Larry Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 That's a great idea let's ask the following organizations and tribes about their opinions of our team name: Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma Comanche Nation of Oklahoma The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians Hoh Indian Tribe Inter Tribal Council of Arizona Inter-Tribal Council of the Five Civilized Tribes Juaneño Band of Mission Indians Little River Band of Ottawa Indians Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians, Gun Lake Tribe ( Menominee Tribe of Indians Oneida Indian Nation Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin Osage Nation Navajo Nation Council Penobscot Nation Poarch Band of Creek Indians Samish Indian Nation Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Standing Rock Sioux Tribe The Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation United South and Eastern Tribes (USET) Advocates for American Indian Children American Indian Mental Health Association American Indian Movement[323] American Indian Opportunities Industrialization Center of San Bernardino County American Indian Student Services at the Ohio State University American Indian High Education Consortium American Indian College Fund Americans for Indian Opportunity Association on American Indian Affairs Buncombe County Native American Inter-tribal Association Capitol Area Indian Resources Concerned American Indian Parents Council for Indigenous North Americans Eagle and Condor Indigenous Peoples’ Alliance First Peoples Worldwide Fontana Native American Indian Center, Inc. Governor’s Interstate Indian Council Greater Tulsa Area Indian Affairs Commission Great Lakes Inter-Tribal Council (Wisconsin) HONOR – Honor Our Neighbors Origins and Rights Kansas Association for Native American Education Maryland Commission on Indian Affairs Medicine Wheel Inter-tribal Association (Louisiana) Minnesota Indian Education Association National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) National Indian Child Welfare Association National Indian Education Association National Indian Youth Council National Native American Law Student Association Native American Caucus of the California Democratic Party Native American Finance Officers Association (NAFOA) Native American Journalists Association Native American Indian Center of Central Ohio Native American Journalists Association Native American Rights Fund (NARF) Native Voice Network Nebraska Commission on Indian Affairs Nottawaseppi Huron Band of Potawatomi (Michigan) Not Your Mascots, Inc. North Carolina Commission of Indian Affairs North Dakota Indian Education Association Office of Native American Ministry, Diocese of Grand Rapids (Michigan) Ohio Center for Native American Affairs San Bernardino/Riverside Counties Native American Community Council Seminole Nation of Oklahoma Society of Indian Psychologists of the Americas Southern California Indian Center St. Cloud State University – American Indian Center Tennessee Chapter of the National Coalition for the Preservation of Indigenous Cultures Tennessee Commission of Indian Affairs Tennessee Native Veterans Society Tulsa Indian Coalition Against Racism The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation Unified Coalition for American Indian Concerns, Virginia The United Indian Nations of Oklahoma Virginia American Indian Cultural Resource Center Wisconsin Indian Education Association WIEA "Indian" Mascot and Logo Taskforce Woodland Indian Community Center-Lansing Youth "Indian" Mascot and Logo Task force Somebody did. They asked a random, statistically significant, sample of all Natives. (Well, all of them in the lower 48. But then, I suspect that very few Eskimos have ever been called "redskin".). And they didn't ask politicians. They asked people. (As opposed to some other people, who want to cherry pick who to ask, based on who they think will give them the answer they want to hear.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss_Hogg Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 The crazy thing, Boss Hogg is that if all those groups have taken the same negative position on the Redskins' name (which sounds pretty damning) then why on Earth haven't they conducted an internal poll of their own groups and published it. Why not put it out there for once and for all what this population truly feels. It'd be a great way to shut up the pro-Redskins side. There's only one reason I can imagine that they haven't done so. They are afraid of the results or got results that they don't like. As I've said before, conducting a poll is cheap. If you already have the population pinned down it's even cheaper. It would cost them relatively nothing, less than 5k probably. The best argument the pro-side has is Annenburg. It's really, other than Red Mesa, the only good argument the pro side has. Why not kill it with one internal poll? You work with this population. You have their addresses, phone numbers, emails. It'd be the simplest thing in the world to design, administer, and score. There are even countless companies who will do it for you. If they don't do it there's a reason. As for the pro-side, they could do it again, but every poll ever taken has said has wound up with a pro-Redskin outcome. Why should they bother with another? The only thing it could do is hurt them. The anti-side, if they really want to make their case, needs to make a case. Anecdotal evidence is always considered weak. More, if these groups really are representative what are they afraid of other than finding out how the group they speak for actually feels? Are you inferring that the tribal leaders are out of touch with their membership? How do you know they didn't poll the membership before they issued statements condemning our team name? Somebody did. They asked a random, statistically significant, sample of all Natives. (Well, all of them in the lower 48. But then, I suspect that very few Eskimos have ever been called "redskin".). And they didn't ask politicians. They asked people. (As opposed to some other people, who want to cherry pick who to ask, based on who they think will give them the answer they want to hear.) And do I really need to go there with the Annenberg poll and Red Mesa HS again? You dirty Redmen, Indian, Chief, Brave, etc. they all work "redskin" in and of itself is defined as a slur You added the pronoun "you" to redmen, Indian, and brave. None of those words are defined as slur by themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 Are you inferring that the tribal leaders are out of touch with their membership? How do you know they didn't poll the membership before they issued statements condemning our team name? Nobody knows if the name changers have ever done a poll. But EVERYBODY knows that IF they did a poll, then they kept the results secret. Either way, whether they didn't ask, or asked and hid the results, says the same thing. And do I really need to go there with the Annenberg poll and Red Mesa HS again?Well, you don't have to spout the same lame excuses for excuses that people have been pretending are valid, for 10 years, if that's what you mean. Now, if you've got an actual VALID reason to dispute them (hint: that would, for example, mean "one you haven't used before"), then feel free. You've actually come up with one argument that seems at least debatably valid. Hidden in with all the stuff you've been shoveling. It's theoretically possible it could happen again. "redskin" in and of itself is defined as a slur When used a certain way. A way that's different from the one were discussing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 Are you inferring that the tribal leaders are out of touch with their membership? How do you know they didn't poll the membership before they issued statements condemning our team name? I'm saying "we don't know" if they are or not. It certainly wouldn't be the first time a political entity said things without checking the temperature or said things for a purely politcal reason. What I'm really saying though is they've either done a poll and not disclosed the results (only one reason for that) or they've not done a poll (again, only one real reason for that.) Both are negative. It would further their interest greatly to do a poll and publish it (esp. if the results favor their position.) If it doesn't favor their position, maybe it would be better to expend their energy and rhetoric on issues their constituents care more deeply about. Further, what I am saying is that it is well within their means to conduct said poll... and they really should do one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonez3 Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 So 'dirty Indian' vs 'you dirty indian' isn't derogatory or offensive or as easily substituted? (But maybe that depends on what the meaning if the word 'isn't' is? Isn't?) Look, a definitive piece in the word found it to be neutral or positive. The vast majority of NAs in the only objective poll of its kind found the name not to be offensive. And frankly, it wouldn't even be far fetched to suggest the vast majority of non-NAs have no clue or knowledge it's a slur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss_Hogg Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 Nobody knows if the name changers have ever done a poll. But EVERYBODY knows that IF they did a poll, then they kept the results secret. Either way, whether they didn't ask, or did ask, and hid the results, days the same thing. Well, you don't have to spout the same lame excuses for excuses that people have been pretending are valid, for 10 years, if that's what you mean. Now, if you've got an actual VALID reason to dispute them (hint: that would, foe example, mean "one you haven't used before"), then feel free. You've actually come up with one argument that seems at least debatably valid. Hidden in with all the stuff you've been shoveling. It's theoretically possible it could happen again. When used a certain way. What lame excuses? Randomly calling 700 people who self identify as native is a problematic. Couple that without any follow up questions about tribal membership, lineage, etc. Plus the guy who ran the poll basically denounced the whole thing in 2013 when our team was using it as a crutch to defend the name. I'm saying "we don't know" if they are or not. It certainly wouldn't be the first time a political entity said things without checking the temperature or said things for a purely politcal reason. What I'm really saying though is they've either done a poll and not disclosed the results (only one reason for that) or they've not done a poll (again, only one real reason for that.) Both are negative. It would further their interest greatly to do a poll and publish it (esp. if the results favor their position.) If it doesn't favor their position, maybe it would be better to expend their energy and rhetoric on issues their constituents care more deeply about. Further, what I am saying is that it is well within their means to conduct said poll... and they really should do one. Maybe you should suggest that to them Burgold. Call up the Hoh Indian Tribe in Washington state and inform them they should've or should do a poll before they denounce a controversial word about their race. So 'dirty Indian' vs 'you dirty indian' isn't derogatory or offensive or as easily substituted? (But maybe that depends on what the meaning if the word 'isn't' is? Isn't?) Look, a definitive piece in the word found it to be neutral or positive. The vast majority of NAs in the only objective poll of its kind found the name not to be offensive. And frankly, it wouldn't even be far fetched to suggest the vast majority of non-NAs have no clue or knowledge it's a slur. dirty is an adjective "dirty indian" is derogatory Indian is not a slur or derogatory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 The vast majority of NAs in the only objective poll of its kind found the name not to be offensive. Actually, it's been pointed out in this thread that there have actually been three. I think it was a newspaper in Alberquerqie ran a poll, just in New Mexico. They surveyed all races, but broke down the results by race. They had results similar to Annenberg, for all races. I think the other one was ESPN, and I really don't remember much of anything about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonez3 Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 dirty is an adjective "dirty indian" is derogatory Indian is not a slur or derogatory I see you edited out the parenthesis part, because it may have really been a problem in your stance, wise move. Regardless, this is the impasse. Dirty is an adjective 'Dirty Redskin' is derogatory Redskin is not a slur or derogatory Again, I'm glad you revised the original post. PS. I think the ESPN poll came in at well over 70%, but again, internet poll, hardly worth mention IMO. But yea, thanks for the input on the NM poll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss_Hogg Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 Actually, it's been pointed out in this thread that there have actually been three. I think it was a newspaper in Alberquerqie ran a poll, just in New Mexico. They surveyed all races, but broke down the results by race. They had results similar to Annenberg, for all races. I think the other one was ESPN, and I really don't remember much of anything about it. Should Redskins change their name? New Mexico says ‘meh’ http://watchdog.org/159596/redskins-newmexico/ natives make up 9% of the population in NM. Should we allow the majority to vote for and represent a minority? I see you edited out the parenthesis part, because it may have really been a problem in your stance, wise move. Regardless, this is the impasse. Dirty is an adjective 'Dirty Redskin' is derogatory Redskin is not a slur or derogatory Again, I'm glad you revised the original post. PS. I think the ESPN poll came in at well over 70%, but again, internet poll, hardly worth mention IMO. But yea, thanks for the input on the NM poll. I revised nothing. "Indian" buy itself isn't derogatory. "Dirty Indian" is derogatory. Some say "redskin" is derogatory by itself and does not require an adjective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonez3 Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 Should Redskins change their name? New Mexico says ‘meh’ http://watchdog.org/159596/redskins-newmexico/ natives make up 9% of the population in NM. Should we allow the majority to vote for and represent a minority? I revised nothing. "Indian" buy itself isn't derogatory. "Dirty Indian" is derogatory. Some say "redskin" is derogatory by itself and does not require an adjective. Again, not a fan of the poll's question; 'Should the Redskins change the name?' Not, is the name offensive. Still, only 18% and what % want name changed because on NA imagery, not so much because its a slur. Look, on the NA imagery thing, I would yield all day. I argue purely the idea that its a slur. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
my_friend_goo Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 For a long time I've held off from posting my opinion in this thread, mainly because I felt I didn't necessarily have anything new to contribute. Maybe I don't, but I feel like the time is right. I did post a lot on the NFLUK forum in the past on the topic, mainly to be one of a few rational voices standing in support of my team. Let me tell you a bit about myself. I'm of mixed descent. My mother's English, my father Indian. As in the kind of Indian from India. To be more specifc, he's Sikh, and absolutely proud of it. He's also a Redskins fan. So I was raised, to some extent, a Sikh (and in no uncertain terms a Redskins fan). I did not cut my hair, started wearing a turban around the age of 13-14. However, for reasons I won't go into here, I was not raised speaking Punjabi and to some extent this hindered what I learnt about my father's culture. Being of mixed race, I was inevitably subjected to racial abuse. From both sides. Finally, at the age of 17, I put the turban back in the drawer and cut my hair. It wasn't the ignorance of the English that hurt the most, but the refusal of British Asians to accept that I was one of them. I was too "white". So I stopped trying to be something that I wasn't. So what does this have to do with the name change debate? Well, imagine an Indian sports team that picked a mascot related to Sikhs. After all, there is a strong history of warrior pride amongst Sikhs, although it is by no means the only facet of the culture. The team's logo features a Sikh warrior, complete with turban. Chosen because sport represents a substitute for war, in a way a less violent celebration of the speed, strategy and competition between two sides. How would the Sikh community react? My father, who chose to support the Redskins because of an interest in Native Americans, would no doubt support the team. As would, I'm sure, a significant number of Sikhs, identifying with the logo and the representation of the culture. What I'm not so sure is that respected leaders of the Sikh community would feel the same way as the average Sikh fan. But right now, all I've looked at is the basic concept. Now imagine that this team comprised solely Hindu and Muslim players. Sikhs and Hindus have strong ties, so there would be at least some empathy there. Sikhs and Muslims on the other hand, do not have such a favourable history. Every Sikh temple bears artwork on the walls depicting brutal executions of Sikhs at the hands of Muslims, a historic genocide. The feeling of mistrust between the two religions continues to some extent, particularly given the division of the Sikh homeland of the Punjab between India and Pakistan. What if the fans of this team took to wearing turbans and other symbols of Sikh identity, without understanding their significance and meaning? While there would still be Sikh fans, those leaders would certainly not consider the team to be honouring them. But, what if the team was based in the Punjab and had a significant proportion of Sikhs on the team (as well as a mixture of other religious/ethnic backgrounds). What if their battle song was written by Sikh musicians, using the dhol drum, the ubiquitous sound of the Punjabi, to drive a fierce rhythm that stirred emotions in the fans. What if that team engaged with the Sikh community and promoted Sikh culture, nationally. What if the fans knew that the best way to honour a Sikh was not to don a badly wrapped turban, but to learn about their culture and show knowledge rather than ignorance? The Sikh part of the fanbase would be strong, no doubt, but they'd also have a lot more backing of the leaders of the community (although I'm sure there would still be dissenting voices). I've tried the best anology I can find. I think it's very different to anything presented thus far. It's not perfect, because there isn't a perfect analogy. Sikhs have a strong presence, not just in India. It would certainly be able to fill a roster of a professional sports team with them. I'm sure you can find examples of Sikhs in downtrodden communities. India has terrible poverty, in spite of its advancements. But their plight isn't exactly the same as that of Native Americans, I'll concede that. Plus, I've deliberately not chosen to bring a contentious name into the fold. Why? Because I could accept that Redskin offends and if it really does offend the Native American community that much, could live with the name itself changing. If it does, I'd rather it be based on genuine sentiment and experience, not suspect provenance of words and other manipulation of the truth. But, does the imagery itself have to be a bad thing? That I have more difficulty in accepting. Yes, I believe that sports teams' "honouring" on Native culture is mostly quite superficial. However, sports mascotry could be used as a powerful tool in promoting Native cultural awareness. This doesn't just have to extend to charitable organisations helping out with Native American communities. I believe that Suzan Harjo has stated that she doesn't want to see her people represented as caricatures portrayed in dated films and sports mascots, but through the arts and other educational outlets. Teams could (and should) fund educational programmes that teach fans the details of Native culture and artistic displays, both in their local communities and even in the grounds of their stadiums. This is how you stamp out ignorant cultural appropriation. But even that term is subjective. Taking my own heritage as an example, there shouldn't be opposition to British women (non-Asians) wearing saris who are married to Indian men and take a strong interest in the culture. I once attended a Sikh wedding where an elderly English neighbour wore the same turban as the rest of us. He wasn't taking the piss. The groom's family considered him family and wanted to show that to everybody that skin colour has no meaning. There is no better way of honouring a culture than to do so much for the people that they accept you as one of their own, no matter how different you may be. If sports teams took this approach with Native American communities, I don't think we would see the same extent of dissent as we do today. Of course, the easy way out is to fight to banish Native mascots entirely. "Easy" is obviously a massive understatement as it has been anything but easy for those who have fought for years to achieve it. But there is another way, one which involves just as much of a change in mindset, but potentially bears more fruitful results. On a final note, call me a hypocrite if you want for criticising others for taking the "easy" way out, when I chose to cut my hair all those years ago rather than making a conscious effort to learn more about my heritage and become a more active member of my community. It's ok, I've been called a lot worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93 Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 I appreciate you sharing that bro. Very well done Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
my_friend_goo Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 By the way: tl:dr? Come back when you've got something useful to say! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonez3 Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 For a long time I've held off from posting my opinion in this thread, mainly because I felt I didn't necessarily have anything new to contribute. Maybe I don't, but I feel like the time is right. I did post a lot on the NFLUK forum in the past on the topic, mainly to be one of a few rational voices standing in support of my team. Let me tell you a bit about myself. I'm of mixed descent. My mother's English, my father Indian. As in the kind of Indian from India. To be more specifc, he's Sikh, and absolutely proud of it. He's also a Redskins fan. So I was raised, to some extent, a Sikh (and in no uncertain terms a Redskins fan). I did not cut my hair, started wearing a turban around the age of 13-14. However, for reasons I won't go into here, I was not raised speaking Punjabi and to some extent this hindered what I learnt about my father's culture. Being of mixed race, I was inevitably subjected to racial abuse. From both sides. Finally, at the age of 17, I put the turban back in the drawer and cut my hair. It wasn't the ignorance of the English that hurt the most, but the refusal of British Asians to accept that I was one of them. I was too "white". So I stopped trying to be something that I wasn't. So what does this have to do with the name change debate? Well, imagine an Indian sports team that picked a mascot related to Sikhs. After all, there is a strong history of warrior pride amongst Sikhs, although it is by no means the only facet of the culture. The team's logo features a Sikh warrior, complete with turban. Chosen because sport represents a substitute for war, in a way a less violent celebration of the speed, strategy and competition between two sides. How would the Sikh community react? My father, who chose to support the Redskins because of an interest in Native Americans, would no doubt support the team. As would, I'm sure, a significant number of Sikhs, identifying with the logo and the representation of the culture. What I'm not so sure is that respected leaders of the Sikh community would feel the same way as the average Sikh fan. But right now, all I've looked at is the basic concept. Now imagine that this team comprised solely Hindu and Muslim players. Sikhs and Hindus have strong ties, so there would be at least some empathy there. Sikhs and Muslims on the other hand, do not have such a favourable history. Every Sikh temple bears artwork on the walls depicting brutal executions of Sikhs at the hands of Muslims, a historic genocide. The feeling of mistrust between the two religions continues to some extent, particularly given the division of the Sikh homeland of the Punjab between India and Pakistan. What if the fans of this team took to wearing turbans and other symbols of Sikh identity, without understanding their significance and meaning? While there would still be Sikh fans, those leaders would certainly not consider the team to be honouring them. But, what if the team was based in the Punjab and had a significant proportion of Sikhs on the team (as well as a mixture of other religious/ethnic backgrounds). What if their battle song was written by Sikh musicians, using the dhol drum, the ubiquitous sound of the Punjabi, to drive a fierce rhythm that stirred emotions in the fans. What if that team engaged with the Sikh community and promoted Sikh culture, nationally. What if the fans knew that the best way to honour a Sikh was not to don a badly wrapped turban, but to learn about their culture and show knowledge rather than ignorance? The Sikh part of the fanbase would be strong, no doubt, but they'd also have a lot more backing of the leaders of the community (although I'm sure there would still be dissenting voices). I've tried the best anology I can find. I think it's very different to anything presented thus far. It's not perfect, because there isn't a perfect analogy. Sikhs have a strong presence, not just in India. It would certainly be able to fill a roster of a professional sports team with them. I'm sure you can find examples of Sikhs in downtrodden communities. India has terrible poverty, in spite of its advancements. But their plight isn't exactly the same as that of Native Americans, I'll concede that. Plus, I've deliberately not chosen to bring a contentious name into the fold. Why? Because I could accept that Redskin offends and if it really does offend the Native American community that much, could live with the name itself changing. If it does, I'd rather it be based on genuine sentiment and experience, not suspect provenance of words and other manipulation of the truth. But, does the imagery itself have to be a bad thing? That I have more difficulty in accepting. Yes, I believe that sports teams' "honouring" on Native culture is mostly quite superficial. However, sports mascotry could be used as a powerful tool in promoting Native cultural awareness. This doesn't just have to extend to charitable organisations helping out with Native American communities. I believe that Suzan Harjo has stated that she doesn't want to see her people represented as caricatures portrayed in dated films and sports mascots, but through the arts and other educational outlets. Teams could (and should) fund educational programmes that teach fans the details of Native culture and artistic displays, both in their local communities and even in the grounds of their stadiums. This is how you stamp out ignorant cultural appropriation. But even that term is subjective. Taking my own heritage as an example, there shouldn't be opposition to British women (non-Asians) wearing saris who are married to Indian men and take a strong interest in the culture. I once attended a Sikh wedding where an elderly English neighbour wore the same turban as the rest of us. He wasn't taking the piss. The groom's family considered him family and wanted to show that to everybody that skin colour has no meaning. There is no better way of honouring a culture than to do so much for the people that they accept you as one of their own, no matter how different you may be. If sports teams took this approach with Native American communities, I don't think we would see the same extent of dissent as we do today. Of course, the easy way out is to fight to banish Native mascots entirely. "Easy" is obviously a massive understatement as it has been anything but easy for those who have fought for years to achieve it. But there is another way, one which involves just as much of a change in mindset, but potentially bears more fruitful results. On a final note, call me a hypocrite if you want for criticising others for taking the "easy" way out, when I chose to cut my hair all those years ago rather than making a conscious effort to learn more about my heritage and become a more active member of my community. It's ok, I've been called a lot worse. Good post and reasonable analogy for the mascot debate. I feel that almost should be a separate thread. It is important that NA imagery, akin to your example of Sikh warrior helmets, is not the debate. It makes a difference. My point is Redskins are becoming scapegoats for the NA mascot debate. I just will defend to the end it is not a slur. I like and agree with your post. I would yield to all banning of NA imagery if that's what majority wanted. That's kinda what your example is better reflecting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 What lame excuses? Randomly calling 700 people who self identify as native is a problematic. First, actually, it was closer to 800. But then, I know that you have a habit of slanting the punbers you post in whichever direction you think will help you. Second, only if your definition of "problematic" is "this mathematically valid data says that I'm not only wrong, but wrong by one of the widest margins anywhere in history, so I desperately need to come up with some lame excuse to ignore it". Silly me, I was under the impression that I saw it proven, mathematically, in both high school and college statistics classes. that randomly selecting a small sample from a larger population allowed one to draw conclusions about the population as a whole. (Granted, I don't remember how to do that proof. But I seem to remember that it happened.) But tell you what. During the upcoming Presidential election, every time somebody posts polling numbers, loudly announce that randomly calling people and asking them their opinion is "problematic". Don't actually try to prove that it's wrong. Just announcing that you don;t believe in polls is all you need to do. (When the actual elections come out, and they agree with the poll? Don't change your mind. Keep insisting that the poll is actually off, by more than 40%.) Couple that without any follow up questions about tribal membership, lineage, etc. You know, I understand that these polls also ask people about their approximate income level, their race, their age, and their gender. I think you should contact Gallup, and tell them that their polling data is off by more than 40%, because they don't demand naked web cam pics of every person who identifies as female. Tell them it's because you're convinced (without any support whatsoever) that more than 40% of the "women" they surveyed, are really lying about their gender, and that all of the liars are expressing (some opinion that's different from what you want to claim that women have). Record the phone call. I'd love to hear it. Plus the guy who ran the poll basically denounced the whole thing in 2013 when our team was using it as a crutch to defend the name. Really? I'd love to see your support for that. (But then, I'd love to see your support for anything.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonez3 Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 Should Redskins change their name? New Mexico says ‘meh’ http://watchdog.org/159596/redskins-newmexico/ natives make up 9% of the population in NM. Should we allow the majority to vote for and represent a minority? I revised nothing. You most certainly did. You had a part in parenthesis that referenced the word Indian as possibly offensive given geographical consideration. Ironically enough, an person with Indian heritage from Asia posts like 3 posts later. For the record, I will stand by Indian being a far more offensive word than Redskin IMO because of the association with the actual country of India being misrepresented. I lived with a Mexican-American (Full blooded Mexican) guy for a year in SoCal and he told me most Mexican Americans prefer Latino because they are not Spanish, they take 'offense' to that. Not that I ever brought this up once in this thread, but I did live with the guy for a year and he stated some Mexicans feel more linked to the NA history than the Spanish/European one. I mean, frankly could he claim NA ancestory theoretically? Regardless, he associated himself with the 'Indian' culture in regards to his heritage. We played a lot of Madden and I routinely repped the Redskins, it never even was a thought for either of us it was offensive. I'm Skins 24/7. I stay away from personal experiences as much as I can, but wanted to highlight the geographical thing some. Also, it is more in reference to just my opinion that another word is actually more offensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 Should Redskins change their name? New Mexico says ‘meh’ http://watchdog.org/159596/redskins-newmexico/ natives make up 9% of the population in NM. And they make up 2% of the population of the US. But then, that's according to the US Census bureau, which lets people self identify. You should contact them, and tell them that the actual number is grossly different, because you just say so. Should we allow the majority to vote for and represent a minority? The alternative is? Let me guess. We should cherry pick only the people who agree with the answer we want to hear, and announce that only the people who agree with me, count? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 If you feel so strongly about this Bang why not contact the NCAI and numerous native tribes who have spoken out against our name and ask their opinion? Ask them if a silhouette of a bison on a football helmet accompanied with the name buffalo bill causes as much anger as our name? We have no right to tell native people what they can and cannot be offended by, The contradictions in these discussions are amazing. You do tell native people what to be offended by. Your movement's leaders have said again and again that native groups such as high schools that have chosen the name and other natives who have said they are not offended are mistaken and need to be educated. And if the movement to get rid of things that make a mockery of the native way.. "playing indian' as it's been called by the protester in name only, then how anyone can ignore the name of not only a guy who led the way in the genocide, but then took them out and paraded them around... Aside from the fact, the incontrovertible fact that the only reason Buffalo Bill is known as Buffalo Bill is because he killed more buffalo than anyone and led massive hunts to kill huge numbers of buffalo .. and these hunts were not just the result of ignorance of over privileged sportsmen.. these were orchestrated by the army specifically TO DESTROY the native way of life. Every historian that has ever spoken on the decimation of the native way of life points DIRECTLY to the destruction of the buffalo herds as a primary cause. These facts cannot be argued. To pretend that white society is rife with native mockery, and then to imagine that somehow "Buffalo Bills" is a coincidence named after, oh, Bill Schinsky or somebody.. it's ridiculous. There's a whole discussion back there of how natives in the movies and entertainments of the time when the team adopted the name were as window dressing, we were treated to the pronouncement that " Native themed fantasy was huge in western films and pop culture at the time. Playing indian was an easy sell. Some players from the mid 30s Redskins teams performed as Native Warriors in half time shows. There was no half time meeting or rest for those players. Not to mention they had to change in and out of their Indian costumes from their game unis. The owner would hand pick the players he deemed would perform best as actors. Can't imagine there was much "honoring" on anybodies mind. But, that's jmo." No argument, Natives were not only treated badly in the movies, but usually played by white guys in makeup. but one is the same as the other.. SO, then i ask about the Bills, and you go to the museum which, among other things suggests he was a great man for taking the natives out to show the world what they were before he helped destroy them. And to respond i show you posters of the exploitation... very similar to the movies that were not only popular entertainment of the 30s, but definitely in the 1880s on up, thanks again to the exploiter in chief, Buffalo Bill. So, it's really a simple question. You guys who think we should not be telling people what to be offended over, but are clearly offended over at least the redskins name. Why doesn't the Bills name bother you? this is a question to all name cangers. (for lack of a better term.) The Bills name isn't even on the radar. The only time they are even mentioned in context to any native protest or controversy at all is from when they played the Redskins in the Super Bowl, and it's not their name in the news. Every time i ask, the question is ignored or gets treated as if it's ridiculous to even ask it.. especially in context of this debate... and I don't get it. The fact a buffalo is on the helmet is nothing but a slap in the face when you recognize who Buffalo bill was and why he is known as Buffalo Bill. (and thanks for answering, by the by. Truth is even though i would like the name to stay, i really don't care if it changes. I'm more concerned with how this has happened than what actually has happened.) ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
my_friend_goo Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 For the record, I will stand by Indian being a far more offensive word than Redskin IMO because of the association with the actual country of India being misrepresented. True story: I took my father over to DC to see the Redskins-Bears game in 2013. While we were sightseeing on the National Mall, we encountered Gregg Deal, a Native American artist, who was outside the Lincoln memorial as part of his "The Last Indian on Earth" (I believe later changed to American Indian, but don't quote me on that) project. The chance meeting was documented (briefly) in an article a freelance writer did for the WaPo was doing on Deal. As we've seen already in this thread, Deal's against the name but did have a conversation with my father, including the Redskins = scalps narrative. My father concluded something along the lines of "From one Indian to another, it was nice to have met you". "Columbus must be spinning in his grave" mused Deal. Make of that what you will. Probably some Indians would be offended. However, to the best of my knowledge India is the name given to the country by the British colonialists, not a name from any native tongue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 Again, not a fan of the poll's question; 'Should the Redskins change the name?' Not, is the name offensive. Still, only 18% and what % want name changed because on NA imagery, not so much because its a slur. Look, on the NA imagery thing, I would yield all day. I argue purely the idea that its a slur. Period. Well, Annenberg asked whether the name is offensive. Although, if your point is that people voting "they should change the name" includes people who's position is "I don't have a problem with the name, but I wish the argument would go away", then I think you've got a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonez3 Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 Well, Annenberg asked whether the name is offensive. Although, if your point is that people voting "they should change the name" includes people who's position is "I don't have a problem with the name, but I wish the argument would go away", then I think you've got a point. I think that if you are only asking if they should change the name, than you are selecting in for those that just want all NA imagery removed. My defense of the name is the name is not a slur. So, that's kinda my point. But, the results are 'only' 18%. I say only because the article stated it captured fair representation of the population. So of that 18%, how many just want NA imagery removed. If you say half, which is not unreasonable to me, than less than 1/10 NAs and all comers don't find name offensive (in line with Annenberg). How could a name be offensive if this many people of the general pop don't even want a change. 'Only' 18% is powerful evidence that it is not a slur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 I think that if you are only asking if they should change the name, than you are selecting in for those that just want all NA imagery removed. My defense of the name is the name is not a slur. So, that's kinda my point. Well, my assumption is that the people who are offended by the name are not a homogenous lot, and that they no doubt have different, individual, reasons for disliking the name. And that someone who objects to all Native imagery could certainly be part of that group. I assume that there are others (I assume it's a much larger group) who don;t have a problem with, say, the Chefs, (TV commercial joke), but only with the Redskins. (And I'm certain that some of them are simply political crusaders who've latched onto a Cause which has become part of their identity.) (Just as I assume that the people defending the name have a multitude of reasons, some good and some bad.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonez3 Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 Well, my assumption is that the people who are offended by the name are not a homogenous lot, and that they no doubt have different, individual, reasons for disliking the name. And that someone who objects to all Native imagery could certainly be part of that group. I assume that there are others (I assume it's a much larger group) who don;t have a problem with, say, the Chefs, (TV commercial joke), but only with the Redskins. (And I'm certain that some of them are simply political crusaders who've latched onto a Cause which has become part of their identity.) (Just as I assume that the people defending the name have a multitude of reasons, some good and some bad.) Yea, I'm quibbling, but selecting out for bias and such is part of accurate polling. And trying to find out exactly the question you want answered needs focused questions to avoid ambiguity. But regardless, it was 18%, still very powerful IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 But "I don't like the redskins name because . . . " is not bias. 100% of the people who don't like NA imagery, do dislike the Redskins name. Counting them as people who don't like the name is not an error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 Absolutely. I wonder if all Native American geographic etymology should be in the table. Why wouldn't it? The name changers have made it clear that all NA imagery should be removed period. Milwaukee, Seattle, Chicago, etc The most rational, and even just, thing to do here is simply name the team after me and use my various pics as already posted for any and all needed imagery. It solves the controversy and I can't think of anything more appropriate. I'll be by my phone, but remember I hate texting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.