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

[Larry]

My Agenda? I am a First Nation person in North America. My people have faced the most brutal treatment in the last two-hundred years, most of what I see amongst my people and the surrounding community is pretty depressing and I feel it is my right to comment on it. You know, the right to free expression?

Apologies for not addressing this point of yours sooner.

I will observe that you aren't commenting on "what you see amongst your people and the surrounding community", though.

You're commenting on the name of a football team.

One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

Yes, I'm well aware that the way this nation has treated (and, in many ways, is continuing to treat) it's Native population is one of the many things this nation has, to be ashamed of.

However,

1) The Washington Redskins had absolutely nothing to do with any of it.

2) The Washington Redskins have been calling themselves this name for more than 80 years.

3) The name has never, at any time in that history, been intended to be offensive, by the team, nor has it been offensive to more than a tiny fraction of Natives.

4) And forcing a change in said name will do absolutely nothing to change the fact that this nation has been treating it's Native population in despicable ways.

So, while the statement that this nation has been treating Natives in despicable ways is, in fact, a true statement, it does not, however, lead to "therefore, the name of a football team must be changed".

Any more than arguing that "1+1=2, therefore the name must remain the same" would make sense.

[insomniac67]

Apologies for not addressing this point of yours sooner.

I will observe that you aren't commenting on "what you see amongst your people and the surrounding community", though.

You're commenting on the name of a football team.

One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

Yes, I'm well aware that the way this nation has treated (and, in many ways, is continuing to treat) it's Native population is one of the many things this nation has, to be ashamed of.

However,

1) The Washington Redskins had absolutely nothing to do with any of it.

 

So? I had nothing to do with slavery. Does that mean I can use the N-word today? 

 

2) The Washington Redskins have been calling themselves this name for more than 80 years.

 

Again, doesn't matter. Times change.

3) The name has never, at any time in that history, been intended to be offensive, by the team, nor has it been offensive to more than a tiny fraction of Natives.

 

Intent has nothing to do with whether or not something is actually offensive to people. Your last point there is your only good one. If it's true that only a small portion are offended, that's a legitimate case for keeping the name.

4) And forcing a change in said name will do absolutely nothing to change the fact that this nation has been treating it's Native population in despicable ways.

 

Putting someone in prison for murder also does nothing to change the fact that the victim is dead. I guess we shouldn't worry about justice if it doesn't lead to some kind of direct change?

 

You're right that the name is far from the only issue Native Americans have to be upset about. But if changing it brings them a small step closer to healing, who are you to say it's not going to make a difference?

 

So, while the statement that this nation has been treating Natives in despicable ways is, in fact, a true statement, it does not, however, lead to "therefore, the name of a football team must be changed".

Any more than arguing that "1+1=2, therefore the name must remain the same" would make sense.

 

[Larry]

Putting someone in prison for murder also does nothing to change the fact that the victim is dead. I guess we shouldn't worry about justice if it doesn't lead to some kind of direct change?

You left out the "someone who didn't commit the murder" from your attempt to create a false analogy.

But nice try.

----------

BTW, I do agree with you that "<Problem X> is a bigger problem than <Problem Y>, therefore I demand that we cannot even mention <Problem Y> until <Problem X> has been completely and totally solved" is a stupid argument.

That's why I didn't make it.

[insomniac67]

You left out the "someone who didn't commit the murder" from your attempt to create a false analogy.

But nice try.

 

I wasn't referring to the Redskins. You seem to think name-changers think the Redskins organization is evil, and you're defending it on that basis. I'm certainly not saying that at all. Wanting the name to be changed and believing the franchise to be inherently good are not mutually exclusive. If opinions have changed on the name, the franchise must adapt.

[Larry]

I wasn't referring to the Redskins. You seem to think name-changers think the Redskins organization is evil, and you're defending it on that basis.

No, I'm pointing out that "The US treats Natives like dirt" bears no relationship whatsoever to the discussion of whether the name of the football team should be changed.

(And I kind of have to assume that you were trying to make that argument, since you came into a thread discussing whether the name should be changed, and made a post which consists entirely of observing that the US treats Natives like dirt.)

 

If opinions have changed on the name, the franchise must adapt.

 

 

I've been saying that ever since this debate started.  (Which, I will point out, goes back considerably further than the 224 pages of this thread.) 

 

Unfortunately, the operative word in that sentence is "If". 

 

So far, as far as I'm aware, there has been exactly one time where someone has actually asked actual, randomly selected, Natives whether they were offended by the name.  And the answer was "no".  By a 10 to 1 margin. 

 

The folks who have spent the last 40 years, shouting in dozens of courtrooms that the name is offensive?  Have never bothered to ask. 

 

(Or they have, and didn't like the answer they got.  Obviously, if they asked a random sample, and then decided to keep the answer secret, then I wouldn't know about it.) 

[grego]

The Daily Show skit nailed it in so many ways.

take a closer look at the shirt, friend.

 

id be interested to hear how you thought they did so.

[Springfield]

take a closer look at the shirt, friend.

That's what it looked like to me.

[Patrick Evidente]

But if changing it brings them a small step closer to healing, who are you to say it's not going to make a difference?

Bwahahahahahaha

[Spearfeather]

Had to get in here for a minute just to say that I think Larry nailed it here:

 

No, I'm pointing out that "The US treats Natives like dirt" bears no relationship whatsoever to the discussion of whether the name of the football team should be changed.

(And I kind of have to assume that you were trying to make that argument, since you came into a thread discussing whether the name should be changed, and made a post which consists entirely of observing that the US treats Natives like dirt.)

3) The name has never, at any time in that history, been intended to be offensive, by the team, nor has it been offensive to more than a tiny fraction of Natives.

 

4) And forcing a change in said name will do absolutely nothing to change the fact that this nation has been treating it's Native population in despicable ways

 

[Bang]

 

 

Indifferent, because it doesn't seem that the history affects you in any other way than some NAs are ruining your Sundays.

 

Well, there's a few hundred pages of posts on this topic here that you can use to clarify my position beyond that rather insulting notion.

 

you could go back and see that my main issue is that the "some" who are offended are a very small group of Native americans, and there is a very large majority of Native Americans that are being steamrolled because people think that the only reason to keep the name is because we just want to selfishly keep our Sundays unspoiled, and they don't need to be heard.

And those people largely are not native at all, and yet they act as if they are so correct that history must be on their side... and they, as usual, ignore those who are supposed to be offended.

 

My sunday is not the question.

And the question is not being asked of the people to whom it matters most.

 

Feel free to do a little research, you will find that what things "seem" are not exactly what you think they are.

 

~Bang

[Kosher Ham]

It's basically become Native on Native crime at this point.

Sad really. Self-Genocide.

 

As a NA I have stated my feelings several times about the topic.

Pathetic that it often falls on deaf ears.

 

I know my heritage (Family tree and all) , one of my nephews is not considered Native because it is my Brothers son.

 

I know the heinous situations that we have faced, I know the plight that we still deal with on a daily basis. Bloodline flows through the Mother in my tribe ( and most ). My Grandmother and Mother are 100%. Only thing that is odd about Larry's post is that it seems he does not have his Mother as part of their particular Tribal Nation.

 

This is an embarrassing and shameful attention draw in my eyes. Bleeding hearts...I can be one, but I am not, that is a time past.

 

 

 

Side note:  Someone made a comment (insomniac perhaps) , N-word... not even CLOSE to the same thing. The same person has rehashed that times change thing...EXACTLY.

 

I am in my mid-fourties, lived all over the country...never been call a Redskin.

 

Times have changed, the word is not used that way these days except from a smaller ignorant minority ( percentage-wise) than the one's that find the Redskins name offensive.

[RedskinsFan44]

Four issues with the Daily Show segment. The NA activists claim redskins = scalps, which is false. I will not rehash this point, it is well documented in this thread. This falsehood is the "aha" moment of the piece. They claim only animals and Indians are used as mascots for sports teams, implying that the use of NA themes is dehumanizing. Also false, not going to waste time typing dozens of team names. Oxford Dictionary defines redskins as dated or derogatory for American Indian. I will concede that the name given in 1932 is a dated reference to American Indians, it defies logic that it was meant to be derogatory ( note that scalp is not in definitions ). Last, one guy tries to claim the Annenberg poll was just of PA, rather than a national poll based out of PA. I usually enjoy the Daily Show calling out people on their BS, but their confirmation bias shows on this one.

[RedskinsFan44]

Never mind

[s0crates]

South Park and Daily Show both . . . I thought the South Park was really funny . . . does the WaPo boycott extend to Comedy Central now?

[grego]

Four issues with the Daily Show segment. The NA activists claim redskins = scalps, which is false. I will not rehash this point, it is well documented in this thread. This falsehood is the "aha" moment of the piece. They claim only animals and Indians are used as mascots for sports teams, implying that the use of NA themes is dehumanizing. Also false, not going to waste time typing dozens of team names. Oxford Dictionary defines redskins as dated or derogatory for American Indian. I will concede that the name given in 1932 is a dated reference to American Indians, it defies logic that it was meant to be derogatory ( note that scalp is not in definitions ). Last, one guy tries to claim the Annenberg poll was just of PA, rather than a national poll based out of PA. I usually enjoy the Daily Show calling out people on their BS, but their confirmation bias shows on this one.

 

 

agreed with everything you said.

 

i cant imagine anyone who is informed on this issue thinking that was a good piece. (funny, sure, but not remotely honest or informed)

[ixcuincle]

That episode was more of a bash at the concept of kickstarter, which they say is pretty much people giving you money without getting anything back in return. And in reality, isn't that what a kickstarter really is? 

[ixcuincle]

The episode was tolerable but would have been funnier if the Ray Rice video was spoofed in entirety. They just had the football player corner the woman and then the episode moved forward. 

[elkabong82]

South Park and Daily Show both . . . I thought the South Park was really funny . . . does the WaPo boycott extend to Comedy Central now?

 

While grossly misinformed and biased, this is just 1 segment from the DS who has had a trend lately of touting a liberal agenda. Post has had a blatant anti-team agenda for years and the name stuff was the giant straw that broke the camel's back. A person being honest in this debate could see that and wouldn't have posted something so nonsensical. 

 

You come off as either ignorant of the situation or disingenuous and belittling of those with whom you disagree, neither of which makes your posts worthwhile.

[EvilMonkeyBoy]

The episode was tolerable but would have been funnier if the Ray Rice video was spoofed in entirety. They just had the football player corner the woman and then the episode moved forward. 

I definitely don't think it would be funnier to watch the football player fully re-enact what happened to Janay Rice. The gag was just enough to make it funny without being uncomfortable.

[Diesel Hog]

The Daily Show skit nailed it in so many ways.

 

 

If by "nailed it", you mean missed the mark completely, then I agree with you.

[grego]

If by "nailed it", you mean missed the mark completely, then I agree with you.

 

i'd love to hear an explanation, but i'm not holding my breathe. outside of that post, theres a declaration that the redskinsfacts page is an 'effing embarrassment'. but no discussion about why. 

 

for someone who has a history of calling people trolls, he sure loves popping in, dropping one liner bombs, then disappearing for weeks. 

[ZRagone]

This is not so much a point whether the team name if offensive or not, it's the fact that the name is now associated with perennial LOSERS, a circus act, which is made fun of by the media on a regular basis.

You've got to be freaking kidding me.

What? You think we're going to change the name and magically start winning? If we're the Washington Senators suddenly our GM will be competent, our owner won't be meddlesome, our staff will be swapped out, and our culture will simply change?

Give me a freaking break.

You think if we change our name that we won't still be laughing stocks if we're losing horribly on national TV? Do you think if we change the name they're going to just ignore one of the major markets in the nation? You think if we change the name the animosity for Snyder in the media is really going to change.

Give me a break. Don't give me this "I don't think it's racist, but..." crap. Let's be frank. You feel bad about the name so you're tired of hearing about it so you're coming up with a BS excuse about "losing" to back up your argument.

The name on the helmet isn't going to make this team a winner or loser. Changing the name isn't going to magically change everything else surrounding this team. Stop it.

Fantastic post, Prototype.  We need a new owner, a new stadium and a new name.

Yeah, good luck with that. Wave your little magic wand and cause that to happen. Fans throwing hissy fits on forums aren't going to cause us to get a new owner. The reality is that Snyder is young and is not apt to be out of money anytime immedietely soon, so expecting him not to be the owner for another decade at least is ridiculously dumb.

And if you think changing the name or changing the stadium is going to keep us from "losing" or keep the media from laughing at a Washington Franchise while Snyder is still here then you're kidding yourself.

[s0crates]

While grossly misinformed and biased, this is just 1 segment from the DS who has had a trend lately of touting a liberal agenda. Post has had a blatant anti-team agenda for years and the name stuff was the giant straw that broke the camel's back. A person being honest in this debate could see that and wouldn't have posted something so nonsensical.

You come off as either ignorant of the situation or disingenuous and belittling of those with whom you disagree, neither of which makes your posts worthwhile.

You got all that from my very brief remarks?

I'm remembering why I stopped posting in this thread . . .

[steve09ru]

these Redskins facts interviews are an embarrassment.

 

**edit:  from fans, not the native american ones

[grego]

You got all that from my very brief remarks?

I'm remembering why I stopped posting in this thread . . .

 

 

are you ok with the way the daily show handled it? i'm not even talking about the questionable 'ambush'. im talking about the native americans putting out statements that are, at the least, highly questionable or even flat out factually wrong?