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

[Bang]

Well, now it's all your fault Brave.

 

The man made a personal decision and gave his reasoning.
He'll still be among our voices on Sunday cheering the team on, and that's what the bottom line is for a fan.

Shaming him over the pseudonym he adopted on a Redskins message board when he was a kid to discuss his favorite team is rather petty.

these screen-names are our identity here among us.. it's understandable I still have to remind myself that Skins Gold Pants is Buford.

 

Besides, if the name is offensive due to it's usage of the skin color (which seems to be all that people think race is about.. but that's another argument), then the word "Brave' doesn't really carry the same connotation.

 

 

I keep checking in to see if folks want to defend the absolutely moronic sentiment that the name of a football team is somehow on equal footing with a traitorous battle flag, soaked in the blood of it's followers and then turned into a worldwide symbol of racism and racial terrorism.

It's not, and i'm glad no one else is taking up Olbermann's ridiculous histrionics.

 

People can claim the name offends them, but the nature of it having anything to do with evils of the past is purely circumstantial, and requires a few leaps to get.

the confederate flag, not so much.

 

~Bang

[steve09ru]

Right here Bang   (honestly I'm in middle on both and see both sides)

 

If a larger percentage of Native Americans were offended by the name (30-40%) would you think we should change the name?  And this is similar to the Confederate issue as you have a group of people that think they are honoring a group of people when the other side believes the exact opposite and are offended by it.  I would think the hypocrisy would be with the ones who don't think the same way on the two issues.

 

Not necessarily about the name in itself but the Native American theme as a whole.  Some Native American were grown up and call 'Redskin' (examples of 1st hand experiences have been outlined in the thread) so the name to those individuals, as well as the ones who may have experienced it long ago, does have hatred and racism bled through on it.

 

Identical issues?  No but a lot more similarities than people want to seem to accept.

[tshile]

while I stand by everything I said in that other thread, I get why you were angry 3D. Getting ganged up on sucks

I surrender. I'm a terrible fan.

 

A - The name change stuff is a sore subject for many, including myself.

 

B - The people demanding the name change have included in their list of hateful/racist stuff against native americans the use of "Brave", and I imagine the reference to "On The warpath". So the idea that you would change your mind and agree that the name should be changed, while using an online handle of "BravesOnTheWarpath" seems to either not understand the issue, or to understand and be a hypocrite.

 

Now you already addressed the concern in point B, but because of point A people went after you pretty hard and pretty quickly.

 

I, personally, don't fault you for changing your opinion (though I think it's based on incorrect/faulty reasoning) and I understand your answer to B.

 

I guess what I'm saying is don't take it personally, the name change stuff provokes some ridiculous reactions from all sides. People are passionate about it, and many people seize on any small opportunity to jab at their opponents when it presents itself.

 

Also, you're not a terrible fan. Screw the people that say otherwise. You just found yourself the focus of this ****storm topic. It happens.

[BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93]

How can I get so riled up about all the craziness that's been going on recently and then hypocritically not address the name issue?

Granted, I'm now about to have an argument with a person who isn't here, (using you as a proxy for her), but did you consider, instead of "[getting] so riled up about all the craziness that's been going on recently and then hypocritically not address the name issue", you . . . .

1) Get so riled up about what's going on, and

2) Point out that there's nothing hypocritical about it?

Point out to her why the two things (the Redskins and the Confederacy) are nowhere remotely the same?

I assume that you are aware of the huge differences.

For example, I'd be willing to bet you that she's never even heard that 90% of Natives say the name isn't offensive.

I mean, if she's going to attack you for "not addressing the name", then that sounds like an invitation for you to address the name.

(And you're right. The people attacking you are being, let's say "less than polite".)

Funny thing is that this encounter happened prior to the charleston stuff and subsequent flag debate.

I don't think the name is oppressive as much as it is just a relic of a different time. Same as the censored Looney Tune cartoons.

I'm 22. Prior to the last few years, I never really thought too much about matters of race and all that comes with it. Now It's different for various reasons.

And now I feel different about the name. Again, ppl will flame me but that's life.

[tshile]

If a larger percentage of Native Americans were offended by the name (30-40%) would you think we should change the name?

 

No because their offense is based on a rewriting of history to fit their viewpoint. I don't believe in forcing people to conform to the whims of the social justice warriors.

 

% of people is irrelevant. The history of the word and the name cannot actually be changed.

[SkinsGuy]

Right here Bang   (honestly I'm in middle on both and see both sides)

 

If a larger percentage of Native Americans were offended by the name (30-40%) would you think we should change the name?  And this is similar to the Confederate issue as you have a group of people that think they are honoring a group of people when the other side believes the exact opposite and are offended by it.  I would think the hypocrisy would be with the ones who don't think the same way on the two issues.

They can take all the Confederate Flags down they want on state (or federal) grounds.

I don't care.

As long as they don't say you can't hang a Confederate flag off the side of your house, up your flagpole, or have one on your shirt.

Then I'll have a problem with it (free speech) and all that.

For the record, I don't own one (I used to when I was a kid), but I don't want anybody's rights to own one infringed upon.

[BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93]

A - The name change stuff is a sore subject for many, including myself.

B - The people demanding the name change have included in their list of hateful/racist stuff against native americans the use of "Brave", and I imagine the reference to "On The warpath". So the idea that you would change your mind and agree that the name should be changed, while using an online handle of "BravesOnTheWarpath" seems to either not understand the issue, or to understand and be a hypocrite.

Now you already addressed the concern in point B, but because of point A.

I'm fine bro. It's cool. Ppl are passionate.

I'm not gonna lose any sleep over this.

[Larry]

No because their offense is based on a rewriting of history to fit their viewpoint. I don't believe in forcing people to conform to the whims of the social justice warriors.

 

% of people is irrelevant. The history of the word and the name cannot actually be changed.

 

No, the history of the name can't be changed. 

 

But people's feelings about it can. 

 

And their feelings are what matters. 

[grego]

No because their offense is based on a rewriting of history to fit their viewpoint. I don't believe in forcing people to conform to the whims of the social justice warriors.

% of people is irrelevant. The history of the word and the name cannot actually be changed.

I get this.

Some people's minds are being changed based on false, made up reasons and revisionist history.

That bugs me.

[Redskins3D]

I really don't think anyone cares about the logo or the Native American imagery. 99 percent of the complaints are about how the word "Redskin" generally is considered an offensive way to refer to Native Americans. All the dictionaries agree.

Regardless of whether it was intitially intended to be a slur when the team started, regardless of whether we intend it that way as fans of the team, regardless of whether you can draw a conceptual distinction between "redskin" in reference to football players and "redskin" in reference to actual Native Americans, ultimately this problem remains. The term "redskin" has passed its historical due date and gone sour, just like the terms "wench," and "fag" and "colored boy" and so on.

I don't see how the problem is going to go away.

how about "yankee"

 

just WTF, is a yankee.

 

If, "just one person is offended"?  I'm offended.

[Fan since a Fetus]

I don't think Brave is a terrible fan or anything of that nature and I've definitely never had any problems with him and do not want to start now. I don't care what his name on this site is. The only thing I disagree with on this whole situation is that he doesn't want to change his handle because, what 50 people if that, may not recognize him on the site. There is a heck of a lot more at stake for the Redskins to change their name.

[tshile]

No, the history of the name can't be changed. 

 

But people's feelings about it can. 

 

And their feelings are what matters. 

Disagree.

 

People can change their opinions, feelings, etc. Sure.

 

But whether or not their change is grounds for forcing someone else to do something is a question. I don't believe that's fair. How is the redskins name racist now? Doesn't make sense. It was either always racist or it always wasn't.

 

We have ample evidence that shows that the claim of racism is a new one. We should yield to that? I say bull****.

 

I can't stop someone from changing their mind and becoming offended by something that they previously weren't offended by. But I sure as crap don't have to comply with their wishes based on that.

 

And then when you start looking at motive... heh, the issue gets much more interesting...

[steve09ru]

No because their offense is based on a rewriting of history to fit their viewpoint. I don't believe in forcing people to conform to the whims of the social justice warriors.

 

% of people is irrelevant. The history of the word and the name cannot actually be changed.

True to an extent.  Or is it that their side of history hasn't been told or certain parts of it haven't been told?  While history has already been written out, new history and meanings can be made which would effect it regardless of the original meaning.  Things and time change.

Disagree.

 

People can change their opinions, feelings, etc. Sure.

 

But whether or not their change is grounds for forcing someone else to do something is a question. I don't believe that's fair. How is the redskins name racist now? Doesn't make sense. It was either always racist or it always wasn't.

 

We have ample evidence that shows that the claim of racism is a new one. We should yield to that? I say bull****.

 

I can't stop someone from changing their mind and becoming offended by something that they previously weren't offended by. But I sure as crap don't have to comply with their wishes based on that.

 

And then when you start looking at motive... heh, the issue gets much more interesting...

It's racist now because there are accounts of people using it in a disparaging way.  The same way it was racists in the past for people that have had accounts of it themselves or were told of the accounts through their ancestors.  Again, these have been 1st handed accounts in this thread.

 

Someone just needs to get it over with and do a Native American only poll and go from there.

 

The 'always racist or always wasn't' is not something I agree with either.  Depends on where you grew up and what was used then.  Media sources weren't around to get the story out to masses so it may have been disparaging in certain areas where it may have been acceptable in others.  They didn't have means of communication with other tribes so these things weren't able to be discussed at length or on a high level.

[tshile]

True to an extent.  Or is it that their side of history hasn't been told or certain parts of it haven't been told?  While history has already been written out, new history and meanings can be made which would effect it regardless of the original meaning.  Things and time change.

 

We have history that show plenty of native americans using and embracing the name. We have a history that shows native americans designing the symbol and requesting it be used as such

 

there's no new history that, in my mind, can override that.

 

i'm not denying that the name can be, and has been, used in a hateful way. i'm saying it can also be used in another way, and here's proof that native americans do/have agreed to this and that we use it in this other way.

 

new history doesn't change that. change of feelings doesn't change that.

 

sorry but i'm not going to let people decide what my meaning and my intention is when i use words of my choosing. words have multiple definitions, uses, and meanings; for proof just open a dictionary and browse around. these people are trying to use a very narrow use of the word to guilt me into agreeing that they're offense is justification for forcing the team to change its name. screw that.

 

if they want to decide that the only way to view the use of the word is through the use of hatred, racism, whatever, then fine. I cannot stop them.

 

This idea that I'm the ignorant one for seeing it in another way is laughable. To extend that to forcing me to agree with them? Get lost.

[Riggo#44]

For the record, I don't own one (I used to when I was a kid), but I don't want anybody's rights to own one infringed upon.

 

Your post reminded me of a thought that occurred to me as I was reading the Facebook Outrage of the Day (FOTD) from some of my thin-skinned friends: Most of these people who scream about "tolerance" and "open-mindedness," are really only open-minded and tolerant of ideas and notions they agree with. Which, really, is the complete opposite of open-minded and tolerant.

 

Not that I agree or disagree with the state flag issues, or whatever the FOTD is (frankly, it doesn't affect me in the least, so I really don't give a ****); but, whenever anyone posts a contrary idea to Kardashian Kulture has deemed "open-minded" is shouted down, no matter how valid the idea or reasoning is.

 

Want a case study? Next time someone posts, ****ing about working mothers, ask why doesn't anyone care about working dads? I love my little girl just as much--why isn't anyone fighting for my rights?

[Redskins3D]

I was cool with getting rid of the flag, but it's gone next level as it always seems to.

 

Now the Mayor of New Orleans wants to rename "Lee's Circle" and remove the plaques and statue, also the nearby statue of Gen. Beauregard has to go. Street names are "on the table" as well. Why is it when we have almost unanimous common ground, people have to **** it up by going extreme?

 

Hint: This is why people hesitate to find common ground.

[tshile]

It's racist now because there are accounts of people using it in a disparaging way.

So? There are accounts of it being used i a prideful way.

 

I'm not discounting the disparaging use. It's well documented.

 

Why are the other, also well documented, uses discounted by the side that wants to change the name?

 

Probably because it makes their entire case look as fraudulent as it is.

 

Words have multiple meanings. This one has multiple meanings. The team, and its fan, have chosen the prideful recognition of being a warrior as the meaning for its use. If you choose to ignore that and apply your own intentions, fine, but you're not going to convince me to allow you to force them to change the name because of that. It's garbage reasoning.

[grego]

sorry but i'm not going to let people decide what my meaning and my intention is when i use words of my choosing. words have multiple definitions, uses, and meanings; for proof just open a dictionary and browse around. these people are trying to use a very narrow use of the word to guilt me into agreeing that they're offense is justification for forcing the team to change its name. screw that.

if they want to decide that the only way to view the use of the word is through the use of hatred, racism, whatever, then fine. I cannot stop them.

This idea that I'm the ignorant one for seeing it in another way is laughable. To extend that to forcing me to agree with them? Get lost.

Could not agree more. Well put.

Look out. Tshiles on a roll. Gonna run out of likes quick today....

[Jumbo]

<edit>

Some people's minds are being changed based on false, made up reasons and revisionist history.

That bugs me.

 

 

Welcome to 90% of "human reality." 

[SkinsGuy]

True to an extent.  Or is it that their side of history hasn't been told or certain parts of it haven't been told?  While history has already been written out, new history and meanings can be made which would effect it regardless of the original meaning.  Things and time change.

Or others want to re-write history to suit their whim.

The thing is, we live in a free and open society (or supposed to).

As someone else said, we have the right to be offended by things, but what we do NOT have the right to is to not be offended by things.

For someone to NEVER be offended by things means we have to conform to what they believe is acceptable. That means one person (or one group) gets to decide for the rest of us what is offensive and what isn't.

That isn't freedom. That's fascism.

One person might say "My ancestors were slaves and I'm offended by the Confederate flag". Someone else will say "My ancestors were confederate soldiers/officers and I honor their flag".

Who's right? Are either one of them wrong? Do we demand that the person who honors their ancestors look at them in disgrace instead because others are offended?

Same as with the name "Redskins". Do we change the name because we are being told that somebody, somewhere is offended by it? Does what the name REALLY means not matter?

This is a nation of 300 million people. In your lifetime, somebody, somewhere is going to offend you. Or you are going to be offended by something(s).

Do you just live your life and deal with that truth? Or do you demand that everyone conform to your beliefs?

For me, I will ALWAYS stand by the name "Redskin". I'm not going to let a handful of "offended folks" change that.

They have a right to be offended. I have a right to dismiss their claims.

[grego]

Welcome to 90% of "human reality."

True.

At the end of the day, people are gonna believe what they want to believe.

But there's still a major absence of education on this particular issue.

[tshile]

What ultimate infuriates me about this debate, is the way I see it ending:

 

 

I see the name changing eventually. Not because the vast majority of people will finally agree that Redskins is racist and needs to change, but because the vast majority of people will grow tired of fighting the fight. It's a tried and true tactic of SJWism, just keep on going eventually you'll tire them out and they'll concede so you move on to badgering someone else

 

And so the rest of us can finally go back to enjoying (is that what we do, we enjoy this team? probably not...) our team in peace, with the SJWs off to fight some other battle.

But nothing will actually change for NA's. The people who don't bother to donate time, money, or the political power to helping them will continue to not bother to do so. The NA's problems will persist. Nothing will get better.

 

A small group of people will put another tally in the victory side of their chart and move on to another topic, a larger group of people will sigh both from relief from the badgering and disgust in the idea of just giving in to something you don't believe but are just tired of.

 

It's so frustrating to see what the ends are that justify the means we're going through right now. The ends of this whole thing are stupid and crappy, yet here we are; year after year, the same thing.

 

Enjoy your hollow victory when it comes. You fought hard for it. Ignore the hollowness though; I know you will.

[steve09ru]

Or others want to re-write history to suit their whim.

The thing is, we live in a free and open society (or supposed to).

As someone else said, we have the right to be offended by things, but what we do NOT have the right to is to not be offended by things.

For someone to NEVER be offended by things means we have to conform to what they believe is acceptable. That means one person (or one group) gets to decide for the rest of us what is offensive and what isn't.

That isn't freedom. That's fascism.

One person might say "My ancestors were slaves and I'm offended by the Confederate flag". Someone else will say "My ancestors were confederate soldiers/officers and I honor their flag".

Who's right? Are either one of them wrong? Do we demand that the person who honors their ancestors look at them in disgrace instead because others are offended?

Same as with the name "Redskins". Do we change the name because we are being told that somebody, somewhere is offended by it? Does what the name REALLY means not matter?

This is a nation of 300 million people. In your lifetime, somebody, somewhere is going to offend you. Or you are going to be offended by something(s).

Do you just live your life and deal with that truth? Or do you demand that everyone conform to your beliefs?

For me, I will ALWAYS stand by the name "Redskin". I'm not going to let a handful of "offended folks" change that.

They have a right to be offended. I have a right to dismiss their claims.

No I completely agree 100%; This is the post I was hoping would come out of this.  The argument I was making was more so for the people who are deep into the Confederate issue removal of the flag all together and deep into the keeping of the Redskins name. 

 

People will have different interpretations and different history of something 100% of the time.  What you grew up with that offended you, may be the norm for me.  What you were taught about your ancestors may be one thing completely different than what I was taught by mine. 

 

No one will ever agree 100% on an issue or ever find common ground. 

[SkinsGuy]

I was cool with getting rid of the flag, but it's gone next level as it always seems to.

 

Now the Mayor of New Orleans wants to rename "Lee's Circle" and remove the plaques and statue, also the nearby statue of Gen. Beauregard has to go. Street names are "on the table" as well. Why is it when we have almost unanimous common ground, people have to **** it up by going extreme?

 

Hint: This is why people hesitate to find common ground.

This is actually a good thing, because now it is reaching points of being just ridiculous.

People calling for nonsense like that is allowing the sensible people to come out of the emotional haze since the shooting and say 'Wait a minute. This is getting out of hand'.

Hopefully, rational heads will start to prevail.

No I completely agree 100%; This is the post I was hoping would come out of this.  The argument I was making was more so for the people who are deep into the Confederate issue removal of the flag all together and deep into the keeping of the Redskins name. 

 

People will have different interpretations and different history of something 100% of the time.  What you grew up with that offended you, may be the norm for me.  What you were taught about your ancestors may be one thing completely different than what I was taught by mine. 

 

No one will ever agree 100% on an issue or ever find common ground.

Well, when I was using the word "you" in my post, I didn't mean you specifically. "You" meant individual folks in general.

My bad.

[steve09ru]

This is actually a good thing, because now it is reaching points of being just ridiculous.

People calling for nonsense like that is allowing the sensible people to come out of the emotional haze since the shooting and say 'Wait a minute. This is getting out of hand'.

Hopefully, rational heads will start to prevail.

Well, when I was using the word "you" in my post, I didn't mean you specifically. "You" meant individual folks in general.

My bad.

No I got that - I wasn't sure if you knew my stance on it or not cause I was playing devil's advocate from the other angle.  I don't think the name should change at all and I don't think people should also be forcing a change of history down our throats regarding what individuals think of when it comes to the Confederacy.  Was a lot of it built on racism, yeah, but not everyone in the fight was fighting for slavery so not everything Confederate is built from racism or ignorance.