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

[Bang]

Check it out.

If you ask people, they tell you how they feel!

 

what do you know about THAT?

 

Alright, i recognize this is not indicative of anything. 

But at least we know where those of us on this side stand.

 

~Bang

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

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.

No because things aren't always black and white. Many issues are gray without a clear right and wrong with people on both sides having very strong feelings. If the 9 in your example dissent because the candidate is pro life. He can't all of a sudden become pro choice to appease them without upsetting another group.

[pjfootballer]

No because things aren't always black and white. Many issues are gray without a clear right and wrong with people on both sides having very strong feelings. If the 9 in your example dissent because the candidate is pro life. He can't all of a sudden become pro choice to appease them without upsetting another group.

 

But I'm one of a few who didn't want that President.  Change it now!  I don't like his policies and they offend me.  Change it now!  I'm one of the few!

 

(see where I'm going with this?  Sarcasm to the "few" comment.)

[Larry]

No because things aren't always black and white. Many issues are gray without a clear right and wrong with people on both sides having very strong feelings. If the 9 in your example dissent because the candidate is pro life. He can't all of a sudden become pro choice to appease them without upsetting another group.

 

You mean, the opinions of the majority count, too? 

[GhostofSparta]

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.

This thread exists not just for discussion of the topic, but because certain posters kept posting every new article about the name as its own thread. Especially if multiple people want to post the same article. This thread has done a good job of keeping the board clutter free by keeping everything devoted to this topic in 1 place.

 

Also, just because you're too lazy to read the thread doesn't mean that the rest of us (especially Bang and Larry) need to continually rehash the same arguments one more time because you think that your points are original. If you want somebody here to reinforce your beliefs on this topic, you're in the wrong place. If you're trying to convince people your side is right, trying using arguments and metaphors that haven't been used dozens of times to no effect. If you're truly interested in a meaningful dialogue, then by all means hang around. But don't get offended when people tell you that nothing your saying is new when you've admitted to not reading what's been said previous.

 

Also, put down the White Man's Burden.

 

 

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.

" game. 

How have you not saved the post where you first said this and just copy/pasted it every time? I swear sometimes reading thru this thread I'm not sure if I'm on a current page because of how often I've read this sentiment.

 

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

B. If natives are offended, I'm all for respecting their wishes. If attention-whore white guys in the media are offended, then I don't give a **** about their opinion. Which is appropriate, since they clearly don't give a **** about the opinions of actual natives, so I guess it even out, eh?

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

But I'm one of a few who didn't want that President.  Change it now!  I don't like his policies and they offend me.  Change it now!  I'm one of the few!

 

(see where I'm going with this?  Sarcasm to the "few" comment.)

Dude, I totally misread your post. Sorry.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

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

 

I'm B. If the pro-change side could show that a growing number of native/original/Indian-Americans were offended by the name of Washington DC's pro football team, I'd be perfectly fine with a reboot.

 

I just don't want to react to the latest "cause" of a bunch of media members or sports writers when they shouldn't even have a say (outside of possibly speaking for those who are offended).

[pjfootballer]

Dude, I totally misread your post. Sorry.

Not a problem. It's cool.

[Spearfeather]

While I don't assume a repeat performance of the 2004 Annenberg Poll; it's tough to get nine out of 10 people to agree on almost anything,  it's certainly possible. I watched an interview recently with Mike, Steinberg, and another writer. Mike said that he recently talked to Bruce Allen and others, off the record, and Allen was extremely passionate about keeping the name. Mike said that one question he wished he had asked Allen and Co. was " Did you call any of the people you talked to on the reservations, " redskin " ? Steinberg responded with: " Well, I'm not even sure that really matters. You wouldn't walk up to a tall person and call them " a Giant ", either."

 

 But, why isn't Mike asking the question: " Did you use the name " Redskins " or " Washington Redskins " on your visits to the reservations ? " I'm sure Mike knows the answer to that question.

 

Yes. Of course they did.

 

So, on the next major independent poll that is conducted; should the question be:

 

Do you, as an American Indian, find the term " redskin " offensive, or not?

 

or,

 

Do you, as an American Indian, find the name of the professional football team, the " Washington Redskins " to be offensive, or does that not offend you ?

[Mr. Sinister]

I'm in the camp B side. I don't feel comfortable enough to tell another race what is or isn't offensive, but I acknowledge that there doesn't seem (from what I've read) to be a clear consensus among native americans (for reasons there may be many) and I also acknowledge that the motives by some openly against the Skins seem rather disengenious. My bottom line from the beginning has always been that the people this issue concerns deserve to be heard, and they also need to be helped.... Help that goes beyond "Standing up for them" by simply pushing for a name change and nothing else.

[BleedBNG]

Put me down as a B'er, of course the medias consensus would be if just one person was offended blah, blah...

As far as non Native American polls go, these 2 recent (2013) polls trump any of the medias concerns:

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/us-poll-finds-widespread-support-redskins-name

http://www.survata.com/blog/largest-exisiting-survey-shows-19-support-a-name-change-for-the-washington-redskins/

If there is a change, I simply cannot go with whats been flying around lately. If anything, let's just go back to our original name, even though it would share the same with a certain baseball team that us National fans love to hate. At least we wouldn't be the only ones they'd come after if they wanted to change that. The only compromise I would like to see is that the name would be the ONLY thing that changes, and we CONTINUE to sing HTTR after every score. Seriously, we did our part... DON'T PUSH IT!

[grego]

While I don't assume a repeat performance of the 2004 Annenberg Poll; it's tough to get nine out of 10 people to agree on almost anything,  it's certainly possible. I watched an interview recently with Mike, Steinberg, and another writer. Mike said that he recently talked to Bruce Allen and others, off the record, and Allen was extremely passionate about keeping the name. Mike said that one question he wished he had asked Allen and Co. was " Did you call any of the people you talked to on the reservations, " redskin ". Steinberg responded with: " Well, I'm not even sure that really matters. You wouldn't walk up to a tall person and call them " a Giant ", either."

 

 But, why isn't Mike asking the question: " Did you use the name " Redskins " or " Washington Redskins " on your visits to the reservations ? " I'm sure Mike knows the answer to that question.

 

Yes. Of course they did.

 

So, on the next major independent poll that is conducted; should the question be:

 

Do you, as an American Indian, find the term " redskin " offensive, or not?

 

or,

 

Do you, as an American Indian, find the name of the professional football team, the " Washington Redskins " to be offensive, or does that not offend you ?

 

 

i agree spear. 

 

its a matter of context. how the question if phrased if actually very important. ask a native american if they would be offended if someone called them redskin as opposed to 'are you offended by the name of the football team', and you will obviously get two very different answers. 

 

anyone pulling the 'would you call them that to their face' isnt thinking the argument through. 

[Larry]

anyone pulling the 'would you call them that to their face' isnt thinking the argument through.

Well, it's possible that they are.

But that's why I think the Annenberg poll asked the correct question.

It asked if people were offended by the name of the football team, not some hypothetical other context.

And it asked people if they were offended. Not whether they figured somebody else would be.

[grego]

as for bangs poll, i'm a little in between.

 

i still have a problem with some protesters getting away with being offended by the name based upon false stories. i have a problem with anyone being able to claim offense without having to answer why they are offended, and- if their basis for being offended is wrong- not being asked about it. 

 

you cant just say 'my version of the truth is true regardless of the actual truth'. society doesnt work that way. 

 

i'm not sure ive heard a native american protestor who didnt claim that their reason for being offended was based on the origin of the name. thats a problem that needs to be addressed. i dont think the issue is going away otherwise. 

[Soup's Uncle]

What's become apparent to me is that if Snyder chooses to change the name or not, he'll still be used as the villain.  If he doesn't change it, he's a racist.  If he does change the name, the media will say "Why didn't you change it sooner?"

 

I feel Snyder is in a bit of a no win situation.  He needs to get out ahead of it, because no matter what he does, he will continue to be the hated head of a nationally hated sports franchise.  He may need to select the lesser of two (supposed) evils and change the name.

 

I'm in the camp where I'm tired of hearing about it.  I just want to watch football.  If Native Americans are offended, change the name for them.  Not for ******* like UnWise Mike & Peter King.

 

Change it or not, I just want to focus on watching football and not whether or not my team is racist or I am a racist for rooting for them.  I'm part Native American, and my late grandfather was Wampenoag Indian from Fall River, Massachusetts and was the most die hard Redskins fan I've ever met.

[Commander PK]

Lewis Black is the latest...

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/wp/2014/04/16/lewis-black-says-the-redskins-should-change-their-name/

 

I doubt anyone on the other side will feel his comments helped them, and I think he very succinctly summed up most non-native advocates for a name change with that last bit in bold.  

 

 

 

 

...and then Daniel Snyder said he was going to keep the Redskin name,” Black said. “And since that’s what he wants, I’m dead-set against it.”

[grego]

Lewis Black is the latest...

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/wp/2014/04/16/lewis-black-says-the-redskins-should-change-their-name/

 

I doubt anyone on the other side will feel his comments helped them, and I think he very succinctly summed up most non-native advocates for a name change with that last bit in bold.  

 

 

john feinstein could have been credited with that quote- 'why would you defend dan snyder?' when he was being asked about the name change and someone dared to say they were against it. 

 

so, we have a few opportunistic native americans who have a made up version of the names origin, upon which they base their offense, and a bunch of ignorant mostly white folks who base their opposition to the name based on a strong dislike of our owner. 

 

sweet.

[Commander PK]

so, we have a few opportunistic native americans who have a made up version of the names origin, upon which they base their offense, and a bunch of ignorant mostly white folks who base their opposition to the name based on a strong dislike of our owner. 

 

sweet.

 

Yeah I know, they are sure standing on some solid ground there.  I'm waiting for the "I know you are but what am I's" to eventually start.

[Larry]

Again, I would not be nearly so quick to simply out of hand dismiss every person who is offended.

I disagree with it. And I think it makes "our side" look worse.

[Commander PK]

Again, I would not be nearly so quick to simply out of hand dismiss every person who is offended.

I disagree with it. And I think it makes "our side" look worse.

 

For me, I don't blame people for being for offended....but if their offense is based on incorrect information they should be told so.  If it's clear some want the name changed for reasons that have nothing to do with the name than they should be called out for it.  If the attitude is "it's clearly racist because the name is clearly racist because it combines red and skin together, so that's that change it, what are we even debating about this for..." Well, I take an issue there, because clearly that person apparently takes the name at face value and does nothing to educate themselves, nor do they probably care enough to educate themselves.  

 

While I like Lewis Black as a comedian, he clearly spoke from a place of ignorance about the name and the issues. I mean Dan Snyder hired "Steven Spurrier" so clearly the Redskins should change their name, lol.  There are other examples, somebody mentioned Feinstein and I believe LaCanfora said something similar. 

[SWFLSkins]

What if the name were changed to BlackSkins, since the majority of players are black? You can't tell me there wouldn't be some black folks wouldn't be offended by that, or some white folks that would be equally upset. How about BrownSkins, since we are all shades of brown. 

 

I think honestly if the name gets changed if would go a long way in removing a memory of where this country came from, after all we are a melting pot of peoples and the country was not founded by anyone, it was home to Native Americans, who called themselves Redskins. I am proud of the name and what it represents. I always felt my white ancestors did not do right by the NA's. Getting rid of the name would not honor what America, not the United States, is. 

 

That said, I stand in line B. If the majority of Native Americans wanted it changed, I would live with it. 

[SweetAlfred]

Rainbowskins wouldn't offend anybody!

[Larry]

What if the name were changed to BlackSkins . . . ?

Well, now, there's some "reasoning" we haven't seen for a while. (Mental image of rotting corpse rising from the grave and shambling forth into the world, in search of brains.)

The "Let's invent an imaginary word, claim that the word I just made up is offensive, and then claim that the phrase 'The Washington Redskins' is offensive because this imaginary word I just invented, is offensive" "reasoning".

[grego]

Again, I would not be nearly so quick to simply out of hand dismiss every person who is offended.

I disagree with it. And I think it makes "our side" look worse.

 

 

i dont really advocate dismissing everyone who is offended.

 

if someone is offended by, say, native americans as sports teams 'mascots' in general, i can understand that. that argument still has flaws, like 'seminoles' and red mesa redskins, but its at least something. 

 

the overwhelming issue i keep seeing is the origin of the name being scalping argument. i cant get behind that argument because its historically inaccurate and false. i cant say 'yes, we should rename the team because someone thinks something thats completely untrue'.

 

i think its ok to call extremists for what they are- and i think its a reluctance to do so that has contributed to this slow burning brush fire that doesnt seem to be going out. nobodys calling anyone on their BS. consequently, people are buying it. 

 

i see article after article with bogus reasons (like hate for dan snyder) as reasons for wanting change. 

 

its very frustrating. 

 

i dont think anyone has a problem with reasonable, sound discourse. we're just not seeing it. 

[Larry]

OK, it's occurred to me that there's different ways of looking at y'all's "They need a good reason" argument.

See, what I'm reading is,
 

"I'm offended"

"Tell me why you're offended, so I can pass judgement on whether you have the right to be offended, or whether I need to argue with you over whether you're allowed to be offended".

I have visions of somebody announcing that people don;t have the right to consider the n-word offensive, because look here at where the origins of the word come from, and see, they weren't intended to be offensive, therefore you must tolerate people using that word, today.

----------

But it has occurred to me that there's another way of looking at it.

It's entirely possible that a great many birthers really are offended by the phrase "President Obama".

However, I am not required to respect their offended-ness. Because their offended-ness is based on a complete, intentional, fabrication. A fabrication which is easily demonstrated to be so.

 

----------

 

Having said that, though, I still have to point out: 

 

If a word offends me, I'm not in any way required to justify, to you or anybody else, why it offends me.  (I don;t even have to come up with a reason, for my "internal use". 

 

To pick an example, I don't have a reason why the n-word offends me.  It just does.