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

[Riggo#44]

Just curious, would you feel comfortable going to a reservation and calling the people there 'Redskins'? What do you think their reaction would be?

 

Would you call a room full of caucasians "Hey whites!"

Would you call a room full of women "Hey women!"

Would you call a room full of Mexicans "Hey Mexicans!"?

 

No. It's ****ing weird. And none of those terms are "offensive"

 

Stupid argument. For the 1000000th time.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Right.

To do otherwise would be to violate the well-known grammar rule which states that it is impossible for a word to have more than one meaning.

And the well-known rule that states that, if it is possible to use a word in an offensive manner, then said word cannot be used in any manner.

 

I'm pretty certain I invented this argument, and it makes me so happy to see you embrace it so fully.

 

Would you call a room full of caucasians "Hey whites!"

Would you call a room full of women "Hey women!"

Would you call a room full of Mexicans "Hey Mexicans!"?

 

No. It's ****ing weird. And none of those terms are "offensive"

 

Stupid argument. For the 1000000th time.

 

No

Yes

Possibly

[Bang]

Why wouldn't you call a Native American a redskin? 

Same reason i don't call one a banana or a shoe.

Because in my head the word "Redskins" is 100% associated with the football team. Always has been.

 

I'd never consider calling anyone a Redskin unless they played for the team, and then it doesn't matter what color his skin actually is. Robert Griffin III is a Redskin. Ryan Kerrigan is also a Redskin. 

 

And in the heads of most people i'd bet the word "Redskin" is associated with the professional football team from Washington.

and if it is not...   well, then who is it  exactly who has the racism problem?

Why do you worry if people will walk around referring to others as members of a football team?

I mean,,  unless you associate it with the pigmentation of a race of people that is.

 

~Bang

[Big Weirdo]

Based on how the team has played since Snyder took over, there really can only be one logical name change.

Someone earlier posted the old USFL Federals logo and said anything but that. I actually think that would be sick.

[mcsluggo]

That's the thing, people truly are saying 10% is not enough.  Which begs the obvious follow-up question. 

 

 I can agree with that.  It probably falls under the "we have bigger fish to fry" category.  

 

this goes back to LKB's point.   if 10% are REALLY wounded,,,, then I would think that is significant enough.   But... really, i don't think this IS a "huge" deal to anyone (nobody feels really really wounded by the use of redskins).  

 

 

so it makes it clear as mud.

 

 

motivated people on both sides are very fond of speaking in absolutes on this issue... but there are no absolutes, and are no equivalents.    Redskins is clearly less offensive than N**ggers, or wetbacks or chinks or any number of terms that disingenuous people in favor of changing the name try to declare "equivalent"------ if it was as bad as those, it would already be changed.  Duh.   Redskins is also less benign than "Celtics" or "Irish" or Vikings or Highlanders ... or any number of other teams that disingenuous people adamantly against changing the name try to declare "equivalent"---- if people were offended by those, somebody would actually be seeking to change those names, which is different than whining that people SHOULD be trying to change those names if they are going to try to change the redskins name. 

 

 

this issue is NOT clear.  and that is why it is not settled.   there are lots of shades of grey here, enough so that in the end, basically nobody will be happy.   Yay.     

[mcsluggo]

Okay, I just wanted to add my opinion.

 

First off, I am Cherokee and have a CDIB card, which by no means makes me an expert on Native American affairs or opinions, I did however grow up on an Indian reservation(Osage County in Oklahoma)

 

I also spent 10 years living in Tahlequah, Oklahoma. Which is the Capitol of the Cherokee tribe(well ONE of the Cherokee tribes). Needless to say I have been around countless Native Americans from almost all the tribes my entire life. I have always proudly supported my teams colors, and never given a thought to term Redskins being offensive. I've NEVER had anyone, other than white people recently, tell me that its offensive.

 

Oklahoma football has a long history of Indian mascots, even a professional team in the 1920s "Hominy Indians" who beat the New York Giants. The Union Redskins(suburb of Tulsa) are one of the most dominant 6A High School football teams in the state every year.

 

Basically my point, as a Redskin fan hearing about how offensive our teams name is to Indians. I feel I'm kind of at Ground Zero here in Oklahoma.....And I've yet to meet a Native American that cares what our name is.  Honestly I've meet some that wore the colors/logos just for the Indian representation and didn't even watch football.

 

Also, keep in mind when you see things like the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma finds the name offensive, so that must mean the 189,000 members of that tribe find it offensive.

 

No. Just because the Tribal Government issues a statement doesn't mean that is "the view" of that tribe. It's all just politics.

 

thank you, i would like more of your personal opinion, and feel for the opinions of those you know.   I can believe (and understand) that statement issued by the tribal government doesn't speak for the people... what is your feel?  is anyone really offended by the name?

[mcsluggo]

Same reason i don't call one a banana or a shoe.

Because in my head the word "Redskins" is 100% associated with the football team. Always has been.

 

I'd never consider calling anyone a Redskin unless they played for the team, and then it doesn't matter what color his skin actually is. Robert Griffin III is a Redskin. Ryan Kerrigan is also a Redskin. 

 

And in the heads of most people i'd bet the word "Redskin" is associated with the professional football team from Washington.

and if it is not...   well, then who is it  exactly who has the racism problem?

Why do you worry if people will walk around referring to others as members of a football team?

I mean,,  unless you associate it with the pigmentation of a race of people that is.

 

~Bang

 

that makes perfect sense.

 

but what would you expect the reaction to be if somebody did use the term redskin to address a group of native americans.  While you might not use it in that situation, We can't pretend that there is no connection between the term redskin (and the redskin team, and its paraphernalia) and native americans.  

 

 

most of the reasons that people have said they would never use the term to refer to Native americans is contextual.... you would rarely have REASON to single out a group of people by their race.   but if you did have a reason to, would you ever substitute from

 

"I need all Native Amricans here to fill out form 238-b, so we know that you are eligible for tax-exempt status..."      

 

to 

 

"I need all Redskins here to fill out form 238-b, so we know that you are eligible for tax-exempt status..."  

 

 

most of us would not... and at least part of the reason is that it wouldn't seem appropriate.  

 

Yes the term Redskin really only applies to the football team these days, but we really can't deny that there is a connection between the term (and the teams imagery and fightsong, etc) and native americans, and yet everybody is squeamish using the term where it is obviously connected.   There is a reason for that.   

[nemocystem]

Hmmm...nice to see once again that logical arguments have been completely ignored to attack other strawman arguments so a battle can be won. This is why I can't stand humanity, & believe that we are doomed to fail, & will be our own undoing.

Anyways....

On the topic of actually changing the name (in all seriousness), I have said before that my grand idea is that we keep the Redskins name, change the connotation to "people who have bled in battle." We could then go the Oregon Ducks route & have a malleable theme/uniform to honor one example or another from week to week.

One week camo to honor the military,one week fighter jet theme to honor the air force, or battleship theme to honor the navy...etc.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

On the topic of actually changing the name (in all seriousness), I have said before that my grand idea is that we keep the Redskins name, change the connotation to "people who have bled in battle." We could then go the Oregon Ducks route & have a malleable theme/uniform to honor one example or another from week to week.

One week camo to honor the military,one week fighter jet theme to honor the air force, or battleship theme to honor the navy...etc.

 

That sounds unbelievably depressing yet also weirdly callous.

[nemocystem]

that makes perfect sense.

but what would you expect the reaction to be if somebody did use the term redskin to address a group of native americans. While you might not use it in that situation, We can't pretend that there is no connection between the term redskin (and the redskin team, and its paraphernalia) and native americans.

most of the reasons that people have said they would never use the term to refer to Native americans is contextual.... you would rarely have REASON to single out a group of people by their race. but if you did have a reason to, would you ever substitute from

"I need all Native Amricans here to fill out form 238-b, so we know that you are eligible for tax-exempt status..."

to

"I need all Redskins here to fill out form 238-b, so we know that you are eligible for tax-exempt status..."

most of us would not... and at least part of the reason is that it wouldn't seem appropriate.

Yes the term Redskin really only applies to the football team these days, but we really can't deny that there is a connection between the term (and the teams imagery and fightsong, etc) and native americans

Here's what's wrong with your argument.

I would not use any of those terms described above in your given scenario. Here's why (God I love context):

1) as per this scenario, I am an employee...& so it would not behoove me to speak my mind. There is a precedent I need to obey, & my employer does not care for my "excuses." So under these terms, I would be incredibly fecetiously PC. I do it all the time under my current employer. It makes light of the uncomfortability of the situation, & still gets the goal achieved.

So I might say: "I need all the people who identify as indigenous to the area on the North American continent currently referred to as America......etc" but, I think.

2) as a speaker/writer, I am not inclined to give a poop what you think of my factual statements unless it is my specific intent to draw an emotional response from you. The minute you take offense to something intelligently inoffensive, I shut down & walk away. You are a paramecium, & incapable of logical deduction or reasoning & therefore unable to hold a conversation with me about this subject beyond how "it mawkes me angwy mawmmy!!!"

Now, if you said the same scenario, only I had the freedom to speak my mind without a reasonable fear of job loss, I might then say: "those who identify as Indian, Injun, Redskin, Native American, or x____insert tribal name here....etc." that's just me.

The moment someone took offense, I would likely say: "that's nice. ..I was simply using all available identification qualifiers. If you don't identify with any of the aforementioned, then kindly stand aside until one of your qualifiers is mentioned. Thank you."

That sounds unbelievably depressing yet also weirdly callous.

No more than this discussion deserves.

[mcsluggo]

 

.....

Now, if you said the same scenario, only I had the freedom to speak my mind without a reasonable fear of job loss, I might then say: "those who identify as Indian, Injun, Redskin, Native American, or x____insert tribal name here....etc." that's just me.

The moment someone took offense, I would likely say: "that's nice. ..I was simply using all available identification qualifiers. If you don't identify with any of the aforementioned, then kindly stand aside until one of your qualifiers is mentioned. Thank you."

 

 

 

ok... works for me

[Destino]

This is fun.

http://deadspin.com/this-dated-video-helped-make-the-case-against-the-redsk-1592685513

The cheerleader outfits/hair and the dancing horse. Fantastic.

[Destino]

Would you call a room full of caucasians "Hey whites!"

Would you call a room full of women "Hey women!"

Would you call a room full of Mexicans "Hey Mexicans!"?

No. It's ****ing weird. And none of those terms are "offensive"

Stupid argument. For the 1000000th time.

Piggy backing on LKB's comments I've said black, white, Mexican to friends of mine that are those things. Never in an insulting way and usually because I have a question relating to that aspect if them. Also Muslim, Christian, Catholic, etc. I would not refer to a Native American friend as "redskin" however. That would be weird.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Same reason i don't call one a banana or a shoe.

Because in my head the word "Redskins" is 100% associated with the football team. Always has been.

 

So, why is the logo not a football?

 

There is obviously some relationship between the Redskins football team, which has nothing to do with Native Americans, and Native Americans since there is a picture of a black man in a headdress at the top of every page of this thread.

[nemocystem]

Piggy backing on LKB's comments I've said black, white, Mexican to friends of mine that are those things. Never in an insulting way and usually because I have a question relating to that aspect if them. Also Muslim, Christian, Catholic, etc. I would not refer to a Native American friend as "redskin" however. That would be weird.

By this argument's standards then:

Would you call a person of Nordic persuasion a Viking? Would you call a person from a Zulu tribe a Zulu? Would you call an Aztec friend an Aztec? Would you call a marine a Devil Dog? I would, if I felt so compelled, & I would get angry if they took offense.

Same goes for white dude, black guy, Latina chick, or that Asian person over there. Descriptive terms are descriptive.

[Big Weirdo]

The cheerleader outfits/hair and the dancing horse. Fantastic.

I swear to god my dad has that VHS.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

One of the comments from that link earlier (can't remember which ES member posted it):

 

Here's how the U.S. District court for DC determined some of this same evidence was irrelevant in 2003. To provide some background, the Court essentially required the challengers to show that the Redskin name, as used for a professional football team, was disparaging to a "substantial composite" of Native Americans around the times that the Redskins registered their marks (1967-1990):

 

"The problem with this reasoning is twofold. First, the perceptions of the general public are irrelevant to determining if the marks are disparaging to Native Americans. In other words, this evidence is simply not relevant to the legal question in the case. Second, and most importantly, this finding is logically flawed. At best, this evidence demonstrates that Pro–Football's fans and the media continue to equate the Washington Redskins with Native Americans and not always in a respectful manner. However, the evidence does not automatically lead the Court to conclude that the word "redskin(s)" as used in Pro–Football's marks is derogatory in character.

 

Under the broad sweep of the TTAB's logic, no professional sports team that uses Native American imagery would be permitted to keep their trademarks if the team's fans or the media took any action or made any remark that could be construed as insulting to Native Americans.

 

The Court cannot accept such an expansive doctrine; particularly when premised on a finding that is not supported by any substantial evidence."

 

That's why the Skins, Goodell and their sponsors ain't too worried right now. From most accounts the Anti-Redskins side didn't introduce any real new evidence for their side, they only introduced a new, younger plaintiff. While the TTAB may be convinced, federal courts have seemingly laughed off their reasoning and logic of their decision. Does anyone here have any reason to believe they won't do so again?

[Enzo]

Another article about the wonderful Ray Halbritter:  http://yorkstaters.blogspot.com/2006/02/shame-of-central-new-york-or-how-one.html

[War Paint]

Another article about the wonderful Ray Halbritter:  http://yorkstaters.blogspot.com/2006/02/shame-of-central-new-york-or-how-one.html

Wow, I read other things about Halbritter being like a dictator, but that blog broke it down.  If people think this man is fighting our name for any reason other than to empower himself, they are naive.

[Inigo Montoya]

I think both sides are entirely too hung up on the notion of "intent."

The questions I continually come back is Why is Native American imagery so prevalent in sports, is that still proper, and is there a balance that can be struck?

Isn't there imagery of many different types of people and traditions all through sports?

Patriots, the fightin Irish, the celtics , buccaneers and pirates and so on. It's a sports team, I mean I just don't see how any of these names and images can be anything other than honoring the past?

[Rufus T Firefly]

Activists are always more engaged. That's what makes them activists.

 

Again...this is not an equivalent argument.....But what percentage of the gay population do you think is filing lawsuits and marching for marriage rights now? Less than 10 percent? That's probably about right.

 

Again....not an equivalent...but how many women were suffragists?

 

Most people are not engaged on any issue - even if we argue about it on message boards.

 

The word "activists" is always snarled by people defending the status quo, because the people defending the status quo always believe that activists are a minority within a minority. Which they are.

 

It doesn't mean they are wrong.

Well, since you're so determined to create an equivalence...

 

The difference is you're talking about 10% being actively involved in protests vs 10% who are actually in favor of the object of the protests. If the argument was that only 10% of NAs were signing petitions and filing lawsuits than that would be a decent response. But do you really think only 10 (or 20) percent of homosexuals would  actually answer the question "do you want equal rights" with "no, not really"?

[Spaceman Spiff]

 

Just to have some fun here.  Love this bit.  And I think it applies to the whole "Would you ever call a black person the n word to their face!?" argument.  

[grego]

. Never in an insulting way 

 

 

i think thats a point all of us believe applies to this team.

[GibbsFactor]

Isn't there imagery of many different types of people and traditions all through sports?

Patriots, the fightin Irish, the celtics , buccaneers and pirates and so on. It's a sports team, I mean I just don't see how any of these names and images can be anything other than honoring the past?

Yes, and in every case, the franchises portray them as bad asses. It's sports. It's football. If you don't like that, you aren't a sports fan. Who wants some wimpy mascot?

Therefore, any notion that redskins refers to scalps is asinine and has flawed logic. This also applies to any linking of the name to any slur. Why would the team slur itself with its name? Think McFly!

[Bang]

So, why is the logo not a football?

 

There is obviously some relationship between the Redskins football team, which has nothing to do with Native Americans, and Native Americans since there is a picture of a black man in a headdress at the top of every page of this thread.

Well yes, there is obviously a connection, the point about the logo is spot on.

However, I would argue it is a proud image, not a caricature, not exaggerated racially or stereotypical. if our logo was akin to the the Cleveland Indians, I'd be in a much different frame of mind on at least that part of the issue. (I do think the Indians should change it all. One thing the native American community did agree on and request of society was that the term "indian" be dropped. And for the most part, as in most of these cases, society has complied... at least when speaking politely.

And while the name of the team actually at the bottom of all of it can be said to refer to skin color, our logo connected with the name which most associate with a pro football team is not a negative image.

It would be pretty dense of me to argue that we do not associate our team imagery and name with native Americans, however, the modern perception of the word is in connection with the team, and the connection between the two is not in any way meant to be a disparagement.

Context matters, i think.

 

~Bang