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

[Commander PK]

 

 

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.

 

I don't want you to think that I am calling you a liar, because I'm not.  I just would like to know what proof you have of this in a modern context other than your own personal experiences?

[Larry]

Larry, why do you think that poll is perfect?  By census results, only .9% of the population "should/could" be offended by the word.

Please provide me a link to the census data that says only .9% of Native Americans are allowed to be offended by a word.

[codeorama]

I'm just showing that .9% of the US population is NA's.  That's whom the word "would" be offensive.

Also, the Blackfeet are the predominant tribe in Montana where I had my experiences;

 

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/10/10/blackfeet-elder-says-rick-reilly-misquoted-him-wants-redskins-banned-151696

[Commander PK]

and the burden of proof is on the accuser.  If you want somebody to change something that has stood for over 80 years, you better have a good reason other than anecdotal evidence.  

 

The Washington Redskins have stood for generations.  My great-grandparents were Redskins fans.  If you want me to capitulate to a name change, you better have a damn good reason why I should.  

 

I have yet to see that reason.

[codeorama]

Painkiller... see link above

My great great great uncle was Thomas Lafayette Rosser, a confederate Lt. General, surely he used the N word..., that makes it right for me too right?

[Larry]

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

Agreed. I'd be hugely surprised if the "percent offended" hasn't grown significantly, over the last 10 years.

The media does have the power to change people's minds.

Frankly, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the "percent offended" has doubled.

And you're right.

Dan Snyder has no motive to run another poll. When you've got one result that overwhelmingly endorses your position, you don't go out and ask the question again.

And even if the percent offended has doubled, the name change crowd still won;t like that answer. So they don't want to ask the question, either.

I'm just showing that .9% of the US population is NA's.

And the only thing that has in common, with what you claimed:

By census results, only .9% of the population "should/could" be offended by the word.

. . . is that both of them used the word "percent".

[Commander PK]

For the sake of argument...the "reason" is some people find the name offensive.  

 

Is this our new standard in America?  Some people find it offensive...so change an 80 year old institution?  

 

Do people even stop to think about the kind of precedent that sets?  Seriously, where does it end?  While we are at it, let's sanitize our culture and society to the point that anything that anyone anywhere at anytime could possibly find offensive is changed.  

 

What the hell would we call things then?  The Washington "It's" or the Washington "that's"  

 

This will not stop with the Redskins...it will only move on to the next one.

[Larry]

I don't want you to think that I am calling you a liar, because I'm not.  I just would like to know what proof you have of this in a modern context other than your own personal experiences?

Just wondering why you seem to think that his own personal experiences somehow don't count?

[Commander PK]

Painkiller... see link above

My great great great uncle was Thomas Lafayette Rosser, a confederate Lt. General, surely he used the N word..., that makes it right for me too right?

 

I thought we already covered this ground.  No ,it's not ok, because the use of that word reached a consensus of the majority that it was not acceptable at all.  We didn't need a poll on the topic...we just knew, the word is despicable.  This is universally accepted as truth.  

 

With that said, African Americans use the word, and some others can get away with it in satire, which has already been pointed out...but these are not the same things as the word "Redskin" Code no matter how many times you try to drive this point home.  Their origins are different, and their usage is different.  

 

Some Natives are offended by the word "Redskin" but nearly all African Americans are offended by the N word.  I care what the majority of them think.  Why should we not believe a Native American when he states the word does not offend him?  Why is his/her opinion less important then Natives that are offended, or PC America?  

 

Again, I ask the question I've posed numerous times in this thread...  

 

Are Natives who do not believe the term is offensive dumb or ignorant?  I defy somebody to answer that question.

Just wondering why you seem to think that his own personal experiences somehow don't count?

 

they do count.  Should they count enough for me and you to change our minds on the topic?

[Commander PK]

The problem is the other side wants us all to make a decision to get behind a name change based on an emotional response.  Well they are getting one, just not the one they want.  When I have Natives telling me they are terrified of losing the name...why should I pay less attention to them than I do the ones who find it offensive?

 

Somebody give me a good reason why I should.  

 

The only way the other side wins this fight is if people give up because they don't want it distracting from the Football side of things anymore.  So basically, they surrender on the topic.

 

I will never do that, and I know that most of you won't either.

[War Paint]

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

10% is insignificant.  Heck, if you really tried, you can probably find a small amount of Irish people who find "Fighting Irish" offensive.  Every group, every creed, will have someone who is offended by something.  That's why when I hear that idiot Skip Bayless say "even if 1% of NAs find it offensive, it should be changed", it irks me.  It's just ass backwards logic.  That's why PETA can't turn us all into vegetarians.  They have the right to express their opinions, but they don't have the right to force the majority into becoming Vegans.

 

Just the fact that you have Native American high school teams who use "Redskins" as their name should be enough to kill this debate.  You won't see a majority Hispanic high school team using "Wetbacks" or a mostly majority black high school named the "N____rs".

[War Paint]

The problem is the other side wants us all to make a decision to get behind a name change based on an emotional response.  Well they are getting one, just not the one they want.  When I have Natives telling me they are terrified of losing the name...why should I pay less attention to them than I do the ones who find it offensive?

 

Somebody give me a good reason why I should.  

 

The only way the other side wins this fight is if people give up because they don't want it distracting from the Football side of things anymore.  So basically, they surrender on the topic.

 

I will never do that, and I know that most of you won't either.

Yeah, I recall reading quotes from NA Redskin fans saying "it would offend me if you changed it".  I thought that the media finally gave up a couple of months ago when the league came out with support for the name.  I didn't read one name change article for a while.  It seemed like it finally died down.  I don't know what resparked it the past couple of weeks. 

 

Eventually, I have to imagine that Mike Florio from PFT is going to get tired of writing the same crap over and over.  Eventually those in the media are going to keep pounding the drum so much that people are just going to blow it off because they get bored with reading and hearing the same crap over and over.

[Commander PK]

 

 

Just the fact that you have Native American high school teams who use "Redskins" as their name should be enough to kill this debate.  You won't see a majority Hispanic high school team using "Wetbacks" or a mostly majority black high school named the "N____rs".

 

and that is the best reason why the comparison between this and the N-word, or wetbacks, or crackers, or any other racial slur you can think of are not the same as "Redskins"

 

From the beginning of this debate, they have been trying to draw a comparison between those words and Redskins that are clearly not held in the same regard by the people that it supposedly offends.  

[codeorama]

I thought we already covered this ground. No ,it's not ok, because the use of that word reached a consensus of the majority that it was not acceptable at all. We didn't need a poll on the topic...we just knew, the word is despicable. This is universally accepted as truth.

With that said, African Americans use the word, and some others can get away with it in satire, which has already been pointed out...but these are not the same things as the word "Redskin" Code no matter how many times you try to drive this point home. Their origins are different, and their usage is different.

Some Natives are offended by the word "Redskin" but nearly all African Americans are offended by the N word. I care what the majority of them think. Why should we not believe a Native American when he states the word does not offend him? Why is his/her opinion less important then Natives that are offended, or PC America?

Again, I ask the question I've posed numerous times in this thread...

Are Natives who do not believe the term is offensive dumb or ignorant? I defy somebody to answer that question.

they do count. Should they count enough for me and you to change our minds on the topic?

Not all African Americans are offended by the word. I showed the movie 42 to my 6 world history classes. 4 of the 6 laughed when the phillies manager went on his triad. They thought it was hilarious. They has no problem. Of the 2 remaining, 1 had a student who was deeply offended. The class changed it's tone after that. The other was in shock. My co teacher, who is an older black female is very offended by the students use of the word. The students don't get it for the most part. A few do. I've literally had students tell me it's ok for me to use it. That's how far we've come. That word has changed.

Both words did start the same way. A literal word for the color of their skin.

and that is the best reason why the comparison between this and the N-word, or wetbacks, or crackers, or any other racial slur you can think of are not the same as "Redskins"

From the beginning of this debate, they have been trying to draw a comparison between those words and Redskins that are clearly not held in the same regard by the people that it supposedly offends.

I teach HS, the n word runs rampant. If the students could use that as their mascot, I have no doubts that they would because to them, it doesn't mean the same thing it does to a 50 year old black woman.

[Commander PK]

Yeah, I recall reading quotes from NA Redskin fans saying "it would offend me if you changed it".  I thought that the media finally gave up a couple of months ago when the league came out with support for the name.  I didn't read one name change article for a while.  It seemed like it finally died down.  I don't know what resparked it the past couple of weeks. 

 

Eventually, I have to imagine that Mike Florio from PFT is going to get tired of writing the same crap over and over.  Eventually those in the media are going to keep pounding the drum so much that people are just going to blow it off because they get bored with reading and hearing the same crap over and over.

 

what re-sparked it was that idiot Harry Reid and the other 49 democratic senators that signed and sent a letter off to the NFL.  To me, it tells me a lot that they didn't even ask the Republicans their opinion on the topic.  They wanted a consensus of the "like-minded" knowing damn well that most of those republican senators would not have agreed with them.  That action more than anything else has now served to make this a political issue.  It's also an election year, and they are trying to distract everybody from the topics that most people actually care about and how bad things are screwed up right now.

[Larry]

they [code's personal experiences] do count.  Should they count enough for me and you to change our minds on the topic?

I didn't say they were enough of a reason to demand changing the name.

But, when the question is "Is the word 'redskin' being currently used as a racial epitaph?", then the statement of one person saying "I have personally heard it used that way" is sufficient to say that the answer to the question is "yes".

(Now, when the question is "How often is it used that way?", then one person citing that he's heard it used that way, twice, doesn't really say a whole lot. Nor does it make the argument that "this word can be offensive, therefore it is offensive when used this other way, too" a valid argument. But those are different matters.)

 

[War Paint]

what re-sparked it was that idiot Harry Reid and the other 49 democratic senators that signed and sent a letter off to the NFL.  To me, it tells me a lot that they didn't even ask the Republicans their opinion on the topic.  They wanted a consensus of the "like-minded" knowing damn well that most of those republican senators would not have agreed with them.  That action more than anything else has now served to make this a political issue.  It's also an election year, and they are trying to distract everybody from the topics that most people actually care about and how bad things are screwed up right now.

Maybe after the elections it will die down again.  Man, we have some pathetic people running our country.

[Larry]

Maybe after the elections it will die down again.  Man, we have some pathetic people running our country.

 

 

And you assume that that won't be the case, after the elections? 

[codeorama]

And you assume that that won't be the case, after the elections?

Quoted for truth...

[Commander PK]

And you assume that that won't be the case, after the elections? 

 

Personally, I think we are ****ed either way, and you can quote me on that.

 

What I find hilarious is that every time an election comes around, people still have the audacity to hope.  Both sides are equally incompetent.    

[codeorama]

Personally, I think we are ****ed either way, and you can quote me on that.

What I find hilarious is that every time an election comes around, people still have the audacity to hope. Both sides are equally incompetent.

Agreed!

[Commander PK]

But, when the question is "Is the word 'redskin' being currently used as a racial epitaph?", then the statement of one person saying "I have personally heard it used that way" is sufficient to say that the answer to the question is "yes".

(Now, when the question is "How often is it used that way?", then one person citing that he's heard it used that way, twice, doesn't really say a whole lot. Nor does it make the argument that "this word can be offensive, therefore it is offensive when used this other way, too" a valid argument. But those are different matters.)

 

 

I have no reason to doubt Code...I don't know Code other than on this message board, but there is a reason why eyewitness testimony and circumstantial evidence are considered the weakest evidence you can have.  My assertion that I heard something once or twice, is not empirical or scientific.  It is merely hearsay.  Now does this name change debate have to stand up to the standards of a court of law?  Not necessarily, but we defintely need more than heresay or a small percentage without any facts to back it up.

 

Harjo claims that "Redskins" stood for the "bloody red scalps of murdered Natives," yet she admits she cannot find one shred of evidence to prove that this is the case, in fact all tangible, empirical, and scientifically obtained evidence points to the opposite, or that that usage was not wide spread at all if ever.  

 

See my point? 

[Commander PK]

 

Eventually, I have to imagine that Mike Florio from PFT is going to get tired of writing the same crap over and over.  Eventually those in the media are going to keep pounding the drum so much that people are just going to blow it off because they get bored with reading and hearing the same crap over and over.

 

I absolutely believe that the Reid letter to the NFL has caused that kind of a reaction, or forced people who could not care one way or the other to react angrily because of all the legitimate "real world" problems that we actually have.  

 

The harder they push, the angrier we get, and the more fed up the general population gets.  Just read the comments under that Keim article on ESPN that I posted on the last page.  Read them and see for yourself.  What better litmus test on what America really thinks on the subject?

 

LMAO, now they will start blocking the comments below the articles they write.  Watch what I'm telling you.  "Comments closed for this article"   LMAO

[codeorama]

Simple question, would it be ok to have a team name based on the skin color of black person or Asian person? The SF Yellowmen?

[Commander PK]

Simple question, would it be ok to have a team name based on the skin color of black person or Asian person? The SF Yellowmen?

 

it depends on if they thought it was ok or not.