Larry Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 Well now I'm confused. It seems like not a single new person has joined the cause against the name in this thread. I haven't noticed a growing chorus against it on local sports talk radio. And I definitely haven't met a single person in the entire DC area that's against it (and trust me, I get around. And I talk sports with EVERYONE.) But right now on PTI, Wilbon just told me that more and more people in the DC area are coming out against the name Redskins. No way that Wilbon doesn't know what's going on in DC right? Right?Well, he says that the name is offensive, and that's been known to be false for 10 years. (I'm sure he'll change his mind, when he finds out.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 Well, he says that the name is offensive, and that's been known to be false for 10 years. (I'm sure he'll change his mind, when he finds out.) Thinking that the name is offensive is a personal opinion about a divisive social issue. It is not something that can be proven objectively true or not true, or are the people who think so "liars." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grhqofb5 Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 Thinking that the name is offensive is a personal opinion about a divisive social issue. It is not something that can be proven objectively true or not true, or are the people who think so "liars." To dovetail off of this, I'm not really even sure I understand what the term "offensive" means.... If you are offended are you angry? Insulted? Sad? Shocked? Despondent? Irritated? Terminology is important, and in some contexts terms take on alternate meanings, so what are we now talking about when we use the word "offensive?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 Thinking that the name is offensive is a personal opinion about a divisive social issue. It is not something that can be proven objectively true or not true, or are the people who think so "liars." youre right- one cannot really tell someone else they arent 'offended' if the person says they are, but i do have an issue with one thing regarding the name. susan harjo has said that she is offended by the name because -she claims- it comes from the bounty given for native american scalps. the ives goddard paper disproves this- even calling her out by name- "Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia reversed this decision on 30 September 2003, granting summary judgment for Pro-Football, Inc., against Cheyenne-Creek Indian activist Suzan Shown Harjo and others. The court found that “the TTAB’s finding of disparagement is not supported by substantial evidence” and that “the doctrine of laches precludes consideration of the case.”One need not accept Harjo’s unfounded claim that the word redskin “had its origins in the practice of presenting bloody red skins and scalps as proof of Indian kill for bounty payments to accept that many find the word objectionable in current use. But the actual origin of the word is entirely benign and reflects more positive aspects of relations between Indians and whites. It emerged at a specific time in history among a small group of men linked by joint activities that provided the context that brought it forth. Before its documented history can be traced, however, the false history given for it in standard reference books must be expunged." in that case, its understandable to say of susan harjo "you really shouldnt be offended" because shes just wrong about what she thinks the term means. its like someone being mad about something, only to find out they misinterpreted someone, for example, and were wrong about what they thought they heard. here is an article - by a native american, written in a native american publication- that talks about harjo's claims, and the same subject. http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/opinion/redskins-not-so-black-and-white-145172 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lee_scfc_rule Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 I cant believe your media is so wrapped up in this story. Surely you guys have many more issues to talk about? Homelessness, drugs, economy etc Hail To The Redskins! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor703 Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 In my opinion the "Fighting Irish" is far more offensive than any other sports team name yet no one seems to care about that one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 Unpopular opinion alert... I've been an ardent supporter of the Redskin name since I first heard about this issue back in the 1990s. I was introduced to the team as a 5-year old, so obviously the main context to me has always been football. I still have huge issues when people like UnWise Mike feel like telling others what should offend them. But... If and when Native Americans or tribes start protesting and stating that they are indeed offended by the name, then I do agree that Snyder and the NFL should listen. In addition, I feel like fans should be open to listening too. For years, my whole issue with forcing the name change was that it was just an easy topic for writers to use to stir up controversy. In the end, if the opinion within the Native American community turns (currently I believe that the vast majority are still not offended) then we should want to change the name, right? If a group of Nordic Americans (I know that I'm making up a demographic, but go with me here) complained to the league that they hate being generalized as plundering/raping Vikings and they are horribly offended by the term, why wouldn't people listen to that? I guess all I'm saying is that, even as a die-hard fan who can't imagine his NFL team being called something other than the Redskins, if the true victims speak out and articulate why the name is derogatory, I would hope the team, league, and fans would accept a different name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grhqofb5 Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 Unpopular opinion alert... I've been an ardent supporter of the Redskin name since I first heard about this issue back in the 1990s. I was introduced to the team as a 5-year old, so obviously the main context to me has always been football. I still have huge issues when people like UnWise Mike feel like telling others what should offend them. But... If and when Native Americans or tribes start protesting and stating that they are indeed offended by the name, then I do agree that Snyder and the NFL should listen. In addition, I feel like fans should be open to listening too. For years, my whole issue with forcing the name change was that it was just an easy topic for writers to use to stir up controversy. In the end, if the opinion within the Native American community turns (currently I believe that the vast majority are still not offended) then we should want to change the name, right? If a group of Nordic Americans (I know that I'm making up a demographic, but go with me here) complained to the league that they hate being generalized as plundering/raping Vikings and they are horribly offended by the term, why wouldn't people listen to that? I guess all I'm saying is that, even as a die-hard fan who can't imagine his NFL team being called something other than the Redskins, if the true victims speak out and articulate why the name is derogatory, I would hope the team, league, and fans would accept a different name. I sort of understand what you're saying here, but from what I can see the arguments are on the table right now. You can't change history or the origin of a word. If a word becomes offensive over time due to its usage in a new context, that's one thing. If a group of people decide that a word is offensive, over time, when the word not being used to disparage or insult, you have to ask "why the change in opinion now?" What about the usage of the word has changed? To date, nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 Thinking that the name is offensive is a personal opinion about a divisive social issue. It is not something that can be proven objectively true or not true, or are the people who think so "liars." Thinking that the name is offensive to me is a matter of personal opinion. Thinking that it's offensive to some people is correct. (And has been proven.) Thinking that it is offensive (period, without any qualifier as to who you're talking about) is incorrect. And has been proven. If Joe thinks it's offensive, then it is offensive to Joe. And, frankly, nobody else in the world is qualified to even debate whether it's offensive to Joe. But that doesn't mean it's offensive, necessarily, to anybody else. Nor does it entitle Joe to pronounce that it's offensive to anybody else. To be offensive (period), it has to be offensive to a lot more than just to Joe. To dovetail off of this, I'm not really even sure I understand what the term "offensive" means.... If you are offended are you angry? Insulted? Sad? Shocked? Despondent? Irritated? Terminology is important, and in some contexts terms take on alternate meanings, so what are we now talking about when we use the word "offensive?" My opinion is that, if somebody says it's offensive, to them, then it is. Maybe people have the right to attempt to persuade said person to change their mind, as to whether it's offensive or not. (And the person in question has the complete right to change their mind, at any time.) But, IMO, if Person X says that they are (or aren't) offended, then they are the one and only person qualified to make that determination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 I sort of understand what you're saying here, but from what I can see the arguments are on the table right now. You can't change history or the origin of a word. If a word becomes offensive over time due to its usage in a new context, that's one thing. If a group of people decide that a word is offensive, over time, when the word not being used to disparage or insult, you have to ask "why the change in opinion now?" What about the usage of the word has changed? To date, nothing. It's certainly logical and understandable to question it, but in the end, it really doesn't matter why a term offends someone? If a large enough group of people are legitimately offended, who really cares why? Going too deep into justifying the usage of word is getting dangerously close to trying to tell them what should and shouldn't offend them...and that makes us no different than Wise/Wilbon. Thinking that the name is offensive to me is a matter of personal opinion. Thinking that it's offensive to some people is correct. (And has been proven.) Thinking that it is offensive (period, without any qualifier as to who you're talking about) is incorrect. And has been proven. If Joe thinks it's offensive, then it is offensive to Joe. And, frankly, nobody else in the world is qualified to even debate whether it's offensive to Joe. But that doesn't mean it's offensive, necessarily, to anybody else. Nor does it entitle Joe to pronounce that it's offensive to anybody else. To be offensive (period), it has to be offensive to a lot more than just to Joe. My opinion is that, if somebody says it's offensive, to them, then it is. Maybe people have the right to attempt to persuade said person to change their mind, as to whether it's offensive or not. (And the person in question has the complete right to change their mind, at any time.) But, IMO, if Person X says that they are (or aren't) offended, then they are the one and only person qualified to make that determination. I agree with this. That plays into my opinions in here. As it currently stands, I'm comfortable with the name. However, if the majority of Native Americans speak up about being offended by the term, then we can assume they know what they are talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 I sort of understand what you're saying here, but from what I can see the arguments are on the table right now. You can't change history or the origin of a word. If a word becomes offensive over time due to its usage in a new context, that's one thing. If a group of people decide that a word is offensive, over time, when the word not being used to disparage or insult, you have to ask "why the change in opinion now?" What about the usage of the word has changed? To date, nothing. Yeah, I suppose it might be of interest, academically, to ask why people's opinions as to whether something is offensive or not may have changed. But I'd assert that it's purely of academic interest. If a person, or persons, say something is offensive (or not), then why they think so does not in any way change the fact that it is (or isn't.) To spin a hypothetical future: if, 10 years from now, the Media has convinced people to be offended by the name, then the fact that people were manipulated into believing that will not in any way change the fact that the name does offend people. In short, from where I sit, whether people are offended is important to this debate, whereas WHY they feel that way (even if you believe that it's possible to isolate people's feelings to one cause or another) really doesn't matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grhqofb5 Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 Thinking that the name is offensive to me is a matter of personal opinion. Thinking that it's offensive to some people is correct. (And has been proven.) Thinking that it is offensive (period, without any qualifier as to who you're talking about) is incorrect. And has been proven. If Joe thinks it's offensive, then it is offensive to Joe. And, frankly, nobody else in the world is qualified to even debate whether it's offensive to Joe. But that doesn't mean it's offensive, necessarily, to anybody else. Nor does it entitle Joe to pronounce that it's offensive to anybody else. To be offensive (period), it has to be offensive to a lot more than just to Joe. My opinion is that, if somebody says it's offensive, to them, then it is. Maybe people have the right to attempt to persuade said person to change their mind, as to whether it's offensive or not. (And the person in question has the complete right to change their mind, at any time.) But, IMO, if Person X says that they are (or aren't) offended, then they are the one and only person qualified to make that determination. It's certainly logical and understandable to question it, but in the end, it really doesn't matter why a term offends someone? If a large enough group of people are legitimately offended, who really cares why? Going too deep into justifying the usage of word is getting dangerously close to trying to tell them what should and shouldn't offend them...and that makes us no different than Wise/Wilbon. Understanding why a term offends is not the issue, the issue is understanding whether a person is truly offended or whether they are taking a position for other reasons (which can really run the gambit). In my opinion, its highly unlikely that a large enough portion of Native Americans will change their position and become offended in the future. If anything, it will be the general public (non-native American) who will "see the light" or become more vocal. Which is where we're headed, and that's unreasonable. At any rate, if the general public decides it wants to boycott the team, stop buying merchandise, etc., to the point the name change issue becomes a business decision, the decision lays with the owner. And if he changes the name, I'd understand. It would be stupid no to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrypticVillain Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 I have no problem with changing the name if it was offensive to majority of Native Americans and/or the word is offensive. But as of right now, neither are true. And It sucks that over time, people are going to start complaining more and more. You gotta remember, we live in a country where Kim Kardashian became famous for laying on her back. So I can easily seeing people getting manipulated to changing the name of our team. But I don't care if they change it. Until I die, it's going to be HAIL TO THE REDSKINS! I know the true origins of the name. I know it wasn't meant to be malicious, so they will always be the Redskins to me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 Understanding why a term offends is not the issue, the issue is understanding whether a person is truly offended or whether they are taking a position for other reasons (which can really run the gambit). In my opinion, its highly unlikely that a large enough portion of Native Americans will change their position and become offended in the future. If anything, it will be the general public (non-native American) who will "see the light" or become more vocal. Which is where we're headed, and that's unreasonable. At any rate, if the general public decides it wants to boycott the team, stop buying merchandise, etc., to the point the name change issue becomes a business decision, the decision lays with the owner. And if he changes the name, I'd understand. It would be stupid no to. Well, I wouldn't presume to accuse a large group of people of all having alterior motives. Granted that's a possibility, but I think you have to take a man at his word. If a handful of people claim something, it's probably fine to look at them with a raised eye brow. But if 5, 10, 100 years from now entire tribes are telling us that our name offends them, are we really going to dismiss it as lies? At that point, it would feel like we're swimming up stream and grasping at straws to just hold onto a name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huly Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 Ok I have been trying to avoid this topic as much as possible but here it goes. As some of you know I was not raised a Redskin fan. I was just raised to hate dallas. My father was a Baltimore Colts fan, and his family made up the Colt's band. If you go to the HOf in Canton the Colt's Drumhead is my Uncle Vernon. When the Colt's pulled out in the middle of the night my dad no longer had a team so between my dad and my brother it was the universal Hate Dallas and College Go Tigers. Fast forward to 14 years ago I decided to move to the DMV and get married to pez. He was born and raised a Washington Redskin fan who tried to convert me. Before I give my loyalty to any team I watch and listen. I looked up history, watched the fanbase, the team etc. The team met all of my expectations plus some. Arch Rival of Dallas- Check History- Check Amazing Loyal Fanbase- Check Morals through most of the players staff etc- Check Logo- I GET TO SUPPORT MY HERITAGE EVERY SUNDAY Yes you got it. I am mostly Cherokee Indian. My aunt is a member of a tribe. I have spoken to her on a few occasions in refrence to not only my family history but my team. She has never seen anything wrong with the name logo etc. She thinks it is great that I get to live and celebrate my heritage all the time. When some of this drama popped up awhile back I asked her again did she have an issue with this and she told me No. She could find nothing derogatory with the name and it was the tribes doing as they have too much other stuff to worry about compared to dealing with a Football Name. I do not see any of these people who complain how bad our image or name is trying to help the tribes? Are they trying to help fight diabetes or alcoholism etc. That annoys me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooper Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 I think the name change is inevitable. Just a matter of when. Washington Warriors ain't bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 Well, I wouldn't presume to accuse a large group of people of all having alterior motives. Granted that's a possibility, but I think you have to take a man at his word.But how large is the group of people?When you take into account the facts behind this issue- the annenberg poll, the use of redskins as a mascot of Native American high school teams, Walter wetzels involvement in the designing of the mascot, the factual origin of the name and Susan harjos refusing to accept it, instead coming up with her own emotional origin, etc.- one could argue its one explanation that makes the most sense. Here's what may be going on- Native American leaders may look at their situations on reservations and say "this really sucks". And it's the United States fault. It's an emotional issue. Enter someone like harjo who has been going around for years telling everyone the name is "in fact" a slur. Who is going to question her, after all. Now, given that the origin of the name is a provable fact, according to Goddard, and she doesn't accept it, there are two possibilities. One, she knows its true origin, but since scalping and bounties are a better story and someone called a scalp a "redskins" once, she sticks with it to promote empathy with her cause, which is for the govt to provide more help for native Americans. Or, she genuinely believes scalping is the origin of the name despite evidence to the contrary. Not out if the question at all. When emotions are involved, one can make themselves believe anything. Walter wetzel was once the president of the congress of native Americans. We know how he felt about the team. Why is that same organization now opposed to the name? Think about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrypticVillain Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 I do not see any of these people who complain how bad our image or name is trying to help the tribes? Are they trying to help fight diabetes or alcoholism etc. That annoys me. This is my main beef to be honest with you. They have the power to make an impact for Native Americans, and they think they are doing that by challenging a team's nickname. Instead of doing that they should try to help the Native Americans. I am going to throw Snyder a little blame as well. I am pretty sure he can come up with a fund or something to help out some reservations. Instead of arguing about a name, people need to start helping the people who need help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 I was a tutor in a correctional facility years ago. One guy I tutored and developed a friendship with was a guy named Solomon "x". He was a Nation of Islam member. One day, I read a story in the latest edition of the noi paper -the "final call". It was about a black school principal named Mary anigbo. A Washington times newspaper reporter wanted to question her - turns out she was corrupt and handing out govt jobs to family members and such. As the noi paper told it, anigbo was being harrassed by tjis reporter and got arrested unjustly by the police while trying to do her job. The reporter claimed she went ballistic on him and he had to call the cops. When I read the same account in the times, it was pointed out that both arresting officers were black, a fact the noi paper conveniently left out. When I told Solomon about this discrepancy and asked how he felt about it, he smiled and said "anything for the cause". "Redskins" and it being a "slur" is a means to an end. Truth be damned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huly Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 This is my main beef to be honest with you. They have the power to make an impact for Native Americans, and they think they are doing that by challenging a team's nickname. Instead of doing that they should try to help the Native Americans. I am going to throw Snyder a little blame as well. I am pretty sure he can come up with a fund or something to help out some reservations. Instead of arguing about a name, people need to start helping the people who need help. I agree with you 100% Similar to something like FSU & the Seminoles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Always A Commander Never A Captain Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 by the way, american indian is a racist term. No, it's the other way around. Native American is considered more insensitive than American Indian. Look up the famous American Indian activist Russell Means thoughts on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Always A Commander Never A Captain Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 I find this kind of convenient timing for the Oneida Indian Nation to be protesting our name. It gives the O.I.N. in the news for something other than what it was previously. Which was that they got busted by the state of New York for massive tax evasion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artmonkforHOF Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 After seeing this blow up in the media- no doubt thanks to twitter & other social media outlets- I can't sit by idlely anymore. Even though, one of my strongest opinions on the subjet in general is that if you are not part of the group that has a LEGITMATE reason for being offended, then you should just butt out of the arguement. I am not a Native American, so i am not going to follow my own advice and throw in my 2 cents. Firstly, words can have more than one meaning, which is why there are multiple definitions in the dictonary for the same word. Lets look at something that was quite popular 50 years ago: The Flintstones. For those who don't know, the original Flinstones theme music contained the line " We'll have a gay ole' time!" with gay refering to happy. Try even using that phrase today, even if you give people the context and explain exactly what definition of the word you are going to use before you say it, and some people would still be uncomfortable simply because you used the word gay, which still means happy, but is most commonly recognized today as a homophobic slur. Which brings us to the term Redskins. Before this new media storm kicked up, the last time we heard about the skins name being offensive was the last time they where in a Superbowl (anyone else notice how this only becomes an issue when the team starts getting national attention? I digress). Had the issue not been raised at that time, I highly doubt the majority of Americans- and certainly almost all of the non Native American's who have decided to take up this cause- would even be aware that the term Redskin was once used as a racial slur describing native Americans. I think if you did a word association exercise with people and said Redskin, most people would respond with a footbal refernce and not a Native American or racial slur reference. Seriouslly, when was the last time you heard of anyone, either in spoken word, print or other, use the term Redskin as a racial slur? I think the use of that word as a racial slur probably died in the 1940's if not earlier- and I sitll can't find any evidence it was used on a wide scale as a racial slur, I just have been told that and it's sound about right since I know about other color terms for other ethinic groups like using yellow to describe asian. In fact, Redskin might have been a made up word by the teams owner at the time. The where the boston braves (native theme), then started playing the Fenway. Other football teams at the time took names to try an tie into the most popular sport at the time, baseball (which is why there are the Lions in Detroit-similar to Tigers). So the owner wants to tie into a baseball team, and since they are playing in Fenway, home of the Redsox, they changed their name to Redskins to tie into the baseball team and also keep ties with the native theme they had earlier. I have not, ever seen the word Redskin in print used as a racial slur, it might exist but I haven't found it yet and the more I look the more I doubt I will find it. Now, should a word that was (possibly) once used as a racial slur not be used for a teams name? maybe not, but what is the line? If you say any word that has been used at anytime in history as a racial slur should not be used, I can listen to that arguement, but you better go tell the Cowboys to change their name as well. Cowboy was the term first used to describe African American labourer's who worked (sometimes enslaved) on cattle farms. The word Cowboy still means the same thing technically, but also has taken on another meaning, a somewhat endearing image, but at one time it still was a racial slur. Now, no one would say change the Cowboys name even when presented with the evidence that it was a racial slur at one point in time, because the other definition of the word has become so common. My point being, if no one has used Redskin as a slur in a long time, and the word takes on a new meaning in society, then what is the issue? If you really want to go outside the box, the Redskins should be commended for taking a word that was once used as a racail slur and giving it a new, non racial meaing. Now again, I am not a Native American, so I should not be the one to say whether it offends me or not, but how few of people do you need to offend-who actually have a right to be offended- does it take to demand change? One? well, I'll listen to that arguement, but if that is the case then everyone in public who wears too much colonge or perfume should be forced to shower because the overpowering smell offends me. I am not trying to be insensituve, but if we as a society start changing things just because one person or a very small group is offended, then pretty much everyting will need to be renamed, stopped, or monitored for fear of offending someone. I would take the arguement more seriously if A: these groups made their feelings know when the skins are 6-10 or worse; B: so many people who are behind the name change now could not give a rat's ass about Native American rights or issues before this issue came about, it really damages those people's credibility in my eyes (Im looking at you Peter King). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 "Redskins" and it being a "slur" is a means to an end. Truth be damned.8% of Native Americans disagree with you. Now, 8% isn't exactly a majority. But it isn't a trivial number, either. It's not like it's four attorneys, and that's it. Just my opinion, but I think if you want to dispute the results of that poll (either side of the results), then you have to come up with a lot more support than just a blanket declaration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebluefood Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/09/12/redskins-to-face-protests-at-lambeau-field-on-sunday/ I know people think this will go away. It won't. If this team is playing in championship game or superbowl; the chorus will grow louder. I can see the city of D.C. tell Dan take stop using Washington. The chorus will grow until there comes that point when it becomes financially beneficial for Snyder to change it. I'm starting to think the same thing. As I've said before, I think the whole controversy is ridiculous, but this isn't going to go away until we change the name. I'm even starting to wonder if this is a fight worth fighting. I'm sure there's a way we can keep the Native American Motif and even the logo (which I still think is one of the best in sports) and find a name everyone can agree on. It seems like no one can talk about the team without talking about how offensive the nickname is. I think the name change is inevitable. Just a matter of when. Washington Warriors ain't bad. Not bad at all. I've said several times that going back to the original nickname (Braves) would be a pretty good solution as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.