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

[Larry]

Actually, I have no clue which state.

I do find it amusing that, to renew my drivers license, my passport wasn't good enough. I had to have a passport, and an SS card (which I had to have a passport, to get), and a cable bill.

Seems like a heck of a joke. Passport not enough, but passport and cable bill is.

[elkabong82]

This thread is very similar to the gay marriage thread, in reverse.  It's amusing the "progressive" folks in that thread, who are like the "extreme right" in this thread.

Congrats.

 

Maybe, just maybe, there are posters who don't align every single opinion of theirs to the standards of their preferred political party. Strange concept, am I right?

[s0crates]

This is as good a time as any to post this.

"Redskins": A Native's Guide To Debating An Inglorious Word

It's from a writer and an attorney who is a member of the Blackfeet Indian Nation, lives on a reservation, and who was born and raised on various reservations growing up "where there are decidedly different interests from those of the Native intelligentsia."

It is still the single-most thoughtful piece I have seen written about the name controversy from someone with a vested interest. He offers a slightly different take on the controversy. Everyone should read this, especially those spouting with authority percentages of N/As who support/oppose the name.

It's really a good piece, thank you for posting it. His reasoning is very nuanced; he states the case fairly and precisely.

I come away from that thinking the issue is complicated, but still thinking we should change the name if there are NAs who tell us it offends them.

[tshile]

Actually, I have no clue which state.

I do find it amusing that, to renew my drivers license, my passport wasn't good enough. I had to have a passport, and an SS card (which I had to have a passport, to get), and a cable bill.

Seems like a heck of a joke. Passport not enough, but passport and cable bill is.

Passport doesn't have address showing you live within the state.

[Bonez3]

"Redskins": A Native's Guide To Debating An Inglorious Word

 

From the article:

The point: Most Native people have no inherent problem with Indian mascots; what matters is the presentation of that mascot and name. The presentation of the name "Redskins" is problematic for many Native Americans because it identifies Natives in a way that the vast majority of Natives simply don't identity ourselves.

Every other ethnic group gets the opportunity to self-identify in the way they choose. Native people do not.

 

ME: The name?!?!? They identify with 'India'n though?. I'm sorry, just don't respect this stance. Plus, the mascot is undoubtedly honorable. And I would obviously raise the Oklahoma debate. He later goes on about how the word 'red' is so symbolic to natives.

 

From the article:

"Would it be acceptable to name a professional sports team according to the color of someone else's skin?" Would it ever be cool to have a sports team called the Washington Blackskins? It seems appropriate; D.C. is Chocolate City. But, um, hell no. San Francisco Yellowskins? Naw, cousin. Won't work.

 

ME: pretty colloquial language for a lawyer, but this ridiculous argument has been well handled here by the many great posters.

 

From the article:

There is some internal value to the Redskins name, just as there is some internal value to the word "n-word." Like "redskin," "n-word" has a fairly innocuous origin (it derives from the Spanish word for "black")...

 

ME: Don't feel like editing whole thought with N word, but the comparison is lame...as has been beaten to death

 

From the Article:

The word unquestionably predates the current conversation and even the supposed genesis of the term in the very real scalping policies of the 19th century, when white bounty hunters were paid for scalps only when they proved their Indian origin by showing the red skin. (Here's the Los Angeles Herald in 1897: "VALUE OF AN INDIAN SCALP: Minnesota Paid Its Pioneers a Bounty for Every Redskin Killed.")

 

ME: He had to slip it in there. Real objective piece   He wrote this piece believing that is part of the origin of the word. He even did research!!!! (Wonder if that was google or wiki)

 

In short, it goes on and on with same things raised here before and I don't feel like highlighting all same stuff. It's not a riveting piece... yea, the guy was raised on a reservation and takes a neutral approach. However, full of assumptions that he seemingly wants taken with extra consideration because of his background. His background does not make the black skins argument any more ridiculous or the N word comparison as a term of endearment any less asinine or the scalps theory less respectable.

 

​

 

Further, he won 5 bucks on the Raiders in the Super Bowl...BIASED

[skinfan2k]

Stop calling native Americans Indians. The only Indians are from India. That's offensive to me.

[Xameil]

Actually, I have no clue which state.

I do find it amusing that, to renew my drivers license, my passport wasn't good enough. I had to have a passport, and an SS card (which I had to have a passport, to get), and a cable bill.

Seems like a heck of a joke. Passport not enough, but passport and cable bill is.

cable bill shows proof of residency. Passport does not.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

This is as good a time as any to post this. 

 

"Redskins": A Native's Guide To Debating An Inglorious Word

 

It's from a writer and an attorney who is a member of the Blackfeet Indian Nation, lives on a reservation, and who was born and raised on various reservations growing up "where there are decidedly different interests from those of the Native intelligentsia." 

 

It is still the single-most thoughtful piece I have seen written about the name controversy from someone with a vested interest.  He offers a slightly different take on the controversy.  Everyone should read this, especially those spouting with authority percentages of N/As who support/oppose the name.

 

Decent article, but a few serious flaws, logic and otherwise:

 

1) From the article:

 

"Whether or not the term "Redskin" is inherently racist is the wrong question. The more appropriate question is, "Would it be acceptable to name a professional sports team according to the color of someone else's skin?"...

 

That's one of the things the Name-Change side doesn't get: the team was not named according to the color of someone else's skin. However, if you name a team the Blackskins you are indeed naming the team that for no other reason that wanting the name to refer to the color of a race's skin.

 

Nobody said "Yanno, them Indians have reddish skin...that might be a cool name for the team."

 

The writer's stance on this point echoes those people who have zero clue as to the name's actual origins and history, even though he apparently does understand and know it.

 

2) "Redskin" and "N****r" are in no way, shape or form equal, equivalent or comparable in terms of this discussion. Every word deemed an "ethnic slur" will not tip the scale in the same amount or in the same ways or for the same reasons. The writer spends a bit too much time promoting a viewpoint reliant on them being the equivalent of one another.

 

Wan't proof? Try this on for size:

 

"So I pass that question on to you: At one point, many white people openly called black people "n*****s." Those racists stopped, eventually, because many (not all) black people said that word was hurtful and offensive. That was a positive step—progress."

 

Is he ****ing kidding me? lol :lol:

 

Good lord. The "N-word" was not abandoned in public discussion because "many black people said it was hurtful and offensive"...jeebus. It's because the word was being used in a large part of American society in a subjegating, violent and terrorizing manner. Once our society as a whole started waking up to the damaging nature that blatant racism was causing--and the white majority started acknowleding as a whole the brutal unfairness and unjust nature of it all--those words commonly used in connection to that subjegating, violence and terrorism organically became as offensive to society as the evils they were used to promote.

 

It wasn't because whites said "Oh, man..I'm sorry. I had no idea you didn't like being called a (n-word)...we'll stop now."

 

The term "Redskin" doesn't have anything remotely close to the type of history and usage in American society that "N****r" had and still has. It's like the difference between a quarter pounder from McDonalds and a filet mignon. Yeah, they both come from cows. They're both edible (though some would argue both those points about the quarter pounder lol). That doesn't make them equal or equivalent. Yes, I realize I kinda said that the N-word is the filet mignon of ethnic slurs lol...but you get my point.

[s0crates]

I think Bonez and Califan missed the guy's point (unless they're Native Americans); his main idea is that that NAs should tell us whether or not they're offended, not the other way around (hence the NWA quote he leads with).

Anyway, I thought he was quite ecumenical and conceded a lot (specifically, the logo is proud, many NAs don't care about this issue, most don't consider it a priority, and some even like the team).

But don't confuse nuance for flawed logic. "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." All those concessions are consistent with the ideas that the name is racial (if not racist) and offensive to some NAs. If some NAs are telling us they're offended, then we should take that seriously.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

I think Bonez and Califan missed the guy's point (unless they're Native Americans); his main idea is that that NAs should tell us whether or not they're offended, not the other way around.

That wasn't his main point...his main point was to promote the argument that "Redskin" should be seen, perceived and treated the same as the "N-word"...and if you do that, THEN you should also let Native Americans treat the word "Redskin" the same way we "let" Blacks use and treat the "N-word".

 

In fact, he has one of his main points illuminating that very stance:

 

"The NFL and fans of the NFL treat Native people qualitatively differently from how they treat members of any other ethnic group."

 

That entire section deals with basically saying, "We see the N-word as a racist slur even though it's ok for Blacks to use it...why aren't we doing the same thing with "Redskin" and Native Americans?"...with some "Redskins and Blackskins are one and the same" flawed logic thrown in for good measure.

Like I said, way too much of his article is built on the premise that the two words are equal, and should be seen as such by society.

 

But to your point, this part had me rolling my eyes:

 

The "Redskins" debate is similar to the "n****r" debate, yet unlike with the "n****r" debate, outsiders feel perfectly comfortable telling Native people how they should feel. I suppose that's the most frustrating part of the debate—that we Native people, the folks who are the only meaningful stakeholders in this debate—are not allowed to have a voice in the matter. Correct that: We can have an opinion so long as it is pro-Redskin. Otherwise, we're being "too sensitive."

 

 

Again...is he ****ing kidding me? lol :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

 

How many "Pro-Redskin" Native Americans do you see trotted out on a national stage by the media?...How many "Pro-Redskin" Native Americans are bombarded with hate and viotrol when they support the name? How many "Pro-Redskin" Native Americans get their Native American credentials investigated and smeared when they spoke up for the team's name? How many times is it assumed that Native Americans who are "Pro-Redskin" are simply being paid by the team in some manner?

 

And this guy dares to write that "Pro-Redskin" Native Americans are the only Native Americans who are allowed to have their voices and feelings given legitimacy?

 

Good ****ing lord.

 

 

Anyway, I thought he was quite ecumenical and conceded a lot (specifically, many NAs don't care, most don't consider it a priority, and some even like the team).

But don't confuse nuance for flawed logic. "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." All those concessions are consistent with the ideas that the name is racial (if not racist) and offensive to some NAs.

"Nuance". Yeah, sure. A large chunk of the article was founded on the flawed logic that "Redskin" and "N***r" are equal and our position on "Redskin" should be the same as it is on the N-word. Just because he acknowledges that a large majority of NAs don't really care one way or another about a team's name or mascot and that the word "redskin" does not originate in the legal practice of scalping Native Americans for money, doesn't mean his logic is any less flawed.

[Dan T.]

Califan, you missed the point of his article by a country mile. 

[Larry]

I think Bonez and Califan missed the guy's point (unless they're Native Americans); his main idea is that that NAs should tell us whether or not they're offended, not the other way around (hence the NWA quote he leads with).

Actually, that's part of his point.

But he then couples that with attempting to spin a completely fictional narrative, in which the Natives want it changed, and the white folks are telling them to suck it up and demanding that they stop objecting.

 

Unfortunately, the fact is that the Natives have said it's not offensive, and a small group of Natives, and a much larger group of white folks, are telling them to be offended. 

Califan, you missed the point of his article by a country mile. 

 

Funny.  I read the same article, and saw the same things. 

 

But if you'd like to tell us your opinion of what he's saying, please feel free. 

[s0crates]

Unfortunately, the fact is that the Natives have said it's not offensive, and a small group of Natives, and a much larger group of white folks, are telling them to be offended.

It seems to me he basically says that, which goes to his main point about who should decide whether or not the name is offensive (not the white guys).

He allows that most (a key qualifier you've omitted) natives don't care (slightly different than "not offended"). He even allows that many natives like the name and use it internally.

His complaint is that we're using it externally (not internally), and making light of those who are offended (which obviously do exist, at least among the NA intelligentsia).

This holds even if many NAs like the name, because each speaks for himself, as the writer says. We don't get to tell those who are offended not to be so.

[Larry]

It seems to me he basically says that, which goes to his main point about who should decide whether or not the name is offensive (not the white guys).

He allows that most natives don't care (slightly different than "not offended"). He even allows that many natives like the name and use it internally.

His complaint is that we're using it externally (not internally), and making light of those who are offended (which obviously do exist, at least among the NA intelligentsia).

 

1)  The actual question asked, when people actually asked natives, was "are you offended?"  So yes, a response of "no" does in fact, equal "not offended". 

 

2)  Yes, he does mention that some Natives like the name.  I believe every one of his examples of such are "kids who don;t know any better, and think the team actually has Native players". 

 

3)  And at least when I read it, what I see is a really big attempt to dismiss the people who aren't offended as "well, they really are offended, it's just not their biggest problem". 

 

4)  And I don't see him once complain about white folks telling Natives to be offended.  He doesn't seem to mind those folks having an opinion on the matter.  His only problem are the ones telling him that he's not allowed to chose which term he's allowed to identify himself as.  (Without providing any example of any one ever actually trying to do that.) 

[s0crates]

Larry please see my edit, as I think I've clarified my take a bit.

I might go through and pull out some quotes from his article in response to some of that if I have the time later, but for now I need to take a break from this and tend to some things.

[Dan T.]

 

Funny.  I read the same article, and saw the same things. 

 

But if you'd like to tell us your opinion of what he's saying, please feel free. 

 

I'd rather not.  More and more I get the sense there are factions - on both sides of this issue - who are so entrenched in their views that they can't help but talk past each other. 

[Larry]

I'd rather not.  More and more I get the sense there are factions - on both sides of this issue - who are so entrenched in their views that they can't help but talk past each other. 

 

Seeing the same fictional claims made, for ten years, does have that effect, some times. 

[Larry]

This holds even if many NAs like the name, because each speaks for himself, as the writer says. We don't get to tell those who are offended not to be so.

1) I don't see any examples of people "tell[ing] those who are offended not to be so". 

 

2)  And that sounds an awful lot like "it doesn't matter how many aren't offended.  If a few people are offended, then those are the voices that count". 

[zoony]

I keep coming back to the etymology of the word. And that's where I just have yet to see any kind of persuasive argument. Nevermind. Persuasive, I haven't even seen "interesting"

There is just no racist or oppressive history with the word. None.

That matters. It should matter to everyone. Otherwise, what exactly are we talking about?

I'd rather not.  More and more I get the sense there are factions - on both sides of this issue - who are so entrenched in their views that they can't help but talk past each other.

I don't think that most of the name change crowd are truly entrenched in their point of view as it relates to the specifics of this case.

I do think that the majority of them are entrenched in their point of view that "it's the liberal thing to do, so let's do it". I'm proven right by the actual history of the word

[Larry]

I keep coming back to the etymology of the word. And that's where I just have yet to see any kind of persuasive argument. Nevermind. Persuasive, I haven't even seen "interesting"

There is just no racist or oppressive history with the word. None.

That matters. It should matter to everyone. Otherwise, what exactly are we talking about?

 

Well, now, I could certainly see that the "offensive-ness" of a word can certainly change, over time. 

 

Just my opinion, but if the name of the team is offensive, now, (and I don't even think it has to be offensive to a majority), then the debate ends at that point. 

 

Maybe you can argue that you want a chance to convince those who are offended, to change their minds.  (Although I'd say that we've had that time.) 

[grego]

It seems to me he basically says that, which goes to his main point about who should decide whether or not the name is offensive (not the white guys).

He allows that most (a key qualifier you've omitted) natives don't care (slightly different than "not offended"). He even allows that many natives like the name and use it internally.

His complaint is that we're using it externally (not internally), and making light of those who are offended (which obviously do exist, at least among the NA intelligentsia).

This holds even if many NAs like the name, because each speaks for himself, as the writer says. We don't get to tell those who are offended not to be so.

 

i get that. 

 

but i always get back to this- if we agree there can and should be discussion about it, is one allowed to say 'you know, thats not actually true' when an anti name native american pulls out something like a scalps comes from redskins argument? because it seems obvious to me that some untrue facts about the name are being repeated ad nauseum, unchecked, and if some of these facts were actually true, the team may indeed be guilty of using a bad word.

 

essentially, if someone chooses to be offended by a made up fact, where does that leave us?

 

also, it gets back to the number- whats the number that need to be offended in order to force a change? isnt this number just going to be arbitrary and one persons opinion?

 

this is why there will always be a debate- there is no right or wrong answer here, i believe.

 

I'd rather not.  More and more I get the sense there are factions - on both sides of this issue - who are so entrenched in their views that they can't help but talk past each other. 

 

 

personally, i've taken the same approach with this topic as i try to with everything in my life- politics, spirituality, whatever. i want to get to the truth, the facts. i think i have a phobia of looking like a fool, or being wrong, so i'll generally withhold an opinion unless im sure about something.

 

if there is evidence that redskins was unquestionably a slur - and not just a benign word made up by natives that some people, somewhere have used at some time as a pejorative, or that it originated from the scalps of natives and somehow took on a different meaning because george preston marshall wanted a fun new team name, then i would have no problem being against the name. 

 

i havent seen evidence that the name is what the critics say it is, but i'm open to whatever may be out there. 

[zoony]

Well, now, I could certainly see that the "offensive-ness" of a word can certainly change, over time. 

 

Just my opinion, but if the name of the team is offensive, now, (and I don't even think it has to be offensive to a majority), then the debate ends at that point. 

 

Maybe you can argue that you want a chance to convince those who are offended, to change their minds.  (Although I'd say that we've had that time.)

We cannot arbitrarily decide that certain words have histories associated with them that is offensive. That's called making things up, or lying.

That definitely matters. Actually it's the only thing that matters. People want to compare this to the n word or the rebel flag. Those are two words (/symbols) that have definite, clear, oppressive and divisional histories associated with them.

Or even "fag" or "retard", two words that have recently fallen out of favor. One can look at the usages of both those words and decide that they've been used in a derogatory and repressive manner.

I keep coming back to it. YOU CANNOT MAKE THIS ARGUMENT ABOUT REDSKIN. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE THINGS UP ABOUT THIS WORD. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE OFFENDED.

So to those who actually ARE offensed, Native American or not, I simply say you do not have the right.

[Bonez3]

I think Bonez and Califan missed the guy's point (unless they're Native Americans); his main idea is that that NAs should tell us whether or not they're offended, not the other way around (hence the NWA quote he leads with).

Anyway, I thought he was quite ecumenical and conceded a lot (specifically, the logo is proud, many NAs don't care about this issue, most don't consider it a priority, and some even like the team).

But don't confuse nuance for flawed logic. "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." All those concessions are consistent with the ideas that the name is racial (if not racist) and offensive to some NAs. If some NAs are telling us they're offended, then we should take that seriously.

Well, that's just like your opinion, man.

And Califan and others mostly highlighted my points.

I'll never tell anyone not to be offended. Doesn't mean they're inherently right.

His piece cited origin of word to scalps. I should respect he's offended because of this.

I didn't miss anything by a country mile, he didn't bring anything new to table that I haven't heard. I should change my opinion why?

Frankly, many on this board have written much stronger and well written thoughts IMO.

[Bang]

Well, this is significant.

http://was.247sports.com/Bolt/BREAKING-Court-rules-against-Redskins-38106585

 

U.S. District Court Judge Gerald Bruce Lee upheld the ruling of the Federal Trademark Trail and Appeal Board, which deemed the team’s name offensive to Native Americans making it ineligible under the Lanham Act for status in the federal trademark registry.

 

~Bang

[MattFancy]

Well, this is significant.

http://was.247sports.com/Bolt/BREAKING-Court-rules-against-Redskins-38106585

 

U.S. District Court Judge Gerald Bruce Lee upheld the ruling of the Federal Trademark Trail and Appeal Board, which deemed the team’s name offensive to Native Americans making it ineligible under the Lanham Act for status in the federal trademark registry.

 

~Bang

 

That may just about do it