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

[Springfield]

I would disagree with that assertion. 

 

Yes, some of them are simply the "professionally politically disgruntled". 

 

And yes, those are the ones we see on TV. 

 

But it's certainly not all of them. ----------How convenient that the first thing we should do is, assume that only the offended count. The ones that aren't offended, we shouldn't pay attention to.

No, it isn't all of them. It was definitely a generalization.

Someone alluded to social media a page or two ago. It was a post about how on Facebook you'll see people claiming that they are from such-and-such tribe and they aren't offended. I've seen it as well. Numerous times. These are REAL people, who can be linked to and observed. I've seen none in the opposite.

At the grass roots level, American Indians support the name. It's the large money making organizations that gain media attention.

[Kosher Ham]

As a NA, I am offended by the Non-NA people telling me what I should be offended by. Be it Art Monk or UnWise Mike.

 

Not to mention the sparce NA's that are offended ( IMO, misinformed) telling me that the rest of us should be offended also (the majority).

 

It's actually rather rude and annoying.

 

If we were so damn offended...this would have been an issue in the 60's when Civil Rights based on race was at it's highest. We are not, it's bull.

 

As I have said in this thread...I have never been called a Redskin...never. I guess it's because I never played for the team.

I have been called the N-word. Kinda odd how that works. Pez and I are about the same complexion.

[Destino]

Frankly I think we are asking the wrong question here.

We are asking, "How many are offended?'

We should be asking, "Who is offended and why?"

To be fair I think "why" has been looked into and it usually results in one or more of the following.

1- name comes from bloody scalps (The evidence I've read show this to be false)

2- it references skin color and these days that's a no no.

3- cultural appropriation.

[skins2victory]

As a NA, I am offended by the Non-NA people telling me what I should be offended by. Be it Art Monk or UnWise Mike.

 

Not to mention the sparce NA's that are offended ( IMO, misinformed) telling me that the rest of us should be offended also (the majority).

 

It's actually rather rude and annoying.

 

If we were so damn offended...this would have been an issue in the 60's when Civil Rights based on race was at it's highest. We are not, it's bull.

 

As I have said in this thread...I have never been called a Redskin...never. I guess it's because I never played for the team.

I have been called the N-word. Kinda odd how that works. Pez and I are about the same complexion.

 

Kosher Ham, thank you for the incite.  I keep hearing stories like yours from other NA as well.  It seems the NA support is tremendously on the side for keeping the name redskins. I have yet to come across a NA myself, that was offended by the name. 

 

Hail to the Redskins!!!!

To be fair I think "why" has been looked into and it usually results in one or more of the following.

1- name comes from bloody scalps (The evidence I've read show this to be false)

2- it references skin color and these days that's a no no.

3- cultural appropriation.

 

IMO the name redskin comes from early NA's who painted themselves in the color red before going to battle.  There enemy saw fierce warriors painted in red and called them "redskins".  So basically NA skin color is not red, the red was war paint. 

[Kosher Ham]

Kosher Ham, thank you for the insight.  I keep hearing stories like yours from other NA as well.  It seems the NA support is tremendously on the side for keeping the name redskins. I have yet to come across a NA myself, that was offended by the name. 

 

Hail to the Redskins!!!!

 

HTTR. Thank You.

 

Unfortunately that post will be ignored by the ones that are advocating, supporting, or accepting a name change.

 

The key part of that last post was...I guess it's because I never played for the team.  

[grego]

Frankly I think we are asking the wrong question here.

 

We are asking, "How many are offended?' 

 

We should be asking, "Who is offended and why?"

 

 

socrates, we havent always agreed in this thread, but on this, we do. 

 

next step is, the name changers touting the bloody scalps myth need to be called on it, rather than getting a pass. and cultural appropriation is a discussion, at least. 

 

(from everything we can see, there is a tiny minority who oppose the general use of native american themed mascots)

[Bang]

2- it references skin color and these days that's a no no.

 

 

While this is 100% true and there is no arguing it, it certainly is frustrating..  i mean after all, it is only pigmentation, and if it isn't supposed to mean anything like we were all taught, then it shouldn't mean anything.

I don't see how referencing a color is disparaging. (now, granted, people aren't actually red, or black or white for that matter.., so there's that. But there are accepted generalizations. I'm "white". if i recall, you are Hispanic, which is interesting because you are named for your genealogy, and me for my color.  Weird little inconsistencies are accepted. Spice of life.)

i KNOW the historical references of race and color and how it has been used for evil, so i probably sound a bit strange here.

but, when i was coming up through school, from elementary on up,, I started school in the late 60s, at the outset of the Great Society, integration, busing and all were very much in the forefront..  and they did their level best to make sure we were educated to all understand that even if we looked different on the outside, we were all the same on the inside. Color was not important. It was de-emphasized.

So, in keeping with that, the problem with pigmentation should have faded, but instead it's become hyper-accented as taboo to even mention it.

(Younger generations seem to be getting by it more and more though. I'm encouraged by what I've seen as to the future. )

 

Again, this really doesn't have anything to do with this argument. Just figured to drop that in.

i don't think you'll find i ever argued the etymology of the word or the various histories. (I always thought we were named for Boston Tea Party protesters... if i have discussed the origin of the name itself, odds are it's been in that context... but it's been a long thread...

 

~Bang

[skins2victory]

While this is 100% true and there is no arguing it, it certainly is frustrating..  i mean after all, it is only pigmentation, and if it isn't supposed to mean anything like we were all taught, then it shouldn't mean anything.

I don't see how referencing a color is disparaging. (now, granted, people aren't actually red, or black or white for that matter.., so there's that. But there are accepted generalizations. I'm "white".)

 

 

I disagree that there are not black, or white people.  Probably most are somewhere in between, browns, tans, and peach colored.  But as the pictures show there are black and white people.  But I have never seen someone with red pigmentation that was not sun burnt.

 

 

[Kosher Ham]

That kid is not "white".

 

A Steven Biko point in court was made when he was saying ..."Why do you call yourself white, you are more pink than white".

 

I digress.

 

I also do not actually believe that guy is that dark. Looks like he has on some sort of protectant to me.

[Commander PK]

 

 

I can't give an accurate opinion, because I do not walk in their shoes, and I don't live their history on a daily basis, where some issues aren't always agreed upon in unison" but clearly, there are native americans that have a problem with it, and they should not be ignored, just like the ones who want to keep it.

 

 

Fine

 

so where does that leave us then?

 "Who is offended and why?"

 

Dan Snyder has already done this you realize.  If you think he should personally meet with any of the opposition to "hear them out"...why should he do that when he has plenty of Natives telling him they are fine with the name?   

[Fan since a Fetus]

But I have never seen someone with red pigmentation that was not sun burnt.

Sorry, but this guy disagrees. This is an all natural color. Many people have claimed it is sunburn, but rumor has it that many dogs pissed on his legs over the years thinking he was a fire hydrant. Thus, he became, old, wrinkled, jealous, and bitter.

[Springfield]

^

High blood pressure induced by alcoholism.

[elkabong82]

Not sure i follow your point here. If I railed against welfare publicly and it later came out I was on welfare, that would make me a flaming hypocrite. And I certainly wouldn't label someone pointing that out as a personal attack. That would be extra gutless on my part IMO.

 

I think the analogy would be more fitting if you were on welfare for a short time several years ago. I don't think he's a hypocrite for favoring the name now and making an insensitive comment 4 years ago. He's not the smartest guy for doing it, but it doesn't seem like that action was a consistent thing for him. But what I mean is that friends would point that out in a conversation with you but would also stick to the issue, not resort to personal attacks as he claimed they did. I agree it's gutless for him to quit, but reading the comments section many were slamming the liberals for attacking him beyond just the dumb comment and not sticking with the issue. So while it does not reflect well on the team hiring him and then this stuff happens, those against the name who stooped to levels they did against the blogger (many of whom supported and defended this guy in the past) also wound up making their side of the issue look bad. That's all I was trying to say, that both sides look bad in this, not just us.

[Destino]

IMO the name redskin comes from early NA's who painted themselves in the color red before going to battle. There enemy saw fierce warriors painted in red and called them "redskins". So basically NA skin color is not red, the red was war paint.

This again? I thought we had all, including the Washington Redskins management, decided that Ives Goddard's research was what we were going with? The team points to it in Bruce Allen's response to Harry Reid.

[elkabong82]

I'm not giving up on the team. I'm supporting the campaign to change my favorite team's name.

 

Green said, “It deserves and warrants conversation because somebody is saying, ‘Hey, this offends me.'" That's very close to what I'm saying.

My reasons for saying we should change the name have nothing to do with political parties, although you keep insisting otherwise.

 

I'm looking at the actual issue. The actual issue is that the name refers to a race of people who our ancestors systematically and brutally oppressed, and lots of people see it as racist and offensive. I'm uncomfortable with that.

The Rush Limbaugh thing is a manner of speaking.

 

You keep throwing out that 90% number is though it is beyond dispute. It isn't.

I would imagine the Native Americans without phones are much poorer, and that their poverty might give them a different view of things.

 

Leaving aside the irony of your accusation of cherry-picking, I think it's patently obvious that the tide of popular opinion is changing. This thread itself is evidence of that.

 

The rest of this post is an ad hominem and non sequitor, so I don't  have much to say about it.

 

Ok, well I got the impression from your earlier posts you were considering not rooting for the team until a name change occurred. I'm glad that's not the case.

 

I think Green saying a conversation is warranted, which I do agree with hence I've researched the topic and discussed it here and elsewhere, is different than the stance I think you're taking against the name on the basis of a select few people you don't like being in favor of the name. It just seems to me like you are ignoring a lot of evidence and opinions of NAs by using such reasoning to support your stance.

 

The actual issue is whether or not the name is offensive to Native Americans. Past tragedies have nothing to do with a football team. Should Land of Lakes butter change it's logo because of past atrocities to NAs? Most people, NAs included, don't see it as racist. If they did, you'd never see NA schools using it. So, if a small portion do, shouldn't proof be required? As it stands, there is no proof of current racism because the team doesn't use the name that way. What is relied upon is past, long-outdated context, and most don't agree with that nor do I. 

 

And yes, you are using political allegiance by saying you don't want to be on the wrong side of history and that Rush and Coulter are usually wrong and you don't want to agree with them as one of your reasons for supporting a name change. It's a foolish line of reasoning that doesn't actually involve the issue.

 

My using the Annenberg Poll, the ONLY scientifically conducted poll directly addressing the issue with NAs, is not cherry-picking. The 90% number isn't beyond dispute, but what is beyond dispute is that it proves the majority of NAs are not offended. The questions raised against it, none of them, even all put together, are enough to deviate that 90% figure so far down that it proves most NAs are actually offended and that the name is obviously offensive to them. The way the poll was conducted, if the name were so offensive as some claim, there is no way 90% would have answered the way they did. 90%, through the way the poll was conducted, is a daunting percentage and it verifies that most are not actually offended. Those poking holes to try and refute either don't understand how polling works or are ignoring the results because they are inconvenient to their stance (and in doing so are ignoring the voices of NAs, whom they supposedly care about).

 

Your sticking to the NAs w/o phones thing, besides being an assumption on your part, still shows you don't understand how polling works and seemingly refuse to try to understand despite my explaining it to you. Also, I wasn't aware that one had to be poor and without a phone to view something as offensive. Take a step back and realize how absurd it is to suggest that 90% of NAs were not offended because they owned a phone and most without phones probably are offended. I mean, come on man. 

 

Rest of my post wasn't ad hominem. I have yet to see you actually address how the name is racist or offensive to NAs. So far you've been worried about perception and said some NAs are offended, but never actually addressed their reasoning for such, other than to try and link past events which have nothing to do with a football team.

[skins2victory]

This again? I thought we had all, including the Washington Redskins management, decided that Ives Goddard's research was what we were going with? The team points to it in Bruce Allen's response to Harry Reid.

 

Sure... its called common sense.  Why would the "white" man call them redskins???  Fact. There skin color was not red.  So it wasn't because of that.  Where would the color red come into play?  If you do your research, you will see that NA painted themselves in different colors for many reasons.  This is fact.  Red meant war.  The settlers where wanting to take there land, and where confronted by warriors painted in red.  Sounds pretty logical that the settlers would refer to them as red men, or redskins for this reason. I have also read that the paint keep off pesky bugs such as mosquito's.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Sure... its called common sense. Why would the "white" man call them redskins??? Fact. There skin color was not red. So it wasn't because of that. Where would the color red come into play? If you do your research, you will see that NA painted themselves in different colors for many reasons. This is fact. Red meant war. The settlers where wanting to take there land, and where confronted by warriors painted in red. Sounds pretty logical that the settlers would refer to them as red men, or redskins for this reason. I have also read that the paint keep off pesky bugs such as mosquito's.

It's a self-referential term NAs used centuries ago. It's been proven, time and again, as fact. That their skin was not actually red is irrelevant...they referred to Europeans as "white man" and African and dark skinned Hispanics as "black man" even though neither had white or black skin. So why wouldn't they also refer to themselves as "red men"/red skin?

[RedskinsFan44]

To piggyback on what Califan said, the important point is that the NAs self identified as "red".  Here is an article exploring why: http://www.libs.uga.edu/reserves/docs/main-permanent/idl/hist3050/how%20indians%20got%20to%20be%20red.pdf

[planter]

A reminder:

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/articles/40063/the-cranky-redskins-fans-guide-to-dan-snyder

[planter]

"It’s not about the money. Dan’s got a ton of money,” Cerrato said. “He’ll fight this. I said this when this first started a year ago or whatever, I said the only way I see him eventually changing the name is if — if — he gets a new stadium out of it, downtown, where old RFK was. And he builds a stadium bigger than [Jerry Jones's], which he would do, bigger and better than Jerry’s. He gets a Super Bowl. All that. I said that’s the way that maybe he would change the name."

Wow! That's loyalty.

[Riggo#44]

"It’s not about the money. Dan’s got a ton of money,” Cerrato said. “He’ll fight this. I said this when this first started a year ago or whatever, I said the only way I see him eventually changing the name is if — if — he gets a new stadium out of it, downtown, where old RFK was. And he builds a stadium bigger than [Jerry Jones's], which he would do, bigger and better than Jerry’s. He gets a Super Bowl. All that. I said that’s the way that maybe he would change the name."

Wow! That's loyalty.

 

Yes. Because Cerrato is a credible source...

[Destino]

But there are accepted generalizations. I'm "white". if i recall, you are Hispanic, which is interesting because you are named for your genealogy, and me for my color. Weird little inconsistencies are accepted. Spice of life.)

That's just because American views on race and Hispanic reality don't mesh very well, so they have to carve us out as distinct. That's why I'm not white, like you, I'm "Hispanc (white)". Kind of like vanilla and vanilla bean, a small but flavorful distinction. And yes I made a bean joke.

[Destino]

Yes. Because Cerrato is a credible source...

I remember reading more if that interview and it doesn't sound as bad as that quote. He doesn't really say Snyder is holding out for more free stuff, it was more to imply that the name has a lot if value to Snyder and he won't move off of it easily.

Also as you said, this is bug eyes we're talkin bout! He probably gets his own order off the menu wrong and at twice the price.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

"It’s not about the money. Dan’s got a ton of money,” Cerrato said. “He’ll fight this. I said this when this first started a year ago or whatever, I said the only way I see him eventually changing the name is if — if — he gets a new stadium out of it, downtown, where old RFK was. And he builds a stadium bigger than [Jerry Jones's], which he would do, bigger and better than Jerry’s. He gets a Super Bowl. All that. I said that’s the way that maybe he would change the name."

Wow! That's loyalty.

 

Wow...using both McKenna AND Cerrato to back up your stance lol. I don't think there's a more effective way to devalue your viewpoints than quoting those two idgits.

[Fan since a Fetus]

Wow! That's loyalty.

 

When you post quotes such as that and news, can you please post a link to them so some of us can read more.  I think you have done this a couple of times, maybe I am thinking of someone else.

 

Destino even says that the interview doesn't sound as bad as that quote, which makes me feel misled. 

 

I just spent a few minutes going through the site above that post looking for that quote.  There are a lot of arguments about that site, but I don't really see how that site fits into the name debate.

 

Snyder charging for practice or arriving in a helicopter are not part of the discussion, neither is his behavior.  It is about the name.