On Now
Coming Up
  • Fri., Nov. 14, 2014 1:00 PM - 1:15 PM EST Live Gruden Press Conference Redskins head coach Jay Gruden speaks to media after practice at Redskins Park in Loudoun County, Va. on Friday, November 14, 2014.
  • Fri., Nov. 14, 2014 5:30 PM - 6:00 PM EST Redskins Nation

    Redskins Nation is a half-hour show devoted to giving fans unfiltered access to the day's events at Redskins Park. Hosted by Larry Michael, the show features Redskins players, coaches and sit-down interviews with team officials. (Show re-airs at 11:30 p.m/7:30 a.m. daily)

    • DATE: December 3, 2013
    • TIME:  5:30 PM 
    • LOCATION:  Comcast SportsNet

  • Sun., Nov. 16, 2014 11:30 AM - 12:00 PM EST Live Verizon Gametime Live Redskins pregame show hosted by Lou Holder LIVE from FedExField before the Redskins vs. Buccaneers kickoff on Sunday, November 16, 2014.
  • Sun., Nov. 16, 2014 4:30 PM - 5:00 PM EST Live Gruden Press Conference Redskins head coach Jay Gruden takes the podium following the Redskins vs. Buccaneers game at FedExField on Sunday, November 16, 2014.
  • Sun., Nov. 16, 2014 5:00 PM - 5:30 PM EST Live Player Press Conference Select Redskins players take the podium following the Redskins vs. Buccaneers game at FedExField on Sunday, November 16, 2014.
  • Mon., Nov. 17, 2014 5:30 PM - 6:00 PM EST Redskins Nation

    Redskins Nation is a half-hour show devoted to giving fans unfiltered access to the day's events at Redskins Park. Hosted by Larry Michael, the show features Redskins players, coaches and sit-down interviews with team officials. (Show re-airs at 11:30 p.m/7:30 a.m. daily)

    • DATE: December 3, 2013
    • TIME:  5:30 PM 
    • LOCATION:  Comcast SportsNet

  • Tue., Nov. 18, 2014 5:30 PM - 6:00 PM EST Redskins Nation

    Redskins Nation is a half-hour show devoted to giving fans unfiltered access to the day's events at Redskins Park. Hosted by Larry Michael, the show features Redskins players, coaches and sit-down interviews with team officials. (Show re-airs at 11:30 p.m/7:30 a.m. daily)

    • DATE: December 3, 2013
    • TIME:  5:30 PM 
    • LOCATION:  Comcast SportsNet

  • Wed., Nov. 19, 2014 5:30 PM - 6:00 PM EST Redskins Nation

    Redskins Nation is a half-hour show devoted to giving fans unfiltered access to the day's events at Redskins Park. Hosted by Larry Michael, the show features Redskins players, coaches and sit-down interviews with team officials. (Show re-airs at 11:30 p.m/7:30 a.m. daily)

    • DATE: December 3, 2013
    • TIME:  5:30 PM 
    • LOCATION:  Comcast SportsNet

  • Thu., Nov. 20, 2014 5:30 PM - 6:00 PM EST Redskins Nation

    Redskins Nation is a half-hour show devoted to giving fans unfiltered access to the day's events at Redskins Park. Hosted by Larry Michael, the show features Redskins players, coaches and sit-down interviews with team officials. (Show re-airs at 11:30 p.m/7:30 a.m. daily)

    • DATE: December 3, 2013
    • TIME:  5:30 PM 
    • LOCATION:  Comcast SportsNet

  • Fri., Nov. 21, 2014 5:30 PM - 6:00 PM EST Redskins Nation

    Redskins Nation is a half-hour show devoted to giving fans unfiltered access to the day's events at Redskins Park. Hosted by Larry Michael, the show features Redskins players, coaches and sit-down interviews with team officials. (Show re-airs at 11:30 p.m/7:30 a.m. daily)

    • DATE: December 3, 2013
    • TIME:  5:30 PM 
    • LOCATION:  Comcast SportsNet

Jump to content


Photo

SOW| Native Americans Speaking Out In Support of Redskins Name


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
293 replies to this topic

#41 SonnyandSam

SonnyandSam

    The Playmaker

  • Members
  • 3,262 posts

Posted 02 March 2013 - 04:05 PM

It doesn't matter if you made a poll today of every Native American and the results were the same. People like Wise already have made up their mind and facts don't matter. It's not about facts, it's about control. Media feels they have the right to force their opinion on everyone through intimidation.


Exactly. UnWise Mike, during his presentation at the seminar advocated "intimidation" to force a change. He believes people like me should be intimidated and embarrassed by calling me a "racist" or other names to get HIS change made. He is not interested in a debate on the merits or facts. He's decided, partially based on some personal discussions with Native Americans, that it is a racist name and needs to be changed because we would never tolerate a team being called the N word or "blackskins" or "dagos" or some other truly derogatory name. He has already decided for all of us that it IS a racist name despite the facts to the contrary. And most if not all the media are too chicken to stand up to this kind of intimidation because they do not want to be called a "racist" by these liberal neanderthals who refuse to consider the facts.

You, know, IF anyone could prove that "red skins" was actually used at some point to mean "bloody scalps" most if not all of us would immediately say, "you're right, Mike; the name needs to go." But they cannot. The facts are on our side and not theirs.

Admittedly, "redskins" is an arcane word no longer used in our common vocabulary except to reference the Redskins. But that does not make it racist because it is just an old term used 200 years ago.
:logo:

---------- Post added March-2nd-2013 at 04:12 PM ----------

If anyone is keeping score in 2013, we've been crushed by 15+ national voices over the past two months. We have a couple of local voices supporting us in a team blog and a home town radio station at 106.7.

Did I forget anyone else?


But we can all win this battle if we just keep fighting the media. It will all go away eventually right?


Are you being sarcastic, RFK? This fight has been around for at least 20 years, mostly brought up by a Post reporter from time to time. I expect it will continue to be brought up regularly. I am not too concerned about Danny caving but I am concerned that the NFL and the other NFL owners may create enough economic pressure to force a change if the political pressure is great enough to change the name. The end game is going to be hard to win unless there is vocal support for the name from Native American groups like the Seminole tribe that supports the Florida Seminoles name. Fan support alone is not going to be enough to fight the media onslaught. The NCAA has threatened to prevent Florida from participating in NCAA championship tournaments for all sports because of their name. Only the strong vocal support from the Seminole Tribe has prevented Florida from not changing their name.

#42 PleaseGoForTheWin

PleaseGoForTheWin

    The Rookie

  • Members
  • 1,308 posts

Posted 02 March 2013 - 04:16 PM

I teach New Mexico History at a high school in Albuquerque. Each term I have my students write a paper on the ethics of using Native American mascots and team names. I read this particular article but couldn't help but classify it with most of the others, on both sides of this argument, that simply aren't really convincing.

Honestly, I love the Redskins and don't want to see the name changed, but continuing to use the name is indefensible. OK, so it's an "honor" to Native Americans. Many Native Americans don't care. The team has its own history and legacy that's not necessarily the same as this country's cultural genocide of Native Americans.

But what these arguments don't recognize as an unmistakable truth is that the name stereotypes Native Americans, is in fact a racial epithet, and originated in a time when people simply did not give much consideration to whether or not they were being racist. Changing the name isn't political correctness gone amok; it's recognizing that we've been blind to our implicit racism for too long.

Again, as a lifelong Redskins fan, I'd personally hate to have to call my team something different. But I nevertheless recognize that we probably should. And heck, for me it's a double-whammy because I'm from Cleveland and am also an Indians fan. I have Chief Wahoo mugs and shirts, but both the name and the logo promote racial stereotypes. Maybe 90% of people don't see it that way, but I think that's because they haven't really stopped or had reason to think about it very much because the stereotypes don't come at their expense.

#43 2cents

2cents

    The Backup

  • Banned
  • 2,467 posts

Posted 02 March 2013 - 04:27 PM

I teach New Mexico History at a high school in Albuquerque. Each term I have my students write a paper on the ethics of using Native American mascots and team names. I read this particular article but couldn't help but classify it with most of the others, on both sides of this argument, that simply aren't really convincing.

Honestly, I love the Redskins and don't want to see the name changed, but continuing to use the name is indefensible. OK, so it's an "honor" to Native Americans. Many Native Americans don't care. The team has its own history and legacy that's not necessarily the same as this country's cultural genocide of Native Americans.

But what these arguments don't recognize as an unmistakable truth is that the name stereotypes Native Americans, is in fact a racial epithet, and originated in a time when people simply did not give much consideration to whether or not they were being racist. Changing the name isn't political correctness gone amok; it's recognizing that we've been blind to our implicit racism for too long.

Again, as a lifelong Redskins fan, I'd personally hate to have to call my team something different. But I nevertheless recognize that we probably should. And heck, for me it's a double-whammy because I'm from Cleveland and am also an Indians fan. I have Chief Wahoo mugs and shirts, but both the name and the logo promote racial stereotypes. Maybe 90% of people don't see it that way, but I think that's because they haven't really stopped or had reason to think about it very much because the stereotypes don't come at their expense.


I don't see any compelling argument for change there.

#44 Captain Injury

Captain Injury

    The Benchwarmer

  • Members
  • 181 posts

Posted 02 March 2013 - 05:00 PM

RD,

I have mentioned this before. I am not saying you are doing anything wrong. I don't believe you to be, and I don't support changing the name of the franchise, so let me go on record there. However, you need to do some serious quality control on your site. Content Director, right?

>Who is "Kevin"? Did you meet with him and speak to him? Did you do anything to verify that his opinion is a Native American opinion, or even that he is Native American? The viewpoint may be intriguing, but its power in this piece comes from the assumption that it is a Native American stating it. You offer no proof or evidence that it is. As such, you or I could have written that letter and that does more than grant you zero credibility; it makes you look unaccountable or worse, that you drummed this up yourself. Again, because reading comprehension is low around here, I'm not saying you did anything wrong, but you need to state that you at least followed up to make sure this wasn't just anybody before titling the post "Native Americans Speak Out..."

>You could calso have posted this stating that you've been receiving e-mails from people claiming to be Native Americans, and it raises an interesting viewpoint that you will paraphrase and consider as if genuine. This doesn't leave the door open for your integrity to be questioned.

I support you and your blog and you are getting bigger and better. Make sure your content is vetted and accounted for, especally when your main piece is a socially volatile claim that Native Americans who protest the Redskins moniker are "white" or self-opposed unreal Indian people.

#45 RFKFedEx

RFKFedEx

    The Run Stopper

  • Members
  • 5,974 posts

Posted 02 March 2013 - 05:03 PM

Are you being sarcastic, RFK?


Yes. Keeping the name and Native imagery is a battle not worth fighting IMO. Native leaders have asked us to change. Nobody has been winning on the defensive side of this game. The problem will only get worse before it gets better.

#46 JoeSkins

JoeSkins

    The Run Stopper

  • Members
  • 5,590 posts

Posted 02 March 2013 - 05:11 PM

If anyone is keeping score in 2013, we've been crushed by 15+ national voices over the past two months. We have a couple of local voices supporting us in a team blog and a home town radio station at 106.7.

Did I forget anyone else?


But we can all win this battle if we just keep fighting the media. It will all go away eventually right?


It's no one's battle but Snyder's and he has already won. Snyder has the law on his side and public opinion isn't indicating any potential financial harm to him. Nobody is boycotting games over this and barely anyone is paying attention. Nothing will come of this because the story is being driven by a handful of ADD media types who only picked it up because they have to generate daily content and it's an easy little pile to drop on your editor/producer's desk. They don't actually care about anything but meeting deadlines and hitting quotas so when a real story comes along it will be yesterday's news.

#47 PleaseGoForTheWin

PleaseGoForTheWin

    The Rookie

  • Members
  • 1,308 posts

Posted 02 March 2013 - 05:16 PM

I don't see any compelling argument for change there.


Then you probably didn't consider what I wrote very carefully. Redskin is a racial epithet. Indian kids at my school are sometimes called "redskins" or told to "go back to the res" much the same way that Blacks are called "darkies" or Hispanics are called "beaners." It's the same sort of stereotypical, racist epithet.

The name--and the image--promote the idea of the Indian as something from the past, primitive, and removed from modern society.

Again, I personally want to keep the name for selfish reasons, but there's no getting around the fact that both the name and logo are ethically stereotypical. When it comes down to it, it's indefensible on moral ground.

#48 2cents

2cents

    The Backup

  • Banned
  • 2,467 posts

Posted 02 March 2013 - 05:25 PM

Then you probably didn't consider what I wrote very carefully. Redskin is a racial epithet. Indian kids at my school are sometimes called "redskins" or told to "go back to the res" much the same way that Blacks are called "darkies" or Hispanics are called "beaners." It's the same sort of stereotypical, racist epithet.

The name--and the image--promote the idea of the Indian as something from the past, primitive, and removed from modern society.

Again, I personally want to keep the name for selfish reasons, but there's no getting around the fact that both the name and logo are ethically stereotypical. When it comes down to it, it's indefensible on moral ground.


Changing the name of our team will solve none of that. I prefer focusing on the real, not the symbolic. And btw, if you don't know, we use the current logo by the request, and virtual design of, the former head of the American Cousel of Indians. All the Native Americans I know, and there are several, all love the logo and don't mind the name at all and think it does a lot to keep Native American history in the minds of people. Their opinion, which appears to be in the majority, should count.

#49 Bang

Bang

    Ring of Fame

  • Members
  • 12,561 posts

Posted 02 March 2013 - 05:28 PM

If anyone is keeping score in 2013, we've been crushed by 15+ national voices over the past two months. We have a couple of local voices supporting us in a team blog and a home town radio station at 106.7.

Did I forget anyone else?


But we can all win this battle if we just keep fighting the media. It will all go away eventually right?


I don't see any fight.
I see the media whining, and I see the Redskins doing nothing.

~Bang

#50 2cents

2cents

    The Backup

  • Banned
  • 2,467 posts

Posted 02 March 2013 - 05:29 PM

I don't see any fight.
I see the media whining, and I see the Redskins doing nothing.

~Bang



Par for the course, which if fine with me.

#51 Redskin-All-In

Redskin-All-In

    The Benchwarmer

  • Members
  • 244 posts

Posted 02 March 2013 - 05:40 PM

post deleted

Edited by Redskin-All-In, 17 March 2013 - 08:10 PM.


#52 grego

grego

    The Cover Corner

  • Members
  • 5,046 posts

Posted 02 March 2013 - 07:28 PM

Maybe 90% of people don't see it that way, but I think that's because they haven't really stopped or had reason to think about it very much because the stereotypes don't come at their expense.


thats where you would be wrong. you set up your point of view that the name is, in fact, a racial epithet, and essentially said with that sentence 'anyone who disagrees with me does so just because they havent thought about it cuz the name isnt talking about them'.

thats a problem.

the fact that native americans use the name for their own mascot kills the racial epithet argument. at the very least it is proves it is debatable.

personally, i have spent alot of time thinking about this topic, and i have come to the opposite conclusion. in fact, the more i learn, the more i am convinced the team absolutely should not change the name.

i agree that your cleveland indians promote racial sterotypes, but the washington redskins logo? hardly. we dont tomahawk chop like the seminoles do (with the support of the seminole tribe, interestingly enough), and we dont have a logo with exaggerated features like your baseball team. i would suggest researching where the indian head logo on the redskins helmet came from and rethink your position, as an open minded person who appears to want to do what is right.

Edited by grego, 02 March 2013 - 07:29 PM.


#53 2cents

2cents

    The Backup

  • Banned
  • 2,467 posts

Posted 02 March 2013 - 07:32 PM

thats where you would be wrong. you set up your point of view that the name is, in fact, a racial epithet, and essentially said with that sentence 'anyone who disagrees with me does so just because they havent thought about it cuz the name isnt talking about them'.

thats a problem.

the fact that native americans use the name for their own mascot kills the racial epithet argument. at the very least it is proves it is debatable.

personally, i have spent alot of time thinking about this topic, and i have come to the opposite conclusion. in fact, the more i learn, the more i am convinced the team absolutely should not change the name.

i agree that your cleveland indians promote racial sterotypes, but the washington redskins logo? hardly. we dont tomahawk chop like the seminoles do (with the support of the seminole tribe, interestingly enough), and we dont have a logo with exaggerated features like your baseball team. i would suggest researching where the indian head logo on the redskins helmet came from and rethink your position, as an open minded person who appears to want to do what is right.


And if it matters, PC people in North Dakota made the Fighting Sioux at the University change the name. The tribes were upset because they allowed the school to use the name and sealed the deal in a sacred pipe ceremony and were very upset that the name was changed because an agreement in a pipe ceremony is permanant and sacred. Kinda proves the point that people are being PC just to be PC and aren't really concerned with what is really going on.

---------- Post added March-2nd-2013 at 06:34 PM ----------

thats where you would be wrong. you set up your point of view that the name is, in fact, a racial epithet, and essentially said with that sentence 'anyone who disagrees with me does so just because they havent thought about it cuz the name isnt talking about them'.

thats a problem.

the fact that native americans use the name for their own mascot kills the racial epithet argument. at the very least it is proves it is debatable.

personally, i have spent alot of time thinking about this topic, and i have come to the opposite conclusion. in fact, the more i learn, the more i am convinced the team absolutely should not change the name.

i agree that your cleveland indians promote racial sterotypes, but the washington redskins logo? hardly. we dont tomahawk chop like the seminoles do (with the support of the seminole tribe, interestingly enough), and we dont have a logo with exaggerated features like your baseball team. i would suggest researching where the indian head logo on the redskins helmet came from and rethink your position, as an open minded person who appears to want to do what is right.



I pointed out in an earlier post where the logo came from, but have no response as of yet.[COLOR="Gold"]

Edited by 2cents, 02 March 2013 - 07:41 PM.


#54 MartinC

MartinC

    Ring of Fame

  • Members
  • 10,755 posts

Posted 02 March 2013 - 08:00 PM

Then you probably didn't consider what I wrote very carefully. Redskin is a racial epithet. Indian kids at my school are sometimes called "redskins" or told to "go back to the res" much the same way that Blacks are called "darkies" or Hispanics are called "beaners." It's the same sort of stereotypical, racist epithet.

The name--and the image--promote the idea of the Indian as something from the past, primitive, and removed from modern society.

Again, I personally want to keep the name for selfish reasons, but there's no getting around the fact that both the name and logo are ethically stereotypical. When it comes down to it, it's indefensible on moral ground.


I appreciate you sharing your experience and views on this.

My thing on this question is context. Words and phrases change over time and with use depending on context. My position is that when someone talks about the Redskins in the context of an NFL game it's not a racial epithet and very very few people are hearing the name or seeing the imagery around the team and linking it in a negative way to modern Native Americans.

If someone walks into a bar in a Indian neighborhood and starts calling people 'Redskins' in that context almost everyone would take offence and agree that the term is being used in a racist way and there would probably be some fists flying. If you walk into the same bar on. Sunday during football season and there are some games on the TVs and you ask 'Whats the Redskins score' I can't imagine anyone in the bar would take offence or consider the question racist.

I'm interested in your take on this?

#55 PleaseGoForTheWin

PleaseGoForTheWin

    The Rookie

  • Members
  • 1,308 posts

Posted 02 March 2013 - 08:03 PM

I wholly agree.

p.s. I come from a line of Norwegians who came to this country to work as meat canners, before pursuing their fortune in the California Gold Rush. I similarly find the team names Vikings, Packers, and 49ers as something from the past, primitive, and removed from modern society. I agree with your logic completely, and therefore insist that these names be changed so that my family's heritage is no longer besmirched by the NFL.

:secret: for someone calling out an essay as not being convincing, your posts are, well, unconvincing


The "Indian" who posted on SOW bases his whole argument on the fact that "real" Indians don't care and that "white" Indians are the ones making the stink. He's entitled to his point of view, but he's speaking from a purely personal standpoint.

As to your second point, Packers and 49ers refer to professions or trades, and they aren't tied specifically to a single ethnic group. Nor do their mascots stereotype a still living, thriving culture.

#56 grego

grego

    The Cover Corner

  • Members
  • 5,046 posts

Posted 02 March 2013 - 08:10 PM

And if it matters, PC people in North Dakota made the Fighting Sioux at the University change the name. The tribes were upset because they allowed the school to use the name and sealed the deal in a sacred pipe ceremony and were very upset that the name was changed because an agreement in a pipe ceremony is permanant and sacred. Kinda proves the point that people are being PC just to be PC and aren't really concerned with what is really going on.

---------- Post added March-2nd-2013 at 06:34 PM ----------




I pointed out in an earlier post where the logo came from, but have no response as of yet.[COLOR="Gold"]


i saw the logo reference after i posted. excellent points.

#57 skinfan2k

skinfan2k

    Ring of Fame

  • Members
  • 17,007 posts

Posted 02 March 2013 - 08:12 PM

Real indians don't care about native americans, haha! we are from india. there is no such thing as an american indian

#58 PleaseGoForTheWin

PleaseGoForTheWin

    The Rookie

  • Members
  • 1,308 posts

Posted 02 March 2013 - 08:15 PM

thats where you would be wrong. you set up your point of view that the name is, in fact, a racial epithet, and essentially said with that sentence 'anyone who disagrees with me does so just because they havent thought about it cuz the name isnt talking about them'.

thats a problem.

the fact that native americans use the name for their own mascot kills the racial epithet argument. at the very least it is proves it is debatable.


Perhaps. But I have observed how redskin is used in the same way as ******, spic, chink, etc. You certainly wouldn't call someone a redskin as a compliment. So, I'm not sure it's a reach or invalid assumption that the term is a racial epithet, at least in certain contexts and certainly historically. My point about the mass public not considering the ethics is based on the reasoning that the mass public has had no reason to even consider it. Why would middle-class white America have much reason to consider or care about the ethics of a Native American mascot. Look, our attitudes about various issues and in various contexts change. Up until recently, I never thought about where or how my hamburger or souvlaki was sourced, and I don't think automobile manufacturers, for example, really put much thought into fuel efficiency until relative recently. They didn't need to think about it because energy was cheap, the customer valued performance over economy, etc. So, perhaps we've reached a point where we, collectively, are ready to have a discussion about the issue. Indians themselves have a limited voice and have not had much of a voice until recently--for the rest of America, perhaps it was simply an issue of out of sight, out of mind. Perhaps if there was a team created called the Sultry Blondies or something inane women would (justifiably) object to their representation and the ideas that such representation promotes.

Again, I personally am a fan of the name and logo. But it's not my culture that is being used or stereotyped.

---------- Post added March-2nd-2013 at 09:20 PM ----------

I appreciate you sharing your experience and views on this.

My thing on this question is context. Words and phrases change over time and with use depending on context. My position is that when someone talks about the Redskins in the context of an NFL game it's not a racial epithet and very very few people are hearing the name or seeing the imagery around the team and linking it in a negative way to modern Native Americans.

If someone walks into a bar in a Indian neighborhood and starts calling people 'Redskins' in that context almost everyone would take offence and agree that the term is being used in a racist way and there would probably be some fists flying. If you walk into the same bar on. Sunday during football season and there are some games on the TVs and you ask 'Whats the Redskins score' I can't imagine anyone in the bar would take offence or consider the question racist.

I'm interested in your take on this?


I think that everything you've said here is valid, and in fact I do agree with you. But perhaps to others--Indians themselves--the name is a painful reminder of their past and the oversimplified perception many Americans have of them. So, while I do agree with you, I don't think supporters of the name can dismiss the critics simply by saying "words and their meanings change over time."

#59 2cents

2cents

    The Backup

  • Banned
  • 2,467 posts

Posted 02 March 2013 - 08:22 PM

Perhaps. But I have observed how redskin is used in the same way as ******, spic, chink, etc. You certainly wouldn't call someone a redskin as a compliment. So, I'm not sure it's a reach or invalid assumption that the term is a racial epithet, at least in certain contexts and certainly historically. My point about the mass public not considering the ethics is based on the reasoning that the mass public has had no reason to even consider it. Why would middle-class white America have much reason to consider or care about the ethics of a Native American mascot. Look, our attitudes about various issues and in various contexts change. Up until recently, I never thought about where or how my hamburger or souvlaki was sourced, and I don't think automobile manufacturers, for example, really put much thought into fuel efficiency until relative recently. They didn't need to think about it because energy was cheap, the customer valued performance over economy, etc. So, perhaps we've reached a point where we, collectively, are ready to have a discussion about the issue. Indians themselves have a limited voice and have not had much of a voice until recently--for the rest of America, perhaps it was simply an issue of out of sight, out of mind. Perhaps if there was a team created called the Sultry Blondies or something inane women would (justifiably) object to their representation and the ideas that such representation promotes.

Again, I personally am a fan of the name and logo. But it's not my culture that is being used or stereotyped.


So what is your take on African American people being offended to the point of fighting if called a ****** by a white person, but when a rapper(or sports reporter) talks about niggahs, then its ok? Understand, I'm not being snarky, I'm asking seriously, as this is something that has bugged me for a while.

#60 PleaseGoForTheWin

PleaseGoForTheWin

    The Rookie

  • Members
  • 1,308 posts

Posted 02 March 2013 - 08:24 PM

And if it matters, PC people in North Dakota made the Fighting Sioux at the University change the name. The tribes were upset because they allowed the school to use the name and sealed the deal in a sacred pipe ceremony and were very upset that the name was changed because an agreement in a pipe ceremony is permanant and sacred. Kinda proves the point that people are being PC just to be PC and aren't really concerned with what is really going on.


Part of the issue with the Sioux is that the Sioux referred themselves as Lakota (their enemies called them Sioux), and that there is no single Sioux tribe. If I recall correctly, several Sioux tribes supported the university while several others did not, which contributed to the dispute..

#61 SonnyandSam

SonnyandSam

    The Playmaker

  • Members
  • 3,262 posts

Posted 02 March 2013 - 08:31 PM

Yes. Keeping the name and Native imagery is a battle not worth fighting IMO. Native leaders have asked us to change. Nobody has been winning on the defensive side of this game. The problem will only get worse before it gets better.


Good. At least I know my sarcasm meter is still working! :D

#62 MartinC

MartinC

    Ring of Fame

  • Members
  • 10,755 posts

Posted 02 March 2013 - 08:31 PM

But perhaps to others--Indians themselves--the name is a painful reminder of their past and the oversimplified perception many Americans have of them. So, while I do agree with you, I don't think supporters of the name can dismiss the critics simply by saying "words and their meanings change over time."


But then all the surveys show that only a small minority of the population who MIGHT have reason to be offended actually are. Then you add in the fact that High Schools in Native American areas use the same nickname and it starts becoming hard to sustain the argument you make above.

#63 grego

grego

    The Cover Corner

  • Members
  • 5,046 posts

Posted 02 March 2013 - 08:33 PM

Perhaps. But I have observed how redskin is used in the same way as ******, spic, chink, etc. You certainly wouldn't call someone a redskin as a compliment. So, I'm not sure it's a reach or invalid assumption that the term is a racial epithet, at least in certain contexts and certainly historically. My point about the mass public not considering the ethics is based on the reasoning that the mass public has had no reason to even consider it. Why would middle-class white America have much reason to consider or care about the ethics of a Native American mascot. Look, our attitudes about various issues and in various contexts change. Up until recently, I never thought about where or how my hamburger or souvlaki was sourced, and I don't think automobile manufacturers, for example, really put much thought into fuel efficiency until relative recently. They didn't need to think about it because energy was cheap, the customer valued performance over economy, etc. So, perhaps we've reached a point where we, collectively, are ready to have a discussion about the issue. Indians themselves have a limited voice and have not had much of a voice until recently--for the rest of America, perhaps it was simply an issue of out of sight, out of mind. Perhaps if there was a t"


while i disagree that there is actually any stereotyping going on with the redskins (such as the previously mentioned examples of the seminoles or cleveland indians), this is why i mentioned the origin of the 'stereotypical' redskins helmet logo. it was suggested when the redskins wore the 'R' on their helmet and the president of the congress of american indians wanted an indian on the helmet.

personally, i obsess over issues like this to a fault. for me, its far from out is site, out of mind for me. but i understand for some, it is as you say.

still, the facts, from the logo, to the polls about how native americans feel about the name, to native americans calling their own high school teams 'redskins' do not paint the picture you are painting, which seems to be that they hate the name but are suffering due to their lack of voice.

the facts indicate a small minority who are obsessed with the issue of changing the name, whatever their reasoning, much as the original article represents.

#64 MartinC

MartinC

    Ring of Fame

  • Members
  • 10,755 posts

Posted 02 March 2013 - 08:35 PM

So what is your take on African American people being offended to the point of fighting if called a ****** by a white person, but when a rapper(or sports reporter) talks about niggahs, then its ok? Understand, I'm not being snarky, I'm asking seriously, as this is something that has bugged me for a while.


It's about context. How where and in what sense a word is used changes it's meaning and the reaction to the word. Our language is constantly evolving and words have multiple meanings and we are very sophisticated in how we translate those meanings.

#65 2cents

2cents

    The Backup

  • Banned
  • 2,467 posts

Posted 02 March 2013 - 08:39 PM

It's about context. How where and in what sense a word is used changes it's meaning and the reaction to the word. Our language is constantly evolving and words have multiple meanings and we are very sophisticated in how we translate those meanings.


But where do you stop? I have stated in other threads that what do you do when Christians want any team named Devil to change? What about any reference to any kind of people like Vikings? Or criminal elements like Raiders, Buccanneers? It could never end.

#66 PleaseGoForTheWin

PleaseGoForTheWin

    The Rookie

  • Members
  • 1,308 posts

Posted 02 March 2013 - 08:44 PM

So what is your take on African American people being offended to the point of fighting if called a ****** by a white person, but when a rapper(or sports reporter) talks about niggahs, then its ok? Understand, I'm not being snarky, I'm asking seriously, as this is something that has bugged me for a while.


I won't address the double-standard you're getting at because I think that's a somewhat different issue. Native Americans don't call each other redskins, at least not that I've observed. Look, I understand that context can change how we evaluate the use of certain words or ideas. I agree entirely that context matters, and I don't think that sports fans mean to use Redskin maliciously. Intent and consequence, however, are not always the same.

Anyway, it's been a good discussion, everyone. I'm not saying that anyone here is wrong or misguided, but I am trying to offer some different perspectives. Again, I assign a paper each term on this topic (though generalized to all Native American mascots and names, not just the Redskins) and have read dozens of websites, op-eds, and blogs on the issue. My hope is that the team will engage in actual dialogue with Native American groups opposed to the name instead of simply stonewalling them, which I believe only adds to the problem.

#67 MartinC

MartinC

    Ring of Fame

  • Members
  • 10,755 posts

Posted 02 March 2013 - 08:48 PM

But where do you stop? I have stated in other threads that what do you do when Christians want any team named Devil to change? What about any reference to any kind of people like Vikings? Or criminal elements like Raiders, Buccanneers? It could never end.


I think you misunderstand me - I'm not in favor of changing our name. My position is that in the context we use the term it's NOT a racist term in any way. Now you walk into a bar and start calling Native Americans 'Redskins' then that IS a racist term and folks are entitled to take offence. To your example if a middle aged white guy like me calls a black guy the 'N' word he's going to take offence in just about any context unless we are REALLY close friends and its part of some shtick we have. If a black rapper uses the same term taking to one of his posse (get me down with the kids!) then it's received dfferently.

#68 2cents

2cents

    The Backup

  • Banned
  • 2,467 posts

Posted 02 March 2013 - 08:57 PM

I think you misunderstand me - I'm not in favor of changing our name. My position is that in the context we use the term it's NOT a racist term in any way. Now you walk into a bar and start calling Native Americans 'Redskins' then that IS a racist term and folks are entitled to take offence. To your example if a middle aged white guy like me calls a black guy the 'N' word he's going to take offence in just about any context unless we are REALLY close friends and its part of some shtick we have. If a black rapper uses the same term taking to one of his posse (get me down with the kids!) then it's received dfferently.


To me, offensive is offensive. It shouldn't matter who it comes from. Context doesn't matter because offensive is offensive. That's why I don't think our name is offensive. In my travels, I have had a 100% Apachie Indian invite me to a Native American History month celebration and asked me to wear a Skins' shirt because all his NA friends like the logo and wanted to prove to people that NA are not offended by the term or the logo. Experiences like that make it hard for me to believe that it is offensive.

By the way, I hope you know I am discussing, not arguing. I have a Masters in HR and working on a PhD in HR and have been an equal opportunity advisor at work and it is a subject I enjoy discussing.

#69 MartinC

MartinC

    Ring of Fame

  • Members
  • 10,755 posts

Posted 02 March 2013 - 09:02 PM

By the way, I hope you know I am discussing, not arguing. I have a Masters in HR and working on a PhD in HR and have been an equal opportunity advisor at work and it is a subject I enjoy discussing.


Likewise - I think this has been a good conversation.

Have to disagree that context does not matter but I have no problem with people taking a different view.

#70 RFKFedEx

RFKFedEx

    The Run Stopper

  • Members
  • 5,974 posts

Posted 02 March 2013 - 09:30 PM

But where do you stop? I have stated in other threads that what do you do when Christians want any team named Devil to change? What about any reference to any kind of people like Vikings? Or criminal elements like Raiders, Buccanneers? It could never end.


We can look forward to watching those franchises fight their PC battles in the future. :munchout:


In the mean time, we face a real life problem. :doh:

#71 Destino

Destino

    Ring of Fame

  • Members
  • 18,143 posts

Posted 02 March 2013 - 09:36 PM

Then you probably didn't consider what I wrote very carefully. Redskin is a racial epithet. Indian kids at my school are sometimes called "redskins" or told to "go back to the res" much the same way that Blacks are called "darkies" or Hispanics are called "beaners." It's the same sort of stereotypical, racist epithet.

I've been reading, on this site, that redskins is not a racial slur and isn't used as one. Yet you're saying that you know that it is. Someone is wrong.

#72 rd421

rd421

    The Playmaker

  • Members
  • 3,341 posts

Posted 02 March 2013 - 09:41 PM

I don't see any fight.
I see the media whining, and I see the Redskins doing nothing.

~Bang


It's because they don't have to. ESPN can try to create all the issues they want and opposers can have rally's etc but there is a reason this "fight" is through the media. There is zero legal leg to stand on forcing the Skins to change and the organization has sweepingly won every court case thus far. They do not have to fight in the media because it will only fuel the fire.

Believe me when I tell you this isn't a fight it's a fabricated circus so full of holes the story is already dying the name will not be changing anytime soon and will only change in the unlikely event that a court makes them and that won't be happening any time soon.

#73 RFKFedEx

RFKFedEx

    The Run Stopper

  • Members
  • 5,974 posts

Posted 02 March 2013 - 09:47 PM

Believe me when I tell you this isn't a fight it's a fabricated circus.


So the leaders and educators who've encouraged thousands of orgs to drop Native themes over the past 40 years were all just a creation of the free press? Sort of like the Kardashians?

#74 rd421

rd421

    The Playmaker

  • Members
  • 3,341 posts

Posted 02 March 2013 - 09:49 PM

So the leaders and educators who've encouraged thousands of orgs to drop Native themes over the past 40 years were all just a creation of the free press? Sort of like the Kardashians?


I'm not saying people aren't offended I'm simply saying I know for a fact thus isn't a "fight" nothing is changing

#75 Destino

Destino

    Ring of Fame

  • Members
  • 18,143 posts

Posted 02 March 2013 - 09:50 PM

I honestly can't possibly disagree with you more. It sounds like Kevin believes that a majority of the Natives who are speaking out (as well as all the other people who have voiced their opinions on the matter) are more than happy to spend time, money and effort in campaigns to get rid of mascots, but do nothing to actually help people on reservations. In fact, if you read into his statements, the resentment IMO comes from that very fact. Some of the hardships in reservations could be avoided if all these people screaming for the name to be changed instead donated $1 to a reservation or urged their congressman to add funding to local reservations, they can do a lot more for their people.


You can disagree but Xero21's position that "Kevin" is worried about people feeling negatively towards Native Americans over these battles of logo's and name is at least partially true. I included these portions from the article in my earlier post:

-angered sports fan who is upset about losing his mascot screams “**** you sand ******” or throws a beer can at us from a passing car screaming “MOTHER******, GO BACK TO YOUR ****ING RESERVATION!!” they scream such obscenities at my father, my cousin, my brother and my family members who look Indian.

- If we twist America’s arm and get America to concede on the trivial items, the country will lose patience with us when we negotiate important A-items.

- That little child who insists on dressing up in a costume and putting on some feathers loves Indians, but when white Indians insult his mom and dad by calling them racists, he grows up to resent those of us who look Indian.

- The vocalizations of these white Indians seem to unite Indian opposition – they find forums and avenues to kindle hatred against Indians and rehash and reiterate negative stereotypes about Indians.


The argument that there are bigger problems is unconvincing. There are very few things out there that are the "biggest problem" so if we followed that logic quite a few things would go entirely ignored. There is plenty of room in the world for all sorts of issues to be discussed.

#76 2cents

2cents

    The Backup

  • Banned
  • 2,467 posts

Posted 02 March 2013 - 09:51 PM

I've been reading, on this site, that redskins is not a racial slur and isn't used as one. Yet you're saying that you know that it is. Someone is wrong.


Well there really is no right or wrong answer, as both sides have their opinion and there is no real right or wrong. The question is if a small minority can, without the support of facts, force their opinions and beliefs on others.

#77 Destino

Destino

    Ring of Fame

  • Members
  • 18,143 posts

Posted 02 March 2013 - 09:52 PM

So the leaders and educators who've encouraged thousands of orgs to drop Native themes over the past 40 years were all just a creation of the free press? Sort of like the Kardashians?


It was done by white indians that control the press, hospitals, government, coconut trees, and the entire supply of shampoo sold in the Americas.

#78 RFKFedEx

RFKFedEx

    The Run Stopper

  • Members
  • 5,974 posts

Posted 02 March 2013 - 10:08 PM

I'm not saying people aren't offended I'm simply saying I know for a fact thus isn't a "fight" nothing is changing


I wouldn't consider the decision to rid the band of their traditional headdresses an act of 'nothing changing'. Bruce Allen addressing the media, coupled with releases on the website haven't been signs of retreat. The team is responding to the conflict, it sure smells like a fight to me.

#79 Redskin-All-In

Redskin-All-In

    The Benchwarmer

  • Members
  • 244 posts

Posted 02 March 2013 - 10:29 PM

post deleted

Edited by Redskin-All-In, 17 March 2013 - 08:06 PM.


#80 2cents

2cents

    The Backup

  • Banned
  • 2,467 posts

Posted 02 March 2013 - 10:38 PM

Well you conveniently neglected the Viking argument, which does allude to ethnicity. And you've completely ignored the numerous logical contradictions pointed out in your arguments by several people here. Or I guess I could reply as you have, and simply point out that you didn't read my post very carefully.

Maybe you should go back to grading high school papers and stop projecting your worldview into telling others how they ought to think, simply based on the deep thinking you've accomplished grading papers and reading websites.


It seems like he is missing the argument that is that some in the Native American culture really resent a small group speaking for the enitre culture when they feel that that group does not really reflect their views. I think that they probably resent that small group wasting time and effort on our name and ignoring the real problems in the Native American world.