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

[Bang]

Sure, I'd love to see a current poll of identified Native Americans and get their thoughts on the controversy.  Personally, I'm obviously not in a position to conduct such a poll so you can stop asking me to conduct one.  In the meantime, if you don't want to continue the discussion, feel free to stop posting in the thread.

 

I believe any intelligent person would realize that i know they are not in such a position since all we are is fans on a message board, and my suggestion of a poll is to stimulate discussion of such a thing.

Perhaps to discover the answer to the question:  "If this is so obvious, why isn't it done"?

To which the answer is a deafening silence, and an invitation to stop posting in the thread.

 

it seems I've over-estimated you.

 

but once again, i'll ask, but i will phrase it as to not be misunderstood.

 

Why doesn't the pro-name change side conduct a poll?

Why have they resorted to the manipulative media?

Why can't they produce any sort of consensus what-so-ever among those whom they claim to speak for?

Why is it they and you refuse to acknowledge those who have stated they are not offended by the name?

 

if you and yours are going to discredit the 2004 poll for being out of date by a decade, i have yet to hear anyone argue that it's not, then you better have some more current data to say it's wrong other than "I asked my three friends.".

But it is the only one out there.

Why isn't there another one?

seems a no-brainer,, would put the issue to bed once and for all. After all, it's so obvious, right?

Any Native American would have to be an idiot to not be offended.

 

So why no poll? why resort to manipulation?

 

Only one reason I can think of.

(Well, truly there's a lot of reasons to distract a professional sports team if you happen to run a sports book, as "Oneida leader" Ray Halbitter does. But we don't want to think about that. Gamblers are trustworthy, and those who make a living doing it typically do nothing to try and bend any odds in their favor, ever.)

 

Maybe you can provide another idea for why they seem to fear the answer, and why they ignore every Native who says otherwise?

 

~Bang

[Tweedr01]

I've read through lots of this thread, although admittedly not every page (I'm sure most people haven't either). Should i just quote comments made a few months ago or keep the discussion current? If it's all been discussed before, why not just shut the thread down? If it stays open, I'd love the opportunity to discuss more. I'm not trying to be disrespectful here and I do have some original points that I'd love to make.

Bang, I'm also curious why a newer poll will give you the be-all, end-all results that you're wanting. I don't need a poll to know that more than a few Native Americans are offended by the name.

Then make them.

Because you didn't like the poll already taken due to it being against your stance in changing the name UnWise Mike. Or can I call you cracker since you don't find it insulting? (your logic not mine, referencing your stupid comment calling KH a redskin because he didn't find it offensive)

[Bang]

 

Bang, I'm also curious why a newer poll will give you the be-all, end-all results that you're wanting.  I don't need a poll to know that more than a few Native Americans are offended by the name.

lol, of course you don't, you're a righteous crusader who knows without knowing.

I'd like to know, because I'd LIKE TO KNOW.

 

i would rather not guess on anyone's behalf. Because at the bottom of this it is not my decision. It is their decision, and what they say, i must abide.

"More than a few Native Americans" is maybe 8,,, which is the number of them who showed up at the nationally advertised protest outside the Packers game. And snark aside,, there are millions of people who are not spoken for by 'more than a few'.

In truth, "more than a few" Americans would like to deport every black person to Africa.

Should we listen to them since we know there's more than a few of them?

"More than a few" people would shoot a gay person or beat them to death if they figured they would be able to get away with it. 

There's "More than a few" real-live Nazis here in the US. They're offended by a lot of things. Should we cater to them?

 

 

But the problem with this debate is there's a lot of different things that are said when it comes to this team's name, and a lot of differing views on what this word means among the people it is supposed to disparage.  And the only poll we have shows that clearly these people trying to force this change do not have the support you seem to think they do.

 

After all,  many many many natives have said they do support the name, including the Navajo Wind Talkers i mentioned up above.

enough have said so that i don't think it IS such a slam dunk, and I think before we go civilizin' them peoples all over ag'in, maybe we ought to learn from our usual blustery selves and quit shoving our weight around and ask people for a change.

 

After all, it's only polite, and would answer the question.

Don't you think?

 

~Bang

[Boss_Hogg]

All they have to do is take another poll.

It seems a real simple way to get rid of the question presented in 2004.

 

But, I guess you'd have to be confident in the answer you'll get.

 

~Bang

 

The media has saturated the public with blogs and op-eds on why the team is racist and how Dan Snyder eats lives puppies for breakfast.

 

A poll done in 2014 would look much different than the one in 2004.

[Bang]

The media has saturated the public with blogs and op-eds on why the team is racist and how Dan Snyder eats lives puppies for breakfast.

 

A poll done in 2014 would look much different than the one in 2004.

 

Fine by me. I'll take the results

But I don't really care how non-natives feel about it.

 

~Bang

[elkabong82]

The media has saturated the public with blogs and op-eds on why the team is racist and how Dan Snyder eats lives puppies for breakfast.

 

A poll done in 2014 would look much different than the one in 2004.

 

I disagree. That media hasn't really changed the results of Americans for or against the name. It's still 70+% in favor of the name. The people polled generally have much greater access to the media than most tribes too, I am assuming and given the living conditions of many and the needed charity I think it's a safe assumption. So those polled are more saturated with the media hype, which fizzled out quickly and really I don't see talked about by NFL fans except locally of course, and even around here it has fizzled out. 

 

As Snyder's charity does more and more, it's going to, IMO, make the team look more and more favorable since they are actually doing something for those they are honoring, whereas the media still won't be doing anything actually useful.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I don't need a poll to know that more than a few Native Americans are offended by the name.

So by your assesment as long as there are "more than a few" offended then whatever the offending issue is it must then be changed?

Is this honestly how you think community should work in a free society?

Few

1. a small number of.

"may I ask a few questions?"

synonyms: a small number, a handful, one or two, a couple, two or three;

[RedskinsFan44]

The media has saturated the public with blogs and op-eds on why the team is racist and how Dan Snyder eats lives puppies for breakfast.

 

A poll done in 2014 would look much different than the one in 2004.

I think you have seen the needle move a bit on the general public's perception, particularly in the DC area where the coverage is heavy.  As others have stated however, if Halbritter wanted to commission a poll of NAs it would be cheaper than making a Superbowl commercial.  I suspect he does not because it would not help his cause.  Which is why he takes a poll with leading wishy-washy questions like:

 

"Recently, both Democratic and Republican elected officials, including President Obama, have been supportive of the idea of changing the team's name. Aditionally, a psychologist has concluded the name has a negative impact on the self-image of Native American children. If the team DID decide to change its name ... would you be comfortable? Or uncomfortable? With their decision to make the change?"

 

The 2004 poll was conducted 12 years after Harjo filed her lawsuit and 40 years after the Civil Rights Act.  While the drumbeat to change the name has intensified I believe our society was already aware of the dispute between the team and Harjo and sensitive to issues regarding racism at that time.

[Larry]

Okay, can we start here:  can we at least agree that the term "redskin" has historically been used as a slur to disparage Native Americans, regardless of its original meaning?

 

 

I'm here to talk about our football team.

Uh, your "I'm here to talk about our football team" might work better, if you weren't, seven minutes previously, trying to pull the "Well, let's take the name 'The Washington Redskins', take the word "Redskins' out of it, move that word to a different context, different people, different place, and different time in history, claim that in that other place, it's offensive, so then I can claim that when I take that word back to where I took it from, it's offensive, here, too" game.

That's what you're trying to do, with your "Well, let's pretend that the word 'redskin' were used in this other way" game.

And we've seen it before.

 

Just like we've seen "The n-word is offensive, therefore this other word is, too", and "The n-word didn't used to be offensive, but then it became offensive, therefore any word I want, that isn't offensive, is just like the n-word, and therefore it is offensive, even though it isn't".

Unfortunately for your game, we're all quite aware that "well, if this word can be used in an offensive manner, then that means it's always offensive, regardless of how it's used" is a BS argument.

 

That was the point I was making to you, with "You got a problem understanding English, boy?"

The word "boy" can be used offensively. It can be racially offensive.

The line to demand that The Boy Scouts change their name, because it is possible to construct a scenario in which the word 'boy' is offensive, starts over there.

In fact, we're all smart enough to realize that your desire to play the "well, let's take the word 'redskin' out of the only context in which it's been used in our lifetimes, and pretend that it is used in this other context that I'm making up, and look how offensive it is, over there in make believe land" is, in fact, an admission on your part that the term isn't offensive, in the sentence "The Redskins beat the Cowboys to win the NFCE, in 2012".

If the phrase "The Redskins beat the Cowboys to win the NFCE, in 2012" were offensive, then you wouldn't need to play the "well, let's pretend you're on a reservation, walking up to people at random, . . . " game. 

[Larry]

Sure, I'd love to see a current poll of identified Native Americans and get their thoughts on the controversy.  Personally, I'm obviously not in a position to conduct such a poll so you can stop asking me to conduct one.  In the meantime, if you don't want to continue the discussion, feel free to stop posting in the thread.

 

But, the people leading this crusade?  They certainly are in the position to run a poll. 

 

There's a scene I really like, in the movie 1941: 

 

A General (the straight man, in the movie) is in a movie theater, watching a movie.  (Dumbo.)  Dan Akroyd is a Lieutenant commanding a group of soldiers, on duty outside the theater. 

 

John Belushi, tough guy fighter pilot, is lost in his fighter, over LA. 

 

Dan Akroyd and his men, hear the sound of an airplane engine, over LA.  They conclude that that's the sound of multi-engined aircraft, and that the Japanese are launching a sneak attack on LA.  Akroyd orders his troops to begin shooting out all the lights on Hollywood Boulevard, to try to protect LA from the Japanese air raid. 

 

The General, hearing the sounds of gunfire from outside the theater, comes out, and sees Akroyd and his troops shooting up the street. 

 

Akroyd:  Air raid, General!  Jap air raid! 

 

General  Don't you think there's something missing, soldier? 

 

Akroyd looks puzzled. 

 

General:  Bombs, you idiot!  Where are the bombs?  You can't have an air raid without bombs!  They came all the way from Japan.  Don't you think they would have remembered to bring a few bombs? 

 

Harjo and company have been making this claim that the name is offensive for at least 20 years.  They've been do court, probably a dozen times.  They've probably spent a million dollars on legal fees, over the years. 

 

All based on the argument that the name of the football team is offensive to Natives. 

 

They spent 20 years getting here. 

 

And they haven't brought any bombs.  Not one. 

 

They have not, in 20 years, ever so much as attempted to show that the name actually is offensive. 

 

Why do you suppose that is?

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

What if we change the name to Redskinz?

[Burgold]

That's a pretty darn good argument, Larry.  I think the argument that the effort to change the pro names but not the college and high school names is also kind of telling.

 

As for offensive, I never try to judge what offends someone else or tell them that they shouldn't be offended (though I will sometimes explain the situation.)

 

I think the call for data should be answered.  Op-eds have value.  They can stir opinion and cause debate and I think that is healthy, but change should be built upon facts not feelings and with all the energy poured into this issue over the past few years you'd imagine that a good high level qualitative study could be done. 

 

Now, I'd actually argue that they have been done and I can only imagine two reasons that the results haven't been released

1) the data is still being analyzed

2) the results have not generated the answers desired.

 

The reason that I suspect that the study has been done is simple.  There are companies, numerous one, that do this for a living and it only takes a few thousand dollars to hire them.  They will build the questionaire, make the calls, and analyze the data using statistically sound means.  It's nearly impossible for me to believe that none of these groups, outlets, etc. haven't said... "Hey, let's do this.  It's cheap and it's powerful."

 

More, I remember some more recent general polls on the subjet that still showed pretty powerful results in the Redskins' favor.  Now, the numbers were dropping, but the approval was really high.  You can even take that data and do an intragroup study though your confidence in the results is subjective by the size of the "n"  Do you think that the people interested in proving that the Redskins name and logo is offensive didn't do that?  All that would take is access to the data set and Microsoft Office?

 

These people are either incredibly incompetent or purposeful in not having or analyzing the data on how 2014 Native Americans feel on this subject.

[Commander PK]

All they have to do is take another poll.

It seems a real simple way to get rid of the question presented in 2004.

 

But, I guess you'd have to be confident in the answer you'll get.

 

~Bang

 

My new theory on this Bang is that they know what the polls would say, and they really don't care.  The 10% are right, and the 90% are wrong.  PERIOD.  They are convinced they don't need a majority to win this fight...because in America 2014....you don't need a majority to win your fight.  You just have to annoy everyone to the point of them throwing in the towel and saying "fine, you win...I'm done...just for ****'s sake shut up!"  

 

Fortunately, there are plenty of us here and elsewhere who will never NEVER EVER do that when it comes to this topic.  

[Bang]

just curious,,  of we who fall on the side of "no change" in this debate..show of hands.

 

A? how many of us don't want this to change because it's our team and it's not offensive and that is the end of it?

B? How many of us would accept change if the pro-change side would or could demonstrate they do have even somewhat of a consensus?

 

 

I sit In Camp B.

 

Also, Hey Mods! Do you think this question would make an appropriate Stadium poll, or should we just stay here?)

 

~Bang

[Burgold]

I'm a camp b'er too... though I'd feel sad about it.

[Commander PK]

Camp B here

[CrypticVillain]

I'm in Camp B too. If they can prove that the Natives are offended and they have legitimate reasons, then change the name.

But they don't have that right now. All they have is non-natives falling for elementary tricks and straight up lies.

[Commander PK]

As I've said in the past in this thread,...I would accept change if I felt that there was a consensus among Native people's that the name is offensive to them, and there was clear tangible indisputable scientifically obtained evidence of that consensus.

 

The last bit of scientific and unbiased evidence we have on the topic has showed an overwhelming majority do not agree with those advocating change.  So that minority instead resorts to browbeating and chastising, and trying to intimidate the team and the fans of the team into doing something that has not paid it's dues through public discourse to a consensus of the majority of the people affected.  Using terms like "wrong side of history" and trying to make the fans feel guilty for dressing their kids in Redskins gear.    

 

A few posts back, Bang made an excellent point.  If your only criteria for changing a time honored tradition in this country, is the opinion of "more than a few" than we have serious SERIOUS problems.  

 

Every extremist, nut-job, wackeroo on both sides of the fence in this country has "more than a few" following them. 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

Both A and B. I would like it to stay Redskins and I like to believe that the name is non-offensive. I also realize that in the grand scheme of things, the name is about as unimportant to my happiness as I like to believe it is to most Native Americans. If the name changed, I would carry on just fine cheering for the Washington ________.

[pjfootballer]

So by your assesment as long as there are "more than a few" offended then whatever the offending issue is it must then be changed?

Is this honestly how you think community should work in a free society?

Few

1. a small number of.

"may I ask a few questions?"

synonyms: a small number, a handful, one or two, a couple, two or three;

I hope at the next Presidential election, if my candidate loses 91-9, they should recognize that I'm among the "few" that disagree and they change the results. After all, that's the correct thing to do at that point.

[Larry]

just curious,,  of we who fall on the side of "no change" in this debate..show of hands.

 

A? how many of us don't want this to change because it's our team and it's not offensive and that is the end of it?

B? How many of us would accept change if the pro-change side would or could demonstrate they do have even somewhat of a consensus?

You seem to assume that those choices are exclusive.

I have no doubt whatsoever that the fact that it's "my" team colors my perspective. (I'd be a liar to claim otherwise.)

I also have no doubt that part of the reason why I've learned as much as I have on the subject, is because it's "my" team. If people were protesting the Vikings, I would have ignored the arguments, and the arguers. I would not even be aware that the attacker's arguments were bogus. I wouldn't have listened to either side.

OTOH, because they are "my" team, I have learned about the controversy. (Far more than I would have liked to learn, actually.)

 

And the more I learn, the more I see demonstrated just how bogus the attacker's arguments truly are, the more contempt I feel for the people making the arguments. 

 

(Not the rank and file people who are offended.  I truly respect their feelings.  And I feel for them.  but the leaders?  The reporters posting their "look how not racist I am" opinion pieces?  They, I fully believe, are fully aware of how bogus these arguments are.  Them, I figure, know that what they're saying, isn't true.)

 

And I've stated in this thread, that if a new poll shows that the number of "offended" is simply growing by a significant number, then I think the team should recognize that maybe their position is just, but they've lost the PR war, and fighting it will simply offend more people, and they should quit while they're only offending a small percentage. 

 

I'm in both A and B 

[Burgold]

Terrible. Irresponsible non PC comment below.

I think Snyder should concede and change the name, but he should change it to the Scalpers and have the logo be a hand holding two game tickets surrounded by a dollar sign.

[pjfootballer]

I'm in more A than B right now because no one has shown adequate proof. But half A and half B right now. I went through the Bullets name change and I hate the name Wizards as it sounds like a women's soccer team name. I'd love to get the Bullets back, but changing the Redskins would devastate me. I know I'd live and move on with life, but I wouldn't buy any new merchandise or call them by the new name. I've called them the Redskins for 38 years with no malice and I'd continue to do so.

[CrypticVillain]

Yeah, they'll always be the Redskins to me. And if they do change the name, they better not change the colors...

[Stugein]

A? how many of us don't want this to change because it's our team and it's not offensive and that is the end of it?

B? How many of us would accept change if the pro-change side would or could demonstrate they do have even somewhat of a consensus?

 

B, but I'd still sing ♫ Hail to the Redskins ♪ after every score.