Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

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


Recommended Posts

I've been trying to wait for somebody in the thread to discuss it since I first saw it this morning, but nobody has mentioned it yet...

 

But did we really get caught trying to bribe a tribe to build a skateboard park? If so, that would be another PR goof....


I first saw it on some funny looking site, but now it's being reported everywhere...

 

http://www.wtop.com/363/3665083/Arizona-Native-American-says-Redskins-offered-a-bribe

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been trying to wait for somebody in the thread to discuss it since I first saw it this morning, but nobody has mentioned it yet...

 

But did we really get caught trying to bribe a tribe to build a skateboard park? If so, that would be another PR goof....

I first saw it on some funny looking site, but now it's being reported everywhere...

 

http://www.wtop.com/363/3665083/Arizona-Native-American-says-Redskins-offered-a-bribe

I don't know. This smells too much of "Oh yeah, please come out and help us!" And then when OAF responds positively they run to the papers yelling "Look at the baddies, they just tried to bribe us for support!"

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Red Mesa Redskins is also on a Navajo reservation. Wherein lies the problem with this argument.

 

Nah.  They've got it covered.  They only object if it's used by professional teams. 

 

See, the word is offensive, some times, but not others. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah.  They've got it covered.  They only object if it's used by professional teams. 

 

See, the word is offensive, some times, but not others. 

 

At this point, is there anyone who could complain about the name and have credibility?

 

The media members are all opportunists.

The bloggers are morons.

The Navajo Nation are hypocrites.

What's his name - the casino guy - is scummy.

That lady...we just don't like her at all.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

At this point, is there anyone who could complain about the name and have credibility?

 

The media members are all opportunists.

The bloggers are morons.

The Navajo Nation are hypocrites.

What's his name - the casino guy - is scummy.

That lady...we just don't like her at all.

 

Somebody who actually says something that they, themselves, aren't violating? 

 

But more seriously, I assume there are lots of people on the "change" side who aren't hypocrites.  Thousands, probably. 

 

And, frankly, I'm not certain that "well, it's OK if one of my people says it, but it's not OK when you do" makes somebody a hypocrite. 

 

Although I certainly do have a problem with being told that well, context is important in this issue, except when I'm trying to take the word "Redskins" out of the context we're discussing, and transplant it into a different context, and then claim that if it's offensive, there, then it's offensive here, because context doesn't matter

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah.  They've got it covered.  They only object if it's used by professional teams. 

 

See, the word is offensive, some times, but not others. 

 

That's the thing. This argument is such a media creation. With all the idiot, talking heads jumping on the ill-informed, emotional bandwagon.

 

The name-change crowd completely ignores the side of the argument--and I am talking about the Native side of the argument--that likes the name and thinks it is a source of pride...

Edited by Riggo#44
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been trying to wait for somebody in the thread to discuss it since I first saw it this morning, but nobody has mentioned it yet...

 

But did we really get caught trying to bribe a tribe to build a skateboard park? If so, that would be another PR goof....

I first saw it on some funny looking site, but now it's being reported everywhere...

 

http://www.wtop.com/363/3665083/Arizona-Native-American-says-Redskins-offered-a-bribe

 

No, and if you believe that I have bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

 

Some NAs are opposed to the name, so at some point someone was going to turn down the charity.

 

And that's what it was, charity. Calling it a bribe despite the team saying that there were no requirements to support the name or publicize the charitable act, reeks of agenda. The guy who turned it down said the team just wanted to use them for PR, but the team has yet to use any of the charity as PR. Then you'll notice that another group is helping the skate park out, the Eradication of Offensive Native Mascotry group, who's overall goal is removing NA themes from sports. 

 

In the end, the one's who suffer are the kids, all because someone couldn't put aside their own agenda. 

 

Seriously, how can you call something a bribe when the one offering aid is a charity that requires no endorsement and has been using its acts for PR? It's a BS allegation from someone who clearly has an agenda against the team.

Edited by elkabong82
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

That skatepark thing was in USA Today yesterday. At least they briefly mentioned this:

 

"We are very proud of the more than 145 projects in partnership with 40 tribes that we have worked on and will continue to do what we can for those in need. We will maintain our foundation's policy of not disclosing our private conversations with tribal leaders."

 

Essentially it's the same article that mlskins linked to.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2014/07/17/washington-nfl-team-indian-tribe-skate-park/12793281/

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Although I certainly do have a problem with being told that well, context is important in this issue, except when I'm trying to take the word "Redskins" out of the context we're discussing, and transplant it into a different context, and then claim that if it's offensive, there, then it's offensive here, because context doesn't matter

 

Well, you are doing a triple back flip to make the argument that "Redskins is either a derogatory name for Native Americans or a name of football team that loves Native Americans and will build them skate parks to prove it."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you are doing a triple back flip to make the argument that "Redskins is either a derogatory name for Native Americans or a name of football team that loves Native Americans and will build them skate parks to prove it."

 

Could you post some video of me doing this triple back flip?  Cause I don't even remember doing it.  Must be getting old. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you are doing a triple back flip to make the argument that "Redskins is either a derogatory name for Native Americans or a name of football team that loves Native Americans and will build them skate parks to prove it."

 

 

you want some mustard with that pretzel logic? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you post some video of me doing this triple back flip?  Cause I don't even remember doing it.  Must be getting old. 

 

Oh, Larry. No one does the "I did not specifically say that ridiculously thing you just said so you are a bad bad man defense" better than you. Since I like saying ridiculous things, it makes it hard when we are on opposite sides of the table. Or maybe sitting at adjoining sides of the table. And sharing the bread basket. This basil butter is terrible by the way.

 

What context are you trying to put Redskins in other than "Football team that plays in the Maryland Suburbs and occasionally buys skate parks?"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, Larry. No one does the "I did not specifically say that ridiculously thing you just said so you are a bad bad man defense" better than you.

It's possible I'm misreading you.

Is there some way I can interpret this as something other than "I know full well that you never said anything similar to the things I claimed you said. But I'm not going to apologize. And I'm not going to just let the thing drop, and move on, either. I'm going to come back and attack you a second time, for pointing out that I made up things you didn't say, by making up more things you didn't say"?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it more or less lies in the same place as the "well African-Americans use the N-word themselves" argument... that is mainly with white people. Whether we agree or not is largely irrelevant in the larger scale of it all.

Mind you, there to my knowledge has never been a school whose mascot was the n words. As to the R word, there are twenty schools on reservations (ie native controlled land) that do call themselves and chose to call themselves the Redskins.

That must speak to the weight of the word comparatively. No segregated black school chose that name to identify themselves, no historically black college, no fraternity, organization, etc.

That means something.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Mind you, there to my knowledge has never been a school whose mascot was the n words. As to the R word, there are twenty schools on reservations (ie native controlled land) that do call themselves and chose to call themselves the Redskins.

That must speak to the weight of the word comparatively. No segregated black school chose that name to identify themselves, no historically black college, no fraternity, organization, etc.

That means something.

I think it's a valid response to the "Redskins is the same as the n-word" "logic".

When somebody is trying to assert that A=B, then demonstrating so much as a single difference between the two is sufficient to disprove the assertion.

(Now, if someone wants to assert that "A is similar to B", that's another matter.)

 

If, however, someone wants to try to assert that "They call themselves that, and this proves that it's OK is I do, too?" 

 

I don't think that reasoning flies. 

 

(In fact, IMO, a person making such an argument is doing the same thing that the "would you call me a Redskin" crowd is doing:  Trying to argue whather "the Washington Redskins" are offensive, by using the word "Redskin" in a different (but, admittedly, similar) context.) 

 

(Fortunately, I don't think I've seen anybody attempt to make that assertion.)  :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just thought I'd insert this article here as there are some parallels for discussion purposes:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/17/opinion/yang-mikado-racism/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7

 


There's a term for this kind of racial costuming: Yellowface. It's a phenomenon that seems to be resurgent.

We saw it in Katy Perry's geisha-inspired performance at the American Music Awards in November, in a January episode of the hit sitcom "How I Met Your Mother" and a month later, in the opening sketch of the venerable comedy program "Saturday Night Live."

Each time, the use of yellowface has been defended as loving homage or harmless parody. Each time, when Asian-Americans have pointed out that we don't find the wearing of cosmetics and wardrobe to simulate Asian appearance to be "loving" or "harmless," our concerns have been dismissed.

Which is why, despite my deep personal love of musical theater, I think these "traditional" productions -- yellowface productions -- of "The Mikado" have to end.

 

One of the comments that stuck out at me, and one that I believe has good intentions but is wrong is this:

 


Amazing! A CNN thread where I agree with most responses! You really lose on this one, author Jeff Yang. As people point out:

- It isn't racist.
- It isn't offensive, or intended to be offensive.
- Asians usually aren't offended.
- It's a part of long-established original artistic material, and shouldn't be messed with.
- This thinking encourages over-sensitivity about trivial, contrived social issues.

Expanding on the last point, these non-issues are sometimes used just as a token, as a racially based-special interest group seeks to get more concessions and control. For me, it's a red flag a group will make demands outside of the normal give-and-take of the open American society.

 

Thoughts?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just thought I'd insert this article here as there are some parallels for discussion purposes:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/17/opinion/yang-mikado-racism/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7

One of the comments that stuck out at me, and one that I believe has good intentions but is wrong is this:

Thoughts?

As it relates to both subjects...

I think the racial sensitivity is a little bit overboard. People are looking for something to be offended about when there is no offense intended. It's ok to talk about race in terms of generalizations and stereotypes. The funniest odd all comedies is based in that. People need to lighten up and not take themselves so seriously.

Edited by SpringfieldSkins
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 one of the criticisms of the annenberg poll was "how many native americans surveyed actually lived on reservations?" butler is saying its the old native americans who dont have a problem with the name (uneducated about it, and desensitized), while the young "educated" native americans who dont live on reservations are mobilizing against it. 

 

 

 

What does living on a reservation have to do with anything ? None of us EVER lived on a reservation. Perhapps my great-great Grandparents did, but no one in my immediate circle of family.

 

Native is Native ... housing should not have any bearing. My baby sister is 22 and thinks this whole thing is absurd. As I stated earlier we are all educated and none of us feel that way.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that your opinion or have you seen something to support that?  It would be interesting to see an itemized breakdown of projected costs vs. revenues generated as a result of a name change.  What are the major costs?   

 

The Redskins are the third most valuable NFL franchise at 1.8 billion. The organization has one of the most recognizable and profitable trademarks in all of sports. In 2012 the Redskins(RG3's) had the highest selling jersey. No one in business willingly takes as profitable a trademark as the Redskins have and just changes it. Why? Because it will cost millions and hurt profits for years. No one should need a itemized breakdown of costs to know that changing the team's name will cost Snyder on the order of millions of dollars and reduce the team's overall net worth. Why else would Harjo et al go after the trademark? The PTO can't force a name change but it could hurt Snyder's pockets.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What does living on a reservation have to do with anything ? None of us EVER lived on a reservation. Perhapps my great-great Grandparents did, but no one in my immediate circle of family.

 

Native is Native ... housing should not have any bearing. My baby sister is 22 and thinks this whole thing is absurd. As I stated earlier we are all educated and none of us feel that way.

 

My impression is many of the enemy think a Native who does not live on a reservation in 2014 has assimilated into the white man's "disease" culture and is therefore not a true Native.  Basically, a Native equivalent of an "Uncle Tom," or "cornball Natives" and they are not "down for the cause."  :)    

 

I also think they believe that the only possible conclusion that an "educated" Native could arrive at on this issue is that the name is offensive.  Only an ignorant Native would not see the obvious offensive racist nature of the name...right?  

 

I know that premise offends you as much as it should Kosher.  I can't think of anything more insulting.  The arrogance of these people to think they speak for the many knows no bounds.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

As it relates to both subjects...

I think the racial sensitivity is a little bit overboard. People are looking for something to be offended about when there is no offense intended. It's ok to talk about race in terms of generalizations and stereotypes. The funniest odd all comedies is based in that. People need to lighten up and not take themselves so seriously.

 
 
 
 
 
 
User Actions
  Follow
E-h9mTsC_bigger.jpegRicky GervaisVerified account@rickygervais

Being offended is feeling your displeasure at the fact that not everyone cares as much about the exact same things as you

 

 

----I remember seeing this guy in an interview once and thought he was such a douche', now I find myself quoting him on being offended, lol, oh the irony.

What does living on a reservation have to do with anything ? None of us EVER lived on a reservation. Perhapps my great-great Grandparents did, but no one in my immediate circle of family.

 

Native is Native ... housing should not have any bearing. My baby sister is 22 and thinks this whole thing is absurd. As I stated earlier we are all educated and none of us feel that way.

 

 

I agree with the housing statement. I also think relative is this, many people who are educated watch either Fox or CNN for validations of their opinions. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Jumbo changed the title to The Official ES All Things Redskins Name Change Thread (Reboot Edition---Read New OP)
  • Jumbo locked this topic
  • Jumbo unlocked this topic
  • Jumbo pinned this topic
  • Jumbo featured and unfeatured this topic
  • Jumbo locked and unlocked this topic
  • Jumbo locked and unpinned this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...