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

[Larry]

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.

Well, when only once in history has anybody so much as bothered to so much as ASK natives what they think . . . .

Further, I will observe that when I'm looking at the Scales of Justice, and on one side I have an overwhelming consensus (and no reason whatsoever to assume that it's changed), and on the other side I have such stunning evidence as "the name of the football team is offensive, because the n word is" . . . .

I will also observe that opinions on gay marriage have radically shifted from being 51-49, one way, to being 51-49, the other way.

If we assume that feelings about the football team undergo a similar radical shift of two percent a decade, then the name changers will be a majority, in 210 years.

But on a less sarcastic note, I will observe that I've stated several times that I assume opinions HAVE shifted, since that poll. I've stated that I wouldn't be at all surprised if the percent offended has doubled.

But, even if it HAS doubled, that's STILL pretty clearly a minority opinion.

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.

La la la la, I can't hear you.

[Burgold]

Bliz,

Too long a quote for cell phone editing, but I did want to respond to your question.

Yes, based on the best data we have the vast majority if Native Americans support the name. Now, you're right opinions aren't static. It could be different now, but that's why it's incumbent on the concerned party to determine the truth. Until they do, the other side gets to say authoritatively that opinion rests on their side.

[Boss_Hogg]

The hypocrisy is overwhelming for the Ohio senators.

 

Not Okay

 

Okay

[Section106]

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.

 

So if the Redskins change their name will people in the Southwest suddenly stop using the name in a derogatory way? Will changing the name have an impact on Native Americans in anyway? Other than the initial euphoria of winning a PR battle. As someone else posted, Native Americans are by and large an invisible population. If the European descendants of this country remove every NA reference will there be any appreciable change in the quality of life of those vastly underserved populations? Serious question.

And Dan should change the name to the Washington Miskwa Inini and blow everyone's mind!

[War Paint]

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.

I still don't see us losing the PR battle.  If we were, the Redskins would be entering Paula Dean mode.  You seem to think that Skip Bayless and Peter King possess more power than they really do.  Harry Reid is a very polarizing figure in politics.  A congress with a 13% approval rating isn't going to win the hearts and minds of people on this issue; in fact, it probably gets more people sympathetic to our cause.  It also upsets a lot of Americans because they feel there are more important issues for politicians to worry about. 

 

Again, the Redskins don't need public defenders.  Once you start trying to play defense on the public stage, you basically empower your oppositions view point.   Don't forget, the vast minority think the name should change.  These people hold an extreme view point that will never be changed, regardless of what facts you show them.  It's best to just ignore them mostly, only addressing it on occasion like Bruce Allen's letter did.

[codeorama]

So if the Redskins change their name will people in the Southwest suddenly stop using the name in a derogatory way? Will changing the name have an impact on Native Americans in anyway? Other than the initial euphoria of winning a PR battle. As someone else posted, Native Americans are by and large an invisible population. If the European descendants of this country remove every NA reference will there be any appreciable change in the quality of life of those vastly underserved populations? Serious question.

And Dan should change the name to the Washington Miskwa Inini and blow everyone's mind!

No. It won't stop it but it will make it known that it's not acceptable to use it that way. The n word still gets used in a negative way (cooper for Eagles) and probably way more than anyone is willing to admit, but it's also used in an acceptable way.

If I were a NA and I had been called a redskin in the context I heard it used, I'd be offended that a sports team was allowed to use the term. It's like a kick in the balls. It justifies the use of the word. On the flip side, if I was a NA and I used the word in a prideful manner to describe myself and my culture, I'd be thrilled that a team was called the redskins.

Again, the bad part is that the name has both negative and positive uses. Just like the n word.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Coke is not going to pull sponsorship from FedEx.

 

That's a relief since Dexter might come back for the next "homecoming" game. 

[DogofWar1]

Code, what is your feeling regarding the condoning of high schools using the Redskins name. IIRC, when the NCAI came out against the name, they exempted a bunch of high schools from their opposition.

It seems a little bit off to me that they would say somethong is objectively offensive, and even mentally damaging, and then allow high schools to keep the mascot. I would have expected pressure on the schools as well as the pro team.

[Section106]

Again, the bad part is that the name has both negative and positive uses. Just like the n word.

 

You are correct in that it is the use and not the word that is either good or bad. The argument that Dan Snyder should change the name because a few prejudiced people are using it to discriminate against Native Americans isn't an argument that is being made. The argument is that it is a slur. Full stop. It either is or isn't. If the term "redskin" where never uttered again I doubt that those prejudiced against NAs would suddenly see the light and embrace their fellow man. No, they would simply use a different word.

 

Harjo, by forcing this debate is actually doing harm to the cause of equality in my opinion. Average Americans are going to see this as a frivolous complaint and will ignore any real call to action that NAs make in the future. And what happens if she wins and all references to NAs are expunged? What has she won? Will those people that hate NAs be swayed in any way? Will the Powhatan Confederacy be restored? Will all the plants and animals that are now extinct from the European Contact suddenly spring forth from the Earth again? The argument and the people making it are selfish glory hounds. So they make a football team change its name. What have they really won? Nothing. They will still live on reservations with higher than average unemployment, diabetes, poverty, illiteracy, teen pregnancy, and so on. Has anyone asked Harjo why this is her cause and not the actual betterment of her people? Or does she have access to a casino slush fund just like her counterpart, Halbritter? In the end this is about Harjo's ego.

 

Goddard did say that he could understand how some could be offended by the later misuse of the word. It has become an insult through the process of turning the benign word redskin into a pejorative by that misuse. Its original meaning and intent was to delineate a people separate and distinct from the Europeans. The Natives were saying this is who we are and what we look like. Our red skin is how you will know us. Had they called themselves the "people that wear funny hats" we wouldn't need to have this discussion. 

 

But to rift off of your n-word discussion, if those that represent Native groups could embrace the name and identify with it again then Harjo loses all her ammo. How Snyder pulls that off I don't know. Like I wrote earlier I want to see the Redskins and all of their representatives deflect and ignore the name controversy and continue to work in the native communities quietly and with sustained effort. If OAF can make a sizable impact then Harjo will lose her support and people will actually get much needed and deserved help.

[codeorama]

Code, what is your feeling regarding the condoning of high schools using the Redskins name. IIRC, when the NCAI came out against the name, they exempted a bunch of high schools from their opposition.

It seems a little bit off to me that they would say somethong is objectively offensive, and even mentally damaging, and then allow high schools to keep the mascot. I would have expected pressure on the schools as well as the pro team.

Personally, if they are NA's, they can do what they want. If it's a school on a reservation, but otherwise, probably not a good idea. I think there are cases of schools already changing their names.

The difficult part is that personally, if NA's want the redakins to change their name, if the consensus is that the word is a slur, then even those NA schools should follow suit and change the name. So, I agree with what you are saying, there shouldn't be a double standard. But, it's offensive to some, not to others, as the n word has currently become.

I like how Florida St has the blessing of the Seminole tribe. I think that makes it so no one can say anything. The history of the word redskin is what makes it harder in this case. If there was a redskin tribe and they approved, problem solved.

It's tough because the word is used in a positive and negative manner depending on where you are or who you are.

[DogofWar1]

I think the N-word comparison is not really apt though.

The double standard surrounding high schools bothers me a lot in this debate. The NAACP would never in a million years allow a high school to keep the N-word as a mascot, but that's what's happened here with Redskin.

I understand that internal consistency is difficult for the variety of tribes of native americans, as they are geographically diverse and have different experiences, but the NCAI is a single entity, and the lack of internal consistency there bugs me a lot.

I'm very concerned about the facts as are being presented in this debate by the change camp and the media. The letter to the players made some strong accusations that stand somewhat in contrast to the evidence of its use (specifically the part of the letter where they talked about NAs being forcefully removed while having Redskin yelled at them). The Montana stories you had were ones I have not seen in the media, from either side, and though anecdotal they may be, they are actual examples, which is more than often is presented.

I just wish this debate would reboot and start from the beginning, namely addressing the base question of whether or not the term is actually racist, or if it is neutral with the ability to be used negatively. We've skipped that step, it seems, and that really puts everyone in a lurch.

[SWFLSkins]

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 issue here is how many NA's have to be offended before the name is unacceptable?  

 

 

Ultimately, its not for me to decide just like its not for other non NA's to decide.   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.  

 

You seem to be vacillating, and also still incorrectly comparing this to the N word. Only since the media has chosen to run with this story has a majority of the population considered the possibly use of the term Redskin as negative, whereas the majority still and will for many moons consider the N word as a highly derogatory word. The two do not assimilate. 

 

That said I would like to count the heads of the true Native Americans that have been hurt or feel hurt by the word. Won't happen though as I believe Burgold laid out so well, to much risk to both parties. 

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.

 

So if the poll supported changing the name it would mean nothing, lol. how rich. I can tell you if the poll showed NA's hated the name, I would support changing the name, just as passionately as I defend keeping it now. 

[codeorama]

You seem to be vacillating, and also still incorrectly comparing this to the N word. Only since the media has chosen to run with this story has a majority of the population considered the possibly use of the term Redskin as negative, whereas the majority still and will for many moons consider the N word as a highly derogatory word. The two do not assimilate.

That said I would like to count the heads of the true Native Americans that have been hurt or feel hurt by the word. Won't happen though as I believe Burgold laid out so well, to much risk to both parties.

So if the poll supported changing the name it would mean nothing, lol. how rich. I can tell you if the poll showed NA's hated the name, I would support changing the name, just as passionately as I defend keeping it now.

If the team changes the name, it won't be because of a poll. It will be because sponsors leave or pressure put on the commissioner or even the players themselves. The nba will remove Sterling one way or another because the players won't stand for it. In that case, they are a majority though. Richard Sherman spoke up. You're going to see more.

[Commander PK]

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.

 

so short of an election how do you ever find out what the people truly want?

 

How do you keep a minority opinion from dominating the majority?  

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

 

How do you keep a minority opinion from dominating the majority?  

 

I have no interests in keeping minority opinions from dominating the majority. I am interested in the right opinions prevailing.

 

Should all issues be settled by plebiscite?

 

Anyway, Larry said dozens of posts ago that once 80 percent of Native Americans are in favor of a name change, the name should be changed. Maybe you two need to work out the details on that.

[SWFLSkins]

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

 

 

The beginnings were completely different. 

 

[Commander PK]

I have no interests in keeping minority opinions from dominating the majority. I am interested in the right opinions prevailing.

 

Should all issues be settled by plebiscite?

 

Anyway, Larry said dozens of posts ago that once 80 percent of Native Americans are in favor of a name change, the name should be changed. Maybe you two need to work out the details on that.

 

so who decides what are the right opinions?

[codeorama]

so short of an election how do you ever find out what the people truly want?

How do you keep a minority opinion from dominating the majority?

This is one place I don't agree with you. Majority doesn't rule when it comes to decency.

[SWFLSkins]

If the team changes the name, it won't be because of a poll. It will be because sponsors leave or pressure put on the commissioner or even the players themselves. The nba will remove Sterling one way or another because the players won't stand for it. In that case, they are a majority though. Richard Sherman spoke up. You're going to see more.

 

 

So no matter what the supposed afflicted party says the name will change, Idiocracy. Again when did this country become France? 

[codeorama]

The beginnings were completely different.

No, both were directly related to the color of a person's skin. Look up the history.

[Commander PK]

This is one place I don't agree with you. Majority doesn't rule when it comes to decency.

 

who gets to decide what is decent?

[codeorama]

Btw, great pic. Spot on.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

who gets to decide what is decent?

 

I already told you: 20 percent of Native Americans.

 

(And, possibly, Dan Snyder's corporate partners).

[SWFLSkins]

This is one place I don't agree with you. Majority doesn't rule when it comes to decency.

 

IF the majority doesn't decide decency who does?

[Spearfeather]

The letter to the players made some strong accusations that stand somewhat in contrast to the evidence of its use (specifically the part of the letter where they talked about NAs being forcefully removed while having Redskin yelled at them).

 

 

I'm wondering if the Redskins have sent a copy of Allens' letter to all players also, and Eric Winston has stated that the NFLPA will not get involved in the issue.