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

[codeorama]

The fact that you are willing to make that assertion, tells me that you don't.

Funny thing is, I work with several teachers that are diehard for the name change and I take the flip side with them. I'm contrarian by nature. What bothers me about this thread is the unwillingness to admit that the word has been and still is used as a slur and can offend people. At the same time, I totally admit that there are probably tons of NA's that are proud of it because of their heritage.

You can look online all day for examples of redskin being used as a term of affection among NA's and you can also find tons of examples where it is used in a derogatory way.

Well what do you suggest we do since you see both sides. What would you do if you had the power to change the name? Serious question

Is there a way to keep the name and make both sides content?

Seriously, if I had a magic wand, I'd get rid of the politicians, get a very large segment if NA's into a convention center on dan snyders dime and lock them up until they decide. It's either derogatory to them or they are proud. They are not all going to agree, but they should work it out, not us.

[Commander PK]

Code maybe what needs to happen to start that conversation is for the other side to stop ignoring the fact that incredibly large numbers of Native people do not have a problem with the name.

Every single article and every single person on the other side has failed to do this or tried to explain why that is.

[codeorama]

Code maybe what needs to happen to start that conversation is for the other side to stop ignoring the fact that incredibly large numbers of Native people do not have a problem with the name.

Every single article and every single person on the other side has failed to do this or tried to explain why that is.

I agree. The political/media driven portion is a joke. It's a story and a big one at that. I still think Snyder hasn't helped.

[Commander PK]

I agree. The political/media driven portion is a joke. It's a story and a big one at that. I still think Snyder hasn't helped.

So the next step is to somehow make it so those Natives can make some real noise that can't be ignored any longer.

[Larry]

Seriously, if I had a magic wand, I'd get rid of the politicians, get a very large segment if NA's into a convention center on dan snyders dime and lock them up until they decide. It's either derogatory to them or they are proud. They are not all going to agree, but they should work it out, not us.

Someone did. They decided, by 10 to 1, that it wasn't offensive.

You chose to ignore that result, because they skipped the "they must all be herded into the same room" part.

[Kosher Ham]

The media are being led as sheep and refuse to further educate themselves on the subject.

 

Sounds about right.

[codeorama]

Someone did. They decided, by 10 to 1, that it wasn't offensive.

You chose to ignore that result, because they skipped the "they must all be herded into the same room" part.

Correct me if wrong, but there are 2 flaws that I read about that. 1. There was issue with if they were NA's, ie, what was the standard; I believe I read that they were self identified, but no further proof needed and 2. Too small a sample size.

[Burgold]

I said they won't do a poll because they're winning.  What I mean is they're winning the PR battle, and I think that's pretty self-evident.

 

Sword cuts both ways.  They are not conducting a poll either.  A poll would give the name-change crowd something they want.  Legitimacy.  Right now, the best argument, Snyder has is that the vast majority of Americans and the vast majority of Native Americans are in support of the name.  They can't counter that without data.  They can yell and complain and as you can see within this thread it does push the needle somewhat, but ultimately, these are empty words.

 

The fact that neither side is willing to spend a few thousand dollars to conduct a scientific poll is telling.  Actually, if memory serves, there was a national poll done fairly recently and that showed once again very high support and approval for the name.

 

That said, I do think the name can be offensive.  It certainly has been used in an insulting way.  I find the argument by Bruce Allen or Redskins name supporters who try to cite other origins inauthentic because even if they are true... we know the other is true also.  I don't want the name changed, but I acknowledge that there is some bad history there. 

 

To the point of this post though, if opponents of the name conducted a valid scientific poll and it showed that a sizable minority or even worse a majority of NA's were offended by the name, I'd flip posititions.  Because I root for Washington not the name.  However, at this point for every complaint I hear, I look at the Red Mesa Redskins or person of Native heritage who speak of their pride at being represented.

[Larry]

Correct me if wrong, but there are 2 flaws that I read about that. 1. There was issue with if they were NA's, ie, what was the standard; I believe I read that they were self identified, but no further proof needed and 2. Too small a sample size.

They were self identified, just like every other opinion poll I've ever heard of. And the sample size was sufficient to have a certainty of plus or minus two percent.

[codeorama]

Burgold... Best reply yet.  

Larry, again, the sample size of most polls is crazy small.  (not just related to this subject).  Who did they poll? What part of the country? What tribes?

Ready the Jenny Vrentas piece on MMQB, they went and talked to NA's and they got mixed results, some were offended, some were not.  Pretty much what I would expect.  

The real question is how many need to be offended in order for it to be too many?

I don't have the answer to that.  I like Burgold's post. He at least acknowledges that the name has/is used as a slur.  That doesn't mean the team meant it to be that way. But for so many people to just refuse to acknowledge it is just not right. I get why they won't because deep down, they may feel that by admitting it, it justifies the calls for the name change.  

[Larry]

Burgold... Best reply yet.

Larry, again, the sample size of most polls is crazy small. (not just related to this subject). Who did they poll? What part of the country? What tribes?

You are aware that there's this thing called mathematics involved in polling? They actually follow rules?

And that Annenberg does their survey every presidential election? They're experienced at this.

They survey 48 states. They do not survey Alaska or Hawaii.

They did not ask people what tribes they were members of. They asked demographic information. Age, gender, race. No doubt they asked about household income. Probably marital status.

[codeorama]

Wasn't that poll 10 years ago? or more?

The reason I ask is because people's opinions change, same with the N word.  For a long time, it was acceptable.  

And again, in my solution, its not to ask a poll question, its for them to talk to each other and decide if its offensive or not.  For them to come to an agreement among themselves. Hear each others arguments etc...

Just asking a question or a few can be biased.  I know you know that. You can create a poll to get the results you want.

[SWFLSkins]

I've said from the get go that I see both sides. That's more than I can say for the majority here.

 

Horsehockey, I see both sides, it is just that the one side has no floor. This is why I have asked any Native American I interacted with and also by writing four tribes in separate areas of the country. New Mexico, Arizona, North Carolina and of course Florida. At no time did I get any indication or reaction of negative nature over the word. Trust me, I value and have enjoyed reading about Native Americans, I would be the first to side with them if I felt it was warranted. This is a baseless argument and there is no widespread disparagement, however hard CNN, NBC, the like would beg to differ. There is one benefit out of this nonsense, and that is talking about the issues of Native Americans that are real. 

Wasn't that poll 10 years ago? or more?

The reason I ask is because people's opinions change, same with the N word.  For a long time, it was acceptable.  

And again, in my solution, its not to ask a poll question, its for them to talk to each other and decide if its offensive or not.  For them to come to an agreement among themselves. Hear each others arguments etc...

Just asking a question or a few can be biased.  I know you know that. You can create a poll to get the results you want.

 

The N word was never appropriate as much as it is today. Did not start out with the intended people that it hurt, but has now masterfully been reinvented as a urban slang with more acceptance now then ever. I hear that word sometimes ten times a day, I coach youth sports. It is not used in the context it once was. 

[SWFLSkins]

 

To the point of this post though, if opponents of the name conducted a valid scientific poll and it showed that a sizable minority or even worse a majority of NA's were offended by the name, I'd flip posititions.  Because I root for Washington not the name.  However, at this point for every complaint I hear, I look at the Red Mesa Redskins or person of Native heritage who speak of their pride at being represented.

 

 

I concur, until then fight on, fight on until you have won.....For me the name reflects and represents the sense of pride and connection I have with the Native American way. I think and have always believed that the white settlers could have learned more and taught less when arriving here. The way the NA appreciate their position in nature and the connection, the way communities conduct themselves, the spiritual connection all make me proud to be a fan of the team that bears that mascot. If I found that it truly offended the majority or a large share of that segment, I to would move on. Until then I feel this is a fight taken up by the unaffected and question their motivation to speak for those not speaking.   

[codeorama]

The n word began as the literal commentary of the color of someone's skin, like redskin.  

[Larry]

Wasn't that poll 10 years ago? or more?

The reason I ask is because people's opinions change, same with the N word. For a long time, it was acceptable.

And again, in my solution, its not to ask a poll question, its for them to talk to each other and decide if its offensive or not. For them to come to an agreement among themselves. Hear each others arguments etc...

Just asking a question or a few can be biased. I know you know that. You can create a poll to get the results you want.

The reason you ask is because you're hunting through a menu of excuses, (none of them with any support or validity whatsoever), to try to ignore one of the most clearly established consensus I've ever heard of.

90-9 IS an agreement.

There is more agreement that the name of the football team is not offensive, than there is that Obama was born in the US.

[codeorama]

Per wikipedia: ""n-word" is a noun in the English language. The word originated as a neutral term referring to black people, as a variation of the Spanish/Portuguese noun negro, a descendant of the Latin adjective niger ("color black").^[1] Often used disparagingly, by the mid 20th century, particularly in the United States, it suggested that its target is extremely unsophisticated. Its usage had become unambiguously pejorative, a commonethnic slur usually directed at blacks of Sub-Saharan African descent"

Larry, if we let polls decide, Obama would be impeached or better yet, he'd be disqualified for not being an American citizen.

I'm not hunting for excuses, let me be clear, a poll is no means of making a decision of that magnitude.

[Larry]

"A decision of that magnitude"?

"Should we allow someone else to continue doing something that he's been doing for our entire lifetimes (and which has not bothered us, all that time)?" This is now somehow such a momentous decision that not only is it not good enough for me to say I'm ok with it, it's not good enough for my tribal leadership to not object, we have to create an entire new inter-tribal government, just so we can say "nope. Still doesn't bother us."?

[codeorama]

I think forcing the Redskins to change their name is a big deal, nothing that should be taken lightly. But, IF the word is truly offensive to Native Americans, then so be it.  I personally don't feel that a poll is something that you use to make a decision like that.  

 

The n word originated because it was literal for the person's skin color.  It became a vicious slur. Today, it's becoming more of a term of endearment.  The issue here is that many deny that the word redskins is/has been/can be used as a slur.  The issue here is how many NA's have to be offended before the name is unacceptable?  

 

Most people in the US have probably lived their lives with no real contact with NA's.  I lived 24 years without ever having contact.  Hearing the word used as it was changed my perception of it. I totally understand how someone who hasn't been in an environment like that can "NOT" get it.  I just find it sad that people can't even admit that the word has been used as a slur.  Again, they don't want to admit it because then, they might feel guilty.

 

Ultimately, its not for me to decide just like its not for other non NA's to decide.  I'm sure the word has a terrible meaning in some places and not in others.  Maybe the team's use of the word has helped. Maybe JayZ needs to buy the Clippers and rename them the Niggas.  Who knows, that could be a positive thing.  This younger generation isn't offended by the word like their parents and grandparents.  I'm sure younger NA's in a lot of places ONLY associate the word Redskin to the team.  And IMO, that's a good thing.  

[Bliz]

Out of everything I just read, it seems like you are saying since Peter King, Skip Bayless, Mike Florio, etc...are pushing for a name change, then that means we're losing the PR battle.  Just because some whiny liberal sports writers are ****ing about our name doesn't mean we're losing the PR battle.  The overwhelming majority of people don't think it's an issue.

 

We don't really need anyone defending us in the media.  The majority is on our side already. 

 

If you don't think how the media presents the issue to the public, and what the loudest and most influential voices in the media have to say, is relevant to the question of the PR battle, then I have to ask:  What do you think PR means?

 

In any event, I strongly disagree with your last statement.  We do need public defenders.  Good ones.  Because peoples' minds change over time, and without good public defenses our majority will be continually chipped away until it's gone.  Most people do not have strongly held beliefs on this issue.  For those that do not have strongly held beliefs, I think it is probably much easier to convince a mild supporter that they should switch because NAs perceive the name as racist (whether that's true or not) than it is to convince a mild opposer to switch because no, actually what you're being told about how they perceive the name is untrue.  Lawyers have a saying about situations like this.  "If you're explaining, you're losing."  If you take the long term view instead of the short term, we absolutely need people defending us in the media.

 

Someone did. They decided, by 10 to 1, that it wasn't offensive.

You chose to ignore that result, because they skipped the "they must all be herded into the same room" part.

 

Playing devil's advocate here.  Yes it's the best we have to go on, but you're putting a LOT of faith in the continuing accuracy of a poll that's ten years old.  A lot can change in ten years.  See gay marriage.  Most issues don't get changes that are that dramatic, but if the NA community internally has been more focused on these things, it's certainly possible.  And I'm not nearly tied in enough to that community to make any assumptions about whether attitudes have changed or not. 

 

 

Sword cuts both ways.  They are not conducting a poll either.  A poll would give the name-change crowd something they want.  Legitimacy.  Right now, the best argument, Snyder has is that the vast majority of Americans and the vast majority of Native Americans are in support of the name.  They can't counter that without data.  They can yell and complain and as you can see within this thread it does push the needle somewhat, but ultimately, these are empty words.

 

 

Do people believe that the vast majority of NA support the name?  Is truth more important than widespread perception, when it comes to the question of bestowing legitimacy?  I think there are plenty of people that have firm doubts about Snyder's best argument.  I'd love to see some organization do a good poll and resolve it one way or the other.  Why does one side have to be funding it?  Can't Gallup or someone like that take it upon themselves, since this is what they do?

 

 

That said, I do think the name can be offensive.  It certainly has been used in an insulting way.  I find the argument by Bruce Allen or Redskins name supporters who try to cite other origins inauthentic because even if they are true... we know the other is true also.  I don't want the name changed, but I acknowledge that there is some bad history there. 

 

To the point of this post though, if opponents of the name conducted a valid scientific poll and it showed that a sizable minority or even worse a majority of NA's were offended by the name, I'd flip posititions.  Because I root for Washington not the name.  However, at this point for every complaint I hear, I look at the Red Mesa Redskins or person of Native heritage who speak of their pride at being represented.

 

Nicely said.  Agree wholeheartedly. 

[Larry]

I think forcing the Redskins to change their name is a big deal, nothing that should be taken lightly.

Unfortunately, you aren't arguing that an overwhelming consensus isn't good enough to force a change.

You're arguing that that's not good enough TO LEAVE THINGS ALONE.

[Burgold]

Wasn't that poll 10 years ago? or more?

The reason I ask is because people's opinions change, same with the N word. For a long time, it was acceptable.

And again, in my solution, its not to ask a poll question, its for them to talk to each other and decide if its offensive or not. For them to come to an agreement among themselves. Hear each others arguments etc...

Just asking a question or a few can be biased. I know you know that. You can create a poll to get the results you want.

Methodologically speaking there are problems with this procedure. You're likely to only get the guys on the extreme showing up, there would be a lot of group pressure, combined w pleasing threats and you still wouldn't get a good barometer of what the silent majority think.

Mind you, polls are imperfect, but there's a reason we vote anonymously.

[codeorama]

I don't accept poll results, therefore, IMO, there is no consensus.

There's a reason polls are not official.  I've made my standpoint on that clear.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I think everyone needs to realize that this is not really that big a story. It's a big story here, because it is the team we follow. But then again, this thread is nearly 100 pages long and seems to only have 8 or so participants. So maybe it is not even a big deal here.

 

If put on the spot, the vast majority of NFL fans would almost certainly say, "Keep the name." (At the same time, the vast majority of NFL fans probably don't give a damn about concussions either). But if the name did change, I don't think there would be protests in 31 NFL cities.

 

There is a fairly small group pushing for the change. And a fairly small group pushing back. All the small group pushing for the change needs to do is win small battles - getting FedEx to take a stand against the name would probably be a death blow.

 

And this, frankly, is how nearly every major political issue in America is resolved these days - a small group of activists making slow headway on an issue against a small group of resistance until some tipping point is reached. This is really no different in practice than medical marijuana, gay marriage, or - I dunno - anti-bullying maybe. (Not that anyone is in favor of bullying. Except on Free Republic).

 

The one clear advantage that the NFL has is that it is so deeply embedded with its corporate partners that they are unlikely to do anything rash - ESPN is not going to refuse to use the name (though Grantland - an ESPN entity - did, I suppose). Coke is not going to pull sponsorship from FedEx.

 

My argument has always been the same. I've grown more uncomfortable over the years with all Native American names, mascots, etc. And out of all of them, two stand out as really difficult to defend - Chief Wahoo and the Redskins name. This is not something I lose sleep over. I'm not going to write a letter to a congressman about it. But it's the team I watch, and I like arguing on the internet.

[codeorama]

Burgold... I agree. 

Lombardi, I agree with you too...