Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

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


Recommended Posts

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.

 

Which always blows away the myth of Snyder having run a "communications company"

 

I think putting 5 people from the tailgate in charge of PR for the Redskins would have immediate benefits

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which always blows away the myth of Snyder having run a "communications company"

 

I think putting 5 people from the tailgate in charge of PR for the Redskins would have immediate benefits

 

Let's get in a snarky pissing contest with politicians from both parties when we are a sports team in a region where you generally need federal permission to break wind.

 

What that press release tells me is that the Skins have given up trying to win hearts and minds on this issue and are just going to drag their feet until their forced by the league to change the name - likely within five years.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Should the Redskins change their name?

  •  
    28%
    Yes
  •  
    72%
    No

btn-discuss.png (Total votes: 58,004)

 

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10430475/senator-threatens-nfl-tax-exempt-status-washington-redskins-name

 

41,763 persons voting on ESPN say the team should not change their name.  72% is an overwhelming majority.  That's how this country works.  Majority rules, and the majority say they don't want the team to change their name.  I know this won't end the debate...just more evidence that the people at large and in large majority are not with the brow-beaters on this issue.  

Edited by Painkiller
Link to post
Share on other sites

41,763 persons voting on ESPN say the team should not change their name.  72% is an overwhelming majority.  That's how this country works.  Majority rules, and the majority say they don't want the team to change their name.  I know this won't end the debate...just more evidence that the people at large and in large majority are not with the brow-beaters on this issue.

I really wouldn't put, well, any faith at all in an online poll. WAY too easy for a devoted minority to vote 100 times each.

In fact, I'm surprised that I didn't see a "Hey, ES, let's everybody run over to ESPN and skew this poll" post on here.

 

Now, the Annenberg poll?  I think that one's the most authoritative thing out there.  Wouldn't mind having a newer one, because opinions might have changed, over 10 years.  But I think it's pretty much impossible to debate that it wasn't an accurate representation of the feelings at the time. 

 

AND I strongly approve of their methodology (they asked people if THEY were offended.  Not their opinions about whether anybody else was.) 

 

And, to me, it settles the issue.  If it's not offensive, then it's not offensive.  To me, the "controversy" should have ended, right there. 

 

I'd like to see a more recent one.  But I would keep the question the same. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

What that press release tells me is that the Skins have given up trying to win hearts and minds on this issue and are just going to drag their feet until their forced by the league to change the name - likely within five years.

 

Possibly

 

With that said, I want the Redskins to fight this battle until they can't fight it any longer.  I want the league to force them.  I want the government to force them, so the government or the league can be seen on the "wrong side of history" by taking a tyrannical action the people at large both Native and non-Native did not want.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Possibly

 

With that said, I want the Redskins to fight this battle until they can't fight it any longer.  I want the league to force them.  I want the government to force them, so the government or the league can be seen on the "wrong side of history" by taking a tyrannical action the people at large both Native and non-Native did not want.  

 

It won't go down that way. 

 

20 years after it happens it will be a publicly-accepted fact that the Redskins were the most racist team in history, and were forced by numerous gallant and noble crusaders to finally Do The Right Thing, which everybody else knew was the right thing, all along. 

 

Dan Snyder will be George Wallace, standing in the schoolhouse door. 

 

It might not be true.  But everybody will just know it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really wouldn't put, well, any faith at all in an online poll. WAY too easy for a devoted minority to vote 100 times each.

In fact, I'm surprised that I didn't see a "Hey, ES, let's everybody run over to ESPN and skew this poll" post on here.

 

 

It's also way too easy for a devoted minority, to repeatedly vote the other way also. I think the point is, that poll seems to line up with a lot of other polls on the name.

Edited by Spearfeather
Link to post
Share on other sites

Painkiller, I think you underestimate the long term cost of employing such a battle. The strategy you're advocating eventually divided our city and fanbase when it was last employed by GPM. 

 

Unlike that battle though, this battle is one that is worth fighting.  The people continue to speak on the matter in solid majority, and a very vocal minority continue to brow-beat the populace with this because they are not getting their way.  They have become like children throwing temper tantrums because mommy took away their pacifier.  Everyone, and I mean everyone, I have talked to about this, football fans and non-football fans alike are sick to death of this topic.  Absolutely, sick to death of it, and I'm not exaggerating.      

 

This "battle" is not a march to end Jim Crow, or a fight to integrate the Redskins, both incredibly noble and righteous causes.  The biggest difference between those issues and the battle over the Redskins name is it was crystal clear, what the offended people, African Americans were thinking about these issues.  The fact that they were discriminated against, and treated like second class citizens was wrong, and people were right to rise up to end those things.  

 

This is nothing of the sort though.  "The Washington Redskins" is the name of a private business, where a large contingent of the people who are supposedly offended became fans of this team precisely because they have a Native American theme and call themselves the "Redskins."   

 

Are they simply uneducated about this great wrong that is being done them?  If the answer to that question is yes, than there are much bigger issues here in the Native American community than the name of this Football team.  I see no reason to change the name of the team, as long as the great majority of people both Native and non-Native are against the name change, and there is again, nothing even remotely resembling a consensus from the opposition.    

It's also way too easy for a devoted minority, to repeatedly vote the other way also. I think the point is that that poll seems to line up with a lot of other polls on the name.

 

Agreed, the poll is not scientific, and there is room for error, but seriously...are we to believe that 1000 people voted "Yes" 42 times each?  At some point the opposition needs to accept that polls repeatedly show they are in the minority by a long shot in this issue.

 

It's not just this poll or that poll, it's every single poll that has been conducted on this matter.  There has not been a single poll that shows a different result than this one.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

It won't go down that way. 

 

20 years after it happens it will be a publicly-accepted fact that the Redskins were the most racist team in history, and were forced by numerous gallant and noble crusaders to finally Do The Right Thing, which everybody else knew was the right thing, all along. 

 

Dan Snyder will be George Wallace, standing in the schoolhouse door. 

 

It might not be true.  But everybody will just know it. 

 

I don't think there is anything that could stop that now anyway...short of Dan Snyder capitulating, and going on a public relations mission to right this horrible wrong that has been done.

 

I am fine with the name change in the long-term if that is what the people want.  What I don't want is this happening the wrong way.  What is the wrong way?  The wrong way, is having a vocal minority bully the majority into doing something they don't want. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there is anything that could stop that now anyway...short of Dan Snyder capitulating, and going on a public relations mission to right this horrible wrong that has been done.

I am fine with the name change in the long-term if that is what the people want. What I don't want is this happening the wrong way. What is the wrong way? The wrong way, is having a vocal minority bully the majority into doing something they don't want.

That's one reason I advise people not to plant their flag on the "I will defend this name until a MAJORITY of Natives are offended".

Me, I'd say that if we run a new poll, and the "percent offended" has doubled, in 10 years, then it's time to change. Both because the trend is against us, and because I think that if you're offending 1/4 of Natives, then that's too many.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Redskins won't ever change the team name, at least not in Snyder's lifetime as owner.

 

The "gubmint" can't force them to change it, either.

 

If they lose the trademark lawsuit, they still won't change the name and won't be forced to do so. And will still have a ton of legal rights to the name "Redskins" even without the trademark.

 

Political posturing, advocate demagoguery, and clueless media idiots parroting talking points...that's all there is.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

All the memories, my childhood, the things I root for... they would be shameful to speak of. It's not like the Wizards who changed their name because of violence. The Redskins would change their name because of the shame that the name is causing the league.

I would find it hard to root for the Warriors, Potatoes, Braves, etc.

Football just doesn't mean enough to me to continue watching with a forced name change. Perhaps it means too much, I dunno.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Football just doesn't mean enough to me to continue watching with a forced name change. Perhaps it means too much, I dunno.

 

see for me, this a few months back became a much larger issue than simply changing the name of a Football team.  I'd like to think even if I was not a Redskins fan I would feel the same way.  This is about setting a precedent and about a small vocal minority bullying the majority via talking heads and scare tactics.  

 

The Redskins name going down would only be the beginning.  Now you basically have set a precedent where a clear minority can force a change that has not essentially "paid it's dues" through public discourse to a consensus of the majority, that wants that change.     

Link to post
Share on other sites

Me, I'd say that if we run a new poll, and the "percent offended" has doubled, in 10 years, then it's time to change. Both because the trend is against us, and because I think that if you're offending 1/4 of Natives, then that's too many.

 

Another way of looking at this Larry, is after all that has been said and reported on this topic in the media over the past year, and all that has happened is the opposition has doubled, but over 70% of people still say the name should not change.  Does that not also mean something as well?  

 

What else can they do besides what they have done already?  There are only so many ways you can preach the same sermon, and apparently the large majority of people are not buying what they are selling.  

 

so now we have congressman resorting to threats of playing dirty to get what they want? 

Edited by Painkiller
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say: I admire Larry's position. We should be hyper sensitive to our fellow human beings except on this one issue where we should be ultra reactionary unless 200,000 people have changed their minds in the past decade in which case we should probably just sort of give up, I guess.

 

Not exactly the St. Crispin's Day speech, but it will do. It will do.

Edited by Lombardi's_kid_brother
Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, it's a question of "How many people have to be offended, before it's a problem?" 

 

I think we can all agree that "one" is far too low a threshold.  We've all seen that, in this society, we can get small numbers of people to get offended (or claim to be offended) by just about anything. 

 

But I think "it has to be a majority" is too high. 

 

For one thing, there's a matter of degree.  If half of the world thinks your business is deeply, completely, offensive, and the other half are "eh, who cares?", then the sum total reaction to your company is very much in the negative. 

 

I also recognize that the trend in our society is for movements like this to gain a critical mass.  Once they reach that tipping point, more and more people tend to go along with it, simply out of respect for the people who are already there. 

 

I'm that way, myself.  Even that classic, extreme example of "the N word"?  It doesn't really bother me, personally.  Used it, myself, some time ago.  In jokes and things.  But, I don't use it, any more.  Not because it offends me, but because I assume it offends other people.  And, if somebody else uses it, I get offended, because that other person is intentionally being offensive.  (Classic exceptions like Mel Brooks excepted.) 

 

IMO, if a significant number of people decide that they're offended by the name Redskins, then more and more people are going to begin self-censoring, simply out of respect for that first group.  And then they, too, will become members of the "people who use that word are being offensive" group. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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.

 

 

 

thats my thing. it may sound persnickety, but it seems most are content with "oh, someone said they are offended? ok, so i guess its offensive. change the name, move on"

 

i understand why people dont want to necessarily ask 'why' someone is offended by the name- you get into sensitivity and people emotions and all- but i think its ok to ask. 

 

the thing is, when you get into 'why' people like harjo and halbritter are offended, the waters get a but murkier as their reasoning becomes questionable. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. If people are offended, then they're offended. (Maybe it's legit to question whether people like Halbritter actually ARE offended. But that's another matter.).

It does seem puzzling, to me, the people who aren't willing to extend the same courtesy to the people who AREN'T offended.

:)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. If people are offended, then they're offended. (Maybe it's legit to question whether people like Halbritter actually ARE offended. But that's another matter.).

It does seem puzzling, to me, the people who aren't willing to extend the same courtesy to the people who AREN'T offended.

:)

 

Or ARE offended by changing the name, or being branded a "racist" b/c I don't want to change the name. Both PFT and Deadspin have called people who support the name racist. When the national poll came out and 85% of the nation supported the name, PFT's response was to run an article saying "85% of the country is racist."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Or ARE offended by changing the name, or being branded a "racist" b/c I don't want to change the name. Both PFT and Deadspin have called people who support the name racist. When the national poll came out and 85% of the nation supported the name, PFT's response was to run an article saying "85% of the country is racist."

And 90% of Natives? :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

So is the word offensive or not, Larry? The argument has been that it is not. And that the people claiming it is are trying to score political points. But if people are offended, then what? Are they wrong? Should we give into ignorance? Shouldn't we educate them as to why it is a word of honor?

 

None of this makes any sense to me. I cite the dictionary. I'm told the dictionary is wrong. But if am arbitrary number of people are offended, they are right?

 

What if 200,000 people become offended by the word Seahawks? Should the team change its name?

 

This is not a Bullets/Wizards situation. I think the only person who saw some connection between the name and crime in DC was Abe Pollin. The word Bullets had no inherent negativity.

 

Redskins may. Except the team is arguing that is does not. So, who is right and why would you change your mind?

Edited by Lombardi's_kid_brother
Link to post
Share on other sites

So is the word offensive or not, Larry?

It's offensive if a significant number of people are offended.

My personal opinion is that 9% of natives isn't a significant number. (Although I can see how other people might think it is.) I'd say that 25% definitely is a significant number.

Where the magic number is, between 9% and 25%? I dunno. It's not some hard and fast rule.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's offensive if a significant number of people are offended.

My personal opinion is that 9% of natives isn't a significant number. (Although I can see how other people might think it is.) I'd say that 25% definitely is a significant number.

Where the magic number is, between 9% and 25%? I dunno. It's not some hard and fast rule.

 

That's a copout.

 

I discovered something a few years ago. I invited a black co-worker to a picnic, because I was having a picnic. She asked me not to use the word "picnic" was created from the phrase "pick an 'n-word' " and was an invent where white families would bring a lunch to a lynching. This is apparently a pretty widespread belief in the black community because I asked two other black co-workers and they both said that's where the word is from. I was able to show her that this was wrong. And, I let her know that with all due respect, I was going to keep using the word because you don't make arbitrary changes like that based on ignorance.

 

If you took a poll and found out that 50 percent of black people thought that the word "picnic" was offensive, would you insist that word be taken from every shelter rental form from every park in the nation? Because it's highly likely that more black people think the word picnic is offensive than there are Native Americans alive today.

 

Or would you argue for education?

 

If the word Redskins is not offensive, the people offended are wrong and should be educated. Words are words and have real meanings. Either the Redskins and whatever percentage of Native Americans support them are right or the dictionaries and UnWise Mike are right.

 

Why do polls even matter?

Link to post
Share on other sites

And 90% of Natives? :)

 

apparently they are racist against themselves, OR the media is implying they are too dumb to understand they are being disrespected.

 

Ask yourself which is more "racist?"  The name of a Football team, or the implication that 90% of a race is stupid because they don't know the name is racist?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Jumbo changed the title to The Official ES All Things Redskins Name Change Thread (Reboot Edition---Read New OP)
  • Jumbo locked this topic
  • Jumbo unlocked this topic
  • Jumbo pinned this topic
  • Jumbo featured and unfeatured this topic
  • Jumbo locked and unlocked this topic
  • Jumbo locked and unpinned this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...