Chew Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 The brothel part, obviously was way back in the day... no time recently... suuuuuuure..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 Well... no payment was involved... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarpon75 Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 Nor is it, to 90% of Native Americans. According to the only time anybody has ever bothered to actually ask them. Nor is it, to 90% of Native Americans. According to the only time anybody has ever bothered to actually ask them. What I find comical is a bunch of non-native Americans telling Native Americans that they should be offended by the name.Pretty much telling them they are too stupid to know that it's offensive. Any polling that has ever been done shows the large majority aren't offended by the name. The ones that take pride in the name,as many do,must really be stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaybrant Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 Bruce Allen's response letter to Senator Harry Reid http://files.redskins.com/pdf/letter-from-bruce-allen.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC9 Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 I just came in to say "THAT'S MY MOTHER ****ING GENERAL MANAGER/PRESIDENT"! Have some water with those facts, congress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 I'm sure ESPN and the major news outlets will dedicate as much time discussing the response as they did the letter from the Senate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RansomthePasserby Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 Good letter by Bruce. I wish people would just let the Redskins be the Redskins and move on to more important things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkeyBoy Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 If the name changes, the song probably goes too. You really can't edit a song TWICE to get rid of all the weird racial stuff in it. You get one shot at that. To be honest I've always been a little uncomfortable connecting the phrase "Hail Victory" with the franchise considering its German translation... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWFLSkins Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 Any facts can be ignored by a wave of the hand and a wish. For example, there are people out there who think that they actually have the power, from their lofty perch, (which they apparently obtained strictly based on seniority), to tell you that things which you have personally witnessed, do not exist. Dude, I call them as I see them, I don't give a rats ass about my post count. I have traveled extensively throughout this land and others, so I base my opinions on my experiences. I have experienced racism, if this were a racist word the Natives would have massed and made it known long ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWFLSkins Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 I live in SE va, Hampton to be specific and I've lived here all my life. I don't see white on black racism very often. I'm a teacher. The HS where I teach is 70% black. We have little to no race issues. Sorry that you think I'm not being truthful, hold on while I shed a tear over your opinion of me on the internet... Oh man up, we are having a discussion. btw congrats on the utopia you teach in. I don't know your age, but I did have the experience of going through the late 60's and the civil rights push. Again I reiterate, If there was an outrage don't you think we would have widely heard of it long ago? And yeah I don't disagree that you may have witnessed racism in some form, but I disagree that it was widespread and not reported or covered. When has this country turned into France? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinpride1 Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 Can someone please start a origination to help battle the name change..IS there a big time one already started or out There???.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 Dude, I call them as I see them, I don't give a rats ass about my post count. I have traveled extensively throughout this land and others, so I base my opinions on my experiences. I have experienced racism, if this were a racist word the Natives would have massed and made it known long ago. And, apparently, you call them as you don't see them, too. That is, unless you want to claim that you have personally witnessed the entirety of codeorama's life, and therefore are entitled (by something other than your age) to announce that the things which HE has experienced, did not happen. Just my personal opinion, but when one person tells me that he's seen something (and when said something is at least believable), and a second person tells the first that he cannot possibly have seen such a thing, I tend to believe the word of the person who was, you know, actually present when said events did or did not happen. Or, to be more blunt, if you want to announce that some other person did not see something which he claims to have witnessed, and you want me to believe you, then you're going to have to come up with something better than comparing your ages. I don't know your age, but I did have the experience of going through the late 60's and the civil rights push. As opposed to doubling down on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted May 24, 2014 Share Posted May 24, 2014 What I find comical is a bunch of non-native Americans telling Native Americans that they should be offended by the name.Pretty much telling them they are too stupid to know that it's offensive. Any polling that has ever been done shows the large majority aren't offended by the name. The ones that take pride in the name,as many do,must really be stupid. this is the part that never ceases to amaze me. They are trying to ram a change nobody wants down everyone's throats (Native and non-Native) under the guise of speaking for all Native Americans. Their own "leaders" are essentially saying....our people are too dumb to know any better. Bruce Allen hit it out of the park also. Great job Bruce!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted May 24, 2014 Share Posted May 24, 2014 Excellent letter by bruce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWFLSkins Posted May 24, 2014 Share Posted May 24, 2014 Then where are the outraged masses of Native Americans pushing this? I talked to three tribes and several NA's when able in different parts of the country, not one said it was an issue for them, they like the fact that they have a national stage. I hate to call bull****, but yeah I am calling bull****. You never saw racism like that before, what a sheltered life, how old are you? When I was growing up Blacks and Whites went after each other for no other reason then being a different color, just stupid. I seriously doubt you're integrity from here on out. They were hanging Native Americans in Montana? Dragging them down a road, tied to a truck? Confused about the comparison. I need further depth and explanation to your actual point with that response. Edit: I will simply state that I have no trouble at all believing code's personal experiences. He said he's never seen racism on against Blacks or Hispanics on the scale of what happens in Montana to Native Americans. I find that a bit absurd, considering in my lifetime I've seen news reports of those very things happened against African Americans. Now maybe he was speaking strictly from what his own eyes have seen, but even then, that's placing a very limited view of what has occurred in this country in our lifetimes. It was well reported in all National media, and if not known you didn't have a Television. "They were hanging Native Americans in Montana? Dragging them down a road, tied to a truck?" Gamebreaker, I've NEVER experienced those things in my life. Yes, I know they happened and I'm aware, but I've never personally experienced those things. In Montana, as I've posted in the Tailgate previously, I witnessed the following: I lived in Montana for 2 summers while my brother played for the Dodgers minor league team. I worked as a bartender. In the bar, I had people say to me personally, "You serve redskins here? I'm leaving" or "Get them people out of here". I applied for a job at Target in Loss prevention, I got the interview because I had previous experience. I was told directly, "all you have to do is look for the redskins, they are usually drunk and always steal". In Virginia, I was never told "Look for blacks or hispanics" or look for this. In my life, I've never experienced blatant out in the open racism like I did there. In a lot of ways, it has made me call BS on a lot of racism that I read about because its so subtle. Being asked if you are the homeowner (which I get all the time), not being able to wear a hoodie (which white kids do all the time) etc... Most likely I would have made the national news. Just saying. Oh man up, we are having a discussion. btw congrats on the utopia you teach in. I don't know your age, but I did have the experience of going through the late 60's and the civil rights push. Again I reiterate, If there was an outrage don't you think we would have widely heard of it long ago? And yeah I don't disagree that you may have witnessed racism in some form, but I disagree that it was widespread and not reported or covered. When has this country turned into France? And, apparently, you call them as you don't see them, too. That is, unless you want to claim that you have personally witnessed the entirety of codeorama's life, and therefore are entitled (by something other than your age) to announce that the things which HE has experienced, did not happen. Larry please follow that convo along, I find it hard to believe that the type of racism he experienced was widespread and went unreported, let alone not acted upon. If I personally was told that in an interview, Target would have been exposed as a racist employer, then again I am more than a board chestbeater, I am a street level right the wrongs kinda of guy. You and Code don't know me personally, but injustice is not something I just lay down for. I will fight Goliath if in the armor of God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted May 24, 2014 Share Posted May 24, 2014 Larry please follow that convo along, I find it hard to believe that the type of racism he experienced was widespread and went unreported, let alone not acted upon. If I personally was told that in an interview, Target would have been exposed as a racist employer, then again I am more than a board chestbeater, I am a street level right the wrongs kinda of guy. You and Code don't know me personally, but injustice is not something I just lay down for. I will fight Goliath if in the armor of God. Hmmm, now, let's see. We have one poster stating that he has had individual people make racist comments, and that one supervisor at a low-wage job gave him racist job suggestions. And we have one poster claiming that these events could not possibly have happened, because they did not make the national news. And further asserting that if that one comment had been made to him, then, well, not only would he have corrected said employer, that he would have made the national news, doing so. Which of these assertions do I find more believable, based on my personal experiences in life? Tough to say, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Section106 Posted May 24, 2014 Share Posted May 24, 2014 While it is okay to believe code's story it is unfortunately anecdotal. He wrongly applied his personal experience to a population of people and to the intent of the Redskins organization. Just because a few racists used the term to describe Native Americans doesn't mean that his experience proves the term is racist. I am more inclined to believe that the recent media attention will cause more people to use the term in a derogatory way. It's like telling a seven year old that a word is bad and then he can't say it anymore. He can't help himself. And I live in Hampton too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted May 24, 2014 Share Posted May 24, 2014 While it is okay to believe code's story it is unfortunately anecdotal. He wrongly applied his personal experience to a population of people and to the intent of the Redskins organization. Uh, I think his experiences do apply to a population of people. (His bar patron, and his loss prevention supervisor, weren't objecting to one Native, they were objecting to all of them.) And I don't think he made any attempt to assign motives to the team, at all. (In fact, I suspect that it's a safe bet that no, he doesn't think the team is racist, in any way. Or that it ever was.) I believe that he was simply observing that just because a lot of people in "civilization" (my term, not his) don't see day to day, open, racism against natives, doesn't mean that a lot of natives haven't personally experienced it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWFLSkins Posted May 24, 2014 Share Posted May 24, 2014 Hmmm, now, let's see. We have one poster stating that he has had individual people make racist comments, and that one supervisor at a low-wage job gave him racist job suggestions. And we have one poster claiming that these events could not possibly have happened, because they did not make the national news. And further asserting that if that one comment had been made to him, then, well, not only would he have corrected said employer, that he would have made the national news, doing so. Which of these assertions do I find more believable, based on my personal experiences in life? Tough to say, huh? Lol, whatever Larry. You wrongly jumped into this foray and claimed I placed myself upon a lofty perch, I did my best to right that wrong assumption. I enjoy conversing on these topics, you apparently love to argue more than discuss. Have a great day and a great weekend, honoring those who died or were injured for our rights to agree to disagree. I have done everything in my power to properly digest the topic seeking independent and pertinent views from those effected or supposedly effected. If I had found the feedback to reveal a racist tone I would not buy or support the team any longer, in fact what I found is a population by majority that takes the same pride in the product representation as I do. A tough, proud heritage. A fighter, not a quitter, family and community oriented, self governing with swift and fair council. Wrongly oppressed and not by the name of a sports franchise. FWIW, those who know me personally, they know I won't stand by and watch someone get slighted without speaking up, and loudly. At sometimes personal risk both physically and professionally, I do what is right and stand up for the less able. Believe it or not, I don't care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Section106 Posted May 24, 2014 Share Posted May 24, 2014 Uh, I think his experiences do apply to a population of people. (His bar patron, and his loss prevention supervisor, weren't objecting to one Native, they were objecting to all of them.) And I don't think he made any attempt to assign motives to the team, at all. (In fact, I suspect that it's a safe bet that no, he doesn't think the team is racist, in any way. Or that it ever was.) I believe that he was simply observing that just because a lot of people in "civilization" (my term, not his) don't see day to day, open, racism against natives, doesn't mean that a lot of natives haven't personally experienced it. He said that the term is racist because of his experiences. That is anecdotal evidence. As defined it means not necessarily true or reliable, because it is based on personal accounts rather than facts or research. The facts as laid out by Bruce Allen demonstrate that the term is not racist and is accepted and promoted by the larger Native American population. Code tried to refute the facts of the case by relying on his personal and therefore limited and unreliable experiences. He can stomp his feet and assert his opinion all he wants but it doesn't mean that his opinions are truth. edit: I also think that we are missing the larger point here. I don't think the name could be racist in the true sense because the Washington Redskins cannot deny any group of people their Constitutional rights. They do not have the power of the government. They can engage in racist behavior like only screening a particular group of people based upon a racial characteristic at the gate. Or only allowing a certain group access to a seating section based upon a certain racial characteristic. If that were the case then the team would be subject to penalties by the law and the court system. But to name themselves after a group of people that exhibited appealing characteristics to which the team aspires to is not in and of itself racist. It is the same as naming the team after a certain person or animal that has attributes that are found appealing. It is a descriptive term, nothing more. The term "redskins" can be prejudiced however as demonstrated by Code's anecdotal evidence. When the Target security supervisor gave him a tip to watch out for redskins or when the bar patrons left because of their personal prejudice against redskins they were demonstrating their personal feelings which are based on ignorance and intolerance. They do not have the power to deny or abridge a group of people their Constitutional rights because they are individuals. I believe it was SWFLSkins that was correct in asking Code if he had seen any native Americans dragged down the street behind trucks as a challenge to Code's assertions. African Americans were and sadly still are subject to systemic racism that exercises its power on a governmental level. Just look at the "War on Drugs" as a modern day example. The statistics of incarceration based upon race are quite clear that our court system applies the law as a double standard against African Americans. Many people on the change the name beat bring up the fact that the government stole the land of and starved, beat, raped, and murdered the Native Americans. That is true but the majority of the Native tribes were at war with the US. And that is the unfortunate outcome of war when you are defeated. They were a people not equipped through their isolation, the state of their war making technology, and their fractured political structures to stop the inevitability of Manifest Destiny. Had Wahunsenacawh killed the Jamestown settlers instead of saving them I doubt Europeans would have gotten the foothold that they did. His brother, Opechancanough, realized too late that the English were out for conquest. The Indian Massacre of 1622 was too little too late and the Reprisals that followed destroyed the Kecoughtan tribe that lived in what is now Hampton and sowed the seeds for the end of Native American hegemony in Virginia. From the outset the relationship between Native Americans and Europeans was distrusting, contentious, and warlike. They rightfully viewed "white skins" as invaders and were viewed as a power to be dealt with. You will note that the Native American Chiefs that coined the term "redskin" were from beyond the Appalachian mountain range as they were still free to enter into negotiations and treaties and were frankly still alive. The relationship of African Americans has always been different in that they were enslaved, brought to these shores against their will and forced to work in bondage for hundreds of years. They still have not gained the equality that has been promised and sacrificed for. African Americans are in many ways the illegitimate children of the US government. They have a birthright that they cannot yet claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWFLSkins Posted May 24, 2014 Share Posted May 24, 2014 Uh, I think his experiences do apply to a population of people. (His bar patron, and his loss prevention supervisor, weren't objecting to one Native, they were objecting to all of them.) And I don't think he made any attempt to assign motives to the team, at all. (In fact, I suspect that it's a safe bet that no, he doesn't think the team is racist, in any way. Or that it ever was.) I believe that he was simply observing that just because a lot of people in "civilization" (my term, not his) don't see day to day, open, racism against natives, doesn't mean that a lot of natives haven't personally experienced it. And there are more neo nazis, KKK members still walking the streets, that offends me, and if I witnessed it I would take action. People love to **** and complain but never take action. He was so offended he did nothing, but he is bringing it here as actionable venom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted May 24, 2014 Share Posted May 24, 2014 As I've said before, personally, I don't really care. The name doesn't offend me, I'm white. I've heard the word used as a slur in Montana. The racism I observed towards Indians was brutal. Very common. I understand why the issue is what it is. What I don't understand is how people can't see the difference between Seminole, Indians, Chiefs and Redskins. No comparison. If there was a "Redskin" tribe, then so be it. What I think is comical is to see so many non Indians (Native Americans) stating that the name is NOT a slur or racist or a put down. Of course it's not to you. I do not think in anyway that when the team was named Redskins, that there was any intention for there to be a negative connotation. However, the name change is coming. Its going to happen. Personally, (and this is not the right way to think on my part), but I can't Snyder so in a way, I'm rooting for the NFL to force him to change it, just out of spite. Again, sorry, not fair to the fans of the team, but I just don't like the guy. Is there a Chiefs tribe or an Indians tribe? Or can Redskins simply be considered a descriptor in the same context as Indians is, you know, since that is the origin of the word? Context matters. Many are saying that the name is not USED as a slur by the team. Very, very few have made the claim the word was never used as a slur because evidence shows that it once was. For the majority of the country, however, the word isn't a slur. Sure you have your anecdotal evidence, but then there is Red Mesa HS and other NA schools that proudly use the name, so the sentiments of it being a slur clearly are not widespread among the NA population. In fact, if Redskins was used in such a harsh tone as what you experienced but on a national scale then the Annenberg poll results would NEVER have come anywhere near 90% not caring about the name/finding it offensive. You NEVER would see polls showing the majority of the country in favor of us keeping the name, because the majority of the country would have experienced or heard about the same stuff you saw in Montana. The evidence used to say the team name is not considered a slur or put down to the majority of NAs has been heavily presented in here, and it's disingenuous of you to so flippantly ignore the entirety of this thread by saying "of course it's not a slur to you." The basis of the opinion is based on so much more than that, and I think you know that. The fact you admit that you want the NFL to force a name change because you hate Snyder, you are correct that it is not the right way to think. In fact, what it means is that you are favoring a change the vast majority of your Redskins fan brethren don't want, all over a petty agenda with a man you've never even met. But, as I've said before, name change won't happen unless the pockets of the NFL are threatened, and with the majority of the country in favor of us keeping the name and blasting Congress for wasting time on this and no serious boycott's being made, the name is safe. PC agenda may have picked it up so the media gives it undue attention, but until the majority of the country sees what you saw in Montana support won't change. They won't see what you saw in Montana though because it doesn't exist nationally, as shown by evidence cited in this posted and throughout this thread, and the team uses it in a respectful manner and has a lot of NA fans, including endorsements from local tribes, because of the name. IMO the majority opinion and current contextual usage outweighs the rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted May 24, 2014 Share Posted May 24, 2014 I believe that he was simply observing that just because a lot of people in "civilization" (my term, not his) don't see day to day, open, racism against natives, doesn't mean that a lot of natives haven't personally experienced it. The post of his to which I just replied laid it out that he thinks the name is a slur. He's not personally offended by it, but he says it's a slur and is different from other NA-named teams. As of yet, I haven't seen him cite any evidence to support that belief other than his experiences in Montana. I don't doubt his experiences, but his opinion of the word as a slur seems to ignore the many NAs who root for the team because of the name, who use the name for their own schools, the origin of the name as a descriptor, the Anneberg Poll results which would not have been anywhere near 90% if his experiences were common among NAs, and also ignores the many NAs who have come out in support of the team name, including local tribes. But clearly there are some NAs who are offended and have experienced the word used negatively. So the question then becomes, who's opinion matters more, the offended or the non-offended? Why? Is it purely a numbers game, and if so, how many have to be offended? Does current context and origin matter? What proof is there to refute the Anneberg poll results? etc. etc. Code seems to be taking a stance that ignores these questions and much evidence cited throughout this thread all in favor of his own anecdotal evidence, despite logical inference dictating that his experience is not the norm, nor even close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted May 24, 2014 Share Posted May 24, 2014 The post of his to which I just replied laid it out that he thinks the name is a slur. He's not personally offended by it, but he says it's a slur and is different from other NA-named teams. As of yet, I haven't seen him cite any evidence to support that belief other than his experiences in Montana. I don't doubt his experiences, but his opinion of the word as a slur seems to ignore the many NAs who root for the team because of the name, who use the name for their own schools, the origin of the name as a descriptor, the Anneberg Poll results which would not have been anywhere near 90% if his experiences were common among NAs, and also ignores the many NAs who have come out in support of the team name, including local tribes. Whereas I would assert that the difference between your two positions is that the two of you are arguing about the "offensive-ness" of the same word, in differing contexts. Thus demonstrating what I would assume is a rule which we can all agree on: It is possible for a word to be offensive in one sentence, and to not be so, in another. (And to then observe that the matter which we are concerned with, here, is whether the name of the Washington Redskins is offensive, not whether the word "redskin" can be offensive, if you remove it from the word "Washington", and use it in a different way.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan since a Fetus Posted May 24, 2014 Share Posted May 24, 2014 I found this interesting. Starting at 2:10: http://www.redskins.com/media-gallery/videos/Rookie_Week_Lache_Seastrunk/2b8ec52d-b7e5-4321-bc33-cbf1b60be8a9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.