Alaskins

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

Recommended Posts

If I were to meet a Native American who told me he found the mascot offensive because his people have been viciously oppressed for over 400 years and our mascot trivializes his people and their suffering, even if he were in the minority, I would not be able to offer him a defense of the name that I would be proud to call my own.  

 

I have no idea what makes something a slur. I was hoping somebody who was so certain "Redskins" is not a slur could enlighten me.  I do know that Redskins refers to a race of people who have been the victims of (arguably) the worst genocide in human history.  I don't know what that implies, besides my own discomfort with a team and mascot that I have cheered for as long as I can remember. 

 

You have to understand I have profound cognitive dissonance over this.  I cannot count the number of times I've sung "Hail to the Redskins" loudly and jubilantly,  but I've learned a lot about actual Redskins over the years, and it is gut-wrenching.  When somebody asks me about my being a Redskins fan in an accusatory tone, I know exactly what they are accusing me of, and it makes me feel shame.  I love this team more than you imagine, but the name makes me uncomfortable.

While I can understand your discomfort, I can promise you that what took place in our history here with the Native Americans is far from the worst genocide in human history. Places like Russian & China might actually hold those. I am by no means trivializing the travesty that took place, but don't  make it worse than it is.

 

That said, there isn't anything that can be done about what has happened. All we can do is move forward. As I said in a previous post, I have read a lot on this subject & rest assured the word "Redskin" is not a widely known slur. It was created by NA chiefs to unify the NA community. Red has been a long standing symbol of honor for the NAs. As I also said, it's possible someone used it to slur NAs in isolated situations, but nothing society-wide & nothing in all the things I've read even mentions it being a slur.

 

Now, if someone tells you they are a Native & they are offended by the name, there isn't anything you can do for that person but tell them you are sorry. Be compassionate & listen to them. Explain to them what has been explained to you in this thread. Much of history has been convoluted & learning history has been different for all of us. There are actually people who teach their children that there was no holocaust & that the Jews made it up to gain worldwide sympathy.

 

Honestly, everyone is offended by something. While I recognize that atrocities were committed to Native Americans & their culture, try to remember that they are still just human beings & that you putting down your Redskins stuff & feeling guilty for being a Redskins fan isn't going to change anything for that Native who is offended by it. If you are feeling that strongly tho, I would suggest that maybe you should look into getting involved with a charity or organization that is set up to help Natives get better health care, education, facilities, etc. Maybe even looking into the organization that the Redskins set up, "The Original Americans Foundation". But I can assure you, the word "redskin" is not a slur. Why would other Native American communities use it as well if it were?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is telling "them" to get over it? Remember who took up this cause in the name of Native Americans. There was no outcry for all these years, to think the intent of the name suddenly changed is asinine. Oh and if you can't get over differing opinions I don't know what to tell you. Hell there are Cowboy fans out there, I got over that a long time ago.

Am I the only person that read the posts at the top of the page?

Elkabong and Skins2victory both posted stuff that is saying that these ppl in question shouldn't be offended because they basically don't understand the word, history, etc.

That is bull****. Destino even replied the same way I am

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um nearly every post on this page which is telling a poster to tell NAs that they shouldn't be offended because dot dot dot.

That's bull****. Especially when you're not a NA or even a minority

 

This is bull****. I am no minority, not that it matters, but as a human being I sought truth, I researched, I wrote letters, emails, asked face to face with all due respect every NA I came into contact with, here East and when traveling West. I have searched out the offended, you know how many I found? zip, zero, zilch. Well except for the guys who were White telling me about them on TV or the NA special interest.

 

Just because you get into a discussion with a NA on the topic doesn't elude to a sales job being put on them. I have studied and read books on the NA way, I would be the first one to ask for a change of name if there were a mass call by the actual supposedly offended. Facts mean something, I remain a supporter, unless new factual info comes forward. 

 

I continue to search out that opinion and intent.....has the namechangers done that, do they read the historical documents or anneberg poll with any care? 

  1. @Creekleo @MikeWiseguy No I can't tell you anything, but I can tell you that I have always carried with pride my love of the NA way.

  2.  

    @Creekleo The elders used this word, why is it now a hate word? Never heard it in that context myself. I think intent matters here.

 

I don't get my opinion from the press. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the only person that read the posts at the top of the page?

Elkabong and Skins2victory both posted stuff that is saying that these ppl in question shouldn't be offended because they basically don't understand the word, history, etc.

That is bull****. Destino even replied the same way I am

 

A suggestion then, the next time you are addressing someone or a post in particular quote it please. 

Actually you know what **** that, lol I am a minority, not that I care. I love diversity, in food and music, chicks especially. White, Black, Red, Yellow, Brown we are all shades of brown. I have never seen a black person. I have never seen a white person or Red or Yellow. Only tones. I have seen ugly from the inside on all sides. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<p>

This is bull****. I am no minority, not that it matters, but as a human being I sought truth, I researched, I wrote letters, emails, asked face to face with all due respect every NA I came into contact with, here East and when traveling West. I have searched out the offended, you know how many I found? zip, zero, zilch. Well except for the guys who were White telling me about them on TV or the NA special

I don't get my opinion from the press.

I'm not saying either stance is wrong or right. My issue is that I read too many posts that are dismissing how ppl feel. Of all the NAs I've come into contact with in the last year, they've all stated they are offended.

I'm not gonna just dismiss that and neither should anyone else. Whether that warrants the name change isn't what I'm getting at, it's how ppl are acting like those ppl don't matter or are just "misinformed"

A suggestion then, the next time you are addressing someone or a post in particular quote it please.

Actually you know what **** that, lol I am a minority, not that I care. I love diversity, in food and music, chicks especially. White, Black, Red, Yellow, Brown we are all shades of brown. I have never seen a black person. I have never seen a white person or Red or Yellow. Only tones. I have seen ugly from the inside on all sides.

In regards to the first point, I'll take responsibility for that

I have no idea what the relevance of the last part is though

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just can't get over the fact that you're telling people to just get over something that offends them and their people and that they're basically wrong/misinformed/whatever for feeling that way. That is asinine, especially when you're not Native American.

 

It doesn't "offend their people". 

 

(People take your opinion more seriously, when it isn't based on an imaginary reality.) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<snip>it's how ppl are acting like those ppl don't matter or are just "misinformed"

Clearly they matter, but is there a reason some of them can't be misinformed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the only person that read the posts at the top of the page?

Elkabong and Skins2victory both posted stuff that is saying that these ppl in question shouldn't be offended because they basically don't understand the word, history, etc.

That is bull****. Destino even replied the same way I am

 

 

If somebody comes up to you, and tells you that he is offended by the name of the town, Columbus, Ohio, because Columbus was a Muslim, you don't think you'd point out that no, Columbus wasn't Muslim? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying either stance is wrong or right. My issue is that I read too many posts that are dismissing how ppl feel. Of all the NAs I've come into contact with in the last year, they've all stated they are offended.

I'm not gonna just dismiss that and neither should anyone else. Whether that warrants the name change isn't what I'm getting at, it's how ppl are acting like those ppl don't matter or are just "misinformed"

In regards to the first point, I'll take responsibility for that

I have no idea what the relevance of the last part is though

 

 

Amazing, I traveled all over AZ, NM, NV, here in Florida, up in NC asked three tribes in writing and couldn't find one NA that said it bothered them or offended them. I even went out of my way to ask very respectfully to gain a truthful opinion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't "offend their people".

(People take your opinion more seriously, when it isn't based on an imaginary reality.)

Once again, it's not an imaginary reality. I go to a very diverse university. I haven't met one NAs that hasn't told me they were offended when I mention my favorite team.

I wore a Skins crew neck to a party once and a girl gave me a 30 minute spiel.

I'm not saying it warrants a name change but I keep seeing posters here saying that NAs aren't offended and if they are, they shouldn't , which isn't true and inconsiderate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bravo! Wellpinit High School: http://m.kxly.com/news/school-board-votes-to-keep-wellpinit-redskins/26580298

 

School board votes to keep the name. The reservation the school is one wanted to keep the name, they listened and kept it. They consider the name a point of pride.

 

And PFT, Deadspin, UnWise Mike, and the other "champions" of this cause will never make one mention of this...

 

And by "champions" I mean two-faced, lying, hypocrites.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If somebody comes up to you, and tells you that he is offended by the name of the town, Columbus, Ohio, because Columbus was a Muslim, you don't think you'd point out that no, Columbus wasn't Muslim?

That is kinda apples to oranges no? In least in my opinion it is

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More and more schools, people and organizations are coming to the defense of the Redskins name. I like it. Keep it coming. It's only a matter of time before it overwhelms the opposing parties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is kinda apples to oranges no? In least in my opinion it is

As an idea more than a specific example; if someone tells you that X offends them because Y, and Y is a patently untrue statement, then why is it wrong to explain that maybe their offense at X is unfounded?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an idea more than a specific example; if someone tells you that X offends them because Y, and Y is a patently untrue statement, then why is it wrong to explain that maybe their offense at X is unfounded?

Except the Y in this case is only patently untrue if you're on a particular side of a debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except the Y in this case is only patently untrue if you're on a particular side of a debate.

Sorry I should've multi-quoted. I thought the Y in this case was that "redskins" originated from the practice of taking Indian scalps for bounty and that had been established as not the actual genesis of the word.

I mean, people can tell me they're offended for a myriad of reasons and while I may not agree with them I don't think it's mine or anyone's place to tell them they are wrong for their feelings. But if someone specifically states that the term is offensive to them because "bloody scalps/killing/bounties" then I don't see why it would be improper to explain to them that they may be misinformed.

Edited by Stugein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2108865-bad-news-barrett-injury-updates-on-wwe-stars-shoulder-and-return

Wade Barrett injured the next night on Smackdown. Kharma is a ****!!!

Are you seriously happy that a guy playing a heel character got hurt and is gonna miss a big match this weekend?

Also, I went to a Raw in DC in 2007 and Edge refused to wrestle because of the name. He got Great Khali to wrestle instead because he was Actually Indian LOL

Brilliant

Sorry I should've multi-quoted. I thought the Y in this case was that "redskins" originated from the practice of taking Indian scalps for bounty and that had been established as not the actual genesis of the word.

I mean, people can tell me they're offended for a myriad of reasons and while I may not agree with them I don't thing it's mine or anyone's place to tell them they are wrong for their feelings. But if someone specifically states that the term is offensive to them because "bloody scalps/killing/bounties" then I don't see why it would be improper to explain to them that they may be misinformed.

Gotcha man.

I understand what you're getting at

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an idea more than a specific example; if someone tells you that X offends them because Y, and Y is a patently untrue statement, then why is it wrong to explain that maybe their offense at X is unfounded?

You're making the odd assumption that offended parties will come to you with an explanation and interest in discussing why they are wrong. Does that strike you as a likely conversation in the real world, not typing on a forum?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you seriously happy that a guy playing a heel character got hurt and is gonna miss a big match this weekend?

Also, I went to a Raw in DC in 2007 and Edge refused to wrestle because of the name. He got Great Khali to wrestle instead because he was Actually Indian LOL

Brilliant

Gotcha man.

I understand what you're getting at

 

If it appears that I am happy that a Heel like Wade Barrett got hurt. Then Wade is doing his job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back i 83 (84) I went to the wrasslin' matches at the old Capital Centre the day before the championship game vs the 49ers.

I think it was Roddy Piper,, had everyone going chanting all his 49er crap. it was fun.

 

The day this country is dumb enough to allow pro wrasslin' to mediate national consciousness is the day..   oh wait.. it's today.

Nevermind.

 

~Bang

 

Totally unrelated, but I didn't know you wrote for The Bay Net

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're making the odd assumption that offended parties will come to you with an explanation and interest in discussing why they are wrong. Does that strike you as a likely conversation in the real world, not typing on a forum?

I'm not assuming that people are going to come running up to me with explanations or anything. But if a conversation/debate on the name is occurring IRL I don't see it as unlikely for someone to state they are offended by the term or that it is offensive and someone responding with "why?". If the answer then given is "because bloody scalps" then....

I guess I'm not sure why I wouldn't think this to be a likely track this kind of conversation can take. It doesn't seem like an odd assumption especially given that it's one of the key "offenses" that Harjo et al push with their opposition to the name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sense that "Redskin" will become a word that will eventually be off-limits to non-Native Americans... like, they could self-identify as such, use it as their mascot, but only because they themselves are NA and since the word refers to their people, it's acceptable in that sense. 

 

I've heard the argument that yes, the Redskins should change their name because it alludes to a group of people who were slaughtered, and was coined in a time where Native Americans weren't as respected as they are today (making it an inherently less-than-positive term). The argument is, look, if NAs want to adopt the term and use it, go for it...but it's in poor taste for an NFL team to use the dated term.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.