:54 am |

    About those Iron Mountain high school jerseys…one of my favorite looks from those days.

    Those were the style worn by Marquette and John Thompson’s early Georgetown teams — and a similar look was worn by the old New England Braves team in the Roller Derby back in the late ’60s.

  • Darren Vaughan | December 6, 2006 at 4:23 am |

    Actually, the usage of the “Redskins” name must not be that offensive to some factions of the Native American population. I am a sportswriter in northern New Mexico, and one of the high schools we cover is located on the Navajo reservation. Anyway, imagine my surprise when I covered a game between the Shiprock Chieftains and the Red Mesa Redskins (from Teec Nos Pos, Arizona, also on the Navajo reservation).

  • CS | December 6, 2006 at 5:16 am |

    Some soccer uni news from last night ‘s Champions League games in Europe. Liverpool and Adidas have joined the alternating sleeve color team Werden Bremen has the player’s name, number , and club name on the back of their jerseys

  • sully | December 6, 2006 at 8:27 am |

    USC Cheerleaders…

    Definitely HOT…but not especially bright!

  • sully | December 6, 2006 at 8:29 am |

    ^^^
    Stupid link showed up in the preview, but not in the post.

    Try THIS.

  • sully | December 6, 2006 at 8:31 am |
  • al | December 6, 2006 at 10:00 am |

    [quote comment=”27073″]Racism…..bad

    Cheerleaders…..good

    The “N” word…..bad

    Cheerleaders who star in pornography…..good

    This is the coolest website ever.[/quote]

    Thank you, Frankenstein!