SOW: Defending Redskins Name on ESPN Outside the Lines

[Redskin-All-In]

post deleted

[2cents]

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.

He has impled through the years he doesn't like the name. But to me, and I'm old I get that, if you are that upset by it, work elsewhere.

---------- Post added February-23rd-2013 at 03:57 PM ----------

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.

My point is quite clear and very well made. Most who argue against it argue with emotion not facts. That is proven when you watch them attempt to prove their points with very little to argue with. And I'm sorry, we have to disagree, but my viewpoint is that if you are really upset about something as fundimantal as a team name, you don't cheer for them. You are different, that is fine, but I still find that puzzling. To me there is a big difference between real blood family and a sports team.

[RFKFedEx]

To me there is a big difference between real blood family and a sports team.

In some way yes, but others no. After my immediate, (living) family members, the B&G is probably the most important (non essential) item in my life. Just ask all of my ex ladies.

[rd421]

Well I hate that this was your first post too. Because it is a stupid, ignorant comment to make.

Fellow ES'ers, I apologize here for flirting with Rule 5, and for violating my own adage to never post angry. As stipulated by Rule 5, I have a great deal of respect for "heyitskirby." But given the phenomenal job that Ray did--in the glare of national television, outnumbered against panelists and hosts who were not playing fair--I think it is ridiculous that Ray should be corrected for something as inane as this. And I am offended that Ray should have to endure such silliness after his standup performance on behalf of our Nation.

I've been on national television before, and I can tell you, there is a lot of adrenaline involved. You are in an unfamiliar setting, undergoing unusual routines, with crap on your face and electronics on your body that you have to be careful not to move the wrong way or you'll rip them off. When I went through it, I had a week to prepare, and I was grateful it was a blase topic in a neutral setting. But given the environment, you're only about 70-80% on your "game" at best, and I thought to myself at the time, "man this would suck if it was a confrontational format, and suck bad if they stacked the panel against me."

Ray is the ****ing man. PERIOD. He went on national TV, with no notice, and battled a bull**** panel, representing a view that has been deemed politically unpopular and therefore somehow deemed worthy of public ridicule. He handled himself well under pressure that would cause most people here to buckle then wilt.

After that epic perfomance, "heyitskirby" comments in the thread where Ray is receiving his well-deserved accolades to point out a brief slip i.e. a single instance of slang that Ray probably doesn't use in normal conversation? I mean this respectfully "heyitskirby" when I say that is a petty, pointless criticism that doesn't belong here.

Tell ya' what... anybody who wants to criticize anything about Ray's performance: try it yourself, I dare you. Hell, if you can't get on ESPN, call in to any talk radio show with an similarly biased format. I bet you don't do 10% as well...

And Ray, thank you again for Representing. You did an awesome job--please ignore the ignorance.

Man if I wasn't 100% sure my wife had no clue what ES was if swear you were her LOL. But seriously thanks so much for the kind words and the kind words from everyone on this thread. I'm sure there will always be criticism and sure I had a slip of the tongue (my bad).

Irregardless (lulz) of what the gramar nazis throw at me I plan on pushing on and continuing to represent Redskins Nation as well as I can for a guy who started by posting on a message board and not studying journalism in college.

Hopefully I didn't embarrass anyone to bad lol.

[2cents]

At this point, I'm going to bow out. NC21, I am sorry if I offended, that was not my intention.

[HighOnHendrix]

Hopefully I didn't embarrass anyone to bad lol.

No man, you did good!

What did you think of Brandt bringing up Golden State as an example of removing Indian-related symbols and being successful? Because when I think of successful sports franchises, the Warriors rank half a step higher than the Clippers.

[rskin72]

First of all, nice job RD421 of speaking in a tough situation on national television. Irregardless of some possible language slips....to be honest, I did not notice....but did notice that you seemed cool and collected and did not appear to ramble. Sure ESPN probably wanted to present what it thought would be some yahoo of a fan who would offer weak points in favor of the name status quo. I did not watch the whole event.....but was any effort given to bring on any Redskin management personnel to include Dan Snyder himself? Or Bruce Allen?

It must be a slow sports month when our name "controversy" rears up again. I cannot escape from my feelings that this "issue" is agenda driven by a small minority of folks....and those folks probably could really care the less about the overall well being of Native Americans....this issue is merely a talking point, some "cause" to pursue to fit in within the social circles that they frequent.

I just cannot get to excited about this. Sorry.

I will mention a couple of things. In my very limited research into the origins of the name Redskin.....there are varying points of view as to whether this is indeed a slur or not. I do not subscribe to the point of view that just because the team has been called the Redskins for decades makes the use of the name ok.......but the lack of a sustained, vocal objection from the majority of those whom the name is supposed to offend seems to imply to me that this really is not a huge issue for them.

You also cannot compare this issue to segregation.....not even close to being in the same zip code. I remember the civil rights marches in the 60's, I remember how millions of americans (both black and white) protested against this policy of the states and the government.

Folks....we are talking about a name of a football team here. A name whose origin is debatable as to meaning. I just don't see how this rises to a level of concern that it has garnered.

And....this issue HAS been around now for decades....it is NOT a new issue for the team.

[rd421]

No man, you did good!

What did you think of Brandt bringing up Golden State as an example of removing Indian-related symbols and being successful? Because when I think of successful sports franchises, the Warriors rank half a step higher than the Clippers.

I don't think the imagery change would appease anyone honestly. Opposition may calm down for a little bit but to be honest if "Redskin" I so hurtful that honeymoon will end shortly.

You have to remember that Redskins are only being used to spearhead (no pun intended) this debate, the few Native Amricans involved in stirring this mess have an agenda that reaches beyond just one team. They want all Native influence eradicated from sports period.

Braves, Indians, Warriors, all will come under as much or more attack once they move on from this franchise. The only reason the Seminols are safe is because of the deal FSU made with the tribe and even that will come under attack.

To me it's sad because it moves toward completely forgetting and not honoring a culture in any way.

[skinsince72]

You did very well in that debate sir. Clearly, the panel was stacked. I think a few of them wanted you to lose your cool and seem overly biased and subjective.

In my opinion, what happened at the symposium was very irresponsible. They made broad brush stroke comments of how Native Americans feel and used graphic descriptions to evoke emotions. They focused on how the term Redskin was once used as a derogatory term and was VERY careful not to mention how early Native American used the term (they were the first to use it) to identify themselves.

At some point (I believe in the next few months or so) groups of NA's are going to step forward and present a counter argument that they are not, in fact, offended and view the logo and the name as a sign of respect. It will have to be a brave few at first, because people like those at the symposium will attack them and tell them they should be offended, but just don't know it.

[HighOnHendrix]

I don't think the imagery change would appease anyone honestly. Opposition may calm down for a little bit but to be honest if "Redskin" I so hurtful that honeymoon will end shortly.

You have to remember that Redskins are only being used to spearhead (no pun intended) this debate, the few Native Amricans involved in stirring this mess have an agenda that reaches beyond just one team. They want all Native influence eradicated from sports period.

Braves, Indians, Warriors, all will come under as much or more attack once they move on from this franchise. The only reason the Seminols are safe is because of the deal FSU made with the tribe and even that will come under attack.

To me it's sad because it moves toward completely forgetting and not honoring a culture in any way.

The Blackhawks have made inroads with the Native community also. I think we could learn from the example those two organizations have set, as I mentioned earlier in this thread. Minimizing/discouraging the wearing of traditional ceremonial dress would help things as well. I don't think those would be hard things to give up.

Actually, what I meant with the Warriors was that he was trying to illustrate that you could be successful without the imagery but I think that example falls on its face b/c they are as relevant in the NBA as the Jaguars are in NFL.

[RFKFedEx]

Minimizing/discouraging the wearing of traditional ceremonial dress would help things as well. I don't think those would be hard things to give up.

The band gave up the headdresses which pretty much acknowledges that there was/is a problem. Critics won't be satisfied until all Native themes are abandoned, ala The GS Warriors.

[CrypticVillain]

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.

Let me ask you this, if you are so bothered by the team's name, why are you cheering for them? If you were really down for the cause you would not even think about cheering for a team with such an awful name. Any fan who is cheering for the Redskins but opposes the name is hypocritical. It's just like if I were despise American car manufactures but drive around in Chevy.

As far as the word Redskins goes, how can something be so bad when it is arguable that the origin of the word is. Yes the dictionary says it is offensive. But if it was so offensive why would a team name themselves after them and why would 90% of the people it is supposed to be offending doesn't find it offensive.

[RFKFedEx]

Let me ask you this, if you are so bothered by the team's name, why are you cheering for them? If you were really down for the cause you would not even think about cheering for a team with such an awful name. Any fan who is cheering for the Redskins but opposes the name is hypocritical.

Fans can love the team yet disagree with the stance to preserve the Native theme. As far as being down with the cause, I'm not going to pursue this issue beyond the team I love. If we change, I won't care about the Braves, Indians, Blackhawks, Chiefs, bc they're not my team. While I won't agree with their continued use of Native themes, I'm not going to put energy into the cause after we're through with it.

[CrypticVillain]

Fans can love the team yet disagree with the stance to preserve the Native theme. As far as being down with the cause, I'm not going to pursue this issue beyond the team I love. If we change, I won't care about the Braves, Indians, Blackhawks, Chiefs, bc they're not my team. While I won't agree with their continued use of Native themes, I'm not going to put energy into the cause after we're through with it.

So if it isn't bad enough to stop rooting for the team, is it really bad at all?

[HighOnHendrix]

The band gave up the headdresses which pretty much acknowledges that there was/is a problem. Critics won't be satisfied until all Native themes are abandoned, ala The GS Warriors.

It all comes down to respect. As has been pointed out, the hardcore activists will never be satisfied but average folks can see and decide for themselves what is right and wrong. Convincing the few people doing things that are mocking Native culture (or that look like they are) to not do those things could go a long way with people that are on the fence or not as radical as the peeps on that symposium panel. Besides that, I think it's the right thing to do. Of course that is up to the people wearing that stuff and they may disagree with me.

[Redskin-All-In]

post deleted

[HeluCopter29]

I found the argument here poor at best. The slippery slope thing is never a good one. If I was a proponent of changing the name (which I am not) I would perceive it the same way as when the Tea Party tells me how much I (as a liberal) hate freedom. Which based on facebook today, seams to be what our message is going to be to those who want us to change our name is. You must hate freedom and pretty soon we'll make the Dolphins change their name.

The argument Ray made was to me, as a die-hard Redskins fan, embarrassing and I was ashamed to hear a Redskins fan argue like that. One good thing was said in that argument (which I've listed below) and it wasn't even the highlight of his point. Just embarrassing.

There's only two things we need to win honestly.

1. Bruce Allen said "It’s ludicrous to think in any way that we’re trying to upset anybody" http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/02/14/bruce-allen-sees-nothing-offensive-about-the-name-redskins/

2. "10% of American Indians find the name offensive" http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/6093796

[grego]

I found the argument here poor at best. The slippery slope thing is never a good one. If I was a proponent of changing the name (which I am not) I would perceive it the same way as when the Tea Party tells me how much I (as a liberal) hate freedom. Which based on facebook today, seams to be what our message is going to be to those who want us to change our name is. You must hate freedom and pretty soon we'll make the Dolphins change their name.

The argument Ray made was to me, as a die-hard Redskins fan, embarrassing and I was ashamed to hear a Redskins fan argue like that. One good thing was said in that argument (which I've listed below) and it wasn't even the highlight of his point. Just embarrassing.

There's only two things we need to win honestly.

1. Bruce Allen said "It’s ludicrous to think in any way that we’re trying to upset anybody" http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/02/14/bruce-allen-sees-nothing-offensive-about-the-name-redskins/

2. "10% of American Indians find the name offensive" http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/6093796

the bruce allen quote is not seen as a winning point by many (though i understand exactly what he's saying). reason is, just because we dont mean to offend doesnt mean we arent (which i think we are not, outside of a few hyper sensitive folks, which, honestly, by their nature, you will never appease)

but i disagree that ray was anything close to 'embarrassing'. quite the opposite. ray did very well. but, thats just my opinion.

interestingly, i didnt realize that the very organization whose president approved (practically designed) the redskins helmet logo is now, 40 years later, calling for the redskins to change their name.

tell me how thats not pc, anyone.

[Chachie]

I don't think that this makes much sense. You have more words every year being allowable on television. Hell, Bono dropped the F bomb and the FCC was cool with it. Hell, I just wrote "Hell" and it's no big deal.

Also, this name has been around for coming on a century and only in the past few months has it become en vogue to get upset about it. It's not going anywhere.

More vulgarity is allowed on tv but certainly less political incorrectness.

Where you been, Cliche? It's been en vogue to get upset about it for 30 years now.

[KCClybun]

Ray was boned the second he took the interview.

Whatever side of the "should we change the name?" argument you fall on, inevitably we run into the problem of trying to defend the indefensible, or at least what is perceived to be the indefensible. It's damn near impossible to go on a television show and defend a racial slur.

What we have here is 1.) a very concentrated, media driven effort to drum up controversy in a relatively quiet NFL offseason, both on a local and nation level, 2.) a owner who has no monetary incentive to change the name, and who has no love loss for the same media entities who spent buttloads of time badmouthing him and his football team (rightly or wrongly), and 3.) a dedicated fanbase who basically is defending the name...just because.

I mean, most of the arguments for keeping the name are just as silly, misguided and flat out dumb as the reasons for changing the name. The grand PR strategy this organization came up with to "diffuse" the situation wasn't to conduct a new survey or say they were "taking under advisement" or anything; sure, those could be empty gestures, but they are certainly better than the "SEE, ALL THESE OTHER TEAMS HAVE THE NAME TOO!".

The slippery slope argument is one of the bigger strawmen arguments out there. Oklahoma may mean "red man", but there's a problem with suggesting that people would demand the name Oklahoma be changed. 1.) It's not a racial slur, and 2.) the name was suggested by Choctaw Chief Allen Wright, a Native American, in a treaty negotiation with the federal government. There is a great deal of difference between THAT, and the name Redskins. There is no "slippery slope"; Oklahoma's name will always be Oklahoma, and no one will ever dispute that name because it was a name chosen by a Native.

The name "Redskins" was picked by a racist white dude. And no, I don't buy that just because George Preston Marshall was a racist he named his team something racist just to show how racist he was, that's one of the dumbest arguments there is. But, if we are being honest, it does suggest a little bit of ignorance on Marshall's part. Then again, we can't pretend to know what was in his heart when he changed the name to that.

People on the pro-name change also have to realize the name was changed to Redskins at a very different time in American history, and, as Ray said, was probably changed in part becauset the. wanted to match up with the Boston Redsox. There were different cultural norms and different rules for what was and what politcally correct and socially acceptable. The name was made at a different time, carried on throughout a different time. And people never seemed to have a problem with it...until 1992, after the third Super Bowl win. And then, after sometime, controversy bout the name faded...until the team started winning again, and then the name became a "thing" again. Pro-name change people, media and fans alike, would do much better for themselves by, at the very least, being offended all the time and not just being offended when the team is winning, or whenever you don't happen to be screaming "HAIL TO THE REDSKINS!" at the top of your lungs.

And anti-name change folks have to realize that it is a different time, and that simply brushing complaints about the name off as political correctness gone wild is not a good way to go about it either. Sweeping the implications of the name under the table because you don't want the team to change the name does not help the team, or the discourse of the discussion; it just makes you look stubborn, immature and unwilling to change. It may not offend every Native American, but the fact that it offends SOME Native Americans means that we should at least have an open, honest dialogue about it and try to find some sort of middle ground.

Of course approaching a debate with that kind of maturity pretty much never happens, ever. So we'll see what happens.

[DCdangerous]

This whole thing reminds me of comedian Ralphie May. He brought up the issue about racial slur words. He said the best way to get rid of these words is to take the power away from those words. Now granted he suggests naming a new cookie the n word so people couldn't hate the word because the cookie was so good. But the point is the football organization is that cookie. The negative power in that word diminished over time. But ironically, every once in a while, Native American activists who want the name removed are actually bringing the power back into the word. It's just ridiculous.

[Kilmer17]

Can anyone honestly tell me when the last time the term "Redskin" was used to insult or deman someone?

The term could have meant many things years ago. today it means one thing- The nickname of the DC football team. Nothing more.

[2cents]

Ray was boned the second he took the interview.

Whatever side of the "should we change the name?" argument you fall on, inevitably we run into the problem of trying to defend the indefensible, or at least what is perceived to be the indefensible. It's damn near impossible to go on a television show and defend a racial slur.

What we have here is 1.) a very concentrated, media driven effort to drum up controversy in a relatively quiet NFL offseason, both on a local and nation level, 2.) a owner who has no monetary incentive to change the name, and who has no love loss for the same media entities who spent buttloads of time badmouthing him and his football team (rightly or wrongly), and 3.) a dedicated fanbase who basically is defending the name...just because.

I mean, most of the arguments for keeping the name are just as silly, misguided and flat out dumb as the reasons for changing the name. The grand PR strategy this organization came up with to "diffuse" the situation wasn't to conduct a new survey or say they were "taking under advisement" or anything; sure, those could be empty gestures, but they are certainly better than the "SEE, ALL THESE OTHER TEAMS HAVE THE NAME TOO!".

The slippery slope argument is one of the bigger strawmen arguments out there. Oklahoma may mean "red man", but there's a problem with suggesting that people would demand the name Oklahoma be changed. 1.) It's not a racial slur, and 2.) the name was suggested by Choctaw Chief Allen Wright, a Native American, in a treaty negotiation with the federal government. There is a great deal of difference between THAT, and the name Redskins. There is no "slippery slope"; Oklahoma's name will always be Oklahoma, and no one will ever dispute that name because it was a name chosen by a Native.

The name "Redskins" was picked by a racist white dude. And no, I don't buy that just because George Preston Marshall was a racist he named his team something racist just to show how racist he was, that's one of the dumbest arguments there is. But, if we are being honest, it does suggest a little bit of ignorance on Marshall's part. Then again, we can't pretend to know what was in his heart when he changed the name to that.

People on the pro-name change also have to realize the name was changed to Redskins at a very different time in American history, and, as Ray said, was probably changed in part becauset the. wanted to match up with the Boston Redsox. There were different cultural norms and different rules for what was and what politcally correct and socially acceptable. The name was made at a different time, carried on throughout a different time. And people never seemed to have a problem with it...until 1992, after the third Super Bowl win. And then, after sometime, controversy bout the name faded...until the team started winning again, and then the name became a "thing" again. Pro-name change people, media and fans alike, would do much better for themselves by, at the very least, being offended all the time and not just being offended when the team is winning, or whenever you don't happen to be screaming "HAIL TO THE REDSKINS!" at the top of your lungs.

And anti-name change folks have to realize that it is a different time, and that simply brushing complaints about the name off as political correctness gone wild is not a good way to go about it either. Sweeping the implications of the name under the table because you don't want the team to change the name does not help the team, or the discourse of the discussion; it just makes you look stubborn, immature and unwilling to change. It may not offend every Native American, but the fact that it offends SOME Native Americans means that we should at least have an open, honest dialogue about it and try to find some sort of middle ground.

Of course approaching a debate with that kind of maturity pretty much never happens, ever. So we'll see what happens.

Here is a list of names I demand be changed because they offend me:

1. Cowboys...their actions destroyed the Native Culture to begin with.

2. 49ers...their greed for gold destroyed nature in California.

3. Yankees...I'm from the South.....'nuff said.

4. Anything with Devil in it.....I believe in God and Satan worship bothers me.

5.Fighting Irish....so just because they are Irish they always get in fights?

6. Buccaneers and Raiders.....glorifying criminal behavior is not good for kids.

7.Padres....kids have been abused by priests and can be offended by giving a team a name that reminds them of that abuse.

It is total fallacy to think that some name won't offend someone at some time. If we go down that road no team will be named anything because one person doesn't like it. The total truth to the whole matter is that the team was not named for a racial slur, we all know that. Some people hate the name and they just need to get the **** over it and get on with it and do something useful with their lives. If they spent as much time and effort to improve conditions on reservations and the people, Native Americans would be much better off. Arguing about the name accomplishes absolutely nothing for the people they say they want to help. Which then proves it is all just to get publicity and get their names in the paper and get a tv spot and that they don't actually care about real Native American problems.

[CrypticVillain]

My main beef isn't that people want to change the name, it is the people who wants to change the name. Also the timing of this irks me too. If the name was so bad for all these years, why are they putting the heat on now?

Did the name stop being offensive from 1993 to 2011?

I just don't get it. I didn't hear Wise talking about this a couple of years ago when he first got his radio show. ESPN sure wasn't covering is. I been on ES since 2005, we weren't even talking about it on here... AND WE TALK ABOUT EVERYTHING!!!!

Once again, if they change the name, whatever. I just don't understand if Redskin was that bad of a word, shouldn't people have banged their fist on the table from 1932 to now without ceasing?

[Commander PK]

Here is a list of names I demand be changed because they offend me:

1. Cowboys...their actions destroyed the Native Culture to begin with.

2. 49ers...their greed for gold destroyed nature in California.

3. Yankees...I'm from the South.....'nuff said.

4. Anything with Devil in it.....I believe in God and Satan worship bothers me.

5.Fighting Irish....so just because they are Irish they always get in fights?

6. Buccaneers and Raiders.....glorifying criminal behavior is not good for kids.

7.Padres....kids have been abused by priests and can be offended by giving a team a name that reminds them of that abuse.

8. Vikings....they butchered and murdered thousands...(but I guess because they did it SOOOO long ago nobody cares. I mean after all....it's only the name of a Football team......right?)

9. Saints....see 7 above...and what if you are an atheist?

10. Patriots....what if you are British? This team represents a group of traitors.