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

planter

planter

Posted
Posted

Said I don't know.

Are you upset that I linked to the Presidential Award? Whether she deserves the award, we'll leave that to the ES experts. Perhaps I'm slower to pass judgement or perhaps "I'm not paying attention"

Totally agree that USA Presidents are not infallible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
grego

grego

Posted
Posted

Missing the point.

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

 

nevermind. 

 

planter, if you want to post about presidents giving awards to wacky people that you admit you know nothing about, by all means, have at it. 

 

i would spend my time educating myself about people i post articles about, but, whatever. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted

"Fairly neutral article" makes the statement that

<< However, another man said that if he left emotion out of and stuck with the facts, the choice is clear. “The facts are it’s a derogatory term,” he said. >>

which is kinda curious, since THE FACT IS THAT IT IS NOT.

And then jumps from there to try to make the claim that well, all of the tribes in Virginia are offended, too, but they're being bullied into silence by Dan Snyder and the racist Virginia state government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted

After your last "neutral article", I was reluctant to click the link. But yes, that one went into a lot of depth.

I will point at the absence of any mention of Annenberg. (But that they did manage to get in one guy saying that he CAN IMAGINE someone referring to a bloody scalp).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
planter

planter

Posted
Posted

Certainly don't know as much as you guys about Annenberg poll. It seems like a good start for the "name keeper" case.

Yes, calling for ANOTHER larger poll accompanied by more financial assistance to the Tribes. This time the poll is preceded by national Skins public relations campaign that dicusses past and future financial assistance AND the new, massive "poll to end polls". Why? Because we care. Did CNN and ESPN announce the results of the Annenberg poll? Financed by Snyder and NFL. Pollster selected by panel

If this hypothetical poll indicates that 90% of (nationwide) NAs are "not offended", "neutral", or "don't give a damn"....perhaps "insignificant" numbers are offended.

However, in The Land of "money talks and bull**** walks", Snyder, and all future 'Skins Owners, and the NFL, seal the deal by providing financial support to the Tribes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bang

Bang

Posted
Posted

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

 

 

She joins such recipients as John Wayne, who truly hated Native Americans, and was never ever shy about saying so. He famously and publicly refused to work with them. 

Walt Disney, a guy who named names and chased down commies with Joe McCarthy,

Frank Sinatra who's mob ties are legendary, and no small reason for his success,

and Bill Cosby, currently accused of rape by 15 women.

 

Oh, and noted racist, segregationist and adulterer Strom thurmond, 

 

So believe whoever you want as to what makes any of them worthy of receiving this honor.

None of it means a hill of ****.

 

~Bang

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted

I think your point is that Harjo's view of the white man may have been influenced by 300 years of getting (&^% in the #@$×.

I think that your view of Harjo consists of "Who cares if the things she says have been demonstrated to be untrue, but she keeps saying them anyway? She's advocating for the side which I claim I'm not advocating for. Therefore, when people point out that she's saying things that aren't true, I will try to excuse it."

But I confess, that's just a theory. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bang

Bang

Posted
Posted

I think your point is that Harjo's view of the white man may have been influenced by 300 years of getting (&^% in the #@$×.

I'd need to see proof of age on that.

 

I've stopped posting in this thread. I said that if i saw a sizaable demonstration it would mean something to me.

i did. the Vikings game was a very large crowd.

So i'm not going to argue for the name anymore, and I won't argue against it either. I still stay in the "ask them" camp.

 

However, the last post i did make, the point is obvious. A president giving someone a shiny piece of metal does not make them

A/ right, or

B/ decent.

 

i used John Wayne as an example.  I love his movies. Seen them all.

But the fact was he was a notorious racist, AND the other fact is, "John Wayne" isn't even REAL, he's a character made for Hollywood, who's every iconic moment that makes him worthy of this award was written for him by someone else.

 

and yet there he is, recipient of the highest civilian honor, bestowed by a sitting president.

 

most of the time they pick a person who truly deserves it. Almost all of them.

But again, segregationist and Klan supporter Strom Thurmond got one. 

 

 

So there's definite precedent for racists to be given this honor.

And giving it to the racist Harjo has continued this.

 

So if you're going to hold this award up as some sort of validation for her, recognize who else and which views you also validate by doing so.

 

~Bang

Link to comment
Share on other sites
planter

planter

Posted
Posted

I'd need to see proof of age on that.

I've stopped posting in this thread. I said that if i saw a sizaable demonstration it would mean something to me.

i did. the Vikings game was a very large crowd.

So i'm not going to argue for the name anymore, and I won't argue against it either. I still stay in the "ask them" camp.

However, the last post i did make, the point is obvious. A president giving someone a shiny piece of metal does not make them

A/ right, or

B/ decent.

i used John Wayne as an example. I love his movies. Seen them all.

But the fact was he was a notorious racist, AND the other fact is, "John Wayne" isn't even REAL, he's a character made for Hollywood, who's every iconic moment that makes him worthy of this award was written for him by someone else.

and yet there he is, recipient of the highest civilian honor, bestowed by a sitting president.

most of the time they pick a person who truly deserves it. Almost all of them.

But again, segregationist and Klan supporter Strom Thurmond got one.

So there's definite precedent for racists to be given this honor.

And giving it to the racist Harjo has continued this.

So if you're going to hold this award up as some sort of validation for her, recognize who else and which views you also validate by doing so.

~Bang

Nobody, including Suzan, gets a free pass. Certainly she's flawed like the rest of us.

Seriously , Strom Thurmond?

I think that your view of Harjo consists of "Who cares if the things she says have been demonstrated to be untrue, but she keeps saying them anyway? She's advocating for the side which I claim I'm not advocating for. Therefore, when people point out that she's saying things that aren't true, I will try to excuse it."

But I confess, that's just a theory. :)

Agree that credibility is essential to any leader.

Do you have a example of an innaccurate quote or article by her (Suzan)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted

Agree that credibility is essential to any leader.

Do you have a example of an innaccurate quote or article by her (Suzan)?

Well, here's an article by Susan Harjo herself in which she claims that the term "red skins" (she put the term in quotes, but does not indicate where she's quoting from) was the term used to refer to scalps which were turned in for bounties.

That good enough for you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
planter

planter

Posted
Posted

Well, here's an article by Susan Harjo herself in which she claims that the term "red skins" (she put the term in quotes, but does not indicate where she's quoting from) was the term used to refer to scalps which were turned in for bounties.

That good enough for you?

Read the article.

Origin and connotation of the term "redskin" is not science and debatable.

No individual, including Harjo, is considered "the ultimate authority" on the origin of the term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted

Read the article.

Origin and connotation of the term "redskin" is not science and debatable.

According to the person who has no facts, and wants desperately to ignore the person who does have facts. numerous ones. And brought them to the debate.

Neat trick, that. Simply wave your have and announce "Not science. Debatable. (Therefore I can make up whatever I want, and all your facts don;t count.)

----------

Just out of curiosity, why did you ask for facts, if you think you have the magical power to ignore them, when presented?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RedskinsFan44

RedskinsFan44

Posted
Posted

Read the article.

Origin and connotation of the term "redskin" is not science and debatable.

No individual, including Harjo, is considered "the ultimate authority" on the origin of the term.

Yes, but some people actually use documentation to back up their claims and others just wave their hands in the air and say it is what they say it is.  BTW, I have seen you argue for changing the name but keeping the logo and fight song (not sure how the song would work without "Redskins"), reading the article you should see that would be unacceptable to Harjo.

From your good neutral article:

"We have an opportunity here with this Redskins discussion to educate America," Doore added. "Why not use the massive platform of the Washington Redskins to reach millions of Americans? Let's start fighting for something that matters. Let's attack something like housing. Let's attack alcoholism. I'll fight tooth-and-nail if we can, but changing a football team name will do nothing for us."

 

I actually believe this is Harjo's ultimate goal, she realizes that attacking an NFL team brings her fight to the attention of the American public, and every time she claims that the term means atrocities committed against tribes she reminds people of the history behind her anger.  But I do not believe she is being truthful, I think she believes the ends justifies the means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
planter

planter

Posted
Posted

According to the person who has no facts, and wants desperately to ignore the person who does have facts. numerous ones. And brought them to the debate.

Neat trick, that. Simply wave your have and announce "Not science. Debatable. (Therefore I can make up whatever I want, and all your facts don;t count.)

----------

Just out of curiosity, why did you ask for facts, if you think you have the magical power to ignore them, when presented?

So, you are Man with facts. The Guardian of Truth...and I "have no facts".

When asked for examples of Harjo stretching the truth, you cite a linguistic debate?

There are MANY opinions on the "origin" "and "connotation" of the term "Redskins". This is not science, there are few indisputable "facts". Pay a linguist $50K and get your favorite opinion.

Are we surprised that Harjo selected one of the inflammatory interpetations?

Where I break with Harjo, and some NAs:

Our logo is NOT disrespectful. And our fight song could be salvaged with a single word change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RedskinsFan44

RedskinsFan44

Posted
Posted

Our logo is NOT disrespectful. And our fight song could be salvaged with a single word change.

The dictionary does not back up Harjo, her own lawyer says she is wrong when she says it means scalps (but the ends justify the means), no one has produced a single written example of the term being used in that manner (claim is that it is an English term used by white settlers who wrote stuff down) yet you take her word on it but won't take her word on the logo. The term "Redskins" has been used in a derogatory manner in the past, no one as far as I know is arguing that that has never happened, and if they do you can prove them wrong.  Why do you feel the need to back up the scalps claim with absolutely no proof?  There is also proof of it being used a respectful manner, diplomatically by a President, as a self-reference, and as the name of numerous sports teams. 

 

I am guessing you are willing to back the scalps claim because it bolsters your argument against the name.  I would also bet you felt the name was wrong before you ever heard the scalps claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted

So, you are Man with facts. The Guardian of Truth...and I "have no facts".

No, the curator for Native American History of the Smithsonian has facts. Bunches of them.

And neither Harjo nor you have so much as attempted to find any.

 

When asked for examples of Harjo stretching the truth, you cite a linguistic debate?

 

When asked for examples of Harjo saying things that aren'ttrue, I post an example of Harjo saying things which aren't true. 

 

----------

 

See, that's kinda how this "debate" goes. 

 

Harjo claims that the word "redskins" comes from bloody scalps. 

 

The curator of the Smithsonian points out that: 

 

1)  He can't find a single case, in any historical record whatsoever, where that word was used that way.  (Actually, if you read his work, he does reference one document which I assume might contradict this claim.  (I assume it might contradict, because there's not other reason for him to mention it at all.)  But that document is widely regarded by historians to be, well, maybe not a forgery, but at least a document which was written generations later, based on verbal descriptions.) 

 

2)  And he can find documents in which Naitves use the term to refer to themselves.  (And he provides said documents.) 

 

In short, he proves that Natives used those words (and later, shortened it to one word) to refer to themselves. 

 

Name changers reaction:  "Well, I don't agree with that.  And since I don't agree with it, therefore there's 'a debate'.  And since there's 'a debate', that means that all the facts he's presented don't really matter, because I don't agree with them". 

 

A widely respected, neutral, polling organization, conducts a scientific, random, survey in which they ask Native Americans whether the name of the football team offends them.  Results: 

 

No:  90%

Yes: 9%

Don't Know:  1%. 

 

Name changer's reaction:  Well, I think I've found some excuses to ignore that fact.  I don't have any facts of my own.  But I don't need facts.  Just excuses to ignore them. 

 

----------

 

Notice this pattern?  There is precisely one side of this debate which has brought any facts to this debate. 

 

The other side believes that if they just keep repeating themselves a whole lot, then that's enough. 

 

----------

 

And, you want to know the really sad part?  The name changers don't need these things they're doing. 

 

The fact that the word "redskin" not only did not originate as a way of referring to bloody scalps, but it's possible that it was never once used that way, really isn't important. 

 

The n-word started out as simply a slang form of the term "negro", and was simply a way of referring to a race.  But it became a slur, because it was used by racists to refer to the race, in an insulting way.  The term became insulting, because it was used to insult.

 

Well, this thread has seen both articles from people outside the board, and stories from actual board members, of people who have personally experienced the word "redskin" being used by racists, for the purpose of insulting the race. 

 

If Harjo stops making the false claim that the word originated from bloody scalps, and switches to pointing out that it has been used, recently, by racists, to insult her race, I think it would actually help her case's credibility. 

 

She could stop spouting things that aren't true, and switch to saying things that are true, and would help her case.  But she seems unwilling to do that. 

 

And, similarly, I think it's a really safe bet that she could run a new poll of Natives, and she'd get results, today, which are noticeably different from Annenberg.  I doubt she'd get a majority claiming it's offensive.  But I bet it's a lot more than 9%, today. 

 

But again, it seems to be against her side's religion to actually provide a fact. 

There are MANY opinions on the "origin" "and "connotation" of the term "Redskins". This is not science, there are few indisputable "facts". Pay a linguist $50K and get your favorite opinion.

There are many opinions on whether Obama was born in the US.

But only one has actual facts to back up their statement.

This is called a fact. Without quotation marks.

I'm really sorry that you dislike facts. (People who lack them often have that problem.)

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...