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

[codeorama]

Sorry, but I just can't take polls as the be all end all.

If we can have polls, why not put it to a vote on reservations?

Make it official...

[War Paint]

Dan, I hope you are reading this. We need Native American day at FedEx this season. Have them do the halftime show, have proceeds donated to them, have them sing the anthem, and have them ride horses in war paint during the per game

I just want to read Wise and Peter K*** call them all Uncle Toms the next morning. Please oh please make it happen Dan

Oh, they will call them Uncle Tom's and sellouts.  I saw snide comments made by these name change crusaders when the Navajo Code Talkers were at a game of ours.

[Larry]

Sorry, but I just can't take polls as the be all end all.

If we can have polls, why not put it to a vote on reservations?

Make it official...

Why do you suppose the name changers aren't asking for one?

[Destino]

Uh, no, the MEDIA brought it to the forefront.

The name change crowd are the same people who've been pushing the same arguments they've been using, for what, 40, 50 years?

The movement is not being lead by the media. Continuing to pretend this is a Washington post thing simply inaccurate at this point.

[codeorama]

Larry, (sorry, can't quote on my cpu, only phone for some reason),

 

I think both sides have agendas.  This whole issue is bizarre IMO.  Non NA's fighting on both sides.  One group of NA's says its not offensive, the other group of NA's says it is offensive.  I honestly could see a true vote going either way. IMO, the worst part about a vote is what happens if its 60-40 either way... does that mean too bad for the other side? At what point is the percentage correct? (not saying I know).

 

Im in this thread as the devil's advocate.  I see a bunch of people that haven't been around NA's and as such, cannot comprehend how the name could be used in a negative way.  I've seen it as I've stated repeatedly. I'm not going to join a march for either side. I'm just trying to "educate".  

 

Look up the history of the N word.  Here's one site:  http://www.aaregistry.org/historic_events/view/"n-word"-word-brief-history

Its basically a literal word to mean the color of a black person's skin.  Same as redskin.  Read some of the examples of how it was used and accepted. 

Prior to 1994, I would have never equated the word redskin to a slur.  But again, my 2 summers in Montana changed that.  Totally different world compared to what I grew up in and I do not mean that Montana is filled with racist people. I would love to live there, its such a great place, but, in my experience, there was a definite issue with NA's and how they are perceived and treated.

[Larry]

The movement is not being lead by the media. Continuing to pretend this is a Washington post thing simply inaccurate at this point.

Whereas, pointing out that things I didn't say, aren't true, is . . . ?

There is no sudden, rising swell of native opposition to the name. The NATIVES who are pushing thus, are the same ones (making the same arguments) that have been pushing it for decades.

There IS a rising swell in COVERAGE.

[codeorama]

Larry, I agree, there is a rising swell in coverage.  No doubt.  Probably will continue to be until it is resolved one way or another.

The media likes a story.

[Larry]

Larry, I agree, there is a rising swell in coverage. No doubt. Probably will continue to be until it is resolved one way or another.

The media likes a story.

By "resolved", you mean, "the tiny handful who have been pushing this nonsense, for decades, give up"?

Me, I would think that a vote of 90-9 constitutes a pretty resounding "settled".

This topic is about as much a controversy as climate change is.

[codeorama]

Personally, I think "resolved" would be one of 2 things, the name changes, which I personally think will happen, or, an official vote of some type happens to show that the word is one of pride and that the vast majority of NA's are against the name change.

 

The hard part about that idea is; is it even possible?  I doubt it...  Second, if the media knew there was a "majority" of NA's that wanted to speak on behalf of keeping the name, would the media even report it.

 

I agree that there is a political part of this that I don't like.  The "agenda".  

[Bang]

1. No the media would not report on any sort of vote or poll that shows that NAs support the name.

The poll that does indicate this has been around for a long time, and it's rarely mentioned, except to say "It's not valid".

2. Yes, it would be possible to take a poll, but it would have to be conducted by the Name Change side or it will be totally ignored.

And for some reason they are afraid to take another poll.

the entire thing is an agenda.

if it had anything to do with actual people's actual feelings, they'd be more concerned with getting the truth, rather than shoving their version of it.

~Bang

[codeorama]

Not in response to anyone, but, here is an article I read last year that really made sense to me:

 

http://deadspin.com/redskins-a-natives-guide-to-debating-an-inglorious-1445909360

 

Written by a NA, he brings up some great points IMO.

 

Quick Quotes:  "The vast majority of Native people do not sit around wishing the Redskins would change their name. Most don't care about this topic. Some do. Some actually like the name. Either way, there's no consensus at all."

 

"The anti-Redskins movement is driven by a small percentage of Native people."

 

"The NFL and fans of the NFL treat Native people qualitatively differently from how they treat members of any other ethnic group. Whether or not the term "Redskin" is inherently racist is the wrong question. The more appropriate question is, "Would it be acceptable to name a professional sports team according to the color of someone else's skin?" Would it ever be cool to have a sports team called the Washington Blackskins? It seems appropriate; D.C. is Chocolate City. But, um, hell no. San Francisco Yellowskins? Naw, cousin. Won't work."

 

 

Much more in the link such as comparisons to the N word... 

 

 

[Boss_Hogg]

Reasons why this issue is gaining momentum:

 

Distaste For Dan Snyder 

Redskins are the 4th most valuable team in the world

Senate election year

Distaste for Dan Snyder 

[War Paint]

I honestly don't see a name change happening.  There just isn't anything I see outside of liberal faux outrage that indicates a name change is coming. The vast majority in polls I've seen have no problem with the name.  Our owner says he will NEVER change it.  The league doesn't want it changed and have come out in support of our name.  If I'm not mistaken, any legal fees that have surfaced over the years in regards to our name have been paid for by the league.  The big protest last year at Green Bay that was talked up in the media had a very small amount of protesters, like ten total.  There is no loss in revenue happening because of our name, but there is a huge risk in lost revenue if a name change occurs.  The list goes on and on. 

 

People need to get it though their thick skulls....the majority rules.  Sometimes it sucks if your view point lies in the minority and you don't get your way, but you just have to deal with it and move on. 

[Bliz]

Why do you suppose the name changers aren't asking for one?

Easy. Because they're winning.

They have nothing to gain from a poll

[Boss_Hogg]

Easy. Because they're winning.

They have nothing to gain from a poll

 

How are they winning?

[8181]

Just conduct the poll already.

 

 

What do you think the Washington Redskins should do concerning their team name?

 

1. Change it.

2. Keep it.

3. No opinion.

[War Paint]

How are they winning?

Yeah, I'd like to know this as well.  There is nothing out there to suggest they are winning. 

Just conduct the poll already.

 

 

What do you think the Washington Redskins should do concerning their team name?

 

1. Change it.

2. Keep it.

3. No opinion.

I thought there were already polls out there.   Since they don't reflect the results the name change crusaders desire, they ignore them.

[Larry]

Just conduct the poll already.

 

 

What do you think the Washington Redskins should do concerning their team name?

 

1. Change it.

2. Keep it.

3. No opinion.

Disagree with your poll question.

You're asking people to vote on what they think about other people's feelings.

(And similar, secondary, factors. Just look at all of the people in this thread who are in the "It doesn't offend me, but I think he should change it, anyway, because it offends other people. Or because he's going to lose, eventually. Or because I just want the **** thing to go away." Your poll question wants to lump all of those people together as "wants the name to change".)

That's why I think the Annenberg poll asked pretty much the perfect question.

1) It asked people about the name of the football team. Not about their feelings about the word "redskin" in some other usage.

2) And it asked people about their own feelings, (A subject on which, I assert, the subject is the Sole Authority), rather than what they think some imaginary other person might feel.

[DM72]

We should send all these senators that sent letters to the Redskins, letters asking them how are they fixing the problems at the VA hospitals.

[Larry]

I thought there were already polls out there.   Since they don't reflect the results the name change crusaders desire, they ignore them.

Far as I'm aware, there's exactly one, where they asked Natives.

(There's a second one, that I think ESPN did, that surveyed all Americans. I think it said that 80% wanted to leave the name alone. But I'm not as concerned with a survey of all Americans. And I'm not sure, but I think it was an internet poll, which I consider to be pretty much the definition of useless.)

[codeorama]

Larry, why do you think that poll is perfect?  By census results, only .9% of the population "should/could" be offended by the word.  It doesn't apply to white/black/asian/latino people.

 

The entire point is that people who think it should change most likely feel that way out of empathy.  As the link I provided stated, what gives us white/black/asian/latino guys the right to decide what is or is not offensive to NA's?

[Commander PK]

Sorry, but I just can't take polls as the be all end all.

If we can have polls, why not put it to a vote on reservations?

Make it official...

 

They could do this Code.  The burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused.  I dare them to poll their own people...but you and I both know that is not going to happen.  

 

the reason it is not going to happen, is because of the results they know they would get.  The overwhelming majority don't agree with them, and polling their own people would telegraph that.  I'd be willing to be my next paycheck on the results.  

Yeah, I'd like to know this as well.  There is nothing out there to suggest they are winning. 

 

 

They want the American people to "think" they are winning by media saturation.  

[mcsluggo]

the 2004 poll was a bit flawed, but it is what we've got, and it said roughly 10% of native americans thought the name redskins was offensive.  

 

this isn't an election, so 10% saying that they felt that it was offensive is not insignificant, as it would be in a majority-rules election 

 

i suspect that neither side wants to run a new poll, because neither will be totally happy with what they uncover.  Some will be offended, some will not. But SOME will be offended, and those might be the most outspoken-- making it unpopular for the "keep the name" crowd.   But it'll be less than 50% (but probably more than 10%)-- making it unpopular for the "drop the name" crowd

[Commander PK]

Easy. Because they're winning.

They have nothing to gain from a poll

 

Is there some kind of point system here I don't know about...every time some idiot writes a piece on the topic...the other side gains a point?

 

Not trying to start an argument...just would like to know how they are winning.  If anything, it seems to me people are getting more and more irritated about it.  Every time a poll comes out which you would think would put the topic to rest, a month later some asshole writes another article (because they refuse to accept defeat) and starts the whole cycle over again...we add 2 or 3 more ages to this thread, and then it  falls off for a while.

 

We are at an impasse.  The name is not going to change, because nothing is going to push this to a head.  Some people will just have to be offended for the rest of their life, or get over it.  

and unless the poll is conducted by an independent entity (like the Annenburg Institute) nobody will believe the results on either side....and some won't even accept their poll results even though they probably would on any other topic.

[codeorama]

Painkiller, you post about the accuser/accused is kind of what gets me (i'm not busting your chops, but it just kind of made me think of it this way).

Its not a black and white issue.  I don't think anyone in their right mind thinks the Redskins set out to have a negative name.  No way, no how.  Who would do that? That's just dumb.

 

But the word is used in a negative way towards NA's.  Can't deny it.  

I get sucked into this because so many don't want to accept that the word is used that way.