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

[Califan007 The Constipated]

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

 

Yet another incredibly detailed research of how "red" became an identifier for NAs that will never be read, brought up or mentioned in any way in the media...meanwhile, "Redskin meant Indian scalp" will get continually repeated both in the media and among casual protesters as an undeniable reason for changing the name.

 

I have about 40 articles and studies bookmarked that give intelligent, reasoned analysis why "redskin" should not just blanketly be labeled as racist...and practically nothing in them ever gets mentioned by sports media (or media in general). This article gets bookmarked as well.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

That's one of the tactics used in this whole debate: portray the owner who came up with the name, and the current owner who refuses to change the name, in the most negative light as possible regardless of whether or not it has anything whatsoever to do with whether "Redskins" should be seen as an offensive racial slur.

[Dan T.]

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.

 

To refute this, I'll quote Sly and the Family Stone:

 

There is a yellow one

That won't accept the black one

That won't accept the red one

That won't accept the white one

Different strokes

For different folks

 

 

Also, the link in the post two down from yours refutes your assertion as well.

 

[RFKFedEx]

Imo, there's too much usage of the terms 'offense' and 'offended' from the defense. The issue is not as simple as 'offended or not'.

[grego]

Imo, there's too much usage of the terms 'offense' and 'offended' from the defense. The issue is not as simple as 'offended or not'.

 

 

can you elaborate?

[Larry]

Imo, there's too much usage of the terms 'offense' and 'offended' from the defense. The issue is not as simple as 'offended or not'.

Whereas, to me, that's the only criteria.

If people are offended, and you know it, and you keep doing it anyway, then yeah, you're offending them intentionally.

To me, all these arguments about where the word came from and whether Deitz knew he wasn't native and whether it refers to skin or paint really aren't important. (Well, other than the academic desire, when people claim untrue things about them, to point out that said claim is untrue.)

I'll say flat out (and have, in this thread, for what seems like years) that, if the term offends a significant percentage of natives, then I want to change it. (And I don't even demand that it must offend a majority.)

[Bang]

Imo, there's too much usage of the terms 'offense' and 'offended' from the defense. The issue is not as simple as 'offended or not'.

Yes it is.

 

But, please, if native people tell you they are not offended, explain to them how they're wrong and why they should be, and how it's not so simple as they think.

After all, how else would they know? 

 

~Bang

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Whereas, to me, that's the only criteria.

If people are offended, and you know it, and you keep doing it anyway, then yeah, you're offending them intentionally.

To me, all these arguments about where the word came from and whether Deitz knew he wasn't native and whether it refers to skin or paint really aren't important. (Well, other than the academic desire, when people claim untrue things about them, to point out that said claim is untrue.)

I'll say flat out (and have, in this thread, for what seems like years) that, if the term offends a significant percentage of natives, then I want to change it. (And I don't even demand that it must offend a majority.)

 

What's "significant percentage", and how do we determine what the actual percentage is in a reliable manner?

 

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board applied laughable logic to determine if a "significant percentage" was offended by the term (which the dissenting opinion pointed out). From a WP article on that matter:

 

This standard isn’t concerned with how widely offensive a trademark may be now, or with how the general population or even a majority of the group in question views it. It didn’t matter to the patent office that polls show substantial majorities of the public and the Native American community do not find the name offensive. A 2004 Annenberg Public Policy Center poll found that 90 percent of Native Americans said the name didn’t bother them. Instead, the board focused on a 1993 resolution adopted by the National Congress of American Indians denouncing the name. The board simply extrapolated that, since the National Congress represented about 30 percent of Native Americans, one out of every three Native Americans found it offensive. “Thirty percent is without doubt a substantial composite,” the board wrote.

 

[...]The patent office opinion also seems to leave the future of trademarks largely dependent on whether groups file challenges. Currently trademarked slogans such as “Uppity Negro” and “You Can’t Make A Housewife Out Of A Whore” could lose their protections, despite the social and political meaning they hold for their creators....

 

 

The Anti-Redskin side realizes that "We're offended" is most definitely not enough. That's why even they have an expert linguist to present "objective" reasoning and evidence in court to why 'redskin' was, is and should be seen as a racial slur. That's why they started and continue to repeat the bogus story about Redskin=Indian scalp. That's why GPM's racist views are trumpeted as often as possible, and why Snyder's every ill-conceived move is harped on, regardless of whether or not either has anything to do with "redskin" being a racial slur. Because "We're offended" is not, and should not, be enough. You have to explain why you are if you are making your being offended trump another's civil rights.

[Larry]

What's "significant percentage", and how do we determine what the actual percentage is in a reliable manner?

Uh, I've been known to express support for the notion that the best way to find out if people are offended, is to ask them.

No, I don't have a precise number.

But I'm pretty certain that 9% isn't it. .

OTOH, I often pose the hypothetical, if, say, the percent offended has doubled? Yeah, I'm not sure that's enough, but it sure is something to notice.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Uh, I've been known to express support for the notion that the best way to find out if people are offended, is to ask them.

 

 

"You agree with your tribe elders that 'redskin' is offensive, correct?"...That's one way to ask lol.

[Larry]

"You agree with your tribe elders that 'redskin' is offensive, correct?"...That's one way to ask lol.

You actually have a point that you're willing to make?

[RFKFedEx]

can you elaborate?

One can gain awareness of the situation, and thus form an opinion without taking offense, or no offense. There's middle ground in there. Not taking offense, or indifference isn't the same as outright approval and support. 

[Bang]

One can gain awareness of the situation, and thus form an opinion without taking offense, or no offense. There's middle ground in there. Not taking offense, or indifference isn't the same as outright approval and support. 

What if you decide to remain unaware of the part of the situation that says decisively that the vast majority of these folks are not offended?

if the people who are supposedly offended say that they do not think it is inappropriate, why does this not factor into your opinion over whether it is or not? 

 

at the crux of this is the Native American perspective. 

At the crux of your statement is that your opinion is based on awareness of the situation.

But to be truly aware, you must couch your perspective to match the desire of the majority of those people. What they say matters, and you can't ignore that key information when being aware of the situation. 

In fact that IS the situation.

choosing to listen to your own conscience and it's perspective over their actual opinion isn't really being fair to the situation. You seem to view this from the human angle, and i can respect that,, but if you're worried over offending people then whether they are actually offended should matter.

 

~Bang

[skins2victory]

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?

 

 

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

 

 

Neither of you get what I am saying.  I am asking why was the color RED chosen to represent the NA's.  They didn't call them purple men, or blue men, but they called them RED men, why? It even says it right there in the reference you made.  Pg. 626.  Red from the white man to the redskin.  The white man originally named the NA's red.  Then after that, the NA's referred to themselves as RED.  A little further down is says..... "HOW LINNAEUS ARRIVED AT RED REMAINS A SMALL MYSTERY.  HE MAY HAVE HEARD OF RED PAINTED INDIANS".  Right there written in the reference you provided for me.  It says that it is a mystery how the color red was chosen, and that it may have been paint.  Again, if you use your common scene, the fact that they painted themselves in red would be a pretty logical theory on how the color red was chosen.

[RedskinsFan44]

Neither of you get what I am saying.  I am asking why was the color RED chosen to represent the NA's.  They didn't call them purple men, or blue men, but they called them RED men, why? It even says it right there in the reference you made.  Pg. 626.  Red from the white man to the redskin.  The white man originally named the NA's red.  Then after that, the NA's referred to themselves as RED.  A little further down is says..... "HOW LINNAEUS ARRIVED AT RED REMAINS A SMALL MYSTERY.  HE MAY HAVE HEARD OF RED PAINTED INDIANS".  Right there written in the reference you provided for me.  It says that it is a mystery how the color red was chosen, and that it may have been paint.  Again, if you use your common scene, the fact that they painted themselves in red would be a pretty logical theory on how the color red was chosen.

On page 627 there is reference to NAs referring to themselves as red before Linnaeus.  I'm not disputing the use of red paint as a possible reason, but it came from the NAs.

[Bang]

Even Susan Harjo refers to herself as "red".

Unless her "Red Talk" radio program was really a show about what color to paint your barn... and it was a coincidence that it just happened to talk about native american issues 100% of the time.

 

But i doubt it was, and i very much doubt she called it that because whites did.

 

~bang

[skins2victory]

Even Susan Harjo refers to herself as "red".

Unless her "Red Talk" radio program was really a show about what color to paint your barn... and it was a coincidence that it just happened to talk about native american issues 100% of the time.

 

But i doubt it was, and i very much doubt she called it that because whites did.

 

~bang

 

I have never said that NA's don't or haven't referred to themselves as "red".  I agree with you, they did, and some still do.  I have been asking the question of why was the color "red" chosen to represent NA's.  I believe it was because of red war paint.  It says in that last reference, (which by the way everyone is saying is the most factual evidence on the topic) that the reason for the color red is a small mystery, but that it may have been because of red paint. 

[Zguy28]

Yes it is.

 

But, please, if native people tell you they are not offended, explain to them how they're wrong and why they should be, and how it's not so simple as they think.

After all, how else would they know? 

 

~Bang

What do you do when they come to you and tell you they are offended, and ask you why you are not? In person.

Even Susan Harjo refers to herself as "red".

Unless her "Red Talk" radio program was really a show about what color to paint your barn... and it was a coincidence that it just happened to talk about native american issues 100% of the time.

 

But i doubt it was, and i very much doubt she called it that because whites did.

 

~bang

And Michael Strahan can use the N word to Jimmy Johnson on Fox NFL and not get in trouble. I think we all know how that stuff works.

[Bang]

What do you do when they come to you and tell you they are offended, and ask you why you are not? In person.

And Michael Strahan can use the N word to Jimmy Johnson on Fox NFL and not get in trouble. I think we all know how that stuff works.

When "they" come to ask me, I'll let you know.

If an individual asked me, i'd say the same thing i say in here.

Take a poll. Let's find out. It's not my decision. 'm neither offended or not offended. 

I am much more offended by people being steamrolled over this than i am over the name.

 

 

As far as the double standard argument goes, I don't buy it. It's apples and oranges in this context..  Strahan using a somewhat acceptable (or regularly used at least) term from his culture is one thing (even if he got away with it on TV where it's a no-no regardless).

Now if you heard a black civil leader referring to himself that way, then it would equate. I doubt very much you'd hear Julian Bond refer to himself as the N word unless he was being very derisive, wouldn't you think? But I think Julian Bond will definitely talk about "black" issues and refer to himself as a black man.

 

I wasn't really calling Harjo a hypocrite or anything, I am just saying it's an acceptable self-reference from her culture, and it wasn't assigned to her by another race.

 

~Bang

[Commander PK]

When "they" come to ask me, I'll let you know.

If an individual asked me, i'd say the same thing i say in here.

Take a poll. Let's find out. It's not my decision. 'm neither offended or not offended. 

I am much more offended by people being steamrolled over this than i am over the name.

 

~Bang

 

Pretty much this.  Have the Annenberg Institute Run another poll on the subject.  Poll only Native Americans.  I expect the results will have changed between 5% and 10% since 2004.  Which would mean 80% or more still support the name.  

 

Do it.

 

I triple dog dare you. 

[Bang]

And if they did and a significant number came back as yes, I'd change my tune in a heartbeat.

 

I don't know the number, but let's ballpark around 30 to 35% would really make me notice.

 

~Bang

[RedskinsFan44]

I have never said that NA's don't or haven't referred to themselves as "red".  I agree with you, they did, and some still do.  I have been asking the question of why was the color "red" chosen to represent NA's.  I believe it was because of red war paint.  It says in that last reference, (which by the way everyone is saying is the most factual evidence on the topic) that the reason for the color red is a small mystery, but that it may have been because of red paint.

I would say the article backs up that position as a possible reason, or at least they identified with the color red which is why they (some tribes) would paint themselves that way . It definitely backs the assertion that the Europeans did not originally identify NAs skin color as red. I thought the article was well written and interesting, I was not presenting it as a definitive source, just a source that explored a question in a more intellectual way than the tripe Esquire published in which a guy says Redskins equals scalps because his Grandma told him it did.

[Zguy28]

Pretty much this.  Have the Annenberg Institute Run another poll on the subject.  Poll only Native Americans.  I expect the results will have changed between 5% and 10% since 2004.  Which would mean 80% or more still support the name.  

 

Do it.

 

I triple dog dare you. 

Are you talking about the 90% poll that surveyed 768 people (out of 3 million NA's)?

 

As much as I do not like Harjo, I have to agree with what she said about that poll.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/08/how-many-native-americans-think-redskins-is-a-slur/

In 2004, the National Annenberg Election Survey asked 768 people who identified themselves as Indian whether they found the name “Washington Redskins” offensive. Almost 90 percent said it did not bother them.

But the Indian activist Suzan Shown Harjo, who has filed a lawsuit seeking to strip the “Redskins” trademark from the football team, said the poll neglected to ask some crucial questions.

“Are you a tribal person? What is your nation? What is your tribe? Would you say you are culturally or socially or politically native?” Harjo asked. Those without such connections cannot represent native opinions, she said.

 

[MassSkinsFan]

Are you talking about the 90% poll that surveyed 768 people (out of 3 million NA's)?

 

As much as I do not like Harjo, I have to agree with what she said about that poll.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/08/how-many-native-americans-think-redskins-is-a-slur/

 

That quote you included from Harjo is yet another can of worms similar to the "real fan" debates that pop up here from time to time: "are you a REAL NA?" What if a poll is conducted showing 90% support - do you expect the provenance of a vast majority of respondents will be questioned on that basis? I do.

 

I'm not NA and I'm by no means an expert, but I grew up in the next town over from the St. Regis Mohawk (Akwesasne) reservation and had a front row seat for ongoing struggles between elected and traditional councils as well as the differing jurisdictional roles (one Indian territory, two Canadian provinces, one US state, several sub-units within the Mohawk Nation, etc., etc). The kind of language Harjo uses in that quote was often used during those disputes, as one side tried to "out-Indian" the other.

 

This is just one more compliacting matter around the whole discussion - if I believe I'm even 1/16th NA, should my opinion count? What percentage NA do I need to be? Do you take my word for it or require DNA testing? What if I'm not active in tribal affairs? It's kind of a nightmare isn't it?

[MassSkinsFan]

LOL. I came here to post this but got sidetracked catching up on the last few days of posts...

 

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/07/09/san-francisco-giants-may-ban-culturally-insensitive-attire-at-att-park/

 

Pretty soon anyone leaving their house will have to wear their officially sanctioned non-offensive wear OR ELSE!!!

[MattFancy]

LOL. I came here to post this but got sidetracked catching up on the last few days of posts...

 

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/07/09/san-francisco-giants-may-ban-culturally-insensitive-attire-at-att-park/

 

Pretty soon anyone leaving their house will have to wear their officially sanctioned non-offensive wear OR ELSE!!!

 

That doesn't sound like it's going to end well. Who determines what is "culturally insenstive" or not?