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

[elkabong82]

Translation: "I'll still feel the same way regardless of how many NAs say they aren't bothered by the name...because I have built-in rationalizations why I can blow off poll results."

 

He's already stated earlier that he doesn't care about popular opinion. 

 

Apparently he won't address how the name is offensive either.

 

Seems like all that matters to him is that a few are offended and because their ancestors endured terrible things that have nothing to do with a football team, it's enough that he consciously and morally must agree with them, even if the majority of Native Americans disagree. It's ridiculous.

[s0crates]

Ok.  I look forward to your answers in the morning.  I'm out for the night gents.  Work again comes early.

 

Probably time for me to take a break too. 

[Larry]

(Quote edited so I can respond better).

I'll ask point blank:

1). Do you think NAs without phones would have a different opinion on Redskins than NAs with phones?

2). If so, then why do schools on reservations, which are obviously far more traditional, use Redskins as well?

1). I certainly think it's POSSIBLE. Really poor people often have a very different perspective on many topics, than those who aren't.

Whether they do, on this question? I don't know. (And neither do you).

2). First, I'll observe that your two questions sure don't appear to be related, to me.

Although I do think that the naming of said schools certainly serves as an indicator that those particular groups if Natives don't seem to find the name insulting.

How can I know stories like these and oppose Native American groups in good conscience?

By noting that said groups do not represent natives, on this issue?

Paying attention to the people, not to the (often self appointed) politicians?

Just a thought.

[Larry]

and here's another question I have because I honestly don't know.

Are the Natives who are members of these groups...."chosen" by their constituents to "speak" for them? Or are they basically like Native American "fraternities" where the like-minded can join up? it seems most are not "elected," some are "appointed" and others....I don't know?

I will observe that, while certainly many of the "spokespeople" on this issue are self appointed people with a megaphone, there was at least one story posted in this thread where I looked into things, and it certainly seemed like the name was objected to by the legitimate, elected, legislative branch, of a major (meaning, I'd heard of them) tribe.

I think of it as rather equivalent of a Congressional Resolution. Something passed, by people who were legitimately given the power to represent the tribe.

Now, I only saw it once. But once is sufficient to observe that the number of legitimate complaints is not zero.

[elkabong82]

1). I certainly think it's POSSIBLE. Really poor people often have a very different perspective on many topics, than those who aren't.

Whether they do, on this question? I don't know. (And neither do you).

2). First, I'll observe that your two questions sure don't appear to be related, to me.

Although I do think that the naming of said schools certainly serves as an indicator that those particular groups if Natives don't seem to find the name insulting.

 

 

I was relating the two in terms of poverty and not having a phone. socrates was going on and on about reservations not having phones and relating poverty to it. I pointed out that there reservations with 40+% below the poverty line that have schools using Redskins, so his theory was probably and not surprisingly false.

 

If you read my two posts looking into the statistics of poverty, phones, and how it relates to the name change debate and Annenberg poll, #7252 and 7264 on this page (182 in case this goes to next page), I believe I thoroughly trounced the notion that not having a phone or living in poverty would alter the overall poll results in any significant way. 

[ZRagone]

I'll admit to cognitive dissonance over this, that is the reason I repeatedly use the word "uncomfortable."

I'm a lifelong fan, it's not something I can just turn off. But I do think we should change the name. My solution to this tension is to remain a fan and support the change.

You can say that makes me a hypocrite, but I think the charge is unfair. It's like telling somebody they can't be patriotic and want reform at the same time. I may find war morally objectionable, oppose my country's war mongering on moral grounds, and love my country nonetheless.

I wouldn't call you a hypocrite

I would say if you think the name is racist I'd call you a supporter of racism. If you feel it's simply disrespectful to native Americans I'd call you a supporter of disrespect. You can SAY you're against it all you want, your support for the team supports the name through numerous means.

The country analogy is a poor one. One is literally born into being a citizen of a country; while jokingly people are said to be born into fandom, the reality is it is entirely a notion based on choice. One can change fandom in an instant, without cost, paperwork, or time....not so with citizenship. One could seemingly renounce the nfl entirely if they wanted; it's neigh impossible to just stop being a citizen of any country. One has a DIRECT means of influencing a country via voting in representatives; no such influence for change is present on my football team. Comparing disagreement, but support for, a country to the same for a football team is just a incongruent comparison

. What if we were called "blackskins" or "yellowskins"?

Unless you can provide a historical example of either of those terms being a non-offensive designation for the people it represents it is not an accurate analog and attempting to present it as such for the sake of a hypothetical is dishonest and off base

[ZRagone]

I don't know if Annenburg had an agenda, but the poll has serious flaws:

1) It was done by phone (when half the people on the res lack phones).

2) It is 10 [edit] years old, opinions probably have changed.

3) Its method of identifying Native Americans is suspect.

4) It asked a leading question, ending with the phrase "or does it not bother you?"

Many of us are treating it like it was handed to Moses by God himself.

Question. I've heard the quote a few times about half of those on reservations lacking land lines, do you happen to have a link to verify. Not saying it's wrong, just would like to have something to reference

Opinions likely have changed to some degree, but it doesn't change it's the most relevant, recent, scientifically gathered information on the subject. Suggesting it may be dated is reasonable, outright dismissing it and going odd pure anecdotal evidence to the contrary (and wildly to the contrary at that) instead is not.

The method of identifying native Americans is ENTIRELY in line with the method uses for all official records in this country regarding Native American population numbers.

Less leading than ambiguous as to what it means....which is why I typically state that nearly 90% are at least not bothered by it as opposed to saying 90% support it

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

You are denying the indigenous genocide?

Words fail me.

 

(and people wonder why I've picked the side I have)

So if I don't go along with your lie that 9 million deaths were the result of genocide when in reality, 75-90% of the native death toll was caused by the spread of infectious disease, it somehow means I'm also denying that a sizable number of natives died from mistreatment and violence? That's such bullcrap.

[s0crates]

You're a clown, dude. Here's how the conversation went down.

1. You told a lie.

2. I corrected you.

3. You moved the goalposts

4. I reiterated that I was correcting your lie.

5. You move the goalposts again with some hyperbole to boot.

I'm not denying that a sizable number of natives died from mistreatment and violence. You are the one being dishonest by saying that 9 million deaths were the result of genocide when in reality, 75-90% of the native death toll was caused by the spread of infectious disease.

Nobody is denying that the massive depopulation of Native Americans was largely the result of diseases (introduced by Europeans, sometimes purposely) like small pox. It is your inference to "therefore it wasn't genocide," which you are apparently sticking to, that is objectionable.

If I invade an island with 100 inhabitants and 80 die from diseases (which I introduced), then I kill the remaining 20, am I not guilty of wiping them out?

I think you will find most historians agree with my characterization of what happened to the Native Americans as genocide. For example, you might look at David E. Stannard's book American Holocaust.

http://books.google.com/books/about/American_Holocaust.html?id=RzFsODcGjfcC

You might also notice that the Bureau of Indian Affairs admitted to "ethnic cleansing," "destructive efforts to annihilate Indian cultures," and "set[ting] out to destroy all things Indian" in the year 2000.

http://jaie.asu.edu/v39/V39I2A1.pdf

Or you could carry on denying the genocide, it only makes your side look worse.

[s0crates]

Are the Natives who are members of these groups...."chosen" by their constituents to "speak" for them? Or are they basically like Native American "fraternities" where the like-minded can join up? it seems most are not "elected," some are "appointed" and others....I don't know?

Are only "educated" Natives eligible to have an opinion on this matter?

Here is what I'm getting at....the KKK and the Nation of Islam both claim to work on behalf of their respective "races." They know what is "best" for their people.

How many of you who are white and black feel those "groups" speak for you? I know the KKK sure as hell does not speak for me, and believe me when I tell you I am as white as they come.

You're not really comparing the NCAI to the KKK, are you?

[s0crates]

I wouldn't call you a hypocrite

I appreciate it. Somebody did call me that earlier though, hence the comment you're responding to.

I would say if you think the name is racist I'd call you a supporter of racism. If you feel it's simply disrespectful to native Americans I'd call you a supporter of disrespect. You can SAY you're against it all you want, your support for the team supports the name through numerous means.

Maybe you're right. I should probably stop buying tickets and gear until Dan wises up. I recently read an article by a lifelong fan like me who decided to do just that.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4178743/

[s0crates]

Question. I've heard the quote a few times about half of those on reservations lacking land lines, do you happen to have a link to verify. Not saying it's wrong, just would like to have something to reference

This 1995 census document puts the figure at 53%.

http://www.census.gov/prod/1/statbrief/sb95_11.pdf

Things may have improved somewhat since then, as there are some government programs to address electric, phone, and internet access on the reservations.

[Bang]

Wow,, all of that really illustrates how important it is to focus on things like the name of a football team.

 

I wonder how many phones could have been installed with even half the money this movement has spent in the last 30 years of litigation?

(This is probably why most NAs don't give a crap about the name. Most of them who live in such poverty likely recognize that there are real problems that could be improved if given half the energy as has been given to this quest.)

Real problems being ignored to pursue this sort of shows the crusade for what it is.

 

~Bang

[s0crates]

I happen to agree with you about the misplaced priorities Bang. Reservation poverty is a very serious problem, and it would be an improvement if we focused on that.

Somebody on this board has to stand with the dozens of Native American groups though, and if I don't do it, who will?

[Larry]

This 1995 census document puts the figure at 53%.

http://www.census.gov/prod/1/statbrief/sb95_11.pdf

Things may have improved somewhat since then, as there are some government programs to address electric, phone, and internet access on the reservations.

Meaningless. It allowed people to identify themselves as Native. And it's more than 10 years old.

(Do I really need to point out that I'm mocking certain poster's arguments?)

[s0crates]

You're better than that Larry.

[Commander PK]

You're not really comparing the NCAI to the KKK, are you?

Nice try at deflection but you know that isn't what I did.

[Larry]

You're better than that Larry.

Yes. I am.

Numerous other posters, unfortunately, are not.

[Bang]

I happen to agree with you about the misplaced priorities Bang. Reservation poverty is a very serious problem, and it would be an improvement if we focused on that.

i doubt anyone would disagree.

So when Dan Snyder sets up a foundation to address specifically the real problems, Susan Harjo bites his hand.

This frustrates me and leaves a very bad taste when coupled with her absolute steadfast position of completely ignoring anyone, especially the people she speaks for, when they disagree.

 

this is why I stand as firm as I do. This woman is exploiting just like anyone else. She doesn't care about anything but her cause, and while that is a constant among crusaders, when it comes down to ignoring the reality of how little support among her own people, snarling and snapping at actual real help for the actual real problems,l it further makes me question her entire 'movement'.

 

i don't give two ****s what UnWise Mike or Bob Costas or Peter King or you or me or RFK or Larry or PCS or Painkiller thinks is right. We can gas about it, but it is not up to us. If we really want to be respectful we need to listen and then behave accordingly. (Unless you happen to be a Native American,, and not one of those 1/32nd types who likes to pretend there is an actual connection because his great great gramma was 1/4 Souix or whatever...   hell, we're all 1/32 something.)

It's up to them.

And "she" is not them. i am not ignorant of how much organizational support she's gathered in the last two years. it is in my mind as i continue to think about this issue. And even though she's enlisted organizations, I don't know in this day and age if that's "them" either. So many of us belong to organizations that do things we don't agree with or don't care about, especially political action groups. The rank and file like to think they have a real say, but typically when it gets down to the politics of any given organization, they don't. People above them decide what is best for them, and that is generally guided by the perceptions of what a very few think is best for themselves.

(After all, if we will say that because of poverty meaning lack of phones means polls are questionable, then the same goes for how the leadership communicates to the people at all.) 

 

Snyder set up his foundation not on some ham-handed whim PR stunt..  he visited and learned and established something we hope will make a lasting difference.

the spit she flung at him said a lot to me about what she really cares about. Herself.

 

~Bang

[s0crates]

Nice try at deflection but you know that isn't what I did.

 

That's exactly what you did, but I suppose I'll be more charitable to you than you've been to me and interpret you to have meant to challenge the legitimacy of the many tribes and Native American organizations who oppose the name.

 

I suggest that the burden of proof is on the one issuing such a challenge, but I'll get you started with the list:

 

Tribes:

Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians

Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma

Comanche Nation of Oklahoma

The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (Washington)

Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians (Michigan)

Hoh Indian Tribe

Inter Tribal Council of Arizona

Inter-Tribal Council of the Five Civilized Tribes

Juaneño Band of Mission Indians (California)

Little River Band of Ottawa Indians (Michigan)

Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians, Gun Lake Tribe (Michigan)

Menominee Tribe of Indians (Wisconsin)

Oneida Indian Nation (New York)

Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin

Navajo Nation Council

Penobscot Nation

Poarch Band of Creek Indians

Samish Indian Nation (Washington)

Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians (Michigan)

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (Idaho)

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (North Dakota)

The Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation (North Dakota)

United South and Eastern Tribes (USET)

 

Groups:

Advocates for American Indian Children (California)

American Indian Mental Health Association (Minnesota)

American Indian Movement

American Indian Opportunities Industrialization Center of San Bernardino County

American Indian Student Services at the Ohio State University

American Indian High Education Consortium

American Indian College Fund

Americans for Indian Opportunity

Association on American Indian Affairs

Buncombe County Native American Inter-tribal Association (North Carolina)

Capitol Area Indian Resources (Sacramento, CA)

Concerned American Indian Parents (Minnesota)

Council for Indigenous North Americans (University of Southern Maine)

Eagle and Condor Indigenous Peoples’ Alliance

First Peoples Worldwide

Fontana Native American Indian Center, Inc. (California)

Governor’s Interstate Indian Council

Greater Tulsa Area Indian Affairs Commission

Great Lakes Inter-Tribal Council (Wisconsin)

HONOR – Honor Our Neighbors Origins and Rights

Kansas Association for Native American Education

Maryland Commission on Indian Affairs

Medicine Wheel Inter-tribal Association (Louisiana)

Minnesota Indian Education Association

National Congress of American Indians (NCAI)

National Indian Child Welfare Association

National Indian Education Association

National Indian Youth Council

National Native American Law Student Association

Native American Caucus of the California Democratic Party

Native American Finance Officers Association (NAFOA)

Native American Journalists Association

Native American Indian Center of Central Ohio

Native American Journalists Association

Native American Rights Fund (NARF)

Native Voice Network

Nebraska Commission on Indian Affairs

Nottawaseppi Huron Band of Potawatomi (Michigan)

North Carolina Commission of Indian Affairs

North Dakota Indian Education Association

Office of Native American Ministry, Diocese of Grand Rapids (Michigan)

Ohio Center for Native American Affairs

San Bernardino/Riverside Counties Native American Community Council

Seminole Nation of Oklahoma

Society of Indian Psychologists of the Americas

Southern California Indian Center

St. Cloud State University – American Indian Center

Tennessee Chapter of the National Coalition for the Preservation of Indigenous Cultures

Tennessee Commission of Indian Affairs

Tennessee Native Veterans Society

Tulsa Indian Coalition Against Racism

The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation

Unified Coalition for American Indian Concerns, Virginia

The United Indian Nations of Oklahoma

Virginia American Indian Cultural Resource Center

Wisconsin Indian Education Association

WIEA “Indian” Mascot and Logo Taskforce (Wisconsin)

Woodland Indian Community Center-Lansing (Michigan)

Youth “Indian” Mascot and Logo Task force (Wisconsin)

 

Good luck.

[Larry]

90% of Native Americans.

Good luck.

Edit

And just as a courtesy, could you manage to post some links to these tribes and organizations that you claim are saying something? If nothing else, a link to the spin site you're cutting and pasting the claims of?

[Springfield]

The first group you listed as a "tribe" is a non-profit corporation. A CORPORATION.

Tell me again about these tribes that are offended by the name Redskins. Based on your posting history, I didn't take you to be the type that considered corporations to have the same inalienable rights as you know... people.

[s0crates]

i doubt anyone would disagree.

So when Dan Snyder sets up a foundation to address specifically the real problems, Susan Harjo bites his hand.

 

. . . 

 

And "she" is not them. i am not ignorant of how much organizational support she's gathered in the last two years. it is in my mind as i continue to think about this issue. And even though she's enlisted organizations, I don't know in this day and age if that's "them" either. So many of us belong to organizations that do things we don't agree with or don't care about, especially political action groups. The rank and file like to think they have a real say, but typically when it gets down to the politics of any given organization, they don't. People above them decide what is best for them, and that is generally guided by the perceptions of what a very few think is best for themselves.

 

. . . 

 

~Bang

 

[edited for space]

 

Thanks for the thoughtful post Bang, I'm afraid those are few and far between here. I agree with you about a lot of what you are saying.  

 

For one, I agree the OAF is a good thing, and the people who attacked Snyder for it are really misguided.  As you pointed out, you have to think the poverty on the reservations should be a much higher priority than this.

 

I also really appreciate that you are mindful of the amount of support that this issue has gotten from Native American groups.  It seems so many of us are completely dismissive of that. 

[Commander PK]

Socrates, I have not treated you poorly and no I did not make a direct comparison of the KKK to the NCAI. Interesting that is the only group you used and I will not allow you to get away with moving the goal post again.

My point was....and you already know this was anyway was how "legitimate" are many of these groups to speak for "their" race. The fact is many of them do probably speak for Natives in the same way the KKK speaks for whites and The Nation of Islam speaks for AA's. The point being....they don't. Are there some legitimate Native groups among the offended...I'm sure there are. There are also plenty of individual Natives who have spoken out for the name. Tribal leaders who have spoken out for the name.

Also, are you going to answer my questions from last night or not? I would just like to know so I can go ahead and stop expecting a direct answer.

[s0crates]

The first group you listed as a "tribe" is a non-profit corporation. A CORPORATION.

Tell me again about these tribes that are offended by the name Redskins. Based on your posting history, I didn't take you to be the type that considered corporations to have the same inalienable rights as you know... people.

 

It's a non-profit.

 

Here is their constitution:

 

http://atnitribes.org/sites/default/files/Constitution.pdf

Socrates, I have not treated you poorly and no I did not make a direct comparison of the KKK to the NCAI. Interesting that is the only group you used and I will not allow you to get away with moving the goal post again.

My point was....and you already know this was anyway was how "legitimate" are many of these groups to speak for "their" race. The fact is many of them do probably speak for Natives in the same way the KKK speaks for whites and The Nation of Islam speaks for AA's. The point being....they don't. Are there some legitimate Native groups among the offended...I'm sure there are. There are also plenty of individual Natives who have spoken out for the name. Tribal leaders who have spoken out for the name.

Also, are you going to answer my questions from last night or not? I would just like to know so I can go ahead and stop expecting a direct answer.

 

I didn't say you treated me poorly.  I said you haven't treated my arguments charitably (for example, you keep accusing me of "moving the goalposts" whenever the discussion evolves. In this case you are the one who said "these groups," which moved the conversation into the plural).

 

I'm sorry if I'm being harsh, but you have to understand my position in this thread (me against the world).

 

I'll go back and look to see which question you are referring to.