TK Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 http://httr4life.com/just-who-is-ray-halbritter/ Just who is Ray Halbritter? Over the past few years the name of the Washington Redskins Football team has come under attack by many groups including portions of the government and media. The claim these individuals have is they say the team name itself has historical beginnings as a derogatory or racist tag and that it offends Native Americans, even though the latest conducted voting polls of Natives proves otherwise. What has become shockingly clear is that the media, nor the government seems interested in the opinions of those who support the team name and view it as a badge of honor and respect. I believe this is because those who have openly opposed the name ultimately have a ‘PC’ or politically correct agenda at hand and don’t want the other side of the story to get out. Since my opinion may be considered invalid, I sought out Native American’s who support the name and are willing to speak on it. In the coming weeks their voices will be heard here at HTTR4LIFE.com. Today we will talk about the story of Melvin Phillips, a full blooded Oneida Indian, speaking for the Orchard Party/ Marble Hill Oneidas from Oneida County, New York. Phillips doesn’t see anything wrong with the Redskins name, but has issues with who is fighting to have it changed. “If these people were doing other than playing football; if they were making fun of Indians, or downing Indians, I’d be against it. But these people don’t do that. They play football”, Phillips said. Phillips is a direct descendant of the “home party” from the June 25, 1842 treaty with the Orchard Party, who chose not to leave the State of New York under the Treaty of Buffalo Creek in 1838. He still owns the land known only as “lot two and three” and the burial grounds, he is the last remaining of the full-blooded Oneida’s. In all essence it’s less than 100 acres of farm land that Mr. Phillips is protecting, the story lies in what exactly the state and the Oneida Indian Nation plan on doing with Mr. Phillips property. New York Assemblywoman Claudia Tenney is also Melvin Phillips attorney and has been working pro-bono (for free) for Phillips for ten years now (she is also currently running for congress). Tenney appeared on our friend IronSkin’s podcast (SportsArena) on Wednesday to discuss Phillips case and talk with the round-table (featuring Mark One Wolf, Janine Vandenberg and Billy Williams). The story Tenney tells us about Melvin Phillips gives an inside look at just who is Ray Halbritter. “The legislature (for the land deal) was rushed through by the New York State governor, Mario Cuomo (in Mr Phillips case) in order to push it through with no opposition. This whole Redskins name crusade is a distraction; he’s trying to make himself into a hero. I don’t think he even cares about the name change at all; Halbritter seems to be doing this as a boost for his ego. It’s a phony way of him getting national recognition. Years ago when the land was given to the Oneida ‘s the deal was it was there land unless they left it, which most of them did. The ones that stayed were in a little tiny area that’s less than 36 acres (100 acres total but mainly farmland). Nobody cared about this land until after the casinos were approved in 1988.” “I care about Melvin’s story, you know, you meet someone in life that is the true article, truly the real deal, and he impressed me. He grew up in hard times, living in poor conditions and all they had was their treaty clause. Many of them were treated like lesser citizens, Melvin lived that life. Halbriter, isn’t even a quarter Indian. Melvin’s thing is “why are you trying to take my land after you promised you weren’t going to do this to our family. How could you do that, and in the same breathe say you are trying to help Native Americans?” “I asked him, since I know he has been treated badly in his life, how he felt about the Redskins name. He said, “as long as they are not denigrating them in some negative way he didn’t have an issue.” You know, we looked into the Redskins name, and he said he actually believes it was meant to honor our culture. Words change over time, and become different, now you look at it and think maybe no one would name a team that, but the term was used by Natives first and a lot of people believe it is being done to honor them. Melvin said, “hey we used to be on the nickel, but then someone thought it was racist and now no one remembers us anymore.”" Ray Halbritter is the Nation Representative of the Oneida Indian Nation Inc. since 1975, and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of its enterprises since 1990. Halbritter is also the man leading the charge to change the Washington Redskins name. One would think that the individual, or group of individuals who is leading the name-change charge would at least look into how the man they tapped to lead the way has treated his own people. This story reeks of corruption at the top level and also points to something else, if no one reports the truth, how will people learn it? It’s obvious that the national media wants nothing to do with any story Halbritter is involved in. Case and point, Tenney went on to speak about how the national media was invited to Mr Phillips property, she was hoping they were there to do a feature story on Phillips, she was wrong. “One of the things we did was we setup a meeting with the Washington Post. I taped all the interviews we did, we had a photographer come down and we were meeting with the photographer, it was a rainy day and we showed them the burial grounds and the maps, the whole history. We did that over the phone with the journalist and told her what was really going on and the photographer went and took a lot of pictures.. When she was done, I found this interesting, she flew into Syracuse (before the meeting), which is maybe an half an hour or 45 minutes away and she said can you help me get back. I said, “are you heading to Syracuse”, she said, “well I gotta get to my hotel.” I said “Oh you’re staying in Syracuse near the airport”, she said, “No I’m staying at the “Turning Stone” (Halbritters casino)”. So she was staying at the casino with Halbritters people. So after all this time and effort, when the story came out, they never even mentioned Melvin’s name and all it ended up being was a “puff” piece for Ray Halbritter. The AP press wire wouldn’t talk on it…we brought in a wonderful journalist afterwards. She came in, did a wonderful story, had great pictures, she put the whole thing on and held up the document I got from the archives stating Halbritter wasn’t Oneida, and we talked about all the issues with the land. The next thing we knew, they killed the story on TV, that night. She called and apologized saying “they just won’t run it because he spends so much in advertising and such.” It’s hard, when you have the money to control media, it makes it very hard to get a message out.” “I was really discouraged after all the time we put into the articles with the Washington Post and the case and all the facts with court and they didn’t even run the part about him throwing his own cousin off the land.” Those words said by Tenney should make us all understand a piece of what is going on behind the scenes in the midst of this name-change debate. There is a reason that the voices of Native Americans who oppose a name change are not being heard, and it sits right in the heart of DC itself. The number one reason the story is not getting out is because the major media is in Ray Halbritter’s back pocket. I’ve often wondered why it was that UnWise Mike of the Washington Post never has anyone of his “contacts” on a live broadcast speaking of how the name is horrible, or why he has never done any feature articles speaking about the not-so-quiet-anymore 90% majority that supports the Redskins name. It also makes sense why the Post jumps at every chance they get to write something bad about the team or especially, Daniel Snyder. I think the question that Redskins fans and people in general all over this country should be asking themselves is….just how deep does the rabbit hole go. I know that this publication for one is not afraid of Mr Halbritter’s deep pockets or those who support him. We will continue our search for every bit of truth, and when each piece is found…it will be written. The interview with New York Assemblywoman Claudia Tenney is below, and you can read the full (in-depth) story of Melvin Phillips by CLICKING HERE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dallsux Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 http://httr4life.com/just-who-is-ray-halbritter/ Just who is Ray Halbritter? I read this yesterday. A good read & this information here is what really needs to hit the mainstream media. I think if people knew where this all started & why, most people would probably feel differently about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 http://httr4life.com/just-who-is-ray-halbritter/ Just who is Ray Halbritter? Mr Halbritter’s deep pockets or those who support him. We will continue our search for every bit of truth, and when each piece is found…it will be written.The interview with New York Assemblywoman Claudia Tenney is below, and you can read the full (in-depth) story of Melvin Phillips by CLICKING HERE! Really good read...there is so much more going on that simply "Redskin is a racist slur". I hope people take the time to read the entire thing and keep an open mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemocystem Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 So a thought occurred to me today with regards to the timing of the trademark cancelation, & the NFLPA collusion-gate. Let me put on my conspiracy theorists hat.... Ok... So...what if (let me finish) the congress/lawyers/wizards behind the curtain are working in conjunction with whatever legal pull they have. Pulling together the ramifications of the one case (the NFL wants NOTHING to do with discovery), in order to strong-arm or blackmail, as it were, the NFL into trying to force or coerce the Redskins into a name change. Just saying....The dots connect, & there would certainly be a perceptible agenda at play. Not that I believe this to be true, but it is certainly a comedy of coincidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 So a thought occurred to me today with regards to the timing of the trademark cancelation, & the NFLPA collusion-gate. Let me put on my conspiracy theorists hat.... Ok... So...what if (let me finish) the congress/lawyers/wizards behind the curtain are working in conjunction with whatever legal pull they have. Pulling together the ramifications of the one case (the NFL wants NOTHING to do with discovery), in order to strong-arm or blackmail, as it were, the NFL into trying to force or coerce the Redskins into a name change. Just saying....The dots connect, & there would certainly be a perceptible agenda at play. Not that I believe this to be true, but it is certainly a comedy of coincidence. The only non-coincidence is the timing of the trademark decision right after Sterling when people started lazily connecting racism dots and started talking about the Redskins name again in a boring offseason. The trademark people let politics interfere with their judgement, just like last time. The NFL fined the Redskins, badly, and illegaly, and we raised a fuss about it. They need us to cooperate now that the NFLPA is making noise about the collusion. So if they start pressuring us to change the name they risk us helping the NFLPA and spilling the dirty little secrets. Plus, since we didn't go along with collusion and were penalized for it, we could possibly escape the ramifications Mara and others would face. On top of that the Redskins are a billion dollar franchise and the rest of the owners do very well because of that success. They won't support a name change that could hurt sales since most would buy up the old Redskins merhcandise and not as many would buy new stuff from a forced name change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemocystem Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 The only non-coincidence is the timing of the trademark decision right after Sterling when people started lazily connecting racism dots and started talking about the Redskins name again in a boring offseason. The trademark people let politics interfere with their judgement, just like last time. The NFL fined the Redskins, badly, and illegaly, and we raised a fuss about it. They need us to cooperate now that the NFLPA is making noise about the collusion. So if they start pressuring us to change the name they risk us helping the NFLPA and spilling the dirty little secrets. Plus, since we didn't go along with collusion and were penalized for it, we could possibly escape the ramifications Mara and others would face. On top of that the Redskins are a billion dollar franchise and the rest of the owners do very well because of that success. They won't support a name change that could hurt sales since most would buy up the old Redskins merhcandise and not as many would buy new stuff from a forced name change. I like your angle....it is preferable. In yours, it would seem we hold all the cards. Spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD Riggo Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 My personal opinion: I started as being pretty ambivalent to the name change, seeing how it might be offensive to some, and understanding that, and while I don't think there's any INTENT to be offensive, sometimes there are unintended consequences. I wasn't for the name change, but at least I could understand the point of view that it was offensive. The longer the saga went on, however, the more I was convinced that the name ISN'T offensive, but the real problem is that it has become an agenda item for certain members of the media and politicians to show how politically correct they are. And there is a lot of hatred for Dan Snyder and the team, and a real good way to "get revenge" is to attack the name. Now, I'm actually firmly in the camp of "change the name." And it's for only one reason: This is not a fight the team is going to win. It can't win. Eventually, due to sponsors pulling out, lost revenue from merchandising, and general distraction, the team is going to have to change the name. And I think that the sooner they do it, the more they can do it on their own terms. My biggest frustration is the party that the idiots who have been waving this flag are going to throw. It's pathetic that they're going to win this battle. But they are going to win, and then they are going to gloat. I wish there was a way to deny them that satisfaction, but I don't see how they can avoid it. I think it's sad, and it's tragic. As for what the name will be, I honestly don't care at this point. I'm going to root for the team regardless. I think the Chief's head is one of the most iconic, traditional, and respectful icons in sports. It would be a shame to lose that. It would be a shame to lose the fight song. It would be a shame to lose the Burgundy and Gold. My preference is that the 'Skins organization finds a tribe that's willing to get behind the team, and "sponsor" it, if you will, and lend it's name to the team. Kindof like the Seminols and Illioni. And then the team builds a relationship with that tribe, supports them, and uses their name. That way some of the imagery could stay. But absent that, I think that they should scrap the hole native American thing, and become something completely unrelated. This whole thing is just very discouraging. Your entire post is testament to why I do NOT want to change the name under any circumstances! I will not bow to political correctness. I will not let the losers win. I hope that Dan stands firm in his intent to never change the name! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 Do people think we will lose the fight song? It'll be pretty hard to stop 80,000 die hard fans from singing the same song they've sung for the last 80 years after RG3 throws a touchdown pass to Pierre Garçon. I don't see any way that song goes. If I were in the stands and we score a touchdown, I'm singing Hail to the Redskins regardless of what the team name is. 100% chance those around me join in. The fight song stays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 Do people think we will lose the fight song? It'll be pretty hard to stop 80,000 die hard fans from singing the same song they've sung for the last 80 years after RG3 throws a touchdown pass to Pierre Garçon. I don't see any way that song goes. If I were in the stands and we score a touchdown, I'm singing Hail to the Redskins regardless of what the team name is. 100% chance those around me join in. The fight song stays. The fight song stays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throwback37 Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 "Our identity and heritage" what about Native American peoples identity and heritage? Look at this image, for goodness sake its a joke. (note: I edited the photo of the fan in redface being confronted by the Native American because I understand we aren't to quote photos) This photo was taken at a Cleveland Indians game. Not a Redskins game. The Indians caricature logo is one of the most offensive in sports and part of the problem is the Redskins get lumped in with them.. and everything else that is disrespectful and negative that was done to Native Americans. The Cleveland Indians logo IS disrespectful.. the word "redskin" CAN be offensive or used in a disrespectful way.. it's all context yet many people can't or won't recognize that. They seem to blame the Washington Redskins for the trail of tears, wounded knee, smallpox blankets and scalpings. The Washington Redskins didn't do any of those things, nor do they glorify those actions. They play football. That's all. I read an article where the author told a story of a man who had to grow up with all the awful adjectives that were associated with "redskin".. "drunken" redskin, "lazy" redskin, "stupid" redskin.. and therein lies the difference.. the adjectives the precede "redskin".. we're not saying, "drunken", "lazy" or "stupid" redskin.. we're saying "Washington" Redskins. That's the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bedlamVR Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 I am from the UK and I think this whole name change movement stinks. I have the very good fortune that I have never been oppressed or call names based solely on my race in my own country. I have no idea how that feels. However i do know all about the self important pomp of liberal middle class do gooders who feel their opinion is all that matters... and they all seem to have this feeling of guilt that they want to emote onto others... The name change debate is the shiny coin the pretty flag to distract the masses - As brilliant article ... http://httr4life.com...ray-halbritter/ "Just who is Ray Halbritter?" Indicates, this issue is a way to hide what they actually are doing. In the UK we had a "fox hunting debate" brought out any time the government wanted to hide bad news - unemployment going up, government minister scandal roll out the fox hunting debate . Now the actual act of fox hunting is a horrible concept but wrapped in tradition - which made it controversial. There were genuine people on both sides of the debate, but the media drive and the people manipulating the argument did not really care one way or the other. The fox hunting debate was a tool to control public opinion. And for years it worked fantastically. Unfortunately it got to a point where the government actually took action and had to ban it and that killed the usefulness of the tool... and people and the media went back to not caring again ... I really think there are those who are prominently for change in the name change debate who really do not want the Washington Redskins to change their name. If they do then their celebrity importance and stature will evaporate overnight . 50 Senators signed the letter because they saw this as a media band wagon and they could ride this for personal gain. I doubt it is an issue they lost sleep about. I doubt UnWise Mike cares - not about the people - but he cares on principle . And the principle he agrees with is people care what he has to say - and also he can bring down an organization and owner he has never liked (the WP has a long running animosity towards the Redskins )... What the Redskins need to do as part of the Original Redskin Charity is find somebody charismatic and knowledgeable enough about the subject to talk on the subject. Be very open about the financial links to the team but keep the voice their own, And finance them on a tour of Universities, local press get someone to put the other side out there - Hell get Oprah Winfrey on board ( that would be a major coop) because the only way this debate can be won is by winning hearts and minds . The thing is the other side has to be heard soon, because Dan Snyder is a business man and he will make millions if the team is called the Washington Redskins or the Washington Flipflops as long as the NFL makes money . And while he is taking a strong stance now it may not take much to make him change his mind . The thing I see is what was comented in the Httr4life story that the indian head used to be on the nickel and it was changed and people started forgetting. Remove the Redskins and then the Chiefs and then the Indians and then any other reference to native Americans and people start forgetting and the guilt is served . The problem is changing the name does nothing for any Native American growing up in disadvantaged families . If anything it makes life that little bit worse as they get blamed by ignorant die hard Football fans for messing with their game and the team they root for. It is a runaway train at the moment . And realistically It is not fair to think Dan Snyder and the Washington Franchise should take this fight up but it is a line in the sand that has been drawn and if the fight does not start here then where ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamebreaker Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 Btw, if you wonder what UnWise Mike's motivation is to be is gung-ho on this issue. Just know he's admitted on twitter he is writing a book with this topic as it's center focus. Everyone has something to gain. I hope Snyder never changes the name so his dumb book can't have the self-congratulatory chapter at the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 Btw, if you wonder what UnWise Mike's motivation is to be is gung-ho on this issue. Just know he's admitted on twitter he is writing a book with this topic as it's center focus. Everyone has something to gain. I hope Snyder never changes the name so his dumb book can't have the self-congratulatory chapter at the end. Oh, there is no question Mike is trying to exploit this issue and profit off of it in terms of rep and money. He's done a great job working this. My guess is that 0% of the proceeds from the book go to Native American causes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planter Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 No, we probably don't. The main NA groups leading the movement have said they want the NA theme removed from all sports teams. If we're forced to change the name, it will have to be something they find acceptable, which means no NA theme so no keeping the logo. It's about compromise and ignoring the extremists on BOTH sides... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planter Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 "I know all that." Then you should have understood the analogy. "any bets?" Wish I could. But I don't know or trust you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWFLSkins Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 1) freedom = I can say what I want, you can walk away, confront, or evade. Simple ====edited text as per the requests of the Mods, but I think those who got it, well got it, it is worth going back and reading again. ==== And by the by....we have done similar transgressions to my Native people....only the word used was "Indian!" or "Enjun!" Reading back searching for some other quotes I came across this, I believe it is well worth quoting and reading again. Great job nemocystem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dallsux Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 Your entire post is testament to why I do NOT want to change the name under any circumstances! I will not bow to political correctness. I will not let the losers win. I hope that Dan stands firm in his intent to never change the name! I completely agree. Giving up because it appears we may not win the fight? If we actually do what we can to get the truth out & make sure that the real information, the real facts are being fed to the public, especially the facts about Ray Halbritter & his agenda, then we can swing public opinion & turn this into a non-issue. But yeah, if we just give up like voice_of_reason seems to want to because he doesn't want to fight for what's right anymore, then yeah, we are going to lose. But as long as I have breath in my lungs, whether they are forced to change the name or not, I will always be a REDSKIN, forever. With pride! Do people think we will lose the fight song? It'll be pretty hard to stop 80,000 die hard fans from singing the same song they've sung for the last 80 years after RG3 throws a touchdown pass to Pierre Garçon. I don't see any way that song goes. If I were in the stands and we score a touchdown, I'm singing Hail to the Redskins regardless of what the team name is. 100% chance those around me join in. The fight song stays. The fight song stays. The fight song stays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo#44 Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 Here's a REALLY bad article from Esquire magazine (of all places) about the name 'redskin': A 'Redskin' Is the Scalped Head of a Native American, Sold, Like a Pelt, for Cash Yes, forget what the Senior linguist at the Smithsonian Institute has to say on the matter...his mother knows what REALLY happened. And when the writer claims that a "later Smithsonian quote disputed" Goddard's claims and findings on the origin of "redskin", here's what he was referring to: In what delusional reality does "I don't care what the word's history is" equate to disputing the word's history? lol... Again, what his mother was told as a child trumps any and all research and historical fact to the contrary...and "I don't care" is pretty much the same as saying "you're wrong". And again, this isn't some ramblings on an obscure blog...this is a write up in Esquire magazine, for Pete's sake lol. I actually did something I never ever do--I got into a facebook argument over this. The guy posted this article as "fact" that it was indeed scalps. I pointed out the extreme stretch, and the historical document it was linked to was simply a document evidencing bounties on NAs. Nowhere did it make the connection. I also went on to point out the the plaintiff linguist researching all 150,000 uses, only 71 of which did not refer to the team, potatoes, or peaches--this reference never came up. His response? Just because he didn't mention it, doesn't mean it didn't happen. He switched gears and went on about how we are racist we all are, basically. I added that 20 some-odd reservations using the "Reskins" mascot, almost as many reservations as tribes that signed the petition against the Redskins name: 24 of 566 federally registered tribes, among many other actual facts, including the emblem being designed by a NA--b/c he wanted to see the Native images back in sports. His retort? Attacking Snyder for being an asshole, attacking the republican party, attacking George Preston Marshall...I stopped at this point, b/c I was clearly dealing with someone who just wanted to believe what he wanted to believe. This is what we are dealing with--discredit the emotional with evidence and facts, get another, less relevant, emotional argument, ad nauseum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 I don't know if anyone else read the rebuttal piece from that Esquire writer, the one where he claims to prove "redskin" does indeed originate from the bounty for Indian scalps...but if not, he said something that is damn near frightening: "What is germane to the conversation? What is semantics? That is debatable. The fact remains that to many Native Americans, the term “redskin” has long meant the act of our ancestor’s scalps being collected for bounty." If I'm understanding his point correctly, he's saying that what Native American's believe to be true should trump any historical recorded fact to the contrary...and should be used as the prevailing reason for a governmental forced change to a privately own entity. It doesn't matter if it's actually true or not...Native Americans just have to believe it is. That's enough. This is what we are dealing with--discredit the emotional with evidence and facts, get another, less relevant, emotional argument, ad nauseum. One billion percent true *nod*...and just read my last post as more evidence of this lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planter Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 Losing the logo and the fight song would really hurt... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planter Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 For those who wish to retain the Redskins name I'm recommending continous polling of regional Native Americans by one or more well-known, reputable pollsters. Probably already underway. Personally, I'm hoping not to offend "significant" numbers of regional and/or national NAs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 I don't know if anyone else read the rebuttal piece from that Esquire writer, the one where he claims to prove "redskin" does indeed originate from the bounty for Indian scalps...but if not, he said something that is damn near frightening: "What is germane to the conversation? What is semantics? That is debatable. The fact remains that to many Native Americans, the term “redskin” has long meant the act of our ancestor’s scalps being collected for bounty." But I think he actually has a valid point, there. The name is offensive, if people feel offended by it. I believe that's the definition of "offensive". The n-word is offensive, because people are offended by it. They don't NEED a good reason. Now, if people are offended because of some Urban Legend or some such, then maybe you have an argument with which you can attempt to change their minds. But until you change their minds, they're still offended. (And, if they don't change their minds, then you don't get to stand there and announce that "Well, I'm going to keep right on offending you, because I don't think you have a good enough reason to be offended.") --------- Now, having said all that, though. If the writer of this fraudulent piece of "journalism" had simply said "the name is offensive, because people are offended", then he would have had to dance really carefully around the fact that, the one and only time that anybody reputable actually bothered to ASK people if they were offended, it showed that yes, some people were offended, but for every one of them, there were 10 more who said otherwise. I recommend, if he makes a second attempt, that he not include a photo that actually shows that his claim (of offense) isn't true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Section106 Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 After learning that there are 600 current NA trademarks granted to 450 companies, then comparing the logos of other teams to ours, and reading all the history of the name one is left wondering why these groups are targeting the Washington Redskins and not the more obvious and egregious marks? It is simple. It is the name itself. Washington. These activist groups are shrewd. They know that many/most of the power players in this country congregate every other Sunday in the Fall at the Presidents Club in FedEx Field. This about demonstrating their power and influence to the people who can actually make decisions in this country. If they can force the Washington Redskins to change their name then these groups can muster their influence in other more tangible ways. Be it in elections or in the courts or public opinion polls. To me this isn't about eradicating racism or protecting children on the reservation or social justice. This is about power. If the team was named the Oklahoma Redskins there would be no outrage. And this is a scary thing for every American. That the government can simply decide on no evidence and in the face of 80+ years of continuous benign operation to forever damage a privately held business is frankly beyond the pale. Make no mistake, any change to the name will substantially harm the business known as the Washington Redskins. Everyone trots out the meme that fans will support the team no matter what it is called. That is a crock. Do you think that billion dollar industries throw away valuable trademarks when they are tremendously profitable? They do not. A name change, be it forced or not, will cost Dan Snyder/NFL millions of dollars. People say that he can just sell new jerseys. That isn't a guarantee when you consider the ill will that will surround a forced rebranding. If Snyder tries to keep the NA theme the diehards won't buy new merchandise in protest. The average fan will be put under pressure from the activists to boycott because Snyder still hasn't learned his lesson and is just trying to stave off the inevitable. Oh and he is a racist, too and must be punished they'll add. And if Snyder decides to go with a new theme there is still the loss of 80+ years of business identity. I don't know how to put that loss into words. When fans buy a Redskins shirt they aren't supporting just the current crop of players they are also tapping in the the greats and the history of the team. They are putting on the identity of the Washington Redskins. Snyder cannot replace that with a new logo or name. And I hate that the Democrats are so stupid as to be duped into being the vessel for these activists. I'm a liberal. This is a losing proposition for the Dems and I just don't understand how dumb Harry Reid has to be to champion the name change. He needs to STFU and realize that he is hurting the party. And I love that the Virginia senators refused to sign! Good job Warner and Kaine! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 But I think he actually has a valid point, there. The name is offensive, if people feel offended by it. I believe that's the definition of "offensive". The n-word is offensive, because people are offended by it. They don't NEED a good reason. That's not what he said, though lol...he said specifically that "...to many Native Americans, the term “redskin” has long meant the act of our ancestor’s scalps being collected for bounty." So if he thinks whether or not the scalping story is true should take a back seat in all this to what NAs only believe to be true, that's frightening. And in reality, that's exactly what is happening. Now, if people are offended because of some Urban Legend or some such, then maybe you have an argument with which you can attempt to change their minds. But until you change their minds, they're still offended. (And, if they don't change their minds, then you don't get to stand there and announce that "Well, I'm going to keep right on offending you, because I don't think you have a good enough reason to be offended.") This actually illustrates one of the things that is so damn frustrating about all of this: "We're offended" is being played like a "get out of jail free" card. Lies? Misinformation? Incorrect facts? Revisionist history? None of that matters. "We're offended" is the shield that keeps away the criticism, no matter how valid that criticism may be. "You don't get to tell us we're not offended!"...Well guess what, I wasn't/we aren't. But don't you dare use revisionist history in an attempt to manipulate the public's emotions to explain why you are, and why they should be, too. And don't ask us to ignore it when you do--or worse, claim it doesn't matter--all because "We're offended". Or if you're someone arguing on behalf of NAs, "They're offended." Believe it or not, that is NOT the only thing that matters. And it doesn't negate every argument given by the opposite viewpoint. Now, having said all that, though. If the writer of this fraudulent piece of "journalism" had simply said "the name is offensive, because people are offended", then he would have had to dance really carefully around the fact that, the one and only time that anybody reputable actually bothered to ASK people if they were offended, it showed that yes, some people were offended, but for every one of them, there were 10 more who said otherwise. I recommend, if he makes a second attempt, that he not include a photo that actually shows that his claim (of offense) isn't true. lol @ the part on bold Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mocountyskins Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 At least we have Kevin Hart on our side. http://www.thewrap.com/kevin-hart-disagrees-with-cnns-don-lemon-that-redskins-is-like-the-n-word-audio/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.