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

[Sniffler]

Whether or not they're offended is irrelevant.

After reading your posts for days, you have done nothing but prove everyone's point about what you are saying. Good job.

[RonYoungEra]

I love how you quote me as if I'm the misinformed one. No need to "take this one" though... I don't need convincing.

 

Well, you may not need convincing, but you do need educated.

[Commander PK]

 I'm asking why you think it's okay that we're using a term that identifies a minority race of people by the color of their skin.  Whether or not they're offended is irrelevant.  Do you not see anything inherently wrong with identifying a race of people by the color of their skin?

 

Yes, if they say it's ok.

 

What could be more relevant than that?  

 

What if the people in question don't mind that a term that describes the color of their skin is being used by a professional football team?

[Sniffler]

Well, you may not need convincing, but you do need educated.

Nope. No need to be edumacatin' me today. There are several reasons Native Americans were called "redskins"... not just in the derogatory manner you are claiming represents our team. I know this... you seem to not acknowledge it.

[Larry]

Nice one Larry!  But your argument's played out.  I'm not talking about whether the term's offensive or not.  That debate has been drilled into the ground.  I'm asking why you think it's okay that we're using a term that identifies a minority race of people by the color of their skin.  Whether or not they're offended is irrelevant.  Do you not see anything inherently wrong with identifying a race of people by the color of their skin?

Funny, I thought you were demanding that people confine themselves to a discussion of the name of a football team.

I'm not talking about the term being used as a slur.  That's debatable, based on context, right?

 

I'm talking about a professional sports team identifying a group of minorities by the color of their skin, exactly the same as we've done with the Redskins.

Yet, when Annenberg asks about the football team, and the answer is overwhelmingly that you're wrong, suddenly you want to ask them about something completely different. (And then claim that the different answer you get, applies to the subject that you don't want them to ask about.)

I believe that the Annenberg poll asked the wrong question. The poll asked, “The professional football team in Washington calls itself the Washington Redskins. As a Native American, do you find that name offensive or doesn't it bother you?" I believe that a better question to poll to Native Americans would be, "As a Native American, would you be offended if the term "redskin" was used by non-Native Americans to identify you or your race?"

[Bang]

 

 

That great that Ray Hawthorne expressed his opinion.  You asked and I expressed mine.  Doesn't make either of us right.  Doesn't make either of us wrong.  You know what they say about opinions, right?

 

ray Hawthorne is one of the people this supposedly disparages.

Not you, not me.

 

His opinion is much more weighty on this issue than either of ours.

 

I do know what they say about opinions, and i want to know why you think you're a better decider on what should offend Ray Hawthorne than Ray Hawthorne is.

 

Great, now show me the professional sports team that is called the "Random City Name" Coloreds.

Has there ever been such a thing?

shall we just make stuff up to try and make a point?

 

 

I'm talking about a professional sports team identifying a group of minorities by the color of their skin, exactly the same as we've done with the Redskins.

the team identifies themselves with a term that is debatable as to what it actually means.

The team does not refer to anyone by any color.

(Suzan Harjo does.. unless her "Red Talk" native American issues radio show was called that because of her nail polish.. somehow i doubt it.)

 

The team does not request that Redskins provide proposals for stadium services. But they do go out of their way to make such contacts with Native American owned businesses.

they do not write letters to "Dear Black Fan, please buy season tickets", in fact, if anyone can show me anything they have ever received from the team that refers to their race in any way, I'd buy them a coke.

 

the team does not identify anyone as anything, unless you can prove they did.

this is the "you would not walk up to a native American and call him a Redskin to his face" argument in reverse.

Do you have any recordings of anyone from the team specifically referring to any Native American that is not a member of the team as a "redskin"?

This is a ridiculous assertion.

 

 

 

By the way,, just curious,, how do you feel about the name of the Buffalo Bills? Since you're sensitive to native issues, how do you feel about a team named after the man who did more to wipe out their way of life than any other person in history?

 

Does that sit well?

Why is it Harjo and the northwestern New York gambler don't seem to have a problem with this?

(well, i know why HE does't.. he's a gambler in Northwestern New York. No sense pissing off his client base. (In fact, this https://twitter.com/buffalobills/status/18990686468 would suggewst he's perfectly OK with their name.)

He's obviously not averse to working with them at all http://blog.syracuse.com/divots/2010/07/post_3.html

 

Why should he? he's a sponsor of the Buffalo Bills.

http://muckrack.com/ByErikBrady/statuses/387244860874317824

 

Some consistency would be nice when offense is what is being claimed.

Actually i would even settle for the slightest bit of thought.

The Redskins = low hanging fruit. the Bills requires a little thought,, which explains why they've gone after one and not the other. 

they think they can win vs the Redskins, and this drives their level of offense. 

They can't win against the Bills, because they would have to explain the very legitimate reason why that name is the single most offensive name of any team anywhere when it comes to native american history.

Harjo doesn't care. She's never said word one about the Bills. In fact when the Redskins played the bills in the Super Bowl, her cronies had a nice big anti-Redskins protest, and didn't even consider the name of the opposition. 

Halbitter is in bed with them, so you know he won't complain.

So in order to become an 'activist', you have to go for that which requires only a visceral reaction based on a single word, with no context, and no history.

 

 

Please tell me that no one is so ignorant to not know who Buffalo Bill was and what he did?

 

 

and finally,, if the Annenberg poll is wrong, or was worded wrong, I know one sure fire way to put an end to it's use.

You have to ask yourself why Harjo is so reluctant to do something so simple about something so obvious.

 

 

~Bang

[RonYoungEra]

ray Hawthorne is one of the people this supposedly disparages.

Not you, not me.

 

His opinion is much more weighty on this issue that either of ours.

 

I do know what they say about opinions, and i want to know why you think you're a better decider on what should offend Ray Hawthorne than Ray Hawthorne is.

 

Has there ever been such a thing?

shall we just make stuff up to try and make a point?

 

the team identifies themselves with a term that is debatable as to what it actually means.

The team does not refer to anyone by any color.

(Suzan Harjo does.. unless her "Red Talk" native American issues radio show was called that because of her nail polish.. somehow i doubt it.)

 

The team does not request that Redskins provide proposals for stadium services. But they do go out of their way to make such contacts with Native American owned businesses.

they do not write letters to "Dear Black Fan, please buy season tickets", in fact, if anyone can show me anything they have ever received from the team that refers to their race in any way, I'd buy them a coke.

 

the team does not identify anyone as anything, unless you can prove they did.

this is the "you would not walk up to a native American and call him a Redskin to his face" argument in reverse.

Do you have any recordings of anyone from the team specifically referring to any Native American that is not a member of the team as a "redskin"?

This is a ridiculous assertion.

 

 

 

By the way,, just curious,, how do you feel about the name of the Buffalo Bills? Since you're sensitive to native issues, how do you feel about a team named after the man who did more to wipe out their way of life than any other person in history?

 

Does that sit well?

Why is it Harjo and the northwestern New York gambler don't seem to have a problem with this?

(well, i know why HE does't.. he's a gambler in Northwestern New York. No sense pissing off his client base. (In fact, this https://twitter.com/buffalobills/status/18990686468 would suggewst he's perfectly OK with their name.)

He's obviously not averse to working with them at all http://blog.syracuse.com/divots/2010/07/post_3.html

 

Why should he? he's a sponsor of the Buffalo Bills.

http://muckrack.com/ByErikBrady/statuses/387244860874317824

 

Some consistency would be nice when offense is what is being claimed.

Actually i would even settle for the slightest bit of thought.

The Redskins = low hanging fruit. the Bills requires a little thought,, which explains why they've gone after one and not the other. 

they think they can win vs the Redskins, and this drives their level of offense. 

They can't win against the Bills, because they would have to explain the very legitimate reason why that name is the single most offensive name of any team anywhere when it comes to native american history.

Harjo doesn't care. because she herself refers to herself and her people as red, as proven by the name of her radio show. 

Halbitter is in bed with them, so you know he won't complain.

So in order to become an 'activist', you have to go for that which requires only a visceral reaction based on a single word, with no context, and no history.

 

 

Please tell me that no one is so ignorant to not know who Buffalo Bill was and what he did?

 

 

and finally,, if the Annenberg poll is wrong, or was worded wrong, I know one sure fire way to put an end to it's use.

You have to ask yourself why Harjo is so reluctant to do something so simple about something so obvious.

 

 

~Bang

 

C'mon Bang, I thought you were smarter than this.  I never said what Ray should or should not be offended by.  He has his opinion and and he's entitled to it, but it doesn't make it right nor wrong.  That being said, please don't tell me that you're naive enough to think that Ray's just some random Native American brought in by the organization to give his thoughts on the team. If you do believe this, I've got some oceanfront property in Iowa that I'd love to sell you.  Of course he was screened and only paraded before the masses because his opinion supported what the Redskins stance is on this matter.  For your Ray Harwthorne, I can give you Susan Harjo.  Why do you think that her opinion of being offended shouldn't count?  See how easy that was?

 

And please explain to me WHY you think there has never been a professional sports team called the "Coloreds."

 

You say that the team does not identify anyone as anything?  Then why is the term "redskin" and the Indian head logo used to represent Native Americans?  Or are they not?  Is this all a dream? 

 

The Buffalo Bills do not use a term that defines a minority race by the color of their skin.  It's not about Buffalo Bill.  This opens up the argument against Vikings, Cowboys, Canucks, etc.  Surely we're all familiar with the phrase, "All men are created equal."  How can all Native Americans feel that they are equals when we still have a professional sports team that refers to Native Americans by the color of their skin?  If you can't see the ignorance, or even of it being culturally insensitive, of using a term to represent a race of people by the color of the their skin, well, that's on you.

 

Aah, yes, the fall-back of clammoring for a poll that doesn't exist again.  To which I reply, since the term "colored" is "exactly the same" as redskins (as it defines a minority race of people by the color of their skin), show me the recent poll that states that that majority of African Americans are not offended by the term "colored."  What?  It doesn't exist?  Surely something so simple must be easy to put together, right?  There can only be one logical conclusion:  they know the answer and they don't want to share it with us.

[Larry]

And please explain to me WHY you think there has never been a professional sports team called the "Coloreds."

So, your point is that no one would ever name a professional football team over a racial slur, he asked, innocently?

Far as I'm aware, there has never been a professional football team named the Yankees, either. Or the White Sox.

Why, there are dictionaries full of words whose exact word has never been used for a professional football team in the Nation's capital.

See how easy it is, to make meaningless points, if I simply demand that somebody else use the exact word, in the exact context, that I have carefully picked?

 

Aah, yes, the fall-back of clammoring for a poll that doesn't exist again.  To which I reply, since the term "colored" is "exactly the same" as redskins (as it defines a minority race of people by the color of their skin), show me the recent poll that states that that majority of African Americans are not offended by the term "colored."  What?  It doesn't exist?  Surely something so simple must be easy to put together, right?  There can only be one logical conclusion:  they know the answer and they don't want to share it with us.

Tell you what.

Show me the group that has spent 20 years, dozens of court appearances, and probably a million dollars in legal fees claiming that the name of the NAACP is offensive, but who hasn't once run such a poll, and you might have a point.

[RonYoungEra]

Larry, you're still hung up on context and whether a word is a slur or not.  I've moved on - you should too.  I'm simply stating that I believe that we can do better than choosing a name that defines a race of people by the color of their skin. 

[RonYoungEra]

For those if you so desperate for a poll given to actual Native Americans (NOT any self-identified Native Americans, but ones that are actually associated with a tribe), I give you this poll from 2001 given by Indian Country Today, in which 81 percent of respondents indicated use of American Indian names, symbols and mascots are predominantly offensive and deeply disparaging to Native Americans.

Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2001/08/07/american-indian-opinion-leaders-american-indian-mascots-84807

 

Of course, since this doesn't coincide with what so many of you believe is right for Native Americans, now is your time to rip holes in how the poll was conducted and please don't forget to tell the Native Americans polled that they shouldn't be offended, as we mean no disrespect, but only honor.

[grhqofb5]

For those if you so desperate for a poll given to actual Native Americans (NOT any self-identified Native Americans, but ones that are actually associated with a tribe), I give you this poll from 2001 given by Indian Country Today, in which 81 percent of respondents indicated use of American Indian names, symbols and mascots are predominantly offensive and deeply disparaging to Native Americans.

Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2001/08/07/american-indian-opinion-leaders-american-indian-mascots-84807

 

Of course, since this doesn't coincide with what so many of you believe is right for Native Americans, now is your time to rip holes in how the poll was conducted and please don't forget to tell the Native Americans polled that they shouldn't be offended, as we mean no disrespect, but only honor.

 

http://aistm.org/fr.2002.of.polls.htm

Tim Johnson, an editor at

ICT

explained:

Indian Country Today's

American Indian Opinion feature is conducted

by polling those people who have signed on voluntarily to our survey group by sending us their name, e-mail [address], and tribal affiliation.

The list consists of folks who have an interest in American Indian issues and who may or may not be subscribers to

Indian Country Today.

Many read our Web edition at Indiancountry.com.

It is important to stress that ours is not a scientific survey

, but a survey of American Indian people who have voluntarily joined our network and generally stay informed about events and happenings in Indian country;

Approximately 450 American Indian people are in our polling group, and depending on the topic, response rates vary; The polling questions also elicit comments that are often published in our newspaper. This group, I think, is likely to have consistently followed the debate over the mascot issue. (T. Johnson, personal communication, March 6, 2002)

____________

 

Granted, this snippet comes from the internet as well, in a blog (or something) that is more or less critical of all polling on the subject.  And of course it is the internet.....  but really come on now.

[Bang]

what a mess.. however, since i don't want to be tossed off the site, I don't quote large blocks of text, and recommend you don't either...  however, to answer this...

 

You inferred that we all know what opinions are.. which to me brings up the old axiom "Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and they usually stink".

Now if you meant something else, I'd suggest thinking before you write.

BUT, since i think you meant that your opinion and Hawthorne's opinion carry equal weight, I will remind you that it is YOU who are non-native telling me that HIM,, being native, has an equal opinion on whether or not HE should be offended by this term

You seem to think it matters why the team brought him in.

Who cares ? Is he not NA? Does he not have firsthand knowledge of whether this term should offend him or not?

Why do you think Harjo ignores him and all the others who think like him? Do you think she doesn't screen who she allows to speak on her behalf?

What makes his opinion less valid because he doesn't agree with hers?

She is saying that as a NA, she wants this stopped,, he is saying that as an NA it doesn't bother him, and n fact iis an honorific.

Why is his opinion less valid than hers, and somehow equal to either one of ours?

It's bull****. he is what he is. His words carry weight. You flat just don't want to hear what he had to say without finding a way to discount it.

(I know i keep mentioning that Halbritter is a professional gambler. Why is it this keeps being ignored? Is his motivation above reproach? Why? is it because he's a native?)

 

The reason why there is and has never been a team called the "Coloreds" is because in the 20s and 30s when professional sports leagues began to take off, THIS was the accepted image of the colored person.

Whereas our logo was originally

 

I trust you can see the difference.

Other than the awful cleveland Indians, there is not a single native themed sports logo that is a mockery or caricature like that 'colored' guy is up above.

When naming a sports team, even in the backward racist years of the early 20th century, the team wanted a proud mascot / logo. Something fearsome, something with pride that would engender respect.

 

But all things are all the same, always, I suppose.

 

 

You see the difference? One is a picture.. a picture that is NOT a caricature, NOT exaggerated in any way to exemplify anything racial at all. It is very similar to the head that adorned our nickels back in the time. It looks like a person. Not a cartoon.

Our name,, well that has been explained over and over.

But like i said,, if you can find me any instance of the team referring to any native American individual, or even a specific group as a Redskin in the last 25 years or so, I'll buy you a coke. (Other than the football team of course. Is it offensive to call RG3 a Redskin?)

 

I'm sorry, but moving the goalposts in regards to how the team refers to anyone is not going to work. You want to know why the team refers to people this way, and I ask you for any example in which they have actually referrfed to any individual by that name, other than a football player.

Again, you guys seem to think it's a valid question to ask why we would not walk up to an NA and say "hey Redskin", and I would put forth that no one on the team does that at all, in any way.

Now show me otherwise. You can't have it both ways, if context matters, then it matters.

I don't recall dan Snyder ever saying "We would like to do business with Redskin groups.".. but he does say he wants to do business ith native groups.

 

As to the Buffalo Bills..  you think the only way to disparage or offend is to use a definition of color?

So if i call a team the Hitlers, that would be OK, so long as i don't call them the "Whites".

And before you roll your eyes,, let's be clear,,  Harjo refers to whites as a ":disease". She expounds daily on the forgotten genocide, that of the Native american. genocide is genocide, is it not?

You know the history here..

Historians almost universally point to the slaughter of the buffalo herds as the largest contributor to the destruction of Native life and the enabler of the genocide.

Buffalo Bill killed more buffalo by himself than anyone, and led hunts just to destroy the herds. And he destroyed the herds for ONE reason.. to deprive the natives of food and shelter.  To kill them, bnasically. to destroy them, eradicate them, and wipe them off the face of the earth.

After he succeeded in destroying their ways ofl ife, he then pluked up the dispossessed chiefs and paraded tyhem around the world in his WILD WEST minstrel show.

And you don't think THAT is offensive?

You think somehow there is a difference, and our name is the worst of the two?

Sorry man, but that is flat crazy, upside down, dopey logic.

 

there is no other name in sports like Buffalo Bill. 

he is not a hero. he's a major player and enabler of this genocide,, he is a chief cause of one of the main elements of the plan to rid the west of the Native. He is also an exploiter of the highest order, responsible for many of the bad characterizations that Natives have had to endure,, because his show was not concerned with any truth other than "Here is how the heroic white man tamed the savage Indian".

 

and a team named after this guy,,   you don't see a problem with this?

Even if it's just on the surface where ignorance festers,, it's really NOT that hard to figure out. 

 

As far as "Falling back" on the non-existant poll..  well,   I could do one of two things.i could listen to you tell me why they should be offended, or i can listen to them tell me if they are or not.

as a thinking fair minded person, to me the answer is obvious.

 

As to it's comparison with 'colored'..   you're barking on the wrong tree. i don't care about that, I don't think it matters.

What does matter is the opinion of the people being offended.

 

For one, you cannot find me a single reference anywhere in modern times of black people saying in any sort of numbers that they prefer 'colored"..  but i can most certainly find you evidence within the last decade of plenty of identified natives who say the term "redskin" does not offend them.

 

there is not even a question,, if even TEN black people formed a tiny coalition to say that they prefer the term 'colored' then you'd have an argument. But there is not, so you don't. Making it up doesn't make it real.

Annenberg didn't make up their answers. People who like the name did not make up the answer the poll provided. 

 

enough with false equivalencies.  They make for a stupid argument.

And again, this argument can be settled very easily by people who have actually are the issue, not some phony ridiculous made up scenario trying to draw a parallel.

 

 

seems to me that whenever you guys get going, you fall back on the false. You make up things that do not have basis in reality to try and make your point.

reality says that this question among the Native American population is not settled.

And reality states that until it is, all you and I are doing is yelling from the cheap seats. Because in this debate, that is where we belong.

It's not our decision. it is not the decision of the media. it is not the decision of a Kardashian Kulture obsessed with their own narcissistic tendencies that they will ignore the people actually being affected and tell them it's so obvious that they should fell a certain way.

when they don't..   they are then ignored, minimized, and their opinions are lumped in the same as people like you and me, who have no real dog in the fight..

How can you support that?

It would seem to me that if it is so important, than hearing what they have to say would be paramount to forming an outside opinion.

 

~Bang

For those if you so desperate for a poll given to actual Native Americans (NOT any self-identified Native Americans, but ones that are actually associated with a tribe), I give you this poll from 2001 given by Indian Country Today, in which 81 percent of respondents indicated use of American Indian names, symbols and mascots are predominantly offensive and deeply disparaging to Native Americans.

Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2001/08/07/american-indian-opinion-leaders-american-indian-mascots-84807

 

Of course, since this doesn't coincide with what so many of you believe is right for Native Americans, now is your time to rip holes in how the poll was conducted and please don't forget to tell the Native Americans polled that they shouldn't be offended, as we mean no disrespect, but only honor.

deciding what we will say about it before we do is sort of what this whole argument is about.

You've decided they are offended, and you've decided we're all boorish ignoramuses incapable of accepting information key to the question.

 

It is interesting, and it is a piece to the puzzle. The fact the other poll is 3 years later holds some weight as well.

.

A 2014 poll would take two conflicting results and give us some light on how the issue is currently perceived among the native populace.

I'm just looking for an answer,, not just my opinion on what I think it should be. My opinion means nothing on the matter.

 

~Bang

[RonYoungEra]

Bang, let me be perfectly clear with you:  I'm in agreement that neither of our opinions ultimately matter on the subject.  We're on a message board to share our opinions, but they're just that - opinions--neither right nor wrong and there's nothing to prove.  I'm not telling anyone to be offended or not be offended - they feel how they feel and I respect that.  What I can say is that people I know are offended by the term "redskin," they're not alone, and I support their right to be offended.  I feel that, as a professional sports team, we can choose a better name that doesn't define a race of people by the color of their skin - simple as that.

 

As far as your retort about no sports teams named the coloreds - I wasn't asking about logos or mascots.  The issue here is the term "redskins" and how it makes people feel.  Although my personal opinion is that when the name goes, the logo should go with it.  No need to half ass this.

 

As far as the poll I linked, while admittedly not scientific, I do believe that the results do hold some weight.  The report was rather unbiased in reporting answers of people that were offended, not offended, and indifferent.  This quote rang true the most with me personally:  Kara Hawkins, Nez Perce commented, "All teams have named themselves to aspire to the name. The Warriors. The Tigers. The Chiefs. The names themselves are honorable. It's what the fans have done with them. It's what the media has done with them. It's what advertising has done with them. To change the public's attitude is to do as our ancestors do it, by our own example. Our sights and energies should be set on more important concerns, the environment and continued connection to Spirit.

 

This one too:  "I don't know why so many people have such a problem with treating Native Americans the same as any other minority group in regards to stereotypical portrayals.  If you refer to me in a manner I find offensive, then you are being offensive ... Telling me you are honoring me by referring to me in that offensive manner does not make it OK, and it does not make it an honor."

 

I think that just as much as the informal poll results, the quotes from the actual respondents to the poll are very telling and it's refreshing to get some "real-world" perspectives rather than just what our Kardashian Kulture (YES, I finally got to use it ) of Harjo and the Redskins are putting out there.

 

I agree that a recent poll that asks more pertinent questions would be of benefit to all.  But again, I don't need the results of a poll to tell me that we can do better than using a term that defines a race of people by the color of their skin. 

[Bang]

All that is well and good.

Some native people ARE offended by the term

and some native people are also NOT.

 

This, in my mind, is the absolute crux of the argument. The debate ultimately is theirs, and DOES exist.

 

to draw an equivalency to the word 'colored'  the civil rights movement and demands for equality were near unanimous. Among black people there was no debate.

 

as far as the name of the team, the mascot and logo is inherent upon it. One of the more voracious monsters on the planet is the giant starfish,,  but 'starfish' isn't really a football team name, right? It's slow, it lays there and barely moves to our eye. But if you speed up film of it, it's as bad as Godzilla in it's path of death and destruction.

In the days these names were trademarked, 'colored' was a perfectly acceptable word. It was the imagery associated with it that would preclude it having been used, not any desire to not be offensive. That is why there are no teams with such names. (But there were Negro Leagues, eh? and there was the Oolong Indians, an entirely native football team. "Indian" itself is like the word "colored" now though..  it's not considered an acceptable term)

 

i would agree in modern days no professional team would choose our name, the world is different. But since our name is already here, it has engendred some feelings of pride in a percentage of the native population,, and we need to hear them. as it is, the Kardashian Kulture (glad you like my word) is only listening to one side of the debate, and in many cases, are not being made aware the other side exists.

 

Which of course s not Harjo's responsibility.. she is under no obligation to give any equal time to her detractors. I would hope that the Kardashian Kulture itself would stop taking things on face value, making instant decisions based on manipulated media, and endeavor to find out the actual truth. (With the media assisting in the manipulation, it's not easy. as i wrote a few days ago, rick Reilly of SI went against the tide, and was smacked around by his colleagues rather soundly for it.
 

if a question is near unanimously supported like civil rights was among black people, then there is no need to try and discover if there is more. But this isn't like that. there IS more, and the knowledge that it exists IS public. I think just for the sake of doing the right thing, we try to find out what that is before we do it.

 

If the name changes, so be it. But let it happen for the right reasons, and not "he who shouts loudest makes the rules".

 

~Bang

[Bang]

Good discussion. Hope you can talk football just as well over in the Stadium fire,, i think I like you being around here.

 

~Bang

[Tweedr01]

Well, you may not need convincing, but you do need educated.

Lol, well this is an ironic sentence.

[Larry]

I agree that a recent poll that asks more pertinent questions would be of benefit to all.

Don't suppose you feel like letting us in on which question you think would be "more pertinent" to the question of whether the name of the Washington Redskins is offensive, or not, than "Does the name of the Washington Redskins offend you?"

And explain why you think that (whatever question you think is "more pertinent" than "Does the name of the Washington Redskins offend you?") is so?

----------

 

Lol, well this is an ironic sentence.

 

 

In many ways. 

[elkabong82]

NAs used Redskins to define themselves by skin color as a way to differentiate between themselves and whites in conversation. NAs frequently have used red as a skin descriptor. They didn't use it as a pejorative or to suggest one skin color was superior to another and Redskins today does not do that either. This outcry from some that skin color is some evil, taboo topic is an overreaction to racism. Skin color can be mentioned/acknowledged and used as a descriptor so long as it isn't used to imply inferiority. 

 

The biggest argument I've seen is that redskins must be racist because it uses skin color. But the simple counter to that is the origin is from NAs themselves, some tribes use it as team name also and/or root for us because of our name, and the context is one that is respectful and does not suggest inferiority in any way. And then mention that the only actual polling on the matter showed the VAST majority of NAs are not offended. 

 

This isn't even a national story any more and since the word is not commonly used as a negative and majority have never even heard of it used in that way, IMO this is still a losing battle for the name change advocates.

[Tweedr01]

I love the fact this kid moves the target when he gets smacked down. How about you stop changing your argument or requirements when you are proven wrong? People might take you seriously.

[RonYoungEra]

Elka:  As I've stated, I don't think the Redskins are being racist with their use of the term in any way.  While, no, not every mention of the term "redskins" has been used to offend others, it certainly has been used as a term to disparage Native Americans in the past and still in the present.  See the previous poster's story about living in Montana near a reservation and working at Target and employees telling him point blank to "watch out for those redskins - they try to steal everything."  Nothing honorific about its use there, eh? 

 

Yes, some tribes do still use the term for their own team name, but it's their name and their right to do so - not ours (as non-Natives).  Also, change is still coming:  in 1970, more than 3,000 high school, college, and professional sports teams had Native American nicknames or mascots. Today, fewer than 1,000 remain.  http://thinkprogress.org/sports/2014/01/30/3205071/redskins/

 

I do wish that we would choose a new name that doesn't identify a minority group of people by the color of their skin.  If it's not being used as a racially-motivated term, I do still believe that there's something inherently wrong with identifying a group of people by the color of their skin.  And not only identifying them, but using it as a team name and a mascot for a professional sports team that otherwise has no relation to Native American culture.  Dan Snyder, IMHO, would go a LONG way to repair his tarnished image with numerous fans by making this change.  Unfortunately, with his bullheaded "NEVER" heels digging in, I don't see it happening any time soon.  Doesn't mean I have to stop wishing though, right?

 

Larry:  I've stated what question I would like to have answered by Native Americans in a poll previously.  See above.  But again, I don't need poll results to want change.

 

Bang:  You previously stated that you'd be more inclined to listen to what the other side had to say if they were more organized in their protests.  You even threw out an arbitrary number of 1000 protestors that would get your attention.  You needed many more than the "9" that showed up in Green Bay.  Well, last year, over 700 protestors showed up in Minnesota against the name.  Is 700 not enough to gain your respect?  Are they 300 short?

 

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2013/11/07/activists-to-protest-redskins-nickname-before-game/

 

Also, for you, and all of you 90%ers out there hanging your hat on the 2004 poll.  If we extrapolate those numbers (5.2 million Native Americans in the U.S. in 2007, according to the census here:  http://www.infoplease.com/spot/aihmcensus1.html) and take that 9%, that's still over half a million that are opposed to the term "redskins."  While obviously not the majority, is half a million against more than a few or enough for you to realize that while still in the minority, the numbers are significant?

 

And as an aside, I do enjoy this healthy debate as well.  I tend to lurk more than post, as evidenced by my less than 1000 posts in my 7 years here, but this thread in particular has woken up the fire in my belly!   Bang, you'll see me pop up in the Stadium from time to time.  Usually some smartass comment and typically not in the game day threads - I don't know how people have the availability to comment during the game - I'm way too focused on the TV and the computer's usually off!

[Spearfeather]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------       After all of this over the past few days, I can honestly say ....

 

 

 

 

My opinion on the name, hasn't changed at all.

 

 

 

Hail to the Redskins !

[Tweedr01]

Do you just have a list of questions for repeat? Once you get corrected just move onto the next, and at the end of the list repeat from the beginning. You've already tried these arguments, new stuff please.

[Bang]

lol "elka"

 

 

bababooey bababooey bababooey

 

~baba louie

[RonYoungEra]

Do you just have a list of questions for repeat? Once you get corrected just move onto the next, and at the end of the list repeat from the beginning. You've already tried these arguments, new stuff please.

 

But wait, I keep changing my arguments when I get "smacked down" right?  Now which is it?! 

 

Would be awesome if you would actually contribute to the discussion rather than take pot shots from the side, but hey, if that's what you're into--cool beans, I guess.

[Larry]

While, no, not every mention of the term "redskins" has been used to offend others . . . .

By "not every". you mean, what, 99.9%?

Out of all the times the word "Redskin" is used, every day, what percentage do you figure refers to them dirty Injuns, and what percentage to the football team?

 

I will mention that a while back, (I don't know if it was in this thread or in one of the numerous, previous ones), I did an unscientific poll. I ran a Google search, on the term "redskin". (I intentionally used the singular, not the plural, and did not capitalize it, so as not to skew the results towards the football team. And I looked at the first 100 hits I got. Just going from memory, I think I got like 85 stories about the football team, three dictionary entries, and 5-6 stories about the name controversy. 

Not one case of the word being used to refer to the race. 

Yes, some tribes do still use the term for their own team name, but it's their name and their right to do so - not ours (as non-Natives).  Also, change is still coming:  in 1970, more than 3,000 high school, college, and professional sports teams had Native American nicknames or mascots. Today, fewer than 1,000 remain.  http://thinkprogress.org/sports/2014/01/30/3205071/redskins/

 

Yes, we are well aware that there have several well publicized cases of sporting groups getting rid of Native references. 

 

Because the white folks decided to get rid of them. 

 

Often over the objections of the Natives. 

 

I think the biggest, most publicised case involved the University of North Dakota Fighting Sioux, which was the subject of a statewide election.  As I recall reading, a clear majority of the state's Natives voted to keep the name.  but the whites voted to change it, and there were a lot more of them. 

 

 

Larry:  I've stated what question I would like to have answered by Native Americans in a poll previously.  See above.  But again, I don't need poll results to want change.

Pointing out that

 

1)  My post was a response to you saying that you wanted a more current poll.  (If you could slant the question so that the results would come out to be less embarrassing for your position.) 

 

2)  And that I asked if you could come up with some BS spin to explain why you think that not asking people about the name of the football team, is "more pertinent" than asking them about the name of the football team, when the subject is, in fact, the name of the football team. 

 

Bang:  You previously stated that you'd be more inclined to listen to what the other side had to say if they were more organized in their protests.  You even threw out an arbitrary number of 1000 protestors that would get your attention.  You needed many more than the "9" that showed up in Green Bay.  Well, last year, over 700 protestors showed up in Minnesota against the name.  Is 700 not enough to gain your respect?  Are they 300 short?

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2013/11/07/activists-to-protest-redskins-nickname-before-game/

I was going to point out that I've heard that claim before, and no, there was nowhere near that attendance.

But it looks like I was thinking of some other event at which the activists simply claimed huge numbers of people. Something about the activists saying that they were going to have a protest, sending the media to a hotel convention room, nobody whatsoever showed up, and the activists then claimed that well, we must have sent you to the wrong location. We really met somewhere else, but trust us, there were hundreds of people there."

But your link actually looks legit, to me. You brought something I don;t think I've seen, before.

Thank you.

 

Also, for you, and all of you 90%ers out there hanging your hat on the 2004 poll.  If we extrapolate those numbers (5.2 million Native Americans in the U.S. in 2007, according to the census here:  http://www.infoplease.com/spot/aihmcensus1.html) and take that 9%, that's still over half a million that are opposed to the term "redskins."  While obviously not the majority, is half a million against more than a few or enough for you to realize that while still in the minority, the numbers are significant?

 

 

Ah, I see we're back to pointing out what a huge number agrees with you, while pretending that the people who disagree, who outnumber your group by 10 to 1, aren't all that important.