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

[BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93]

That middle paragraph made a damn good point Painkiller

[Larry]

Please at least try to be honest. They are a NON-PROFIT corporation under Oregon law.

Please do not accuse people of dishonesty when all you've got to back it up is capitalizing two words which they, themselves, used.

Again. Could you please provide any support at all for your several-times-repeated claim that all of these organizations have said what you claim they've said?

[Springfield]

It's a non-profit.

Here is their constitution:

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

I said they were a non-profit corporation. The fact that they are non-profit does not automatically qualify their cause as noble or justified. There are many, many non-profits that do nothing more than offer a tax shelter for those getting rich off of it's NP status. I'm not claiming that this specific organization is doing that.

What I am claiming is that this corporation is not an Indian tribe. What I am claiming is that it is a corporation and in my understanding, corporations typically represent a very specific purpose and have limited to no world view.

What I am claiming is that corporations are not people and I don't think their voice should be heard like a real person's should.

[s0crates]

is this a thread about the Genocide of Native Americans?

Socrates, could you answer these few questions for me.

 

Do you believe yes or no that there are Native Americans who support the name Washington Redskins?

 

If you do believe that there are, why do you think that is?  I think I know, but I want you to type it so we can all see precisely what you think.  

 

I think this is the post I was asked specifically to address, as it is the one with leading questions.

 

1. The thread is not about the indigenous genocide in America, but I think we would do well to be a little more sensitive to the history. (I also admit I wanted to see if people's rationalizations would extend so far as to deny or minimize that genocide, which unfortunately some of them did).

 

2. I'm sure there are some Native Americans who support the name.  I saw the code talkers on TV, and I've been reminded plenty of times about the high schools.

 

3. Why do I think they support the name? I suppose it would be better to ask them that, but I imagine some people do consider it a point of pride, or they hate Cowboys.  In fact (as I've mentioned in this thread), I met a Native American who made a joke about the Dallas Cowboys when I wore my Redskins cap.

 

I'm not sure any of this makes the people who are offended less offended.

I said they were a non-profit corporation. The fact that they are non-profit does not automatically qualify their cause as noble or justified. There are many, many non-profits that do nothing more than offer a tax shelter for those getting rich off of it's NP status. I'm not claiming that this specific organization is doing that.

What I am claiming is that this corporation is not an Indian tribe. What I am claiming is that it is a corporation and in my understanding, corporations typically represent a very specific purpose and have limited to no world view.

What I am claiming is that corporations are not people and I don't think their voice should be heard like a real person's should.

 

I agree corporations are not people.

 

Did you happen to read their constitution? It seemed legit to me, but I'll concede that one is invalid for the sake of argument.

 

That's one down, only fifty or so to go.

[Commander PK]

That middle paragraph made a damn good point Painkiller

Thanks man and I think it does make a lot of sense. Every race of people on this planet has self-appointed messiah figures who think it is their job to "save their people"...even sometimes in spite of "their people." Their ideologies have nothing to do with HOW they form other than that provides the basis for their formation.

[Springfield]

I agree corporations are not people.

Did you happen to read their constitution? It seemed legit to me, but I'll concede that one is invalid for the sake of argument.

That's one down, only fifty or so to go.

I don't have the time to look at all of them but the first 3 all look to be NPC's.

I didn't read their constitution, well I started and it lost me. It seems legit though, and I don't disagree with that aspect. I'm sure that there are people giving that group money for some purpose. I just tend to disregard them because of their status and my general disdain for groups of their like in politics.

Perhaps one day I'll go through all of the groups. I doubt it'll change much though. There probably isn't much that will change your opinion as there isn't much that will change mine. I can respect that.

[Commander PK]

I think this is the post I was asked specifically to address, as it is the one with leading questions.

Did you happen to read their constitution? It seemed legit to me, but I'll concede that one is invalid for the sake of argument.

That's one down, only fifty or so to go.

Yes it was. Thank you, but the questions were not leading. I will admit their are Native groups that appear legitimate and are against the name since you have admitted that there are some who are not.

I will point out that even criminal gangs and racial supremacy groups have constitutions and by-laws. They have what amounts to mission statements. That still does not make them a legitimate speaker and authority on what is morally right on behalf of their "race" or people at large.

[Larry]

Still not seeing any support for the claim that all of those tribes object to the name. So decided to do some amateur research.

Pick the second name on socrates' list, "Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma".

Do Google search on "Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma redskins"

The first link I find is a Wiki page for "Washington Redskins name controversy", which, at least at first glance, seems to be the list that's being copied and pasted.

But the good news is, unlike some posters, Wiki actually tries to back up their claims. So I follow the footnote to see where Wiki got this claim that the tribe opposes the name.

I reach the web page of "Change the Mascot", an organization which is dedicated to changing the Redskins name. 
 
So apparently, Wiki says the Cherokee are opposed to the name, because this web page says the Cherokee are opposed. 
 
("Change the Mascot" does not provide any support for their claim that the Cherokee are offended.  They simply claim it.)

So, back to the Google search, looking for confirmation.

I find a link to "cherokeeindians.org". A wordpress blog site which makes no claim to official status whatsoever, and which posted a three-paragraph blog entry opposing the Redskins name, in 2009, and then apparently made no further posts of any kind.  This page, however, claims that the Cherokee Nation has a lawsuit.  Make mental note to follow that up. 
 
And the rest of the first page of my Google search turns up media interviews with individual people who are members of Cherokee Nation.  (Some of whom are opposed to the name, and others of whom support it.) 
 
On to the second page of the Google search. 
 
I find a link to what appears to be the actual web page of the Cherokee Nation.  (Although not the "Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma".)  The search feature on this site tells me that this is the only page on their web site which contains the word "redskin".  The page claims that the Nation is conducting a poll on "whether non-Indian schools should change their mascots and names that are offensive to American Indians". 
 
I observe that this question seems to single out non-native uses of such mascots (double standard, anyone?) and that if flat out specifies mascots and names that are offensive. 
 
I also observe that the poll was supposedly conducted in 2001, that they have chosen not to reveal what the results of the poll were, and that the "Take The Poll!" line does not appear to be a link, any more. 
 
I find a link to this thread. 
 
Third page. 
 
However, after striking out on two pages, I do find this. 
 
A link to a PDF, of a resolution passed by "The Inter-Tribal Council of the Five Civilized Tribes". 
 

(Dang I hate people who post PDFs of documents where the entire page is simply a graphic of a text document, therefore making it impossible to select text from the document.) 

 
I observe that yes, this does certainly appear to be a legitimate, elected body, selected for the purpose of representing said tribes.  (Specifically, the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Chocktaw, Muskogee, and Seminole Nations).  A group which has been officially granted the power to speak for their tribe(s).  (The resolution is apparently signed by the chief of all five of said tribes.) 
 
And I observe that said resolution, calling on the Redskins to change their name, supposedly passed, in 2013, by a vote of 20 to 1. 
 
Yep.  Looks legitimate, to me.

 

(And all it took me was an hour or so of work, to try to dig into a copy-and-paste of a Wiki page, that the poster refuses to actually support, himself.) 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Again. Could you please provide any support at all for your several-times-repeated claim that all of these organizations have said what you claim they've said?

 

I'll do it lol...will take awhile, but what the hell.

 

The first name: The Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians (ATNI)

 

On their website, I couldn't find any mentions of the name change debate. I didn't see a search function on their website so I did one through google. Came up with this:

 

Your search - redskin site:atnitribes.org - did not match any documents.

 

Did a search of "ATNI redskin"...the first result was a resolution they apparently crafted, titled:

 

“URGING FEDEX TO CHANGE THE NAME OF THE WASHINGTON DC PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL TEAM”

 

Ok, outside of the fact that Fedex has no power to change the name of the Washington DC Professional Football Team, there's a bunch of stuff that's whacky about the resolution:

 

1) As stated, Fedex has no power to change the name of the team

2) They end the resolution not by restating for Fedex to change the name of the team (which they can't do anyway), but instead ask Fedex to change the name of the Stadium lol:

"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that ATNI Urges FedEx Corporation to rename the stadium where the Washington DC Professional Football team plays"

That's a head-scratcher.

3) They throw in this wonderful myth as to why they are for the name change:

WHEREAS, the Washington team uses a name that is a racial slur, tracing back to colonial times when colonies, as well as fur and other trading companies, paid bounties on a sliding scale for bloody skins of Native men, women and children, who were traded like animal hides; the only way that the distinctions could be made among the human hides were by bounty hunters producing the whole red skins or the “scalps”, a euphemistic term for the genitalia; and

WHEREAS, the term did not describe actions that honored Indian peoples then and it still connotes racism and genocide today for Native peoples who know this past history and for others who just know that it is wrong to characterize people by the color of their skin, especially for public sport;

4) And just for S&G, they list one "wheras" twice in a row lol...

WHEREAS, we are especially troubled that FedEx continues its marketing partnership with the Washington NFL franchise and its promotion of its dehumanizing name; and

WHEREAS, we are especially troubled that FedEx continues its marketing partnership with the Washington NFL franchise and its promotion of its dehumanizing name; and

Here's the link:

http://www.changethemascot.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/ATNI.pdf

While it definitely appears they are against the name, it also appears (to me, anyway) as if they don't quite know--or quite frankly understand--too many facts in this debate on which to back up their stance. Had the Redskins put out something this messy and flawed it would be all over the news, all over twitter, all over everything, everywhere. But since it's from the side of the offended, it doesn't matter. They are offended and shall be given the utmost respect.

[SoulSkin]

Ha. Silence duly noted. Let it be stricken from the record/

[Larry]

Yeah, there's a lot of things to laugh at, in that one.

However, far as I'm concerned, in they're a legitimate body, which actually has the power or authority to represent natives, then to me, it doesn't really matter if they're ignorant.

(Although it does make me somewhat question their legitimacy. If things are too ignorant or amateurish, it makes me wonder if they're real, or just some web jerk's attempt at a sock puppet).

(I'm also already really suspicious of links to "change the mascot" as proof that something is legit.)

Having said all that, though? I think I'm going to classify thus one as "legit".

[ZRagone]

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

Every time you come on this website you're financially supporting the racist, genocide loving, disrespectful name...every click on this site helps to allow them to generate ad revenue. Every time you talk positively about the team to a friend in any fashion you're giving vocal support for the racist, genocide loving, disrespectful name as you're contributing to an environment encouraging people to spend money on the product by being a fan of the team or to provide financial support by partaking in the viewing of the product.

Assuage your guilt however you'd like, it's impossible to support this team in as a fan in nearly any fashion that doesn't a SOMEHOW positively Impact the team financially, which means it's financially supporting the racist, genocidal loving, disrespectful name...you give lip service against it, but your money and time speak otherwise thanks to your fandom

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.

This is just too laughable, but I guess you'll dismiss it with an egotistical anecdote about how you're better than everyone because you know history or use the Socratic method......you trash the annenberg poll for being 10 years old, and in the same breath use 20 year old data as a means of trashing it

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Yeah, there's a lot of things to laugh at, in that one.

However, far as I'm concerned, in they're a legitimate body, which actually has the power or authority to represent natives, then to me, it doesn't really matter if they're ignorant.

(Although it does make me somewhat question their legitimacy. If things are too ignorant or amateurish, it makes me wonder if they're real, or just some web jerk's attempt at a sock puppet).

(I'm also already really suspicious of links to "change the mascot" as proof that something is legit.)

Having said all that, though? I think I'm going to classify thus one as "legit".

For me, it makes me question the legitimacy of their stance, not their organization. Their resolution reads as if written by someone who just recently decided this was an issue. There's so little thought put into their resolution that it starts to de-legitimize what they have to say. If you read some of their write-ups on other NA issues, it sounds coherent and knowledgeable. Their resolution on the name change, though, is laughable. If you come across as not understanding the issues at play, then it weakens your voice.

[Larry]

If you come across as not understanding the issues at play, then it weakens your voice.

(Forwards this post to Redskins PR department).

[Zguy28]

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

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

What about "paleface"? It used to be a term that NA's would use to describe Europeans. Would you call a team the Washington Palefaces? I'm honestly curious.

[Larry]

What about "paleface"? It used to be a term that NA's would use to describe Europeans. Would you call a team the Washington Palefaces? I'm honestly curious.

 

Was it?  Or was that just in 50s TV shows? 

[Zguy28]

Was it?  Or was that just in 50s TV shows? 

Well, the term was used at least in 1939 in the essay "Paleface and Redskin" by Phillip Rahv.

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/20/paleface-v-redskin/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

[ZRagone]

What about "paleface"? It used to be a term that NA's would use to describe Europeans. Would you call a team the Washington Palefaces? I'm honestly curious.

I wouldn't particularly have an issue with it, but it's still a dishonest analogy to redskin as it was a terminology created by another people for Europeans, where as redskin was a terminology created to reference native Americans by native Americans

Now if you're asking would I name a team that today? No. I wouldn't name a new team today the redskins either. Or the browns. Or the Yankees. Or the celtics. Or the braves. Or the packers. Or devils. Or pretty much anything that would possibly controversial in our stupidly politically correct society, because if I was starting a team it'd be about making money and without tradition it's less likely that people will look at reality behind the name as opposed to the politically correct bs that would be said or made hay out of.

[elkabong82]

You're better than that Larry.

 

He's absolutely right. You call into question the Annenberg poll because it relied on self-identification and because of it's age, yet you accept the Census data when it has those exact same issues. 

 

And again, since you keep ignoring the stats, reservations account for just 22% of all NAs, and half of them in 1995 (likely more than that 9 years later when the poll was done) had phone service, so you're talking about 11% of NAs.

 

I have provided data and links, which you conveniently ignored twice now, that shows telephones were out to about 3/4 of NAs not too long before the Annenberg poll was conducted. 90% of them are not offended by the name, so odds are HEAVILY in favor that the remaining 25% fall close to that number as well. Even if half of all those without phones said they were offended (which would be a major anomaly), you'd still have 80% total not offended.

 

Plus, Annenberg poll showed that the lower the education level, the less likely an NA was to be offended by the name, so again if you're trying to connect no phones with poverty, education connects as well and so it's far more likely those in poverty are not offended. This is why I pointed out some of the NA schools that use Redskins are on reservations with 40+% below poverty line.

 

Your questions against the poll are bogus, but it would be nice if you applied your standards to the polls and data you are citing, rather than just the one you disagree with.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

(Forwards this post to Redskins PR department).

The Skins' PR department understands the team's side in the discussion, even if they flub up the PR aspects from time to time. From reading that resolution, though, the ATNI doesn't even understand its OWN side in all this lol...

[RedskinsFan44]

WHEREAS, the Washington team uses a name that is a racial slur, tracing back to colonial times when colonies, as well as fur and other trading companies, paid bounties on a sliding scale for bloody skins of Native men, women and children, who were traded like animal hides; the only way that the distinctions could be made among the human hides were by bounty hunters producing the whole red skins or the “scalps”, a euphemistic term for the genitalia; and

This reads like Harjo's writing.  What percentage of people who oppose the name vehemently believe this stuff?  I see a lot of it in comments on the issue.

 

Add:  I like to use this article when refuting the scalps explanation, as it is written by a NA in a publication that has taken a stance against the name.

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2012/11/13/redskins-not-so-black-and-white

[Bang]

As a paleface, i don't care if anyone wants to call me a paleface.

People call me "white boy" all the time. 

I've been known by the color of my hair all my life. All us redheads have. We're redheads, gingers, "red on the head like a dick on a dog"..  lots of construction guys liked that one when i was in the trades. And it was OK, because then i could jab back and we'd have some fun. It didn't mean anything. I find that people of all races when they work close together can joke around pretty good with each other if the personalities are right. 

 

But if everyone had black hair, I would imagine moving to the next major physical characteristic to describe a person should not be unexpected. 

 

In history there have been whole nations of people who wanted to kill people like me because our noses look a little big, etc.There still are. (even though i practice nothing and neither did my grandfather, which side comes the name "feldman" which belonged to my mother,,, I am barely jewish by  distant blood, but  that's enough for those  folks who view such things.)

 

I've had people call me 'jew boy" plenty.. mostly by my oldest friends,, you know, the ones for with which nothing is sacred save maybe one guy's mom. i've also had people look me right in my nose and say "Ah, he jewed him down a few bucks." when talking. It doesn't even occur to them.

Those are the ones that bug me, but truth is, it really doesn't matter much to me. I guess having red hair set me up for it,, since i've been known by it all my life. If i was in a group and someone needed to point me out, I have the red hair.

At the same time, there ARE people out there who do hate regardless. But i haven't really had any problem with any of them beyond reading about what assholes they are somewhere up in Idaho.

 

Point is for every word that differentiates us, there are some will use it hatefully, and there are some who will use it and be perfectly innocent and not mean a single bit of disrespect. Even the awful big bad N word. Black friends call each other the N word all the time. And so do the people who hate them. Gay guys call each other fags. People who beat gay people up call them fags too.

 

In the past it's no wonder there are multiple histories of the usage of the word redskin.

 

But now all it means is professional football team that is going to win the Super Bowl in 2015!

 

~Hail!

[planter]

"Attorney General Eric Holder is among those who believe the Washington Redskins football team should change its name, he said during an interview Sunday with ABC News."

[planter]

Hi friendly fans,

https://www.google.com/url?rct=j&sa=t&url=http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20140712/PC20/140719718&ct=ga&cd=CAEYAioUMTcxMTY5NTM1MzEzODQyNjI4ODgyGjRjMTM4YzMxMGYyOTExYjM6Y29tOmVuOlVT&usg=AFQjCNHDxEnAcvBTdo8z8XkcJi0nQl67QA

https://www.google.com/url?rct=j&sa=t&url=http://www.tulsaworld.com/dailybreak/a-litmus-test-for-those-who-still-support-the-redskins/article_543f0207-bbb8-524c-abef-035455a15368.html&ct=ga&cd=CAEYAyoUMTcxMTY5NTM1MzEzODQyNjI4ODgyGjRjMTM4YzMxMGYyOTExYjM6Y29tOmVuOlVT&usg=AFQjCNEK9ByrF_JjhKCtdG3a2GBkCjJFvQ

[Larry]

Hi friendly fans,

https://www.google.com/url?rct=j&sa=t&url=http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20140712/PC20/140719718&ct=ga&cd=CAEYAioUMTcxMTY5NTM1MzEzODQyNjI4ODgyGjRjMTM4YzMxMGYyOTExYjM6Y29tOmVuOlVT&usg=AFQjCNHDxEnAcvBTdo8z8XkcJi0nQl67QA

Wondering why (and how, frankly) you chose to provide links to Google, so that Google can het a "hit" from redirecting people to the actual sites. But I guess that's not important.

I observe the author's completely nonsensical assertion that the name "Redskins" is offensive, by claiming (completely without support) that:

 

There is an educational component to the Washington Redskins, beyond the Super Bowl greatness of the Joe Gibbs era: Kids following the team get indoctrinated into America's long history of passive racism toward Native Americans.

 

 

while then asserting, in the next paragraph, that . . .

 

Tribe nicknames, on the other hand, can promote interest and curiosity. Outside of their geographic bases, where else do you hear about the Seminoles and Utes if they aren't participating in a televised athletic event?

 

Every single thing he says, about both "Redskins" and "Seminoles" is equally true of both. 

 

He hasn't pointed out a difference.  He's pointed out that he can pick and choose which things he wants to associate with one, or the other. 

 

(He does, however, later point out a difference which actually is a difference.  That one name is "used under license", so to speak.) 

 

----------

 

And, the point which he leads off with (in a rather convoluted way) is valid.  That a chief of a Native tribe has a problem with the name. 

 

https://www.google.com/url?rct=j&sa=t&url=http://www.tulsaworld.com/dailybreak/a-litmus-test-for-those-who-still-support-the-redskins/article_543f0207-bbb8-524c-abef-035455a15368.html&ct=ga&cd=CAEYAyoUMTcxMTY5NTM1MzEzODQyNjI4ODgyGjRjMTM4YzMxMGYyOTExYjM6Y29tOmVuOlVT&usg=AFQjCNEK9ByrF_JjhKCtdG3a2GBkCjJFvQ

 

 

Oh, look.  Another really clever person who is trying to say that the sentence "The Redskins beat the Cowboys, yesterday." is offensive, through use of the the "Well, if you take that sentence, take the word "Redskins" out of it, transport it to a different setting and a different context and a different person, and use it in an intentionally offensive way, then it's offensive over there." method. 

 

What's it been, almost two weeks since the last time somebody tried to resurrect that corpse?