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

[Fan since a Fetus]

Why on earth would you want a change so radical?  What is wrong with burgundy and gold?  Are you under the age of 20 or something to where you never experienced any glory years with the team?

 

I wonder about the radical change as well.  I have seen many that have supported the name change equate the team to their family.  Now I keep thinking...I love my wife, but I wish she was a dude.

[BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93]

I conducted a poll in my classes and 90% of my black students thought that if JayZ bought the team and changed the name it would be awesome. Remember, they use that word every day and it is a term of endearment to them. They don't remember the hurtful was of the word. They hear it every day on their iPods.

Just to clarify, I didn't really conduct a poll. But if I did, I'd bet it would turn out close to what I said with my students.

Also, what's up with the metaphor police? I know you know the point I'm making and your just playing word games. I've been clear on what I mean. If you don't agree. Fine. Not expecting to change any minds.

Yeah that's a horrible leap in logic dude.

No black person (age doesn't matter) would advocate some stuff like that

Come on now.

And I say and hear that word as much as any rapper.

[elkabong82]

 

 

The rest of your post totally misunderstands the history of racism in this country (starting with calling Congress a "representative group").  Then of course the poll that you cite to that was taken over 10 years ago and kind of a lot has changed since then.  

 

So, given the choice between siding with A) a group of native americans claiming they they are, in fact, offended by the name and would like it changed, when the issue is whether the name is offensive to native americans, and B ) someone who thinks that the Redskins are on the right track, that would cite to a 10 year old poll as relevant, AND im guessing is not native american, i will choose the former.  

 

SMH. I understand the history of racism in this country just fine. Likely much better than you since I know how to actually apply it. We are talking about the majority of Native Americans and their opinion on if the name is offensive or not. So, and I'll say this again since it's completely lost on you despite being a very simple concept: Within ONE specific racial group, the MAJORITY opinion of that ONE group is what MATTERS. So yes, majority rule is fine when talking about one specific group, especially when that majority is 90%.

 

Choice A sides with people who backed up historical inaccuracies, completely false, made-up reasons and completely ignored the other, currently used context of the word. Choice B sides with actually scientifically conducted data.

 

Tell me, what exactly has changed in ten years that would shift the results away from 90% so significantly that 10% would become 50% or greater? What you're telling me is that you have ZERO clue how scientifically conducted polls work nor how the methodology and statistics behind them keep the probability of error very low when conducted by a reputable group, like Annenberg. This isn't surprising coming from someone who can't grasp the simple concept of majority rule within one group of people and instead compares it to a struggle between two different racial groups.

 

And did you really try to work in there that I'm not Native American, like that somehow negates the evidence? That's so incredibly weak it's laughable, especially if you aren't NA either in which you just made your own opinion irrelevant as well. LMAO. I would stay stick with the issue but you're failing at that also.

[Larry]

I conducted a poll in my classes and 90% of my black students thought that if JayZ bought the team and changed the name it would be awesome. Remember, they use that word every day and it is a term of endearment to them. They don't remember the hurtful was of the word. They hear it every day on their iPods.

Just to clarify, I didn't really conduct a poll. But if I did, I'd bet it would turn out close to what I said with my students.

Also, what's up with the metaphor police? I know you know the point I'm making and your just playing word games. I've been clear on what I mean. If you don't agree. Fine. Not expecting to change any minds.

Marvelous. Now conduct an imaginary poll of all Africans.

And I LOVE the way, when we have probably the 200th attempt in this thread, to try to pretend that the words "redskin" and "n-word" are identical, and I point out that they aren't, the person who tried to create an equivelance that he stated in advance that he knew wasn't true, claims that I'M "playing word games".

[elkabong82]

I conducted a poll in my classes and 90% of my black students thought that if JayZ bought the team and changed the name it would be awesome. Remember, they use that word every day and it is a term of endearment to them. They don't remember the hurtful was of the word. They hear it every day on their iPods.

Just to clarify, I didn't really conduct a poll. But if I did, I'd bet it would turn out close to what I said with my students.

Also, what's up with the metaphor police? I know you know the point I'm making and your just playing word games. I've been clear on what I mean. If you don't agree. Fine. Not expecting to change any minds.

 

The sample size of your class is not the same as the sample size of the entire U.S. Your class is mostly 1 demographic. You know very well that nationally you wouldn't get those same results.

 

What do you think the odds are of people calling all across the U.S., getting some people who identify as NA, asking them the question on the name, getting 90% of respondents not taking issue, and yet that somehow isn't the majority opinion and that most Native Americans are actually offended? You'd actually have better odds at winning the lottery.

 

If the results were 60-40 that would be different, but we are talking 90-10. That's way too large of a difference in a scientifically conducted poll relying on random calling to where errors in polling could hide the truth. 

[@DCGoldPants]

The sample size of the poll taken like 15 years ago or whatever was in the 800 person range...which is legit I'm sure. Just pointing out that we're talking about things that don't matter anymore. You could have 99% Native American approval. But that 1% would be the louder than everybody else.

[Kosher Ham]

When he bought it, it was a great and proud franchise.  It is irrelevant what it was decades before he bought it.  

 

How did he change that ?

 

He has bent over backwards to get FA's, move in the drafts, hire coaches, etc.

 

The Redskins are one of the most important teams in the league. One of the most valuable because of it.

 

Only thing he did that annoyed me was charge to go to TC in '00.

 

He was at the time the youngest NFL owner, so clearly he had a lot to learn. He is loyal sometimes to a fault.

 

Did you not expect him to make some mistakes along the way ? That's simply unreasonable. The Packers were horrible for decades. The Bears even with Payton...one SB win. That is the nature of the business.

If you have some magic wand that you can scream hocus pocus and make all of the players invincible and win multiple SB's...please tell me where to buy one.

[@DCGoldPants]

This thread has turned into a "Has Snyder been as bad as some people say?"

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Franchise still is great and proud. Snyder ownership hasn't been good, but it doesn't negate the team's past accomplishments. Some fans deserve better, others get exactly what they deserve.

 

Does a fan who overdramatically acts as if 24 years negates the previous 67, ignores that the team had decades of poor performance prior as well, just because they don't like the current owner, deserve to see the team win? Does that kind of fan even truly want to see the team win under such an owner?

 

I always thought true fans endured even in the face of poor ownership and always held their team's history in high esteem regardless. 

 

Yep, I'm a fan of the team, including its history. I don't stop rooting for a team if I don't like someone in the organization (even the owner). 

[Larry]

This thread has turned into a "Has Snyder been as bad as some people say?"

 

Granted, that question hasn't bean beaten to death as thoroughly as the original topic. 

[Kosher Ham]

This thread has turned into a "Has Snyder been as bad as some people say?"

 

It has. I understand Snyder being a thorn to some people. What I don't understand is why some people want him to lose.

Every pro sports owner is arrogant and stubborn. Including the fan friendly like Cuban.

 

I see Cuban and Snyder in a similar light. They try to do whatever it takes to get the best team that the fans can get behind (usually).

The signing of Joe Gibbs was for the fans and he got to the playoffs twice. Haynesworth was a need position and he was the best available.  

He had no idea the guy would tank intentionally.

 

Some to call the guy the worst owner in sports must have ignored the Bullets since the 80's. He is not the best, but he is not the worst.

[@DCGoldPants]

Fans of the team don't want him to lose. They want him to "get it". They want him to rid his organization or the front office knuckleheads.

Haynesworth was a bad deal that a lot of us (search the archives) didn't want. We all knew he was a contract year effort guy. That's on Dan and Vinny.

It's not that he doesn't care. Or doesn't want to win. He still needs to dump a few bad apples. His CMO and Senior Vice President/Executive Producer of Media need to be long gone.

[Kosher Ham]

You can't cherry pick the mistakes alone.

 

The bigger picture of what he has tried to do over the years is key.

 

He and Vinny may have thought this team was a lot closer than it was.

Some of the coaching choices were horrible IMO.

Some of the acquisitions...equally horrible.

 

I am certainly not a Snyder apologist. I just don't understand why any fan, love, hate, indifferent...would want him to fail.

[@DCGoldPants]

That wasn't cherry picking. I used your example that Haynesworth was panned quickly. We want Dan to understand that he needs a few more front office upgrades, especially in their communications/marketing/PR areas.

[grego]

Not sure if this has been posted already.

 

Cold calling NA leaders for support....jesus.

 

 

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/washington-redskins-invite-tribal-leader-declines

 

 

just a couple of thoughts/mmediate reactions from reading that part of the article.....

 

on the one hand, snyders been accused of doing nothing as far as involving native americans on this issue in particular. he reaches out the past few months, gets some input, starts a foundations, and gets **** on for it. 

 

now, he's calling leaders asking them to have a discussion. and this person declines?

 

excuse me, but i thought this issue was so important that we have senators taking time to write a formal letter to the NFL demanding a name change? 

 

snyders asking native american leaders for a forum, and this one says no?

 

somethings not passing the smell test. 

[Larry]

I would not hasten to say that this guy declining an invitation implies something nefarious.

(I understand that your post could be read multiple ways, and that's only one possible way to read it. I may be misreading.)

----------

Maybe it's a clever Snyder ploy.

1) Invite 500 NA leaders to a conference to discuss the name.

2) Only 45 of them show up.

3) Snyder points out that 90% of NA leaders think that the team name isn't even important enough to talk about.

[Duckus]

now, he's calling leaders asking them to have a discussion. and this person declines?

Cold calling leaders and asking them to come to DC for vague and unspecified reasons at the last minute doesn't seem like the best strategy personally.

Of course, this story is only from one side - maybe the calls were more detailed

[daveakl]

http://m.espn.go.com/nba/story?storyId=11006068

And so the push begins for the clippers to change their name. You know, because their previous owner said something racially insensitive.

[grego]

Of course, this story is only from one side - maybe the calls were more detailed

 

 

thats what i'm thinking. 

 

if the effort level of 'reporting' regarding this particular story resembles what we've seen over the past couple of years from the media. i'm guessing theres another side to this story. 

 

if we're to believe the word of the lunatic activist with the fake institute and the deposed 'leader' by day- casino boss by night-of the oneida nation (incorporated), this individual would have said 'where do you want to meet?' and been on the phone to every tribe leader he could think of, along with every idiot with a computer and a blog. 

 

apparently, its not important to him.

 

that would be my guess. 

 

(rather than 'they didnt say what they wanted')

[Gamebreaker]

 

So we're not really sure Lone Star Deitz is really Native American then a quote found where GPM himself says he didn't select the name in honor of his native american coach.  This in addition to the twitter disaster...  It doesn't feel like the Redskins are winning this PR battle.  

 

Here is the quote:  

Any chance that this quote is being misinterpreted or something?  

 

 

Why is this quote just appearing now? It would seem to me that if it wasn't fabricated, like the one Native American woman's story that the term redskins was created to signify her ancestors being scalped, it would've been quoted in all of these media articles about the name a long time ago. 

[Destino]

I was talking about FO structure and Snyder changing. Good people can fail in certain spots. Every coach and GM has failed on other teams at some point. That doesn't mean the structure is wrong, just that at that point in time personnel wasn't a fit. But the results don't negate a good structure and an owner not being in charge, which was the change being discussed.

Let me put it this way: If the team has a bunch of losing seasons for the next 10 years, does that mean Snyder should be in charge again, or would you still want a GM and good FO structure, just with different personnel? I'm guessing it's the latter. So the W-L column doesn't reflect Snyder "changing his stripes" i.e. giving up control. What reflects that change is him giving up control, which he has. So now we have to do what most others teams do, which is hope the FO in place is a good one and that they hired a good coach. The owner, as far as most can see, is out of that picture.

It could also mean Snyder needs to further distance himself from the operations of the football team. Truth is we don't know how much control he has over the team and how many hires, not including players, are his people that he chose. I think the PR staff that allowed #RedskinsPride to happen are his people, right?

[RFKFedEx]

Sadly, this week has convinced me (once again) that things haven't really changed in Ashburn. You can't tell me that an NFL caliber PR staff engineered the Twitter fail. There's just no way. That idea had to come from somewhere, where else but from the top?

Bruce has become a likable Vinny, the only difference is that Bruce is a better talker and he has Burgundy & Gold in his DNA, so we respect that.

Bruce and Danny are too old to understand how the Twitterverse works with the younger gen, so I can see how the team president paraded with the owner on this misguided mission.

[RedskinsFan44]

Why is this quote just appearing now? It would seem to me that if it wasn't fabricated, like the one Native American woman's story that the term redskins was created to signify her ancestors being scalped, it would've been quoted in all of these media articles about the name a long time ago. 

The Lone Star Deitz story as to whether or not he was a NA is not new, but if he was not he was doing a good job of passing himself off as one and there is no reason to believe Marshall did not believe he was one.  The "Redskins were not named to honor him" story seems to be a gotcha story pushed by the change the name crowd.  Marshall was certainly playing up the NA theme through the name, coach, and players, tying into the popularity of Jim Thorpe and a perception of NAs as superior athletes.

[RedskinsFan44]

Yes!  I have been saying this for years.  Referring to natives as "Indians" is an insult to two ethnic groups.  Why is no one talking about this?

This is kind of interesting, though I guess they get to decide.  Contrary to what others have said on here I believe that the problematic part of the name is "skins", in that is brings up the explicit definition of race by skin color, which brings up the shame of racism.   Interestingly, and I cannot find a link right now, but most of the change the name proponents point to historical documents that recount bounties on scalps, the mass execution of NAs, the smallpox blankets, etc use of the word redkins as proof of its derogatory meaning.  But when you read them the authors use Indians and Redskins interchangeably as an author will try to keep from repeating the same word.  The real racism is in the intent of the articles, not the descriptors used.  If you changed indians and redskins to NAs it would be just as appalling.

[SWFLSkins]

I don't believe the teams name has ever been a slur. The word was used at times as a slur, and if the name was ever changed, the word would continue to be used as a slur, possibly more often, and with more power.

 

QFT.