The Official ES All Things Redskins Name Change Thread (Reboot Edition---Read New OP)

[AsburySkinsFan]

This is where the goverment drives me crazy. One Republican and one Democrat. Either the NFL's tax excempt status is legal under the laws of the land or they are not. The Redskin name alone does not change the laws. Quit using your "power" to scare your will into the country.

Exactly, political blackmail is disgusting. If they believe the NFL's exemption is in violation of the law and they aren't doing something about it already then they are negligent at best. Their threat is no different than threatening legal action against a neighbor so he will join you in a fight against another neighbor, it is coercion pure and simple, and an abuse of power.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

You know what. If this name change happens, especially because of government intervention, I think I'm out. I'll stop paying attention to the NFL all together. It doesn't really mean much but it will be a personal victory for me. I doubt I'd have much care for a team that was bullied into changing it's name.

 

That's quite an extreme reaction. I'm not saying that you are wrong to do it, but after the dust settles all we are talking about is the nickname of the franchise. The 80+ years of history, the championships, the memories, etc. are all still there.

[RFKFedEx]

I'm still waiting for the return of that throng of fans who left during the 2011 lockout.  At some point they'll have to forgive the league for cancelling the 2011 HoF game.

[Riggo#44]

I think it's becoming pretty apparent that this issue will have to be resolved.

 

My idea for a change that might satisfy both sides of the debate didn't get much play the first time I posted it in this thread, but I really think changing the name to a tribal name (most likely one that is/was indigenous to the Chesapeake area) is a viable compromise that would improve public relations for the team without eliminating the native american theme/uniform/logo.

 

I work at a video production house in DC and we rent space to a radio station that features a native american show. The host of the show is a member of several tribal organizations. He obviously hates the Redskin name, as do the members of his groups. I described this option to him and he said it was a really good idea for at least a starting point. He's going to bring it up at his next meeting with the leaders of these groups. We'll see what they think and I'll try to post updates.

 

I disagree--and Godell said it best--most people either don't care or aren't offended. This is nothing more than a bunch of self-righteous columnists (Wise, Florio, Deadspin, Jenkins, etc.) and a a couple glory hound charlatans (Halbritter and Harjo).

 

This is no different than the North Dakota Fighting Sioux changing their name.

 

This is not a real issue.

[pjfootballer]

Removed part of post as it was written not as I intended it to say.  At this point it is creating too much controversy. 

 

And if I were Goodell, I'd get my lawyers on the phone with those two idiots in congress and ask them if they really want to persue this illegal coersion/blackmail in court.

I'm tired of congress sticking their noses in and wasting taxpayer money. We elect you to lead our economic, public and other programs. Not to debate sports nicknames.

[codeorama]

I lived in Great Falls Montana in the summers of 94 and 95 while my brother played in the minor leagues.  The native American population was larger than I'd ever been around. (there were almost no black people however).  Anyway, I worked as a bartender for both of those summers.  The Native Amerians were call Redskins in the same way the N word is used. I applied at Target to work in their loss prevention department (catching shoplifters, I did this in college), they told me straight up, "Just watch any redskin that comes in, they are all drunks and thieves".

 

In all my life, I've never experienced the blatant racism I experienced those 2 summers.  Redskin was the N word.  The word Redskin does not offend me, I'm white, I don't care, but to say that it can't be offensive is just ignorant.  I live in SE Va and I've never heard the word used. Those 2 summers in Montana, it was common and a slur towards those people.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

What I don't get is that the few NAs that want the name changed want ALL Native American imagery gone. So you really want to get rid of all your history and heritage? 

 

You really believe that the Redskins represent Native American history and heritage? That's hysterical.

[Chachie]

I can't really read your response, the bright green blurs in too much with the white background for me. 

 

From what I could make out, I DID read where you said you didn't know the foundation for their offense, hence I said "you should try."

 

If you really think Redskins is as racist as blackskins then it's only because you refuse to acknowledge the current context of Redskins and its original intent and instead are relying on the archaic negative context of the word to draw a parallel. Yankee was once offensive, guess that means it should be changed too. Context matters, and the context of Redskins is not negative today. To me, it's just as silly as when some people protested the Washington Wizards name because it reminded them of the KKK. Context matters and it clearly was not being used in that context just like Redskins isn't being used in the archaic negative context. 

 

Last I checked, there aren't African American high schools using Blackskins as a team name, but there are various Native American high schools that do use Redskins. So much for Redskins being the same as blackskins and racist. This evidence has been put forth repeatedly in here as well. 

 

When 90% DON'T want a name change, then there should NOT be a compromise. Until empirical, not anecdotal, evidence states otherwise then no compromise should be made to appease a vocal fraction. 1 person in a group of 10 shouldn't be able to force a change, especially not when their basis is on a usage that's been outdated for several decades.

 

 

1. Where is this 90%? This one person in 10? At least I did my own research, even if it's limited to people I have access to and the people they have access to. You haven't spoken to a single NA about the issue. You just blindly file in behind the biased report that Daniel Snyder provided from a poll he conducted within his parameters. 

 

2. Nice that YOU get to determine the context. Not the people who are actually offended by the name. You can't stand on terms accepted 50 years ago. If that were the case, we'd still be using phrases like "colored" or "negro" but you don't throw those words around because you'd get backlash. 

 

3. I'm trying to see both sides so I spoke to someone who can give me perspective. I shared that perspective here.That's all. Until you can do that, your analysis is limited to your wants and painted by one side of the issue.

I disagree--and Godell said it best--most people either don't care or aren't offended. This is nothing more than a bunch of self-righteous columnists (Wise, Florio, Deadspin, Jenkins, etc.) and a a couple glory hound charlatans (Halbritter and Harjo).

 

This is no different than the North Dakota Fighting Sioux changing their name.

 

This is not a real issue.

 

 

 

Not a real issue to you or the very white and comfortable Roger Goodell. It's an issue to people I spoke to. I repeat- I want continue rooting for my team under it's current name and I wish this would go away but I took the opportunity to ask a couple representatives of the Native American culture. I didn't bury my head in the sand.

[Riggo#44]

Not a real issue to you or the very white and comfortable Roger Goodell. It's an issue to people I spoke to. I repeat- I want continue rooting for my team under it's current name and I wish this would go away but I took the opportunity to ask a couple representatives of the Native American culture. I didn't bury my head in the sand.

 

Oh you talked to a couple of representatives? Were they from Red Mesa, Az.? B/c I doubt they care. What about the litany of representatives that have come forward (but roundly ignored by ESPN and the like b/c it doesn't fit their agenda) and said they either aren't offended or actually like it?

 

No--it's not a real issue to the people it supposedly offends. Look at the numbers--go listen to Cooley's comments to Keith Olbermann. Instead of going off the "few" representatives that you talked to.

 

Or am I burying my head in the sand?

[pjfootballer]

You really believe that the Redskins represent Native American history and heritage? That's hysterical.

Did I say that? I don't think I did. I believe my post had nothing to do with my opinion about our name and whether or not it is a representation.  I was saying that along with anything that says "Redskin(s)" they want ALL imagery removed, you know, Braves, Indians, etc.  I think you read too much into my post, like you usually do.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Did I say that? I don't think I did. I believe my post had nothing to do with my opinion about our name and whether or not it is a representation.  I was saying that along with anything that says "Redskin(s)" they want ALL imagery removed, you know, Braves, Indians, etc.  I think you read too much into my post, like you usually do.

 

You said:

 

So you really want to get rid of all your history and heritage? I don't get why they want to erase their past from the face of the earth.

 

Would eliminating the Atlanta Braves eliminate Native American history and heritage?

 

Because - again - that's a hysterical thought.

 

Today, children, we shall learn about Logan's Lament and Chief Noc-a-homa.

[pjfootballer]

You said:

Would eliminating the Atlanta Braves eliminate Native American history and heritage?

Because - again - that's a hysterical thought.

Today, children, we shall learn about Logan's Lament and Chief Noc-a-homa.

I'm putting you on ignore. If you don't like my posts (which is apparent in just about every thread I post in) I suggest you do the same.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I'm putting you on ignore. If you don't like my posts (which is apparent in just about every thread I post in) I suggest you do the same.

 

Write better posts!

 

Anyway, I think I've said this before. I'm only aware of, like, 5 posters here. All the rest of the names run together. So, if I'm picking on you, it's by the nature of your posts, not your name.

[mcsluggo]

4 of the 5 have the power to ban you.... and you have a man-crush on the 5th  

[Commander PK]

Not a real issue to you or the very white and comfortable Roger Goodell. It's an issue to people I spoke to. I repeat- I want continue rooting for my team under it's current name and I wish this would go away but I took the opportunity to ask a couple representatives of the Native American culture. I didn't bury my head in the sand.

 

Chachie, I understand you...you just want to do your homework. 

 

I can say that I have conversed with Native Americans on Facebook who are in support of the name.  I have read depositions from Native Americans who claim to be a member of this Nation or that Nation, that are 100% in full support of the name.  As a matter of fact, I have yet to come across a Native American that has a problem with the name, other than those few the media keep championing.  Sure, there are plenty of Cuacasian and African American Dallas Cowboy fans and other haters of the Redskins (Dan Snyder) that have a problem with the name...but no Natives.    With those people, some are subtle, some are not so subtle, you get the impression that for them it's really not about the name, but they find enjoyment in stirring the pot with Redskins' fans over the issue.  

 

Am I to continue grilling Natives on this issue until I find one?  And then change my opinion upon finding those 1 or 2 people?  Get my point?

 

The problem I have, is that they are trying to force something upon a privately owned business, and the supporters of that business, without even having anything close to a consensus on the issue.  When people point to the Annenberg Poll and other Polls, they do this because there is no other modern recent evidence to bring to bear on the issue. 

 

Show me a consensus among Natives that makes up a reasonable majority of their people that don't like the name...and I'm on board.  Basically, the Native people at large need to get their house in order on the issue.  Until they do this, I am in full support of the team not doing anything. 

[Chachie]

Chachie, I understand you...you just want to do your homework. 

 

 

Show me a consensus among Natives that makes up a reasonable majority of their people that don't like the name...and I'm on board.  Basically, the Native people at large need to get their house in order on the issue.  Until they do this, I am in full support of the team not doing anything. 

 

 

LOL!!!

 

Fair enough. I don't want to spend the next week on this issue. I just posted that I actually asked some NAs and provided their emotional response. I should not have expected anyone on this particular site to sympathize with them. 

 

I'm certainly not softening my stance that we should at least go straight to the source instead of blindly follow Snyder's publication, but I'll bow out of this discussion, satisfied I made my point.

[Commander PK]

I should not have expected anyone on this particular site to sympathize with them. 

 

I agree with you that we should go straight to the source.  I think "sympathize" with them is the wrong term though.  I think empathize is the word you are looking for, and I do empathize with the offended, but I also empathize to a greater degree with the Natives I have spoken to, or the Natives posting on Facebook, or other Internet message boards, or those fans the team has cited who happen to be Native American who are terrified of losing the name.

 

The problem is that you have what appears to be a small contingent of Native and non-Native people trying to force a change through browbeating everyone into seeing things their way.  Why don't Harjo and Halbritter and the like-minded work on getting a consensus among the Native peoples at large?  Or is it you don't really want a consensus among the Natives because you personally know better than 90% of them in this matter?  The consensus might take all the wind out of your sails?

[98ORAKPO98]

Well said.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/11/members-congress-urge-nfl-to-change-redskins-name/

 

 

The Washington Redskins issued a scathing response to two lawmakers Monday after they called for the team to change its controversial name.

 

Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., and Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., told NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell in a letter that the league is on the “wrong side of history” in allowing the Redskins to keep their name, which some see as a slur.

“It is, in fact, an insult to Native Americans,” Cantwell and Cole wrote.

But the team fired back in a statement, saying that Cantwell – who chairs the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs – has better things to do with her time.

“Senator Cantwell should be aware that there are many challenges facing Native Americans, including an extremely cold winter with high energy bills, high unemployment, life threatening health problems, inadequate education and many other issues more pressing than the name of a football team which has received strong support from Native Americans,” the statement said. “Surely, with all the issues Congress is supposed to work on such as the economy, jobs, war and health care, the Senator must have more important things to do,” the statement said.

[Riggo#44]

While I love the initial "oh-take-that" feeling of a statement like that--all it does is fuel the fire. This is nothing more than emotionally fueled, self-righteous soap box. Responding only fuels the fire--ignore it, and these people will find something else to be indignant about...

[Mr. Sinister]

What I don't get is that the few NAs that want the name changed want ALL Native American imagery gone. So you really want to get rid of all your history and heritage? I don't get why they want to erase their past from the face of the earth.

 

 

Imo, if removing NA imagery from all meaningless sports teams is erasing their history, then there is already a huge problem. Besides, this country has already done a bang up job of erasing them from the face of the earth already.

[MontanaSkins]

I lived in Great Falls Montana in the summers of 94 and 95 while my brother played in the minor leagues. The native American population was larger than I'd ever been around. (there were almost no black people however). Anyway, I worked as a bartender for both of those summers. The Native Amerians were call Redskins in the same way the N word is used. I applied at Target to work in their loss prevention department (catching shoplifters, I did this in college), they told me straight up, "Just watch any redskin that comes in, they are all drunks and thieves".

In all my life, I've never experienced the blatant racism I experienced those 2 summers. Redskin was the N word. The word Redskin does not offend me, I'm white, I don't care, but to say that it can't be offensive is just ignorant. I live in SE Va and I've never heard the word used. Those 2 summers in Montana, it was common and a slur towards those people.

I am not discounting your account and in no way am I saying it is not true. But I have lived in Billings my whole life which is about 60 miles from the Crow reservation and have been around them in numerous activities and I have never heard the term Redskin to describe them in any way. Not to say I have never heard other, more obvious racist terms. But never Redskin.

[Bang]

Change the name, said the Senator from the Land of the Red Man.

~Bang

[elkabong82]

1. Where is this 90%? This one person in 10? At least I did my own research, even if it's limited to people I have access to and the people they have access to. You haven't spoken to a single NA about the issue. You just blindly file in behind the biased report that Daniel Snyder provided from a poll he conducted within his parameters. 

 

2. Nice that YOU get to determine the context. Not the people who are actually offended by the name. You can't stand on terms accepted 50 years ago. If that were the case, we'd still be using phrases like "colored" or "negro" but you don't throw those words around because you'd get backlash. 

 

3. I'm trying to see both sides so I spoke to someone who can give me perspective. I shared that perspective here.That's all. Until you can do that, your analysis is limited to your wants and painted by one side of the issue.

 

 

 

Not a real issue to you or the very white and comfortable Roger Goodell. It's an issue to people I spoke to. I repeat- I want continue rooting for my team under it's current name and I wish this would go away but I took the opportunity to ask a couple representatives of the Native American culture. I didn't bury my head in the sand.

 

1. Annenberg poll. Empirical evidence. One of my friends from high school times, his mother is full blooded NA and his entire family were big Redskins fans. I've also read the comments of many NAs in favor of the name. Plus, again, there's the Annenberg poll results and that, again, trumps your anecdotal, limited evidence. I also looked at how the poll was conducted and have looked at a bunch of other evidence that I have cited in here repeatedly since this thread started. So no blindly following anything, nice strawman though, especially when you provide ZERO evidence refuting its results or methods.

 

2. I don't determine the context, society determines the context. Redskins is the name of a football team for Washington and for various high schools across the nation, including Native American high schools. It's usage as a negative is archaic according to all reports. Even Native Americans against the name, it's the older ones who cite it's negative usage when they were children, but none of them are citing current negative usage because that form is indeed archaic.

 

Colored and negro aren't the same. They were created to be used as negatives, were very commonly used as negatives, and then became archaic (though NAACP still has it in the acronym). Redskins was used first as a positive by NAs, then had some negative usage, but wasn't widely perceived as a slur otherwise the team wouldn't have taken the name and certainly not to honor Dietz nor attract NA players in an attempt to find the next Thorpe.The negative usage became archaic and the positive usage, as a team name, remained. 

 

3. I have my own anecdotal evidence, cited it before, and pointed out that they don't really matter, that empirical evidence, i.e. the Annenberg Poll, was the best form of evidence because of how it was conducted. I have also read many positive comments from NAs and tribe leaders about the team name. This thread itself as PLENTY of anecdotal, straight to the source, evidence listed throughout it, with results on both sides of the argument. Again, you should try actually going through it a bit if you truly care about being well-informed on the issue. So no, my analysis is not limited, and you're using yet another strawman.

 

It's not an issue to 90% of NAs according to polling across the country. Goodell's race doesn't matter in this. I didn't bury my head in the sand either. What I did, as evidenced throughout this thread, is look at MANY aspects and pieces of evidence in the argument and came to a conclusion. You seem to be burying your head in the sand by making assumptions about me that show you haven't gone through this thread at all and by assuming that your very limited anecdotal evidence carries significant weight when, in comparison to empirical evidence, it does not.

[elkabong82]

LOL!!!

 

Fair enough. I don't want to spend the next week on this issue. I just posted that I actually asked some NAs and provided their emotional response. I should not have expected anyone on this particular site to sympathize with them. 

 

I'm certainly not softening my stance that we should at least go straight to the source instead of blindly follow Snyder's publication, but I'll bow out of this discussion, satisfied I made my point.

 

The Annenberg poll did go straight to the source. 

 

Nice shot at the site. Oh, because we're fans of the team we can't empathize with others and are all biased and incapable of researching the topic and forming conclusions. Asinine assumption.

 

If you actually bothered to read the thread or had been participating more in it, you'd see plenty of empathy and that most have said that if evidence showed the majority were indeed offended then they'd support a name change. Many on here actually took the time to look at various pieces of evidence and argued at considerable length and formed conclusions based off numerous evidence. THAT is far more significant and respectful to the argument than just asking a couple people. 

 

Many on here also looked at the reasons cited for offense instead of just accepting them as legitimate since there is nowhere near a consensus among NAs on the issue (which if it were truly offensive then there would be one) and empirical evidence shows most actually aren't offended.

 

Nobody is blindly following Snyder's publication. Your post, frankly, is insulting to and ignorant of, the many posters on here, myself included, that took a lot of time researching into many different pieces of evidence on the topic and posting arguments. Again, if you actually bothered reading through parts of this thread you wouldn't have grounds to say what you are saying about ES and the people in favor of keeping the name on here.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

While I love the initial "oh-take-that" feeling of a statement like that--all it does is fuel the fire. This is nothing more than emotionally fueled, self-righteous soap box. Responding only fuels the fire--ignore it, and these people will find something else to be indignant about...

 

The Redskins are as bad at PR as any corporation, organization, politician, or celebrity that I have ever seen. It's really just staggering how terrible they are at this.