steve09ru Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 does it matter? We on a site called "Extreme Skins." Any fact will immediately be "debunked" on here. it does, because, you know, things that aren't fact don't hold weight and are therefore known as opinion or preference. So it's your opinion and preference that the name should be changed based off of no facts. However, my opinion and conclusion is based off of facts that I have stated on here already which hold more weight because they are, you know, facts. If you can debunk these facts then you have a point, otherwise it's just jibberish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burgundyrush Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 if one person at one time 150 years ago used it to refer to scalps, you think we should then change it? so someone uses an otherwise benign word in a negative way, then the word should be banned? got it. Well seeing how the Native American population was on a fast downward spiral during that time if anyone was using to word I'm sure it was plenty. May not be the origin of the word like how Harjo like to say, but find it hard to believe it was not at one point in this country history not used that type of way. And that article posted above just breaks down the Goddard research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 does it matter? We on a site called "Extreme Skins." Any fact will immediately be "debunked" on here. You are not Native. How is this even in your wheelhouse ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsFan44 Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 Well seeing how the Native American population was on a fast downward spiral during that time if anyone was using to word I'm sure it was plenty. May not be the origin of the word like how Harjo like to say, but find it hard to believe it was not at one point in this country history not used that type of way. And that article posted above just breaks down the Goddard research. If Goddard can find documentation of the word being used by NAs to refer to themselves from the late 1600s why would no documentation of the word being used to refer to scalps in the 1850s exist, particularly if the settlers were using it that way? Add: Goddard did not make the meaning up, he found a source. It's called research. Apparently the earliest documented source of redskins = scalps is Harjo on the Oprah show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 Well seeing how the Native American population was on a fast downward spiral during that time if anyone was using to word I'm sure it was plenty. May not be the origin of the word like how Harjo like to say, but find it hard to believe it was not at one point in this country history not used that type of way. And that article posted above just breaks down the Goddard research. ok. so you say because it was possibly used as a term for a scalp, we should change it? this, according to you and some activists. what about native americans who dont want the name changed? btw- i assume youve written the nabisco company and demanded they change the name of your favorite cream centered cookie? Apparently the earliest documented source of redskins = scalps is Harjo on the Oprah show. the same show she claimed 'squaw' was slang for vagina. the textbooks responded by banning the word. despite there being zero evidence of her claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonez3 Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 FedEx Holders Reject Ending Redskins Stadium Sponsorship http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-29/fedex-holders-reject-ending-redskins-stadium-sponsorship.html Well, this is the 600 LB gorilla and its not even close. Really, the name changers strength is frankly not even worth the attention IMO. M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 Well, this is the 600 LB gorilla and its not even close. Really, the name changers strength is frankly not even worth the attention IMO. M Disagree. This argument is going to be decided in the court of public opinion. And in that court, yeah, facts do sometimes matter. But they are certainly not absolute. The media does have the power to change people's minds. And I think it's a pretty safe bet that they are doing so, right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RVAbrendan Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 Came across this while at work. Note the reasoning for not saying Redskins. I feel like this will become more common amongst media types if only to shield themselves from possible future criticism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 If Goddard can find documentation of the word being used by NAs to refer to themselves from the late 1600s why would no documentation of the word being used to refer to scalps in the 1850s exist, particularly if the settlers were using it that way? Oh, I can come up with some theories why the word might have been used to refer to scalps, but no documents survive, proving it. One point I would make was that literacy was not nearly so universal as it is now. So, merely by confining one's "time machine" to only examining written documents, means that you're only examining the words of the upper class of the time. Further, people tend to preserve "important" documents, and not routine ones. So documents of major import, of from important people, are more likely to have survived than more common documents. Further, I think it's pretty safe that people's word choice changes when they're writing. (And I would assume that this was more pronounced, when writing, and possibly sending a document, was a more significant event.) The process of setting pen to paper would cause people to think more deeply about their words. To choose more carefully. Try to imagine what Tailgate would look like, if every poster were only allowed to make one post a week. (Three mods just wet their pants, imagining that scenario. ) Now, note, those are just theories. They do absolutely nothing towards proving that the word was used to refer to scalps. I'm just pointing out that it's certainly possible that it happened. Might even have been common, in some groups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonez3 Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 Disagree. This argument is going to be decided in the court of public opinion. And in that court, yeah, facts do sometimes matter. But they are certainly not absolute. The media does have the power to change people's minds. And I think it's a pretty safe bet that they are doing so, right now. Public opinion I come across, and I'm in a predominately Eagle area, is that it's ridiculous. And, IMO, the media is not really respected by the majority on any given topic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 Public opinion I come across, and I'm in a predominately Eagle area, is that it's ridiculous. And, IMO, the media is not really respected by the majority on any given topic If the media doesn't have the power to affect people's minds, then a lot of corporations (and politicians) are wasting a whole lot of money buying air time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonez3 Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 Oh, I can come up with some theories why the word might have been used to refer to scalps, but no documents survive, proving it. One point I would make was that literacy was not nearly so universal as it is now. So, merely by confining one's "time machine" to only examining written documents, means that you're only examining the words of the upper class of the time. Further, people tend to preserve "important" documents, and not routine ones. So documents of major import, of from important people, are more likely to have survived than more common documents. Further, I think it's pretty safe that people's word choice changes when they're writing. (And I would assume that this was more pronounced, when writing, and possibly sending a document, was a more significant event.) The process of setting pen to paper would cause people to think more deeply about their words. To choose more carefully. Try to imagine what Tailgate would look like, if every poster were only allowed to make one post a week. (Three mods just wet their pants, imagining that scenario. ) Now, note, those are just theories. They do absolutely nothing towards proving that the word was used to refer to scalps. I'm just pointing out that it's certainly possible that it happened. Might even have been common, in some groups. Well, I hear ya Larry, but theories don't count. About a hundred pages ago I referenced the 'Fighting Irish' use a slur and 'purported' history of injustice. (I do not wish to go down that path again) Many here were SO QUICK to insist the Irish were basically next to upper class and many informal histories and theories were absolutely 'debunked'. So Meh, I think the scalp theory is beyond absurd an NO documented history to support it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsFan44 Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 Oh, I can come up with some theories why the word might have been used to refer to scalps, but no documents survive, proving it. One point I would make was that literacy was not nearly so universal as it is now. So, merely by confining one's "time machine" to only examining written documents, means that you're only examining the words of the upper class of the time. Further, people tend to preserve "important" documents, and not routine ones. So documents of major import, of from important people, are more likely to have survived than more common documents. I think you are being extremely generous. "The industrial revolution, as it transformed all aspects of American life and society, dramatically affected newspapers. Both the numbers of papers and their paid circulations continued to rise. The 1850 census catalogued 2,526 titles. In the 1850's powerful, giant presses appeared, able to print ten thousand complete papers per hour. At this time the first "pictorial" weekly newspapers emerged; they featured for the first time extensive illustrations of events in the news, as woodcut engravings made from correspondents' sketches or taken from that new invention, the photograph. During the Civil War the unprecedented demand for timely, accurate news reporting transformed American journalism into a dynamic, hardhitting force in the national life. Reporters, called "specials," became the darlings of the public and the idols of youngsters everywhere. Many accounts of battles turned in by these intrepid adventurers stand today as the definitive histories of their subjects." http://www.historicpages.com/nprhist.htm Small town newspapers at that time were hardly "high-minded" or politically correct. But i do get the concept that we can never prove a negative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonez3 Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 If the media doesn't have the power to affect people's minds, then a lot of corporations (and politicians) are wasting a whole lot of money buying air time. I'm not suggesting they can't sway some. And if the numbers were 55-45, perhaps more powerful. This by most accounts, even after largest push I can remember, is still 80-20 or so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/30/us-usa-fcc-redskins-idUSKCN0HP2HM20140930?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=twitter FCC considering move to ban NFL Redskins team name The Federal Communications Commission is considering whether to punish broadcasters for using the moniker of the Washington NFL team, the Redskins, a word many consider a slur to Native Americans, the agency's chairman indicated on Tuesday. The FCC, which enforces broadcast indecency violations, has received a petition from legal activist John Banzhaf III, asking that regulators strip local radio station WWXX-FM of its broadcasting license when it comes up for renewal for using the name "Redskins." Banzhaf says the word is racist, derogatory, profane and hateful, making its use "akin to broadcasting obscenity." "We'll be looking at that petition, we will be dealing with that issue on the merits and we'll be responding accordingly," FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler told reporters. "There are a lot of names and descriptions that were used over time that are inappropriate today. And I think the name that is attributed to the Washington football club is one of those," Wheeler added. The FCC could formally deem use of the team name to be indecent, and thus impose a de facto ban on it on over-the-air television and radio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 Looks like the government has found something stupider than banning video games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 you can say the s word (feces) on cable, you can show all sorts of violence, but you may not be able to use a football team everyone knows and 90% of NAs aren't offended by. Awesome. Wonder if the FCC will actually ask a lot of NAs instead of taking the lazy route some media (read most) have and only listening to loud activists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter_R Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/30/us-usa-fcc-redskins-idUSKCN0HP2HM20140930?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=twitter https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NDPT0Ph5rA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Oh sweet. Censorship (or as close as you can possibly get to censorship). Go America! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWFLSkins Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 FedEx Holders Reject Ending Redskins Stadium Sponsorship http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-29/fedex-holders-reject-ending-redskins-stadium-sponsorship.html FedEx Corp. (FDX) shareholders rejected a proposal from the Oneida Indian tribe to “drop or distance” its ties to the Washington Redskins, including sponsorship of the team’s stadium. The motion involving the National Football League was presented from the floor of the shipping company’s annual shareholder meeting in Memphis, Tennessee, today after FedEx won the right from federal regulators to omit it from its proxy materials. The Redskins have been under pressure to change their name from a group of Native Americans who argue it’s offensive. More than 228.6 million shares were voted against the proposal and 203,521 shares were voted for it, FedEx disclosed in a U.S. regulatory filing. “We highly value our sponsorship of FedExField, which not only hosts the Washington Redskins, but is home to a variety of major entertainment and sports events and multiple community activities,” Patrick Fitzgerald, FedEx senior vice president for marketing and communications, said in an e-mailed statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ihateusernames Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 More on (moron) this latest development: http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/fcc-considers-ban-use-nfl-name-redskins#.VCtMUKaxiRI.twitter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonez3 Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 I'm telling you, the majority of people 'fighting' for name change just seem like people I would not ever care to be around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spjunkies Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 It's a real shame the anti name people have so many angles to attack us from (media and government fools) but we're pretty much left with no recourse. This entire thing is absolutely ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diesel Hog Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 to me, this is very offensive too. Its absurd really. Same time, just because one thing is offensive doesnt lessen how offense the team's name is to a community of people. Trying to pit the two is a waste. it nailed it. Its one of the best takes on the issue. "I want to pass the name to my children" said so much. Also the fact that people got silent when the 1491ers walked into the room said a lot too. WE all want to be free to be ignorant until the person or persons who are the target of that confront us. But really, the craziest thing was walking through the parking lot and seeing fans in the headgear and not wanting to be on camera. Or those who shouted at teh 1491ers yelling inflammatory and racist things. I dont know how that did not open some of your yes, but if it didnt then whatever. It reminded me of this moment from a Cleveland baseball game in the spring: The name has to be changed. Also, that 1/12th Cherokee stuff was hilarious. Read up on the Dawes Act and "$5 Indians" I often wonder if Dietz was one of these people. You know that picture is from a Cleveland Indians game, not a Redskins game, right? Also, the Daily Show did not "nail it" at all. They mentioned Redskins is a slur in the dictionary, so is "oreo". It's all about context. People say "redskins' and they're talking about a football team. No one uses "redskins" in a derogatory way. They don't mention the Smithsonian Institute report stating the origin IS NOT from bloody scalps. They, on the DS, claim that is the origin. That is a lie, and there is proof it is a lie. The only argument I heard from the name changer side that I could get on board with is the "we're people not mascots" argument. If the vast majority of Natives felt this way, and ALL teams stopped using them as mascots, then fine. It's all or nothing for me. IF Redskins goes, then they all better go. If not, then drop it. Most of us don't care and a non-issue mole hill, has turned into Mt. Everest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 I'm telling you, the majority of people 'fighting' for name change just seem like people I would not ever care to be around. It's like that friend that always likes to put a negative spin on things. "Oh, you're going on a date with that girl tonight? Allow me to tell you about the time the varsity basketball ran a train on her after the game." "Oh, that car you just bought? Pretty sure I saw it in a chop shop last week." "Oh, you got a raise at work? I got a raise two weeks ago for double the amount you did." It's like a mixture of overly sensitive and confrontational. The worst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.