Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

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

Alaskins

By Alaskins
in The Tailgate

Recommended Posts

Oregon Ducks Fan

Oregon Ducks Fan

Posted
Posted

LMAO THEY REPLACED RG3 WITH COUSINS

 

 

Lol they replaced Griffin with Cousins.

 

 

OMG, I'm dying over here. They swapped out Griffin for Cousins. Just perfect.

 

 

Of course they replaced Griffin with Cousins. Don't forget, Comedy Central will be re-running South Park episodes for years, and people will be watching that episode many years in the future. Trey and Matt didn't want to confuse Redskins fans many years in the future who might have asked "Where is Kirk Cousins, and who is that number 10 guy supposed to be?" :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MLiverpool

MLiverpool

Posted
Posted

I don't post on ExtremeSkins often, but put this "blog" together... never posted anywhere until now... if anyone reads it and has feedback, I'd be interested... I'm an engineer by trade, so I tried to put together a logic based argument.... I'm certain it is far from perfect, but it is a consolidation (of sorts) of many arguments for not changing the names, as well as some summarized facts and just facts to why I don't believe the team should change the name...

 

You are warned, it is long:

 

I have, for the most part, kept my opinion hidden from the blog-sphere, mostly because I find most of the arguments for changing the name to be hype driven, less than logic driven....emotional in nature, and hostile in too many cases...I am passionate about the Redskins franchise, but I'm not looking to put myself in a position of ridicule... at the same time, below, I attempted to encapsulate arguments I've compiled for why the name doesn't have to change...I tried to be as objective as possible in my summaries below each point/question... I'm a skeptic by nature, and some of the basis of my points has to do with a lack of evidence on the name/term "redskin" being used in a derogatory fashion.  I didn't delve deeply into libraries, but instead used the most obvious choice, Google.  Why Google?  Well, if an argument to change the name exists, it is on the internet.  I found, in most cases,  that there was no overwhelming evidence.  Quite the contrary.  I found arguments of repetition, ad hominem, confirmation bias, correlative based fallacies/causalities... the list of informal argumentation styles goes on.... but they're common in debate.  Sometimes just sounding like an authority adds value (i.e. if I bring a Native American in and they support my points, it adds value...).  I definitely see fear mongering and distortion, and suspect that monetary gain isn't the only reason for the insistence and repetition of the "change the name" crowd.  By having "cool" people support an argument, it plays upon a very core principal in mankind...the desire to be part of a group.  Peer pressure.  Lets face it, we're all victims of peer pressure and I doubt anyone who is a Redskins fan wants to be ridiculed.

 

I also wanted to avoid the "PC" police argument I tend to see often from those protecting the name.  Instead I am challenging that there is a real reason to be PC.  I'm challenging the notion redskin is offensive and below are seven reasons I used to build that argument.  I do have two points that are borderline, one has to do with the Merriam Webster Dictionary and the other with the patent office revoking the name (suggesting it is derogatory, but doing so without a single complaint filed against the name).

 

-----

 

1).The term "Redskins" may have been used as a negative at some point, but in recent times it means “Indian Warrior”. 

 

For 80+ years, the Washington Redskins have been using the name.  Initially the team was called the Braves, but the owner changed the team name to Redskins in order to differentiate them from the baseball team.  From my initial research (do your own, it’s all over Google), Braves and Chiefs is less offensive (I say less, because the term Redskins was once in single digits as to being offensive, but the push against the name has swelled the push into the double digit range... 20 some percent).  Chief and Braves are obviously next, but one domino will have to fall before the real end game can be accomplished.  

 

Why does the name change matter?  Well, if Braves is supposed to be honoring Native American warriors, the term Redskins should have the same general meaning.  The team wanted to keep its identity, because they had a Native American coach ("Lone Star Dietz") and apparently some native American players. 

 

I put that in, because it is pointed out that the original Washington Redskins owner was a bit of a **** and was the last team owner to integrate African American players.  Apparently he did not have that same issue with Native Americans (but we'll never really know, because we don't know him... but we do know the Atlanta and Los Angeles basketball team owners are also racists).  From what I’ve also read, but with little evidence is that George Marshall saw a "mystical" bond between the white Confederates and the Native Americans.  That would again suggest the term “Redskin” was used as a positive.  Again, not saying Marshall wasn’t racists towards African Americans, but held Native Americans in high regard.  Anyone seeking a bond between confederates and whatever has an implied racism built within.  Maybe part of the offensive nature of the term Redskins is that those seeking to change the name don’t want it known that some Native Americans worked with the South.  Maybe this implies hidden racism in some Native American tribes.  I didn’t go too far down that avenue of thought.

 

And realize I am not here to suggest that racism doesn't exist.  Oh, I know it does.  Prejudice is a normal part of our lives, and we don't even realize most of us are prejudicial.  It would be an exercise for anyone reading this to really think about how they are not prejudicial in some way. 

 

2). Where is all the evidence?

 

I’d also like to point out that I have yet to see a complete essay written on all the historical evidence that points to the term being derogatory.  In science, where logic and evidence are applied, papers are written to prove theory.  Evidence is mounted.  In law, statements and evidence are applied to mount an argument and the more evidence that is found, the better.  I would be interested in a balanced essay, or even a biased one.  I’ve seen one that had some very limited evidence.  It pointed to only a couple of instances of the term redskin being used in a negative and derogatory fashion.

 

If the vocal advocates want the name changed, sincerely want a debate, I would challenge them to put together such an essay and publish it.  Show the major points.  Take out an ad in a major paper so all the world can see.  Create a blog that shows this word’s usage.  Not just coupling the history of the Native Americans with a name.  I don’t see a true correlation.  I see a term, used exceptionally sparingly (and that is generous).  I see a brutal history of Native Americans (from their point of view), being decimated by an invading force (current America).

 

There are Smithsonian articles that point evidence to the contrary, and suggest the term was just a reference for Indians (http://anthropology.si.edu/goddard/redskin.pdf).

 

3). A re-definition of the word, what drove this in the dictionary, and what historical references were used to conclude it was derogatory. 

 

Merriam Webster apparently believes the term redskin is offensive.  I would disagree.  Why?  I find the term as a point of pride, as do millions of Washington Redskins fans.  Yes, millions.  The masses do not use the term in an offensive way, unless you're a Cowboys, Eagles or Giants fan.  So, what gives a word meaning, is it a small community of dictionary makers, or is it the people who use the word everyday as a point of pride?

 

4). The Redskins logo. 

 

It was designed by a Native America: Donald Wetzel Sr.  His father was the former chairman of the Blackfeet nation.  It was designed and presented as a replacement to the team by both Donald and his nephew Bill Wetzel.  They designed it as a point of pride.  That is quite the opposite of the current thinking.  The logo is also decades old.  The media tends to ignore the fact that the logo was designed by Native Americans, as a point of pride. 

 

5). Oklahoma, what’s in a name.

 

Oklahoma is the Choctaw word for “red people”.  It was originally the Oklahoma Territory and Indian Territory, but Indian Territory was removed.  It made it easier for the white settlers to stake claims on Indian lands.  An odd combination Oklahoma Sooner has to deal with white settlers who attempted to claim “unsettled” lands for an allotted time.  They were called Sooners.  From a Native American point of view, it could be argued that these Sooners were just stealing land that was meant to be shared, used by all, and not claimed by anyone.  I wasn’t there, but I’d not imagine the indigenous population being super pleased with having the open lands claimed.

 

I could write at length about how European based cultures tend to draw boundaries and name them without regard to the tribes or indigenous consent.  From America, to Asia, to Africa to the Middle East.  We’ve drawn boundaries around countries that were consisting of tribes (and these tribes didn’t agree that there was one nation…or one warlord/leader/etc).

 

6).The term Redskins is a point of pride at Native American High Schools.

 

Yes, this is the most common argument, in support of keeping the name, I’ve seen and read about.  I’ve read articles about elder Native Americans trying to explain to the media that the young Native Americans do not see the term Redskin as derogatory.  Instead, the word is a point of pride, a battle cry for their modern day games and sports team.  There are names that they do find offensive, but I don’t feel comfortable writing them, because those are offensive names.  It is fairly easy to Google and find articles that talk about these offensive terms, so I leave it to the reader (if they want) to find them.

 

I tend to see this as evidence that large portions of Native Americans do not support the name change, quite the opposite, but this group is discounted and ignored.

 

7). The Patent office revoked the trademark because it was offensive.

 

But did you know that there were no complaints to the Patent office. 

 

(http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/1/redskins-name-drew-no-public-complaints-patent-off/?page=all)

 

Is that odd, or is it just me?  Obviously it can be suggested the revoking was politically motivated, much like the Merriam Webster dictionary definition.  When heavy handed decisions are made, and it is without the consent or complaint of the American people, what kind of power have we granted the government in such cases?  It borders on totalitarian in making a ruling and not weighing the evidence.  I haven’t been privy to see evidence on either side, and I have just done my own research.

 

 

Some other historical evidence to be used by either side:

 

The first written evidence found was in 1815:

“It was not until July 22, 1815, that "red skin" first appeared in print, he found -- in a news story in the Missouri Gazette on talks between Midwestern Indian tribes and envoys sent by President James Madison to negotiate treaties after the War of 1812.

The envoys had rebuked the tribes for their reluctance to yield territory claimed by the United States, but the Gazette report suggested that Meskwaki chief Black Thunder was unimpressed: "Restrain your feelings and hear calmly what I say," he told the envoys. "I have never injured you, and innocence can feel no fear. I turn to all red skins and white skins, and challenge an accusation against me."

 

From 1975 to 1989 the term Redskin was used 136,473 times.  Researched showed 71 of these times it was used in a context to suggest it was being used as a slur (0.05%).  Similar, but separate, research was performed from 1969 to 1996, and the term Redskin was used 143,920 times.  Less than 2% of the time it was used as a reference to Native Americans.  It was not pointed out if it was used in a negative, just as a reference to Native Americans. 

 

The following reference has been used to associate scalps with Redskins:

 

Ordering on behalf of British King George II for, “His Majesty’s subjects to Embrace all opportunities of pursuing, captivating, killing and Destroying all and every of the aforesaid Indians.”

 

What I don’t see is the correlation of redskins with the above quote.  All I’ve been told is that this meant scalping Indians and returning Redskins, but once again no evidence supporting the claim.  Going back to law or science, would a theory be accepted without evidence?  Would a person be convicted without evidence?  If this is such a slam dunk case, what evidence is being used? 

 

 

In conclusion, I have attempted to offer my own take, logic, reasons, some evidence (though not all if it is referenced), because some of it was implied in articles.  In some cases the articles I took data from were slanted towards the name change, but when I read between all the opinions and looked at the facts they were presenting, I picked the closest things to facts I could find. 

 

I suggest the team not change the name, possibly continuing to go to court, and also hearing the debates of facts in a more public setting.  We’re hidden from the facts.  I did find it easy to find the above, and I’m certain Google could help anyone, but also realize there are many opinions based on emotion that surround facts in a given article.  I tried to be objective, but this is a subjective discussion.  Logic is logic.  I’m a software engineer by trade, so I think in If/Then/Else (which is the basis of logic no matter objective or subjective).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
grego

grego

Posted
Posted

http://news.yahoo.com/us-pay-500-mn-compensation-navajo-tribe-232446310.html

 

US to pay $500 mn in compensation to Navajo tribe

 

The US government has already reached similar agreements with other tribes. Including the Navajo payment, a total of $2.61 billion has been paid to 80 tribes since 2010.

In 2012, the United States agreed to give more than a billion dollars to 41 tribes settling a dispute over use of their land and goods

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

does any of this mean anything? i dunno. i have said that i think for some, like halbritter, money is the goal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Sinister

Mr. Sinister

Posted
Posted

http://news.yahoo.com/us-pay-500-mn-compensation-navajo-tribe-232446310.html

US to pay $500 mn in compensation to Navajo tribe

The US government has already reached similar agreements with other tribes. Including the Navajo payment, a total of $2.61 billion has been paid to 80 tribes since 2010.

In 2012, the United States agreed to give more than a billion dollars to 41 tribes settling a dispute over use of their land and goods

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

does any of this mean anything

I think it means its about damn time...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
grego

grego

Posted
Posted

april 11th, 2014, the largest native american nation in the country- navajo nation- officially oppose 'redskins' 

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/04/11/navajo-nation-officially-joins-fight-against-redskins-mascot-154423

 

6 weeks later- 50 democratic senators send their letter of opposition to the nfl

- http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/redskins/2014/05/22/washington-redskins-senate-nickname-american-indians-daniel-snyder/9439613/

 

today, the navajos get 500 mil. 

 

go figure. 


 

that could change things. 

 

time to get the potomacs on the line. 


over/under in terms of days before osage nation gets a check?

 

i'll go with 90.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Riggo#44

Riggo#44

Posted
Posted

april 11th, 2014, the largest native american nation in the country- navajo nation- officially oppose 'redskins' 

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/04/11/navajo-nation-officially-joins-fight-against-redskins-mascot-154423

 

6 weeks later- 50 democratic senators send their letter of opposition to the nfl

- http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/redskins/2014/05/22/washington-redskins-senate-nickname-american-indians-daniel-snyder/9439613/

 

today, the navajos get 500 mil. 

 

go figure. 

 

Yet...

 

Redskins.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fan since a Fetus

Fan since a Fetus

Posted
Posted

I wonder if Harjo or Blackhorse have ever addressed Red Mesa High having their nickname Redskins.

If I am not mistaken, Blackhorse is from that same reservation. I believe she has tried in the past to get them to change that name and obviously has failed. I think she now comes from the side of 'we can use it, you can't.'

Don't take this as absolute truth, I am not going to research it right now, but I believe this to be true. I am sure someone will correct me if I am not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
grego

grego

Posted
Posted

i question why the navajo nations stance does not apply to college or high school teams. why the distiction? 

 

why are they the first to officially oppose the name when we are told the name has been a slur since its inception?

 

i question why individual native americans (whether it be thru polls like annenberg, or thru people interacting with NAs on reservations) always seem to either not have an issue with the name, or support it outright, while organizations almost all are now joining forces against it.

 

why was that activist/author only able to barely get a majority of NAs - out of 100- to say they were offended when the people he was polling were all organized and active politically?

 

why am i reading vague claims like this  "the term ‘redskin’ for many is inextricably linked to a history of suffering and dispossession," along with stories of scalping being the terms origin, while never seeing any evidence for such claims?

 

why do several NA high schools use the word as their mascot if we are being told by political organizations that its a slur?

 

why would the NCAI oppose the name and logo now when their former president designed the logo?

 

why does the goverment recognize ray halbritter as the leader of the oneida, when the oneidas dont?

 

the list of nonsensical things that make me go "hmmmmm" regarding this issue continues to grow. but i know one thing, politicians are paying attention and native american tribes are getting paid. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted

i question why the navajo nations stance does not apply to college or high school teams. why the distiction? 

 

why are they the first to officially oppose the name when we are told the name has been a slur since its inception?

 

i question why individual native americans (whether it be thru polls like annenberg, or thru people interacting with NAs on reservations) always seem to either not have an issue with the name, or support it outright, while organizations almost all are now joining forces against it.

 

why was that activist/author only able to barely get a majority of NAs - out of 100- to say they were offended when the people he was polling were all organized and active politically?

 

why am i reading vague claims like this  "the term ‘redskin’ for many is inextricably linked to a history of suffering and dispossession," along with stories of scalping being the terms origin, while never seeing any evidence for such claims?

 

why do several NA high schools use the word as their mascot if we are being told by political organizations that its a slur?

 

why would the NCAI oppose the name and logo now when their former president designed the logo?

 

why does the goverment recognize ray halbritter as the leader of the oneida, when the oneidas dont?

 

the list of nonsensical things that make me go "hmmmmm" regarding this issue continues to grow. but i know one thing, politicians are paying attention and native american tribes are getting paid. 

 

hedley_02.jpg

 

But where would I find such a man? 

 

Why am I asking you? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted

Do you think Larry's head explodes during the segment, like that dude in Scanners?

 

His beloved show going after his position on his beloved team name. Counseling is almost a necessity afterwards, I would think.

 

Actually, I expect to be watching a different channel, tonight. 

 

At least, I hope I'll still be watching a different channel. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...