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

[Spearfeather]

I contributed hard copy evidence of this several pages ago. I don't even remember which page. 1971 Websters made no mention of the term being a slur...only that it was a Native American.

 

Here you go, and it was actually 1974.

 

[grego]

No, I don;t think it is.

To me, it's at least really close to "you being offended doesn't count, unless I think you have a good enough justification."

Now, having said that, I do think that we need to be on the lookout for people who decide that the word is offensive, because they've been told that other people say it's offensive. (When, if fact, they've said exactly the opposite.)

 

 

 

you know i had you in mind when posting my question

But, while I can ask someone "Do you think someone else is offended?", and they can be wrong, I think that, if I ask someone "Are you offended?", and they say "yes" (or "no"), then their answer stands as authoritative, and sufficient. (Unless you want to assert that someone is just flat out lying. An assertion that's really tough to back up.)

 

 

 

but what i dont get, larry, is why you wouldnt follow the question of 'are you offended?' up with a simple 'why'? i dont mean an argumentative 'why', just a simple 'tell me why you feel the way you do'.

 

(like i said before, my reason for wanting to know is the spurious definition of the term given by harjo and others. i just dont know what to do with those people who believe that (and i suspect there are quite a few) other than to say 'im sorry, but youre mistaken'.....then they will go back to protesting the name. not much you can do there when one wont listen to reason) 

 

i think what i'd like more than anything is an open dialogue. both sides should be eager to bring together native americans who represent differing tribes and opinions and listen to what they have to say on the issue. 

 

it sounds like dan snyder did that, at least to some extent, and to his credit. 

 

i think many of us suspect why the other side hasnt done this. 

[grego]

The problem with the "the dictionary says so" argument, is that dictionaries, by their own rules, do not list proper nouns. (They don't list the "capital R" redskins). So, the dictionary is playing the same game as the other people who want to take the word out of the name, move it to some other sentence, and then claim that "well, it's offensive over there, therefore it's offensive here, too".

 

 

 

thanks for saying that, larry. 

 

there are countless everyday terms that the dictionary defines in ways that most people have never heard, in part cuz of what you mentioned. 

[Spearfeather]

I guess what it comes down to is, - does the words occasional use as a slur by some ignorant people dictate that it ( the name ) should be changed?

 

I agree. I think this is basically what the whole argument comes down to.

[SWFLSkins]

I agree. I think this is basically what the whole argument comes down to.

 

And seriously, when it comes to perception

as an individual, when is the first time you thought of the term Redskin as a negative term depicting a group of people, or you used that term as a negative term describing people?

 

I remember the N word from early on, it made me unconformable from the first time I heard it. I have given an open mind to this debate, I still don't see or feel the term as a negative descriptor of Native Americans. 

[Bliz]

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. 

 

 

 

You're so emotionally invested in toeing the company line, you won't allow yourself to see where our position has weaknesses.  We may be okay for now, but complacency is an enemy. 

 

This is about much more than Skip Bayless and Peter King.  They're just examples.  You're missing the forest for the trees.  The key here is how the issue is presented by all media.  Sure, Harry Reid is a polarizing figure.  Not too popular on the right.  So how does Fox News report on the letter?  Look at how they present the story:

 

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2014/05/22/citing-racism-50-senators-tell-nfl-commissioner-it-time-to-change-redskins-name/

 

What that article says that favors a name change:

 

Half the U.S. Senate urged NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell on Thursday to change the Washington Redskins' name, saying it is a racist slur and the time is ripe to replace it.

 

 

"We urge you and the National Football League to send the same clear message as the NBA did: that racism and bigotry have no place in professional sports," read the letter, which did not use the word "Redskins."

 

 

Last month, Reid took to the Senate floor to say Snyder should "do what is morally right" and change the name. President Barack Obama and lawmakers from both parties have previously pressed for the name change.

 

 

The letter said tribal organizations representing more than 2 million Native Americans across the U.S. have said they want the Redskins name dropped.

 

 

Despite federal laws protecting their identity, "Every Sunday during football season, the Washington, D.C., football team mocks their culture," the senators wrote.

 

 

"The NFL can no longer ignore this and perpetuate the use of this name as anything but what it is: a racial slur," the letter said.

 

 

 

What that article says defending the name:

 

Redskins owner Daniel Snyder has refused to change his team's name, citing tradition.

 

 

 

 

That's the PR battle.  At this point the defense of the name is barely even being presented in articles by mainstream media outlets (this is not a political thread.  mainstream = primary media, widely read media.  And in that arena, Fox is king).  When every public discussion of the issue boils down to "the word is a racist slur but Dan Snyder doesn't want to change it because of tradition," we will lose those hearts and minds before you know it.  And it's not just when senators get involved.  That's basically how it comes up in every single article.  The news media has a profound ability to shape popular opinion, and dismissing out of hand is a mistake. 

 

 

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.

 

I'm not sure I would call 20% a "vast" minority.  It's small, for now, but growing.  While we have the upper hand, we need to be out there pounding the streets to keep it from growing into a substantial minority.  If you don't play defense on the public stage, your opposition's viewpoint is the only one that gets any airtime.  YOU don't forget, the vast minority are strongly committed to defending the name.  Everyone else is an independent with a "lean".  The majority can be swayed, and more than enough will be swayed if Oneida can establish in their minds the baseline "fact" that the word is a racist slur that NAs perceive as very insulting.

 

 

I see

 

Coke and Fed Ex get to decide what is decent.  I find that incredibly disturbing.

 

Time to put on the big boy pants.

 

People pressure corporations into action.  There are protests and boycotts, and they pull sponsorships to avoid bad publicity, or because they don't want to associate with corps that they feel do not share their values.  And someone else is free to name the stadium if FedEx decide they don't want to do business with us anymore.  That's freedom of association in action.  And it is often used for good.  I thought that was a very insightful point, though I can't remember who made it, that the change is most likely to be spurred by enough pressure on sponsors to make them start want to disassociating with us

[Riggo#44]

I am getting the feeling that it's only a matter of time before the bleeding heart minority skews the facts enough to get what they want. There is so much factual evidence (discussed ad nauseum) that this is not nearly the black and white issue that the main stream media has decided it is.

 

The most damning evidence is Maria Cantwell referring to issues "over there in Indian Country" and states "those individuals in Indian Country. That's what we call it, Indian Country" gets completely ignored, while anything the Redskins do gets twisted into some kind of PR stunt.

 

It is a losing cause when the big bad corporation hurts some little guy's feelings.

[SWFLSkins]

anyone else see the irony in the implication of the American Dollar Bill ultimately deciding what is morally right and decent for Native Americans?

 

lol

 

Just awful, the thought of it. Stolen land worth all the gold that doesn't back the dollar bill. The Native Americans should be the richest populace on earth. Imagine only NA's are the only and sole Realtors, landlords, title holders in all the US, most of Canada and Mexico?

[Spearfeather]

Here's Fox's article two days later, regarding Allen's letter:

 

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2014/05/24/redskins-letters-to-senators-nfl-team-nickname-is-respectful-to-native/

 

 

"Our use of 'Redskins' as the name of our football team for more than 80 years has always been respectful of and shown reverence toward the proud legacy and traditions of Native Americans," he wrote.

The letter references research that "the term Redskins originated as a Native American expression of solidarity." It notes that the team's logo was designed by Native American leaders and cites surveys that Native Americans and Americans as a whole support the name.

 

 

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/wp/2014/05/27/redskins-players-tweet-approval-of-bruce-allens-response-to-sen-harry-reid/

 

Ryan Kerrigan        ✔ @RyanKerrigan91 Follow

#Redskins President Bruce Allen sets the record straight in response to Senator Harry Reid’s letter: http://redsk.in/1t3CZbe 

 

 

Desean Jackson        ✔ @DeSeanJackson11 Follow

#Redskins President Bruce Allen sets the record straight in response to Senator Harry Reid’s letter: http://redsk.in/1t3CZbe

 

Alfred Morris        ✔ @Trey_Deuces Follow

"@Redskins Redskins President Bruce Allen sets the record straight in response to Senator Harry Reid’s letter: http://redsk.in/Rjug8g " HTTR

 

Brian Orakpo        ✔ @rak98 Follow

Redskins President Bruce Allen sets the record straight in response to Senator Harry Reid’s letter: http://redsk.in/1t3CZbe 

9:12 PM - 24 May 2014

 

 

Pierre Garçon        ✔ @PierreGarcon Follow

#Redskins President Bruce Allen sets the record straight in response to Senator Harry Reid’s letter: http://redsk.in/1t3CZbe 

 

 

Chris Cooley        ✔ @thecooleyzone Follow

@Redskins This is a great letter to read if you any doubts concerning the name change. Thank you Bruce. Great points and well thought out.

 

 

Joe Theismann        ✔ @Theismann7 Follow

Bruce Allen's response to Sen. Reid was spot on. I was and still am proud to b a Washington Redskin. HTTR !!!

 

 

 

 

Redskins mascot still used at Sen. Maria Cantwell’s high school - The...

Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington state, recently circulated a letter demanding that the Washington Redskins change their name. But her high school uses the same mascot.

 

 

[Burgold]

Bliz,

That's a very dishonest encapsulation of the Redskins' argument made worse when you know you're in a thread where people are following the issue closely.

If you haven't yet read Bruce Allen's rebuttal to the Senators' letter. You can disagree with him or his conclusions, but at least be fair.

[mcsluggo]

I am getting the feeling that it's only a matter of time before the bleeding heart minority skews the facts enough to get what they want. There is so much factual evidence (discussed ad nauseum) that this is not nearly the black and white issue that the main stream media has decided it is.

 

The most damning evidence is Maria Cantwell referring to issues "over there in Indian Country" and states "those individuals in Indian Country. That's what we call it, Indian Country" gets completely ignored, while anything the Redskins do gets twisted into some kind of PR stunt.

 

It is a losing cause when the big bad corporation hurts some little guy's feelings.

 

very few people think it is a black and white issue... the 5-10% of the population that thinkis it is umambiguously racist have already sent letters or made public statements... the 5-10% of the population that thinks it is unambiguously benign (or pro native american) are all in this thread

 

the other 90 percent of us see the logic of the arguments that there is no racist intent whatsoever, but also see that there are factors that that stop it from being unambiguously benign... its a very very muddy-grey topic.

[Larry]

Bliz,

That's a very dishonest encapsulation of the Redskins' argument made worse when you know you're in a thread where people are following the issue closely.

If you haven't yet read Bruce Allen's rebuttal to the Senators' letter. You can disagree with him or his conclusions, but at least be fair.

I don't think Blitz is saying that's HIS summary of Allen's letter.

He's pointing out how even the Harry Reid-hating Fox News covered Reid's actions, and Allen's response.

[Burgold]

I was responding to his one liner statement of Snyder's/the Redskins' position. The part after "What they say defending the name"

[RFKFedEx]

The first sponsors to go probably won't be Coke or FedEx. It'll likely be somebody associated with govt. Someone lower key than household names like Papa Johns or Audi. 

 

IDK if entities like Northrop Grumman or Washington Gas are present day sponsors or team partners, but I've seen their logos affiliated with the team over the years, and I know they've leased suites at FedEx. I could see someone like those examples being first to wash their hands of the controversy. It probably won't be Earth shattering news when it happens, but it will be another footnote in the grand scheme of things. It could pave the way for bigger name$ to walk. 

[Boss_Hogg]

I also think it's low for the opposition to bring up George Preston Marshall and Bruce's brother, "Mr. Maccaca" George Allen as reasons why the team name should be changed. 

[codeorama]

Personally, I feel like IF the name is changed, most of the stuff will happen behind the scenes.  If it happens, I think the NFL will want it to be as if its Snyder's idea. They will say we've heard from people that find it offensive blah blah blah.

I don't think the NFL will allow it to become a show down. They have too much money to protect.

[grego]

I want to know what Maria Cantwell saw at a redskins game that was so "shocking", or what she calls a caricature.

[War Paint]

I want to know what Maria Cantwell saw at a redskins game that was so "shocking", or what she calls a caricature.

Nothing.  She is just being overly dramatic.

[Larry]

I want to know what Maria Cantwell saw at a redskins game that was so "shocking", or what she calls a caricature.

Our special teams.

[mcsluggo]

The first sponsors to go probably won't be Coke or FedEx. It'll likely be somebody associated with govt. Someone lower key than household names like Papa Johns or Audi. 

 

IDK if entities like Northrop Grumman or Washington Gas are present day sponsors or team partners, but I've seen their logos affiliated with the team over the years, and I know they've leased suites at FedEx. I could see someone like those examples being first to wash their hands of the controversy. It probably won't be Earth shattering news when it happens, but it will be another footnote in the grand scheme of things. It could pave the way for bigger name$ to walk. 

 

Some sponsor is going to figure out that they can make a big announcement that they are cuttinng their sponsorship, and get much MORE public exposure, while stopping paying for it.     

 

It all depends on their target market...

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I want to know what Maria Cantwell saw at a redskins game that was so "shocking", or what she calls a caricature.

 

I have a response to this, but it would get me tarred and feathered on this board.

[codeorama]

Some sponsor is going to figure out that they can make a big announcement that they are cuttinng their sponsorship, and get much MORE public exposure, while stopping paying for it.

It all depends on their target market...

Whiskey?

Sorry, I couldn't resist...

[SWFLSkins]

I guess what it comes down to is, - does the words occasional use as a slur by some ignorant people dictate that it should be changed?

 

 

Does the occasional ignorant person need changing instead, yes of course.....great point btw. 

[ABQCOWBOY]

As a Cowboy fan, I hope the Redskins never change their name.   I have never believed that the name was ever intended as a slur towards anybody.   It is the tradition of a foundation team of the NFL.   I hope that doesn't ever change. 

[Boss_Hogg]

I want to know what Maria Cantwell saw at a redskins game that was so "shocking", or what she calls a caricature.

 

Check the OP's avatar