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

[steve09ru]

"Page not found" 

 

Exactly

[Bonez3]

I agree not to attack a person per se. But, she is an undeniable race monger and this is a 'racial' topic.

It would be hard to draw a line where to discredit her if some of her motives are race mongering.

I respect the idea of not making it personal, but race mongering is her business. Hard to refute that.

[Larry]

I agree not to attack a person per se. But, she is an undeniable race monger and this is a 'racial' topic.

It would be hard to draw a line where to discredit her if some of her motives are race mongering.

I respect the idea of not making it personal, but race mongering is her business. Hard to refute that.

 

My point is that it probably is her business. 

 

But she is not the people who are offended. 

 

There actually are two legitimate sides to this argument.  Whether Harjo is legitimate or not. 

[Bonez3]

My point is that it probably is her business.

But she is not the people who are offended.

There actually are two legitimate sides to this argument. Whether Harjo is legitimate or not.

I agree, I almost never mention her because its not worth the association. But, she is a one of the major stakeholders.

Further, if the the name changes I just can see her on some national podium forefront in the celebration. It would be sickening.

[Bang]

Reminds me of the tale of Lone Star Dietz, but that one lasted decades. And how about our fans on the Daily Show who all happened to to be part NA? I believe Cherokee nation was specified. 

Considering how they've been attacked for these things, you'd think you namechangers would be MUCH more interested to see this person who's been pushing your buttons, and find out whether she's even who she says she is,,,  for starters.

 

If you want to point out inconsistencies in the supporters, the tremendous questions surrounding the founder of thisw movement should hold more weight.

I can't speak for anyone else, but given today's climate of propaganda and distortion passing as fact in practically every aspect of our lives, I'd be concerned whether I'm  being manipulated or not. Given the tabloid intellect that has been created, and the lack of respect the intelligence of the average person garners,  a person must be very aware of where and why they toss their support.

 

~Bang

[grego]

funny how this works...........

 

......and that the word squaw  redskin was viewed by many Native people as the “S-word" "N-word"...

Though several journalists since have supported Harjo, the jury is still out when it comes to the meaning of the word squaw redskin. Most historians and linguists appear to be more supportive of a non-derogatory meaning, use of the word is still looked at as offensive to many others.......

 

 

 

 

journalists support her in her claim that squaw and redskin as derogatory, even while linguists and historians do not.

 

got it.

 

unfortunately, journalists are paid to get clicks these days, not to write the truth. 

 

truth is boring. 

 

so, here we are. 

[Boss_Hogg]

How many Tribes are on your list ?  Out of the 567 Federally recognized tribes, what percentage is that ?

 

And looking at your list of Councils and organizations, I'm reminded of this from the SI article " Indian Wars ".:

 

 " Indeed, a recent SI poll (charts, above) suggests that although Native American activists are virtually united in opposition to the use of Indian nicknames and mascots, the Native American population sees the issue far differently. "

 

Some of the tribes I listed encompass several smaller tribes. 

 

One example is the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. The CTCR consist of twelve individual tribes. 

 

However all the well-known and big tribes (Cherokee, Navajo, Lakota, Sioux) have spoken out against the team name.

 

Except that list doesn't mention the percentages within the tribes and organizations against it. I've read before in this thread where one on the list consisted of on of the head officials of the tribe but when members were asked about it they didn't have the same views or weren't asked about it. There are many Navajos that have come out and supported the name as well and disagree with Harjo.

Without actual numbers than just "this tribe disagrees" it's kind of hard to consider that being 100%. It's like someone in office that has a certain view that hasn't been voted on and it being known that all of America supports it. Example : all of America supports 'x' because person 'y' represents the country and stated his opinion on the matter. Or Obama doesn't support the name so since he leads our country then no one supports the name within our country yet with an actual poll that's not close to being true.

 

How do we know it's just the head tribal officials who want the name gone?

 

Exactly.

 

As an  example, the Navajo Nation is on the list. This gives the impression that the entire Navajo Nation, or at least a large majority is against the name but, we know that's not true just by looking at some of the pictures of Navajo Redskins fans in this thread.

 

[Navajo Skins fans pic]

 

[Dan Snyder with Ben Shelly pic]

 

[Red Mesa HS pic]

 

[Navajo code talkers pic]

 

[Pro name protest]

 

"Washington Redskins pay for Natives to attend Cardinals/Redskins game: http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2014/10/09/washington-redskins-pay-natives-cardinals-game/16999443/

 

Our team bused in hundreds of Navajo students from Red Mesa HS to watch the Skins take on the Cardinals last fall. Each person was given a free game ticket and a ball cap. 

(And they got to watch Kirk Cousins throw 4 INTs, oi vey) 

 

Ben Shelly is the gentleman sitting with Dan Snyder. He's been investigated for fraud, conspiracy, and theft. He was voted out by a landslide margin in the most Navajo recent election. The phrase "embattled tribal president" is an understatement. Notice his hat matches those of all the Navajo students. 

 

The Navajo code talkers deserve all the praise and recognition in the world, just like all military vets. But one cannot deny what Snyder did was relentless. He flew out four code talkers, gave them matching jackets (some w/tags still on) and trotted them out on MNF. I was there that night and we we're getting trounced by the 49ers. It was a very awkward situation, especially since my section (114) was taken over by 49ers fans some of indigenous heritage or so they claim. 

 

Guess who turned it into a slur?? No one did. It was never commonly used as a slur. Todays anti-Redskins call it a slur but are patently wrong (As are the Dictionaries). As has been posted those making the aspersion create the slur that never happened enough to change Redskins into a slur.

 

USA Olympic gold medalist Billy Mills (Lakaota-Sioux) disagrees with this:

 

"The only time I’ve been referred to as a Redskin has been in derogatory ways."

http://gazette.com/ramsey-gold-medalist-billy-mills-opposes-racist-redskins-moniker/article/1522406

 

Considering how they've been attacked for these things, you'd think you namechangers would be MUCH more interested to see this person who's been pushing your buttons, and find out whether she's even who she says she is,,,  for starters.

 

If you want to point out inconsistencies in the supporters, the tremendous questions surrounding the founder of thisw movement should hold more weight.

I can't speak for anyone else, but given today's climate of propaganda and distortion passing as fact in practically every aspect of our lives, I'd be concerned whether I'm  being manipulated or not. Given the tabloid intellect that has been created, and the lack of respect the intelligence of the average person garners,  a person must be very aware of where and why they toss their support.

 

~Bang

 

Susan Harjo started the crusade against our team name in the 80s. But the battle to remove native american sports mascots has been going on since the late 60s. 

 

The movement would do better without the revisionist history of Susan Harjo and inflammatory insults from UnWise Mike. 

 

The actvists or "name changers" have hard scientific data on their side from reputable organization such as the American Psychological Association, American Sociological Association, American Counseling Association, and the American Anthropological Association

[Larry]

"Washington Redskins pay for Natives to attend Cardinals/Redskins game: http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2014/10/09/washington-redskins-pay-natives-cardinals-game/16999443/

 

Our team bused in hundreds of Navajo students from Red Mesa HS to watch the Skins take on the Cardinals last fall. Each person was given a free game ticket and a ball cap. 

(And they got to watch Kirk Cousins throw 4 INTs, oi vey) 

And therefore?

 

Ben Shelly is the gentleman sitting with Dan Snyder. He's been investigated for fraud, conspiracy, and theft. He was voted out by a landslide margin in the most Navajo recent election. The phrase "embattled tribal president" is an understatement.

Should I point out that both of those statements are true of Ray Hallbritter, one of the most famous name change advocates?

It was a very awkward situation, especially since my section (114) was taken over by 49ers fans some of indigenous heritage or so they claim. 

Did you demand proof of their descent? Cause, you know, allowing people to self-identify cannot be allowed.

The actvists or "name changers" have hard scientific data on their side from reputable organization such as the American Psychological Association, American Sociological Association, American Counseling Association, and the American Anthropological Association

Have to confess, I'm a bit curious why this information didn't come out until after what seems like 10 years of demonstrably false claims. But yeah, I think it's important.

Although we've also had it pointed out that the study appears to have consisted entirely of Chief Wahoo. (Although I'm not sure that the poster who made that claim, actually proved it).

[grego]

I did see only chief wahoo mentioned as part of the actual questionnaire.

If that's the case, I understand the study, as wahoo and our logo are not remotely close.

Unless you think both Charlie Brown and whistlers mother are masterpieces.

[mrcunning15]

Oh, I think countering her arguments is a perfectly correct response.

 

Trying to dig up her tax returns, or attacking her percentage of Native-ness, or things like that?  To me, that's attacking the person, not the argument. 

 

"Page not found" 

 

 

You do realize Non-Profit IRS filings are open to public inspection it's print right on the form "Open to public inspection" so if you run a Non-Profit that is subject to IRS filing guidelines you can except that the public at large can view them.

 

Reviewing public documents and individuals does provide valuable information mainly with concerns about ulterior motives.

 

try this link.

 

http://www.guidestar.org/organizations/58-1699691/morning-star-institute.aspx

[RFKFedEx]

Both Wahoo and our dignified warrior are vehicles which allow us to play Indian.

[ZRagone]

NOTE: This post is being made totally with tongue in cheek...

 

Historians say Fleur de lis has troubled history

 

The fleur-de-lis is a symbol that is deeply ingrained in Louisiana's history. Seen in architecture, the state flag and on the helmets of the Saints, it's everywhere.

 

But while it is now seen as the mark of the state, it was once used to mark slaves. And some may wonder whether there are parallels to the Confederate flag.

 

"Code noir, those words are French and mean black code," said slave historian Dr. Ibrahima Seck.

 

...

 

To him, this symbol only brings sad thoughts.

 

"As an African I find it painful, and I think people whose ancestors were enslaved here may feel it even harder than I do as an African," Seck said.

 

"If even one is offended....!"

 

Somebody better send word down to New Orleans

[ZRagone]

Some of the tribes I listed encompass several smaller tribes. 

 

One example is the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. The CTCR consist of twelve individual tribes. 

 

However all the well-known and big tribes (Cherokee, Navajo, Lakota, Sioux) have spoken out against the team name.

 

Honest question for you.

 

Tribal elders are the elected (typically I believe) representatives of a tribe.

 

Similarly, Congressmen and Senators are the elected representatives of a state.

 

Would you find it it be accurate to take the statement and stance about what a senator's state "wants" or "thinks" as an actual testament to what all or even the majority of people in that state legitimately feel about a particular issue?

 

IE, if a senator for California came out and said "The people of California support gay marriage", do you think that all the people in California actually support gay marriage? Would you think that even if most/all polls or votes on the issue in California actually showed differently?

 

If a senator makes a statement about something that was in no way, shape, or form an issue they campaigned on is it reasonable to suggest that everyone in his state...or at least everyone that supported him...agrees with him on that issue?

 

You may say "yes" to all these, and I don't think that'd be unreasonable. But I personally think there is a different in electing someone to represent you because the system you have in place requires it and that person is the closest to your vie won most things....and believing all those that an individual "represent" are actually in agreement with that person on all things.

 

Basically, even if a tribe officially comes out "against" the name, that is actually no clear indication that all or even a majority of their members are ACTUALLY offended by it.

 

Now, to be fair, similarly just because a tribe hasn't came out "officially" against the name doesn't mean that a majority or even all of the tribe DOES feel it's offended by it.

[Boss_Hogg]

Honest question for you.

 

Tribal elders are the elected (typically I believe) representatives of a tribe.

 

Similarly, Congressmen and Senators are the elected representatives of a state.

 

Would you find it it be accurate to take the statement and stance about what a senator's state "wants" or "thinks" as an actual testament to what all or even the majority of people in that state legitimately feel about a particular issue?

 

IE, if a senator for California came out and said "The people of California support gay marriage", do you think that all the people in California actually support gay marriage? Would you think that even if most/all polls or votes on the issue in California actually showed differently?

 

If a senator makes a statement about something that was in no way, shape, or form an issue they campaigned on is it reasonable to suggest that everyone in his state...or at least everyone that supported him...agrees with him on that issue?

 

You may say "yes" to all these, and I don't think that'd be unreasonable. But I personally think there is a different in electing someone to represent you because the system you have in place requires it and that person is the closest to your vie won most things....and believing all those that an individual "represent" are actually in agreement with that person on all things.

 

Basically, even if a tribe officially comes out "against" the name, that is actually no clear indication that all or even a majority of their members are ACTUALLY offended by it.

 

Now, to be fair, similarly just because a tribe hasn't came out "officially" against the name doesn't mean that a majority or even all of the tribe DOES feel it's offended by it.

 

That's a good/interesting argument and one that should be underscored in this discussion.  Do elected tribal officials represent the best interests of the membership? Did they poll everyone before they denounced the Redskins name? 

 

But let me ask you, how many people need to be offended or feel uncomfortable about our team name before a change is made?

 

I can't think of any other sports franchise out there with this much animosity and anger towards its name or mascot. 

[ZRagone]

That's a good/interesting argument and one that should be underscored in this discussion.  Do elected tribal officials represent the best interests of the membership? Did they poll everyone before they denounced the Redskins name? 

 

But let me ask you, how many people need to be offended or feel uncomfortable about our team name before a change is made?

 

I can't think of any other sports franchise out there with this much animosity and anger towards its name or mascot. 

 

I don't think there is some set number that should magically do it. I think ultimately it's a personal view.

 

I can tell you my general stance on it for a while...

 

I PERSONALLY am of the mind that if I sincerely believe through legitimate and reasonable evidence that between a 1/3rd to 1/2 of the Native American population in this country were offended by and actually desired that we change our name, then I would be apt to actually change it.

 

As it is, I simply do not believe that to be the case. I've seen no compelling argument to suggest that such a contingent of native americans feel that way. While I can respect what I think is a minority within their population being offended and don't begrudge them that offense, I also don't believe that is reason enough to act in the name of "native americans being offended" when there are far more that don't feel that way. Especially since I do believe there is also a number (also a minority) who actively support and approve of the use of the name and would be bothered by it changing, especially if said change was done "in their name" so to speak.

 

I honestly have literally zero care about the percentage of people who are not native americans who are "offended" by it as it relates to whether or not I feel we should change or name.

 

Now, what the requirement would be for others is up to them. But that's been my personal stance for it. If it hits a point where I truly believe a majority, or near a majority, are offended and feel it SHOULD be changed then I'd likely finally relent and say "I hate it, but we should change it".

[Boss_Hogg]

And therefore?

 

Should I point out that both of those statements are true of Ray Hallbritter, one of the most famous name change advocates?

Did you demand proof of their descent? Cause, you know, allowing people to self-identify cannot be allowed.

Have to confess, I'm a bit curious why this information didn't come out until after what seems like 10 years of demonstrably false claims. But yeah, I think it's important.

Although we've also had it pointed out that the study appears to have consisted entirely of Chief Wahoo. (Although I'm not sure that the poster who made that claim, actually proved it).

 

I forgot to mention Halbritter but you'r right he has a shady past. Halbritter, Harjo, and Wise aren't the three you want running things, especially when it involves an issue that's sensitive to a lot of folks. 

 

As for the 49ers fans, I didn't care if they were indigenous or not; this was 2013 and I was a bombastic supporter of the name. 

 

What really swayed me on this issue was reading the clinical studies about the harmful effects of native american sports mascots. That and meeting natives on my recent travels and hearing first hand what the word redskins means to them. 

[grego]

Boss, do you have anything in those studies that talks about the Redskins logo?

All I saw was questions about chief wahoo.

BTW, what did natives you talked to say the name meant to them?

[ZRagone]

That and meeting natives on my recent travels and hearing first hand what the word redskins means to them. 

 

And you know, I don't begrudge people who have had first hand experience with folks that say it offends them. I may disagree with them, and I may have issue with some of how or what they say, but I can fully understand that experience affecting them.

 

What I just dislike is when people (not saying you, speaking in general) experience this kind of thing and take it as gospel...but then discredit or devalue similar experiences of others that ended up with a different result.

 

The vast majority of my interaction with native americans, such as when I visited the NALEA conference a few years back, was that:

 

1. A lot of the perceptions of what was "political correct" were more a product of activists within their community than themselves at times. I can't tell you how shocked my little sheltered in a PC bubble self was at the conference hearing the word "Indian" used repeatedly in various ways.

 

2. That most I interacted with seemingly didn't care or reacted favorably in terms of the name. And of those that didn't, the majority of them seemed to not really like the name but not feel like it was a significant issue or problem that NA's needed to be focusing on or needed to be pushed to change.

 

My mother the other day, in the process of dealing with insurance things, actually ended up speaking with a representative that was out in New Mexico. When he saw she was VA he actually brought up the Redskins and if she was a fan and they set off talking, with him claiming to be a native American and saying how much he loved the team and how much he was annoyed at those trying to change the name.

 

Is all that ridiculous anecdotal? Sure. Much like yours. Much like other peoples views. And while I don't expect anyone else to be swayed by anecdotal evidence that impacted me (just like I don't expect anyone to be really swayed by anecdotal information of things that happened to you)...I FULLY understand why anecdotal evidence that you personally run into can sway your personal feeling about things.

[Boss_Hogg]

Boss, do you have anything in those studies that talks about the Redskins logo?

All I saw was questions about chief wahoo.

BTW, what did natives you talked to say the name meant to them?

 

The studies weren't about a particular logo but about the harmful effects native american sports mascots can have on indigenous youth. It also touched on how sports mascots take away identity (feathers, headdresses, war chants) from certain tribes. 

 

One person i met in North Florida (Seminole) claims to have been called "dirty redskin" his whole life by the locals. He never associated the word with a sports team...just hatred. I told him that I grew up in the DMV and Indian reservations are scarce so I've never heard it used in a derogatory way. I also told him the the name always stood for my favorite professional sports team, I never once thought of it to be a slur.  

 

It was a good convo, he was really nice and understanding. He knows we don't intend any harm with our team name or logo, but some of the stories I heard really opened my eyes.

[grego]

The studies weren't about a particular logo but about the harmful effects native american sports mascots can have on indigenous youth. It also touched on how sports mascots take away identity (feathers, headdresses, war chants) from certain tribes. 

 

 

 

 

boss, thanks for the response. its nice to feel like we're having a regular conversation, as opposed to one side trying to one up the other, which is what we usually do here

 

anyway, with regards to that study, i've said before, i get why a caricature of a native american would be hurtful to ones self esteem. i dont even think theres a question about that. i only question if a logo like the redskins (again, designed by the former president of national congress of american indians) is the same thing. 

 

btw, as far as the other stuff, i also agree that tomahawk chops and war chants are silly. no argument there. 

 

One person i met in North Florida (Seminole) claims to have been called "dirty redskin" his whole life by the locals. He never associated the word with a sports team...just hatred. I told him that I grew up in the DMV and Indian reservations are scarce so I've never heard it used in a derogatory way. I also told him the the name always stood for my favorite professional sports team, I never once thought of it to be a slur.  

 

It was a good convo, he was really nice and understanding. He knows we don't intend any harm with our team name or logo, but some of the stories I heard really opened my eyes.

 

 

i can fully understand how if i was native american and called a 'dirty redskin' my whole life, my view on the word would be tainted, to say the least. its cool that he understood how the team means it in a different way.

 

recently i've re thought an issue i felt differently about in the past (gay marriage) because, like you, i met someone who was directly affected by it. it absolutely can give you a different perspective and an appreciation for another viewpoint. 

 

it sucks that someone can take a word thats not meant to be harmful and use it in a harmful way. people can be real jackasses like that. 

 

certainly, he has a viewpoint we can all respect. 

[Spearfeather]

Some of the tribes I listed encompass several smaller tribes. 

 

 

 

"Washington Redskins pay for Natives to attend Cardinals/Redskins game: http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2014/10/09/washington-redskins-pay-natives-cardinals-game/16999443/

 

Our team bused in hundreds of Navajo students from Red Mesa HS to watch the Skins take on the Cardinals last fall. Each person was given a free game ticket and a ball cap. 

(And they got to watch Kirk Cousins throw 4 INTs, oi vey) 

 

Ben Shelly is the gentleman sitting with Dan Snyder.  Notice his hat matches those of all the Navajo students. 

 

The Navajo code talkers deserve all the praise and recognition in the world, just like all military vets. But one cannot deny what Snyder did was relentless. He flew out four code talkers, gave them matching jackets (some w/tags still on) and trotted them out on MNF.

 

 

Yes and the bands you listed should not be confused with tribes as there can be several bands within a tribe.

 

 

No chance the Red Mesa Redskins students would have been watching the game at home, if they weren't there in person, right ?

 

Ben Shelley's hat is like the Navajo students.

 

Which means nothing.

 

 

 

You think these women who were at that game have thought about it or are they just there for the food and t-shirts ?

 

 

As for the codetalkers, those are some interesting terms you used ... " trotted ". " relentless ", but what did they say of meeting Snyder ?

Were they forced to wear the jackets ?  Have you heard any of their opinions on the name ?

 

And they all had tags on their sleeve including the man wearing the black raincoat, but maybe you can tell us what those tags were.

[elkabong82]

 

Ben Shelly is the gentleman sitting with Dan Snyder. He's been investigated for fraud, conspiracy, and theft. He was voted out by a landslide margin in the most Navajo recent election. The phrase "embattled tribal president" is an understatement. Notice his hat matches those of all the Navajo students. 

 

The Navajo code talkers deserve all the praise and recognition in the world, just like all military vets. But one cannot deny what Snyder did was relentless. He flew out four code talkers, gave them matching jackets (some w/tags still on) and trotted them out on MNF. I was there that night and we we're getting trounced by the 49ers. It was a very awkward situation, especially since my section (114) was taken over by 49ers fans some of indigenous heritage or so they claim. 

 

 

 

Because clearly if a leader has done some shady stuff and gotten caught, it means his opinion on the offensiveness of a name isn't valid at all, right? Ohh, I know, he is greedy, so clearly Snyder paid him off. Yeah, that's what happened! Just like Snyder's charity is buying off NAs by giving them stuff. I mean, who just goes around and gives people stuff? Yeah right, clearly it's all just bribery. 

 

Oh, oh, oh, and those code talkers, they were bribed too. They are just Uncle Tomahawks as UnWise Mike racistly coined. In fact, any NA that supports the name is not a "real" NA, just like Harjo said. They don't care about how "real" NAs are offended and are being marginalized, so let's offend them and marginalize them by saying they are traitors and don't count as real NAs. 

 

Clearly ANY NAs that show support for the team, it's because Snyder bought them off and he's just showing them off. If that weren't true, it would hurt my cause of saying the name is offensive to NAs and I care about NAs, even though I still support the team that offends them. 

-------------------------

 

Sorry, but now I'm starting to get offended by you and other name changers disqualifying NAs who show support for the name. They are people too and are deserving of respect. Those of us in support of the name have dedicated hours and hours to discussing the matter, doing research on it, rather than just saying it isn't offensive and leaving it at that. I have not really seen any name changers concede that it is a mixed issue and acknowledge that there are valid reasons why so many NAs do support the name. Instead it's a game of pretend to fit an extreme POV that 90% of NAs ARE offended, and that aren't are either paid off and/or not "real." It's a disgusting common occurrence from people claiming they care about NAs and frankly I'm sick of it.

 

Plus, it's further proof that if the name ever did change, it wouldn't change their attitudes about the team or how they talk about the team. 

[Boss_Hogg]

boss, thanks for the response. its nice to feel like we're having a regular conversation, as opposed to one side trying to one up the other, which is what we usually do here

 

anyway, with regards to that study, i've said before, i get why a caricature of a native american would be hurtful to ones self esteem. i dont even think theres a question about that. i only question if a logo like the redskins (again, designed by the former president of national congress of american indians) is the same thing. 

 

btw, as far as the other stuff, i also agree that tomahawk chops and war chants are silly. no argument there. 

 

 

i can fully understand how if i was native american and called a 'dirty redskin' my whole life, my view on the word would be tainted, to say the least. its cool that he understood how the team means it in a different way.

 

recently i've re thought an issue i felt differently about in the past (gay marriage) because, like you, i met someone who was directly affected by it. it absolutely can give you a different perspective and an appreciation for another viewpoint. 

 

it sucks that someone can take a word thats not meant to be harmful and use it in a harmful way. people can be real jackasses like that. 

 

certainly, he has a viewpoint we can all respect. 

 

Cheers Grego 

 

This hasn't been easy for me, I'll always be a diehard fan no matter what the name is. I just think its time we ditch the native imagery. I don't want to use someone else's culture or race as a sports mascot.

 

I don't want to have to explain to my children why so many people are upset with our family's favorite professional football team.  (I'm a third generation fan/season ticket holder).

 

I'd also like to add that the natives I spoke with in N Florida understand that our fans, team name and logo were never intended to slur or insult and that's huge.

 

I just wish they were front and center of the debate rather than Harjo, Wise, and Costas. 

 

 

Yes and the bands you listed should not be confused with tribes as there can be several bands within a tribe.

 

No chance the Red Mesa Redskins students would have been watching the game at home, if they weren't there in person, right ?

 

Ben Shelley's hat is like the Navajo students.

 

Which means nothing.

 

You think these women who were at that game have thought about it or are they just there for the food and t-shirts ?

 

https

https

 

As for the codetalkers, those are some interesting terms you used ... " trotted ". " relentless ", but what did they say of meeting Snyder ?

Were they forced to wear the jackets ?  Have you heard any of their opinions on the name ?

 

And they all had tags on their sleeve including the man wearing the black raincoat, but maybe you can tell us what those tags were.

 

 

So how many federally recognized tribes need to come out against our name or mascot before we listen? 1, 5, 15, 25?

 

The Red Mesa school is 360 miles from Glendale, AZ (home of AZ cardinals). It's unlikely most of those kids would've had the means to make the game especially since some lack proper living necessities.

 

I think it's very telling that all Navajo students and Mr. Shelly wore matching hats. It just proves that none of them had Skins gear before they came to the game. 

 

As for the YouTube interviews, please find some that aren't sponsored by "Redskins Facts" 

 

The code talkers deserve all the respect and kudos they can get. But you have to admit that the timing of that event was highly suspect.

[Taylor703]

I still don't understand how a school on an Indian reservation named the "Redskins" doesn't put an end to this argument each and every time?

[elkabong82]

Cheers Grego 

 

This hasn't been easy for me, I'll always be a diehard fan no matter what the name is. I just think its time we ditch the native imagery. I don't want to use someone else's culture or race as a sports mascot.

 

I don't want to have to explain to my children why so many people are upset with our family's favorite professional football team.  (I'm a third generation fan/season ticket holder).

 

I'd also like to add that the natives I spoke with in N Florida understand that our fans, team name and logo were never intended to slur or insult and that's huge.

 

I just wish they were front and center of the debate rather than Harjo, Wise, and Costas. 

 

 

 

 

So how many federally recognized tribes need to come out against our name or mascot before we listen? 1, 5, 15, 25?

 

The Red Mesa school is 360 miles from Glendale, AZ (home of AZ cardinals). It's unlikely most of those kids would've had the means to make the game especially since some lack proper living necessities.

 

I think it's very telling that all Navajo students and Mr. Shelly wore matching hats. It just proves that none of them had Skins gear before they came to the game. 

 

As for the YouTube interviews, please find some that aren't sponsored by "Redskins Facts" 

 

The code talkers deserve all the respect and kudos they can get. But you have to admit that the timing of that event was highly suspect.

 

I think it's telling us that they were given free gear by the team because they are likely poor (43.5% live below poverty, 23% live more than 50% below the poverty rate). But it's nice to see that you now think that the name isn't so offensive that NAs can't be bought off with a free game and hat. 

 

Admit it, anything Snyder does, at all, that involves NAs will only be discounted by you and other name changers as bribery. Again, for this stupid conspiracy theory to work, it would mean that despite you all believing the name is so offensive to so many NAs, NAs are willing to ignore how offended they are and be seen publicly with team gear on all for free tickets and gear. 

 

Owner's team name gets labeled as offensive to NAs, but there are many NAs who support the name, there are NA high schools using the name too, and yet you and other name changers think it's deceitful when Snyder wants to give the spotlight to NAs who support the name? Really it's just a BS attempt by you all to discount the opinions of NAs on the sole basis that they don't agree with you. Way to marginalize!