Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

rd421

SOW| Native Americans Speaking Out In Support of Redskins Name

294 posts in this topic

With that kind of credibility in the bank, how could a free press overlook all those relevant factors supporting our claim?

.

That's a good question. I think a lot of it is that's its the 'cause de jour'. It's an easy story to get behind. Everyone knows the white man wiped out the native Americans way of life, and we all think it sucks.

Get behind a cause like that, and you feel better about yourself and look good in the process. I'm not saying that sarcastically, I mean it. I get it. I deplore racism and love things like animal rights. There are plenty of emotional issues I can get behind. Things like that hit a nerve with people.

Find one Native American who says they are offended, and you have yourself a cause. It's practically indefensible, given the white mans treatment of native Americans. I would be behind it, it it weren't for the fact that its a few making this claim, or they didn't use the term with pride themselves, or the same congress of American Indians who now opposes the name today supported it and worked with the redskins on their current logo.

Rather than look for a reason to be offended, I look at harjo, et al, and ask why they disagree with their people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No matter what "true fans" think, the name is just too "politically" incorrect and offensive in 2013. Eventually there will have be some type of change.

Not if you tell the politically correct to **** off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not if you tell the politically correct to **** off.

We tried that once before, but it didn't work.

Sadly the DMV Cowboys fanbase was born as a result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I still don't understand why people who aren't Native American think their voice matters at all.

As far as we know, most Native Americans aren't offended. *shrug*

Exactly right, and also I have asked ever NA I ran into, either here in Floridia, Seminoles, Miccosukee (btw, spell check things this is microcosmic), and while traveling out West, in NM, AZ and California. I have also written the tribes, they thought it was noble that I asked but had no real feeling on the name, stating it is not theirs to begin with. Funny how the feeling I got is they concerned themselves with themselves, lol.

So if one person brings forth an issue it must be true? And dare we question the motive of the seven persons that came forward. I applaud her efforts in the name of the NA plight, only using this name battle to gain ground is not admirable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So if one person brings forth an issue it must be true?

Where is our one person? Why don't we have a leader on our side to challenge the other 'one person' the media seems to love in Harjo?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We tried that once before, but it didn't work.

Sadly the DMV Cowboys fanbase was born as a result.

I do it every time this issue comes up. Works for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No offense, but are you kidding me? You are totally ignoring all the facts that state high rates of poverty, suicide etc. on reservations, and don't think thats evidence there are bigger problems? Seriously? I'm sorry, but it really bothers me to hear someone claim that there isn't "evidence" that mascots and logos aren't bigger problems among Native Americans than high suicide rates, crime or poverty. You're coming off as if this issue is still important because theres plenty of room to debate all of the Native Americans other problems. but guess what?

Where are the articles? Where are the articles in the Washington Post or on yahoo about the plight of Native people? Oh thats right, they're not there. There are probably 5 times the number of stupid opinion pieces getting people talking about a word than there are articles of people pointing out how hard it is for people living on reservations in America.

Now maybe you weren't implying that this issue is just as big a deal as all the actual important stuff that effects people's lives on reservations, but it certainly came off that way. My whole point is that this is a silly subject that has gotten 10x the publicity that any article I've ever seen that tries to show the plight of people suffering on reservations.

I didnt say this was the biggest problem facing Native Americans today. My point is that saying so is an unconvincing argument. Much of what is discussed falls short of that mark. When someone writes an article about DC traffic for the 100th time do we rip the paper for focusing on that instead gang violence, poverty, or child abuse? Is traffic the biggest problem? Nope. Should it be ignored because its not the biggest problem? Of course not. People can focus on more than one thing at a time.

---------- Post added March-6th-2013 at 08:24 PM ----------

agree.

destino, youre a smart poster who always brings interesting points to a debate, but i disagree with you here, even if doing to paints me as a stubborn traditionalist borderline bigot, which i very much am not.

i understand your thinking, but i absolutely think there are many other issues that i almost NEVER hear about regarding native american that deserve attention far more than this.

i'd have a little more respect for media members who gave 5 minutes these issues rather than the debatable, sexier name issue.

It doesn't paint you as anything grego. I was obviously unclear in what I was trying to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In addition to it being right and good, Snyder would be wise to donate time and money to supporting Native American/Indian causes such as fighting diabetes, gambling or alcohol addiction, poverty, etc.

I would agree with the good-will notion, but I don't think it's fair to use the word "right," What makes it wrong if he doesn't? Dan Snyder didn't cause the issues surrounding the Native American communities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didnt say this was the biggest problem facing Native Americans today. My point is that saying so is an unconvincing argument. Much of what is discussed falls short of that mark. When someone writes an article about DC traffic for the 100th time do we rip the paper for focusing on that instead gang violence, poverty, or child abuse? Is traffic the biggest problem? Nope. Should it be ignored because its not the biggest problem? Of course not. People can focus on more than one thing at a time..

It is a somewhat ironic complaint that the most important "news" isn't getting sufficient coverage on a board where we are all hungering and gathering for sporting news especially here in the offseason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do it every time this issue comes up. Works for me.

The Harjo Wiki link was a reply to RandyHolt's quote:

"I suspected that this entire sham was cooked up by someone who doesn't even know what its like to be a Native American Indian."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
None of those events you mention occurred in this country or are directly tied to American culture, so I don't see how those relate to me.The Native American conflict is directly related to the ascension of this country. As to your second point, I love Native American culture and history. It's truly admirable how they lived. I am not offended by just talking about it. I just find it weird and ridiculous to "celebrate" a culture that has been historically been mistreated by White Americans but putting their image on a football helmet. If there was a term for renegade slave, that black people (today) didn't feel was racist, but instead "glorified" African-American culture and we picked that as the logo, I'd still have a problem with it.

Well, we kept the Japanese in internment camps during WWII. We, for lack of a better term, rounded up all the Japanese Americans and put them in camps, and they were constantly guarded for fear that they would attack the U.S.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment

---------- Post added March-7th-2013 at 09:55 AM ----------

None of those events you mention occurred in this country or are directly tied to American culture, so I don't see how those relate to me.The Native American conflict is directly related to the ascension of this country. As to your second point, I love Native American culture and history. It's truly admirable how they lived. I am not offended by just talking about it. I just find it weird and ridiculous to "celebrate" a culture that has been historically been mistreated by White Americans but putting their image on a football helmet. If there was a term for renegade slave, that black people (today) didn't feel was racist, but instead "glorified" African-American culture and we picked that as the logo, I'd still have a problem with it.

OK then, what about the 49ers?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Gold_Rush

The Gold Rush also resulted in attacks on Native Americans, who were forcibly removed from their lands. An estimated 100,000 California Indians died between 1848 and 1868, and some 4,500 of them were murdered. Gold mining also caused environmental harm to rivers and lakes.

Or the Vikings? Because the Vikings were a people who raped, pillaged, and murdered like it was going out of style.

Or the Buccaneers/Raiders? References to pirates, who weren't exactly the most uprighteous people.

Especially the 49ers though. If you're going to be offended at our team, even though we're representing Native Americans in an honorable way, you had better get offended that the 49ers are glorifying people that murdered Native Americans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where are the offended parties? Why aren't people filing law suits against those teams, and why hasn't the national media figured out the wrong behind those names and mascots? Why do they keep picking on us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We tried that once before, but it didn't work.

Sadly the DMV Cowboys fanbase was born as a result.

so wait, you think the cowboys fanbase in this area is due to us?

You do realize that the cowboys are either the 1st or 2nd largest fan base across the united states, and it owes overwhelmingly to television exposure and NFL promotion in the 70s, right?

the 2 largest fan bases nationwide are the Cowboys and Steelers, the two dominant teams of the 70s, when commissioner Pete Rozelle exponentially expanded television coverage of the NFL and launched it into the stratosphere in terms of national pastimes.

Because the Cowboys and Steelers both were winning teams, both with major star power and name recognition, both with championships, and a couple of dandy Super Bowl games right there between them both, they were featured not just every weekend on the field, but off the field in TV commercials, in television appearances, even on old 70s variety hour type television shows. they were stars and marketed as such. The Cowboys had a sparkly new stadium, nifty new astro turf, and a bright white uniform that never got dirty. Women even liked the Cowboys.

they were on national television more than any other teams, and that is why we have an infestation of Cowboys fans in this area and every area of the nation.

To think that had anything to do with us, our mascot or our rivalry is to really have much to high of an opinion of our stature.

the Redskins were the team of the South, they say, and we were because up until dallas, ours was the most geographically southernmost team.. but our fan base built through decades of awful football in the 40s 50s and 60s through the radio was absolutely nothing compared to what the NFL did for the Cowboys with their television exposure in the 70s.

~Bang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DRUDGE REPORT ‏@DRUDGE_REPORT

School board in James Fenimore Cooper's hometown kills Redskins name... http://drudge.tw/10bWEsE

---------- Post added March-7th-2013 at 10:38 AM ----------

so wait, you think the cowboys fanbase in this area is due to us?

You do realize that the cowboys are either the 1st or 2nd largest fan base across the united states, and it owes overwhelmingly to television exposure and NFL promotion in the 70s, right?

the 2 largest fan bases nationwide are the Cowboys and Steelers, the two dominant teams of the 70s, when commissioner Pete Rozelle exponentially expanded television coverage of the NFL and launched it into the stratosphere in terms of national pastimes.

Because the Cowboys and Steelers both were winning teams, both with major star power and name recognition, both with championships, and a couple of dandy Super Bowl games right there between them both, they were featured not just every weekend on the field, but off the field in TV commercials, in television appearances, even on old 70s variety hour type television shows. they were stars and marketed as such. The Cowboys had a sparkly new stadium, nifty new astro turf, and a bright white uniform that never got dirty. Women even liked the Cowboys.

they were on national television more than any other teams, and that is why we have an infestation of Cowboys fans in this area and every area of the nation.

To think that had anything to do with us, our mascot or our rivalry is to really have much to high of an opinion of our stature.

the Redskins were the team of the South, they say, and we were because up until dallas, ours was the most geographically southernmost team.. but our fan base built through decades of awful football in the 40s 50s and 60s through the radio was absolutely nothing compared to what the NFL did for the Cowboys with their television exposure in the 70s.

~Bang

8 out of 9 Cowboy fans in this area, along with southern california, one of the largest concentrations of Cowboy fans outside of Texas is right here, has little to do with the team's success and much more to do with the fact that us Skins fans hate the Cowboys so much. Antagonists at heart. They also very widely use the Skins traditions, past and name as a reason they root for their arch rivals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 out of 9 Cowboy fans in this area, along with southern california, one of the largest concentrations of Cowboy fans outside of Texas is right here, has little to do with the team's success and much more to do with the fact that us Skins fans hate the Cowboys so much. Antagonists at heart. They also very widely use the Skins traditions, past and name as a reason they root for their arch rivals.

I can't disagree with that in regards to our area, even if I'll quibble the ratio.

I think there's always a contingency of contrarians, and we of course will see more than most areas due to the rivalry, but you seriously underestimate their fan base nationwide.

They're everywhere.

Either way, I will point out that the contrarians who become Cowboys fans in this area because they just like to go against the grain have very little to do with their attitude toward our mascot.

same as the large Redskins base in Dallas. There will always be some people who just like to go against the home team no matter what.

~Bang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You do realize that the cowboys are either the 1st or 2nd largest fan base across the united states, and it owes overwhelmingly to television exposure and NFL promotion in the 70s, right?

All true.

The Cowboys have more fans in the DMV than in any other metro area outside of Texas, and its most noticeable on the east side of the DC area today. This phenomena resulted in part due to our team's old policy of 'to hell with you, we don't need you' aimed at PC do-gooders in the 1950s and early 60s. Some posters are suggesting we take that same approach to the Native controversy today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All true.

The Cowboys have more fans in the DMV than in any other metro area outside of Texas, and its most noticeable on the east side of the DC area today. This phenomena resulted in part due to our team's old policy of 'to hell with you, we don't need you' aimed at PC do-gooders in the 1950s and early 60s. Some posters are suggesting we take that same approach to the Native controversy today.

I usually don't do this, but can you show me any proof on both of those points, the number of fans and their reasoning back in the pre-Bobby Mitchell days?

This is the first I've heard of any tie between the numbers of dallas fans here and protests against racism.

~Bang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I usually don't do this, but can you show me any proof on both of those points, the number of fans and their reasoning back in the pre-Bobby Mitchell days?

No proof on paper, just experience having lived on the west coast and having traveled throughout the US, visiting sports bars on Sundays, etc. I don't notice nearly as many Cowboys fans in other cities around the US as I do here, especially east of the divide. Yes, Cowboys and Steelers fans are everywhere you go, but the Boys have presence here like no other.

This is the first I've heard of any tie between the numbers of dallas fans here and protests against racism.

The Cowboys were scouting/drafting from black colleges while our team owner was busy fighting to stay white. I personally know African American Cowboys fans in the DMV who are in their 60s and 70s today. Many of those fans will cite Marshall's policy for why they chose the Cowboys over the hometown Redskins. Their feelings were passed on to younger generations of family who watched the Cowboys blossom as the TV era went full swing in the later 60s and 70s. I also know AA Redskins fans in that same age bracket who stayed w/ the B&G despite the old policy flaws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*reposting from another thread that died*

People on this board find the article in the OP to be extremely compelling because we already agreed with it before we read it. We have to remember that the name it doesn't seem offensive to us Redskins fans in part because we are predisposed to feel good about the name of our team. Not everyone who isn't a Redskins fan is going to come at the question from that same starting point.

For humor, let me show you a video clip of how the arguments you all are making seem perfectly reasonable to Redskins fans but seem different to other people -

WARNING - clip is humorous, and not a perfect analogy. Also strong language.

Are we going to "take back" the word Redskin? Is it possible? Is it worth trying?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joseph White Jr. ‏@JGWhiteAP

Here in a very sterile hearing room for challenge to #Redskins trademark. Bruce Allen seated on Row 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are we going to "take back" the word Redskin? Is it possible? Is it worth trying?

We are not going to "take back" the word "redskin", because we've owned it for 50 years.

Find me a place where the word "redskin" is used, and the odds are like 98% that its referring to the football team. (Although, lately, seems like 1/10 of those references will be of people trying to claim hat the football team is offensive).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never heard that word use as a racial slur, but since it has the word monkey in it, and racist people call us monkeys, then yes it is a racial slurt.

As far as Redskins goes, we can't take it back, because I don't think it was never meant to be racist from the get go. There is actual proof on the origins of the word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is a somewhat ironic complaint that the most important "news" isn't getting sufficient coverage on a board where we are all hungering and gathering for sporting news especially here in the offseason.

You're right, we're all here beause we're huge Redskin fans. Nothing more important out there for us all to do? :ols: That ridiculous standard is applied only when someone talks about something we don't Iike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sports junkies have a woman who is representing a native american organization on right now.

imo, she is as extreme as it gets. doesnt even want 'warriors' as the new name. says there are irish offended by notre dame, and that if just one person is offended by the name, it should be changed.

also compared it to the n word, and said intentions are irrelevant with regards to the name 'redskins', as in, you could say you have honorable intention and call a team the 'n's but it would be offensive.

but then when EB said i wouldnt mind if they were called the honkies, she said the point was moot cuz that would never happen.

thats a bit of a contradiction.

on a side note, it really bothers me when people who are supposed to be in the business of knowing, dont know. this woman just said that the majority of native americans find it offensive and not one of the hosts called her on it. not one person mentioned how the name is used as a mascot by native americans. not one person mentioned walter wetzel and his involvement with the logo that she finds offensive for 'stereotyping' indians.

maddening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sports junkies have a woman who is representing a native american organization on right now.

imo, she is as extreme as it gets. doesnt even want 'warriors' as the new name. says there are irish offended by notre dame, and that if just one person is offended by the name, it should be changed

I guess this is the part that bothers me about our country today. Majority always has and always will rule. If this is the case in her opinion, we'd have to change SO much of everything we do today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.