Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

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


Recommended Posts

Reilly really brings it in that article.

 

I actually had no idea that there are multiple high schools with the name "Redskins" that are majority native American 

 

 

and youre on here all the time. 

 

probably why i post that fact as many times as i can here without getting banned :)

 

seriously, though - think about how many people are taking a stand against the name who have no idea of this fact. in my mind, its the single biggest piece of evidence that this issue is a media created piece of garbage that exists. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont believe it. 

 

ive been waiting years for a national columnist to weigh in with some common sense on this issue. i was beginning to think that day would never come. 

 

he posted about native american high schools, the annenberg poll, and opinions from actual native americans. 

 

i think im about to cry. 

Edited by grego
Link to post
Share on other sites

and youre on here all the time. 

 

probably why i post that fact as many times as i can here without getting banned :)

 

seriously, though - think about how many people are taking a stand against the name who have no idea of this fact. in my mind, its the single biggest piece of evidence that this issue is a media created piece of garbage that exists. 

 

I hope people don't go too overboard thinking that this dispute is done.

 

Reilly makes good points, (many of which have been made on here before) but there still are principle points to be made on the other side, and the people who are making them are not all 1) evil media overlords with an agenda to deny us our happiness or 2) complete ignoranimuses.   

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Reilly makes good points there, and they come across as so much more compelling because they are not being made by an angry, defensive Redskins fan.

 

 

they are the exact same points some of us have been making for awhile. 

 

or did you just mean 'good points, for a national columnist'?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope people don't go too overboard thinking that this dispute is done.

 

Reilly makes good points, (many of which have been made on here before) but there still are principle points to be made on the other side, and the people who are making them are not all 1) evil media overlords with an agenda to deny us our happiness or 2) complete ignoranimuses.   

 

Just texting back and forth with a buddy of mine who is on the opposing side.  Trashed the article, didn't pay attention to any of the facts....it's like he almost didn't even read it.  Doesn't care at all about the high schools or the Native Americans that speak up in favor of the name or don't care about it.  Unbelievable, it's almost like he stuck his fingers in his ear and just started spouting things about "Neanderthal Redskins fans"

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope people don't go too overboard thinking that this dispute is done.

 

Reilly makes good points, (many of which have been made on here before) but there still are principle points to be made on the other side, and the people who are making them are not all 1) evil media overlords with an agenda to deny us our happiness or 2) complete ignoranimuses.   

 

 

oh, its been done in my mind for awhile. that doesnt mean i think the redskins will win on the issue. 

 

choice number 3 is honest native americans who are still offended by the name despite its origins and use but still protest. like the 9 protesters in wisconsin. and i believe that it takes a heck of alot more than that to force a change. especially when so many american indians either dont care about the name or cheer for the team because they represent them.

 

or they call their high school teams "redskins". they should have a voice too. 

 

 

predicto, what are the principle points from the other side of the argument? 

Edited by grego
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

lmao at all the white people getting butt hurt on twitter about Reilly's article. I guess facts just aren't that cool when they don't work in your favor...

 

deadspin has already begun basically calling everyone who disagrees with him idiots. 

 

no actual rebuttal, just mud slinging. 

 

very nice. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Riley's references to the Native themed HS teams (who happen to have a majority of Native students) brings up my Chris Rock/Jay Leno analogy.

 

Not everyone can do or say something on the basis that someone else is already doing the same. Appropriateness of content changes with the context and the messenger.

 

I hope the Native themed HS's can keep their Redskins name and imagery for as long as they desire. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

We did have, however, another member in the media embrace the name change - and he's a huge Skins fan.  Matthew Berry, who's Redskins fanhood is unquestioned, publicly stated on his weekly Fantasy Football Podcast that he is no longer referring to them as the Redskins. 

It was weird - he kept saying "Washington Football Club".  And that's kind of where i'm leaning when we do change our name - call them the "Washington Football Club".  After hearing him say it 5 or 6 times in a sentence, however, it sounded really weird and out of place. 

 

Again - I don't want them to change the name, and Dan doesn't have to...but I think we should, and will...and get back to focusing on football. 

 

One by one...they are lining up.  You can't be associated or "tied to" racism.  While most of us agree that Redskins does not equate to racism, the social progressive movement / name-changers are using that dirty tactic...claiming you support racism if you DO NOT want the name changed.  Matthew Berry of ESPN is the latest example, and like i said he is a HUGE Redskins fan.  HUGE.  There will be more.  Pretty soon all of ESPN...and most broadcasters will join the cause.  Trust me - you won't find one person who wants to be branded as a racist because they are defending the term Redskin.  Dirty tactic, we disagree with it and have our arguing points to support otherwise...but their strategy is paying off (no matter how ludicrous or historically incorrect it actually is).   

 

Yeah, this is my thought as well.  I've had discussions with people who wanted the name changed and pointed to the history and the response I got was that it's still offensive because it refers to a race of people.  No matter what I said it was just that 'society should be past this point.'  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just texting back and forth with a buddy of mine who is on the opposing side.  Trashed the article, didn't pay attention to any of the facts....it's like he almost didn't even read it.  Doesn't care at all about the high schools or the Native Americans that speak up in favor of the name or don't care about it.  Unbelievable, it's almost like he stuck his fingers in his ear and just started spouting things about "Neanderthal Redskins fans"

 

Yep, same thing happened with me.  Guy looked past all of the points and went to the 'strawman reservation part at the end'.  His words.

Edited by Old Bay
Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope people don't go too overboard thinking that this dispute is done.

 

Reilly makes good points, (many of which have been made on here before) but there still are principle points to be made on the other side, and the people who are making them are not all 1) evil media overlords with an agenda to deny us our happiness or 2) complete ignoranimuses.

 

Funny. This debate has been going on for years, and I haven't seen a single "principle point" made by the other side, yet.

 

I've seen the other side try to argue that "well, if you take out the word Redskins, and replace it with the n-word, then it's offensive, therefore Redskins is offensive, too".

 

I've seen "Well, the word 'colored' used to not be offensive, but now it is, therefore any word that I point at is now offensive, if I say it is.  And the fact that it isn't, doesn't matter." 

I've seen "Well, if you take the word Redksin, and put in into this other context over here, then people would be offended, therefore it's offensive in the context I took it out of, too".

I've seen "Well, if you take this other word that I just made up, that doesn't have the context that the word Redskins has associated with it, then that word is offensive".

 

I have yet to see a single person on "the other side" so much as attempt to demonstrate that the phrase "The Redskins swept the Cowboys, last year" is offensive, that didn't involve "well, let's take some of those words, and carry them out of the room, down the hall, out the door, and into some other building, and pretend that the words were used in this other context, over here, that I've constructed.  And then pretend that, when I've demonstrated that some other phrase is offensive, then that means the first phrase is, too."

 

(In short, the other side admits that the phrase 'The Redskins swept the Cowboys' isn't offensive.  If it were, then they wouldn't have to pull that "But wait!  Let's pretend we're discussing some different topic, instead." game.) 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

unreal. 

 

i have read comment about reillys article that range from people hoping reilly kill himself, to saying he and his editor should be fired. 

 

people are the worse. i think i am officially an alien, because i dont get it. 



Riley's references to the Native themed HS teams (who happen to have a majority of Native students) brings up my Chris Rock/Jay Leno analogy.

 

Not everyone can do or say something on the basis that someone else is already doing the same. Appropriateness of content changes with the context and the messenger.

 

I hope the Native themed HS's can keep their Redskins name and imagery for as long as they desire. 

 

rfk, this, like every argument i read from the other side, already assumes the term is an actual slur, rather than a name made up by indians currently used for a football team and potatoes. 

 

the N bomb is not that. its a bad example thats used over and over again that is only relevant in that they are often used to refer to race. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

And judges have agreed with you for two decades, larry.

It's really not hard.

Show a little evidence that it's actually offensive and this would have been put to bed long ago.

Reilly put forth a ton of actual testimony to the contrary, and could probably get a thousand Native Americans on the stand to confirm everything he wrote.

As i've said since the beginning of our discussions,, show it to me, and I will change my mind. I'm not out to hurt anyone's feelings just for the sake of it. My mind is open, even if it may not appear so.

reilly showed me what other natives think and say. Ms. Harjo and her cronies do not, they just rtell me what they think and say, and they think so long as ONE person is offended by something, that is enough to demand change. And pardon me, but that's ****ing CRAZY.

the non-native self-aggrandizing journalists who have taken up the flag do not show me anything. their consciences and bull**** abstinence of using the name shows me absolutely no proof that it is offensive to anyone other than them.

And frankly, they don't count as much as the Native American in this debate, and as we've been saying since day one,, every time someone bothers to ask THEM, we get stories like Rick Reilly wrote.

And that's good enough for me for now.

Riley's references to the Native themed HS teams (who happen to have a majority of Native students) brings up my Chris Rock/Jay Leno analogy.

 

Not everyone can do or say something on the basis that someone else is already doing the same. Appropriateness of content changes with the context and the messenger.

 

I hope the Native themed HS's can keep their Redskins name and imagery for as long as they desire.

Stay in your place.

This is all I hear from you here.

All you races know your roles, and don't deviate from where you belong.

F that emphatically.

However, kudos, i assume you're white, and as such you've got the "Tell everyone how they should behave and where they belong based on their race and creed" thing working really well.

Very authentic, but really, we're trying to get past all that now.

~Bang

Edited by Bang
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, this is my thought as well.  I've had discussions with people who wanted the name changed and pointed to the history and the response I got was that it's still offensive because it refers to a race of people.  No matter what I said it was just that 'society should be past this point.'

 

Now, there's a kinda interesting point.  The position that well, anything that so much as mentions the fact that race exists, is offensive.  (That even when the reference is positive, it's still offensive.  You're not supposed to notice, or something.) 

 

(I've been known to occasionally express similar arguments, myself.  That I think society sometimes leans to far, to commemorate 'The first one-armed, red headed, identical twin to compete in the Disney Marathon", or some such.) 

 

I think it's a noble-sounding goal.  But I doubt that a single person expressing it really wants to demand that no one is permitted to notice race (or to let is slip that they've noticed race), regardless of the context or thought. 

 

Is it really offensive to notice that we have a black President?  Should it be illegal to point out that GOP voter suppression is designed to suppress the black vote?  Should we demand that all references to "Indians" be removed from Thanksgiving? 

 

That's what you get, when your position is "any thing which in any way references a race, no matter how positive, is forbidden, simply because it mentions a race".

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

rfk, this, like every argument i read from the other side, already assumes the term is an actual slur, rather than a name made up by indians currently used for a football team and potatoes. 

 

the N bomb is not that. its a bad example thats used over and over again that is only relevant in that they are often used to refer to race. 

Alright, I'll forget the N bomb. Instead I'll focus on the messenger. I'll also throw out the team name, instead focusing on the imagery.

 

Amy Poehler and Ellen DeGeneres can share the same stage and laugh at each other's jokes, but Amy won't wear flamboyant costumes associated LGBT persons bc it just wouldn't be same coming from her. Same deal with the NFL's Redskins and Red Messa HS in AZ. Content within context makes a big difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, I'll forget the N bomb. Instead I'll focus on the messenger. I'll also throw out the team name, instead focusing on the imagery.

 

Amy Poehler and Ellen DeGeneres can share the same stage and laugh at each other's jokes, but Amy won't wear flamboyant costumes associated LGBT persons bc it just wouldn't be same coming from her. Same deal with the NFL's Redskins and Red Messa HS in AZ. Content within context makes a big difference.

 

I can wear blue, because I can pull it off.  But you cannot, and I demand that you cease, at once, because I say so. 

 

Gee, aren't "some people can do some things, and others can't, therefore I get to demand that others be prohibited from doing something, just because they can't do some other thing" arguments fun? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bang, I think you're going too far with that theme. 

 

Just MHO. 

I know i am. I do it on purpose. (I'm really not concerned that RFKFedEx is a nazi or hate-filled. Just a little over-zealous in his idea here. But that sort of zealotry can be and has been exploited before)

 

This is the extreme that kind of thinking can lead to, and we know it. Sorry if it offends folks, really. I'd say it's for shock value, because really, when i hear things like what he's saying it IS shocking to me.

It's not the first time down this road in this thread,, we've discussed before why he thinks people need to dress certqain ways, what they can or can't wear based on their backgrounds.. now the latest example of proper conformity is that gays and non gays have distinct rules on what they can wear or say..  

 

"Stay in your place" is a dangerous game, and probably the most slippery of slopes.

 

~Bang

Edited by Bang
Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, I will confess that, lately, I've had this mental image, or analogy, or some such, about the reporters who are all loudly proving now not racist they are, by announcing that anybody who says "Redskins" is racist. 

 

I can somewhat sympathize with their position.  If, 20 years from now, the name becomes offensive, then they're in a profession where people will remember who got on the bandwagon, and who didn't. 

 

(I suspect that very few people remember who said "Look at that little monkey run".  But I suspect that almost everybody who works for ESPN knows.) 

 

But the thought does occur to me, that these folks aren't just stopping the use of the word "Redskin".  They're issuing press releases, announcing what they're doing, and announcing that the word is offensive.  (When it isn't.) 

 

My thought is that what they're doing, IMO, does have some parallels to the people, in the 50's, who demonstrated how not Communist they were, by pointing fingers at other reporters, and calling them Communist. 

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...