Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

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

Alaskins

By Alaskins
in The Tailgate

Recommended Posts

RedskinsFan44

RedskinsFan44

Posted
Posted

Are these stats from recent Washington City Paper article accurate?

"Over 300 tribes and two million Native Americans, as well as religious and human rights organizations, have called on NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and Daniel Snyder, the Washington football team owner, to change the name of the Washington football team because the name and mascot insult native people"

I would assume that they are suggesting that the leadership of a tribe speaks for all members, so if a tribal council votes 5-3 in favor of denouncing the name and there are 10,000 members of that tribe then 10,000 NAs have denounced the name*.

 

* By the City Paper's logic

 

Add:  Link to story, logic is Delegate Norton's

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2014/11/12/del-norton-introduces-bill-to-strip-nfl-of-tax-exempt-status-over-washington-football-team-name/

 

Edit: And to further correct myself, it looks like the logic is the NCAI represents 300 tribes, so all members are unanimous.  The NCAI list of tribes taking a stand on the name is way below 100 (23 per Wikipedia).

 

Final edit:  So after doing some Googling you could have done if you were really interested in the accuracy of the statement I am going to say the answer to your question is no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
planter

planter

Posted
Posted

I would assume that they are suggesting that the leadership of a tribe speaks for all members, so if a tribal council votes 5-3 in favor of denouncing the name and there are 10,000 members of that tribe then 10,000 NAs have denounced the name*.

* By the City Paper's logic

Add: Link to story, logic is Delegate Norton's

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2014/11/12/del-norton-introduces-bill-to-strip-nfl-of-tax-exempt-status-over-washington-football-team-name/

Edit: And to further correct myself, it looks like the logic is the NCAI represents 300 tribes, so all members are unanimous. The NCAI list of tribes taking a stand on the name is way below 100 (23 per Wikipedia).

Final edit: So after doing some Googling you could have done if you were really interested in the accuracy of the statement I am going to say the answer to your question is no.

The figures seemed a tad high so I thought I'd ask the ES experts. Then I "googled" to find there are 2-3 miilion Native Americans, 5+ million if you add those who claim "partial" NA heritage. There are are 562 federally recognized Tribes.If a Tribal Council votes 5-3 against our name, that's the Tribes oflficial position. Of course that doesn't mean every single Tribal member agrees.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RedskinsFan44

RedskinsFan44

Posted
Posted

I am no expert, but I am familiar with the topic and recognized the claim was unlikely to be true. Wish the City Paper would exercise due diligence.

Reminds me of this:

I hold a device in my hand which gives me access to the whole of human knowledge. I use it to watch cat videos and argue with strangers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
grego

grego

Posted
Posted

 

obamas pastors ramblings sound just like susan harjos writings, so no surprise there. 

 

(and i'm not an independant)

 

 

seriously, its an ignorant move by a lame duck president. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
grego

grego

Posted
Posted

Are these stats from recent Washington City Paper article accurate?

"Over 300 tribes and two million Native Americans, as well as religious and human rights organizations, have called on NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and Daniel Snyder, the Washington football team owner, to change the name of the Washington football team because the name and mascot insult native people"

 

 

if my tribe got half a billion dollars from the federal government 4 months after half of congress wrote a letter to goodell demanding a name change, i'd vote to change it too. 

 

you think this is a civil rights issue?

 

annnenberg is wrong, i suppose.

 

red mesa, st johns and wellpenit dont actually exist. native americans in favor of the name dont exist. ben shelly, the codetalkers....all bribed by dan snyder. 

 

and the name means scalps, and always has.

 

these things are all true if susan harjo is to be believed. 

 

either that or shes crazy?

 

nah. couldnt be that. 

 

 

 

wake up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
planter

planter

Posted
Posted

obamas pastors ramblings sound just like susan harjos writings, so no surprise there.

(and i'm not an independant)

seriously, its an ignorant move by a lame duck president.

He he. Yeah if we're talking about the same guy - he was a doozy.

I am an Independent who voted for Obama.

He does makes me cringe now and then. Don't know much about Harjo except there are some stong feelings at ES !!!

if my tribe got half a billion dollars from the federal government 4 months after half of congress wrote a letter to goodell demanding a name change, i'd vote to change it too.

you think this is a civil rights issue?

annnenberg is wrong, i suppose.

red mesa, st johns and wellpenit dont actually exist. native americans in favor of the name dont exist. ben shelly, the codetalkers....all bribed by dan snyder.

and the name means scalps, and always has.

these things are all true if susan harjo is to be believed.

either that or shes crazy?

nah. couldnt be that.

wake up.

I did almost fall asleep while trying to decypher your post..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
grego

grego

Posted
Posted

I did almost fall asleep while trying to decypher your post..

 

sorry i bored you. 

 

if you are really interested. i'd be more than happy to explain to you anything you're having trouble with regarding my post. 

 

but you appear to have your mind made up, so i'm 'decyphering' that your post is diversionary and that you're not really interested in those points because they dont support your stance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Patrick Evidente

Patrick Evidente

Posted
Posted
Big deal. Obama is a loser.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
grego

grego

Posted
Posted

You concluded a rhetorical post with the childish "wake up".

 

planter, you talk about trying to 'decypher' my posts. first of all, i dont think my posts are very difficult to follow. on the other hand, i'm not sure what youre talking about sometimes. 

 

i'm sorry you are offended by me saying 'wake up'. but i'll tell you why i said that. at this point in the debate, there is so much easily accessible information regarding the name that if one still believes the likes of susan harjo and amanda blackhorse, the only logical answer is that they arent paying attention.

 

actually, i'll correct that- another possible reason would be that one might be pushing an agenda.

 

but, i dont think you have an agenda. i just think your mind is closed, so you ignore facts that dont support your predetermined opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
planter

planter

Posted
Posted

planter

i'm sorry you are offended by me saying 'wake up'.

(really)

if one still believes the likes of susan harjo and amanda blackhorse, the only logical answer is that they arent paying attention...

Let's see ...troll vs USA President....troll vs. USA President....who should I believe?

Your posts would be lot shorter if you removed the dogma..

HTT?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
planter

planter

Posted
Posted

With all the current dramatic hysteria among the fans and organization I think I know the obvious choice for a name ...

Washington Real Housewives.

We're not a professional football team so we should just accept what we are. A bad reality TV show.

How about the National Laughingstocks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted

what?

I assume he's trying to say "Obama has endorsed the name change, therefore you pointing out that what Harjo says, is false, makes you a troll".

But of course, if he actually says that, then it would allow you to substantiate the fact that what Harjo says is, in fact, false.

At least, I think that's what he's trying not to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RedskinsFan44

RedskinsFan44

Posted
Posted

Are these stats from recent Washington City Paper article accurate?

 

 

 

 Don't know much about Harjo except there are some stong feelings at ES !!!

 

You're accusing people of trolling?  Why not make a case for your beliefs instead of just dropping every critical article you find in this thread and claiming ignorance as to what the facts are?

Here is my opinion of Harjo:  She has done some good things for her community, but as a politician she has decided that lying is OK if it achieves the ends she desires (much like Norton's "misleading" claims).  The two main lies she is guilty of are her definitions of "squaw" and "redsklns".  While it is fairly easy to make a case that both terms have been used in a derogatory manner, she feels the necessity to say that they mean "vagina" and "scalps or human pelts" respectively.  And while historians and etymologists have refuted these claims, she waves them off by saying that you can't believe what has been written by society, NA oral history takes precedence (she says someone told her those were the meanings and that is all the proof she needs).  The problem with her story is that if the settlers used these terms in that manner it would be recorded in writing.  Americans have shown no qualms about recording their bad behavior historically, there is plenty of documentation of anti-indian sentiment.  If the meaning for the terms are ones the NAs gave them then that is another story altogether, and her narrative is likewise invalid.  Her "squaw" story also mixed up the tribes from which the word is supposedly derived so she gets no credit from me on being honest or diligent in her pursuit of the truth. My take on it is she knows the value of making a shocking claim, and that people rarely fact check something they want to believe.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
grego

grego

Posted
Posted

I assume he's trying to say "Obama has endorsed the name change, therefore you pointing out that what Harjo says, is false, makes you a troll".

But of course, if he actually says that, then it would allow you to substantiate the fact that what Harjo says is, in fact, false.

 

 

 

i think redskinsfan44 just did. better than i would have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
grego

grego

Posted
Posted

 

 

You're accusing people of trolling?  Why not make a case for your beliefs instead of just dropping every critical article you find in this thread and claiming ignorance as to what the facts are?

 

 

 

well said. 

 

i kind of think planter (who hates being 'called names') was calling me a troll, but i'm scratching my head as to how i fit any definition of the word. although, assigning our own made up definitions of words is nothing new to the name change crowd so i shouldnt be surprised. 

 

but, yeah, posting articles about susan harjo, admitting you know almost nothing about her- then getting indignant when someone says that it appears you dont know anything about her- is something i dont understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
planter

planter

Posted
Posted

I assume he's trying to say "Obama has endorsed the name change, therefore you pointing out that what Harjo says, is false, makes you a troll".

But of course, if he actually says that, then it would allow you to substantiate the fact that what Harjo says is, in fact, false.

At least, I think that's what he's trying not to say.

The "troll" comment came after Grego told me "pay attention" "wake up" etc.

Regarding Harjo, Grego is correct about her being a controversial figure but the Nation's highest civilian medal from USA President?

As a devil's advocate I only pose questions. IF you want solutions....that's gonna cost

Link to comment
Share on other sites
planter

planter

Posted
Posted

i kind of think planter (who hates being 'called names')

(don't like vague accusations)?

was calling me a troll, but i'm scratching my head as to how i fit any definition of the word. although, assigning our own made up definitions of words is nothing new to the name change crowd so i shouldnt be surprised.

(This I like. Clever)

but, yeah, posting articles about susan harjo, admitting you know almost nothing about her-

Missing the point.

First, you might admit more often that you don't have all the facts.

Second. The USA President awarded Suzan Harjo the Nation's highest civilian award. Log that into your database.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bonez3

Bonez3

Posted
Posted

Seriously man... The US president isn't infallible. The women is a race monger, and in frankly insulted as an American that she received this award.

If you're gonna continue to say the POTUS said it, so it must be truth, than there won't be to much 'cooking'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...