Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

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


Recommended Posts

Y'know, you're right.

deleted post, and my apologies to RFK and the board. A bit overboard on my part.

Thanks for stepping in and making me think, Larry.

 

~Bang

I don't mind it Bang. Remember, I still love the name and imagery and these endless media attacks against our family hurt me too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mind it Bang. Remember, I still love the name and imagery and these endless media attacks against our family hurt me too.

thanks, but Larry is right, You didn't deserve that shot. Very bad form on my part.

i may vehemently disagree with you on this, but you strike me as a decent person with whom i'd like to have a beer one day.

~Bang

Edited by Bang
Link to post
Share on other sites

From Reilly's ESPN article:

It's a name that honors the people," says Kingston English teacher Brett Hayes, who is Choctaw. "The word 'Oklahoma' itself is Choctaw for 'red people.' The students here don't want it changed. To them, it seems like it's just people who have no connection with the Native American culture, people out there trying to draw attention to themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks, but Larry is right, You didn't deserve that shot. Very bad form on my part.

i may vehemently disagree with you on this, but you strike me as a decent person with whom i'd like to have a beer one day.

~Bang

You've always humored me Bang and I know you're not a bad dude. We probably agree on just about everything else in this world; most importantly, a lifelong love for this franchise. People who talk S about our B&G can piss all of us off, regardless if we agree or disagree with their intentions or messages.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Love this article. Also love the point on the majority native american high schools using the name. So often people on the other side sit there going "We wouldn't have a sports franchise called the N-Words, or the Wetbacks, Or the Chinks, or [fill in random racial slur here]...so we shouldn't have redskin". Basing their argument off the notion that Redskins = those things....

Show me a predominantly hispanic school with the team name being "Wetbacks". Show me a predominantly black school with the team name being the N-Words or Porch Monkeys. Show me a predominantly asian school called the "Slant Eyes".

You're not going to find it. While yes, SOME within a particular subset of a racial grouping will try to "own" a slur and use it for their own that is sizably different than it being used in some sort of official capacity within society in a broad sense like as a school name.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

"Cowboys" is a tremendously sexist name. Frankly it disgusts me.

 

"Buccaneers"? What, so everyone from Tampa is a raping, pillaging, sea thief? Everyone from Oakland too?

 

The "Browns"? The context is unimportant, sounds racist to me.

 

The "Bears" is like saying "The fat hairy gay men". Terrible.

 

The "Saints" is the most sacrilegeous sports team name I've ever heard.

 

 

Why can't everybody be named after non-threatening song birds like the Cardinals? Unless they mean Cardinals like the Catholic kind, in which case that is a highly offensive and blasphemous name for a football team.

Link to post
Share on other sites

warriors video

This might actually be the ONLY reason I'd ever favor a name change. this would be so awesome to play on the jumbo screens while they come out on the field.

come out and plaaaaaaaay!

the whole crowd doing that would be AWESOME.

In fact, if they guaranteed me they would o it every home game, i might change my vote right now. :P

~Bang

Edited by Bang
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

I'm sorry that was a type.  Should have been "principled."

 

I really, really REALLY do not want to be the point person on this anymore.  I don't even feel that strongly about this issue.  

 

I mostly argue the "other" side because I feel like the discussion here isn't balanced (how could it be - we are all Redskins FANS) and people should hear both sides of an issue as fairly as possible.  

 

However,  I have taken too much heat over the years from my fellow posters, some of whom are very emotional and get very angry at me personally.  I just don't want to be that guy anymore.  I'm not going to convince anyone here anyway.

 

To answer your question, with a quick summary of my concerns - I have no problem with the logo or the Native American imagery and I don't think that anyone else does either, except for a few over the top PC idiots that really can be ignored.  

 

I do have qualms about the use of the particular word "Redskin."  As I have pointed out several times, virtually every dictionary identifies that particular word as a derogatory and archaic way of referrring to Native Americans.  I don't think that the people who wrote all those dictionaries have an agenda, I think they are just doing their jobs, setting forth the language as it is currently understood by society.  

 

I also know that I would have trouble with calling a team the "Blackskins."  I also know that we no longer refer to people as "colored folk" as a general rule, even if that term was not intended to be offensive back when people used it a lot.  I think that may be a good parallel to the use of the word "redskin" today.  I'm pretty sure none of us would visit a reservation and say: "Could you ask that redskin over there where the bathroom is?"  I think there is a reason for that.- we all understand that it would be condescending.

 

I also question the usefulness of the limited polling that has been done on the issue, especially the Annenberg poll, which as far as I can tell, didn't ask the right question and didn't necessarily ask the right people.  

 

The possible flaw in random and anonymous polls of American Indians' opinion is that they must rely upon self-identification to select the target group. In an editorial in the Bloomington Herald Times, Steve Russell, an enrolled Cherokee citizen and associate professor of criminal justice at Indiana University, states that both SI and Annenberg's samples of "self-identified Native Americans... includes plenty of people who have nothing to do with Indians".

[11] The problem of individuals claiming to be American Indian when they are not is well-known in academic research, and is a particular problem when non-natives claim Indian identity to gain authority in the debate over sports mascots.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Redskins_mascot_controversy

 

With all that said (and I could say more), I don't think this is the biggest issue in the world, and I think Reilly (and the rest of you) als make good points on the other side, and don't want to fight this battle forever with you guys, who I consider to be my friends.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i have a proposal.

 

what if there were a way to get native americans to vote on whether or now to keep the name. pretend all the kinks like proving youre native american and all that were worked out. 

 

what if they have a vote? 50+%, the name stays. end of story. given the annenberg data, you would think the name would stay. 

 

what do you think would happen?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This might actually be the ONLY reason I'd ever favor a name change. this would be so awesome to play on the jumbo screens while they come out on the field.

come out and plaaaaaaaay!

~Bang

\

Come to a basketball game at the Roaracle Arena.   Totally awesome.  

Deadspin, jack kogod and UnWise Mike being pretty douchey about it. It's sad that they act like children when someone has a different take...

 

 

Be fair.  People here act pretty douchey about it on the other side too.   It's an issue that brings out the douche in all of us.  :)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

"Cowboys" is a tremendously sexist name. Frankly it disgusts me.

 

"Buccaneers"? What, so everyone from Tampa is a raping, pillaging, sea thief? Everyone from Oakland too?

 

The "Browns"? The context is unimportant, sounds racist to me.

 

The "Bears" is like saying "The fat hairy gay men". Terrible.

 

The "Saints" is the most sacrilegeous sports team name I've ever heard.

 

 

Why can't everybody be named after non-threatening song birds like the Cardinals? Unless they mean Cardinals like the Catholic kind, in which case that is a highly offensive and blasphemous name for a football team.

 

My brother's roommate's uncle's wife is Norweigen and the name Vikings offends her.

 

See how easy this is?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also question the usefulness of the limited polling that has been done on the issue, especially the Annenberg poll, which as far as I can tell, didn't ask the right question and didn't necessarily ask the right people.

[11] The problem of individuals claiming to be American Indian when they are not is well-known in academic research, and is a particular problem when non-natives claim Indian identity to gain authority in the debate over sports mascots.[/size]



1) You got a suggestion as to what you think would have been a better question?

I can think of how to word the question, if I had the objective of getting a lot more "offended" votes. All I have to do is to ask people if they think the term "Redskins" is offensive to somebody else.

Far as I'm aware, Annenberg asked people if they were offended. And more specifically, asked them specifically about the name of the football team. Both of which, I strongly assert, was the correct question to ask.

Edit: Here's a link to the press release from Annenberg, announcing the poll results. (PDF).

According to the press release, the question was:

“The professional football team in Washington calls itself the Washington Redskins. As a Native American, do you find that name offensive or doesn’t it bother you?”



2) You (or anybody else) got any support whatsoever for this Wikipedia claim that well, the people who claimed to not be offended must all have been liars?

I confess, I haven't studied things, but from what I understand:

2a) This question was asked as an add-on question to their [Annenburg's] annual survey of Presidential election preferences. They didn't simply call people up and ask them about the football team.

2b) And I assume that they asked people their demographic information first, and then asked them about their offended-ness if and only if they claimed to be Native. (The only other way to do things would have been to ask everybody about the team name, and then throw out 95% of the responses.)

If that's the way they did things, (collect the demographic information first), then the only way some liar could have claimed to be Native (so that he could lie about his offended-ness), was if he knew, when they asked about his ethnicity, that the football team name question was going to come, later.

3) And, I'll point out that I've had a ready response for people who want to actually challenge the poll. (Even if it only consists of "well, maybe, if this were true, then we could ignore it".)

Don't like the poll?

Run another one.

(Heck, the previous poll is 10 years old. I'd be amazed if feelings on the issue haven't changed. The Media has the power to alter public opinion. And a whole lot of people have been being told that the name is offensive, for a year. I'd be really surprised if this hasn't had some effect.)

Pick a polling company. Pick a way to phrase the question. Pick a degree of "Native-ness" that you think is acceptable enough so that their opinion ought to count.

(And be prepared to defend those choices. For example, if you try to ask people whether they think other people are offended by the name, I'm going to point out that a person speaking about his own opinion is a whole lot more authoritative than somebody expressing an opinion as to his opinion about somebody else's opinion.)

I will also observe that I can think of a pretty simple explanation as to why, after 30 years of going to court, the Name Change Crusade hasn't asked Natives for their opinions.

It's because

1) They already know what Native's opinions are.
2) It doesn't help their case.
3) And they don't care.

Edited by Larry
Link to post
Share on other sites

Larry, you have already said that "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 made multiple points that I think are worth consideration, that affect my view of this issue.  Apparently, you think I haven't said a single thing worthwhile this entire time.

 

 4IrzSaT.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

Larry, you have already said that "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 made multiple points that I think are worth consideration, that affect my view of this issue.  Apparently, you think I haven't said a single thing worthwhile this entire time.

 

Your "principle points" apparently consist of "I don't like the question, but I can't suggest one that's better, or more relevant", and "somebody claims (without any support whatsoever) that the poll surveyed a bunch of liars (but I don't want to run a better one)".

(Well, those, and your previous "Well, if you pretend that the issue were being discussed in an environment in which the word Redskin did not refer to a football team, and never has, then it's offensive".)

Edited by Larry
Link to post
Share on other sites

Your "principle points" apparently consist of "I don't like the question, but I can't suggest one that's better, or more relevant", and "somebody claims (without any support whatsoever) that the poll surveyed a bunch of liars (but I don't want to run a better one)".

(Well, those, and your previous "Well, if you pretend that the issue were being discussed in an environment in which the word Redskin did not refer to a football team, and never has, then it's offensive".)

 

I consider this a shallow and and inaccurate characterization of my numerous posts, and having to try to respond to stuff like this over and over without overreacting should serve as the explanation of why I don't want to participate in this thread anymore.   

 

So I concede.  You are completely right and everyone outside of the Redskins fan bubble is completely wrong, and intellectually dishonest as well.  There are no points to be made on the other side, none, zero.  Everyone who ever has actually put any thought into this subject automatically agrees that the use of the word "Redskin" in this context is not just appropriate, but frankly is borderline heroic.  Everyone who disagrees is a shallow fool, one who has been misled by a media conspiracy set up by meddling politically correct carpetbaggers.  We must go to the mattresses to defend our honor, our heritage, our way of life... if we change the nickname of a footballt team, the soul of Western Civilization could be lost forever!  :)

 

And no, I'm not mad.   I guess I've just learned that there are certain subjects that you don't discuss on a Redskins message board.

Since we can't avoid drama rooting for this team, I whipped this up for our eventual redesign:

tumblr_mte34pOSjN1qi39t0o1_400.jpg

 

The DC Drama.  Hail to the Drama.

 

 

nOdXIci.gif

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I was thinking similar thoughts.

Mine were prompted by seeing somebody in a Lynard Skynard shirt which featured a pair of those flags, and from there, I thought to all of the things I've heard defenders of that flag say, to try to defend it.

Now, the thought also occurred to me, though, that that flag has never stood for anything other than racial discrimination. Whereas the Redskins logo, and the word, near as I can tell, never has.

The facts say that one is a symbol of discrimination and slavery, and that the other is not even offensive.

But yeah, the thought does occur to me, to wonder. "To somebody who is completely ignorant on both subjects (which, sadly, includes a whole bunch of people), does defending one look like defending the other?"

 

What you said about the Confederate flag is a load of crap and offensive to people from the South. You don't get to decide what a flag represents, especially if you have no ties to it. You are being arrogant by claiming your opinions as "facts."   

As far as the name, this is just a few people in the media barking. They are revving up the propaganda and turning out lame stories as often as possible. However, the common man does not care, nor do American Indians. If they did care, there would be evidence. Meaningful protests, boycotts of merchandise, boycotts of games, etc.

 

10-12 white people protesting means absolutely nothing. None of this is happening, and so there is absolutely no reason to change the name at this point. Dan would look like a chump for doing so.

To the chagrin of Peter **** and Mike **** and the guy who runs PFT, no one cares enough. The media can be loud but their ability to actually cause change is minimal. Especially the sports media. The sports media is incredibly irrelevant in real life, don't forget that. They only serve to provide fans with recaps and analysis. They lack real influence. The most they can do is cause debates for die-hard fans on internet message boards.

If someone can provide evidence to the contrary, I'm all ears. Right now I see no evidence that a large amount of people care enough to make this a real issue. Right now it's meaningless sports media hype.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ace of Spades has weighed in:

 

http://minx.cc/?post=343524


 


No one names teams after things that are silly or weak or infirm.
You do not have teams named, for example, the Cleveland Pea****s.
There is no team named the Kansas City Panda Bears. No one has started a
franchise called the New York Fine Arts Majors.


No, it's always named after something that denotes the Achillean ideal of masculinity, suggesting fury, fierceness, pride, speed, power, and strength.


Everyone knows this. Literally everyone knows this.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe Dan.  This may be the only time, lol...

The Redskins have been his favorite team since he was a kid, right?  He's the owner of his favorite team. (Wow, :) )  There is no way, imo, he will change the name of this team unless he is actually forced by law, and I don't see any way that can happen.   Does anyone really believe that Congress would get this through (just which) committee and onto the floor? 

NEVER! :D   HAIL!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was looking over some fantasy football stuff and came across his weekly love hate, http://espn.go.com/fantasy/football/story/_/page/TMR130919/matthew-berry-players-loves-hates-week-3-fantasy-football-rankings , I noticed that he now refers to the skins as only Washington or The Washington Professional football franchise.  I think that if he is going to adopt this stupid PC police policy as a self proclaimed lifelong redskins fan, then he should refer to every team by city of origin only rather than mascot at the very least.  Take this crap over the top!

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...