SOW: Defending Redskins Name on ESPN Outside the Lines

[Tweedr01]

I don't see how you could watch the full 22 minutes of that show and still wonder.

Had ES been around in the 1950s, I'll bet a lot of our fanbase would have taken the similar approach toward integration. As political and social leaders were asking us to change, ownership responded with an 'EFF 'em, we don't need 'em' attitude. Public opinion polls favored keeping the team white. Policy defenders boasted of history, tradition, and honor to protect something that belonged to 'us' and not 'them'. Sound familiar?

The franchise resisted change for as long as it could legally do so, but ultimately 'lost' the battle in the end. I don't predict the outcome being much different this time around.

That's a bit of a stttrrrreeeeettttccchhh.

[SMU Redskin]

Bottom line- you dont have the right to not be offended in America. UnWise Mike saying that if one person is offended, then we should all be offended, is foolish. I see things everyday that offend me, but I don't go tearing them down or calling for them to be changed.

No one is forcing Suzan Harjo or anyone else to go to Redskins games, buy their merchandise, or watch them on TV. She's free to root for 31 other NFL teams. If I tried hard enough, I assume I could get worked up about Notre Dame portraying my ancestors as drunken brawlers, but I have about 1,000 more important things to worry about in my life.

[RFKFedEx]

That's a bit of a stttrrrreeeeettttccchhh.

Which part?

[taayox]

Question is what is the criteria of determining something offensive. If majority of American Indians do find the name offensive than Yes, maybe we should have a discussion about changing it. But you do not change it just because a vocal minority of the group in association with some PC liberals decide that they speak for every one and the name is conclusively offensive. Studies/polls have shown that majority(80%) of Native Americans do not consider this offensive. The host was asking why there was no one who spoke in support of the name. Maybe it was because they deliberately invited only people they knew would voice distaste for the name?

Heres a n article that includes a poll that shows what majority of Native Americans feel about the name:

http://voices.yahoo.com/is-redskins-name-offensive-native-americans-4710337.html?cat=37

[thebluefood]

I don't see how you could watch the full 22 minutes of that show and still wonder.

Had ES been around in the 1950s, I'll bet a lot of our fanbase would have taken the similar approach toward integration. As political and social leaders were asking us to change, ownership responded with an 'EFF 'em, we don't need 'em' attitude. Public opinion polls favored keeping the team white. Policy defenders boasted of history, tradition, and honor to protect something that belonged to 'us' and not 'them'. Sound familiar?

The franchise resisted change for as long as it could legally do so, but ultimately 'lost' the battle in the end. I don't predict the outcome being much different this time around.

That's a bit of a stttrrrreeeeettttccchhh.

A stretch is putting it mildly.

One case dealt with purposefully shutting a group of people out of jobs because of the color of their skin. The other case deals with a nickname that is borderline offensive at best. The Redskins nickname doesn't actively discriminate like Marshall's segregation policy. Those surveys you mentioned, whatever they are, polled the general public. The survey I cited polled American Indians specifically, the very people that are supposed to be offended by the name. In said survey, it said that less than 10 percent of them are offended. If it were anywhere near 50 percent, I'd probably be on the same boat as you and darrelgreenie, but it isn't. It didn't even break the 10 percent mark.

Yes, similar arguments were made about both cases, but the cases themselves aren't even close to being the same.

[Redskins Ruckus]

My aunt has a physical condition called dwarfism. I would hope we can all come together and rally against the bigoted NY team for their highly offensive and overtly derogatory team name. They can choose a new less offensive name other than the Giants.

Edit: Knowing this board, I have to add the sarcasm emoticon

[jnhay]

I'd like to see the number or percentage or Native Americans who say they love the name. Because if, let's say just 10%, of Natives absolutely love the nickname and what it stands for, how can people (most likely not of NA descent) rightfully say that the name should be changed? Wouldn't that then be the disrespectful point of view? All the polls are negatively skewed, and that's the only reason people don't necessarily like defending the name even though they know there's nothing wrong with it.

[RFKFedEx]

A stretch is putting it mildly. One case dealt with purposefully shutting a group of people out of jobs because of the color of their skin. The other case deals with a nickname that is borderline offensive at best.

I feel your comparison, but consider public opinion then v now.

Our STH base was likely +95% white in the 1950s. Our National radio audience listened from dozens of cities in the southern states. I'd venture to guess that a majority of our followers weren't gung ho on integrating the team, my own grandfather included. Public opinion and necessity finally won out, 15 years after Jackie Robinson debuted in Brooklyn, and 20 years after the rest of the fledgling NFL integrated.

It's been about 20 years since National Native voices began asking us to change, roughly beginning at SB26.

[HighOnHendrix]

I feel your comparison, but consider public opinion then v now.

Our STH base was likely +95% white in the 1950s. Our National radio audience listened from dozens of cities in the southern states. I'd venture to guess that a majority of our followers weren't gung ho on integrating the team, my own grandfather included. Public opinion and necessity finally won out, 15 years after Jackie Robinson debuted in Brooklyn, and 20 years after the rest of the fledgling NFL integrated.

It's been about 20 years since National Native voices began asking us to change, roughly beginning at SB26.

Another problem with your comparison is the apparent disconnect between the activists and the people they claim to speak for. When MLK, Jesse Jackson, Rosa Parks, and others were standing up for integration, I doubt that many blacks were in favor of segregation; they actually did represent the opinions of the majority of their people. I truly don't think the Native people who are asking us to change have opinions indicative of the their people as a whole.

[thebluefood]

I feel your comparison, but consider public opinion then v now.

Our STH base was likely +95% white in the 1950s. Our National radio audience listened from dozens of cities in the southern states. I'd venture to guess that a majority of our followers weren't gung ho on integrating the team, my own grandfather included. Public opinion and necessity finally won out, 15 years after Jackie Robinson debuted in Brooklyn, and 20 years after the rest of the fledgling NFL integrated.

It's been about 20 years since National Native voices began asking us to change, roughly beginning at SB26.

Interesting timing for them as that was the zenith of our prowess as a team. Funny how this controversy only seems to make the papers when the team is competitive. Interesting, also, that no one has raised any stink about Chief Wahoo (Cleveland Indians) in years now that the Indians are a second division club.

But, I digress.

I don't know if my family was in the majority of blacks in Washington, but my grandfather became a fan of the team when they moved from Boston. Though he was a baseball guy primarily, he pulled for the 'Skins. My father is the same way as am I. I'm aware of the Redskins' checkered past as far as race is concerned and George Preston Marshall is a character I have very mixed feelings about.

The fact is, though, that in 2013, the Washington Redskins have a very racially diverse fanbase that includes American Indians. Yet, with all the changes we've seen from '37 to today, these have remained constant: our colors and our name. They've become so engrained in our team's identity that changing the nickname would be like changing the city's name.

Every survey I've read has shown that the vast majority of American Indians don't find the team's nickname offensive. Not the general public, not Redskins fans: American Indians. Does that mean they like it or they're apathetic to it? I don't know, but it seems that they aren't offended by it. I don't know where this controversy came from, but it doesn't look like it comes from the average American Indian. That's who I'm concerned about in all this. Not people that are the American Indian equivalent of Al Sharpton. Not members of the media trying to do their best Shirley Povich impression.

[RFKFedEx]

Not members of the media trying to do their best Shirley Povich impression.

I don't get it.

Was Povich a nuisance toward the team's anti-integration policy?

[HighOnHendrix]

I don't know where this controversy came from, but it doesn't look like it comes from the average American Indian. That's who I'm concerned about in all this. Not people that are the American Indian equivalent of Al Sharpton. Not members of the media trying to do their best Shirley Povich impression.

:applause:

[2cents]

The controversy comes from hyper-liberal people who want to make up issues and force their narrow view of the world on others. I bet if the issue was Christians trying to get any team named Devil changed, all you would hear about is free speech and it is religious whakoes trying to force their religion on people. But when it is Liberal white people speaking for Native Americans its ok.

[thebluefood]

I don't get it.

Was Povich a nuisance toward he team's anti-integration policy?

Exactly.

To me, this whole thing is getting stirred up by reporters and commentators that want to be that defender of social justice that Povich actually was. Povich took a hard line stand on a real issue and was a hero for it. That's one of the reasons why he'll always be remember as one of the finest sports journalists of all time. That, and because he was an excellent reporter and masterful writer.

These folks making a big stink about the nickname are trying to mimic Povich and others like him for their own self-righteous agendas. They want to be the hero without actually being a hero. Povich stepped up and spoke out when he needed to. These people aren't.

---------- Post added February-23rd-2013 at 03:56 PM ----------

The controversy comes from hyper-liberal people who want to make up issues and force their narrow view of the world on others. I bet if the issue was Christians trying to get any team named Devil changed, all you would hear about is free speech and it is religious whakoes trying to force their religion on people. But when it is Liberal white people speaking for Native Americans its ok.

Welp, looks like **** got real up in here.

Take cover, folks.

[RFKFedEx]

double post

[2cents]

I just found links to two definitions given by language experts that differ. Took me 10 minutes.

Thats because you care about facts, not just your agenda like others....and it took me less than one minute to find those definitions. Amazing what you can find when you actually WANT to learn something.

[taayox]

To any PC fans out here, would the name the "washington red-people" also be offensive?

[2cents]

The word redskin defined by Merriam-Webster:

redskin: usually offensive: Native American

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/redskin

Any definition you will find states the term is derogatory towards Native Americans.

As a fan of the Burgundy and Gold I have long since been embarrassed by the name and will be glad when/if they change it.

Then you are a hypocrite, because if the name really upset you that much, you wouldn't be a fan of the team. If it REALLY bothered you, you would move on.

[NewCliche21]

The controversy comes from hyper-liberal people who want to make up issues and force their narrow view of the world on others. I bet if the issue was Christians trying to get any team named Devil changed, all you would hear about is free speech and it is religious whakoes trying to force their religion on people. But when it is Liberal white people speaking for Native Americans its ok.

Then you are a hypocrite, because if the name really upset you that much, you wouldn;t be a fan of the team. If it REALLY bothered you, you would move on.

Holy ****, man, take a chill pill. You don't prove a point by attacking those who disagree with you, and you're making those of us who want to keep the name look really bad by association.

[2cents]

Holy ****, man, take a chill pill. You don't prove a point by attacking those who disagree with you, and you're making those of us who want to keep the name look really bad by association.

No I'm not. I'm showing that when you argue fact, all you get back is nonsense. He stated that "any defenition you find is derogatory" That is not true, I looked up on the Smithsonian website and other places where you find all sorts of origins for the term and they involve how the Natives refer to themselves and the tradition of red war paint. And yes, I'm sorry, but if you are truely embarrassed and ashamed of the name, you shouldn't be a fan of the team. That's how I feel. I don't see how that makes defenders of the name look bad.....we shouldn't have to defend the name on a Redskins board. Oh and if you back and look at the history of this discussion, the people who defend the name have been called a lot worse than hypocrites.

[RFKFedEx]

These folks making a big stink about the nickname are trying to mimic Povich and others like him for their own self-righteous agendas. They want to be the hero without actually being a hero. Povich stepped up and spoke out when he needed to. These people aren't.

What about guys like Doc Walker and John Thompson? Have those men taken their stance on the issue to serve personal, self-righteous agendas? You don't hear from them about it often, as they likely don't see a need, nor want to make a big stink. However, they've dropped subtle hints about their views throughout the 2000s if you listened to their show regularly.

[taayox]

Also the argument about the word is that it word was turned into something derogatory(differing opinion about this). However, people usually name their team with names that reflect pride and generally a positive sentiment. By virtue of all these teams naming their club's with Native Indian related names, the word itself has probable already shifted from being a derogatory word(if it ever even truly was) to something that reflects the positive virtues of Native Americans. This in addition to the FACT(80% +) that a majority of Native Americans DO NOT find the word offensive is reason enough for this to be a non issue.

[2cents]

What about guys like Doc Walker and John Thompson? Have those men taken their stance on the issue to serve personal, self-righteous agendas? You don't hear from them about it often, as they likely don't see a need, nor want to make a big stink. However, they've dropped subtle hints about their views throughout the 2000s if you listened to their show regularly.

Walker is a hypocrite....he had no problem with the name when we were the only team offering him a paycheck and he has been able to make a living off the team his entire adult life. He obviously isn't too affended by the name since its on all the checks he cashes.

---------- Post added February-23rd-2013 at 03:37 PM ----------

Also the argument about the word is that it word was turned into something derogatory(differing opinion about this). However, people usually name their team with names that reflect pride and generally a positive sentiment. By virtue of all these teams naming their club's with Native Indian related names, the word itself has probable already shifted from being a derogatory word(if it ever even truly was) to something that reflects the positive virtues of Native Americans. This in addition to the FACT(80% +) that a majority of Native Americans DO NOT find the word offensive is reason enough for this to be a non issue.

You would think that wouldn't you......

[RFKFedEx]

Walker is a hypocrite....he had no problem with the name when we were the only team offering him a paycheck and he has been able to make a living off the team his entire adult life. He obviously isn't too affended by the name since its on all the checks he cashes.

I don't know that he's offended by it. You can disagree with your employer's policy and still cash the paycheck. I've disagreed with my bosses, but I never turnned down my allowance on payday.

[NewCliche21]

No I'm not. I'm showing that when you argue fact, all you get back is nonsense. He stated that "any defenition you find is derogatory" That is not true, I looked up on the Smithsonian website and other places where you find all sorts of origins for the term and they involve how the Natives refer to themselves and the tradition of red war paint. And yes, I'm sorry, but if you are truely embarrassed and ashamed of the name, you shouldn't be a fan of the team. That's how I feel. I don't see how that makes defenders of the name look bad.....we shouldn't have to defend the name on a Redskins board. Oh and if you back and look at the history of this discussion, the people who defend the name have been called a lot worse than hypocrites.

So let me get this straight: Your reason for attacking those who disagree with you instead of presenting facts is because you don't want to be anything like those who disagree with you and voice that by attacking you and not presenting facts? And you call them hypocrites?

You can be unhappy with the name of the team and still be a fan. I have a cousin who annoys the hell out of me, but he's still family.

You're getting me, who has defended the name for his entire life, to defend those who are against it. That means that you're not making your point.