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

[grego]

The Redskins are not terribly cartoonish to their credit. They aren't The Indians.

 

More than anything else, my issue is cultural appropriation across the board. That's why I find the Notre Dame argument silly. A university filled with Irish-Catholic students and historically run by Irish Catholic priests can call themselves the Drunken Micks for all I care. (I would totally own a Drunken Mick t-shirt).

 

 

if the redskins end up engaging in a relationship with the potomacs and change their name to either the washington potomacs or the potomac redskins, would it still be cultural appropriation?

 

i think CA is an argument that one could at least make a case for. and i actually dont get behind knuckleheads dressing up in headdresses or doing tomohawk chops. i can get that. to the redskins credit, there is very little of that. 

 

i wonder how amanda blackhorse would feel if i were to walk around in a 'red mesa redskins' t shirt, since shes against the name, but still has said 'we can use the word, but you cant'?

[Larry]

i wonder how amanda blackhorse would feel if i were to walk around in a 'red mesa redskins' t shirt, since shes against the name, but still has said 'we can use the word, but you cant'?

I think she's also said that she intends to force that name to change, too. But I may be thinking of Harjo.

[grego]

I think she's also said that she intends to force that name to change, too. But I may be thinking of Harjo.

 

ya thats blackhorse, but i'm sure harjo is of the same mindset.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

You don't know if announcing that there should be different rules, for different races, is racist?

 

 

I'm not a Fox News viewer. I don't think that reverse racism is the greatest scourge in the country. I'm not opposed to affirmative action programs in theory. I'm certainly not opposed to college admissions offices looking at race as a criteria for admission.

 

I really have to admit though: I am loving Libertarian Larry. Did you read Atlas Shrugged this summer and had your mind blown or something?

[grego]

I'm not a Fox News viewer. I don't think that reverse racism is the greatest scourge in the country. 

 

 

the name 'redskins' isnt the biggest problem in the NA community either, but........

[Larry]

I really have to admit though: I am loving Libertarian Larry. Did you read Atlas Shrugged this summer and had your mind blown or something?

I have to admit, though, I'm enjoying the irony of you trying to deflect away from your position, by inventing an imaginary position, and claiming it's me, and actually getting it kinda right.

I've been Libertarian since my teens.

(And it meant something completely different, back then, and I have not changed to what the word "Libertarian" means, now days.)

(And I have never read "Atlas Shrugged", and have no plans to ever do so.)

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

the name 'redskins' isnt the biggest problem in the NA community either, but........

 

I agree. I'm actually not all that pro-name change. If it wasn't my team, I almost certainly would be more adament, but I wouldn't be marching. I just like arguing on the Internet. And I find this subject endlessly fascinating.

 

Any time sports, race, and politics intersect, I'm going to be excited.

I have to admit, though, I'm enjoying the irony of you trying to deflect away from your position, by inventing an imaginary position, and claiming it's me, and actually getting it kinda right.

 

 

I'm not deflecting from my position. Though, to be honest, I'm not 100 percent sure what my position is.

[Bonez3]

I'm not deflecting from my position. Though, to be honest, I'm not 100 percent sure what my position is.

This is what is frustrating with your statements to me. There are other equally absurd and asinine examples already existing, but you want to justify them.

You seem so adamant and informed, but I feel your missing the point that the victims themselves, best we know, don't care. But you still beat the drum, akin to the apparent freaks.

Your do quick to discredit other analogies or defenses. But what are you particularly aligning to? Ask yourself that

[grego]

This is what is frustrating with your statements to me. There are other equally absurd and asinine examples already existing, but you want to justify them.

You seem so adamant and informed, but I feel your missing the point that the victims themselves, best we know, don't care. But you still beat the drum, akin to the apparent freaks.

Your do quick to discredit other analogies or defenses. But what are you particularly aligning to? Ask yourself that

 

 

i think alot of people (not talking about lbk) do that. they take a position because they 'feel' like its the 'right' position, then throw anything out there to attempt to justify their pre determined position. 

 

i posted a partial transcript of a conversation i was having with a native american (allegedly) a couple of pages back. he said ives goddard was a clown. i politely asked him several times why he was saying that, and he wouldnt give a reason. he just kept calling goddard a clown and saying it was 'common knowledge' that europeans coined the term and it was derogatory. 

 

his only 'proof' of his position was one completely unsupported, ambiguous sentence from 'bury my heart at wounded knee'. 

 

i mean, there was no question about the evidence supporting each side- its just not even close. but, he had his mind made up. 

 

it really is a little bit maddening. 

[Salistala]

IMO Those that stick to the 90% of NAs are not offended by the name based on the 2004 Annenberg survey:

http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/downloads/political_communication/naes/2004_03_redskins_09-24_pr.pdf

 

are hanging their arguments on shaky ground.

 

The Annenberg survey asks"...As a Native American, do you find that name offensive or doesn’t it bother you?"

 

Yes, I find it offensive… or… Yes, it doesn't bother me

                                    Or

No, I don't find it offensive… or… No, it does bother me.

 

If you're seeking an answer to verify your subjective point of view no matter what, this is how you frame a question. If you were seeking an objective truth you might want to separate those two questions.

 

From the Survey Methodology on the last page:

 

“In addition to sampling error, the practical difficulties of conducting any survey of public opinion may introduce other sources of error into the poll. Variations in the wording (my emphasis) and order of questions, for example, may lead to somewhat different results.”

 

I have tried to find the reply form to see what options are available to the respondents, but in the absence of other evidence I believe the options would be either a “yes or no” answer or a 5 response scale from highly agree to highly disagree. For an issue this volatile there is too much ambiguity, research design is very important to how a question is understood and answered by the respondents.

 

“Because NA make up a very small proportion of the total population, the responses were collected over a very long period.”

 

I’m confused, wasn’t this survey supposed to be polling Americans’ opinions about the upcoming election? What does the fact about NA being a small proportion of the population have to do with this? Did they really poll 65,000 people to find 768 NDNs (self-identifying NDNs… more like NDN lite) to ask this ambiguous question? What a waste of time and resources.

 

Also, the response condition requiring a landline telephone introduces a selection bias, at the time of the survey only 53% of Native Americans on reservations had a telephone. This survey method automatically deselects those potential opinions, and other social research suggests people with landlines at the time were more likely to have a more conservative point of view.

 

My last criticism is how the press release states, “Most Indians Say Name of Washington “Redskins” Is Acceptable..” How did they make the leap from “not offended” to “acceptable”? I’m not offended personally when someone like Harjo or Halbritter uses questionable theories to advance the ChangeTheName cause. Do I find their methods “acceptable”? No, not really. I prefer to consider my opponents position and arguments then, if I can, find clear unambiguous evidence that supports my position.

 

Here is my last word on Annenberg, from some legal students in the DC area:

http://ipclinic.org/2014/02/11/11-reasons-to-ignore-the-10-year-old-annenberg-survey-about-the-washington-football-teams-offensive-name/

[grego]

I'll let others much smarter than I dissect that criticism (of which I had a few problems). But I'll ask this.

If that survey is so wrong, if native Americans are truly offended by this word, why do they call their own high school teams `redskins`?

And why does an activist want to force them to change it, even though they don't want to?

[Salistala]

I have similar problems with the Change the Name "poll" in California, they both suffer from selection bias just in different ways. As Bang has said in other posts i would be willing to do a prisoner exchange over each poll, I would drop California if he drops Annenberg.

 

And Bang, I know you're already there. And I agree that a new survey is merited, but the methodology would have to be crystal clear and endorsed by both sides or we'll be back to a back and forth endless argument with no clear consensus.

 

I'd even be willing to drop my Change the Name stance if there was true NA opposition to the name change. Not anecdotal, not Red Mesa internal support, not some flawed internet poll. True opposition, like 75%+. And I think since this is a highly volatile issue, every vote counts, not a representative sample extrapolated to the entire population.

 

I may drop my change it stance, I will not drop my insistance that it's offensive though. I have personal experience in the use of the name as a slur, and it was ugly and left me not wanting to ever return to Montana despite how beautiful the land was.

[Beygo]

That's a joke Sali, 90% is not an anomoly

[Bonez3]

I'm well aware of the inherent flaws of poll, and likely Annenberg. I don't rest my hat on any 1 thing.

But that, coupled with objective research of word, use by NA schools and general public polls becomes the prevailing reason.

Than you take the flag bearers for opposition and see the theme is generally no NA imagery.

Just meh, and yea I doubt it is an anomaly.

[Kosher Ham]

I don't know if it's racist. It's certainly contradictory and may be hypocritical but that's life.

 

I don't say the N-word. I don't think anyone should say the N-word. I certanly don't think white people should ever say the N-word. I have an opinion on whether black people should say the N-word or not, but I don't feel like it's my place to state it or push that opinion.

 

 

Yet you sit here and tell me what I should be offended by...again.

 

Then you talk about Notre Dame...haha.

 

Oh boy.

[Boss_Hogg]

I may drop my change it stance, I will not drop my insistance that it's offensive though. I have personal experience in the use of the name as a slur, and it was ugly and left me not wanting to ever return to Montana despite how beautiful the land was.

 

I'm sorry you were treated poorly.  I've never heard the team name used as a slur but that doesn't mean anything because I'm not Native.

 

Would you mind telling us what happened? I'm open to listening.

[RedskinsFan44]

768/65000 = 1.18 percent. This closely matches census data. The notion that there is significant fraud in self identification seems unlikely. Have you ever taken a telephone poll? I usually comment on my answer, so instead of just saying "no", I would likely say "no, it does not bother me". After looking closely at the Annenberg poll I think that part of the reason it has not been replicated is that to get a truly random sample you have to approach it in a similar manner, to sample a significant number of approximately 1 percent of the population you need to survey a hundred times as many people as normal.

The U CA poll is a joke, not even comparable.

[Larry]

IMO Those that stick to the 90% of NAs are not offended by the name based on the 2004 Annenberg survey:

Don't like the poll results? Think you've fount a nit you can pick that will cause the results to swing from a 10-to-1 disagreement with your agenda, to a majority favoring it?

Run another poll.

The name changers have been pushing this agenda for 40 years or more. Another poll is cheap, compared to the time they've spent on legal filings and court appearances and publicity campaigns.

Think that comma ought to be a semicolon? Fine. Run another poll, with the comma changed.

But don't try to counter a reputable, random, survey, with a couple of "well, I might have changed one word in the question", and then nothing.

[Larry]

I may drop my change it stance, I will not drop my insistance that it's offensive though. I have personal experience in the use of the name as a slur, and it was ugly and left me not wanting to ever return to Montana despite how beautiful the land was.

Excellent support for the assertion that the word "redskin" can, and has, been used in an offensive manner.

Yes, it's anecdotal. But that's all it takes, to prove that yes, something has happened at least once.

And if you want to assert that the name of the football team offends you, then you don;t even need anecdotal support. Yeah, I suppose there's a possibility that maybe you're lying about being offended. but even if you were, nobody can possibly prove it.

So your declaration of being offended has to be respected, anyway.

And it seems likely that there are thousands of "you"s.

However, for every one of those thousands, there are ten more, who disagree.

[grego]

"I don’t think there was anything wrong with our methodology. All pollsters ask for self-identification on demographics from age to education to ethnicity to religion.... When someone says they are married, you don’t ask for a marriage certificate....."

I don’t have any doubts about the validity about the poll or how it was conducted."

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/12/16/man-who-ran-dan-snyders-poll-course-id-change-name-152737

These are the words of Adam Clymer, the guy in charge if that poll.

FYI, he also said this- "Of course I would change the name! It’s offensive—about as offensive as the way the team is playing today. I don’t call them by the name they use, I refer to them as the Washington Unmentionables"

Talk about a hostile witness.

You have a problem with the survey? Talk to that guy. Hates the name, yet stands by the results of the poll.

Nice try, though.

[SusqySkin]

1). Might want to shorten that quote.

2). Granted, I only skimmed the thing, but as near as I can tell, the guy spent that entire column saying "look how many people are doing what I want". Without ever once mentioning that natives overwhelmingly say the name isn't offensive.

It's kinda ironic. In this entire "debate", the only side that gives a **** about how Natives feel, are the "racists".

 

 

Sorry about that. I couldn't find the article in here. It got shortened for me. 

[Bang]

I have similar problems with the Change the Name "poll" in California, they both suffer from selection bias just in different ways. As Bang has said in other posts i would be willing to do a prisoner exchange over each poll, I would drop California if he drops Annenberg.

 

And Bang, I know you're already there. And I agree that a new survey is merited, but the methodology would have to be crystal clear and endorsed by both sides or we'll be back to a back and forth endless argument with no clear consensus.

 

I'd even be willing to drop my Change the Name stance if there was true NA opposition to the name change. Not anecdotal, not Red Mesa internal support, not some flawed internet poll. True opposition, like 75%+. And I think since this is a highly volatile issue, every vote counts, not a representative sample extrapolated to the entire population.

 

I may drop my change it stance, I will not drop my insistance that it's offensive though. I have personal experience in the use of the name as a slur, and it was ugly and left me not wanting to ever return to Montana despite how beautiful the land was.

 

No matter what, there will be people who take something and make it the worst... which is what the person who slurred you did. And that sucks on so many levels, because for one there's still people who think like that, and that is disheartening, and that person's ignorance causes you to view something that we feel is no longer a slur as exactly that. Whether it used to be used as a slur back in the bad ol' days is probably not much for debate.. people are clannish and ignorance prevailed for a long time. But it is not meant as a slur today to the vast majority of people because I'd like to think that this professional football team put a new, more positive association to the word.

and that person took that from you and brought it back to what it was at it's worst.

 

And there's nothing anyone can do to repair that, and frankly, if that is how you feel about the word as a result, then I support that as well. What i would hope is that one day when someone is talking football with you and they mention the Redskins, that you can recognize that for what it is and relax, and not what that person in your past made it.

and I'm sure you can, because I'm sure you're used to doing so. Hopefully one day it won't be a matter of having to swallow some bile as you politely indulge the conversation.

 

I can't speak for everyone there is, but I can speak for the fans that i know,,  we only see it as one thing, and it's a source of tremendous pride for us as fans of the team.  We don't view it in terms of actual skin, or anything racial at all. It's just our team, and while it would still be our team if it was called the Warriors or the Monuments or the Pigeons, it's always been the Redskins.

Sure there's people who will dress up like a clown to go to the game. i wouldn't, but there's fools in every crowd.

 

as far as a poll goes,, i don't mind if Harjo's group conducts it themselves. Based on everything else we've seen, I'm confident in the return. I think they are, though, which is why they never have..and why they rely on emotion, and why she relies on enlisting the aid of the society she hates.

I think she knows that if they conduct a poll that is open and honest that leaves out the "1/12th Cherokee" types, she'd find that the people she's speaking for will tell her to shut up and concentrate on things that are actually important.

the fact that Blackhorse claims that the name of this team is responsible for sending the message that starts the cycles of alcoholism and drug abuse rampant in her people is utterly and ridiculously contemptible. 

It ignores real problems, real influences, like watching fathers brothers grandfathers that are alcoholics and drug abusers etc... according to that short-sighted ignorant fool, generations of these problems have a smaller effect on continuing the cycles than the name of a damn football team. 

 

~Bang

[BleedBNG]

Eradicating Offensive Native Masctory (EONM) says "FOUL"

 

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/10/03/nikes-redskins-themed-birthday-kevin-durant-draws-ire-native-group-157169

 

 

(is masctory even a word?)

[Larry]

Why am I increasingly seeing the Name Change brigade similarly to the Westborough Baptist Church: Showing up at birthday parties and weddings and funerals, with "God Hates Mascots" signs?

[Salistala]

Boss

 

I was driving from Victoria BC to, ironically enough, DC for a friends wedding in June '93. We stopped in Missoula MT for coffee and toast at a coffee shop around 6:30-7am.

 

We walked in, 1 Native American 1 Metis (mix of French and NA) and a Caribbean African Canadian, and the place literally ground to a halt when we walked in. Hustle and bustle to dead silence in no time at all.

 

Waitress says to me, "Maybe you two ****ing redskins should leave, and take your "n-word" with you"

 

We left, but not without a little too much attitude. As we stopped at a gas station on the way out of town we noticed that a couple jacked up pick-ups were circling the block watching. We paid and left and got back on I-90, the pickups followed and took turns making runs at our bumper, riding our ass until we caught up to some traffic and we tucked in with a couple camper vans, the good ol boys u-turned and left.

 

Freaking scariest instance of racism I ever experienced, and I'm a First Nation person in Canada where we're not really appreciated either. Had a couple of other instances, once in Rapid City once at a restaurant on the Mississippi and another in some depressed Appalachian town, but they were pretty vanilla compared to Montana.