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

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

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.

 

 

But you also said you don't need the masses. Larry is willing to give up on this for a 20 percent minority. You basically agreed with that.

 

So...do I need to somehow mobilize 25 - 50 percent of the entire Native American population on The Mall in DC (because a good demonstration there needs half a million or so? Or get 20 percent in a phone poll?

 

I'm actually confused. This is not an act.

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

 

 

I told you, it is not a moral comparison.

 

You criticized a tactic. You called it dishonest.

 

So, is the tactic okay when arguing about "rights" but not other arbitrary political ideas? What about breast feeding? If a group used media manipulation to make breast feeding widely accepted again, would that be a dishonest tactic? (Because that actually happened to, believe it or not).

[Bang]

No no.. again, the demonstration argument is just in answer to RFK's post.

i certainly don't need 25% of all natives to show up and yell at the Capitol.

I'm really not an unreasonable person.

I don't know the number,, but it's not a high one.. i just can't really fathom how to say "well, if THIS many say so.." i might even go under 20%.. these percentage points represent an awful lot of actual people.

My main gripe is that the natives who think it's not offensive are being shut up and ignored, and their numbers do seem to be significant, at least as significant as the side who claims it is offensive.

One sided debates don't serve us very well.

if the name is changed, i won't lose any sleep over it, i won't stop supporting whoever our team becomes.

I'd just like the debate to be framed honestly. (Or for the debate to be HAD actually,, right now it's a bully move.)

Personally i don't WANT to change it, but that is only because i'm used to it and like our logo. I have no real reason beyond that. And if the ?% tells me that has to stop, OK so be it.

Like i said, it's not my decision.

~Bang

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

My main gripe is that the natives who think it's not offensive are being shut up and ignored, and their numbers do seem to be significant, at least as significant as the side who claims it is offensive.

 

Yet you are willing to ignore them if a new poll shows a slightly higher number.

This makes no sense.

 

Are you in favor of the name or just mad at UnWise Mike and would oppose anything he supports?

PS

 

For the record, I think the name should be changed (and I care less about polling) but I don't think it's a moral imperative. I do think that the change is inevitable and am mostly fascinated by the rear-guard action Snyder is doing on this. The Redskins being so terrible at PR is fascinating to me.

[Bang]

Yet you are willing to ignore them if a new poll shows a slightly higher number.

This makes no sense.

 

Are you in favor of the name or just mad at UnWise Mike and would oppose anything he supports?

PS

 

For the record, I think the name should be changed (and I care less about polling) but I don't think it's a moral imperative. I do think that the change is inevitable and am mostly fascinated by the rear-guard action Snyder is doing on this. The Redskins being so terrible at PR is fascinating to me.

I am just as i said. i am in favor of whatever they as a group decide.

i can see how our name can be offensive. Absolutely.

But everything offends a small amount of people somewhere. Some people think flush toilets let the devil into your house.

I don't want to ignore half the debate because a small number says i should.

what we have here is a small group saying that it is offensive, and more groups within the group they claim to represent who say it's not.

Why should I only listen to one of them, especially when they are not at all willing to listen to their own people who disagree with them?

It's not really confusing at all.

Ask them. Whatever they say as a group, I am willing to go along. Right now I don't think that is anywhere near a clear answer.

I'm not arguing against anyone's feelings of morality. But like i said, I believe it's not our decision.

and as much as i enjoy bouncing ideas around with you, I must get some work done,, i'll be back later

~Bang

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I am just as i said. i am in favor of whatever they as a group decide.

i can see how our name can be offensive. Absolutely.

 

 

So, you actually have no opinion on this matter.

[Bang]

I think I've been pretty clear.

My opinion is that listening to one claim and taking it as gospel is not the way to go.

But this is what we're being told to do.

My opinion is if it is offensive, ask those it is supposed to offend and see if it really is.

My opinion is that the last time they did that, it came up a very undecided issue.

my opinion is: do it again, especially if they want me to believe that time passing has changed minds.

Show me it has.

my opinion is that the Redskins or NFl should not conduct this poll, that it shoud be done independently, or even by the Harjo 7. I'll accept what it says. I don't think they are prepared to do that, though.

Now dangit, i need to work, but this is too interesting.

~Bang

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I think I've been pretty clear.

My opinion is that listening to one claim and taking it as gospel is not the way to go.

But this is what we're being told to do.

My opinion is if it is offensive, ask those it is supposed to offend and see if it really is.

 

 

If a poll showed that 52 percent of black people were okay with white people using the N-word, would you start using it?

 

(Again...not a moral comparison. Just curious as to how this logic works).

[Larry]

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.

Ok, so we have "well, maybe they're offended, but they aren't offended enough to take a bus to DC for a march".

And it's a valid argument.

Bet you'll never guess my suggestion, for how to measure how many people are offended, but not enough to do anything.

[Bang]

If a poll showed that 52 percent of black people were okay with white people using the N-word, would you start using it?

 

(Again...not a moral comparison. Just curious as to how this logic works).

Listen to my podcast

I use it when it's appropriate to use for the jokes we're doing... lots of times in the last ten minutes or so of the latest one.

(We play a recording of deion sanders in a board meeting,, he uses it about 20 times. Hypocrisy is a blast to poke fun at.)

I'm not really worried about it. Context and setting is everything when it comes to that. I'm never one who is afraid of words. However, if you listen, you will see the word is not used TO offend. It's just used because it's central to the bit.

If my use of it offends anyone, they can turn me off.

to me that is the same argument some have made of "you wouldn't walk down the street and call someone a redskin".. because the context that i and practically everyone uses this word for is the name of a football team, and if that person on the street were RG3, i would.

even if my desired poll comes back and says it's not offensive, that doesn't mean it is a nickname i am going to assign to any actual native people. It's just the name of the team.

Personally, to me using the N word in public is rude and in it's usual context, not acceptable. And so no matter how many polls came out, that is something I would not change. But using the word in context of my jokes and satires.. that I can do.

~Bang

[Riggo#44]

If a poll showed that 52 percent of black people were okay with white people using the N-word, would you start using it?

 

(Again...not a moral comparison. Just curious as to how this logic works).

 

How many people are offended by the use of the word "colored" when referring to blacks?

 

How about when used in the National Assoc. for the Advancement of COLORED Peoples (NAACP)?

[codeorama]

Bang, I know you are dead against the name change and to be honest, as I've stated, I really don't care. I only bring my personal experiences into it. I do understand why people say the word is a slur. I do understand why people say it's different than Braves, Seminoles etc.. 

 

I take the devil's advocate side because I keep reading that it can't offend anyone, it shouldn't offend anyone etc..

 

Truth is, we are too PC in our society. I get sick of it.  But, living in Montana was eye opening for me.  Another person that lived in Billings said they never heard that. I know Billings is across the state, I stayed there 2 nights. I don't know if there is a reservation close by. Maybe there is, maybe not.  There was a large Native population in Great Falls.  (there was also a huge handicapped population, what I was told was that they had more programs to get them into jobs and therefore were more visible, interesting though)

 

Anyway, this has become a political issue. It's not going to go away.  I believe the name will change and if it does or doesn't, I won't care, it won't affect me personally.

[Bang]

So let it play out. As it's decided, I will adapt.

I think it will eventually change, too. These things don't stop.

But I am hoping it isn't for the wrong reasons.

~Bang

[codeorama]

It will be for the wrong reasons and knowing myself, I'll get pissed once that happens...

 

Bear in mind, I did not grow up a lifelong Redskins fan, I was a convert because of Spurrier...

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

How many people are offended by the use of the word "colored" when referring to blacks?

 

How about when used in the National Assoc. for the Advancement of COLORED Peoples (NAACP)?

 

I love this argument because it is so silly. 

 

It goes back to what I talked about on cultural appropriation. Back-owned, black-run, black-supported institutions can pretty much call themselves whatever they want and leave their historical anachronisms alone if they choose.

[Larry]

I love this argument because it is so silly. 

 

It goes back to what I talked about on cultural appropriation. Back-owned, black-run, black-supported institutions can pretty much call themselves whatever they want and leave their historical anachronisms alone if they choose.

 

So you agree that the offensive-sens of a word, changes with the word's context? 

[LadySkinsFan]

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?

 

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? 

 

Are you gay?  If not, how do you know so much about the gay/lesbian movement/protests?  I went to plenty of protests and most of the gay/lesbian ones were in the late 80s/early 90s.  We started "coming out" in droves and that's how we are more visible/accepted because we WERE visible.  People no longer stayed in the closet, we were out and proud.  People could no longer ignore our presence in their lives.  So we didn't need the big media shows anymore.  And why shouldn't there be gay/lesbian TV shows?  Should we not have black people on TV?  I'd like to see some Native Americans represented in the media, not just white people in red face.

 

The fact that the major Native American groups don't seem upset over our football team's name is telling us that the name is okay.  I'll bet the people most upset are white men, who have an agenda that has nothing to do with respect for Native Americans.

[RFKFedEx]

The fact that the major Native American groups don't seem upset over our football team's name is telling us that the name is okay.

Which major NA groups are you referring to? 

[elkabong82]

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...

 

 

The argument isn't how many of the group are offended vs. total population, it's how many of the group are offended. But even total population it's more than just black people that don't like the N word, and certainly schools aren't using the name. You will never get a poll of 90% of African Americans being ok with a team name using the N word. But NAs we do have 90% being ok with the team name and they have NA schools using the name as well and various NAs speaking out in favor of the name. It's not like the N word situation at all except in the minds of those trying to claim racism who ignore all the evidence to the contrary.

[codeorama]

You missed my point, non Native Americans are debating on what is offensive or not. My opinion shouldn't matter, I'm white.

If 13% of native Americans think that it's offensive, is that enough?

I teach high schoolers. 60-70% black. They don't care about the N word. I refuse to let them use it. They tell me I can use it. I'd bet if I put a poll up, at least 50% of my students would say they don't care. Is guess 15% would truly be offended.

[Riggo#44]

If 13% of native Americans think that it's offensive, is that enough?

 

What if the other 87% really like the name and want to keep it?

[codeorama]

What if the other 87% really like the name and want to keep it?

That's a great point. That's why this is such a dividing topic.

In my school, white kids use the N word. It's crazy. Even admin refuses to take it as serious as they did 5 years ago. The word is accepted because the majority of black students don't care. Crazy IMO.

[Larry]

What if the other 87% really like the name and want to keep it?

Maybe the next poll should have three choices:

1) I'm offended

2) I like it

3) I don't care

[elkabong82]

You missed my point, non Native Americans are debating on what is offensive or not. My opinion shouldn't matter, I'm white.

If 13% of native Americans think that it's offensive, is that enough?

I teach high schoolers. 60-70% black. They don't care about the N word. I refuse to let them use it. They tell me I can use it. I'd bet if I put a poll up, at least 50% of my students would say they don't care. Is guess 15% would truly be offended.

 

No, I don't think I did. The point you gave in your post was that African Americans are only 13% of the population, a minority, so therefor their opinion on the offensiveness of the N word doesn't matter vs. the total population if applying the argument used with NAs. But it's a poor argument that, as I stated, completely misunderstands the argument.

 

First off, Redskins does not have the same history of overtly, intentionally negative usage as the N word does. Secondly, the group in question has the opinion that matters most, so looking at total population is not as important. The empirical evidence we do have, the scientifically conducted Annenberg poll, shows 90% are not offended by the team name.

 

So to your new question, does the small percentage matter? Frankly IMO, no, not in this case. If something was truly offensive to a group of people, you would have more than 13%. Then, you also look at the reasons for being offended (which IMO should always be looked at, shouldn't go unchecked since you want to learn why people are offended and empathize and understand), and you see they use incorrect historical facts and the outdated negative use of the word instead of the team usage of the word which Washington uses and which several NA schools use as well. 

 

I'm glad you seem to have a good relationship with your students and that they are comfortable with you, but you're using anecdotal evidence and hypothetical about a group of teenagers, whereas the evidence I'm talking about is looking at the entirety of a population. The N word was created as a negative usage and it's most common form has been negtaive, and a team with the N word name would not be supported. Redskins is not the same. It was created by NAs as a differentiator and was used positively. It was used as a negative at times later on, yes, but at the same time it was still used by many merely as a descriptor and there's plenty of evidence of that cited throughout this thread.

 

Redskins was chose simply to keep the NA theme when we changed from Braves, but also to be similar to Redsox whose stadium we moved to. It was also kept to honor Dietz who was believed to be NA, and used, successfully, to recruit NA players in the hopes of finding the next Jim Thorpe. At that time there were already other teams using the name, including NA high schools, and so it can be argued upon its inception the word was merely a descriptor and clearly not using the negative usage of the word. Besides, given Marshall's racist tendencies, would it even make sense that he would name a team he loved and had pride in after a slur, or that NAs would play for a team named such, or that NAs would root for a slur or use a slur for their own high school teams? 

 

When you have all this evidence on top of the % of offended being very small then it's clear that the small percentage is not enough.

 

Let's reverse it. Is 87% not offended enough to warrant not changing?

[mbws]

 

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.

 

 

 

...especially since the Bullets were named for a Baltimore Train in the first place.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

So you agree that the offensive-sens of a word, changes with the word's context? 

 

Yes. I've always said that.

 

The argument for the Redskins team name is that while it may be offensive in every other conceivable context, in this one specific context it is not.

 

"Colored" is slightly different as I'm not sure it is offensive so much as anachronistic. I mean, at this point, Negro sounds really dated as well. It's in the same territory as "Oriental."

Are you gay?  If not, how do you know so much about the gay/lesbian movement/protests? 

 

 

Because I know a lot of stuff about everything. Next question.

 

And why shouldn't there be gay/lesbian TV shows?  Should we not have black people on TV?  

 

Who with a what now?

 

How did you possibly jump to that conclusion?