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

[War Paint]

thje double standard is that YOU as an irishman have just said in THIS post that you are not offended by the fighting irish mascot.  I (as an Irishman) am not offended by the fighting irish mascot.  NObody, as an irishman, is offended by the mascot

 

you know this

 

I know this

 

everybody knows this.

 

but... you also believe that if you can speciously assert that people *should* be offended by the fighting irish name/mascot if they are also offended by the redskins name/mascot... then .... what?????

 

 

if you take the following four letters:   t, i,  h,  s  

 

and scream    "tihs"    in your 5th grade classroom... for some reason nobody is offended.

but go ahead and reverse those EXEXT SAME LETTERS and yell them out ..... people will manufacture a bogus offense, and your teacher will send you to the principals office, and your mom will spank you....

 

society is soooo arbitrary, caprecious, and unfair  

 

woe unto all of us....... 

 

 

 

 

there is no double standard.... there just isn't any equivalence.      4 letters don't make an offensive word, even 4 specific letters don't, unless they are placed in the correct order.   TIHS  is not equivalent to SH*T  ... no matter matter how many superficial similarities they have.  

It is equivalent.  It's the same damn thing.  Double standard.  I'm being told by those wanting a name change that the use of racial names and themes are wrong, even when the intent is meant to be positive.  Then, the same people who are telling me  it doesn't always apply to a particular group of people, like the Irish. 

[steve09ru]

Um isn't that by location still?

I'm not saying that that it is or isn't wrong but in our society, anything based solely on race is gonna get more negative attention. Simple as that

 

Redskins wasn't originated solely on race though.  It was meant to identify themselves due to the war paint that was worn. 

[TradeTheBeal!]

Good looking shirt, right here...

 

[War Paint]

and then people that were CALLED yankees and tarheels, took that name onto themselves, embraced it, and made it their own.   YOu can see a difference THERE, right?

 

if Washington DC was predominantly indian ..... and the team was owned by Chief Sitting Snieder, ... and Jim Thorpe was the star QB ... things would be a bit different, right?

 

 

 

 

 

and no, i am not claiming that is the only way Redskins COULD be inoffensive.. but it would certainly stop many people from feeling offended.   And in a good way.   The term reskin isn't inherently offensive, and the team logo CERTAINLY isn't inherently offensive.   if INdians were adopting both for themselves, there is little doubt that both would be viewed with pride.

Are you denying the existence of NA Redskin fans?  What about the NA who helped design our logo?  What's your opinion of the Navajo Code Talkers who attended our game in Redskins gear?

[Glenn X]

In general, I'm someone who supports the team defending, both legally and PR-wise, it's long-standing nickname and trademarks.  Especially because the people pushing this controversy are lefty "ambulance-chasers" who are also pushing a bogus history of the word "redskin."  (I'm looking at you Suzan Shown Harjo, Harry Reid, UnWise Mike and Bob Costas.)  I hate the idea of giving in to people like this, people who are responsible for making this country a worse (e.g. more stifling and PC) place to live.

 

However, I've gotten to the point where this whole stupid issue has become incredibly tedious to me.  I go to pro football on Sunday to escape the ideological sparring that tends to define the other days of the week.  And now I gotta deal with it on Sunday too?!  The other day, a colleague of mine saw my Redskins polo shirt and asked me about what he'd seen earlier on ESPN regarding the trademark issue and what I thought of the whole controversy.  I told him it was a trumped-up issue and that the team would likely prevail at the appellate-court level, blah-blah-blah.  I even told him about the history of the word, as per that linguist from the Smithsonian.  And after all that, you know what his response was?  He looked at my blankly and said, "But don't you think their nickname is like having a team called, uh, the Nashville N-words?"  I wanted to shake him and exclaim, "No, you dolt!  It isn't!  Haven't you heard anything I just told you?!"  And my colleague isn't somebody who just fell off the turnip truck; he's a pretty sharp guy... and yet he fails to get it too.

 

So I'm tired of fighting this stupid battle.  According to what I've read in the press, the Redskins have a Plan-B nickname ready to go, should their legal appeals fail: the Warriors.  That makes for nice alliteration (e.g. the Washington Warriors), sounds pretty cool, and allows the team to keep its uniforms -- including the helmet logo -- intact.  And if the Perpetually-Outraged Politically-Correct Brigade continues to complain, then switch out the logo for a modern-warfare-style, G.I. Joe-inspired logo (i.e. the image of the soldier in the upper-left corner, under the Marvel logo, on this old G.I. Joe comic book) and call it a day... letting the aforementioned Brigade ring the Atrocity Alarm once more and go sliding down their firehouse pole to another fake controversy.

 

P.S.  Whenever the Redskins' nickname controversy has reared its ugly head over the years, I have noticed that it's fashionable to trot out the Cleveland Indians' goofy-looking Chief Wahoo logo and exclaim, "Now this is truly bigoted!"  I'm sorry, but I'm not buying it.  Yes, there's a long history of goofy, minstrel-style imagery in the U.S. relating to blacks that is intended to insult and demean.  But American Indians?  Isn't the dominant stereotype of them that of the Noble Savage?  (And as stereotypes go, it's not a particularly bad one: stoic, fierce, not suffering fools kindly.  What's bad about that?)  Now, if the Cleveland Indians' logo featured Chief Wahoo looking drunk, with a bottle of firewater in one of his hands, then I could understand how some are butt-hurt about it.  But as it currently stands?  Yeah, I simply don't get the outrage -- some of which I consider to be trumped-up, like the outrage against, say, the Redskins.

[SkinsHokieFan]

and then people that were CALLED yankees and tarheels, took that name onto themselves, embraced it, and made it their own.   YOu can see a difference THERE, right?

 

if Washington DC was predominantly indian ..... and the team was owned by Chief Sitting Snieder, ... and Jim Thorpe was the star QB ... things would be a bit different, right?

 

 

 

 

 

and no, i am not claiming that is the only way Redskins COULD be inoffensive.. but it would certainly stop many people from feeling offended.   And in a good way.   The term reskin isn't inherently offensive, and the team logo CERTAINLY isn't inherently offensive.   if INdians were adopting both for themselves, there is little doubt that both would be viewed with pride.

 

But Indians is offensive

 

I am Indian, not those who came to American first 

[mcsluggo]

The Annenberg poll that is often cited as definitive data that shows 90% of NA don't think it's offensive only polled 768 people, and 1% didn't even answer, so it's really even less than that.  If those groups and tribes make up only 2000 people, that's over twice the number polled.   So when you talk about tricks, it goes both ways, because all people ever quote about that survey is the result.  768 out of 5.2 million is sketchy math, even with random selection.  That's 90% of .00015% of the population.  

if it was a well constructed random sample, then yes, it WOULD be sufficient to capture attitudes with a high level of confidence.

 

 

the problem is, that survey was taken a while ago, certainly before the current sh*tstorm erupted.  

 

and.... 10% thinking something is offensive is not insignificant.  this isn't an election.  if 10% really feel wounded by the name (and i am not asserting that 10% really are HURT by the name, just saying IF... ), then that is a really bad thing.      

 

if 10% of a second grade classroom is allergic to peanuts, you don't just shrug and say "ah well... most will survive"   

 

(well... you might if you are my brother )

[BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93]

I still don't understand how ppl still call them Indians. That makes you look really ignorant

[nonniey]

Let's meet this fictional minority first and discuss it with them. I'd listen to their arguments.

 

This is really way down the "The Jets are offensive to Muslims because 9/11" argument that Glenn Beck listeners make on twitter. No one is saing a "small minority should win this argument because any small minority should win any argument."

 

The small minority is winning the argument because the small minority is making some pretty solid points.

In seriousness can you list any of these solid points? Most of the arguments and points from the name change crowd seem to be based on fabrications and/ignorance (Especially the latter). 

 

Those of us who post here already know that the Redskins was developed by Native Americans, is not a racial slur (as it was was never commonly used as a racial slur) and has vastly more Native American supporters than detractors.

[steve09ru]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/06/18/what-the-woman-a-lot-more-native-american-than-elizabeth-warren-thinks-about-the-redskins-decision/

 

Also, would you call a group of Indians 'Red People' to there face?  Why? Because that it was Oklahoma translates into.

[RonArtest15]

What's the end-game to all of this?  Will people focus their ire on Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben, Annie the Chicken Queen (Popeye's), or the state of Oklahoma?  It goes on and on. 

[dcdiscokid]

If we are forced to change our name the only thing I would be fine with is the Washington Football Club.  Basically telling everyone to go **** yourself we will go un-named now.  We can still use the logo and colors, sing the song, and the fans can still call them the redskins...

[War Paint]

Good looking shirt, right here...

 

Singing "Hail to the Caucasians" would be considered racist to non-whites because it would sound like a White power Skinhead anthem.

What's the end-game to all of this?  Will people focus their ire on Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben, Annie the Chicken Queen (Popeye's), or the state of Oklahoma?  It goes on and on. 

I would have to think if one of the biggest sports franchises,the Redskins go down, the dominoes would start to fall for several other brands or products.

 

I guess anything that is racial is considered racist these days.

[mcsluggo]

It's all about context.  I bet you could throw out a poll and have a small percentage offended by the term Yankee just like the Redskins.  And to go with your first point, NA's used to embrace, and many still do, the term Redskins so why tell them that they should feel offended by it rather than the honor that they do?

 

i know.. and that is what is so frustrating... this crap didn't HAVE to start.    People used to feel pride at the name.  

 

 

but to argue that the negative feelings that are stirring now aren't "true".. because it didn't have to have to happen this way, and because it hasn't happened in other places where it might have conceivably happened... is specious

 

 

 

Joe walked through Mosul last week, and got himself killed.  You can't bring Joe back by saying "ahhhh but Steve walked through Mosul last week, and was fine"   (therefore you must be lying about Joe)    the situation for Joe is what it is....

[RVAbrendan]

Good grief I hate this argument from opponents of the name

 

No you wouldn't call them Redskins unless they played for the Washington Redskins. I'd go up to Joe Gibbs and call him a Redskin. Same with Art Monk. But not my friend Patrick Van Pelt who I grew up with. I would call him a Redskins fan though

 

I'm not an opponent of the name, and that's kind of my point. I don't associate the word with a group of people, I associate it with a football team.... but the argument is that the people that are being offended by it ARENT associating it with a football team - they're associating it with a racial slur. 

 

Edit: I asked that question in response to a poster who made the claim that the term Redskin is not derogatory. 

[grego]

 

 

 

the problem is, that survey was taken a while ago, certainly before the current sh*tstorm erupted.  

 

 

 

 

mcsluggo, i dont get this argument.

 

we know this has been an issue for years- decades. not to the extent that it is now, but its been been an issue. 

 

to think that native americans in 2003 didnt know there was a team named the 'washington redskins' is something i cant begin to comprehend. 

 

we're talking about 2003. not 1933.

[nonniey]

Ok then, there are 566 recognized tribes in the US and about 25 listed in Mboyds post. Where are the other 540 tribes? This has been in the news for months, surely if they cared they would have added their tribe to the list.

 . 

There is difference between what activist organizations push/think and what the general populace thinks

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Recently, 50 U.S. senators signed a letter that starts, “This month, Americans applauded the rapid and decisive reaction from new National Basketball Association Commissioner Adam Silver to the racist remarks of Los Angeles Clippers owner, Donald Sterling. Commissioner Silver sent a clear message racism will not stand in the NBA.”

Senator Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, the majority leader added, “We urge the NFL to formally support a name change for the Washington football team.”

 

But, for all the noise about the name change, Snyder and NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell have stood by the name, and that position doesn’t seem to be changing anytime soon.

 

There are some fundamental differences between what happened with Sterling and the NBA, and what is happening with Snyder, Goodell and changing the name. While we’d like to think that change comes about from introspective thinking, the NFL isn’t exactly leading the charge in doing what is seen by many as the right thing to do, and the reality is, they’re not being greatly pressured into doing so.

 

And that’s a key difference, and that’s how the name change ultimately would likely have to come about.

 

Going back to Sterling, his comments centered on African-Americans, who not only comprise the majority of the players in the NBA, but comprise a vastly larger percentage of the American populace than Native-Americans.

 

Based on the most current census, 13.1% are “Black or African American alone” while “American Indian and Alaska Native alone” comprises just 1.2%. In that, the Native-American’s voice in matters of politics has not been given the weight that could sway the NFL and Snyder to make the change.

 

[...]But, here’s something else to consider. When Sterling made his comments, the Clippers saw a parade of businesses that had sponsor agreements with them say they were pulling their name as a protest. While this was somewhat symbolic (the sponsor agreements are contractually bound and no business stopped making their payments), it sent a clear message that racially insensitive matters could have financial implications. This is certainly one very large aspect of many that had Adam Silver act as swiftly and decisively as he did. Sterling’s comments had the capacity to inflict financial pain to not only the Clippers, but the NBA.

 

So, if there’s going to be change in the NFL and with Daniel Snyder, sponsors are going to have to feel that the name “Redskins” is not something they want their products associated with.

 

The question then is, do major sponsors such as FedEx, Bank of America, Coca-Cola, Comcast, and Verizon find the name “Redskins” offensive? They don’t seem to as none of them have said they were pulling their names. If they did, that’s when Roger Goodell, Daniel Snyder and the rest of the NFL’s owners would take notice.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/2014/05/29/the-one-way-the-nfl-could-change-the-redskins-name-is-if-sponsors-got-involved/

[grego]

I'm not an opponent of the name, and that's kind of my point. I don't associate the word with a group of people, I associate it with a football team.... but the argument is that the people that are being offended by it ARENT associating it with a football team - they're associating it with a racial slur. 

 

Edit: I asked that question in response to a poster who made the claim that the term Redskin is not derogatory. 

 

its a bad argument, RV. just insert any benign word in the question and its very likely you wouldnt call someone that either. 

 

its not because theres something inherently wrong with the word, its just rude. 

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

mcsluggo, i dont get this argument.

 

we know this has been an issue for years- decades. not to the extent that it is now, but its been been an issue. 

 

to think that native americans in 2003 didnt know there was a team named the 'washington redskins' is something i cant begin to comprehend. 

 

we're talking about 2003. not 1933.

 

I don't believe there is a single Native American in the country losing sleep over the Redskins name.

 

That doesn't mean that they endorse it or approve it or disapprove of it.

 

The passion on this subject is certainly on the Pro-name side, because losing something tangible is always going to rally people.

[grego]

There is difference between what activist organizations push/think and what the general populace thinks

 

 

that is what i was getting at. nicely put. 

[mcsluggo]

It is equivalent.  It's the same damn thing.  Double standard.  I'm being told by those wanting a name change that the use of racial names and themes are wrong, even when the intent is meant to be positive.  Then, the same people who are telling me  it doesn't always apply to a particular group of people, like the Irish. 

 

 

Are you denying the existence of NA Redskin fans?  What about the NA who helped design our logo?  What's your opinion of the Navajo Code Talkers who attended our game in Redskins gear?

 

 

i give up.   

 

i am going to assume that you are purposely missing the points just to be sly... and so this discussion will go nowhere (by design).   

 

 

take care

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Good grief I hate this argument from opponents of the name

 

No you wouldn't call them Redskins unless they played for the Washington Redskins. I'd go up to Joe Gibbs and call him a Redskin. Same with Art Monk. But not my friend Patrick Van Pelt who I grew up with. I would call him a Redskins fan though

 

It's not a glorious argument.

 

At the same time, it does reveal what an odd, anachronistic word it is.

[mcsluggo]

There is difference between what activist organizations push/think and what the general populace thinks

 

this is CERTAINLY true. 

 

 

 

(and personally i wish 98% of those actively campaigning to keep th ename would STFU, so that this controversy would have a chance of receding)  

[justice98]

Nope.  It has nothing to do with helping NAs. 

You don't understand polling do you?

 

What's your exposure to Statistics and Probability?  That's what I thought.  Whatever I know, I'm pretty sure you know less.  

 

That survey had a margin of error of 2%.  For illustrations sake, for a population of 10,000, they'd need a sample of 1000.  The population their sample came from had to be fairly low.  But how was the sample chosen, the data collected?  Anybody know or is everyone just guessing?  That's what I thought. 

 

Most people aren't familiar with Annenberg outside of this poll, but acting like they know anything about them or what they do or how they do it.