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

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

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?

 

Unless it is 75 percent. In which case, the 25 percent are right and the name should change.

[Larry]

Maybe I don't think that people who are offended are under some obligation to JUSTIFY being offended, to my satisfaction.

Yes, I agree with you that IF education can convince people who are offended, to not be offended, that's certainly allowed.

People are certainly welcome to attempt to convince people to be offended, or not.

But the determining factor, the yardstick you use to determine if something is offensive, is whether people are offended.

Whether you approve of their justification for their feeling is irrelevant.

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?

I haven't seen anybody arrogant enough to actually make that last statement.

Although I do agree with you, a whole lot of people sure seem willing to IMPLY it.

[Riggo#44]

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?

 

It's the new White Man's Burden--we are no longer in the education/conversion/civilization business--we are now offended FOR you, when you're too ignorant to be offended.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

But the determining factor, the yardstick you use to determine if something is offensive, is whether people are offended.

Whether you approve of their justification for their feeling is irrelevant.

 

But that is a justification for the political correctness gone amok argument that has us here in the first place. You are basically saying that UnWise Mike is a wrong-headed moron, but if he somehow gets another 10 percent of Native Americans on his side through blitheringly stupid propaganda, he wins.

 

This means that you are in favor of eliminating the word "picnic" from common usage, correct?

 

(Seriously, ask around on this "picnic" thing. It will wrinkle your brain).

[Larry]

It's the new White Man's Burden--we are no longer in the education/conversion/civilization business--we are now offended FOR you, when you're too ignorant to be offended.

I think it was the "Fighting Sioux"?

State vote on whether to force the University to change their name.

The Natives voted for them to keep the name. The whites voted to change it. There were a lot more whites voting, so they won, and the University changed its name.

[Larry]

But that is a justification for the political correctness gone amok argument that has us here in the first place. You are basically saying that UnWise Mike is a wrong-headed moron, but if he somehow gets another 10 percent of Native Americans on his side through blitheringly stupid propaganda, he wins.

I'm saying that the definition of "offensive" is "that which causes offense".

Not "that which you think ought to cause offense".

Should I point out that you are arguing that it's perfectly valid to ignore the 90% who are NOT offended, if you think that they SHOULD BE?

Because that's where "whether people are or aren't offended doesn't matter, unless I approve of their reasons" leads.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I think the issue ultimately comes down to how one feels about wholesale cultural appropriation.

 

If the lepruchan mascot for the Notre Dame Fighting Irish was the only large-scale representation of Irish Culture in America and if Notre Dame had no actual Irish employees, I imagine it would be a bigger deal than it is.

 

Part of the problem with all this is that the totality of Native American representation in the culture is pretty muc:

 

1. Sports teams

2. Tonto

 

As what's-his-name pointed out, eliminating Native American team names would pretty much eliminate all representations of Native American culture. Granted, by and large, this representation is owned by whites.

 

Is it better to be appropriated or invisible?

I'm saying that the definition of "offensive" is "that which causes offense".
 

 

So, the dictionary is correct.

[grego]

Lbk-

I think there is an actual, real answer to the question " is it offensive ".

I think the answer is- it "could" be- it depends on the context.

The thing is, that applies to virtually any word you can think of.

The thing that the name changers don't seem to acknowledge is that there is a benign usage of the word (like when it was first used).

The argument is essentially "it can be used in a racist way, therefore it's a racist word".

That's unfortunate.

[RFKFedEx]

Some people aren't going be satisfied until they see masses march down Pennsylvania Ave. ala 1963.

 

Some of our name defenders will need to witness hundreds of thousands of people carrying signs and chanting in protest before they're going to accept the fact that change is desired by more than a supposedly insignificant minority. 

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Lbk-

I think there is an actual, real answer to the question " is it offensive ".

I think the answer is- it "could" be- it depends on the context.

 

That's been my argument from the beginning. The Redskins' position needs to be that in the context of how we use the word, it is fine - even if in any other context, it would not be.

 

The argument seems to be "The word is fine. Shut up!"

[codeorama]

Based on US Census stats: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

Black or African Americans make up 13% of the population.  So based on that, the N word should be ok, becasue they do not make up the majority and the N word shouldn't offend anyone else because its not about them...

[Bang]

I don't need a majority of NA to say it's offensive. this is why i support running another poll, strictly among NA people.

This is their decision, not mine.

Whatever THEY decide as a group is what i will abide.

And as others have sid, it does not require 51%. A signiicant number would do it. And to me that is more than the seven complainants and a bunch of publicity whores using a trumped up 'cause' to shine up their humanitarian luster. It's self-serving exploitation in the guise of assistance.

~Bang

[Larry]

I think the answer is- it "could" be- it depends on the context.

Wholly agree. The "offensiveness" of a word certainly changes with how it's used.

That's why I dismiss the arguments about whether the word redskin could be offensive, if we use it in some other way.

 

The question isn't whether "How, redksin." is offensive.  The question is whether "The Redskins were 3-13, last year" is offensive. 

 

(That's also why I don't care if some dictionary says the word is offensive.  Because all the dictionary is saying is that the word is offensive, when it isn't referring to the football team.) 

 

[Riggo#44]

I don't need a majority of NA to say it's offensive. this is why i support running another poll, strictly among NA people.

This is their decision, not mine.

Whatever THEY decide as a group is what i will abide.

And as others have sid, it does not require 51%. A signiicant number would do it. And to me that is more than the seven complainants and a bunch of publicity whores using a trumped up 'cause' to shine up their humanitarian luster. It's self-serving exploitation in the guise of assistance.

~Bang

 

...or slightly more than those that showed up when we played Green Bay:

 

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2013/09/group-protests-redskins-name-at-lambeau-field/

[Larry]

----------

 

Some people aren't going be satisfied until they see masses march down Pennsylvania Ave. ala 1963.

 

Some of our name defenders will need to witness hundreds of thousands of people carrying signs and chanting in protest before they're going to accept the fact that change is desired by more than a supposedly insignificant minority. 

 

I'd say that 9% of Natives is a pretty small minority

 

Just for comparison, I bet that there are a whole lot more people who think Obama was born in Kenya. 

 

Granted, it's not exactly two people, either.  But it's pretty small. 

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I don't need a majority of NA to say it's offensive. this is why i support running another poll, strictly among NA people.

This is their decision, not mine.

Whatever THEY decide as a group is what i will abide.

And as others have sid, it does not require 51%. A signiicant number would do it. And to me that is more than the seven complainants and a bunch of publicity whores using a trumped up 'cause' to shine up their humanitarian luster. It's self-serving exploitation in the guise of assistance.

 

 

So, if the poll shows 19 percent against it, is that good? What about 22? 27?

 

This seems unbelievably arbitrary and rather dangerous.

----------

 

 

I'd say that 9% of Natives is a pretty small minority

 

Just for comparison, I bet that there are a whole lot more people who think Obama was born in Kenya. 

 

Granted, it's not exactly two people, either.  But it's pretty small. 

 

So is 20 but apparently you would burn your t-shirts over that.

[Bang]

Some people aren't going be satisfied until they see masses march down Pennsylvania Ave. ala 1963.

 

Some of our name defenders will need to witness hundreds of thousands of people carrying signs and chanting in protest before they're going to accept the fact that change is desired by more than a supposedly insignificant minority.

So bring the masses.

show them to me.

Please make sure they're not all non-Native. i really don't care what the UnWise Mike's have to say on the matter.

So, bring the masses.

have a parade. It shouldn't be too hard if it's so obvious, right? groups manage to get large demonstrations together over much murkier issues, so this one should be a snap.

Bring the masses.

~Bang

So, if the poll shows 19 percent against it, is that good? What about 22? 27?

 

This seems unbelievably arbitrary and rather dangerous.

 

So is 20 but apparently you would burn your t-shirts over that.

I don't know what the number is.

Show me a new poll and I'll have a look.

as I've said, for those who think it's so obviously offensive, this should be a slam dunk. An easy one.

But please, Native Americans only.

this is their decision. Saying I will abide by that .. i don't see that as dangerous. In fact, i sort of see it as "how it should be".

Is this offensive? Ask those who are supposed to be offended. Everyone else is just yapping.

~Bang

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

So, bring the masses.

have a parade.

Show us.

~Bang

 

Is it masses or a not insubstantial minority? Which do you want?

 

I just find this argument remarkable. UnWise Mike and company are the devil, but if they move the needle to 20 percent or so, they win.

 

You have major media figures relentlessly pushing this. They are going to move the needle to 20 percent. They likely already have.

 

It seems you are awfully passionate over an issue that you will admit defeat on pretty easily.

 

"This is a travesty! This is freedom of speech! This is media malpractice! We are not racists! How dare you, sir!?! How dare you! To the barricades!!!"

 

"The media polling shows 22 percent of Native Americans are now in favor of a name change."

 

"Oh, well. Let's go Red Zebras!"

[Larry]

as I've said, for those who think it's so obviously offensive, this should be a slam dunk. An easy one.

But please, Native Americans only.

That's been my position all along, too.

You disagree with the Annenberg poll? OK.

Run another one.

You don;t like that they allowed people to "self identify" as Natives? OK, I can understand that. Hire a reputable polling company to use whatever selection criteria you think is good enough. Only registered tribal members? Only people living on reservations? It's your money. Run the poll that you want.

(But, be aware that people can challenge your methodology, too.)

And I have speculated, all along, that I think it says something, that Harjo et al have been claiming that the term is offensive, for like 50 years, and yet, they have not in any way attempted to show any evidence that it actually is offensive.

Why haven't they run their own poll?

Only reason I can think of is:

1) They know what the results would be.

2) It wouldn't help their case.

3) And they don't care.

 

----------

 

I just find this argument remarkable. UnWise Mike and company are the devil, but if they move the needle to 20 percent or so, they win.

 

You have major media figures relentlessly pushing this. They are going to move the needle to 20 percent. They likely already have.

Then guess what?

If the media has convinced people to be offended, then they are offended.

 

And "I don't care if you're offended, because I don't think you have a good enough reason" isn't exactly going to win you converts.

 

[Bang]

Is it masses or a not insubstantial minority? Which do you want?

 

I just find this argument remarkable. UnWise Mike and company are the devil, but if they move the needle to 20 percent or so, they win.

 

You have major media figures relentlessly pushing this. They are going to move the needle to 20 percent. They likely already have.

 

It seems you are awfully passionate over an issue that you will admit defeat on pretty easily.

 

"This is a travesty! This is freedom of speech! This is media malpractice! We are not racists! How dare you, sir!?! How dare you! To the barricades!!!"

 

"The media polling shows 22 percent of Native Americans are now in favor of a name change."

 

"Oh, well. Let's go Red Zebras!"

I seem so passionate that i make some posts on a message board saying "show me" and "it's not my decision". These have been my themes all the way back.

I've offered no historical excuses, no justifications at all.

My point is that this has been a push by a small group of lawyers for two decades, and they have NEVER managed to gain any support among those they claim are offended, so now they've turned to media manipulation. This is dishonest, and does not reflect truth. It is a desperate tactic employed because if the trademark renewal goes through their argument is over for fifty years. This is their last ditch effort, and ince they can't druum up support among their own, they've turned to our Kardashian Kulture, who loves nothing more than tiny bits of information and to give their opinions on it.

This sort of thing is dishonest regardless of the issue, and I don't like it. In terms of "personal' feeliongs, this is about the only ones I have on the matter. i don't like dishonesty, i don't like media manipulation. i know you think i stand on a 'pox on both their houses" when it comes to politics, but i think if you went back through my history, you'd find that my chief problem is with the media. it is corrupted, and it is strangling this country.

but I digress.

If team Harjo claim that it is offensive to so many, then very simply: Show me. (and lest you think I'm some sort of megalomaniac who think that I must be convinced, "me" is a metaphor for "US".

Show us.

Show the world that they have a sizable following telling us this needs to stop. Throwing around racism taunts and insults does not make their point. Having 9 people show up for a nationally advertised demonstrations doesn't do it.

There's only one reason i can think that they don't take the poll and shut people like me up.

RFK thinks we need to see masses marching on the capitol.

Fine, Show me the masses. Show me hundreds of thousands of marchers. His words, not mine.

this isn't to say this is what i need to change my mind, this is to say i don't think they can muster the masses.

I think just like usual, they would call for it, and a dozen people will show up, along with some self congratulating Wise-types with bullhorns.

If it were up to me, I'd throw down the gauntlet.

Show me.

~Bang

[Riggo#44]

So bring the masses.

show them to me.

Please make sure they're not all non-Native. i really don't care what the UnWise Mike's have to say on the matter.

So, bring the masses.

have a parade. It shouldn't be too hard if it's so obvious, right? groups manage to get large demonstrations together over much murkier issues, so this one should be a snap.

Bring the masses.

 

That's a fantastic point, Bang. If this is such an open and shut case--where are the masses? Where are the supposed majority-offended Natives? Why do we only see handfuls of misinformed (i.e. the ones carrying the signs about "Scalps of my Ancestors") and Ray Halbritter?

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I seem so passionate that i make some posts on a message board saying "show me" and "it's not my decision". These have been my themes all the way back.

I've offered no historical excuses, no justifications at all.

My point is that this has been a push by a small group of lawyers for two decades, and they have NEVER managed to gain any support among those they claim are offended, so now they've turned to media manipulation.

This sort of thing is dishonest regardless of the issue, and I don't like it.

 

Isn't this basically how gay rights became accepted? (I'm not making a moral comparison between the two so don't say that I am. I am talking about the techniques used).

 

In the 60s, 70s, and 80s, there was a small, wealthy group of activists who pushed an agenda that pretty much no one agreed with. That group was more or less wiped out by the AIDS epidemic. A new small, wealthier group of activists took over in the early 90s. And they decided to approach the issue much differently. No more arguing for bath houses and the rights to march in leather down 5th Avenue. We are going to use our allies in the media to push the argument that "We are just like you. We deserve to be treated like you."

 

So, you suddenly had Pedro on the Real World leading to Philadelphia (which is now the single most dated movie in American history) leading to Ellen leading to In or Out leading to Will and Grace leading to Dick Cheney saying "Freedom means freedom for everyone" leading a gay Houston mayor getting married in California.

 

There were no marches. If anything, the marches (gay pride parades) have been toned down significantly compared to what they were in the 80s. No one is really on the street screaming "We're here. We're queer. Get used to it!" anymore. Those tactics did not work.

 

Mainly because of this media manipulation, in less than 20 years, we've gone from a Democratic president signing DOMA to a Democratic president supporting gay marriage.

 

Was the approach dishonest?

That's a fantastic point, Bang. If this is such an open and shut case--where are the masses? Where are the supposed majority-offended Natives? Why do we only see handfuls of misinformed (i.e. the ones carrying the signs about "Scalps of my Ancestors") and Ray Halbritter?

 

Is this really an issue that the masses are going to assemble over?

Frankly, is there any issue in America today that the masses are united and passionate about? 

 

And if they did, would it make a difference? 

[Bang]

Masses don't need to be united.. one sided issues can have demonstrations.

so fine, have a demonstration. Bring the Native Americans who find it offensive and demonstrate.

Again, I think it would be another fizzle like so many of their attempts to show this as a popular movement among their people.

It's not like they don't try to have demonstrations.

It's just that when they do, they attract a dozen followers or less.

that tells me that people don' agree with them.

(But to answer the question, yes, a thousand natives marching down PA ave would do much to sway my mind. I don't need hundreds of thousands.. a good number would show me. But every time they demonstrate, they attract no more than a handful of people, most of which are non-native.

And this is why there hasn't been a poll taken in 12 or so years.

It should be easy for them to prove their point.

but they seem reluctant to do so.

Gay rights are about "rights". a big difference than being offended by a word.

And if you had sizable numbers of gays saying they didn't want rights, that they were happy with what was going on, then it would be an applicable comparison.

With this issue, we we do have this now. we do have more than enough NAs who have said they don't find it offenseive to at least listen to them, but these folks get bullied aside.

the gay rights movement proved it's case every step of the way.

Again, take the poll, I want to hear what they have to say. I don't accept when people say "this is what they believe,, trust me".

Ask them. It's their decision.

~Bang

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Masses don't need to be united.. one sided issues can have demonstrations.

so fine, have a demonstration. Bring the Native Americans who find it offensive and demonstrate.

Again, I think it would be another fizzle like so many of their attempts to show this as a popular movement among their people.

It's not like they don't try to have demonstrations.

It's just that when they do, they attract a dozen followers or less.

that tells me that people don' agree with them.

And this is why there hasn't been a poll taken in 12 or so years.

It should be easy for them to prove their point.

but they seem reluctant to do so.

~Bang

 

 

Where should this demonstration take place? North Dakota?

 

I'm not exactly shocked that Green Bay, Wisconsin failed to produce a massive Native American demonstration.

 

I think you are asking a lot for what is possibly the poorest, least politically mobilized minority group in America on an issue that is clearly not of tantamount importance.

[Bang]

Well, to the demonstration, i am specifically answering RFKFedex who says we need masses marching to prove it to us.

I say prove to me you have masses.

i don't need a demonstration. (I'm just arguing a hypothetical with RFK's premise.)

A poll would do.

I'm interested in what they actually feel on it.

I don't think the side who demands change is concerned with what anyone thinks if it is not in agreement with them.

As I've said, for them if it is so obvious, a poll should be easy, and should answer the question quickly and decisively.

But if they do have a demonstration, i don't care where they have it. Location is not as important as support for the message.

they tried to have one in Green Bay at the height of media outrage last October. national media was on it, Fox covered it.

In these hypersensitive everyone-connected times, 9 people showed up.

~Bang